DOCUMENTS

2021-02-24 46 1 5 Senate 0 0

Wednesday, 24 February 2021

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.

DOCUMENTS 1389 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1389 COMMITTEES 1389 COMMITTEES Meeting 1389 DOCUMENTS 1389 DOCUMENTS Answers to Questions on Notice 1389 Order for the Production of Documents 1389 09:31 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I table a response to Senate order for the production of documents No. 1011, on the matter of unanswered estimates questions on notice. BILLS 1389 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021 1389

Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021

In Committee 1389 09:33 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (5) on sheet PG138 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (lines 10 to 13), omit subsection 52E(3), substitute: (3) In making the determination, the Minister must consider: (a) whether there is a significant bargaining power imbalance between Australian news businesses and the group comprised of the corporation and all of its related bodies corporate; and (b) whether that group has made a significant contribution to the sustainability of the Australian news industry through agreements relating to news content of Australian news businesses (including agreements to remunerate those businesses for their news content). (2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (after line 15), at the end of section 52E, add: (5) Before making the determination, the Minister must give the corporation notice in writing that the Minister intends to make a determination under subsection (1) specifying the corporation and a particular service or particular services. (6) The Minister must not make the determination before the end of the period of 30 days starting on the day on which the notice under subsection (5) is given. (3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 24 (after line 3), at the end of section 52ZC, add: (4) Subsection (2) does not apply in relation to differentiation if: (a) there is an agreement between: (i) the responsible digital platform corporation, or a related body corporate of the responsible digital platform corporation; and (ii) a corporation that is registered (or is eligible to be registered) under section 52G and, either by itself or together with other corporations, operates or controls a news business; and (b) the agreement provides that a corporation mentioned in subparagraph (a) (i) will ensure that remuneration is to be paid to the news business for the making available of the news business' covered news content by the digital service; and (c) the differentiation arises solely from the amount of that remuneration. (5) Subsection (2) does not apply in relation to differentiation if: (a) there is an agreement between: (i) the responsible digital platform corporation, or a related body corporate of the responsible digital platform corporation; and (ii) a corporation that is registered (or is eligible to be registered) under section 52G and, either by itself or together with other corporations, operates or controls a news business; and (b) the agreement provides that: (i) a corporation mentioned in subparagraph (a) (ii) will ensure the provision of a specified type of coverednews content to be made available by the digital service; and (ii) a corporation mentioned in subparagraph (a) (i) will ensure that the content is ranked preferentially when the digital service distributes the covered news content; and (c) the differentiation arises solely from that preferential ranking. (6) For the purposes of this section: (a) treat the reference in the definition of news source in section 52A to "it produces" as instead being a reference to "it regularly produces"; and (b) treat the reference in that definition to "news content" as instead being a reference to "covered news content". (4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 26 (after line 26), after Subdivision B, insert: Subdivision BA—Mediation 52ZIA Obligation to participate in mediation (1) This section applies if: (a) the bargaining parties have not reached agreement over each core bargaining issue within 3 months after the notification was made for the purposes of subsection 52ZE(1); or (b) the bargaining parties agree to refer the core bargaining issues to mediation under this Subdivision. (2) Each bargaining party must participate in a mediation about the core bargaining issues. (3) To avoid doubt, each bargaining party must comply with section 52ZH (good faith negotiations) in respect of the mediation. (4) The mediator is to be appointed by the ACMA. 52ZIB Rules about conduct of mediation (1) The regulations may set out rules relating to the conduct of a mediation under this Subdivision. (2) A mediation under this Subdivision is to be conducted according to those rules. (3) Despite subsection 14(2) of the Legislation Act 2003, regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) may make provision in relation to a matter by applying, adopting or incorporating, with or without modification, any matter contained in an instrument or other writing as in force or existing from time to time. (4) Without limiting the scope of regulations that may be made for the purposes of subsection (1), those regulations may: (a) set out rules relating to the payment of the costs of the mediator; and (b) without limiting the scope of paragraph (a), specify who is to pay those costs. 52ZIC Termination of mediation (1) A mediation under this Subdivision terminates if: (a) unless paragraph (b) applies—2 months have passed since the start of the mediation; or (b) if the bargaining parties agree to a 2‑month extension of the mediation—4 months have passed since the start of the mediation; or (c) the mediator decides to terminate the mediation in accordance with subsections (3) and (4); or (d) the bargaining parties agree to terminate the mediation. (2) To avoid doubt, the bargaining parties can only agree to one extension in accordance with paragraph (1) (b). (3) The mediator may decide to terminate the mediation if, having regard to the conduct of the bargaining parties in the mediation, the mediator considers that there are no reasonable prospects of the bargaining parties reaching agreement over each core bargaining issue. (4) The mediator may decide to terminate the mediation whether or not a bargaining party has asked the mediator to do so. (5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 27 (line 26) to page 28 (line 5), omit subsection 52ZL(2), substitute: (2) The bargaining party that is the bargaining news business representative may give a notice to the Commission that arbitration about the remuneration issue should start, if: (a) both of the following conditions are satisfied: (i) mediation in respect of the core bargaining issues has terminated in accordance with section 52ZIC; (ii) the bargaining parties had not reached an agreement about terms for resolving the remuneration issue before the mediation terminated; or (b) the bargaining parties have agreed to arbitration about terms for resolving the remuneration issue no earlier than 10 business days after the notification referred to in paragraph (1) (a) was made. These amendments will make clear that a decision to designate a platform under the code must take into account whether a digital platform has made a significant contribution to the sustainability of the Australian news industry through reaching commercial agreements with news media businesses. A digital platform will be notified of the government's intention to designate prior to any final decision, noting that a final decision on whether or not to designate a digital platform would be made no sooner than one month from the date of notification. Nondifferentiation provisions will not be triggered because commercial agreements result in different remuneration amounts or commercial outcomes that arose in the course of usual business practices. Final offer arbitration is a last resort when commercial deals cannot be reached, by requiring mediation in good faith to occur prior to arbitration for no longer than two months. 09:34 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia We've had some radical changes to this legislation overnight, and of course there are a lot of questions, both from Labor and, really, the Australian community as a whole. I will ask at the outset: does the government intend, in this case, for the threat of regulation to do most of the work in levelling the imbalance in bargaining power between news media and digital platforms? Is it the instrument itself that will have this influence, or is it now the threat of regulation that is going to level that imbalance in bargaining power? 09:35 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria It's a matter for the minister as to whether the digital platforms get designated under the code. 09:35 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Yes, we do understand that, but clearly there seems to have been a flurry of activity in terms of deals being done now because of the so-called threat of platforms being designated. How do you relate what's currently going on to those deals being made and addressing the imbalance in bargaining power? 09:36 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The government has always said that it's preferable if deals can be done outside of the code, and we've seen a number of media organisations that have already entered into letters of intention with Google. Yesterday of course Seven West Media announced it had entered into a letter of understanding with Facebook. This is all good news. We expect the digital platforms to continue their efforts to enter into agreements with more news media businesses. They can do this outside of the code by putting a standard offer on the table which publishers can choose to accept or as a catalyst to reach a commercial agreement. It's important to remember that, in deciding whether to designate a digital platform, the Treasurer will have regard to whether the digital platform has made a significant contribution to the sustainability of the Australian news industry through agreements relating to news content. 09:37 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia We've seen big sticks from the government in relation to energy in the past and an argument that the threat of a big stick would bring people to negotiate and address issues. Why was this done in a rush in the last few days as opposed to having these kinds of principles embedded in the legislation earlier? Couldn't the outcome have been reached much earlier than today? 09:37 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The aim of these amendments, obviously, is to provide more clarity to the digital platforms and to the news media businesses about the way the code is intended to operate and to strengthen the framework for ensuring news media businesses are fairly remunerated. It's all about clarification. These amendments were done on the advice of Treasury and after hearing submissions that were made to the committee that was scrutinising this bill. 09:38 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia How will it provide clarification if these deals are done outside the code and its reporting regime? 09:38 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria There will be a review of the code after a year. 09:38 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Is the review enlivened if nothing is designated? 09:38 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Yes. 09:38 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia The code and the amendments make it clear that a decision to designate a platform must be taken into account in terms of whether a platform has made a significant contribution through commercial agreements with news media businesses. What thresholds will apply to the concept of a significant contribution? 09:39 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The platforms will be asked to provide a report on the contribution they have made and then the decision to designate will be made by the Treasurer. A final decision to designate or not designate a digital platform will be made no sooner than one month from that date of notification. 09:39 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia That doesn't really tell me what the threshold of a significant contribution is. Does that mean that the minister, in assessing a significant contribution, has full access to the contracts that have been signed, or are they commercial-in-confidence? 09:40 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The platforms will have an opportunity to make that information available before the decision is made. That's up to the platforms. 09:40 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia What if the platforms don't want to supply that information? 09:40 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The government is giving the platforms an opportunity for procedural fairness here. The decision will then be the Treasurer's, depending on that interaction between the platform and the Treasurer. 09:40 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Can I assume, therefore, that the only way of getting the platforms or, frankly, even the media businesses that have done deals to demonstrate to the minister what significant contribution they have made would be the threat of designation? 09:41 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria There have already been public statements on deals that will be made. It will be up to the platforms to then demonstrate to the minister that that wouldn't be necessary. 09:41 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I think Senator Pratt is narrowing in on what is quite a concerning new development in this media bargaining code story. It appears as though we've gone through a situation where the gauntlet was laid down and the government came up with strong legislation that would assist public interest journalism. Then what happened was that Google and Facebook pushed back. We saw Facebook do so in a very terrible manner in the last week or so. I was moved by some of the Prime Minister's statements—for example, when he said: We will not be intimidated by this act of bullying by Big Tech, seeking to pressure parliament as it votes on our important News Media Bargaining Code. He also said: I would just say to Facebook: This is Australia. If you want to do business here, you work according to our rules. That's what the Prime Minister said. In the meantime, the Treasurer has gone around and started a discussion with these tech companies, and they've effectively managed to get to a point where bargaining is taking place and we're getting some good results for the big players: the Murdochs and the bigger news organisations. What this amendment signals to everyone is that as long as those guys are okay the minister will not designate as per the act. What's going to happen? We can see here that this legislation will pass, the minister won't designate because the deals will have been done with the big guys, and the little guys and the regional guys are going to miss out. That's what this amendment says. You know what? In a year's time, when Mr Murdoch says, 'I need a bit more money,' the Prime Minister is going to remind everyone of this legislation and threaten designation, there will be another deal and Murdoch will be happy. But the little guys will miss out again. That's exactly what is happening here. No-one should have any misconception about exactly what's going on. If I were a betting man—and I'm not—I would bet you folding money that if Louis Mayfield of the Whyalla News, a good journalist, calls up the Prime Minister and says, 'Google isn't negotiating with me; please designate them,' he'll get a very different story to the one Mr Murdoch gets. This signals a complete backdown by the government in the face of the pressure. It is inconsistent with what the Prime Minister has indicated publicly. It was hollow rhetoric from the Prime Minister. This is a most concerning amendment. It lowers the threshold. So I ask the minister: is it the intention of the minister, based on current facts, to, once it receives royal assent, designate Facebook and Google in accordance with the act? 09:45 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The decision will be made based on the information that is available at the time and in accordance with advice from the ACCC. I should remind you that this amendment has not taken out final offer arbitration from the code. In fact, final offer arbitration is still a last resort, when commercial deals cannot be reached, by requiring mediation in good faith to occur prior to arbitration for no longer than two months. Importantly, the amendments strengthen the hand of regional and small publishers in obtaining appropriate remuneration for the use of their content by the digital platforms. 09:45 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia That only happens if the company is designated—that is, if you designate Facebook and Google. This amendment raises the threshold, and we have no understanding of what it means. Minister, if a number of smaller players are dissatisfied, is that cause for the minister to make a designation or is it only when it's Channel 9, Channel 7, The Australian and all the big players? Is it only when they have a complaint that suddenly the minister is moved? How does the little guy, in these circumstances, make representation to the minister that they are being ignored by the behemoths that Google and Facebook are? 09:46 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria This is all about outcomes. We have made our expectations very clear, and the news of the recent deals that have been done is proof that Google understands our expectations and, indeed, now so does Facebook. The government has not indicated that it will hold off on the designation process. We're very much focused on getting the code through parliament, first and foremost. We have indicated that Google and Facebook can reach commercial agreements outside of the code. It strengthens the hands of the digital platforms to make a case to the Treasurer that designation might not be needed. We have been very clear that nothing currently prevents Google or Facebook from reaching a commercial agreement outside of the code. Indeed, this bill provides a pathway for such deals. The bill is obviously still in parliament—we want it to become law—so it's premature to say that a decision has been made about a designation. 09:47 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia What representation do the small guys get in relation to this? What is the process for all of the regional players who are not making headway with Google or who feel dissatisfied? Remember, the point of this legislation, as originated from the ACCC, was to address a concern about an imbalance. That imbalance will still exist if the companies are not designated, so the regional players will sit down with Google and Facebook and get nowhere. The ACCC says that's exactly what will happen. What about the small guys—some of the smaller players who are confronting this monopoly, as described by Mr Sims of the ACCC? If you do not designate these larger companies, there is no mechanism for arbitration for them. My question is: how do the smaller players get access to the minister to be able to make representations to say, 'This threshold has been met,' because the small guys have effectively been mistreated and been subject to the very large corporations that Google and Facebook are? 09:49 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The government's amendment to the bill requires the Treasurer to consider: whether there is significant market power imbalance between Australian news media and the digital platform and whether the digital platforms have made a significant contribution to the sustainability of the Australian news industry through agreements relating to news content. This means that the Treasurer will have regard to the deals that Facebook and Google have done with news media businesses, which will include agreements they have entered into with regional publishers who fall within the parameters of the code. In addition to being able to reach direct deals with the digital platforms, the code provides an option for default offers to be made to publishers and an opportunity for smaller publishers to come together to collectively bargain. Facebook restoring news pages also helps small community news that operates solely within the Facebook environment or relies heavily on Facebook to disseminate news to local communities. I want to remind you that this code has not yet been passed into law, so I think that some of your questions are premature. There is a review that is taking place in 12 months time. 09:50 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Again, it goes to what processes you're putting in place to make sure the smaller players, the regional players, are able to make proper representation to the Treasurer, in relation to these amendments, to make sure that it's not just the big boys that are getting looked after. I'm sure that Rupert Murdoch does have the Prime Minister's phone number; Louis Mayfield of the Whyalla News probably doesn't. I'm really just trying to understand what mechanisms the government will put in place to make sure the smaller players can get access to the Treasurer to make their concerns known and to pressure the minister, in making the designation, to be informed by the smaller players, not just the big players. 09:51 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Senator Patrick, as I mentioned to Senator Pratt earlier, the digital platforms will be compelled to report to the Treasurer on the deals that have been done or that are underway, and it will become apparent from those reports whether a designation is necessary. 09:51 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I, too, have some concerns about the government amendments as circulated, particularly to schedule 1, proposed subsection (3)(b). I am worried that this does not give significantly enough assurance to small, medium and regional media organisations that their welfare—for lack of a better word—and their ability to negotiate with Google and Facebook have been considered before the government makes any decision either to designate or not designate under these new provisions. I am extremely worried. Whether or not the government's intention is to keep small, medium and regional companies out, it looks like they will fall between the cracks. I wonder whether the government would be opposed to simply adding the words 'small, medium and regional' to make it absolutely crystal clear. 09:53 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The legislation talks about the Australian news industry, which, of course, already includes small, medium and regional publishers. So they are already encompassed in that legislation. 09:53 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I understand that. But there is a concern about the power imbalances not just between these big tech giants and Australian media but between the big media organisations and the small and regional media organisations. I don't think it would be particularly difficult for this government to send a clear message that small and regional media are being looked after if, indeed, that is what your intention is. 09:53 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Senator Hanson-Young, I don't want to repeat myself and give the same answer that I've given to Senator Pratt and Senator Patrick. But I think the government's made it very clear that the amendments that we've put forward here are to improve the opportunities for regional and smaller publishers, because a decision to designate a platform under the code will now take account of whether a digital platform has made a significant contribution to the sustainability of the Australian news industry as a whole. 09:54 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Perhaps we could just step back a little bit and consider how this is going to work in the real world in terms of how small and regional companies will now engage in negotiations with either Google or Facebook in the absence of any designation by the minister. Could the minister outline for me how small publishers such as Women's Agenda, Junkee or Her Canberra would be able to use the provisions in this piece of legislation to ensure that Facebook come to the negotiating table and are prepared to speak about ensuring that they too get paid for their content? 09:55 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Those publishers will have to register under the code, and then they will fall under the criteria for the reporting that's coming back from the digital platforms when the decision for designation is made. 09:55 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia When you say 'register', do you mean register with the ACMA, and is there a cap as to who is in and who is out? 09:56 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria With the ACMA there are eligibility criteria. I am uncertain as to whether there is a cap, but there are criteria. The CHAIR: Centre Alliance has advised that they will not be moving their amendments. Senator Pratt, you have the call. 09:56 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I was asking about thresholds in relation to the concept of the significant contribution, and I think that integrates well with questions that others have asked. Has the government given any undertakings or signals to Facebook, Google and the news media around thresholds that might be attached to the significant contribution? We have been talking about regional media. Can a threshold be met if, for example, it only included news outlets with a national footprint as opposed to those who have a regional footprint? 09:57 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria There is a benefit in flexibility in the definition of significant contribution. The range and breadth of the deals that are done, as well as the type of outlets and publishers that the deals have been done with, will be taken into account. 09:57 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia So the breadth of the deals that are done will be taken into account. What about the breadth of the deals that are not done—for example, a digital platform that does deals with national media outlets but doesn't cover news outlets that have a regional focus and only a regional footprint? 09:58 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria That would be something the Treasurer would take into account in those decisions. 09:58 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Where in the legislation does it say that they would take that into account? How do we know that these will be addressed within the thresholds of a significant contribution? Have undertakings been given to organisations such as Facebook and Google that they must look to making these kinds of deals in order to meet that threshold? 09:58 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Again, I go back to that issue of flexibility and ensuring that the information that is made available at the time is taken into account. The ACCC reports to the Treasurer, and the decision will be made on the information available at the time. It's very hard to talk about hypotheticals in this situation, though, and we don't want to be limited by specifics in these circumstances. 09:59 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I understand that. Nevertheless, we have had a radical amendment overnight and things have purportedly settled down with Facebook. In that context you would expect that there have been some signals or undertakings given to Facebook, Google and news media around what those thresholds look like. I think the Senate, in considering this legislation, has a right to know what those undertakings or signals are. 09:59 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria There have been no undertakings provided around thresholds, and, moreover, we would disagree with you quite vehemently that these are radical amendments. We haven't taken final offer arbitration out of the code. That still remains and it's there as a last resort when commercial deals can't be reached, by requiring mediation in good faith to occur prior to arbitration for no longer than two months. The most important thing about these amendments is that they will strengthen the hands of regional and small publishers in obtaining appropriate remuneration for the use of their content by the digital platforms. 10:00 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia In that context, we know we've got competing local news media. It's great to have a diversity of newspapers across our suburbs and our towns. It's terrific. But sometimes it's difficult for two news outlets to be sustainable. We've seen some fall by the wayside. Is it good enough, for example, for a digital platform to make a deal with just one syndicated owner covering, say, all the regions that they represent and leave the other player and their competition out of such a deal? 10:01 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I think the most important issue to cover here is that the code isn't yet law, and the fact that these deals are already being struck is, in fact, a good sign. Just because the deals have not been struck yet with smaller or regional media companies, that's not evidence to suggest that they won't be and that that will remain the case, or that the standard offers won't be made by those digital platforms. We're well aware that discussions are taking place right now and that the digital platforms are taking steps to address this issue. 10:01 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia In that context, what would it mean in terms of those thresholds if such a deal said, 'Okay, Victorian newspapers have done deals—we think that's significant enough to meet the threshold—but Queensland has been left out.' I still don't have a clear indication of how you're going to judge the significant contribution. 10:02 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I'm not entirely sure we can get into the details of those sorts of hypotheticals. One of the reasons we've maintained this flexibility is so that all of those hypotheticals—whether they be raised by you or Senator Hanson-Young or Senator Patrick today—can be dealt with efficiently and fairly. 10:02 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Minister, do you have a working definition of 'significant'? 10:02 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria That is an issue for the Treasurer to consider at the time, with the information that he has available to him. 10:03 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Minister, would you be able to outline for us today what arrangements have already been struck between the big tech companies and media organisations, which would fall outside this code, of course, because they've been struck prior to it, but would fall into consideration under this particular clause in schedule 1, in terms of considering the significance? 10:03 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria There is a letter of intent between Google and Seven, Nine, The Guardian and 74 publishers. Obviously we've heard Facebook has a deal in the offing with Seven, and apparently there are more to come. 10:04 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Just to clarify, it's Seven News, not seven publishers? 10:04 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Seven West Media, yes. 10:04 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Is there anything that falls outside these amendments that was part of the negotiation between the Treasurer and Facebook? Is there anything else that Facebook has demanded in this arrangement in order for them to put Australian news back on their platform? 10:04 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Certainly not that I'm aware of. 10:04 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Did Facebook see a copy of these amendments prior to them being circulated in this chamber? 10:04 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria No. 10:05 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Is there any document which outlines the intentions of the government in amending this legislation that has been given to Facebook prior to these amendments being circulated? 10:05 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I think that the Treasurer has made it pretty clear that he has been in conversations with Facebook not just over the weekend but for weeks in advance of this legislation, so I would imagine that a lot of issues were canvassed but that doesn't determine the government's amendments. 10:05 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia So just to be clear, is there any written agreement between the Australian government and Facebook? 10:05 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria No. 10:05 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Is there any agreement between the Australian government and Google? 10:06 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria There have been good-faith negotiations, and Google have made their intentions and their commitment to Australian news media clear to the Treasurer. 10:06 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I go back to the issue of the designation power and the consideration of what arrangements perhaps are in place before that power is used. Could the Minister outline the role of the ACCC in helping to advise whether there is still a power imbalance between the big tech companies and the media organisations? 10:07 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The Treasurer will avail himself if he needs to with information from the ACCC. He can request that information from the ACCC as to whether there is a power imbalance that is remaining between the digital platforms and news media outlets. 10:07 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia What is the process for a small or a regional publication if, after this legislation passes today, they are not able to even get in the room with Facebook, get a call back or an email back? I mean, I must say, I've spent months now working on this issue with a number of small and independent publishers, and their constant frustration has been the inability to even get around the table with a number of these tech giants. Facebook in particular has been by far the worst when it comes to its attitude towards Australian publishers, particularly the smaller players, refusing to even get back to them, to answer their calls and their queries, let alone sit around the table and have a genuine negotiation. This legislation is meant to try and give a bit more fire power to these publishers in this exchange, in this process of negotiation. I'd just like to know what happens if Facebook still refuses to contact, sit around the table or behave in a fair and decent manner, particularly with small publishers? I'm not worried about the big players; they will look after themselves—they already are. I'm worried about making sure there is a genuine line of communication and good faith between these tech giants and the small publishers, who, let's be honest, are the ones that really do deliver the local news, the information to their communities and who curate it sometimes in a narrow way but give a very significant contribution to their audiences and their readers. 10:09 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I want to reiterate that the code is obviously not yet law and the fact that there are deals already being done—and, yes, they have been with larger news outlets—is a good sign. The fact that deals haven't been struck with the smaller and regional media companies doesn't necessarily provide evidence that that will remain so. In fact, we expect standard offers will be made by the digital platforms. Certainly, the Treasurer has been very clear that in his discussions with Mr Zuckerberg, both over the weekend and prior to that, Mr Zuckerberg has indicated a willingness to negotiate in good faith with Australian news outlets. 10:10 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Is there a current working list of publishers which either are registered or will be registered in relation to being able to use these processes to get Facebook to the table to negotiate? Is there a working list that the government is aware of? 10:10 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria There is not a working list, but the explanatory memorandum makes it clear that there are between 100 and 200 Australian news publishers out there that would fall within the eligibility criteria. 10:11 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia So there are between 100 and 200 publishers that could be eligible, fall within the criteria. I guess what I'm getting at is, if this legislation passes and the government is not intending at this stage to use the power of designation, we need to make sure that this list of publishers actually understand (a) what they need to do and (b) that, if they're not getting anywhere, someone in Treasury's office, someone in the communications minister's office or somebody in the ACCC is actually looking out for them and helping them step through the process, so that they don't get left out in the cold. 10:12 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The Australian government have not said that they will not designate. This is all about outcomes. We've made our expectations very clear, and the news of those recent deals has actually demonstrated that the large digital platforms understand our expectations. 10:12 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia In the context of designation, if the government elects not to designate any platforms or services—and we did ask this question of the minister in the House and it was not a clear answer—will ACMA still register news businesses under the code? To express that in another way, will the ACMA still register news businesses in order to assist digital platforms like Google when it comes to providing standard offers? 10:13 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Yes, ACMA will still register businesses under the code. 10:13 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia So businesses that are wondering where they fit in this in terms of their definition of whether they would be eligible as public interest journalism should seek to register with ACMA. How will ACMA make decisions about who will and won't be registered? 10:13 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria There are eligibility criteria under the code: To participate in the Code, a corporation must apply for their news business to be registered by the ACMA. An 'applicant corporation' seeking to register a news business must also apply to be registered by the ACMA as a 'registered news business corporation' and demonstrate that they operate or control that news business, either by themselves or together with other corporations. This is outlined in the explanatory memorandum, points 1.51 to 1.57, under which news businesses can participate in the code. 10:14 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia It seems to me that there's a specific business structure in mind here. Do you expect local news organisations that operate under different models to be supported to be able to change their structure so that they can be assessed? 10:15 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Point 1.56 in the EM describes a news business as meaning 'a news source or a combination of news sources'. A 'news source' includes, it says: a newspaper masthead; a magazine; a television program or channel; a radio program or channel; a website or part of a website; or a program of audio or video content designed to be distributed over the internet. I think that's a rather broad definition and a considerable catch-all. 10:15 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia How many businesses are currently registered with ACMA, and will they have extra resources? Do you expect all of those types of businesses to now register with ACMA so that they can be made available to approach Google about accessing their standard offers, just as an example? 10:15 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Businesses can't be registered until this code comes into the law, so we're getting a little chicken and egg here, but there is an expectation that that will be the case. 10:16 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Just a very quick question to start with, and excuse my lack of knowledge here because of the late tabling of these amendments: was there an explanatory memorandum tabled with these amendments? 10:16 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Yes, I tabled it last night. 10:16 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Thank you very much. That's helpful. My staff will no doubt try and get that to me. I want to go to proposed subdivision BA, which talks about mediation. My understanding of the history of this is that it was originally in the bill but got taken out, and for that reason I haven't really paid enough attention to this. I want to get an understanding about the mediation and where it fits into the total schema in terms of companies negotiating with Facebook and Google: how it applies in circumstances where the company's not designated, how it applies if it is designated—so if Google and Facebook are designated—and what happens in the event that mediation fails. 10:17 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria They can negotiate outside of the code. They can negotiate inside the code for a period of three months. If they cannot come to a satisfactory outcome within that three months then they go to mediation for two months. If they don't reach an agreement there then they go to final offer arbitration. 10:17 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Is the mediation option only available to them in circumstances where a company like Google or Facebook is designated, or is the mediation available to them without the designation? 10:18 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The provisions in the code are only available on designation. 10:18 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia In the context of arbitration, if the minister considers designating a company on the basis of, say, publishers that have missed out on being able to secure deals, will those companies that already have deals be able to join in the arbitration or will they be excluded? 10:18 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria If a news media company already has a deal it wouldn't be part of any negotiations with other news media companies and the digital platform. 10:18 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Organisations might revisit the fairness of such a contract. There's nothing in this that would overturn the fairness of those contracts and would cause the minister to assess whether those deals are fair? I know, indeed, that part of the assessment would have to be whether or not the digital platform has made a significant contribution. So if a digital platform puts forward, 'We've already cut these particular deals; we think that's significant,' and you've got a whole bunch of new players who want to participate in arbitration because they've been locked out, surely that might indicate that deals that have already been done aren't significant enough to qualify as a significant contribution and therefore they should be revisited. 10:20 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Deals are a commercial matter between two parties, whereas designation is entirely separate from that and should remain so. 10:20 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I can't see, with respect, Minister, how they can be separate, because it still relies on the minister to assess whether the existing deals that have been done qualify as a significant contribution. That means, in some context, the minister needs to assess the adequacy and fairness of those deals. 10:20 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The Treasurer will receive a report from the parties involved and will make an assessment, based on the deals that have been done already, as to whether a significant contribution has been made. But it's important to maintain the flexibility rather than define it; otherwise, that will limit opportunities for smaller and regional publishers. 10:21 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I still want to revisit whether these deals are binding. For example, a digital platform does deals that suit big news media outlets—they're already dominant players—really well. There are smaller players that feel forced into making deals because they can see, for example, that the existing advertising revenue they get from other sources is going to be gobbled up and stolen by news media deals between the big players and platforms. They try to save themselves from this by signing a deal. The minister has to assess whether that's significant. Then you get other players who aren't part of that deal with that platform that say, 'We don't think we're being treated fairly; we can't get a deal at all.' How can you not consider whether the minister needs to revisit the deals that have been done when assessing significance? 10:22 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The whole point of this legislation is not about imposing terms on the parties; it's to ensure that where a deal can't be struck there is a pathway for arbitration to take place. 10:22 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia If all news media, all of the companies registered with ACMA who are news businesses, cut deals but are still driven into unsustainability, how do they enliven their negotiating power to bargain if they're already locked into unfair contracts that have no access to arbitration? 10:23 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I think we're going to commercial arrangements that are already in place, and that's not the purview of this legislation. This is for those arrangements that aren't yet in place and should be. I think we're now getting back into the area of hypotheticals, and I don't think it's appropriate to talk about hypotheticals here. The code isn't yet in place. The fact that deals have been struck already with large media organisations is a good thing and is an indicator of the good faith these platforms will use in their approach to deals they will strike with smaller and regional providers. 10:23 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia So if deals that have already been enlivened or considered, with those news outlets making deals with digital platforms, currently, lock in unfair contract terms, the bargaining provisions of this can't be enlivened, despite the fact that the minister might assess that the contribution of the deals that have already been done wouldn't meet a threshold of significant contribution. 10:24 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The deals that are being struck, or have already been struck, are being done so on the basis of commercial terms. Again, we're talking hypotheticals here. I'm not sure whether Senator Pratt has an example of a deal that's been struck on unfair commercial terms. Perhaps, if we could deal with specifics rather than hypotheticals, we could get a better answer for you. 10:25 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Just to revisit this clearly, Minister, I'd like you to confirm, if the minister does not designate any digital platforms under the code, will ACMA still register news businesses? Will this registration process assist small publishers in accessing support for negotiations with digital platforms? And will this registration process assist the minister in determining whether there has been a substantial contribution to the sustainability of the Australian news industry? 10:25 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria As Minister Fletcher made very clear, ACMA will still register businesses under the code. 10:25 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Okay. In assessing the significant contribution of a digital platform, will that registration base of businesses form a basis for assessing that contribution in terms of those that have made deals, haven't made deals, good or bad? 10:26 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I think we're beginning to repeat ourselves. Yes, that is the case. Everything will be considered in making a decision about what sustainability means. 10:26 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Will they do deals with those that are designated under the ACMA code? What if they do deals with outlets that are outside it? It would be difficult to see that happening, because they wouldn't necessarily be news media in terms of publishing standards et cetera, but I'm keen to know what happens if no deals are done with those registered news businesses? 10:27 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Any deals that are done with businesses that aren't registered are entirely commercial decisions for the platforms and those businesses and not at all within the purview of this legislation, but, certainly, the Treasurer's decision to designate or not will occur with the understanding of those businesses that are registered with the ACMA code. And there are an awful lot of other factors as well to take into account before the Treasurer makes a decision to designate. 10:27 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Continuing on this question, I'm trying to get some clarity around schedule 1(3)(b) and the new addition of the government's amendments in relation to the significant contribution. It's important that we talk specifics here. I have a lot of questions because, while I understand the argument the government are making—you're trying to keep it as broad as possible—sometimes you can make it so broad that people miss out, so I'm just trying to make sure people are not going to miss out. I want to know if a television channel that doesn't have links to a newspaper or a radio station—it's purely a standalone television channel in this country—was not included, if it wasn't able to strike a deal with Facebook or Google, would the government still consider Facebook or Google to have given a significant contribution to Australia's media landscape? Just to be clear, Minister, what I'm asking is: we don't have many channels, so, if one of the three commercial channels was not able to strike a deal, would the government consider Facebook and Google to have made or not made a significant contribution? 10:29 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria That's a very specific question, and an awful lot more has to be taken into the context of the decision that the Treasurer will make at the time. One of the reasons why we've kept this so broad is so that people don't fall through the cracks and so that the net is cast far more widely. 10:30 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Let's be clear. If Channel 10 is not able to strike a deal with Facebook, is that a problem for the government? 10:30 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria It would depend on the other deals that Facebook has struck with other news outlets, not just television channels and not just print media but far more broadly. It's a contextual decision and it should be a contextual decision. 10:30 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia That I find extremely concerning—that, if one of the three commercial television stations is left out, the government will still be prepared to consider that Facebook has given a significant contribution. I find that not very reassuring. Our media landscape is highly concentrated as it is. There are not that many players, even in the medium space, let alone the large space. I can't imagine that people up in the gallery in Channel 10 right now are feeling very good about your answer. I'd like you to consider that again. Are you suggesting that, if Channel 10 were not able to strike a deal with Facebook but Channel 7 and Channel 9 were, that would be enough to tick a box for this government in terms of Facebook's contribution? 10:31 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria We're not suggesting anything of the sort, and to do so is to create a hypothetical and then make it a fact. Senator Hanson-Young I0U It wasn't a hypothetical. Senator HUME 266499 It is a hypothetical, asserted as fact. This code is not yet in place. The fact that deals are being struck now is a good sign, not a bad sign, before this has even been legislated. So I wouldn't actually go out there frightening the horses and suggesting that the sky is going to fall, when the code is not yet in place. There are plenty of opportunities here for good work to be done, and I think that the digital platforms have demonstrated that in just the last few days and weeks. 10:32 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Following up on that line of questioning: if the existing deals that are done needed to be rated as a significant contribution, would that leave an organisation like Channel 10 able to access arbitration or not? How would you assess 'significant contribution'? Is there any guarantee that those who are left on that list without deals registered with ACMA are going to have their rights enlivened in terms of accessing arbitration? 10:33 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Again, I think we're going round in circles, because this has already been addressed numerous times. The issue of significant contribution is based on available information at the time. The fact that we haven't actually passed this legislation yet means that we can't define what 'significant contribution' means, because it hasn't come into play yet. It should be flexible. It should take all information into account, and it does. 10:33 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Can you guarantee that this bill will support the interests of small and regional publishers? 10:33 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The government amendments will improve opportunities for regional and smaller publishers because the decision to designate a platform under the code will now take into account whether a digital platform has made that significant contribution to the sustainability of the Australian news industry. 10:34 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Just going back to the hypothetical: in this chamber we always deal with hypotheticals, because we're always dealing with laws that have not yet passed that will have effect moving forward. I think it's reasonable for Senator Hanson-Young to put a proposition. Of course, you could say that the legislation wouldn't permit that, but, in circumstances where you can't say that, it's proper for us to explore how these laws may in fact play out, particularly in circumstances where you've just said to the chamber that the words 'significant contribution' have not been defined. I find that extraordinary because drafters, when they use language, are precise in what they do and words like 'may', 'must' and 'reasonableness' tend to play out very significantly if a matter is brought before a court. It's very difficult, in these circumstances, when a minister is granted a discretion because the courts are very reluctant to play into those sorts of discretions and to interfere. It is important to understand what that means, and I find it almost unbelievable that in the drafting of those words there isn't a definition in mind in which the words 'significant contribution' were used. There must've been some discussion, reason or definition that sits behind those very important words in the provision. 10:35 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Again, I go back to the importance of flexibility. In a fast-moving landscape like this where you have ministerial discretion, it's important to maintain that flexibility; otherwise, poor outcomes could be made as well as good. 10:35 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia In the development of this legislation, the government were very clear in saying that this wasn't about news getting particular deals. However, it ends up that that's the effect of it. The root of this comes from the ACCC's recommendation dealing with what is effectively a monopoly, an imbalance in power. If a very large company does not become designated, we still end up with a proposition that the smaller, typically, country or niche media organisations are left in the very same situation that the ACCC warned against and was trying to remedy. Again, I'm very troubled by this provision and how it will affect the implementation of what the ACCC has raised as a concern. Does this not undermine the ACCC's desire to deal with huge imbalances between a small player and a large player because the Treasurer has found that in a number of different cases a deal has been done? However, it doesn't resolve the power imbalance for perhaps a smaller player that we want to have fostered amongst our journalist community. 10:37 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria No, Senator Patrick, that's not the case. In fact the Treasurer will take into account advice from the ACCC about significant power imbalances, and so this actually gives effect to the ACCC's recommendations as opposed to defying them. 10:38 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Let's say, a couple of players attempt to contact—maybe they can't contact, as Senator Hanson-Young has suggested—Google or Facebook and they simply don't engage because they are small and perhaps insignificant in the minds of a very large overseas corporation. What if some smaller players—one in your home state, one in my home state—make representations to the Treasurer that they are still finding themselves in a situation where they're dealing with a goliath? Would that fit within these new provisions? Could the Treasurer make a ruling on the basis that these small players can't negotiate, or haven't been able to negotiate, and therefore make a statement that the significant contribution test has not been met? 10:39 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Senator Patrick, I think you've just made the case for having ministerial discretion, and flexibility within that discretion. 10:39 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I want to understand the nature of how that discretion will be exercised. It's not an unreasonable thing. The parliament is being asked to grant a discretion to the minister. It's not unreasonable to ask how that discretion may be exercised. We can do that by putting forward a few different examples and trying to tease out what discretion we are actually granting to the minister. 10:40 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I understand what you are trying to do, Senator Patrick, but the problem is you can't, because decisions need to be made within the context at the time. What you can't do in these hypotheticals is describe the context at the time: what deals have already been struck, what the digital platform is and what the contribution to the sustainability of the Australian news industry has been that's being assessed. That can't be done, so your hypotheticals are simply impossible to answer in these circumstances. 10:40 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia In terms of a significant contribution to the sustainability of Australia's news businesses and the Australian news industry, would it be a problem if one-third of Australia's television channels were not able to access remuneration in this way? 10:41 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria It would be a decision for the Treasurer, but I would imagine that would be a very significant consideration. 10:41 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia We know that many of Australia's news publishers are moving more and more to video. At what point will the government consider whether to include Facebook Watch and YouTube in the discussion? Of course, not every television station in this country has a newspaper or a radio station as well; the ABC, SBS and Channel Ten primarily rely on content that is watchable. With Facebook Watch and YouTube not included, is the government giving consideration to a point at which that will be reviewed? 10:42 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria There are two issues there. The first is that the bill is specifically about news content, not general content, and I think that's an important distinction to make. The other issue is that this bill and current discussions about Google and Facebook have come as a result of the ACCC's recommendations and, from there, the digital platforms inquiry. Any future designations or digital platforms that would be considered for designation would also come from the ACCC's recommendation. 10:42 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Drilling into the technical detail in terms of the old law and the new law, does the government regard distribution through a platform as a contribution? How will that be assessed in the context of a significant contribution? Does making a contribution require the exchange of revenue? 10:43 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Can you give me a moment on that one, Senator Pratt? I have to admit that's something I hadn't considered. I would imagine that that would again be part of making sure this decision that we make is flexible and takes into consideration all aspects. I think that that's an important consideration to make. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 140651 Minister, are you seeking the call to continue your answer? 10:43 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Thank you. Clause 3(b), the proposed amendment to schedule 1, item 1, page 8, says: whether that group has made a significant contribution to the sustainability of the Australian news industry through agreements in relation to news content of Australian news businesses (including agreements to remunerate those businesses for their news content). 10:44 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia The new EM says that in the new law: A responsible digital platform corporation cannot differentiate between news media businesses by reason of their participation in the code. However a responsible digital platform corporation can differentiate between news media businesses on the basis of a commercial agreement and can remunerate different news media businesses differently under different commercial agreements. That's the new law. The current version, which is being replaced by these amendments, says 'a responsible platform cannot differentiate between news media businesses by reason of their participation in the code'. I understand that, therefore, remuneration might be different under different commercial agreements. How does that relate to agreements that might also affect the access of someone who has a deal versus someone who doesn't have a deal in relation to not just remuneration but also distribution? 10:45 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Under the current drafting, the anti-avoidance provisions prevent digital platforms from retaliating against news businesses on the basis of having entered into an agreement to pay remuneration under the code. The plan is to clarify, via these amendments, that digital platforms would not be penalised from engaging in normal commercial practices such as paying different remuneration amounts to different news businesses and promoting or boosting a news business's news content as part of the terms of those commercial deals. The scope also of the news content that's captured by the anti-avoidance provisions is also clarified here. It will be made abundantly clear that a news source must regularly produce news content that's the subject of bargaining and arbitration. So that's the definition of covered news. 10:46 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Thank you for your explanation. It doesn't mitigate my concerns. So if, for example, a digital platform does a deal with a local newspaper and says, 'We're going to help drive traffic and we'll complement other's advertising,' that's a great commercial deal. But the competing paper sits on the ACMA list without having struck a deal only to find that the competitiveness of the advertising deals that they'd normally get through their own revenue streams that have nothing to do with these platforms is now becoming undercut and less sustainable because of the kind of deals that have already been done. Previously, it said you can't differentiate between businesses by reason of their participation in the code. I'm now concerned, and I would like an explanation about how those commercial agreements for those that are left out isn't just about whether they're going to get a benefit of revenue but whether, in fact, that benefit is created and gobbled up from increasing the competitive pressure on the other media players. I want to know how you'll assess that issue. It seems to me that these deals might not contribute to a positive significant contribution. Indeed, they could undermine a contribution if players that are left out of the deals become more unsustainable. 10:48 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The non-differential provision doesn't impact normal commercial deals. It's a matter for the ACCC to apply the law there. The provision only deals with negotiations that are made under the code. 10:49 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Okay, but I think this emphasises my point. If you've got deals that are made outside the code, you can assess whether those deals are significant in the context of media sustainability but you don't have access to see what's inside those deals in terms of working out whether they have actually increased the competitive pressure on those that have been left out of deals. 10:49 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria In enforcing the code, the ACCC has information-gathering powers that will cover the non-differentation provisions. 10:50 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I would just like the minister to outline to us how the standard offer process will work and what assistance publishers will have in accessing the standard offer and understanding the significance of it. Where do they go if, indeed, they believe they should be negotiating with Facebook and Google in relation to a standard offer but still haven't received even a phone call back? 10:50 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Sorry, Senator Hanson-Young. Just give me a moment, I have so many bits of paper in front of me. I do have one specifically on this for you. 10:51 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia That's fine. I genuinely want a full answer so I appreciate you getting that information. 10:51 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The government has always said it is preferable that deals can be done outside the code. We have seen that a number of media organisations have already entered into letters of intention with Google. Obviously yesterday Seven West Media announced it had entered into a letter of understanding with Facebook. We expect the digital platforms to continue those efforts to enter into agreements with more news media businesses and they can do this by putting a default offer on the table which publishers can choose to accept or use as a catalyst to reach a commercial agreement. It's important to remember that, in deciding whether to designate a platform, the Treasurer will have regard as to whether they have made a significant contribution to the sustainability of the Australian news industry through agreements relating to news content. 10:52 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I have a question that has come in over Twitter. Someone wants to ask: what is the definition of 'intentionally'? Senator Brockman 30484 Point of order: I think we are getting into very dangerous territory. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 140651 Senator Brockman, what is your point of order? Senator Brockman 30484 The point of order: Senator Pratt clearly indicated that she was taking questions over a device from a live feed. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Brockman, that is not a point of order; that is a debating point and this is the people's house. Senator PRATT I0T It is a legitimate point. I am very happy to frame it as my own question: do we have any definition of 'intentionally'? The legislation says it only covers news content that's made 'intentionally' available. Now, I'm assuming that means that if I copy and paste a news article then there's no way of tracking the outcomes and the revenue streams. Or does it also mean that, if I tweet something and I get people to share it and it all goes back to a particular news article, I can't artificially drive up the revenue streams? What does 'intentionally' mean? 10:53 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria 'Intentionally' means in the context of this change to the explanatory memorandum. It has been added to make it clear that, if Facebook takes all the news off its platform in Australia, it's not intentionally making news available in Australia. 10:53 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Minister, previously you have told the chamber that 100 to 200 publishers are expected to be registered as news publishers for the purposes of this code and for the purposes of striking a commercial arrangement with the two big tech giants. You've said that there isn't a working list of these publishers but surely Treasury has some idea of who they are, if indeed you have come up with 100 to 200 publishers who could be eligible. How do these media organisations know who they are for the purposes of this if there is no working list? Have they been contacted? Will they be contacted? What is the proactive role of ACMA to ensure that these publishers are participating in this process, engaging with the big tech giants and trying to strike a deal to ensure—as you've gone to many times today—that we make Australia's news industry sustainable? 10:55 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria ACMA is reactive; it's not proactive. If those small publishers, or whoever those news outlets may be, want to be included on the digital platforms, if they want to be included as part of the code, then they will proactively reach out to ACMA. 10:55 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia It's been raised with me by a number of publishers and bodies representing the needs and the interests of publishers that there is a lack of information about how this will be done. There's concern about the level of resources that even registering will take. I'm just wondering what services or support will be delivered by the government to ensure that those who are eligible and can walk into a negotiating meeting with Facebook know very well, 'We will be registered; we have every intention and understanding that ACMA will register us,' or 'Here is our registration,' and feel like they are empowered by this process. The reason I'm asking all this is that there is still uncertainty; people are feeling like they're going to fall through the cracks. I'm urging the government to consider what other services or support they need to offer to ensure that people don't unnecessarily fall through the cracks here. 10:56 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria If these news outlets were to negotiate directly with Facebook or with Google or with a large digital platform, there would have to be a certain amount of work done already. I would imagine that the intention here for them to register with ACMA would require far less work than it would to negotiate directly with those digital platforms. This should make life easier for those news platforms, not more difficult. 10:57 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Will the government undertake to support and ensure that queries and questions by small and regional publishers will be responded to by the minister's office if they need direction on how to engage in this process? 10:57 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The Treasurer's office has always made itself available to requests from news media outlets if they have an issue, and that's why this code is coming about. 10:57 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Just to be clear: should a publisher seek the guidance and advice from the minister for communications or the Treasurer? I just don't want people to get the run-around here. 10:58 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria They would engage with ACMA in the first instance, and then after that they would engage with the ministers, whether it be the Treasurer or the minister for communications. 10:58 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia If, indeed, this legislation passes this week, when will ACMA be up and running to engage in this process with publishers? Are they ready to go, are they just waiting for the legislation to pass, or is there some type of time frame we need to see before publishers can start registering with ACMA and get that support? 10:58 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria ACMA will be up and running as soon as possible. They have already issued guidance to industry as to how they will consult and negotiate between them. 10:58 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Have ACMA raised any concerns with the government in terms of resourcing this from their end? 10:59 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria We'll make sure that ACMA is appropriately resourced, but there has been no specific inquiry. 10:59 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I want to alert the chamber that I've circulated an amendment on sheet 1215. It is an amendment to the government's amendment in relation to schedule 1, item 1, page 8, proposed subsection (3)(b). It goes to this point that we've been debating here this morning in relation to significant contributions to the sustainability of the Australian news industry. I think it's fair to say that all the questions this morning have been surrounding this element. As I said, there is a concern that, unless this is specifically referenced, small, medium and regional publishers will be overlooked in that definition of the significant contribution. So all I am asking for is that we clarify that in paragraph (3)(b) with the words 'including by entering into agreements with a significant number of those businesses'—and this is the important amendment—'that include small, medium and regional organisations'. The government has said it intends to ensure that this is the case. I don't see why there would be any problem in ensuring that they are included. I urge the government to accept this amendment. It would put at ease a number of nervous organisations this morning. The TEMPORARY CHAIR e4t Senator Hanson-Young, before I ask the minister to speak, are you moving that amendment? Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1215: AMENDMENT OF GOVERNMENT AMENDMENTS [SHEET PG138] (1) Paragraph (3)(b), omit "(including agreements to remunerate those businesses for their news content)", substitute "(including by entering into agreements with a significant number of those businesses, that include small, medium and regional organisations, to remunerate those businesses for their news content)". 11:01 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The government believes the amendment that you've circulated is unnecessary because the existing provision already enables the Treasurer to consider these matters and the amendment may, in fact, reduce the flexibility of the Treasurer to take into account the full range of considerations relevant as to whether a digital platform has made a significant contribution to the Australian news industry. 11:01 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I understand that the government believes that they've said enough in relation to this, but the truth is that out there in the real world they haven't. Out there in the real world, media organisations small and medium and in the regions are worried that they will be overshadowed by the big players. The whole point of this legislation is to ensure there is a power rebalance to make sure that those creating public interest journalism in this country are paid for the contribution they make. I am extremely concerned that these big global tech giants will weasel their way out of this unless we make it absolutely crystal clear that, when we talk about the ecosystem of Australia's news industry and public interest journalism landscape, small, medium and regional players play a significant role in that. All we're asking is for them to be noted and given the nod that this government also believes that they are a significant part. I don't see why the government wouldn't agree to this. It would put to bed the criticism that is coming. After all the questioning today from those of us on this side of the chamber, I must say I feel that, if the government isn't willing to put this in, it begs the question: can we really believe you? Why wouldn't you accept it? You say this is the case. Let's just put it in there. 11:03 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I think that, on the whole, there is vehement agreement in this chamber that this legislation is a significant move in the right direction. As to your specific amendment, this is not simply government opposition. We have actually received advice from Treasury on this amendment and the effect of this amendment, and Treasury have come back to us with official advice saying that the amendment is unnecessary and will actually reduce the flexibility of the Treasurer to take into account the full considerations relevant to whether a digital platform has made the significant contribution to the Australian news industry that we're looking for. 11:04 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia In relation to the ACCC's involvement, has the government considered ways that the ACCC's role could be strengthened—for example, by considering the fairness of the provision of standard offers by digital platforms? Who's going to assess whether they are decent offers or not? They're not yet inside the code, because that hasn't been enlivened through registration. Nevertheless, those standard offers will still need to be assessed in relation to strengthening sustainability. 11:05 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The EM's section on standard offers states: 1.31 A responsible digital platform corporation may make a standard offer to a corporation that operates or controls a news business, by itself or together with other corporations. A news business corporation must be registered under the new Part IVBA to accept a standard offer. … 1.32 Regulations may be made that restrict standard offers to a class of registered news business corporations. If no regulations are made, the responsible digital platform corporation must make the standard offer to every registered news business for the offer to be recognised by the Code. … 1.33 A standard offer may be made that relates to one or more designated digital platform services of the responsible digital platform corporation in respect of remuneration or other matters. … 1.34 A registered news business corporation that becomes bound by a standard offer may receive the benefit of the general requirements. However, becoming bound by a standard offer may prevent a registered news business corporation from utilising the bargaining or arbitration divisions of the Code. … In addition: 1.35 A responsible digital platform corporation may also make a standard offer relating to one or more non-designated digital platform services on terms that include that the registered news business corporation would not be able to utilise the Code for one or more designated digital platform services of that digital platform corporation. … I should also add: 1.36 A standard offer will not exclude bargaining or arbitration if, before the agreement became binding, a registered news business corporation has notified the responsible digital platform corporation that it wishes to bargain. … 1.37 Standard offers must have a duration of two years in order to be valid under the relevant provisions of the Code. … In addition to that there is a process for making a standard offer: 1.38 A responsible digital platform corporation may choose if and when it wishes to make a standard offer for a future two year period to registered news business corporations. … 1.39 A standard offer remains open for a period of 60 days unless otherwise prescribed in regulations. If a registered news business corporation wishes to be bound by the standard offer, it must accept the offer during the offer period. 1.40 At the end of the offer period, the offer becomes binding on the responsible digital platform corporation and all registered news business corporations who accepted the offer. … 1.41 During the offer period, a responsible digital platform corporation may withdraw the standard offer, in which case the offer will not be binding under the Code. A registered news business corporation may revoke any acceptance of the standard offer during the offer period. … 1.42 The content of the standard offer can be determined by the responsible digital platform corporation. The regulations may prescribe features that must be included in a standard offer in relation to remuneration. 1.43 For example, the regulations could set out that remuneration should be based on a percentage of the cost of producing covered news. A responsible digital platform corporation would then need to decide what percentage would be appropriate and include this as a term in any standard offer. 1.44 The standard offer provisions do not prevent the responsible digital platform corporation reaching agreements with registered or unregistered news businesses through other similar processes (for example, offers to certain kinds of news businesses, or offers subject to deadlines for acceptance). 11:08 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia That still leaves me with a number of questions. If those standard offers aren't decent enough to have made a substantial contribution to the sustainability of news media, how will that be assessed? You didn't really answer my question in the context of the ACCC and whether they would have a role in looking at whether the standard offers do in fact make a contribution to the questions that the minister would later need to address. 11:09 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I think that, when we originally spoke about the minister's discretion in making the designation, we said that the ACCC would be involved in that process and would make comment or report to the Treasurer on the existence of power imbalance, on the basis of the offers that are out there and the deals that are already done. 11:09 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia The ACCC keeps a registration of standard offers in other industries. This would seem to be an obvious area where a similar role for the ACCC should be resourced and enlivened. 11:09 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria We will take that as a comment. 11:10 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Did you not consider bringing those provisions into this legislation where registration of standard offers is required by the ACCC? 11:10 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Under the provisions of the code, the details of standard offer will be provided to the ACCC as well as to the digital platform. 11:10 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia That's not the same as registration, but I do understand that we probably won't get any further on that. In terms of those who have access to a standard offer, do they have to be on ACMA's list or, for example, could an independent media journalist, under the $150,000 profit, be able to strike a deal under that standard offer? You've said that commercial agreements aren't subject to the code, so I guess it would just be a different commercial agreement. However, you would also have to rule out whether the use of such offers are making a contribution to sustainable media or not. Can these offers only be picked up by people on the ACMA list? 11:11 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Standard offers outside the code can be made to anyone. Standard offers within the code are made to those on the ACMA list. 11:12 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia What are the rules surrounding the ACMA list? Will that be published and, if so, when? 11:12 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria A list of parties that are registered with ACMA will be available online. You'll be able to see who they are. 11:12 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia On the ACMA website? 11:12 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Yes. 11:12 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I want to go back to this issue of the government's refusal to amend their amendment to include small, medium and regional publishers. Is this because Facebook only wants to do deals with the big guys? 11:13 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria No, it's on Treasury advice. It would limit the flexibility of the Treasurer. 11:13 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia In the Treasurer's negotiations with Facebook, were any media organisations referenced in terms of the deals that would need to be done to satisfy whether Facebook had made a significant contribution to the Australian news industry? 11:13 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My understanding is discussions weren't that specific. 11:13 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Has the Treasurer specifically asked Facebook to pay for the content of small and regional players? 11:13 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria No, not that I am aware. I think that the discussions between the Treasurer and Facebook have been about negotiating in good faith. 11:14 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Has the Treasurer advocated in his negotiations with Facebook that small and regional news agencies must be part of the players that this big tech giant engages with and strikes deals with? 11:14 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My understanding now is that the Treasurer has made it clear in his discussions with Mr Zuckerberg that he expects Facebook to negotiate with regional, small- and medium-sized news outlets as well as the larger players. 11:14 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia And what will the government do if he doesn't? 11:14 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria That is exactly what will be taken into account when making the decision about designation. 11:14 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Thank you. I just want some clarification on the answers we received to my previous questions. Is the role of the ACCC enlivened when deals are done using standard offers, or is it only enlivened if an organisation is designated? 11:15 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The platforms can make standard offers outside the code, but the ACCC's role is enlivened when standard offers are made within the code. 11:15 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I think it's fairly clear now, but how do we assess? How does the ACCC play a role in assessing whether the contribution of these deals is making a significant contribution if those standard offers are assessed by the ACCC only if the code is enlivened? How do we know that these standard offers are fair at all or that they might be fair to those who sign them but come at the expense of the sustainability of businesses that haven't had the opportunity or have been refused a standard offer? 11:16 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria When the Treasurer is making a decision, he requires the digital platforms to report on whether they are making a significant contribution to the sustainability of the Australian news industry, and the ACCC will also inform the Treasurer when he is assessing that report. 11:17 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia So that would require an organisation that hasn't been able to get an offer to go to the Treasurer and say, 'We would like you to designate because we've been locked out.' Is it only then that the ACCC would start to look at the power imbalances, or who's in and who's out of those deals that have been negotiated? 11:18 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria When making a designation, the Treasurer will take advice from the ACCC. He'll also take advice from Treasury. It will also require a report from the digital platforms themselves, who will be required to demonstrate that they are making a significant contribution to the sustainability of the Australian news industry through reaching those commercial agreements with news media businesses. 11:18 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia What oversight does the ACCC have of these deals if the code is not enlivened by an organisation making an application? 11:18 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The ACCC will have information about those deals. On a register it will have information about those deals. 11:18 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I want to indicate that I'll be supporting the Greens amendment to the motion. It is important that we protect the small players. The government's amendment basically allows the Treasurer not to make a designation in circumstances where some of the players are happy. The minister can't define what 'significant contribution' means. That leaves this chamber with great ambiguity, and, in those circumstances, the chamber should act to protect the smaller players. I'd also foreshadow, in the event that Labor, for example, doesn't want to support the Greens amendment, that another way to remedy this situation is to return the bill to the position it was when—as I understand it, based on conversations around this building and the committee report—people were supporting it. Removing item (1) on sheet PG138 is a possibility. I would ask the chamber that when we put this to a vote item (1) be voted on separately to items (2) through (5). The TEMPORARY CHAIR e4t Thank you, Senator Patrick. Minister, do you have a comment? No? Thank you. The question before the chair now is that the amendment to the government's amendments, as moved by Senator Hanson-Young on sheet 1215, be agreed to. That is the question before the chair. 11:20 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I'm still not in a position to go to a vote on that because there are outstanding questions about how they interrelate. I need, please, to ask some further questions, because when we're looking at reporting and benchmarking it's still not entirely clear to me about who's in and who's out. I have a question about consultation with industry around the drafting of the professional standards test, which is at section 52P. Have the Press Council, Independent Media Council, Free TV, ASTRA and Commercial Radio Australia been asked to provide input or comment? 11:21 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria There was a public consultation process in which all parties, all media outlets, were invited to make submissions, and that went on for a period of four weeks once the exposure draft was released. 11:22 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Were any changes made to it as a result of those consultations? 11:22 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Yes, there were. 11:22 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Can I ask the minister, please, to inform the Senate why provision 52P of the bill allows regulations to be made that replace or add to the standards of practice of the Australian Press Council, the Independent Media Council, Free TV, ASTRA and CRA with government standards? Does it flag a lack of support for these provisions by these bodies? 11:22 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I'll have to take some advice on that very specific question. I don't have an answer for you right now, but my understanding is that it certainly doesn't demonstrate that. 11:23 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia If regulations allow those professional standards to be amended by government, does that not mean that the government prefers its own standards over and above the professional boards that should be defining these things? 11:23 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The way these provisions are drafted, they don't override any professional standards that are already in existence, and if they are different then the appropriate regulations apply. 11:24 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Will the government be able to impose the news standards by regulation? 11:24 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I think that's what that meant. 11:24 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Nevertheless, this provision gives the government the power to do that. 11:24 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria No, that's not the case. 11:24 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Why do 52P(1)(a)(v) and (vi) of the bill allow regulations to be made to replace the complaints process of the Australian Press Council and the Independent Media Council with a government-run complaints process or add a government complaints process to them? 11:24 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria They don't. That's not the case. 11:25 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia So what is the intent of those sections? Is it to allow government to impose, by regulation, government supervision of the print and digital media? We would be out of step with every Western liberal democracy if that were the case. Why are these provisions here? Why does the government need its own regulatory process separate to the standards generated by those bodies? 11:25 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria It's to enable any new industry standards to be picked up by the code. 11:25 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia To go into a little bit more detail, it would mean new industry standards that are put forward and generated by those councils? Okay. So there's no prospect of government putting forward its own standards via regulation? 11:26 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria That's correct. 11:26 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I'd just like the minister to outline how the process of review within 12 months is going to work, particularly considering the growing concern around this new amendment that's been put in here at the whim of Facebook. Could the minister please outline what the terms of reference of that review are going to be and the obligations of the government to consult with small, medium and regional players in doing so? 11:26 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria It will be a Treasury review. The terms of reference for that review have not yet been set. That's entirely intentional. We want to see how the code plays out before we set the terms of reference, to make sure that we can cast the net as widely as possible, to include exactly those players that you've mentioned. 11:27 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Will those terms of reference be tabled in this chamber at some point? When would that be? 11:27 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria There is no official requirement to do that, so I doubt that that would be the case. 11:27 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Is the minister able to undertake to the Senate that the terms of reference will be made available to this chamber as soon as they are completed? Could the minister please outline what the Treasurer's process will be in determining what those terms of reference are? Who will the Treasurer consult with and is there somebody in the Treasurer's office who is going to be responsible? If so, who? 11:28 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Treasury will provide advice to the Treasurer on the terms of reference, as will the ACCC, and those terms of reference will be made available publicly. 11:28 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Is there somebody in Treasury that will be responsible for driving this process specifically, and could you tell us who that will be? 11:28 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria That's the responsibility of Treasury and it's probably not an appropriate decision to be made by this chamber. 11:28 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Has that been decided or has the Treasury department not worked that out yet? Which department of Treasury is in charge of this? 11:29 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria What I can tell you is that this bill was generated in the Markets Group of Treasury, and the leader of Markets Group is Meghan Quinn. I'm sure Ms Quinn will have a significant contribution to that review, but it is too early to say whether she will be responsible for that review. This bill hasn't even been enacted into law yet. 11:29 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia What will the role of the communications minister and his department be in this review? 11:29 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Treasury will consult with the department of communications and with the minister's office. 11:29 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Following up on my questions in relation to standards of practice, the government said we need these provisions in order to bring in new standards. Did the government not consider strengthening the current standards within current organisations rather than saying, 'Well, let's just have a diversity of other standards?' How will the government address a proliferation of different standards? We've still got to keep this within the realm of journalism and news, yet, unless there's a consolidation of those values within our current perceptions of that, I'm really concerned about how perhaps the government could use this regulation. 11:30 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Professional standards, as always, should be first and foremost the responsibility of industry, and it is our intention for that to remain. 11:31 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia If you're saying it's not your intent to impose government regulation on existing sectors, what is the point in terms of them being drafted in their current form, or is it simply that you can recognise different parts of the industry with different standards alongside these existing organisations? And please explain what the point of that would be. 11:31 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I'll just repeat that the reason why this provision has been made is so, if professional standards are updated, they can be included within the code using regulatory powers as opposed to having inconsistencies. 11:31 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia If the Press Council has a variation in its standard and the Independent Media Council covers the same thing but with different thresholds, are you saying you might take one version of those standards and insert them in all the other codes, or do you have confidence in how those councils are currently conducting themselves? You said it's not your intention to override them, but I don't understand why you need to take a code of practice from one professional council and put it into another. 11:32 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Inconsistent standards between organisations haven't been a problem thus far. It's really more if a new organisation steps up and creates its own set of standards. We want to make sure that they can be incorporated into the code using regulatory power so it happens immediately. 11:32 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Whose standards would you choose? Would you write them yourself? 11:33 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria It is the media organisations themselves that sign up to standards. We don't need to impose a particular set of standards on any particular media outlet. 11:33 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia By inserting new standards, it simply allows you to put in new bodies that meet their own standards. On one hand it seems like you want to strengthen standards but you haven't given me any confidence that this won't be used to bring in new organisations who don't meet the current standards. 11:33 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Again, we're dealing with the potential for new bodies to be set up, so it's very hard to anticipate what those new bodies might be and what the standards they might set might be, but we want to have the flexibility to be able to bring them under this umbrella. 11:34 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Are you saying that that would also give you the ability to, when there's a new body with a great set of standards, take those standards and insert them into the standards of all the existing bodies? You've said it's not your intent, but it seems like this gives you the power to do that. 11:34 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria We wouldn't modify the standards of any one particular body, but we would give all bodies an opportunity to adopt standards of other bodies. 11:34 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia So, in that context, you would give them the opportunity. But, nevertheless, doesn't this regulation allow you to impose that standard? 11:35 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria No, that's not the case, because to meet the professional standards test you can meet the standards that are within that test. 11:35 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I need to move on to some other questions. In the amendments that we've got before us why do they say, 'need to ensure that content is ranked preferentially by digital services'? Can you explain that part of the amendment? 11:36 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Chair, if you will just forgive me, can I take advice on that for a moment? The CHAIR: Yes, certainly. 11:37 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Thank you. I'm hoping I understand your question, Senator Pratt, but my understanding is the reason for this is to allow for existing commercial agreements to take effect and not undermine them with the introduction of this code. 11:37 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Can those existing agreements still be assessed for the purpose of a sustainable contribution to the viability of news? I think we've been through that, but I want to be able to understand the extent to which those deals will be assessed. 11:38 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Again, I think we've already been through the assessment process in as much detail as I can possibly give you. 11:38 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia After assessing what deals have been done and what deals haven't been done, if the Treasurer determines that a significant contribution to the sustainability of Australia's news industry has not been made by Facebook or by Google, is the minister willing to designate one of those services without the other? 11:38 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Yes. 11:39 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Is the minister prepared to designate Facebook newsfeed even with the threat of Facebook shutting down all news in Australia? 11:39 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I think that that's exactly what has been demonstrated in the last week. 11:39 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia No, because the government has buckled here. I just want to be clear. What you've brought to the chamber today are amendments to your own legislation because Facebook had a dummy spit. What is the mettle of the Treasury and your government in designating Facebook News Feed if they don't do deals that satisfy the needs of small independent regional players? 11:40 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I don't think that goes to the operations of this bill, Senator Hanson-Young. The question is about how much mettle the Treasurer has. I think the fact that this bill has been put forward in the first place demonstrates the determination of this government to get this right. 11:40 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia But you've blinked; you've weakened the power that the minister has because Facebook bullied you. Facebook knows all they'd need to do is switch news off again and you'll back off. If that is not correct, we need a demonstration that that is not correct, because so far that's what's happened. You're refusing to make sure that all news agencies in this country will be considered. You're refusing to include small and regional players. It seems to me that the Treasurer talks a big game, but, at the end of the day, this is more about a face-saving exercise for him than it is for the big US billionaire over in San Francisco. 11:41 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I would note, Minister, that in relation to the previous version of the mandated code versus the version where the big stick gets people to comply, neither system guarantees the outcomes. In that context, in relation to ranking preferentially by digital services, I think you've explained that it allows commercial deals to be made, but they can still be considered for their contribution to the sustainability and success of news services. What does 'ranked preferentially' actually mean? What do these deals or agreements look like? They're in that overall section of the legislation about those agreements. I'm assuming it's algorithms or something. I'm hoping for an explanation. 11:42 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The definition is broad. It would include things like ads on Google or posts appearing in News Feed, but amongst other things. 11:43 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I'm assuming you're saying that that's between the platform and the corporation, that it will be fine in these contracts that sustainability in terms of distribution and financial return not be a level playing field in that transaction but to have privileged those arrangements within those contracts. How might that trigger or not trigger enlivening of the code? Does this part of the bill affect how those contributions are assessed? 11:44 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I think there is a conflation of two issues. There is the non-differentiation issue and the designation issue, and they're not the same thing. 11:44 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Can you tell me why they're not the same thing? I'm keen for you to explain the amendment and how it works. The CHAIR: Senator Pratt, you need to wait for the call. 11:45 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria [Inaudible]. 11:45 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I would like you to be able to explain this amendment and how it works in practice, both in terms of the contracts that might be entered into and what they contain, and how those contracts might impact on the rest of the scope of the legislation. What does 'ranking preferentially' mean? 11:45 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Essentially this amendment says that commercial agreements that do not discriminate—is that right? Sorry, forgive me—existing agreements or agreements in the future are not held to discriminate if they fall within these amendments. 11:46 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Therefore, contractual arrangements might not just be about 'we will give you revenue if you click on this link' but could have rankings and generation of traffic and all that kind of value that might come with that. Would that mean you can, therefore, differentiate within the contracts about how you might relate to other players in your agreements with them? I'm assuming that's the case. Is this part of the critical change? Why did you come to this conclusion? This seems to be a key change. Before it was, 'You can't differentiate'; now it is, 'You can'. Why has this change been made? What's key about it? 11:47 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The explanatory memorandum previously said that you could differentiate based on the commercial agreements. This simply clarifies what is already in the EM. 11:47 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia But the EM that I've got here says: A responsible digital platform corporation cannot differentiate between news media businesses by reason of their participation in the code. So why this change now? 11:48 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria It's to clarify, nothing more. 11:48 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia So is the current law, as it's explained on page 6, wrong? Because you're saying you could differentiate under this new version and the old version. 11:48 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria It's to clarify that discrimination in normal commercial practices is allowed. 11:48 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Okay. Did the existing code, before you amended it, say differently? Because it seems to say that. 11:49 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria No, [Inaudible]. 11:49 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia What does the current law mean as it's explained in the bill? What does it mean that a 'responsible digital platform corporation cannot differentiate between news media businesses by reason of their participation in the code'? I now understand the new version but it means I no longer understand the old version. 11:49 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria It's the only one that's relevant. 11:49 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I have to say that it is still relevant because it gets to the core of a level playing field and how the government wants to address bargaining power. So, yes, the new one is the relevant one. Under this legislation, it will be possible to rank digital services preferentially and alter your algorithms et cetera based on the deals that you've done so that you can create some more sustainable revenue with your news partner. It might mean that you're not handing over money but you've made a commitment to generate more traffic for them. In that context, can you please come back to how you assess the impact of those deals if they are outside the code on the ultimate question about the sustainability of the Australian news industry and players that might not be able to get in the tent with such a deal? Are those players able to critique the fact that it's not only that they haven't been able to get a deal but that the deal that's been done in this preferential ranking is damaging their existing revenue streams? 11:51 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria We're talking about two different things: the non-differentiation is the change that was already in law; and the designation is an entirely different issue. 11:51 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I want to speak to Senator Hanson-Young's amendment very quickly. We're aware that the bill's been introduced and amended by the government in the context of these negotiations with digital platforms and news media that we've been seeing. We've seen reports that the Prime Minister himself has been sending signals to the platforms as part of these negotiations and that the Treasurer and minister have been involved in a range of those discussions. We would note that neither our shadow minister nor our party has been in the room or at the table, and we are very conscious that ad hoc amendments can impact the balance of negotiations that the government is undertaking. We also note that there are a host of other matters and concerns in relation to this bill that have been raised by stakeholders that have not been addressed. We've had some discussion about those in the context of the Press Council already—SBS, ABC and Free TV. We appreciate the sentiment of this amendment, but we do not regard that the amendment cures the uncertainty around designation at all. In that context, we note the minister's advice to the chamber and therefore oppose the amendment. 11:53 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I thank Senator Pratt for putting Labor's position on the record. I am disappointed that, despite the massive amount of concern and questioning in the chamber today in relation to this, they won't support this amendment, notwithstanding the advice from the government. But let's be honest about what's going on here: the Treasurer has struck a deal with Mark Zuckerberg. They don't want to amend it on the floor. Governments don't like that. However, the precise role of this chamber is to improve legislation to make sure that it doesn't have unintended consequences. And our concern remains that small, medium and regional players will get left out in the cold. If the minister doesn't want that to happen, notwithstanding the success of this amendment, be very sure that week after week after week we are going to be keeping a very watchful eye on this. We are going to make sure that for every media organisation in this country who is not able to get a fair hearing with these tech titans the minister sorts it out. If he wants the discretion in relation to this, if this government wants to make sure that the power is in the Treasurer's hands, it will be on the Treasurer's head if anybody misses out. And we will expect answers in this place over and over again as to who has been screwed over by Facebook or Google—until you understand that it is your job to look after all players, not just the big monopolies, not just the Murdoch press, not just the Nine News empire. In this country, media diversity is at a crisis point because of not just the power that these big tech giants have but the concentration of media ownership across the various different platforms. I don't think it would have been too much for the Labor Party, or indeed the government themselves, to send a very clear message to Facebook and to Google today that we, the parliament of Australia, expect them to understand that small, medium and regional media in this country are essential, are absolutely fundamental to the sustainability of the news industry in this country. So we will be holding your feet to the fire, Minister, and the Treasurer's, in relation to this issue going forward. And we expect, in the review in 12 months time, transparency and honesty about how this has impacted on the various different players. If deals are done with only the friends of this government, those in the media who are their mates, and not with the small and regional publishers, it will be quite clear that this government has been duped. So here is an opportunity to fix it. If you're not going to take it, expect a fight in the months to come. 11:57 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia What a ridiculous attack! The government is in the middle of sensitive negotiations. We have seen people's Facebook accounts blocked and all sorts of crazy things happen. We have no indication of the effect of this amendment on those negotiations. We have small publishers, small businesses, community health organisations and stakeholders right around the country who are already in a difficult place. We have this amendment, thrown in at the last minute, when Labor has not been at the table. We have no explanation of how such an amendment would impact on the very organisations that you, Senator Hanson-Young, purport to protect. So it seems absolutely ridiculous to me to be lectured by the Greens on this issue. The government is at the table in these negotiations. If the government were to tell us that this is the best way of protecting small players, then we would be at the table in supporting that amendment. However, not being at the table, we have no evidence to go on that this would make the situation any better. It seems ridiculous to be inserting such things at the last moment. We, like all senators in this place, have a keen eye on small publishers and regional news. We want to see them supported on fair access to outcomes in terms of their sustainability. That is why we have had such an extensive debate today. You haven't inserted new powers for the ACCC. There are a whole range of things that could be put forward to address these issues. Instead, we get an off-the-cuff amendment from Senator Hanson-Young that we have no confidence in or insight into it making any difference to the outcomes. We, in this instance, will take the minister at her word, but we will also hold the government to account for these outcomes. The CHAIR: The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Hanson-Young on sheet 1215 to the government amendments be agreed to.

The committee divided. [12:04]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)

12 AYES Faruqi, M Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Lambie, J McKim, NJ Patrick, RL Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Steele-John, J Thorpe, LA Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 37 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Canavan, MJ Carr, KJ Chandler, C Ciccone, R (teller) Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Green, N Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J Lines, S McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McLachlan, A McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Payne, MA Pratt, LC Rennick, G Roberts, M Ruston, A Scarr, P Small, B Smith, DA Stoker, AJ Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:07 The CHAIR 112096 I now move to government amendments on sheet PG138. 12:07 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I ask that item No. (1) on sheet PG138 be put separately and I ask the chamber not to support this part of the government's amendments. Labor raised concerns about this amendment this morning. Whilst the argument used in relation to Senator Hanson-Young's amendment was that you didn't understand the consequences of her amendment, or you suggested there might be unintended consequences, if we were to remove this provision of the government's amendment, we would go back to where we were with the understanding we had yesterday. So Labor should be in a position to reject this amendment. It's a small amendment to what is a very significant bill, a very large bill. I would liken it to the two wires on the service module of Apollo 13. They might seem like just small wires, but after launch of this legislation we're going to find that it doesn't accomplish the mission. We're going to find that the Treasurer will simply be able to not designate Facebook and Google in accordance with the act. That would leave all of the small players, all of the regional players, without the ability to bargain properly against these very large digital companies, these foreign companies. We would, in effect, still have the very thing that Mr Rod Sims of the ACCC was most concerned about, which is a huge imbalance in power between Facebook, Google and the small players. So I would urge the chamber, when this is put, to reject item No. (1) of these amendments because it effectively undermines the whole bill. 12:09 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia If this place wants to go back to before there was a deal—we saw just a few days ago that Facebook was threatening to leave the country. We saw a host of crazy things happen out there, and yet we have—just like Senator Hanson-Young did—coming from Senator Patrick, an amendment that does not mitigate those risks. It does not cure the uncertainty that is here. Putting a number on it does not address in any way the power imbalances that need to be addressed. It could, in fact, further distort them, because we don't yet know who's been at the table in the deals. An honourable senator: You're rolling over again! Senator PRATT I0T This has nothing— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator PRATT I0T We will not be wedged— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator PRATT I0T Be it on your head if we go back to the crazy land that we were in a few days ago! The CHAIR: Order! Senator Pratt, resume your seat. Senator Pratt has the right to be heard in silence. We are in Committee of the Whole. Any senator can stand and put their point of view. I would ask that Senator Pratt be heard in silence. Senator Hanson-Young I0U Point of order, Chair: I just want to correct the record. Senator Pratt said that this is an amendment being put forward by Senator Patrick. It's not. All he's requesting is that the government amendment be— The CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young, that is not a point of order. Senator Hanson-Young I0U Point of order, Chair: could you please clarify what the question is before the chair? The CHAIR: The question before the chair is the government amendments on sheet PG138. Given that Senator Patrick has asked that the matters be split, the matter we are dealing with at the moment is item (1). Please continue, Senator Pratt. Senator PRATT I0T In dealing with item (1) on sheet 1197, you cannot split these apart. If Senator Patrick wants to stand up for these players that he's concerned about, why not include all of them? Why not say, 'not just a significant number, but all players'? That is what takes us back to this complete circular logic—when the original version of the bill said, 'You've got to treat everyone the same and you can have no preferential treatment.' You can't just find the balance of that in the middle of these negotiations with the words that Senator Patrick is seeking to put into the legislation. So it is incumbent on this place to consider these issues properly and in the context of the negotiations that are already underway. It is ridiculous to me that inserting words like 'significant' versus 'substantial' will make any assessment of the kinds of difference they should make in the long-term credibility of this regime. It is impossible to make an assessment of what that looks like, particularly in the context of the negotiations that are already underway. 12:14 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I just want to clarify that I'm not moving any amendment. What I'm asking is that the chamber does not support part (1) of the amendments by the government, because it introduces an uncertainty that Senator Pratt herself has raised questions about today. Let's just understand what's happening here: Labor are capitulating to Facebook and Google. They want to be an alternative government but they're not prepared to stand up to two big international corporations. I've said many, many times before that I'd love to have a strong opposition because I think it makes government better. But, unfortunately, we simply don't have that. I'm not asking for anything to be added to this legislation; I'm asking about the offending provision that talks about a significant contribution, which creates a real possibility that smaller media entities and, indeed, regional media entities will not be protected or get the benefit of being able to negotiate with these very large behemoths of companies. It's disappointing, but I understand, and everyone also needs to understand, how this works. The government has introduced a last-minute amendment and the Labor Party can't actually react in that time frame because they have to take things back to the minister, who is not in this place, and interact, and then they have to take it to caucus. They are a large organisation that is not nimble and is unable to react to what has happened, and the government has just played them. The government has just played the Labor Party, introducing this at the last minute so that Labor has no ability to think this through and come to a decision. That's exactly what's happening here and it's very disappointing. 12:16 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Senator Patrick has asked for item (1) of the government's very rushed amendments that were only circulated this morning in this debate to be put separately. That's absolutely within his right. Let's be honest, the attack on Senator Patrick from the Labor Party really just exposes their uncomfortableness with this whole thing. It must be very difficult coming into this place day after day after day and not knowing where you stand on things. That's the truth of it. That is the problem with the Labor Party. I also accept that the government have not just done a deal here that satisfies Facebook and Google, and that they have blinked in relation to that; they have also, in this amendment, delivered for their mates in the Murdoch press. That is what is going on here. That is why this is in here. And that is why the Labor Party is gutless about taking this on. Mr Albanese, we all know, has no chance in any universe of doing anything if he's having to have a fight with the Murdoch press. That's what is going on, so let's just be honest; we're not debating anyone else's amendment but the government's. Our job in the Senate is to hold this government to account. They're mates with the Murdoch press, and now they're best buddies of the billionaires over in the US who have made this government blink. That's what's going on, and that's why the Greens will also request that this item (1) is put separately. The CHAIR: The question is that item (1) on sheet PG138, as moved by the government, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [12:22]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)

33 AYES Abetz, E Antic, A Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Canavan, MJ Chandler, C Ciccone, R Davey, P (teller) Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J Kitching, K Lines, S McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McLachlan, A McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Payne, MA Pratt, LC Rennick, G Roberts, M Scarr, P Small, B Smith, DA Van, D 12 NOES Faruqi, M Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Lambie, J McKim, NJ Patrick, RL Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Steele-John, J Thorpe, LA Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

12:29 The CHAIR 112096 The question is that items (2) to (5) on sheet PG138 be agreed to. Question agreed to. 12:26 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1195 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 48 (after line 25), after Division 9, insert: Division 9A—Reporting to assist in monitoring benefits to public interest journalism from code 52ZZMA Annual report by registered news business corporations (1) For the purposes of monitoring the benefits to public interest journalism in Australia from the operation of this Part, a registered news business corporation for a registered news business must, at the end of each financial year, prepare and give to the ACMA a report relating to the financial year that complies with the requirements in this section. Content of report (2) The report must include the following information: (a) a description of the activities undertaken by the registered news business corporation (and any related bodies corporate of the corporation) during the financial year that supported the creation of core news content; (b) for the news content created by each news source that comprises the registered news business—the proportion of the news content that was core news content; (c) for the amount of code‑related remuneration of the registered news business corporation for the financial year—the proportion of the amount: (i) that has been expended during the financial year for the primary purpose of the registered news business creating core news content; and (ii) that has been committed for expenditure in a subsequent financial year for the primary purpose of the registered news business creating core news content; (d) if regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph specify other information that must be included in the report—that information. (3) For the purposes of paragraph (2) (c), the code‑related remuneration of a registered news business corporation for a registered news business means the remuneration that: (a) is paid to the registered news business corporation (or a related body corporate of the corporation); and (b) is remuneration for the making available of the registered news business' covered news content by a designated digital platform service; and (c) is paid under or in connection with any one or more of the following: (i) an agreement reached as a result of bargaining under Division 6 (bargaining) and notified to the Commission under section 52ZI; (ii) a determination of the remuneration amount made under section 52ZX (final offer arbitration); (iii) an agreement notified to the Commission under paragraph 52ZZK(1) (e) (section 52ZZK relates to agreements resulting from standard offers); (iv) an agreement notified to the Commission under paragraph 52ZZL(1) (g) (section 52ZZL relates to agreements to contract out of the general requirements, bargaining and arbitration provisions of this Part); (v) an agreement dealing with matters covered by this Part, including the remuneration issue, that it is reasonable to assume would not have been entered into by the relevant parties to the agreement if this Part was not enacted. (4) An agreement referred to in subparagraph (3) (c) (v) includes: (a) an agreement entered into on or after 9 December 2020 but before the commencement of this Part; and (b) an agreement entered into on or after the commencement of this Part. Note: In paragraph (a), 9 December 2020 is the date the Bill providing for the enactment of this Part was introduced into the Parliament. Timing of report (5) The registered news business corporation must give the report to the ACMA within 30 days after the end of the financial year to which the report relates. Publication of report (6) The ACMA must publish on the ACMA's website a copy of each report given to the ACMA under this section within 14 days of receiving the report. (2) Schedule 1, item 9, page 53 (line 3), omit "or 52ZZF(1)", substitute ", 52ZZF(1) or 52ZZMA(1)". (3) Schedule 1, item 10, page 53 (line 18), at the end of subsection (4A), add: ; (k) subsection 52ZZMA(1). These amendments are in relation to making sure that the revenue that is collected as a result of this piece of legislation is spent on journalism here in Australia. This is an important amendment, because we know, after all of these long debates, about the importance of ensuring that our media organisations here in Australia are able to be sustainable and are able continue to do their important work in public interest journalism. The last thing we want to see is some of these big corporations, particularly, international affiliations, whether that be News Corp or others, be able to bank this money, to put it into the coffers or to put the money to the boardrooms rather than the newsrooms. This is about sending a message directly to media corporations that there is an expectation that for the parliament to introduce this type of mandatory code, to go through this arbitration process, to ensure that the money is actually spent on creating more public interest journalism, not just more money for shareholders. I would like the government to at least give an indication that that is their expectation: that this money is spent on journalism jobs here in Australia and on creating public interest journalism in this country. It's not to be frittered away on extra curricula activities by board members or executives. 12:28 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia The sentiment behind these amendments is important, but we cannot support these amendments, because they are unachievable. The MEAA, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, said: 'This is a major concern. We can't see where the revenue is going to go and how it is going to be directed to additional journalists or journalism.' The issue is this amendment does not achieve that accountability in any way whatsoever. The only way you could do that would be by deeper powers of inquiry for the ACCC, for example, to scrutinise the contracts. Amendments like these do very little or, in fact, nothing, or would even exacerbate or overemphasise some streams of revenue without even actually recognising where the real commercial interests lie. It is a naive interpretation of this legislation to think that amendments like these will fix this problem. We've just had a big discussion about ranking et cetera that will, clearly, be a driver of revenue. There may not even be anything explicit, that you can identify, that demonstrates how there's been an uplift in revenue for one organisation versus another. It goes right down to the details of the deals that are done, and this kind of amendment does nothing to provide that transparency. 12:30 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The government will be opposing this amendment. 12:30 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Just to be clear, does the minister expect that the revenue generated by this code will be spent on journalism here in Australia or not? 12:30 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I want to ask the minister if the government have an expectation that the revenue that flows from these deals will be spent in Australia—I just want to indicate I'll be supporting this amendment. It does create a minimum level of content that would be in any annual report. It doesn't prohibit further explanation by companies; it simply sets a minimum standard and, right now, the minimum is nothing. So this does more good than harm. 12:31 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I need to further place on the record that such an amendment as is put forward does represent, in this legislation, a new regulatory burden. It could be onerous if unevenly applied. We've seen that a number of news media businesses have negotiated deals ahead of the passage of this bill. How, then, this legislation relates to reporting against this, in terms of how it's enlivened, auditing and enforcement—there is a clear risk, in our assessment, that this kind of reporting regime could underline the independence of some news media outlets. The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 The question is that Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1195 revised, moved by leave together, be agreed to. Question negatived. 12:32 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1188, as revised: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 51 (after line 10), after subsection 52ZZS(1), insert: (1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider and report on: (a) the state of public interest journalism in Australia, including the numbers of journalists working in Australia; and (b) the impact of the operation of this Part on small, independent and start‑up news businesses (whether or not those businesses are registered news businesses). This amendment asks, specifically, for the reference to small, regional and independent publications to be considered, and the impacts of this code on them, in the 12-month review. We did cover quite a bit of this earlier today. I understand the government intends that to be the case. But I think it's important to ensure that there is a discussion in this chamber, which is why I previously circulated this amendment, and I would like the government to consider it. 12:33 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia We appreciate the sentiment in this amendment. It is, clearly, in the public interest that public interest journalism be assessed as part of the review. However, I think the government should be able to make an undertaking, in that regard, without biasing the other issues that might also emerge in the time of the implementation of this legislation. We would expect, for example, the work of the Public Interest Journalism Initiative, PIJR, and the Australian news mapping project—these are all important considerations. However, we need to address a context in which the department has failed to produce basic information about newspaper coverage in Australia, particularly given the department's role in relation to the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund. That was announced back in 2017 as well as the Public Interest News Gathering program announced in 2020. So there are a wide range of issues that need to be researched and assessed in terms of the balance of this kind of review. We're very happy to emphasise the needs of small and independent journalists and the Public Interest Journalism Initiative et cetera, but this inquiry and review has to address the needs of a much greater diversity of stakeholders. 12:35 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The government will be opposing this amendment. The review contained in the current legislation is broader in scope than that proposed in the amendment. The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 The question is that Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1188 revised be agreed to. Question negatived. 12:35 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1197 revised, circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 24 (after line 3), after Division 5, insert: Division 5A—Audits and reviews of designated digital platform services 52ZCA Audits of algorithms and practices of designated digital platform services Carrying out audits (1) The Commission may carry out an audit of the operation of the algorithms and internal practices of a designated digital platform service in relation to: (a) the impacts of their operation on access to, and availability of, covered news content; and (b) whether their operation causes, or is likely to cause, differentiation of a kind referred to in Division 5 or other anti‑competitive or unfair results in relation to the accessibility and availability of covered news content. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), the audit may include the operation of the designated digital platform service in relation to: (a) crawling, indexing, making available and distributing news businesses' covered news content; and (b) referral traffic from the service to news businesses' covered news content; and (c) the distribution of advertising directly associated with news businesses' covered news content made available by the service. (3) The Commission must carry out at least one audit of each designated digital platform service during each financial year. (4) An audit must be carried out by members of the staff of the Commission. Requirement to produce documents, records or things and provide assistance (5) A person (the auditor) who is carrying out an audit under this section may require the responsible digital platform corporation for the designated digital platform service: (a) to produce any documents, records or things that the auditor is satisfied are relevant to the audit; or (b) to provide the auditor with all reasonable facilities and assistance for the effective exercise of powers under this Division. (6) A responsible digital platform corporation must comply with a requirement under subsection (5). Other matters (7) If there is more than one responsible digital platform corporation for the designated digital platform service, the obligations in this section apply to each of those responsible digital platform corporations separately. (8) This section does not limit section 155 (which is about the general information‑gathering powers of the Commission) or other powers of the Commission under this Act. 52ZCB Annual reviews and public reporting on algorithms and practices of designated digital platform services (1) The Commission must review, and report each financial year on, the operation of the algorithms and internal practices of designated digital platform services, and their impact on the accessibility and availability of covered news content. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), a report under that subsection must include: (a) a summary of the audits the Commission has undertaken under section 52ZCA during the financial year, including the findings of those audits; and (b) the Commission's assessment of whether the Commission's auditing and review activities have indicated any evidence in relation to digital platform services of anti‑competitive activity or practices that unfairly limit or distort access to covered news content. Report must not include trade secrets (3) The Commission must not include in a report under subsection (1) information the disclosure of which would reveal a trade secret of a responsible digital platform corporation. (4) Reports under subsection (1) must also comply with such requirements in relation to the protection of confidential information as are specified in a determination made by the Minister for the purposes of this subsection. For this purpose, information is confidential information if, and only if, the publication of the information could reasonably be expected to prejudice substantially the commercial interests of a person. Opportunity to comment on proposed report before finalising (5) After preparing a proposed report under subsection (1), the Commission must give to the responsible digital platform corporation for each designated digital platform service covered by the report either: (a) a copy of the proposed report; or (b) extracts of the parts of the proposed report that relate to the responsible digital platform corporation. (6) If the recipient of the proposed report, or extracts from the proposed report, gives written comments to the Commission within 28 days after receiving the proposed report or extract, the Commission must: (a) consider those comments before preparing the final report; and (b) include in the final report the written comments received. Timing and publication of final report (7) The Commission must: (a) give a report under subsection (1) to the Minister as soon as practicable and no later than 6months after the end of the financial year concerned; and (b) publish the report on its website. (8) The Minister must cause a copy of a report under subsection (1) to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after receiving the report. (2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 52 (line 19), after "52ZC,", insert "52ZCA,". (3) Schedule 1, item 10, page 53 (after line 12), after paragraph (4A) (d), insert: (da) section 52ZCA; It remains to be seen whether this legislation will remedy the imbalance of market power between the big digital platforms that dominate our information landscape and the media organisations that provide us with the news and reporting which are a vital underpinning of our democracy. In some senses I think greater uncertainty has been brought about by the government's amendments this morning. It's clear that the bill addresses only a small part of a range of measures that are needed to improve media diversity in Australia and to further support public interest journalism. It will also address other major issues, including the international tax practices of the digital giants that operate across the globe. These amendments deal with yet another aspect of the situation—the opaque nature of the algorithms and business practices of big tech. A fairly new area of engineering, which I know might be foreign to those present in the chamber, is where independent auditors look at algorithms—it can be algorithms in respect of commercial applications or algorithms used by government—to make sure that those algorithms are performing the functions that they ought to perform and, indeed, not introducing unintended consequences into what are automated processes. Not much needs to be said, for example, about robodebt and the way in which that algorithm did not perform properly. Had there been algorithm auditing, the government may have been in a substantially better financial position than it is in now after having to make payouts to people who, it turns out, robodebt robbed of money. We've also seen in recent events that the digital platforms are operating with impunity under a shroud of near-total secrecy. Their anticompetitive practices and how their algorithms operate are shrouded from any oversight or accountability. This secrecy has deep implications for our democracy. These platforms have unquestionably amplified the spread of misinformation and falsehood aimed at undermining public confidence in, for example, the COVID-19 health response. They have undermined trust in democratic institutions and supercharged political polarisation. Even during debate on this bill, Google's public campaigning involved actively limiting the information that 250,000 Australians could access, through their so-called experiments. Similarly, Facebook's arbitrary decision to ban news sites extended to government, political and community organisation pages, amply demonstrating the outsized impact that the company's algorithms have on the way we do business here. This has implications far beyond those of the news bargaining code, and in order to deal with them we do need to have a level of scrutiny. The ACCC actually has the power to go and look at the activities and, indeed, the algorithms of companies—that was confirmed by Mr Sims at the committee inquiry—and the intent of this amendment is to make sure that the ACCC does so. Whilst they have the power now, there is no requirement for them to do algorithm audits. There is no requirement to go in and have a look at what Google and Facebook might be doing, what their algorithms are actually doing, and make sure there is no anticompetitive behaviour being implemented through those algorithms, either intentionally—and one would hope that doesn't occur—or even unintentionally. That would be consistent with the role of the ACCC. The problem we have here and that this parliament will need to come to grips with moving forward—it is a relatively new field in engineering—is in auditing algorithms independently to make sure they are doing what they are promoted as doing. It's something we will have to take notice of and deal with in the future, not necessarily just for this particular bill. We need to open our minds to the fact that auditing is going to be required right across society where algorithms are being employed. It's no different to the auditing of books. In order to establish confidence in our corporations, we require them to be audited. That gives public confidence and it gives confidence to shareholders. This is no different. It's simply saying: let's audit the algorithms. It's very clear in my amendment that if the ACCC were to go and do an audit they would not be allowed to reveal trade secrets. They'd simply examine the code, make sure there was nothing in there that was untoward and report back to the public that everything was in good order. If everything were not in good order, they could act in relation to that using their existing regulatory powers. So the amendment doesn't seek to in any way compromise Google and Facebook in their operations. It doesn't seek to require anything to be revealed about how they do their business. It seeks simply that the ACCC regularly audit these algorithms and deal with anything untoward within them. 12:42 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The government's going oppose this amendment. The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 The question is that the amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1197 revised, moved together, by leave, by Senator Patrick, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [12:48]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Sterle)

12 AYES Faruqi, M Hanson, P Hanson-Young, SC McKim, NJ Patrick, RL Rice, J Roberts, M Siewert, R (teller) Steele-John, J Thorpe, LA Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 32 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Canavan, MJ Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J Lambie, J McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McLachlan, A McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Payne, MA Pratt, LC Rennick, G Scarr, P Small, B Smith, DA Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Van, D Walsh, J 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Progress reported.

STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 1437 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Members of Parliament: Conduct 1437 12:51 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales On my desk in my office I have a little plaque which my husband made for me. Written on the plaque is a quote by Marcus Aurelius, Roman emperor and philosopher. It reads: When you speak in the senate or to any individual, be straightforward, not pedantic. Use language which rings true. In speaking today, I take guidance from another quote by Marcus Aurelius: If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it. Integrity is the word most often used to describe the aspiration that we as politicians have—indeed, it is a universal aspiration that all men and women seek to adhere to in their daily lives. But for those in public office, integrity is not just an aspiration; it is an obligation. Indeed, as I have said before, the higher the office, the greater the responsibility. So what is integrity? Common definitions refer to the adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values, to incorruptibility, to honesty, trust and respect. At a time of far greater scrutiny of public officials, do we have in place the necessary frameworks to ensure that public officials do conform to principles of integrity and that, when they fail to do so, there are appropriate sanctions? As politicians we are the lawmakers and, as such, we should not be above those laws. Politics is about perceptions, and regrettably the perception that the general public have about us is not good. Why is it not good? Because repeatedly politicians from local, state and federal ranks have acted without integrity and contributed to the ongoing and deteriorating perception of the body politic. In any survey about the most trusted professions in our society, politicians usually rank amongst the lowest. And why wouldn't this be the case, given the continued exposure of questionable activities over many years? Whether it's alleged lies in election campaigns, dodgy preselections, misappropriation of public moneys, personal benefits resulting from insider information, moneys sequestered in overseas tax havens, abuse of office for personal advantage, connections with foreign governments—the list goes on and on. Negative public perceptions are compounded when politicians dig their heels in, spin the story and fail to take responsibility for their actions. They rely on the fast-moving media cycle and wait for the next story to take the wrongdoing off the front page. With perceptions of corruption in Australia increasing the erosion of public trust in institutions and the advent of an increasing number of political scandals, there are growing calls for a better National Integrity Commission than the one proposed by the government. Being from New South Wales, I'm conscious of the need to heed the lessons from the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption, which was used to settle factional scores and destroy careers. However, the role of such a body needs to uncover corruption and expose it publicly. As we have seen with state bodies, they have powers which the police and prosecuting authorities do not have, including the power to force people to answer questions which may incriminate them but which are often inadmissible in court. Public hearings with appropriate safeguards are important. In addition, there should be no special treatment for politicians and their staff. Public trust will continue to be undermined unless members of parliament are subject to full and proper scrutiny. An article titled 'Integrity concerns' by Karen Middleton in The Saturday Paper on 12 December 2020, cites comments by a former High Court justice, Mary Gaudron QC. The article states that the only way a parliamentarian could be brought before the proposed commission would be if both that parliamentarian and the Attorney-General reasonably suspected a crime had been committed. Gaudron was absolutely correct when she said: It's unlikely, let me tell you, that a parliamentarian is going to front up and say, 'I think on reasonable grounds, that I've committed a crime.' In an article in The Sydney Morning Herald on 4 November 2020, titled ''Weak powers' to expose federal MPs: former judge blasts corruption watchdog plan,' Anthony Whealy QC, chair of the Centre for Public Integrity and a former Court of Appeal judge, said that the proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission had 'fundamental deficiencies'. He said that the commission would be split into two divisions with 'completely different powers' with: … the division responsible for investigating alleged corruption by federal MPs, their staff or departments unable to hold public hearings, make corruption findings, or act directly on tip-offs from the public. In November 2020, Transparency International Australia in conjunction with Griffith University, Queensland released a paper titled Australia's national integrity system: the blueprint for action. The paper offered suggestions for a holistic, whole-of-government approach and it highlighted two salutary statistics. First, our score on Transparency International's 2019 corruption perception index is 77, down eight points since 2012. Second, in October 2020, 66 per cent of surveyed Australians thought corruption in government was 'a quite big or very big problem', up from 61 per cent in 2018. I have previously raised the question of the vetting of politicians. Whilst this is a complex issue, nevertheless it warrants consideration in any discussion about integrity. I had the opportunity last year during a Senate inquiry to canvass with the Director-General of ASIO, Mike Burgess, the issue of the vetting of politicians, especially in the context of foreign interference in our political system. He stated: I personally think, or professionally think, that actually there is imperfection in our democratic system but actually it is right that it is members of political parties that pick their people who would run as candidates and it is right that the citizens vote those candidates in and therefore a government is elected and those people are the chosen people by the community and the parties in terms of ministerial positions. That might be imperfect, but actually I think that's still a very good system. Why do I say that? Because ultimately, even in that imperfection, if politicians or ministers do the wrong thing by the law, there are ways of capturing that. I think the Director-General makes a very good point about the imperfection of our system. This is especially the case where there is a reliance on the political party machine to take action. Over many years, notwithstanding the increased internal vetting processes of the parties prior to preselection, the imperfection referred to by the Director-General has become real and problematic, given the many instances of politicians who have been less than truthful to their preselectors and have, in turn, been elected on the basis of falsehoods. Following the pronouncements of the High Court regarding issues pertinent to dual citizenship, we saw a flurry of changes by the parliament in relation to disclosures and we saw tighter scrutiny by the political parties of candidates. This demonstrates that change can be effected, but it is in the intersection between the role of parliamentarian and politician that we have often seen the system protecting wrongdoing. Let me give you a practical example of the system being defective and not working when we leave issues of integrity to the party machines. One New South Wales MP who later became a minister is reported to have been involved in the altering of branch records for a meeting at which 10 new members were accepted into his conference. The minutes forwarded to the party headquarters recorded that the members were rejected; however, those in attendance asserted the contrary and they subsequently lodged statutory declarations to the party's state director. What is not in dispute is that the MP at the centre of the accusations will most certainly be challenged at his next preselection, so 10 new members could make all the difference. More than two years have passed since the formal complaints and statutory declarations were submitted to the party headquarters and to his Prime Minister. The allegations of record tampering and the MP's role are still to be resolved. The party machine in this instance seems unable or unwilling to make a judgement as to integrity. This is an imperfection in the system, where the political/PR concerns outweigh the importance of openness, truth and integrity. Once elected, there is no vetting, notwithstanding the exposure that many politicians have to highly sensitive information. As a minister, my staff were all vetted yet I did not go through the process. Accordingly, at the very least, ministers should be vetted, and politicians who assume offices, especially those with exposure to sensitive and highly classified information, should also go through some vetting process. I conclude by stating that I share the concerns that have been raised about the adequacy of the government's proposed National Integrity Commission. Restoring faith in the political class will require considerable effort, starting with at least a robust national integrity system with proper accountability, starting with the political class. Aged Care 1439 13:01 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Australia's aged-care system is in crisis. At the end of this week, the government is due to receive the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety report. It is long past time that this government listened to the experts in aged care. I am not just talking about the royal commissioners and all the many, many experts who gave evidence; I am talking about the dedicated hardworking people who staff the aged-care system, the dedicated hardworking aged-care workers who know the problems all too well and who know the solutions, the dedicated hardworking aged-care workers like Sheree, who I met on Friday. Sheree came to Canberra last week to speak out on the government's latest attack on workers' rights: its industrial relations bill that will cut workers' pay and make part-time work even less secure. Sheree knows what that looks like because Australia's aged-care system is already built on casualised short-hour contracts. Sheree has worked in aged care for more than 20 years and she is contracted to work just 16 hours per fortnight. She consistently works above that but she cannot rely on the extra hours and that has devastating implications for her. This kind of extreme job insecurity across the aged-care sector also has devastating implications for the elders in our care. For Sheree, it means she cannot convince a real estate agent to give her a lease, she cannot convince a bank to give her a home loan and sometimes she cannot make enough money just to meet her own basic needs. She handed me a statement on Friday which said: 'As a single middle-aged female with a lack of secure hours, I found myself living in temporary accommodation in a caravan. I have been unable to secure a long-term rental lease because I do not have guaranteed working hours. As a low-income worker, I am not alone here. Where I live, most people are low-income insecure workers. I have met seven other aged-care workers in the caravan park. We are already the working poor, and this bill is going to disadvantage us further.' This is how we are staffing aged care in Australia today, in one of the richest countries in the world, in one of the most critical services that federal government is responsible for—the care of our elders. It is a disgrace, it is neglect, and our dedicated hardworking aged-care workforce should not have to make the kinds of decisions that Sheree has told us about. Workers who do this critical essential work should not have to choose between paying car registration or going to the dentist. Workers doing this critical essential work shouldn't have to choose which meal they're going to skip today. I should not have to say this in the Australian parliament. I should not have to tell the government that its aged-care system is so woefully inadequate that dedicated carers are living in caravan parks and skipping meals. I wish Sheree's case were an isolated example, but her experience is not the exception; it's the rule. Late last year, I met with Ross, another proud and dedicated aged-care worker. Ross is passionate about aged care and wants to be able to dedicate himself to the role, to the residents and to the sector. But, like Sheree, he isn't given enough hours of work per week to make ends meet, so he's had to take a second job. He works over 50 hours a week, because his aged-care job is not enough; it's not enough on its own to make ends meet and support his three children. Ross told me about a 90-year-old woman in his care. He described her as an elegant and proud woman, a woman Ross has huge respect for. But this is a woman who, because of the aged-care crisis, has had to sit in her own mess because there are just not enough staff to give her the dignity and the comfort that she deserves. Again, this is happening in Australia, in one of the richest countries in the world, and it's happening in one of the most critical services that the federal government has responsibility for. It is nothing short of a disgrace. The stories told by Sheree and Ross are borne out by research across the sector. Last year, the United Workers Union found that 90 per cent of aged-care workers did not have enough time to properly complete their work; and three-quarters of workers said there weren't enough staff to provide quality care. It is no surprise then that the same survey found that almost half, 44 per cent, of aged-care workers said they probably wouldn't stay working in the sector beyond the next five years. This is a big problem. It's a problem for the workers, it's a problem for our elders, and it's a problem for us as a country as a whole, because we need hundreds of thousands of people in the next few years to take up the critical work in this sector. In order to retain the workforce that we have and attract a new workforce for the future, we need to do three things. First, we need to respect the aged-care workers who are speaking out today. We need to respect them not just with our thanks in a crisis but in their pay packets with a proper living wage. We need to ensure proper training that reflects the dedication aged-care workers already show to the elders in their care. Second, aged-care workers need to have good, secure jobs with enough hours to make ends meet. The organisation of aged care on these short-hour contracts is damaging. It's damaging to the workers and it's damaging to the elders in our care. We must place good, secure jobs at the heart of our aged-care system. Third, we need minimum staffing levels in aged care, and we need them urgently. When I talk to people in the community about what is happening in aged care, they just cannot believe that we don't have legislated, mandated minimum staffing levels in aged care. How can we operate an aged-care system without minimum staffing levels? How can we operate an aged-care system where the care of people's parents and grandparents is not supported by guaranteed minimum staffing levels in aged care in Australia? It is obscene. These reforms are needed, they are urgent, and they need a big commitment—a commitment that this government has so far failed to give. This failure was made patently clear when the royal commission handed down its damning interim report, Neglect, last year. Neglect describes an aged-care system that is failing the vulnerable Australians it is supposed to care for and the families and the staff that work so hard to care for them. The interim report found that aged care not only fails to meet the needs of elderly people; it neglects them and is 'unkind and uncaring'. The commissioner described the aged-care industry as 'a sad and shocking system that diminishes Australia as a nation'—a system that needs to be changed. People in aged care need to be treated as humans and not as a production line. And it is time we listened to experts like Sherree. Sherree wants better. She wants better for herself. She wants better for the other aged-care workers she knows. Most of all, she wants better for the elders in her care. Last week in Canberra she told us: It is a great honour and privilege to share a person's final journey. Our older generation deserves better, to be treated with dignity and respect, but so do the people working in aged care. We need laws that properly value aged-care work and provide aged-care workers with secure jobs and fair pay. Sherree and Ross, and so many other aged-care workers, are not just speaking up for themselves. They are speaking up for the security and the dignity of our aged-care residents. It is long past time the Morrison government listened to them. China 1441 13:11 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland From Mandalay to Moresby, from Manila to Melbourne, an 'iron silk curtain' is forming. A Chinese silk curtain is plunging as a parachute of leaden control on sovereign free nations—subjugating, suffocating and strangling freedom through economic means of control. Communist China has declared economic war on free democratic nations, upsetting the traditional rules based order, meaning we must carefully consider our dealings with China. China is an expansionist, rapacious communist dictatorship intent on power. Communist China is intent on domination not through traditional means of war but through three fronts of war—economic, political and cultural repression within a matrix of cyberwarfare. Hong Kong is lost and her people are now suffering—and it wasn't subtle. Hong Kong is no longer part of a 'one nation, two system' legally bound agreement. In a grievous breach of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, Hong Kong is now just another communist controlled city with no freedom. Hong Kong is 'Tibet with a sea view'. We shouldn't forget that Tibet was the first nation to fall to Communist China. And we must hold China accountable for the ethnic and cultural cleansing of the Uighurs. It is time to take a strong stance against this threat to a rules based order. The Chinese Communist government want to control not by direct force but through 'iron silk' to bind others to appease them. Barbara Tuchman, in her seminal work The Guns Of August, outlined the build-up to the outbreak of war in 1914. The similarities to today are startling. President Xi Jinping is the kaiser. While the last emperor of the Qing dynasty was deposed in 1911, President Xi Jinping is the first emperor of the 'Red Mao dynasty', intent on proving his leadership and the leadership and power of his nation. Communist China is akin to imperial Germany—a growing power needing to prove power. Over recent days the US State Department has expressed concern about China's recently enacted coastguard law, which, for the first time, explicitly allows its coastguard to fire on foreign vessels. The US State Department is, appropriately, 'concerned by language in the law that expressly ties the potential use of force, including armed force, by the China coastguard to the enforcement of China's claims, and ongoing territorial and maritime dispute in the East and South China Seas'. This recent action by China will be used to intimidate China's maritime neighbours, especially in asserting its unlawful maritime claims in the South China Sea. This new threat is the next step in China's strategy to assert their dominance and expand their influence in the region. Meanwhile, Japan this week have lodged a dispute with Beijing after Chinese coastguard vessels entered Japan's territorial waters for the seventh time this year. China has proven to us time and time again that they are more than willing to hide their actions from the rest of the world, whether it be the ethnic and cultural cleansing of the Uighurs or the COVID cover-up in Wuhan, all while trying to exert influence over other nations, particularly those nations within the South Pacific to which we have a great responsibility. As their neighbour, we have done much, but we need to be doing much, much more to strengthen our position against the influence of China not just in Papua New Guinea but across the broader Indo-Pacific. As we saw with Kokoda, New Guinea is the gateway to Australia and must be protected not just because it is in our strategic interest but because it is righteous. Throughout the world we have seen China, the so-called developing nation, remarkably grow and expand their influence. I can recall, when backpacking in Ethiopia in 2007, seeing Chinese work gangs building roads in the hills. My concerns have been building for some time, and these concerns are shared by Queenslanders, and I know I'm not alone in expressing my concerns about the rising influence and subtle aggression of China, particularly within the Pacific region. Over time, China has slowly increased its influence and control over nations and global organisations. This is a clear step-by-step approach to the economic, political and cultural subjugation of sovereign nations. As is becoming alarmingly clear, where China's overtures are refused and influence rebuffed, the Chinese Communist Party is prepared to flex China's economic muscle to exert pressure on other countries, including Australia, or pass laws within Beijing that give the Chinese Communist Party authority to exert significant force in any territory it deems to be its own. China used COVID as an alibi for their takeover of Hong Kong, the first COVID casualty, and I think it is very clear who is next: Taiwan. Whether we stand on the side of Taiwan or sit back and let freedom die on that island nation will be one of the greatest tests for the free world. I warn my fellow Australians that we've already allowed Hong Kong to be the 21st century's Czechoslovakia. We cannot allow Taiwan to be Poland in 1939. We must stand with the free people of Taiwan. This expansion and the ability to make demands over so many nations means China is not only strategising for global leadership or, better put perhaps, dictatorship but seeking to position itself as a price giver not a price taker, using initiatives under the guise of development that will be used later to expand its interest or assert dominance. This form of economic slavery through the hire purchase of nations must be combatted, especially within the Pacific. Trade with China we must, and we will, and we shall. Trade, this mercantile magic, is so important, as it enriches both our nations, but we cannot pretend that the regime in China today or tomorrow is the same China we have dealt with in the past. Agents of the Chinese communist government launch regular cyberattacks on Australia. I speak to you from the parliament of Australia, which has been under cyberattack from agents within China. This parliament has been desecrated through cyberattacks by Chinese communist government agents. We've seen our economy attacked sector by sector. We've seen Chinese agents attempt to buy influence in political parties. Our universities have prostituted themselves. If there is a light to be found or a glimmer of hope for liberty, freedom and democracy, it is that the world is waking up to this red dawn. Beacons are being lit. Bells are ringing. The Quad of Australia, India, Japan and America must quadruple and quadruple some more. We must continue to support our neighbours in the Pacific. We must stand with Taiwan. Our friends are our mates, and our friends' friends are also our mates. We must continue to strengthen our relationship with our mates around the world. We cannot beat about the bush. Communist China is a threat to a rules based order. We must be careful. We must be aware. The red dawn is upon us. The iron silk parachute is falling. Great Barrier Reef: Environmental Monitoring 1443 13:19 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I rise to speak to the recent tabling of the reef water quality report card. I wanted to acknowledge the extraordinary work that has been done by farmers right along and through that catchment. What the reef quality report showed was a reduction of 25.5 per cent in nitrogen entering the Great Barrier Reef lagoon. This also earned the farmers an A for water quality improvements. But what this report does is throw up a major problem with how agricultural impacts are assessed. Cane farms in North Queensland received an A rating for nitrogen run-off reduction but they still received an E rating for overall land management. What that says is that it is obvious that the other factors used to award land management ratings are rendered virtually obsolete when water quality results are so favourable. It demonstrates that land management targets, which were originally set to be a proxy for water quality, are overly onerous. We now know that those proxy targets are no longer required because of more water monitoring stations and better data. So instead of encouraging farmers to continue good work it is driving them off the land. I'm concerned because the Great Barrier Reef Foundation has, amongst others, a project that is encouraging young farmers. This is the ultimate in ageism, because it is disregarding the experience and the commitment of older farmers and not recognising their contribution. But, more dangerously, it is sending a message to young farmers that the work of their families, of the previous generations, is no longer valued and that the targets they're being told to meet, which are too onerous and unachievable, mean that they can never be successful. These results show that experienced farmers who have been on the land for decades are capable and are doing the right thing but they are being ignored. Why would young people rush to farming when they see their families having to undertake record keeping under the threat of obscenely harsh penalties? Yet they are still publicly slammed of claims that they are harming the Reef. I note with interest that these latest findings will form part of the upcoming five-yearly review of the Reef 2050 plan, which will look at the current water quality targets and will consult with industry as part of this process. This review must go back to sensible measurements that reflect reality instead of modelling and green dogma. It must recognise that industry-led initiatives, such as Smartcane BMP, which are different to government initiatives, are effective and strike a balance between farm viability and environmental sustainability. In Queensland the Labor government talks up the sugarcane industry's potential for clean energy production for biofuels and for recyclable products, such as knives and forks and other products that we hear talk of. But at the same time it is setting targets for farmers around land management that they cannot meet—paper targets, process targets—which don't recognise the fact that they are getting an A for their work and their results of water quality. Be clear: today it is sugarcane. Tomorrow it will be beef, horticulture, bananas, because these are policies that do not recognise farming as a viable, useful and important activity. All these industries are listed as a failure in the reef care efforts and yet the one measurement that we should care about, water quality, has improved dramatically and remarkably. I'll give you an example. Last week 30 cane farms in Queensland were audited. Not one of them passed the state government's models, which are obviously no longer fit for purpose. Remember, these are farms that are being accredited and measured as getting an A on the report card for reef water quality but they cannot meet the paper based tests of the state government. There is something very, very wrong with this. The magnitude of this water quality achievement by farmers is matched only by the ignorance of the Queensland Labor government in its single-minded obsession with sacrificing agriculture. The implementation of tougher reef regulations on farmers was rammed through in late 2019, despite the consultation period in which the ag sector repeatedly demonstrated that its members were doing the right thing by reducing fertiliser use, managing erosion and adopting new technology and management processes. Last year's Senate inquiry found virtually zero on-farm engagement by these state government MPs or their agents. If they had bothered to get themselves out from behind a desk and visit farms, as I and other members of the LNP have done, they would have seen farmers using laser levelling, subterranean fertiliser application, cane trash blanketing, better targeted and less pesticide, fertiliser and herbicide use, construction of wetlands and silt traps, and free planting close to waterways. But Labor ignored all of this and appeared to have already made a decision before consultation started. I've got to flag and have a call out to the unwavering advocacy of the Green Shirts Movement Queensland members, including Marty Bella, Mario Quagliata and Peter Jackson, and they were backed up by marine scientist Peter Ridd when the Senate inquiry was set up. The inquiry found that just three per cent of the entire Great Barrier Reef zone was affected by land use and on-farm engagement was severely lacking. The ag industry's own Landcare initiatives had good take-up rates because farmers care about the environment. They had not been shown proof they were harming the reef; they were simply being told they were and they would be penalised for it. What we have to be clear on is that the new laws have done nothing to improve water quality, because they were introduced after these reef water quality results were taken. Instead, Labor was returned to power at the last state election and the farmers' hopes of recognition and reward for their efforts were dashed. So this report demonstrates that everything the farmers claimed was true. It exposes Labor's staggering inability to apply commonsense to so many of its policies, preferring to listen to extreme green groups over that of practical, honest, hardworking farmers—who, by the way, produce the food and fibre that we so much need and desire. The Palaszczuk government should be extremely ashamed of itself. It should apologise for the way it's treating farmers and adding so much unneeded stress to them with the latest reef regulations. I worry about the mental health of both our existing cane farmers and the generation that is choosing not to come behind them. I spoke to cane farmers' wives, the incredibly capable administrators of the paperwork, in Mackay. They're up at dawn, trying to complete the never-ending paperwork associated with reef regulations. They watch their husbands decline under the constant threat—to be clear: threat—of harsh sanctions for even innocent land use mistakes. I want to mention the hard work being done by Queensland cane growers Dan Gallagher and Paul Schembri as well as Georgie Somerset from AgForce and the Queensland Farmers Federation. They're trying to keep the spotlight on these unfair regulations and highlight the good and important work of farmers. I have to urge both the Queensland state government and our own federal environment department to approach this review with open arms, with an open mind. Be prepared to listen, to act—to act sensibly and to act practically. Throw your support behind cane farmers and cattle farmers who are proving they are acting in good faith and to limit environmental damage. Welfare Reform 1445 13:29 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory In September 2019, I stood in this place to deliver a statement about this government's plans to impose a cashless debit card on 23,000 people in the Northern Territory. I spoke about the depth of feeling of powerlessness that the Territorians, particularly First Nations people, felt about this plan to impose yet another heavy layer of management on them. Territorians have been very, very clear in their opposition to this government's plans to put welfare recipients onto the CDC. We knew that the government knew back then, after 12 years of having the BasicsCard system under the Northern Territory National Emergency Response—that is, the Intervention imposed in the Northern Territory—there is little to no evidence that compulsory income management results in widespread or long-term benefit. This was strongly supported in the evidence given to the Senate inquiry. The CEO of the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance Northern Territory, John Paterson, told the inquiry: This feels like the Howard era Intervention all over again. The last time the government intervened in the NT, and did things to us instead of with us, it failed at great cost to families and communities. The government knew there was no evidence to prove the cashless debit card had actually worked, to do what it was supposed to do—that is, bring in widespread benefit and support for the families receiving support payments and for the communities. They knew there were serious questions about the harm the card may be causing to families and communities, and the stigma and the shame associated with its use. Despite that, the government moved ahead last year with plans to bring the cashless debit card into the Northern Territory and make it a permanent fixture in the trial communities across Australia. That was before they had the results of the $2.5 million report they commissioned into those card trial sites. This government wanted to impose this card permanently on thousands of Australians without even waiting for the evidence. Perhaps that's because they knew the evidence just was not there. The long-awaited report into the cashless debit card was finally released last week. It's inconclusive on whether it reduces harm from alcohol, drugs and gambling. It has found that people on the welfare cards are ashamed and embarrassed. The report conducted by the University of Adelaide and commissioned by the federal Department of Social Services looked at how the program had impacted participants in the communities of Ceduna in South Australia, the East Kimberley and the Goldfields in Western Australia, where the card has been trialled. Commissioned in 2018, the University of Adelaide's report on the cashless debit card looked at whether alcohol and drug use, violence and gambling reduced during trials of the card in Ceduna, East Kimberley and the Goldfields, but the study found no conclusive evidence in relation to those issues. The report tells us nothing we didn't know and is a complete waste of time and money. Yet, this government continues to put its head in the sand over the issue. And why is that? Why is the government so hell-bent on inflicting heavy-handed, punishing policy on welfare recipients? I'll tell you why. It's because demonising and degrading people who find themselves in positions where they can't work or find work, who are in tough times and need support, is in part of this government's DNA. We saw that yesterday clearly with the disgusting social media comments, in particular made by the member for Bowman, Andrew Laming MP. While he was supposedly at work in the other place on the taxpayer dime, this person was busy making comments on the social media pages of the groups who oppose the CDC. I'll quote from the member's post. He wrote, 'This card is merely to prohibit sinful activities.' That's how this government regards those Australians who have fallen on tough times and those who rely on disability pensions—young people, single parents and pensioners. Being poor is a sin, according to Mr Laming. Not content with labelling people who receive social security payments as sinners, he went on to mock people whose mental health has suffered from the punitive policies of his government, writing: 'All that money they can't spend on alcohol, gambling and drugs. Keen to meet that person for whom their mental health is affected. Send them to my office. Keen to do an intro.' But he hasn't stopped there. He went on to suggest young people would spend all their payments on alcohol or drugs. Why am I telling the Senate this? I am telling the Senate because we do expect senators and members of the House of Representatives to hold high standards. People in our society who are vulnerable certainly don't deserve to be stigmatised even more by their federal representatives. We don't know the reasons why so many people in our country are vulnerable or their personal stories as to why they've fallen on hard times or why it is that they need to rely on Commonwealth support. We don't need to know the ins and outs of their personal reasons. But we certainly need to know how to behave and how to respond, genuinely and sincerely, by trying to address the issues in a practical way and in a respectful way. I call on Mr Laming to apologise to those vulnerable Australians who have been hurt and stigmatised by his unnecessary comments. Certainly, on behalf of the 23,000 Territorians who've been characterised as sinners, drug takers and alcoholics, I demand that he apologise for those comments, maybe look at this issue more pragmatically and respectfully and put forward the arguments in a way that actually support whatever it is his government wants to do without further stigmatising those groups who, through being identified by this report of the University of Adelaide, have been embarrassed enough about needing to rely on welfare. While we were successful last year in opposing the government's plans to put 23,000 Territorians onto the card, we know that the government is still trying to bring it in by stealth. I was hopeful that this government and the minister would take a new approach and listen to First Nations people and communities in the Territory who have innovative ideas and solutions to these issues. First Nations people—in particular, many of the organisations in the Northern Territory—have come forward with practical solutions for you, Minister. For example, the Arnhem Land Progress Aboriginal Corporation has come forward with the particular card that it had initiated even prior to the Northern Territory intervention in 2007. This card was quite universal and supportive and was obviously something that the communities had established themselves, without the shame and embarrassment of being stigmatised for having to use it. If a community genuinely wants to use the cashless debit card, they should be properly consulted and provided with the necessary supports. I understand that that still is not occurring. Labor is certainly not opposed to income management in all circumstances, but we are opposed to the broad-based compulsory programs that ensnare and disempower all people and we are opposed to this government's approach of punishing, deriding and further stigmatising people in our country who do live in poverty. Holgate, Ms Christine 1447 13:38 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland In June 2017, following a global search, Christine Holgate was appointed Group Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director of Australia Post, a massive $8 billion organisation with around 80,000 employees. She was described in a joint media release by the then Minister for Finance and the Minister for Communication as: … a highly experienced chief executive, board director and business leader, with a strong record of managing and leading large and complex organisations … Ms Holgate also has extensive experience working closely with governments in regulated sectors including finance, telecommunications, media and healthcare. In 2015, she was named CEO of the Year by the CEO Institute. In accepting the Australia Post role, Ms Holgate took a pay cut from her previous position. Her motivation was clearly not financial. Three years later the company's annual report showed she was given a scorecard rating for 2020 of 95 per cent by the Australia Post board and was named in The Australian Financial Review's 'power list' as the seventh most powerful leader in business and the highest-ranking woman. She was regarded as an outstanding leader and was delivering financial results that made Australia Post the envy of its major competitors around the world. At no stage during her tenure were any performance issues raised with her. Australia Post 's financial results for FY20 showed record revenue of $7.5 billion, up seven per cent, and profits up 30 per cent to $53.6 million for the year, their highest ever revenue growth for a year without the acquisition of a major asset. Australia Post's business transformation was accelerating under Christine Holgate's leadership at a time when similar organisations around the world were battling under the pressure of the COVID pandemic. She was indeed a stellar example of corporate leadership, admired and strongly supported by Australia Post employees and contractors. Her time as CEO included leading a small team of executives in negotiating a difficult but lucrative commitment under which several major banks would contribute around $220 million, over time, to fund banking services in the approximately 2,900 licensed post offices, or LPOs. This deal dramatically improved the financial performance of the company and guaranteed sustainability for those LPOs. It was essentially a financial life-saving deal for those offices, their operators and staff. With the approval of the then chair of Australia Post, John Stanhope, and within Australia Post regulations, Ms Holgate rewarded four members of that executive team with a gift in the form of a watch. That was in 2018. On 22 October 2020, following Senate estimates on that day, the new Chair of Australia Post, Lucio Di Bartolomeo, called Ms Holgate and told her he had received a call from the Prime Minister. Ms Holgate was told the Prime Minister had requested she be stood down while an investigation into the gifting of the watches took place. Remember, Madam Acting Deputy President, this was two years after the event had occurred. It is my understanding that Ms Holgate told the chair she did not wish to stand down, given the effect it would have on the organisation as it entered its peak trading season, but would cooperate fully with an investigation. She also forwarded a photograph of a card signed and inscribed by her and the previous chair as evidence he had supported the rewards given to the executives. This photograph was forwarded to the Australia Post chair, to other Australia Post board members, to Minister Fletcher's chief of staff and to the deputy secretary in Communications early on the afternoon of 22 October. At around 2.38 pm that day, after the forwarding of the photograph, Minister Fletcher told question time the CEO would be investigated and would be stood down. A few minutes later, at approximately 2.42 pm, the Prime Minister told question time that Ms Holgate: … has been instructed to stand aside and, if she does not wish to do that, she can go. There it was for all to see. There was no explanation by the Prime Minister, no 'innocent until proven guilty', no sense of justice or fair play, no respect for one of the country's most senior and successful business leaders, no support, just complete abandonment. It was a simple: 'Here comes the bus and you're being thrown under it.' At no point during question time did either Minister Fletcher or the Prime Minister acknowledge that the gifting had occurred two years earlier. They didn't mention it had been approved by the previous chair. They didn't mention that the gifts were in recognition of securing the largest ever investment into community post offices. They didn't mention that they were made in accordance with Australia Post policy. They didn't tell the House the CEO had a strong working relationship with the Prime Minister, whom she'd met with monthly and who had recently praised her leadership through COVID. They just threw her under the bus, publicly and savagely. What conversations had gone on behind the scenes between the Prime Minister, other ministers, staff and the Australia Post chair? Why was the Prime Minister unilaterally and publicly abandoning Ms Holgate and trashing her credibility and reputation? Later that evening, the Australia Post chair issued a media statement stating that the CEO would 'stand aside' while the investigation took place. It is my understanding the CEO was not consulted on the words of this statement or its contents. Nor indeed was she ever informed the statement had been made. I understand Australia Post policy is that, for an individual to be stood down, the individual has to pose a serious threat or health risk to the organisation or to an individual in that organisation. I'm also advised that, for there to be a legal basis to stand down an individual, the individual either has to pose a serious threat or agree in writing. None of those criteria applied to Ms Holgate. She did not present a serious threat. She had not agreed in writing to step down—other than a media statement that was released without her knowledge by the chair of Australia Post—and she had not agreed verbally. And yet the Australia Post chair stated at Senate estimates on 9 November, in response to several questions from Senator Green, that Ms Holgate had agreed to stand down. No evidence has ever been provided to substantiate this, even though Ms Holgate's lawyers have made multiple requests and confirm they have considerable evidence and witnesses that she did not agree. The Hansard shows that, when asked by Senator Green for the legal basis on which Ms Holgate was stood aside, the chair replied, 'She elected to stand aside.' Mr Di Bartolomeo's answers to Senator Green's questions also included the statement: We had discussions with Christine, and ultimately she agreed she would stand aside while the investigation took place. Moving on to 23 December, following the release of the independent report on the removal of Ms Holgate, Robert Gottliebsen wrote in The Australian'sBusiness Review: Not surprisingly, the report was immediately ordered to be kept secret, because not only did it completely exonerate Christine Holgate but showed that the remarks of the Prime Minister to the parliament were simply wrong. And in that context it indirectly damned the two ministers responsible for Australia Post … Neither alerted the Prime Minister that he was about to make a horrible mistake. Also deeply wounded by the report is the chairman of Australia Post, Lucio Di Bartolomeo, and his Liberal Party-controlled Australia Post board. The independent report prepared by lawyers Maddocks revealed that under the Australia Post regulations the chief executive was allowed to make executive rewards of up to $150,000 for good performance without board approval. … … … She awarded the four executives a total of $20,000—$130,000 below the maximum—in the form of four Cartier watches that cost around $5000 each. The executives had pulled off a banking deal that added $70m to $100m annually to the bottom line of Australia Post and secured the future of 3000 small business post offices branches around the country. The post offices were furious that she was ordered to stand down. The report says the former chairman approved the purchase of the watches and the board was aware a reward for outstanding performance was to be made. The report says the former chairman approved the purchase of the watches and the board was aware that a reward for outstanding performance was to be made. The report praised the work of Christine Holgate as CEO and was adamant that she did nothing wrong in purchasing the watches. Gottliebsen's article describes the Prime Minister's remarks to parliament as something that 'will personally haunt our Prime Minister for a long time'. This is all over $20,000 worth of watches that Ms Holgate was fully authorised to present, in keeping with normal commercial practice, and that rewarded one of the most financially advantageous deals in the history of Australia. The actions of the Prime Minister, his relevant ministers and the chair and board of Australia Post, and their appalling treatment of Ms Holgate, deserve nothing less than a Senate inquiry. JobSeeker Payment 1450 13:48 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Yesterday the government announced a $25 a week increase to JobSeeker, which is mean-spirited, cruel and in fact insulting to jobseekers. At the same time they announced their 'DobSeeker', an insidious idea that will see people on income support, who are already oversurveilled by this government—with the issuing of demerit points and payment suspensions—now having to worry about whether someone is going to dob them in on the 'DobSeeker' line for not taking a job; never mind that there are 1.5 million people on the JobSeeker and youth allowance payments and only 175,000 jobs. This is in the context that the job provider network, jobactive, which is meant to be finding people these jobs, is rife with bullying, harassment and people being ignored or treated very poorly by their job service providers. While the government are doing next to nothing about these systemic issues with the jobactive system, they have empowered employers with the means to intimidate, bully and harasses jobseekers. As I said last night when I was talking about the jobactive process, my office has for years been contacted by people who have been poorly treated by their providers and who have had little areas of recourse because the very people who are treating them so poorly have the power to cut their payments. The government won't acknowledge how broken the job provider system they are pouring billions of dollars into is and they won't acknowledge what is actually happening to people on the jobactive provider system. So last night I read out a number of excerpts from people's lived experience. I promised that I will keep doing it and here are some more. These are the lived experiences of people who are trying their very best to find work and who are part of the jobactive process. I articulated this one last night: 'I was diagnosed with a degenerative muscular disease and need ongoing physio. Due to the loss of muscle tone, I have had to drag my right leg upstairs and often can't climb them at all. The job network provider thought it would be a great idea to enrol me in a forklifting course. The problem was there were steep narrow stairs to get on the forklift. Imagine my embarrassment when I couldn't climb on the forklift with everybody in the class watching. I was then told I couldn't complete the course. In response, my JSP accused me of not trying hard enough and threatened to have my payment suspended.' This is another one: 'All they do is look at online job-listing sites. I do this myself regularly. What I'd hoped they would do is reach out to local employers on my behalf and negotiate to create a position that suits me. Instead they suggest I apply for positions, which I then had to point out that I'm not qualified for.' Here is another one: 'I have had multiple people working on my case. It changes a lot, which is frustrating.' And another one: 'The constant nagging is hell. It causes a lot of anxiety and zaps my limited energy.' And another person said: 'I used to have two casual jobs. I'm 100 per cent serious when I say they did not help me find these jobs. I did it all myself. They gave me some fuel vouchers at one point because of the long distance and paid for some work pants but they did not help me find the jobs yet I was always nagged for my pay slips and had to tell them shifts and hours as well as report in to Centrelink. Only now have I learnt they needed these for their grant.' This is a message I received from someone who's working in a management position with a provider: 'From a DSP'—which is the disability employment system—'provider perspective, I see most of the criticism of employment services come down to one thing: the excessive compliance system imposed on jobseekers and providers by the government. It's a self-defeating system designed solely to punish the unemployed. It does nothing to actually support jobseekers find and retain work. From a jobseeker perspective, this involves having to dealt with mutual obligations and the threat of losing payments through the targeted compliance framework. From a provider perspective, it represents an absolute waste of time having to satisfy bureaucratic contractual requirements. The average employment consultant will spend more than half their time conducting exercises such as holding routine fortnightly face-to-face appointments, updating job plans or applying compliance measures. This is not how we were on operate if we were solely tasked with helping jobseekers finding work. This places a major constraint on operation, customer service and ability to provide individual service. The economics of the DES contract mean most providers operate in a fairly standard way. Common practice is an employment consultant with no formal qualifications or training earning between $50,000 and $65,000 and expected to work with a caseload of 40 to 50 clients. Employment targets are often around 10 per cent of active case load per month or four to five employment placements. Fifty clients times two fortnightly appointments times 30 minutes equals 50 work hours per month even before the employment consultant is able to do any employer marketing. Because the employment consultant is spending so much time on contractual requirements, most jobseekers who find work do it by themselves. Many providers are upfront about that to ensure jobseekers don't have an expectation that the employment consultant will find them a job.' And actually do what they're being paid billions of dollars to do—that was my editorial just then. 'I'm not convinced we'd see much of a change in employment outcomes if all employment services in their current form were scrapped.' Another person said, 'When a client finds a job on their own, they quite rightly feel that the employment service providers did nothing. Jobseekers will complain about being chased for payslips to allow the employment service providers to earn employment outcome payments. This is again more compliance work which once again takes away available time to actually support jobseekers.' Another person said, 'I was studying at TAFE doing a certificate II in hospitality and, in the middle of my exams, I was told if I didn't participate in a Work for the Dole activity at the same time my exams were my payment would be cut off. I went from studying for my exams to making candles and soap for a company that would make profit off them at markets. There would be people upstairs also packing food for homeless communities while also probably going hungry themselves. I know I was. I had to live off lettuce and salad dressing for two weeks just to get by and, as a result, ended up injuring myself. I've been left with $8 for the rest of the fortnight for food. I've had others help me, but it's just constantly being broke and having mental health stress over the next week and waiting until payday so you can be stressed all over again.' Another person: 'Most recently within the past few weeks I've had to reverse market myself to employers, having my job consultant ring me and threaten to cut off my payment and add demerit points if I didn't submit some business names and phone numbers to her. I only have one demerit point, and that was because I was so tired from my depression that I accidentally slept through the phone call and my alarm waking me to take that phone call. I worry about submitting phone numbers of employers to her because I never hear back from promising employers when I do as I believe that the job providers are doing harassing phone calls to the numbers I provide, trying to sell them a package deal of, 'You'll get X amount of money if you hire them,' as if I'm a piece of furniture or meat to be sold to them.' Another person: 'I'm nearly 61 years old and have been applying for work in between university degrees since 2012. My service provider asked me if I work on a voluntary basis for a not-for-profit association. I replied that I work voluntarily for two community groups that I have established in my community. My provider told me to register at Centrelink as a volunteer with my community groups, and then I don't need to come into their office anymore for meetings. I pointed out that this does not assist me in finding a paid job. They explained that I am probably too old to gain employment and that I can continue to live on Jobseeker until I qualify for the pension in six years time.' This is another example of age discrimination. This system is broken. It needs total reform. Road Safety 1452 13:58 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia In the couple of minutes that are available to me I want to put on the record—and it's a very sombre duty—that during the 12 months until the end of December 2020, 170 people died in crashes involving heavy trucks. This includes 104 deaths in crashes involving articulated trucks and 68 deaths involving heavy rigid trucks. I want to put to the Senate a simple proposition. There is probably no other industry in Australia, certainly none that I'm aware of, that incurs this level of death—and the injuries are not stated here today—and the level of death is through the roof. I don't know how as a government, a state government, a territory government or a council that we can put up with the fact that we're seeing 170 people die at work. That's where they're dying, at work, on the road, and we're not having an outpouring of a call for action. There have been 170 workplace deaths in the 12 months to the end of 2020. It's a disgrace. The federal parliament should move on it, as should every other parliament in Australia. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 1452 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:00 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I advise the Senate that Senator Reynolds, the Minister for Defence, will be absent from question time for the remainder of this week for personal reasons. In Senator Reynolds's absence, Senator Payne will be representing the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Minister for Defence Personnel and the Minister for Defence Industry. Senator Cash will represent the Minister for Home Affairs. 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—The opposition expresses its best wishes to Senator Reynolds for a speedy recovery. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 1453 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Members of Parliament: Staff 1453 14:00 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Yesterday the Minister for Defence claimed twice, for complete clarity, that she had met with the Australian Federal Police on two occasions, with the first meeting being on 1 April 2019 with Ms Higgins and her then chief of staff. The minister was then forced to correct the record. This is the second time this week that the Minister for Defence has been forced to correct her statements during question time. Does the Prime Minister have full confidence in the minister's account to the parliament in relation to these matters? 14:01 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Yes, the Prime Minister has full confidence in Senator Reynolds and in her work in her portfolio and in her handling of these very sensitive matters, including her work to ensure the parliament is informed in relation to these matters whilst being cognisant of the responsibilities, as Senator Reynolds has outlined, to treat carefully and with confidence information that was shared with her, to respect Ms Brittany Higgins's right to tell her story and to be mindful of consequences for any potential police investigation. The PRESIDENT 10000 Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question? 14:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory What steps has the Prime Minister taken to ensure Minister Reynolds's explanation of her conduct in response to allegations of rape in her office are accurate? 14:02 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia As the opposition, the parliament and more broadly know, there are a number of review processes underway. That includes work in relation to ascertaining the handling of events in relation to this matter. However, it is also important that that work is cognisant of any potential implications in relation to police investigations too. The PRESIDENT 10000 Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question? 14:02 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The Prime Minister has publicly rebuked Minister Reynolds for failing to tell him of allegations of rape in her office two years ago. Minister Reynolds has said it is not her story to tell. Who is correct—Minister Reynolds or the Prime Minister? 14:03 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I think Senator Reynolds has been clear in this place that, in relation to the details of what Ms Brittany Higgins shared with Senator Reynolds and her former chief of staff, they should absolutely make sure that Ms Higgins's wishes and privacy are respected during that time, and Senator Reynolds has been careful in relation to the manner in which she has shared that information. And the Prime Minister has indicated that in relation to matters of serious crimes he would expect to be informed, and I think his statements stand in that regard. COVID-19: Economy 1454 14:03 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia My question is also to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Can the minister update the Senate on how the Morrison government's economic recovery plan is helping to chart our way out of the COVID-19 pandemic? 14:04 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Smith for his question. As all Australians appreciate and as people right around the world know, in the last 12 months the world faced the largest economic shock since the Great Depression, but, pleasingly, Australia's economic recovery is working. We're seeing Australians getting back into jobs and seeing confidence building across the Australian economy. Just last week, we learnt the unemployment rate had fallen yet again across Australia from 6.6 per cent to 6.4 per cent in January. Indeed more than 59,000 full-time jobs were created across the Australian economy in January. Around 93 per cent of those jobs lost at the height of the pandemic have come back and that means hundreds of thousands of jobs have been created over the past few months. Pleasingly, the majority of those jobs have seen Australian women re-entering the workforce. We have seen the underemployment rate hit its lowest level in years. Not only are we seeing new jobs being created but the economy is showing great resilience. Today the wage price index increased by 0.6 per cent in the December quarter, beating market expectations. The outcome was driven by stronger growth in private sector wages, which increased by 0.7 per cent, the strongest quarterly outcome in private sector wages since 2014. We have seen business and consumer confidence get back to their pre-pandemic levels, resilience in the housing market and in motor vehicle sales. We've also seen resilience across the Australian economy in relation to government support programs, with more than two million people graduating off of JobSeeker in the December quarter and another half a million people graduating off of JobKeeper just last month. Fitch, the credit rating agency, has reaffirmed Australia's AAA credit rating, one of only nine countries in the world to have a AAA credit rating from the leading three credit ratings agencies. That's a testament to Australia's economic strength. There is a job to continue to do. But we are absolutely seeing significant progress. The PRESIDENT 10000 Senator Smith, supplementary question? 14:06 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Can the minister advise the Senate how the vaccine rollout will support confidence and help secure an Australian way out of the pandemic? 14:06 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Fitch, in their restatement of the credit rating, noted that the vaccine rollout should support domestic sentiment and said, 'The Australian economy has weathered the pandemic well compared with peers.' They pointed out our, 'successful virus containment and an effective fiscal and monetary response' to the pandemic. The vaccine rollout commenced this week with the rollout of the Pfizer vaccine around the country. This is a significant step in our fight against the COVID-19 pandemic and the next stages of recovery. The vaccine rollout will help to reinforce confidence across our economy. We ask every Australian to get the vaccine, which is critical to protecting them from serious illness or potentially something even worse. People in priority groups who are most at risk and who need protection the most will and are receiving the vaccine first. Under our plan some 240 aged-care facilities across the country and 16 major public hospitals, 60,000 Australians living and working in aged care and disability care will receive the vaccine first along with frontline workers— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 10000 Senator Smith, a final supplementary question? 14:07 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Can the minister outline to the Senate further measures that will underpin our continued strong economic recovery post the pandemic? 14:07 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I said earlier we have seen good news on the jobs front in January when we went through the last change in gear on JobKeeper and JobSeeker. We have always maintained that these were temporary measures designed to taper off as economic confidence recovers and momentum builds and we're seeing that recovery underway. We recognise there are some challenges ahead though, that's why we're making some permanent changes to our social security system, as announced yesterday. As at 1 April 1.95 million Australians who are currently accessing working-age payment will see a permanent $50 per fortnight increase in their rate of payment. It is the single biggest year-on-year increase to the rate of unemployment benefits since 1986 but comes at significant budgetary cost of around $9 billion. In addition, we are also permanently increasing the amount of money jobseekers can earn before they lose a cent of payment to $150 per fortnight. This is a continuation of the carefully considered, balanced approach our government has taken through the pandemic to supporting Australians and the Australian economy. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 1455 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:08 The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of the Ambassador of Thailand to Australia, Her Excellency Ms Busadee Santipitaks. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to the parliament and in particular to the Senate. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 1455 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Members of Parliament: Staff 1455 14:08 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Cash. The Australian Federal Police National Guideline on Sensitive Investigations, together with the AFP's guidelines for ministerial briefings, outline how the AFP must manage sensitive matters and keep the Minister for Home Affairs informed. The guidelines require that the AFP SES officers must brief the minister 'as soon as possible' about matters where there is anticipated media attention or political implications. Did the AFP inform the Minister for Home Affairs about Ms Higgins' alleged rape in the Minister for Defence's office as required by these guidelines? If so, when, and if not, why not? 14:09 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator Keneally for the question. I can advise as follows. I can advise the Senate that AFP Commissioner Kershaw first advised Minister Dutton of Ms Higgins's allegations on Thursday 11 February 2021. This was the first time the minister was advised of Ms Higgins's allegations. The minister received further verbal updates from Commissioner Kershaw during last week and this week. I am advised that the minister's office was not aware of Ms Higgins's allegations prior to the minister's briefing from Commissioner Kershaw on 11 February 2021. As senators would know, the handling of allegations and investigation of criminal conduct, including briefing to ministers, is a matter for the Australian Federal Police. Nevertheless, the minister has sought and received assurances from the Commissioner of the AFP that the investigation will leave no stone unturned. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Keneally, a supplementary question? 14:10 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales The AFP defines a 'sensitive investigation' as likely to impact on or be of significant interest to 'an elected member' or 'associate or staff member of an elected member'. Did the AFP declare the alleged rape of Ms Higgins in the defence minister's office a sensitive matter consistent with the guidelines and if not, why not? 14:11 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia In relation to that question, I will need to take it on notice and revert back to you. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question? 14:11 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales Ms Higgins has said that Minister Cash's chief of staff told her, 'Don't worry, we will call Dutton.' Did the Minister for Home Affairs or his staff discuss Ms Higgins's case with any other minister or ministerial staff member, including Minister Reynolds? 14:11 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, Senator Keneally, I will refer to the answer I gave you in my first question. In relation to any additional information on behalf of Minister Dutton, I will need to take that on notice and revert to you. COVID-19: Vaccination 1456 14:12 Senator McMAHON 282728 Northern Territory My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. Can the minister update the Senate on the national COVID vaccine rollout, particularly to remote and Indigenous communities? 14:12 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Thank you, Senator McMahon, for your question. This week is a historic week for all Australians. We are now into day 3 of the mass vaccine rollout across the country. We are prioritising the most vulnerable in our society to receive the vaccine first. Aged-care residents, border and quarantine and frontline health workers are being offered the vaccine this week. Among the 240 facilities and 190 towns in regional and remote centres across the country to receive the vaccines this week, vaccinations are occurring in the Northern Territory—the Territory you are so proud to represent, Senator McMahon. And I can indicate that, as of this morning, 249 residents of aged-care facilities in the Northern Territory have received a vaccination. The Royal Darwin Hospital will also be working to vaccinate frontline healthcare workers. The most vulnerable are part of phase 1a of the vaccine rollout. Phase 1b will include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people over 55, adults aged over 70, other healthcare workers, younger adults with an underlying health condition, including those with a disability, and high-risk workers, including defence, police, fire and emergency services and meat processing workers. Phase 2a includes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 15 to 54 years, adults aged 50 to 69 years and other critical high-risk workers. Phase 2b expands to the remainder of the population over the age of 16. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McMahon, a supplementary question? 14:14 Senator McMAHON 282728 Northern Territory Given that people in remote communities are extremely mobile and on any day a large proportion of the population may be away, can the minister detail how we are going to ensure that people receive their follow-up vaccination within the manufacturer's time frame? 14:14 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Thanks, Senator McMahon, for the supplementary question. The rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines into regional, rural and remote communities is a vital part of the Australian government's vaccine strategy to protect our rural and remote communities and manage the fight against the virus in the regions. Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines require two separate doses for a person to be fully immunised: Pfizer-BioNTech 21 days apart and AstraZeneca 12 weeks apart. The rural health workforce has been integral to managing the challenge of the COVID pandemic over the year and our rural health workforce is vital to the success of our vaccination rollout, and we will again be relying on them—and we know we can rely on them—to follow up individuals and deliver for our remote communities. We commend the efforts of all the doctors, nurses, midwives, pharmacists and allied health workers in our rural and remote areas and thank them for their efforts. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McMahon, a final supplementary question? 14:15 Senator McMAHON 282728 Northern Territory Can the minister inform the Senate how the vaccination rollout complements the government's commitment to the health of Indigenous Australians? 14:15 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Improving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health remains a high priority for our government and a central component of the new National Agreement on Closing the Gap. To drive progress towards our Closing the Gap commitments, we are working in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health experts to refresh the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan. The Indigenous Australians health program is investing approximately $4 million over four years to improve the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The government recognises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians may be particularly vulnerable to the impacts and restrictions put in place as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and we've provided support to develop culturally appropriate mental health and wellbeing resources to support First Australians during the COVID-19 pandemic. Banking and Financial Services 1458 14:16 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Birmingham. The buy-now pay-later industry announced, today, a voluntary code of practice. The industry has claimed that this will impose minimum standards across all providers, but the code still allows purchases up to $2,000 to be made without any checking at all if a user has any income or debts. It means $10,000 of purchases, for example, could be made without the platform understanding if it is affordable for the borrower. If a provider violates the code, the only penalty is to be named by the Finance Industry Association. Does the government believe this is adequate? 14:17 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank the senator for his question. My understanding is that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission undertook a review into this sector and determined that a code should be voluntary. I am advised that, indeed, an announcement of that was made by the sector, today, that the sector has indicated it is putting in place a code which, I understand, comes into effect from 5 October 2021 and that it's supported by regulatory powers that enable ASIC to intervene where it identifies significant consumer detriment and to ensure that products are designed to suit target consumers. I understand the code has attracted support of more than 95 per cent of the market in relation to the buy-now pay-later sector and has crucial points that any late fees must be capped, that it imposes some compulsory membership obligations in the sector, that it must follow the design and distribution obligations from the ASIC review and that providers must monitor vulnerable customers. I don't have details in relation to the precise thresholds that you have identified, but, in terms of any further safeguards applicable under the code or other measures for individuals in relation to those lower threshold of loans or purchases, I shall bring any further information back to the chamber for you. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Griff, a supplementary question? 14:19 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia Buy-now pay-later services do not require credit assessments, affordability checks, income verification or to comply with lending obligations. In comparison, so-called payday lenders are regulated and must undertake comprehensive credit assessments and comply with responsible lending obligations. Why does the government regulate one type of short-term, high-cost credit but not the other? 14:19 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I would refer the senator to the findings of the ASIC review, which I think did look carefully at the differences in relation to some of these sectors. There has obviously been a rapid period of growth in relation to buy-now pay-later arrangements and with companies such as Afterpay growing and creating a significant and popular arrangement for consumers. The ASIC report highlighted that providers are improving aspects of their business practices. They are expecting membership of the Financial Complaints Authority as part of their operations and they are making information about the complaints and hardship processes more accessible to consumers, while others are now referring consumers to financial counselling services in the event consumers are facing financial difficulty. ASIC, I know, is continuing to collect data on this industry, monitoring changes in it and will continue to do so in terms of the consideration in different sectors. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Griff, a final supplementary question? 14:21 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia Earlier this month the UK government published a review of the by-now pay-later industry and that review found the industry targets younger and less financially literate users, allowing them to access credit without checks and to hide debts from other lenders. Some users, of course, become trapped with unaffordable debts. That government chose to reclassify the services as credit providers and regulate them accordingly. When will this government do the same? 14:21 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I'm advised the UK government's review did acknowledge that buy-now pay-later arrangements can also provide clear benefits to consumers whilst they have sought to identify and address regulatory issues in the UK consumer credit obligation. What we see is that young people in particular are using less credit, particularly a reduced use of credit cards, since the growth of buy-now pay-later services, so there is some product substitution in relation to financing options occurring. As I indicated before, ASIC will continue to review these matters, particularly the implementation of the industry code as announced today. Vocational Education and Training 1459 14:22 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western 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 leading generational change in our vocational education and training system to create a world-class and uniquely Australian training system? 14:22 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator Brockman for the question. Indeed, skills and training are at the centre of the Morrison government's economic recovery plan for Australia as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. And indeed, as our Prime Minister has said, 'This will be a year of generational change in our skills and vocational education sector.' As we emerge from COVID-19, the Morrison government will invest almost $7 billion—$7 billion—to keep apprentices and trainees on the job. Not only that but it will also actually create opportunities for 100,000 new apprentices and trainees to come on into the system to help our fellow Australians who are in need of upskilling or reskilling so that they can move back into the labour market. The Morrison government is creating and transforming vocational education and training in Australia. Of course, critical to this is the work that we are doing through the national cabinet for our new skills funding agreement to not only provide more transparency but also to better link the funding that the Australian taxpayer ultimately provides to actual skills needs across Australia. This new funding agreement will build on the work that we have already done as a government in relation to ensuring we have a strong skills system. Of course, the first thing we had to do when we were elected to office was clean up the mess created by those opposite in relation to Labor's VET FEE-HELP system. The problem with Labor is their policies linger. I have to inform the Senate that, to date, in relation to Labor's disastrous VET FEE-HELP system, the taxpayer has spent over $2 billion recrediting the victims of this disastrous policy. So the Morrison government cleaned up Labor's mess, and we are ensuring we are putting skills and training at the forefront of the economic recovery. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Brockman, a supplementary question? 14:24 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Thank you, Mr President. I certainly do have a supplementary question. Can the minister advise the Senate how the JobTrainer Fund is demonstrating the capability of the Commonwealth and states to partner and provide world-class training opportunities to Australians? 14:25 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Our record investment as a government, the almost $7 billion that we are investing in skills and training across Australia, includes our $1 billion JobTrainer Fund. This is a partnership with the states and territories across Australia to provide free or low-cost training in areas of skills demand. JobTrainer is based on labour market modelling from the National Skills Commission and is providing over 300,000 training places in areas of skills demand across the economy. Senator Brockman, in our home state of Western Australia we now have over 16,000 training places available—that is, free or low-cost training places available in area of demand. That includes courses like cybersecurity, horticulture and disability support. Again, the $1 billion JobTrainer Fund is helping Australians to upskill or reskill and ensure they are equipped to get a job. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Brockman, a final supplementary question? 14:26 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Can the minister outline to the Senate how the government's use of employer incentives has kept apprentices and trainees on the job through the COVID-19 pandemic and will support a new generation of Australians to reskill and get high-quality jobs? 14:26 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia From the outset of COVID-19 the government understood that one of our first economic priorities had to be to put in place the policy so that our employers could keep their apprentices and trainees on the job, where we needed them the most. We have done that through our Supporting Apprentices and Trainees wage subsidy, which will continue until March this year. In fact, as at 11 February, the Supporting Apprentices and Trainees measure has now assisted over 62,600 businesses. As the minister for small and family business, I'm pleased to say that that includes 98 per cent of those small businesses and it has helped them retain almost 120,000 apprentices and trainees. That is 120,000 apprentices and trainees who have been kept on the job because of the economic response the Morrison government put in place. We also have our $1.2 billion Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements wage subsidy, which aims to create 100,000 new apprenticeships. (Time expired) Immigration Detention 1461 14:27 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and the Minister for Home Affairs. Minister, can you confirm that, earlier this year, there was a significant disturbance or riot at the Christmas Island detention centre that involved up to 200 canisters of tear gas being fired into the compound? What was the nature of the disturbance and were there any injuries? What steps were taken to ensure the safety of the family from Biloela who are detained nearby? Was the family, in particular the young children, impacted in any way, including psychologically? What measures has the government taken since to assess the impact on the family, in particular the children, and to ensure their wellbeing? 14:28 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator McKim for the question. I understand you are referring to an incident that occurred in February 2021 in which a male detainee was seen on the roof of a building at Villawood detention centre. I will need to take that on notice and get you some further advice. In relation to the Biloela family, we have talked through this before and I think it is one of those issues we will need to agree to disagree on. You would be aware that the judgement by the Full Court of the Federal Court was recently delivered. The department is now considering the implications of that decision, as you know. Going back to the history of the Biloela family, I would just remind the chamber that both adults arrived in Australia as illegal maritime arrivals; they paid a people smuggler and arrived in Australia illegally by boat. After arriving in Australia illegally by boat, they met and they had two children. Senator McKim, I know you are aware of these facts, but I will just ensure that we are again placing them on the record. Since 2012, the family's claim to engage Australia's protection obligations has been comprehensively assessed, as you know, and the family has consistently been found not to be owed protection. Again, to the extent that I can, I will seek further information for you in relation to the issue that you raised at the beginning of your question and ensure that you are provided with that information. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McKim, a supplementary question? 14:30 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania To assist the minister, I believe it was in about early to mid-January on Christmas Island. Minister, how much money has your government spent needlessly detaining the family from Biloela and how much have you spent on legal costs against that family to date? How can you possibly justify that expenditure? 14:30 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, Senator McKim, we're going to have to agree to disagree. You and I have done this dance before, and I don't propose to do the dance again. I need to remind the chamber that a fundamental difference between the Morrison government—those on the coalition side of politics—and, in particular, the Australian Greens and the Australian Labor Party is that we believe in sovereign borders. That is it—full stop. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McKim, on a point of order? Senator McKim JKM Mr President, my point of order is on relevance. I asked how much money the government has spent detaining the family from Biloela and in legal costs against the family. I ask that you remind the minister of the question. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McKim, that was the first part of the question. The second part was much more widely written. It was: 'how can you possibly justify?' I think, with respect, that the minister has a lot of discretion in answering such a wide question. I regard that question as quite wide. The first part was quite specific, I grant you. But, in this case, I think the minister's being relevant to the second part of the question. Senator CASH I0M And that is exactly what you did. You did mention expense, Senator McKim, so I do need to remind you that the border protection failures of those opposite, combined with those of the Australian Greens, cost the Australian taxpayer— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McKim, on a point of order? Senator McKim JKM It is, again, on relevance, Mr President. In regard to your first ruling that the second part of my question was, 'How can you possibly justify this expenditure?'—that is, the expenditure that I referred to in the first part of my supplementary question—I would put to you, respectfully, that, in fact, it's quite a tightly worded question and the minister is not being relevant to it. The PRESIDENT I0Q I do regard the first part of your question as a factual question. The second part of the question asked the minister for an explanation. Your point of order goes to the content or the validity of that explanation, and I think that's a matter for debate after question time. Senator CASH I0M As I was saying, Senator McKim, it was $17 billion; that is how I am justifying it. There was $17 billion worth of taxpayer money that had to be outlaid to protect Australians from your border protection failures. There were 50,000 people who arrived on 800 boats and 1,200 lives were lost at sea. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator CASH I0M There were 8,000 children detained while Labor was in government, and in July 2013, let's just remind people, 10,201 people were in detention— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q There was too much noise approaching the end of that answer. Even I was having trouble hearing the minister. 14:33 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania As a final supplementary, I ask the minister to clarify: was she actually saying that she has spent $17 billion imprisoning and in illegal action against the Biloela family? Could you first address that, Minister? Second, why are you ignoring the hundreds of thousands of Australians who've called for this innocent family's release? How much more money will you spend trying to deport them and in needlessly detaining them? Why will you not do the right thing and return them to Biloela, where they are loved and supported? 14:33 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Senator McKim, I'm just going to have to completely reject the premise of your question. In answer to your question, let me just remind you that on this side of the chamber, the Morrison government's side of the chamber, we believe in sovereign borders. We will determine who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come. When you refer to the Biloela family, I need to remind you that the principle is this: both adults arrived in Australia— Senator Keneally interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Keneally! Senator CASH I0M as illegal arrivals, meaning that they paid a people smuggler and they arrived in Australia illegally by boat. Senator Keneally interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Keneally! Senator CASH I0M Senator McKim, you may think that is okay. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McKim, on a point of order? Senator McKim JKM In fact, the entirety of that family did not arrive in Australia— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McKim, what is your point of order? Senator McKim JKM The minister's misleading the Senate. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McKim, the content of answers is debated after question time. Can I ask senators for a little bit less disorder, please. Senator Cash. Senator CASH I0M The fundamental difference, colleagues, is this: the Greens wanted to give the keys to our borders back to the people smugglers, and we say no. We say no. We've taken back control of our borders— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Thorpe, on a point of order? Senator Thorpe 280304 My point of order is in relation to misleading the chamber in talking about sovereign borders. As a sovereign woman, sovereignty belongs to us, and that family is— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Thorpe, please resume your seat. Points of order must be about the standing orders. I'm not going to allow points of order to debate the content of answers, and I will take that very strictly. Senator Cash to continue. Senator CASH I0M The Morrison government, the coalition government, has taken back control of our borders from the people smugglers— (Time expired) Aviation 1463 14:36 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development; it's a trifecta for Senator Cash. Regional Express Airlines, which was the recipient of a multimillion dollar support package from the Australian taxpayer throughout the COVID crisis, this week announced that it will axe five key routes across the country, including the Adelaide to Kangaroo Island route in my home state of South Australia. This comes a week before they launch their first Sydney to Melbourne flights. Has the federal government engaged Rex Airlines about these axed routes, including Adelaide to Kangaroo Island? Is the government considering extending its Regional Airlines Funding Assistance Program, which these routes are being subsidised with? 14:36 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator Patrick for the question. I can advise as follows: the government is in daily discussions with airlines to understand the needs of the sector and to ensure our programs are supporting the communities that they fly to. You'd understand, though, that decisions on network configurations and scheduling are ultimately a commercial matter for the airlines themselves. This includes, as you've referred to in your question, Rex's decision to cease the Adelaide to Kangaroo Island route. The regional aviation network support does not compel airlines to fly to particular routes. However, we continue to monitor the need for future support, whether it be through aviation measures or broader economic measures. You'd be aware that Rex is one of 15 operators receiving funding to ensure critical aviation services, particularly in regional and remote Australia, through the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact on the aviation sector, to ensure essential workers can travel domestically, to support health transport services, and to distribute critical goods and equipment. The regional aviation network support, as you'd be aware, currently runs until March. I am advised that, obviously as a government, we'll continue to monitor the situation and continue further support if necessary. Qantas themselves, in a media release, have stated: We'll be reviewing our network and consider whether we can offer services on any of the routes that Rex is threatening to pull out of. I think you know, from the government's perspective, we've always been of the opinion that Australia's aviation industry does have a bright future ahead. I'm confident that we will rebuild throughout 2021 and beyond. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Patrick, a supplementary question? 14:38 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Have the government engaged South Australia's tourism minister, Premier Steven Marshall, about the impact that this axing will have on tourism in Kangaroo Island, which is still recovering from the horrific bushfires last year and a loss of tourism dollars from COVID-19 shutdowns and border restrictions? If not, will they at some stage in the future? 14:39 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, I refer to my answer to your first question. The government is in daily discussions with airlines to understand the needs of the sector and to ensure our programs are supporting the communities they fly to. The government also expects all state and territory governments to engage with airlines to ensure the required support for their local communities and regions is considered, particularly with interstate and intrastate routes. Airlines, as you know, are receiving government assistance under different government programs based on their specific circumstances, and, as stated in my previous answer— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Patrick, on a point of order? Senator Patrick 144292 On relevance, Mr President: I was keenly interested in the engagement that might have taken place between the government and the South Australian tourism minister, Premier Marshall. The PRESIDENT I0Q You've reminded the minister of the question. She has 18 seconds remaining to answer. I shall listen carefully. Senator CASH I0M In relation to those discussions, I will take that on notice, but the government, as I've said, is in daily discussions with the airlines, and our expectation, obviously, is that state and territory governments are also engaging with airlines to ensure that the required support for their local communities and regions is considered. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Cash. Senator Patrick, a final supplementary question? 14:40 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia What is the government's plan to ensure that the aviation sector remains safe, available and affordable to regional areas in Australia, and particularly those reliant on tourism, such as Kangaroo Island? 14:41 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I can advise that in June 2020 the government directed the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, to monitor the prices, costs and profits of Australia's domestic airline industry and provide quarterly reports to inform government policy. The ACCC continues to monitor airline activity and has published two quarterly reports on airline competition in Australia, in September and December 2020. The programs that the government itself has put in place have been targeted specifically to the needs of Australian communities and developed, as you know, in close consultation with the sector. The focus of the Australian government's efforts has been to keep essential services running, and this has enabled funding to flow through to the aviation sector, ensuring that the maximum number of jobs can be supported. Unfortunately I don't have time, but I could take you through the five-year plan we have for aviation. But that will wait for another day. Defence Procurement 1465 14:42 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. In an article entitled 'PM intervenes in submarine debacle', The Australian Financial Review has reported: Two senior naval officers have been tasked by Prime Minister Scott Morrison to examine options for Australia's submarine fleet, amid ongoing tensions with the French over the $90 billion future submarine program. Can the minister confirm that the Prime Minister is so concerned over the bungling of the Future Subs program by the Minister for Defence that he was left with no choice but to intervene? 14:42 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia No, I cannot confirm that, because I certainly do not accept some of the statements made in the senator's question. This government has taken strong action to ensure that our defence forces will have the capability they require for the future—in particular, the naval capability they will require for the future. In seeking to deliver that naval capability, including future submarines, this government has also committed very significantly to ensure we build sovereign defence industry capability in this country as well. The actions that we have taken stand in stark contrast to the inaction of those asking the questions in this regard. As a government, we have taken serious action to make sure that we commission the building of new defence infrastructure, new defence assets, new naval assets in this country, including future frigates and future submarines. We've done so in contrast to those opposite, who commissioned not one new Australian-built naval vessel. Our commitment is to make sure that these projects are delivered—delivered according to the time lines that have been announced, delivered according to the commitments around Australian industry capability. And our focus will be on ensuring, in that delivery, that we secure the value for money— Senator Wong 00AOU Which you still haven't delivered on. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X I hear Senator Wong say, 'That you still haven't delivered on,' as though somehow they were going to be built yesterday. Well, they would have been built a lot sooner if those opposite had actually commissioned any of them, if they'd actually made any types of decisions in that regard. We have made the decisions to do them. We have made the decisions to build these things, Senator Wong. We have made the decisions that you failed to make. We have made sure that we have made those decisions. We have signed those contracts. There is indeed, on the future frigates, steel being cut, work happening, work underway. Under your lot, you couldn't even make the decision to do it in the first place. We have the work commencing. Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Wong. Senator Gallacher is on his feet and he has the call. 14:45 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia When did the Prime Minister make the decision to intervene and call in two senior Navy officers to examine the whole program? 14:45 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The Prime Minister stays very close in terms of monitoring the progress on delivering against these critical national defence infrastructure capabilities. He works to make sure— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU Direct relevance: the minister may have spent most of his first answer talking about what happened almost a decade ago, but this is a very, very specific question about when the Prime Minister made a decision to intervene. I'd ask you to draw this minister to the question. The PRESIDENT I0Q I've been listening to the minister for 11 seconds. I thought he was talking about the Prime Minister, so I'm going to actually— Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, 11 seconds in, I haven't heard enough to determine that where he is going is not going to be directly relevant. I have allowed you to remind the minister of the question, and I shall listen to the answer. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X As I was saying, the Prime Minister and Minister Reynolds and every member of the cabinet are very focused on ensuring these projects are delivered to meet the naval requirements for the future. I don't accept all of the imputations in Senator Gallacher's primary question or indeed the fact that I'm going— Senator Keneally interjecting— Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X 'There's a report in the Financial Review,' I hear from Senator Keneally. Of course! We'll just run off media reports, shall we? No, what our government is focused on doing— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Birmingham. Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU A point of order on direct relevance: when did the Prime Minister make the decision to intervene and call in the two senior Navy officers to examine the whole program? That is the only question we have asked. I ask this minister to demonstrate some accountability to the parliament and some observation of the standing orders and to be directly relevant. The PRESIDENT I0Q The minister was referring to the quotation in the substantive question, which was related to this, I believe. Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q I cannot instruct the minister how to answer the question. At that point he directly said he did not agree with some of the imputations that this question was drawn from, I believe, which were in the quotation in the substantive question. So, as long as the minister is narrowly construed to that, I can't instruct him on the content of the answer. Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q I am happy to take some advice, Senator Wong, after this and, if I am incorrect, I will happily report so to the chamber. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X I'm sorry to break it to Senator Wong, Senator Gallacher or those opposite, but the Prime Minister and Minister Reynolds rely on a lot more than two senior Defence officers in relation to the delivery of these critical pieces of defence infrastructure. We are working hand in glove with Defence and with companies to get the assets our Navy needs. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Gallacher, a final supplementary question? 14:48 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia When did the Minister for Defence first become aware that the Prime Minister was forced to intervene to fix this debacle? When? 14:48 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I completely reject that question and the underlying premise behind it, because the Prime Minister and Minister Reynolds are consistently engaged in working together in relation to the delivery of these projects, along with the members of the National Security Committee of the cabinet and along with the relevant defence department officials and agencies. That's what's happening. This is a government that works as a cabinet government—a Prime Minister and his ministers working together to make sure that we achieve the outcomes our government has set. The outcome our government is set to achieve is to deliver the naval infrastructure and capabilities that we need for the future, to deliver the frigates, the submarines, the offshore patrol vessels, the investment in other technology and capability that our defence department requires—$90 billion worth of commitments that we have made compared to the big fat zero that we inherited when we came to office. COVID-19: Energy 1468 14:49 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, Senator Zed Seselja. Can the minister advise the Senate on the importance of gas in Australia's COVID-19 recovery, especially in rural and regional Australia? 14:49 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory I thank my friend and colleague Senator Canavan for the question. A gas-fired recovery is a key part of the government's JobMaker plan and it is central to a strong Australia as we recover from the coronavirus pandemic. Australia's competitive advantage has always been based on cheap energy, and gas will be central to our ongoing economic recovery. We want to see Australian gas working for all Australians, especially in our regions, and we're taking action to deliver more Australian gas to where it is needed at the right price. This will be delivered through a comprehensive plan of 13 measures that will establish an open competitive hub model, like the Henry Hub in the United States. The three key action areas are unlocking supply, efficient transportation and empowering consumers. We're progressing a range of regulatory reforms and assessing what critical national gas infrastructure is needed to create a competitive gas market that will drive down prices. We're investing $220 million to support development in the Beetaloo Basin. We've ensured that major gas exporters offer more gas on the domestic— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Canavan, this is not helping. We're wasting question time. Senator Keneally, you've been particularly voluble this question time. I ask you to restrain yourself for the last 10 minutes. Senator Seselja to continue. Senator Sterle interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Sterle, count to 10, silently. Senator SESELJA HZE We've ensured that major gas exporters offer more gas on the domestic market more often and on more competitive terms, meaning lower prices. We're developing an industry code of conduct to address pricing principles, and all of our collective efforts are delivering results. Even before COVID-19, we saw reductions in the domestic spot price across eastern Australia, and these prices have continued to fall. Wholesale gas prices on the east coast during 2020 were around 40 per cent lower than prices in 2019, and these prices remain low. Lower gas prices are also driving down wholesale electricity prices. Those opposite can't even work out if they support gas. But, thankfully for Australian households and businesses, we are consistent on the issue. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Canavan, a supplementary question? 14:52 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Can the minister outline how Australia's manufacturing sector will benefit from a gas-fired recovery? 14:52 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory I thank the senator. Gas is a critical enabler of Australia's economy. It supports our manufacturing sector, which employs over 850,000 Australians, and is an essential input in the production of a range of items such as plastic for PPE and fertiliser for food production. Ensuring a reliable, stable and affordable supply of gas to power Australian jobs and industries is one of the highest priorities of this Liberal and National government. Those opposite don't have a plan to secure the dispatchable capacity that the manufacturing industry will rely on into the future. We know, Senator McAllister, what your plans are, because Labor's real plan is always higher taxes—more and higher taxes. We saw it at the last election with their $387 billion plan for more taxes. They've only got one plan. The Liberals and Nationals can deliver the secure, reliable and affordable energy that will underpin our economic recovery, create new jobs and grow our manufacturing sector. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Canavan, a final supplementary question? 14:53 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Can the minister also outline to the Senate how gas can help bring down energy prices for everyday Australians and any risks to delivering increased gas supply and lower energy prices? Senator Watt interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Watt, we cannot slip to the point where I can't hear the question. Senator Watt interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Remember my rule, Senator Watt: count to at least 10 after your name is called, silently. 14:54 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Canavan for the question, and I thank Senator Watt for the interjection, because he's forgotten what he stands for. I'm asked whether there are risks. There are a number of risks: the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow minister for energy and, of course, the shadow minister for Queensland resources. He is a risk. You talk about forgetting what you stand for. You can imagine going back to activist Murray Watt—how he would be shaking his head now—back when he was handing out free joints at university. He would be shaking his head that he now has to pretend to support the Queensland resources industry. Does he actually support it or does he just have to pretend? It reminds me of George Costanza having to pretend to be an architect—at least his heart was in it, Murray! We support the gas industry whether the Labor Party does or not. Government senators interjecting — The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, on my right! We're not going to get into desk banging. COVID-19: Vaccination 1469 14:55 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland That's a very lame act to follow. My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! I'll allow Senator Chisholm to start again, because I can't hear him. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. I refer to disturbing reports today that two elderly Queensland aged-care residents, aged 94 and 88, have been given four times the recommended dose of the COVID-19 vaccine by a doctor contracted through the federal government, with one of those residents being hospitalised as a result. How has this mistake been allowed to occur? 14:56 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I thank the senator for the question; it's a very important question. Can I say at the outset that I think I might have said an incorrect number in my previous answer. I said four million instead of four billion, so I would like to correct the record on that, to start with. The circumstance that occurred in Queensland yesterday should not have happened. It should not have happened. The government is just as concerned as anybody else in this chamber with respect to the circumstance that occurred in Queensland yesterday. What occurred, on my advice, is there was a clinical incident at a scheduled vaccination clinic, at the Holy Spirit Home at Carseldine in Queensland, where the vaccination provider dispensed more than the prescribed dose of the Pfizer vaccine to two residents. My understanding is that they are both currently in hospital, but, fortunately, they are both well at this stage. They are both okay, which is quite important for us all to understand. Both families have been advised of the incident, and the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Professor Michael Kidd, has been commissioned to conduct a thorough investigation of the circumstances of this event. Once the circumstances are understood, the VOC will work with the provider to implement the appropriate safeguards to prevent these events occurring again. The doses were both administered by a GP working on behalf of Healthcare Australia, who, obviously, are the contractor for providing the service in Queensland. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Chisholm, a supplementary question? 14:58 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland On 16 February 2021, in a joint press release with the minister for health, Minister Colbeck is quoted as saying: … the Australian Government would be responsible for leading the implementation of the COVID-19 vaccination program in the aged care sector. Does this minister accept responsibility on behalf of the Morrison government for this mistake? 14:58 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania The senator is correct in the fact that we have contracted as a federal government two companies to undertake the vaccination rollout in aged-care facilities across the country, and this is a very important rollout process, as I have indicated on a number of occasions over the last two weeks. The fact that we have now commenced the vaccination rollout in aged-care facilities to protect senior Australians is one of the most important things that we will do as a part of the COVID-19 recovery process. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU On direct relevance—the minister has been asked whether or not he accepts responsibility on behalf of the government for this mistake, and I'd ask you to remind him of the question. The PRESIDENT I0Q My view—and I will take advice from the Clerk on this—is if the minister is keeping his comments to a narrow construction of the question and the question referred to the Commonwealth responsibility or the Australian responsibility for the rollout of the aged-care program, I cannot go to the content of his answer. He is not free to talk about anything else, but I think that is directly relevant. As I said earlier, I will take some advice from the Clerk about this, but I believe I am being asked to direct him on content. Senator COLBECK 00AOL Thank you, Mr President. The government is being quite open and upfront about this whole process. In fact, the health minister came out this morning and conducted a press conference with the Chief Medical Officer to inform people of the circumstances. We have been working with the Queensland Chief Health Officer in relation to it and we are doing everything we possibly can to ensure the integrity of the rollout program, because we do take responsibility for it across the nation to ensure senior Australians are protected from COVID-19. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Chisholm, a final supplementary question? 15:00 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Lincoln Hopper, CEO of St Vincent's Care Services, has said that the mistake has 'caused us to question whether some of the clinicians given the job of administering the vaccine have received the appropriate training'. Why has the government neglected to ensure proper training in the rollout of the vaccine? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! We will get to this last answer when there is some modicum of order across the chamber. Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Canavan, Senator Ayres, Senator McKenzie and Senator Rennick. I call Senator Colbeck to answer the question. 15:01 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania This is an important question. I acknowledge this is a very important question. The vaccines were administered by a trained general practitioner—a doctor. The doctor has been stood down pending an investigation by the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, as I've indicated before. A full investigation is being undertaken by the Deputy Chief Medical Officer in conjunction with the Queensland Chief Health Officer and the local PHN. We appreciate the cooperation of the Queensland Chief Health Officer, Dr Jeannette Young, as a part of this process. Our determination is to ensure that this rollout occurs effectively, appropriately and safely for all Australians, particularly those in aged care. There is a training program that was in place for those who were rolling out the program— (Time expired) Senator Birmingham H6X Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on notice. DOCUMENTS 1471 DOCUMENTS Economics References Committee 1471 Order for the Production of Documents 1471 15:02 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I table for the Senate further information in relation to Senate order for the production of documents No. 786 outlining the information provided to the Senate Economics References Committee on 7 and 8 December 2020. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 1472 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Question No. 2391 1472 15:02 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer for an explanation as to why an answer has not been provided to question on notice No. 2391. The question relates to 12 recommendations made in the Callaghan report into the petroleum resource rent tax and implementation details. 15:03 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Unfortunately, I'm not aware that I had prior advice; I apologise if my office did. I've not had an opportunity, certainly, to ascertain the status of that answer. I shall check that with the Treasurer's office and revert to it at the earliest opportunity. 15:03 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That there be laid on the table by no later than 4 pm on 15 March 2021 the answer to question on notice No. 2391. On 13 April 2017, Michael Callaghan handed the final report of the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax, PRRT, Review to the government. Like many others, I want to know how many of the recommendations have been implemented. On 7 December 2020, I asked the Treasurer to provide details of the legislative implementation of the 12 recommendations made by Callaghan nearly four years ago. I have had no reply to my written question on notice No. 2391. The government can be likened to a meandering river which seeks the easiest path as it makes its way to the sea. We see that in the management of Australia's offshore oil and gas resources. The vast reserves of oil and gas under the seabed off the coast of Western Australia have been sold too cheaply to foreign owned oil and gas companies, and now the investor-state dispute settlement, ISDS, provisions in free trade agreements make it costly to right policy which is against the interest of Australians. The government is willing to protect the financial interests of private media companies, like Google and Facebook, in respect of foreign owned goods by introducing a media code but the government will not stand up for Australians so we get fair payment for oil and gas from Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, BP or ConocoPhillips. Why? In 2019-20, these foreign owned oil and gas multinationals controlled most of the offshore oil and gas leases. They exported $48 billion worth of liquefied natural gas to Japan, China, South Korea and other Asian countries. As owners of the gas, we received a payment of about $200 million in 2019-20—that is, one twenty-fifth of one per cent of the $48 billion in sales. The other 99.996 per cent of the $48 billion went to the companies to cover costs and generate profits. None of that 99.996 per cent was paid as income tax, because these transnational companies have $350 billion of tax credits courtesy of the PRRT law that was introduced by Labor in 1987. One twenty-fifth of one per cent in every dollar of gas export sales represents the lowest gas payment in the world to owners. Why doesn't the government want to get a better deal for Australia? Australia is the only large producer of gas in the world that has a domestic price for gas that is higher than the export parity price. This is the finding of the ACCC. What is the government doing? It is encouraging expensive-to-extract onshore gas as if it were an alternative to cheap-to-extract offshore gas and oil. How can we have globally competitive electricity and manufacturing in Australia when our competitors have cheaper gas than we do? The government's gas-led strategy will be fiction until the government reforms the gas laws. The government has had years to put Australia in a competitive position but has so far refused to do so. The next election is the government's to lose, but that will not stop me advocating for the best interests of Australians everywhere. The best interests of Australia will be served by the government acting to introduce a domestic gas reserve policy for Australia's offshore waters so that 15 per cent of all gas comes into Australia; changing the PRRT laws so we get fair payment for our oil and gas; removing multinational oil and gas companies from the company tax system and putting them in a transaction based tax system; and investing in re-gassing terminals in the eastern states to bring offshore cheap gas from the west or building a gas pipeline from west to east. One Nation is the party of energy security in this country. I have raised the matter of the gas we're losing overseas many times on the floor of this parliament. The government—not only this government but the previous government as well as Labor—have only spoken about sovereignty. They've only worried about sovereignty. As I pointed out, the leases off the west coast of Australia are for 30 years. I've taken the idea of 'use it or lose it' to the government, which they have never done. They let these multinationals sit on these leases and do nothing about them. They don't have to work them; they are waiting until they use up all the supplies around the world. We silly buggers here are letting them have their leases until they run out of gas in other parts of the world, and then they will tap into ours. We do not get it. Western Australia are the only ones who do. If it comes into their state they will actually get 15 per cent for domestic gas supply. But companies are building large pipelines of over 900 kilometres to be put into the Northern Territory so they don't have to give 15 per cent of domestic gas supply to Australia. Yet we are charging Australians more for the gas in this country than what companies are being charged to export it out of here. If you think it is good enough to receive $200 million in tax on $48 billion worth of gas exports in this country, you shouldn't be in government. You shouldn't be working for the people of this nation, because you've done rotten deals over the years. You've sold out the Australian people. Look at what Norway have done. They've made a lot of money out of their resources, and the people in that country are quite rich. We're living on the bones of our backside here because governments are giving away our gas to other countries to use. That's why we've lost manufacturing and other industries in this country, because of the cost of energy. You're quite prepared to make it a cost, and you sustain these with renewable energies, but you don't allow Australians to use our own gas at a cheap price so we can actually drive industry and manufacturing. That's why a lot of them have closed. We're losing jobs in Australia because you allowed cheap imports to come into Australia and destroy our industries and manufacturing. They can't afford the costs of running their businesses and they can't afford the cost of energy, and they won't until you get your act together and rein this in. Three hundred and fifty billion dollars in tax credits—$350 billion! That is why Chevron will never pay tax in this country until you look at it on a turnover basis. I spoke to former Minister for Resources and Northern Australia Canavan about it. He allowed a platform to go in off Western Australia. All they had to do was hook it to the bottom and that was that; they could take whatever they wanted. There's no accountability whatsoever. I am absolutely disgusted with this government, so I'd like to have this report. I want to know what's happened with those 12 recommendations from the Callaghan report of four years ago, and the people of Australia have a right to know. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Senator Hanson, could you just clarify for the Senate the date you require for the OPD? Senator HANSON BK6 It is 4 pm on 15 March. 15:11 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I rise to take note of the answer as well. This is becoming a regular feature of this part of the day, and the problem we're encountering is that the government is allergic to scrutiny. The government is not answering questions on time and the government is not returning to OPDs in the fashion in which it should. This is quite important. I said in my first speech that I thought the Senate did the job of legislating pretty well. Bills are brought into the Senate, we deal with them through the committee stages, we come into the chamber at second reading and make our explanations as to what we think about the legislation and we then debate it in committee. And, you know, we often amend legislation and make it better; sometimes we even reject it. This week Senator Sterle referred something to a committee halfway through the committee stage because the Senate got to a point in its deliberations where there was a need to examine the legislation further. We do that very, very well. What we don't do well, in my view, is the scrutiny role, which is the much more important role and, of course, the role for which these questions on notice and OPDs are necessary. I will read again the words, quoted in Odgers, of US President Woodrow Wilson in describing the informing role of the Congress: It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served … John Stuart Mill also contributed in this area, and it was quoted in the High Court case of Egan v Willis. He summarised our task as follows: 'to watch and control the government; to throw the light of publicity on its acts'. Applied to the Senate, these principles make it clear our role is not just to review and pass legislation. Indeed, as President Wilson said, 'The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function.' That's particularly important in this place. In the House of Representatives, the other place, the government has a majority, so the scrutiny function of the House is impotent because of the numbers. I've had members from the other place say to me, 'Why isn't it that the House can do OPDs?' The answer to that question is: well, of course it can. It enjoys the same powers as the Senate, by way of section 49 of our Constitution. Going back through the history of the House of Commons Erskine May is the equivalent. The House of Commons equivalent of Odgers is Erskine May. It's a great read. Senators should have a read of some of the things that happened there in order to get scrutiny happening. One of the things that I said in my opening speech was—and I will read from it again: Questions on notice tabled in this chamber are often not returned within the 30 days required by the standing orders. The same is true for estimates, where answers to questions are often returned to committees at the eleventh hour. This is disrespectful of the Senate, and more so of the citizens for whom the questions are asked, and should not be permitted… I also said: All too often, orders for the production of documents have been met with contempt. An order for the production gets made. The government advances an argument for public interest immunity, however tenuous that argument might be. Invariably the Senate does not accept the public interest immunity claim and the government insists on its refusal to provide the document, and then the Senate does nothing except weaken itself. Senator Hanson has risen and, rightfully, asserted her right as a senator to seek an explanation as to why the government is ignoring the scrutiny requests of the Senate. It's extremely important—extremely important—that there is respect from the executive in relation to the Senate and particularly in relation to the Senate's oversight role. Again, this stems from section 49 of the Constitution. We saw yesterday, in a debate relating to another OPD that had not been returned, that the government was relying on confidentiality in a contract, as though someone in the Department of Defence can make a contract, sign it and say it's confidential and that somehow overrides the laws of this country. Of course that is a nonsense. It can't. I note yesterday when Senator Birmingham stood and made explanation, or part explanation, in relation to documents that haven't been provided to the economics committee—and I do acknowledge further information has been tabled today and I thank the minister for that—that the documents were too commercially sensitive for the economics committee. What a load of rubbish! I've seen some of these documents. Again, the committee is not asking for these documents to be made public. But they are not in any way sensitive. In fact, they have markings as such that they do not seek to protect themselves from anything other than saying 'commercial in confidence'. The commercial and trade secrets of a defence company are very similar, often, to other jurisdictions in that they can cause commercial harm. Yet the minister makes a claim that somehow these commercial documents are so sensitive that the chamber can't see them. Senator Gallacher rose and talked about his experience on the public works committee where they look at this sort of stuff all the time. To the government: you have to get your act together. You have to start answering questions on time. Information has temporal value. We're getting an answer a year late or getting a response to an OPD a year late or, in fact, as we know, getting responses to Senate reports late. I know that the President makes a report every so often about how many responses to committee reports are overdue. Maybe I'll have to start looking through the standing orders to look at what can be done in relation to that. The Senate does a whole lot of work in relation to committees. They consume the time of senators and the time of all of those people who make an effort to contribute to those committees and who often travel long distances. We have the secretariat working really hard behind the scenes to write a good report that goes to government, and then the government ignores it. Senator Hanson rising to her feet seeking an explanation is quite valid, and the government really does have to pick up its act in this regard. I said yesterday, and I'll say it again today: it appears that scrutiny to the Prime Minister is as kryptonite is to Superman: it makes him go weak at the knees. We can see that in the Auditor-General having his audits cut from 48 audits down to 36. That's not acceptable. Does the government not understand the bang for buck you get by having an empowered Auditor watching over departments of government and making sure that everyone in government thinks: 'You know what? There's a chance we might get audited, and therefore we will make sure we absolutely do the right thing'? Yet there are arguments about whether there should be 36 or 48 audits. But the reality is it should be 75 to 80 audits. It should be expanded. We should have a much bigger remit for the Auditor-General in terms of oversight, because one of the things we're running into regularly is a nonresponse: a nonresponse to questions, a nonresponse to OPDs, a nonresponse to committee reports. It is not good enough. I say to the Leader of the Government in the Senate: if I have to stand up every day and point out the fact that you are not taking the Senate seriously in respect of its scrutiny role, then I will. If you want to use up all your legislation time having us debate things like this, then so be it. You need to understand the importance of it. Get your staff to start looking around for what has not been responded to and what has. And stop advancing public interest immunity claims on OPDs that should not be advanced. I say that with authority, having requested a number of OPDs that have not been responded to by government, or were responded to with a PII, and which I've then got under FOI. Time and time again this has occurred, including for a future frigate tender, which was the subject of an OPD that was not returned on the basis of confidentiality or national security. Under FOI, I got the lot. I requested an OPD for a macroeconomic report into future submarines, which was claimed to be cabinet-in-confidence. I now have it because I got it under FOI. The government has to start taking seriously the role of the Senate in terms of scrutiny. It's no longer going to be the case that we just let things slip by. I'll be going back to my office, I'll be looking for every answer that's late and tomorrow I'll be seeking explanations, so you are warned. I've done my duty as recommended by the Clerk in making sure that we behave in a responsible manner. I'm giving you the warning. I will look at the list of questions on notice and I will see which ones have not been answered. I'll be here seeking explanations for all of them and, if it takes me all of tomorrow, then so be it. I'll have a look at some of the OPDs and I will be seeking advice from the Clerk in relation to all of those Senate committee reports that simply have not been responded to. 'That annoying, pesky Senate keeping the executive occupied because of its scrutiny role'—that's kind of what the feeling is. Well, it's got to change. It's got to change, Minister, otherwise we're going to have interruptions like this all the time. 15:25 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia As I indicated when Senator Hanson posed her question, I had not had forewarning in relation to the particular question and so did not have information to hand at the time. In that regard, could I at least invite consideration of any past rulings in relation to the convention of notification and its intersection, within standing order 74(5), of the definition of what is an appropriate explanation, which triggers opportunities under 74(5)(b) versus 74(5)(c), where, if no explanation is provided, a motion such as that moved by Senator Hanson can be undertaken. I believe that I did provide an explanation, albeit that, due to the absence of forewarning, I was unable to give detail to that explanation at the time. It may be useful in future to have clarity in relation to that and whether there have been any previous rulings on those matters. Nonetheless, I can table for the Senate the answer from the Treasurer to the Senate question, PQ20000128, in relation to the 12 recommendations made in the Callaghan report into the petroleum resource rent tax. In tabling that, it would render the motion moved by Senator Hanson unnecessary. However, the government won't oppose it if it's simpler for the Senate to still proceed with the motion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 I understand that the motion moved by Senator Hanson is consistent with previous practice, although I note your comments about not being given notice of the impending notice, which is a customary thing that we do. So that's in the Hansard. The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Hanson for the production of documents by 4pm on 15 March be agreed to. Question agreed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 1477 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS COVID-19: Vaccination 1477 15:27 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania As the Minister for Health and Aged Care has just advised the other place, we have some further advice from the DCMO which relates to my answer to the last question in question time regarding the status of the training of the doctor involved. We had a statement from the Vaccine Operations Centre that Healthcare Australia had confirmed the doctor had undertaken the training. We had some other advice from the DCMO: 'HCA has advised that the doctor and all the health professionals involved in the immunisation rollout have had their AHPRA, Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, registration checked as part of employment, and that all health professionals involved have completed the online training provided through the Australian College of Nursing. The company has advised that it has copies of the successful certificate of completion of the course for each health professional involved in the vaccine rollout.' The revised advice that we've just received is that, on further investigation, HCA has now advised that the doctor had not completed the required training. This is being investigated by HCA, and we are expecting a report later today. HCA has advised that all other HCA immunisers have completed the training. HCA has also advised that this doctor has not been involved in the vaccination rollout in any other facilities. We provide this information because we feel it's important to be upfront with the Australian people. There is, in fact, an investigation being undertaken into this matter by the DCMO, Michael Kidd. 15:29 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move: That the Senate take note of the minister's answer. I acknowledge the update from Minister Hunt and Minister Colbeck in this chamber following question time. It is extremely concerning that we had inaccurate information provided publicly in media conferences earlier today, and to both houses of this parliament, about the early stages of the vaccine rollout to extremely vulnerable Australians in residential aged care. It seems that the government may have taken the word of providers without doing its own checks, which is worrying. The minister alluded to AHPRA. If there is a question about whether there were restrictions on this doctor, we would welcome that information to come back to this chamber. What sorts of checks have the government done when they've outsourced this? This is the Commonwealth taking responsibility for an area that they don't usually operate in—running immunisation programs. The states and territories are well across how they do it. You've taken responsibility for aged care. You're putting in place a vaccination program, and, on almost the first day, we have two residents of residential aged care in hospital because their vaccination was botched by a doctor that hasn't been trained. I don't think this sends a message of assurance to residents of aged care or indeed the broader Australian community about the vaccine. We need confidence in this vaccine rollout. We need people to believe that it's done safely by trained professionals who have had all the ticks in their boxes and that the government has checked all this. It seems, from what we're learning now, that that is not the case. You were taking the word of private providers who no doubt have got very large, fat contracts from this government, from the taxpayer, to deliver this service, which should be delivered safely. The residents of aged care should have confidence that this government has their back on this. You might be trying to portray it as misinformation from a provider, but it goes to the heart of the safety and the quality of this vaccine rollout. Any further information needs to be brought back to this chamber at the earliest opportunity, and the government needs to work out how it's going to ensure that there is confidence in this process and in the information that you've been provided. The minister was out reasonably early this morning with this information, so it has sat out there all day that this doctor was trained and that there was nothing really to worry about. These updates are extremely concerning. The government needs to put in place better checks. I have no doubt there will be more questions from the opposition on this. Question agreed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 1478 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Members of Parliament: Staff 1478 15:33 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Birmingham) and the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business (Senator Cash) to questions without notice asked by Senators Gallagher and Keneally today. I rise to take note of these answers more in sorrow than in anger. This has been a harrowing week for members of parliament, for parliamentary staff, for ministerial staff, for female journalists, for women across Australia. The idea that, in this day and age, in this building, an alleged rape can occur in the Minister for Defence's office, on the Minister for Defence's couch—this is meant to be a safe building. This is meant to be a safe workplace. Every workplace should be a safe workplace. But we're the Parliament of Australia. We should set a higher standard. There have been points in the last 10 days where I have not been able to believe that I or any other member has been saying the words that we've been saying—an alleged rape of a young woman, a ministerial staffer, by another ministerial staffer on the couch of the defence minister's office. What compounds this situation, this horror for Ms Higgins, the victim of this alleged rape, and for every other woman who has had an experience like this or supported a friend or relative in the aftermath of an experience like this—because, let's be blunt, these kinds of experiences are all too common—what compounds the trauma of having to relive it or be triggered by this story being told over and over is to feel that you are not supported. Ms Higgins, in her own words, felt pressured to choose between seeking justice from the police or keeping her job. When we turn to how this matter has been handled since Ms Higgins so bravely stood up and told her story to the nation because she could find no other way to get healing and justice, what has been so extraordinary is that the Minister for Defence—and I wish her all the best in her current medical situation and in her recovery—in the last 10 days has misled this chamber on multiple occasions. She has said things about Ms Higgins that are not true. Ms Higgins has been forced to come back and go on the record to put forward her version of events. When we look at the conduct of ministerial officers and ministerial staff, we now have evidence that three, and possibly four, members of the Prime Minister's staff knew about this some two years ago. We have a Prime Minister who says his staff didn't now about it until last week. We have a Prime Minister who seems to be the one person in this building who had no idea about an alleged rape in the office of his Minister for Defence. Today we found out that the Minister for Home Affairs, Peter Dutton, knew. We know that Minister Cash knew. We know, though we don't know exactly when, Minister Reynolds knew. My heart goes out to Ms Higgins. Let me be clear: our pursuit of this matter is not just on behalf of Brittany Higgins; it's on behalf of every woman who comes to work in this parliament, or in any other workplace in Australia, who deserves to have confidence that she can be safe in doing her job and be supported if something occurs and get healing and justice. So the questions we ask, and will continue to ask, will be to that end. 15:38 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I rise to make a contribution to this debate. I agree with Senator Keneally that this has been a very harrowing week for senators and members, for parliamentary staff and, frankly, for all Australians. We have learnt about an alleged sexual assault in Parliament House. This is a very serious and distressing matter. These allegations are very distressing. My heart goes out to Brittany Higgins. She has been remarkably courageous. She has been remarkably strong. I again want to place on record my relief, in some respects, that she has decided to make a formal complaint to police. I think everyone in this building, everyone listening to this debate, every woman and man across this country, expects that, when these very serious alleged crimes occur, justice must be done. That's what we want to see: justice. I hope, trust and expect, as we all do, that the police will fully investigate this allegation as well as, we hope, the allegations made by other women in relation to this alleged perpetrator. As the Prime Minister has made clear, the welfare of Ms Higgins and other women who have come forward is absolutely paramount. I want to reflect on Senator Birmingham's contribution to the Senate on Monday morning, when he reiterated: Minister Reynolds has expressed to the Senate how deeply sorry she is that, despite her genuine efforts and intentions of support, Ms Higgins felt unsupported at the time of her alleged sexual assault … In telling her story, Ms Higgins has prompted a national conversation about how we ensure women are safe— and, I'd add, how we ensure men are safe— in this workplace that we are all a part of … As he said, this needs to be more than a conversation; we need to make sure that the appropriate action is taken. I'm very pleased, of course, that the minister, Senator Birmingham, is leading an independent, cross-party review at arm's length to look at how we can prevent such incidents in the future, how to do a better job in how they are handled and how anyone in Ms Higgins's situation can be better supported. We've got universal support for that aspiration. I do want to place on record my concern about the attack and some of the focus on Senator Reynolds. She's currently in hospital. She has spoken about her medical issues and she is, I hope, going to be very well very quickly, but I think there has been, by the Labor Party, an unwarranted focus on Senator Reynolds. There has been more focus on the 'gotcha moment' than on justice. All of us want to see justice. We want the politics taken out of this. Now that there is a formal police investigation underway, I say: let the police do their job. To the extent that there are unanswered questions, please allow the police to do their job so that this investigation can in no way be compromised. The police will have full scope to ask all relevant questions and to interview all relevant people in relation to these allegations. I say again to Brittany and to other women and men who may have suffered this type of terrible alleged crime: we can do better, we will do better and we want to see justice done. 15:43 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I also rise to take note of questions asked of Senator Birmingham today. I want to make a couple of comments following on from Senator Henderson's comments. Senator Henderson accuses us of focusing unreasonably on Senator Reynolds. I say to Senator Henderson, who has left the chamber, that our job as an opposition is to hold the government to account. There has been a serious allegation of a crime occurring in the Minister for Defence's office. There are a number of questions about her conduct as a minister—what she did, what she knew, how she followed up, who she told, what action she took—for which she is accountable to this chamber. This is not anything personal about Senator Reynolds, and of course we all wish her well and we were all sorry to hear earlier today of her medical condition. But that does not mean that we do not ask reasonable questions about the minister's conduct and expect to have those questions answered. What we've seen this week and last week, through the five question times that Minister Reynolds has faced questions, is every question relating to her conduct—what she did, what she knew, how she followed up, how she provided duty of care to this staff member in her office—was not answered. We are not going into the ins and outs of what was alleged to have occurred and by whom or anything that the police may be seeking to investigate as part of their inquiries. We have not gone near any of that. We understand that that is an area for police investigation, and we as senators are not here to perform that role. But we are here to hold the minister to account. She is the defence minister of Australia. She is a senior cabinet minister in this government and these are legitimate questions about her conduct, her suitability, her capability. They are entirely reasonable questions to ask. We in Labor have been blocked. I don't know whether Minister Reynolds is operating under instructions from another office not to answer questions and to block and stall with the hope that this will go away, that eventually the caravan will move on to another issue, because that appears to be some of the strategy. The other strategy could be to provide conflicting information that makes what's happened all very confusing, so nobody really answers, and we keep going around in a circle. We have an expectation that this minister should have probably come into this chamber as early as last Tuesday morning and made a full statement about what she knew and what she did, and that could have avoided some of the questions or some of the blocking of answers that has been going on in question time. But no statement has been provided to this chamber. There's been no statement from the Prime Minister. Can you think of another allegation of a crime occurring in a senior minister's office being dealt with this way, if it wasn't about an alleged rape between two Liberal staffers? I can't think of one where that was the case and where nobody could ask questions, where everything was pushed away until the police investigated and we'd moved onto another story. Well, we're not going to move on, because we think there are legitimate questions about this minister's conduct—about what she knew, what she did—and whether allegations of this crime occurring were pushed aside in the context of a political campaign, to be dealt with at a later time or, quite possibly, not dealt with at all. This has been going on for two years, and we do not have clear answers from this minister about her conduct and her role in what appears on the surface to be a cover-up of a very serious allegation of a crime occurring in this building under this government. They are legitimate questions to ask. We don't seek to attack Minister Reynolds personally and we haven't, but we will hold this government to account. We will hold this minister to account. There are questions that remain unanswered. If Minister Reynolds is unable to answer them, then Minister Birmingham should, and, I think, as the big boss, the Prime Minister should also front up and provide answers to this chamber. 15:48 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland Today I'm reflecting on how proud I felt joining this Senate 18 months ago, joining this august body whose role it is, quite rightly, to provide balance in government, to be a house of review. For the opposition, their role in that process is to hold the government to account. Yet today, in front of my colleagues, in front of the children here, I feel ashamed. I feel ashamed in my heart and my stomach at the politicisation of such matters with real humans at the heart of them, with the lack of respect at the heart of them. There is appropriately a place for the opposition to ask questions, but this ongoing caravan, this circus performance, this confected outrage would go on and on. So many in this place, others who have had experiences of such sexual attacks, of rape, who are both here and in the other place and right around Australia, have this matter compounded— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator McDONALD 123072 I'm sorry, would you like to speak up or would you like to speak while I'm speaking? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Senator McDonald, I remind you to direct your remarks to the chair, and I will manage the Senate if it becomes disorderly, thank you. Senator McDONALD 123072 Thank you, Deputy President. I pay the respect of listening quietly whilst other people speak and I would ask for that same respect. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Yes, you're entitled to that. Senator McDONALD 123072 Respect is at the heart of this matter. So many in this place and the other, so many around Australia, who have experienced matters such as this, who are reliving it are being retriggered by the continued and compounded actions of the opposition. People in this community who listen to what happens in this chamber have moved from watching the appropriate questions of the opposition to a creeping sense of horror at the politicisation and the continued abuse of not just this woman but of others, and the absence of respect. It is not the role of the opposition to act like investigator and judge and jury. It surprises me, because the opposition has made quite a deal of calling for an increased number of women to come to politics and into this place yet it is our role to provide something different, something additional in coming into this place. A sense of compassion, a sense of the human element, is so incredibly important and that has tragically been lost, as I said, in this ongoing compounding of the abuse of not just this woman but of any other person who has suffered a sexual assault. I feel deeply ashamed to sit here and be a part of this performance. We all agree that every workplace should be a place of safety, that every person should have the confidence to come forward, to report any such allegations of incidents, yet I think we have done irreparable damage because every person who has suffered at the hands of such an attack must now be wondering: is this going to happen to me? Am I going to be paraded through the streets for some political benefit? This is now a matter for the appropriate people to investigate, for the police to investigate. There is a deep determination, I'm sure, from all who work in this place, to ensure that we do change, that we do improve, that we do build a culture where there is an independent reporting process. The Prime Minister— (Time expired) 15:53 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory What we want to see here in this Senate and what all Australians need to feel is confidence that we have leadership—that is, all of those things that provide stability, security, safety, hope for the future and, in particular, transparency and accountability when things go wrong. Things do go wrong. They do go wrong. Whether it's in a personal scenario or a professional scenario, things do go wrong. But here in the Senate, when things go wrong, as uncomfortable as it may be, we all have a responsibility to ask the questions. We have a responsibility to focus on process. We have a responsibility to keep asking the questions that forever remain hidden from being answered. That is our job as senators here, that is our job as opposition senators and that is our job as crossbench senators, to keep transparency and accountability to those in power. The people in power are our coalition colleagues, both here in the Senate and in the House. Like it or dislike it, the reality is that that power has to remain checked. Something terribly horrible went wrong, right here, in this parliament—after hours, when a young girl had no support, when only now has she taken the courage to speak up. So we keep asking the questions about the process. We keep asking the questions that need to be asked in order to, hopefully, come out on the other side with a better place of safety for all people who work—not only in this building but for all Australians—to see that intolerable acts against others should never be accepted. Sometimes it is hard to ask those questions, but they are never coming from a personal point of wanting to damage someone. They are coming from a sense of responsibility, of our roles as senators, to keep those in power accountable, just as we ourselves are accountable to our constituents in the roles that we conduct back in our own jurisdictions and here in this place. There is no doubting the sensitivities involved on every level here. But the obfuscation from the Prime Minister in answering important questions, both in the House and from ministers in here, raise legitimate concerns that we will continue to raise. We are unafraid and unashamed to keep asking these questions. You may wish to pose a picture that portrays us as heartless, but that is not the case. You know as much as we do that the discomfort you feel has to be laid bare, because all Australians expect answers and we've not seen answers in this past fortnight. Labor will continue to pursue this, in the interests of justice and fairness, to eventually reach a position of suitability, safety, for all Australians, whether they work in Parliament House, whether they work in businesses across the country, whether they work in their homes. If it is up to senators here, on this side, to ask the hard questions, let me reassure you, we will continue to do so. Question agreed to. Immigration Detention 1483 15:58 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business (Senator Cash) to a question without notice asked by Senator McKim today relating to immigration detention. The Nadesalingam family, otherwise known as the Biloela family, has made a life here in Australia. This country is their home, and they are much loved members of the Biloela community. It is absolutely outrageous the way the government has treated this family and wasted so much time and taxpayers' money persecuting them and being cruel to an innocent family. It was around three years ago that this family was ripped from their home and their community in Biloela without warning, under the cover of darkness in a pre-dawn raid. To describe that episode as extremely traumatic, especially for the two young children, would be a gross understatement. I've seen the video of that terrible event, and what that family was put through that night, particularly the two young children, was disgusting and abhorrent. They've all been in immigration detention for nearly three years and on Christmas Island for about 2½ years. Over this time, the government has deprived them arbitrarily of their liberty and has spent over $6 million of public funds on their detention and on legal fees fighting to deport them to Sri Lanka, where they have justifiable fear for their lives. The government's fought this through the Federal Circuit Court, the Federal Court and the High Court. I want to make the point that the minister, with a simple stroke of his pen, could immediately release this family from detention and allow them to get on with their lives in the Biloela community, a community they contributed to and where they have been embraced so warmly. I want to give a shout-out to the Biloela community, who, from day one, has stood up for this family and fought for this family to be returned to where they belong, in Biloela. It's not just the Biloela community that has fought for their release; Australians more broadly have been rightly horrified at their treatment by the government, with nearly a quarter of a million people signing a petition calling for their release. When I asked Minister Cash why she is ignoring the hundreds of thousands of Australians who have called for the innocent family's release, she responded that she didn't accept the premise of the question. Well, Minister, check out the petition. Nearly a quarter of a million Australians have signed it. Trying to deport a family, including their two Australian-born children, in the dead of night is sadly typical of this government's heartlessness and is indicative of Australia's cruel and inhumane immigration and immigration detention regimes. I've been to Manus Island five times—and I see Senator Duniam shaking his head. I know the cruelty; I've seen it firsthand. If anyone wants to deny the cruelty, I challenge them now: get over to Papua New Guinea, get over to Nauru and look at these poor people. Look them in the eye, Senator Duniam, and then you can come back in here and try and convince us that you understand the damage that you have caused to them, the deaths that you people are personally responsible for, the hundreds of lives that you people have destroyed through your cruel and unnecessary policy of indefinite immigration detention, including your cruel policy of indefinite offshore detention. You have ruined lives. You have broken Australia's international obligation. You are responsible for people's deaths. You have collectively—and I say this to the Liberal and National parties, and the ALP—got blood on your hands. This country should not put people in immigration detention for any more than seven days without a court order. I thank Senator Cash for seeking further advice on the riot that occurred on Christmas Island in January, and I look forward to her coming back into this chamber and sharing further advice with her colleagues. Question agreed to. NOTICES 1484 NOTICES Presentation 1484 16:04 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, to withdraw notices of motion proposing the disallowance of seven legislative instruments, as set out in the list circulated in the chamber. Presentation 1484 BUSINESS 1488 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 1488 16:04 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted for Senator Reynolds for 24 and 25 February 2021, for medical reasons. Question agreed to. NOTICES 1488 NOTICES Postponement 1488 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS 1489 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2021 1489 16:05 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania At the request of the Minister for Families and Social Serrvices, I move: That, in accordance with section 45-20 of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act 2012, the Senate approves the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2021 made under subsection 45-10(1) of the Act on 18 February 2021. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 1489 BUSINESS Senate Temporary Orders 1489 16:06 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania At the request of the Minister for Finance, I move: That the order of the Senate of 23 March 2020, relating to extensions of time for the presentation of reports from standing, select and joint committees, cease to have effect on and from 25 February 2021. Question agreed to. BILLS 1489 BILLS Work Health and Safety Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2021 1489

Work Health and Safety Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2021

First Reading 1489 16:06 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania At the request of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and for related purposes—Work Health and Safety Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2021. Question agreed to. Senator DUNIAM 263418 I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 1489 16:07 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I table the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The Work Health and Safety Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill will clarify how the Commonwealth Work Health and Safety Act operates in relation to the Australian Government's work on Norfolk Island. The Work Health and Safety Act currently has a small number of exclusions for territories that are self-governing which, at the time it was enacted in 2011, included Norfolk Island. In 2015, self-government on Norfolk Island was removed and the Australian Government assumed responsibility for funding and delivering services on the Island. The exclusions in the Act became obsolete when Norfolk Island had its self-governing status removed. This Bill will make clear that the Work Health and Safety Act applies to Commonwealth activities on Norfolk Island, which will assist the Australian Government to meet its work health and safety obligations under the Act. This is turn will support the promotion of the health and safety of workers and workplaces on the Island. Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111. DOCUMENTS 1490 DOCUMENTS Future Frigate Program 1490 Order for the Production of Documents 1490 16:07 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania At the request of Senator Kitching, I move: That— (a) the Senate notes that: (i) for years the Government publicly referred to the Future Frigates as a $35 billion acquisition, until the release on 1 July 2020 of the 2020 Force Structure Plan which contained a revised costing of $45.6 billion, (ii) the Department of Finance has revealed that since 2018 the Government knew that the out-turned acquisition cost of the Future Frigates had increased to $44.3 billion, and (iii) the Department of Defence has revealed that commercial considerations subsided in December 2018, and thus nothing precluded the public release of updated acquisitions costs; (b) the Senate further notes that, despite the facts outlined in paragraph (a), the Government continued to incorrectly refer to the Future Frigates as a $35 billion acquisition, and this included: (i) the then Minister for Defence and then Minister for Finance in a joint media release on 14 December 2018, (ii) the then Minister for Defence and now Minister for Defence in a joint Budget media release on 2 April 2019, and (iii) the Minister for Defence and Minister for Defence Industry in a joint media release on 31 March 2020; (c) there be laid on the table by the Minister for Defence and Minister for Finance, by no later than 9.30 am on Thursday, 4 March 2021, documents and correspondence relating to the preparation and finalisation of materials for use by the Departments of Defence and Finance and the Ministers for Defence and Finance between 1 December 2018 and 1 July 2020 that included reference to the Future Frigates as a $35 billion program; (d) documents to be produced under paragraph (c) include, but are not limited to: (i) documents and correspondence relating to the preparation and finalisation of the media releases referred to in paragraph (b), (ii) documents that may relate to the production of other media releases, speeches and other documents prepared to support public statements and media engagements by the Ministers for Defence and Finance and officials of the Departments of Defence and Finance, and (iii) drafts of documents and any comments from Ministers or their staff on drafts of those documents; and (e) if the Senate is not sitting when the documents are ready for presentation, the documents are to be presented to the President under standing order 166. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 1491 MOTIONS Manufacturing 1491 16:07 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1031, relating to manufacturing in regional Australia, be taken as formal. The PRESIDENT I0Q Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal? There is an objection. Catholic Education 1491 16:08 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Before asking that general business notice of motion No. 1032 be taken as formal, I indicate that Senator Keneally will also be co-sponsoring this motion with Senator Canavan. I also seek leave to amend the motion. Leave granted. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 I amend the motion as circulated in the chamber and ask that the amended motion be taken as formal. The PRESIDENT I0Q Is there any objection to the motion be taken as formal? There is an objection. Forestry 1491 16:08 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) Australia's native forests are under threat – more than 12.6 million hectares were burnt and over 3 billion animals killed during the 2019-20 summer – and logging has restarted in and near forests burnt in the fires, (ii) campaigners around the country are protesting to protect Australia's native forests, including: (A) in the Wentworth Hills in Tasmania's Central Highlands, (B) in the Tarkine, protecting Australia's largest temperate rainforest, (C) on the Errinundra Plateau in East Gippsland, (D) in Olney Forest, New South Wales, and (E) in Western Australia's South West forests, (iii) legal challenges have shown that regional forest agreements (RFA) are unsustainable, with the win for the Friends of Leadbeater's Possum in Victoria, and the Bob Brown Foundation's legal case showing that RFAs do not have to protect threatened wildlife, and (iv) the Samuel review noted that 'environmental considerations under the RFA Act are weaker than those imposed elsewhere...and do not align with the assessment of significant impacts on MNES required by the EPBC Act…', and that 'Commonwealth oversight of environmental protections under RFAs is insufficient…'; and (b) calls on the Government to end native forest logging, and provide a just transition for forestry workers including in the plantation timber industry. 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 Native forestry is here to stay, and our government backs it. It's an inconvenient truth for the Greens, but so too did the Federal Court, which found the Tasmanian regional forestry agreement to be valid, and it supports our view that RFAs are the best way to manage our native forest industry. It is important to note the Greens' hypocrisy, when Senator Rice herself said in this place, 'We should celebrate the plantation based industry,' and when the Greens party's platform is to move to 100 per cent plantation source timber. While the way this motion is worded is clumsy in asking for a plan to transition workers out of the plantation timber industry, the Greens can't have it both ways. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that motion No. 1030 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:14]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

10 AYES Faruqi, M Hanson-Young, SC McKim, NJ Patrick, RL Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Steele-John, J Thorpe, LA Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 32 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Canavan, MJ Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Henderson, SM Hughes, H Lambie, J McDonald, S McLachlan, A McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Polley, H Rennick, G Roberts, M Ryan, SM Small, B Smith, DA Sterle, G Stoker, AJ Urquhart, AE (teller) Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

16:16 The PRESIDENT I0Q Senators, we have another couple of matters to deal with. Senator Rice. Senator Rice 155410 Can I clarify the intent of the motion. It should have said, 'Into the— The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is not granted, Senator Rice, please resume your seat. JobSeeker Payment 1493 16:16 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that the Government is making a deliberate choice to keep people on the JobSeeker Payment living in poverty by keeping the payment below the poverty line; and (b) calls on the Government to immediately revise its announcement and urgently increase Jobseeker Payment to be above the poverty line. 16:16 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's $9 billion commitment is the largest increase to payments since 1986 and will provide additional support to jobseekers, young people, students and parenting payment recipients. The government is ensuring that our social safety net remains targeted and sustainable while at the same time investing in a number of initiatives that are key to our economic recovery plan to get Australians back into work as we emerge from the coronavirus pandemic. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is general business notice of motion No. 1033 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:21]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

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

Question agreed to.

DOCUMENTS 1494 DOCUMENTS Members of Parliament: Staff 1494 Order for the Production of Documents 1494 16:23 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) on 16 February 2021 the Prime Minister announced the Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Ms Stephanie Foster, would conduct a review of support available for staff engaged under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984, and (ii) on 17 February 2021 the Prime Minister announced the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Mr Philip Gaetjens, would examine conduct by the Prime Minister's office following an alleged sexual assault at Parliament House in March 2019; and (b) orders that there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 9.30 am on 25 February 2021, documents containing the terms of reference for the reviews being conducted by Ms Foster and Mr Gaetjens. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that motion No. 1034 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:25]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

33 AYES Ayres, T Brown, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Ciccone, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Griff, S Hanson, P Hanson-Young, SC Lambie, J Lines, S McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Polley, H Rice, J Roberts, M Sheldon, A Siewert, R Steele-John, J Sterle, G Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE (teller) Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 29 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J McDonald, S McKenzie, B McLachlan, A McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Rennick, G Ryan, SM Seselja, Z Small, B Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

MOTIONS 1495 MOTIONS Manufacturing, Catholic Education 1495 16:27 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to move general business notices of motion Nos 1031 and 1032 together and for the motions to be determined without amendment or debate. Leave not granted. Senator DUNIAM 263418 I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent general business notices of motion nos 1031 and 1032 being moved together immediately and determined without amendment or debate. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the motion moved by Senator Duniam to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:28]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

60 AYES Abetz, E Antic, A Ayres, T Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Brown, CL Canavan, MJ Carr, KJ Cash, MC Chandler, C Chisholm, A Ciccone, R Colbeck, R Davey, P Dodson, P Duniam, J Farrell, D Faruqi, M Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Griff, S Hanson, P Hanson-Young, SC Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J Lines, S McAllister, J McCarthy, M McDonald, S McKenzie, B McKim, NJ McLachlan, A McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Neill, D O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Polley, H Rennick, G Rice, J Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Seselja, Z Sheldon, A Siewert, R Small, B Smith, DA (teller) Steele-John, J Stoker, AJ Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE Van, D Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 2 NOES Lambie, J Patrick, RL (teller) 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to, with an absolute majority.

16:31 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move general business notice of motion Nos 1031 and 1032 together: GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1031 That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) companies including SunRice and Manildra originated in regional Australia and are now global companies, and (ii) the importance of food and fibre manufacturing in regional Australia for providing employment; and (b) commends the Modern Manufacturing Initiative as a first step to reinvigorating manufacturing in Australia. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1032 That the Senate— (a) recognises that: (i) in October 2020 Australia celebrated 200 years of Catholic education, (ii) the celebration honours Fr John Therry who founded the first Catholic school in Hunter Street, Parramatta, (iii) Catholic education plays an integral role in our education system, having educated over 750,000 students over 200 years, (iv) 40% of Catholic schools are located in regional, rural, and remote communities, and (v) one in five schoolchildren attends a Catholic school; and (b) congratulates Catholic education for its: (i) continued contribution to Australia's education system, and (ii) continued commitment to the faith-based education of Australians in the past, present, and future. 16:31 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I seek leave to table a short statement on motion 1031. Leave granted. Senator FARUQI 250362 I table the statement and request that the two parts of motion 1031 be put separately. 16:32 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland by leave—I table a short statement on motion 1031. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that clause (a) of general business notice of motion No. 1031 be agreed to. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is clause (b) of motion 1031 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:33]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

50 AYES Abetz, E Antic, A Ayres, T Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Brown, CL Canavan, MJ Carr, KJ Cash, MC Chandler, C Chisholm, A Ciccone, R Colbeck, R Davey, P Dodson, P Duniam, J Farrell, D Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Griff, S Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J Lines, S McAllister, J McCarthy, M McDonald, S McKenzie, B McLachlan, A McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Neill, D O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Polley, H Rennick, G Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Sheldon, A Small, B Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Urquhart, AE Van, D Watt, M 9 NOES Faruqi, M Hanson-Young, SC McKim, NJ Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Steele-John, J Thorpe, LA Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

16:35 The PRESIDENT I0Q The question now is that motion No. 1032, in the names of Senators Davey, McKenzie, Canavan, McDonald, McMahon, Molan and Rennick, be agreed to. Question agreed to. NOTICES 1498 NOTICES Withdrawal 1498 16:36 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia I withdraw general business notice of motion no. 1025 in my name for today relating to establishment of a select committee. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 1499 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Employment 1499 16:36 The PRESIDENT I0Q I inform senators that, at 8.30 am today, 27 proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter was received from Senator Sterle: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: Instead of a plan for secure jobs for Australians, the Morrison Government is trying to make it easier for employers to cut workers' pay and conditions. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 16:37 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania The motion that we will be debating is that, instead of a plan for secure jobs for Australians, the Morrison government is trying to make it easier for employers to cut workers' pay and conditions. We know that that's the agenda of this government. During the pandemic, when they were ready to acknowledge the hard work of frontline workers—people working in retail, hospitals, health care and aged care—they were quick to make sure they had the photo opportunities to be with those workers. Of course, we should acknowledge all of those sectors that were involved, whether it was transport, retail, health, emergency services or aged care. The workers did keep Australia safe, and they kept the economy moving. But this government, with its agenda, is quite clearly not supporting those very same workers. Look at the attack on Australian workers. The people in retail and aged care get unsecure hours. They find it extremely difficult, if they don't have secure ongoing work, to enable them to take out a mortgage, to pay their rent and to meet the essential requirements of looking after themselves and their families. In this country before the pandemic we saw—and it's still a huge issue now—the cut to Australian workers' pay and the agenda to erode the conditions of people's employment. There is a huge issue with casualisation of the Australian workforce and the uncertainty, with 13 million Australians being directly impacted. We will ensure that this latest industrial relations reform bill is opposed. We, along with the union movement, will do what we need to do to make sure the Australian people are informed about this attack on their pay and their conditions. We know that there's been a huge issue with the stagnation of Australian workers' pay that they get to take home. In line with their DNA of making sure that employers have advantage over employees, we know that they would prefer that there was no union membership and that they could reduce access to worksites by unions. That is not going to be accepted by the Australian people. If you take someone who's working in aged care and they have split shifts, as we saw during this pandemic with the spread of COVID-19 so many people who work in aged care are women—let's be realistic, whether we're talking about retail or we're talking about aged care they're predominantly women—they have to have a second job. Sometimes they have a third job to make ends meet. We know that this government is not supportive of increasing superannuation. We know that there's a huge disparity between what men retire with in superannuation and what women do. So the attack on now to cut wages and to ensure that there's continued casualisation of the workforce is predominantly going to impact on families and women because they are the ones who work in the lower paid positions. That's why I will continue to say at every single opportunity that I can—and I know my colleagues would—that you need to be a member of your union. You need to have a voice, because so many times you find that women don't have that same support. They may not have the confidence that others have in being able to take their issues to their employer. When they don't get the extra shifts or they're penalised because they weren't available—perhaps because they had to take their children to the doctor or they had other family commitments so they couldn't take up that offer of employment. But to not have an ongoing, secure job where you know that will get those 30 hours a week so you can budget your family budget around that time, and then the next week to have it cut down to eight hours, is just not good enough. 16:42 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I find it pretty galling that the Australian Labor Party think that they can come into this chamber and lecture this government, the Morrison coalition government, on jobs. Let's turn our minds back to a very dark time in my own state's history and that was the time when we had a Labor government in Tasmania. Indeed, we had a Labor-Greens minority government for four years in Tasmania. When I first came to this place I spoke in my maiden speech about those dark, dark days, under the Labor-Green minority government, when jobs were being cut left, right and centre. People were leaving our state left, right and centre, because they weren't able to work locally. This was a period of complete economic disaster and fiscal mismanagement in Tasmania. Senator McKim interjecting— Senator CHANDLER 264449 Thousands of jobs were lost, Senator McKim, over that four-year period. Tasmania had the highest unemployment rate in the country. There were cuts to nurses. There were cuts to the police force. There were cuts to teachers, Senator McKim, and other essential Public Service positions— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 204953 Senator Chandler, please resume your seat. Interjections are disorderly and I remind senators to address their comments to the chair, not across the chamber at other senators. Senator Chandler. Senator CHANDLER 264449 Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. As I was saying, back in those dark days of Labor-Green government in Tasmania poor economic management saw business confidence slump, further weakening employment rates. Investment was at an all-time low. The jobs situation under Labor and the Greens in Tasmania became so bad that people were leaving our state in droves to seek employment on the mainland. They knew there was no hope to look locally for employment, so they packed their bags, booked a one-way ticket on the Spirit of Tasmania and left. We lost so many skilled Tasmanians and so many young people during this period. That is what I spoke about in my maiden speech as being one of my drivers in seeking election to this place, to see another generation of Tasmanians would not have to leave our island for job opportunities, that they would have those opportunities locally and enjoy everything that is just so good about Tasmania's way of life. It baffles me that Labor come into this place and try to lecture us about jobs and lecture us about our record of creating jobs in Australia and in Tasmania when they don't have a foot to stand on. This government has a keen focus on creating jobs for Australians. We don't just talk the talk; we walk the walk. Since the coalition was elected into government in 2013, up until the global pandemic that we've seen over the last 12 months, in excess of 1.5 million jobs had been created around the country. This speaks volumes to the initiatives and conditions that we as a government put in place to stimulate economic growth, create jobs and make Australia more prosperous. During the pandemic, the Morrison coalition government stepped in to provide unprecedented levels of support for businesses and the people they employ to protect them from the dire economic consequences of the pandemic. We understood the immense challenge facing the country and we acted to mitigate the effects on jobs, businesses and the people of Australia. I've said many times in the last 12 months and I will say again today: when the COVID-19 pandemic hit, I was incredibly worried, particularly for my own state of Tasmania, that we would go back to those dark days where more people were leaving our island than coming to it. I worried about the economic challenges we would be facing. I worried about how we would deal with them and what Australia would look like coming out the other end. But, because of the policies of this government, we are coming out the other end, and Australia, I think, economically, is on the right track for recovery. What were those policies? An additional $1.2 billion was allocated in the budget to create 100,000 new apprenticeships and traineeships. The JobMaker hiring credit is encouraging businesses to hire younger Australians, recognising that young jobseekers often suffer the long-term impacts of economic downturn. And investment in road and other infrastructure projects is creating more jobs around the country and providing better public amenities for Australians. But our quest to continue to create more jobs for Australians doesn't stop there with those fantastic policies, because we as a government recognised when the COVID-19 pandemic hit that the way the Australian workforce operates, the way that employees engage with their employers, was going to be different on the other side of this economic downturn and that there would need to be greater flexibility so that we were able to rebuild our workforce following the COVID-19 pandemic, and that is what our IR reform package will facilitate. These reforms address known problems with our industrial relations system and the Fair Work Act. They will not only support wages growth and help regrow the jobs lost to the pandemic but also tackle broader issues like underemployment, job security, underpayment of wages, and the failure of Labor's enterprise bargaining system to drive wage and productivity growth. This package of reforms will give businesses the confidence to get back to growing and creating jobs, as well as the tools to help employers and employees to work together in a post-COVID-19 Australia. As I said, we recognised early on that this would be an issue as we came out of the economic downturn, and that's why we have acted, with these reforms, to ensure that businesses and their workers are able to engage and negotiate as our workforce gets back to work following the economic downturn. These vital reforms to employment law build on the various economic supports provided by the government during the pandemic, some of which I listed earlier in my contribution. They are driven by one simple goal: breaking down barriers to job growth so we can get Australians back to work. The reforms were developed after extensive consultation with employer and employee groups, who sat down with the government for many, many hours to find innovative solutions to support struggling businesses as well as protect and enhance the rights of workers. These reforms are important for all Australians as they aspire to grow their careers and seek out the opportunities that will allow them to contribute economically, whether it's buying their first home, supporting their family or planning for their retirement. We are committed to creating jobs and strengthening the economy so that more Australians can do this. This has been a strength of successive federal coalition and state Liberal governments, because we understand the importance of having a job, the sense of accomplishment that comes with that, the dignity that comes with that and the ability to provide for yourself and your family. This is why jobs have been a key focus of this government, especially during and following the high point of the pandemic. As I said earlier, I know only too well what can happen to jobs when they are left to the devices of Labor and the Greens. What happened in Tasmania under the previous Labor-Green government was devastating for our state, to the point where, as I said, Tasmanians were leaving in droves. So many Tasmanians I know—my friends, my family—all left our island state for work opportunities on the mainland because they couldn't find those opportunities at home. Some have since returned to the island, and many have not. That is a real loss for our state, which needs skilled young Tasmanians to drive our state forward. But that is not going to happen at the hands of Labor and the Greens. 16:52 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania What an absolute load of tripe we were just subjected to by Senator Chandler—absolute tripe! I'll make one point. You know the most important measure of the Labor-Green government in Tasmania? Carbon emissions. Carbon emissions in Tasmania sank during that period so that Tasmania became a net sequesterer of carbon emissions, helping the world address the greatest public policy challenge of our time. I thank the Labor Party for bringing this matter of public importance on. I want to start by saying this: it is no surprise that this government is trying to introduce legislation that would make work less secure and make it easier for employers to cut pay and cut conditions, because that is exactly the outcome that the neoliberal ideologues on that side of the chamber seek to achieve. That neoliberal ideology celebrates the power of the market and the freedom of people to act in those markets without restriction. But what this ideology really boils down to, for most Australians, is: you're on your own. If you can't negotiate secure work for yourself or better pay and conditions, well, that's just how the market values you, they would have it. People—they would have it—will just have to live with it. It's a dog-eat-dog system, a system where you either sink or you swim, and, if you're sinking, you'll get no help whatsoever from government. It is pure, debased Darwinian economics. That's why, after 30 or 40 years of privatisation, deregulation and adherence to trickle-down economics, workers today are— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator McKIM JKM Listen to this. No, listen to this. Workers in Australia today are taking home the lowest share of domestic income on record. And it's why, on the other side of the coin, the greatest share of domestic income on record is going where? It's going to corporate profits. Now, if you want to argue with those facts, be my guest, but those are the facts, and those facts are celebrated by the LNP, particularly those with a pedigree in one of the various free-market so-called think tanks that promulgate this nonsense on behalf of their corporate backers like Gina Rinehart. What the neoliberal ideology boils down to is the brute power of the big corporates to corrupt our democratic institutions with a clear modus operandi to corrode whatever workplace protections and whatever social safety nets have been put in place and hard won over the centuries by working people in this country. Neoliberalism is about the corrosion of democracy itself so the wealthy can get even wealthier. If you think that's an overstatement, have a listen to the 32nd President of the United States, Franklin D Roosevelt. In an address to Congress in 1938 he outlined what he described as two simple truths about the concentration of economic power. First, he said: … democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism … Well, hear hear, late President Franklin D Roosevelt! That is, in fact, in its essence, fascism. The second point he made in that address to Congress is: … democracy is not safe, if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living. In other words, the safety of our democracy depends on curbing corporate power and influence and on ensuring the equitable distribution of wealth, including through fair wages and fair working conditions. Those things, fair wages and fair working conditions, and full employment are everything that neoliberalism stands against. That is why, through tax cuts or winding back responsible lending laws or attacking workers' rights, what this government stands for is more power for its mates and more money for its mates. Colleagues, the social contract is starting to fracture underneath us and we collectively will pay a very, very heavy price as more and more people start to realise that neoliberalism and trickle-down economics are letting them down. And it's cooking the planet at the same time. (Time expired) 16:58 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I am so excited to get up here and make my contribution to this discussion. Listening to Senator Chandler, I have to tell you, is quite comical really. You know, when we get 20-odd-year-olds coming into this building who haven't had any life experience but who want to talk about how much they love workers and talk all about jobs, I would just say that I came in here when I was at the young age of 45, so I can talk from life experience. So you talk about the farce that the mob opposite have of creating opportunities and you talk about what a magnificent job they're doing for working people and young people. Well, I have to tell you, Mr Acting Deputy President Gallacher, I've had a privilege in the last few months of running around the nation talking to more and more truck drivers as the weeks go by, and I'm going to start by telling you some home truths. Do you want to know how good things are out there? It's about time this mob opposite actually took their fingers out of their ears and started listening to what goes on in Australia. Now, I wrote off to the Fair Work Ombudsman and I said, 'Since your inception in 2009, how many cases have you run against employers for underpayment of wages or sham contracting?' And I have to give it to Ms Parker, she wrote back to me. I admire the Fair Work Ombudsman; I just think they're grossly underresourced and I think that they have their hands tied behind their backs. They haven't got any opportunity. You know how the rules are bent towards this mob opposite and their donors. She said to me there have been 20 cases of underpayment of wages for truck drivers. Mr Acting Deputy President, Senator Gallacher, you and I can sit down and have a nice stubby of Carlton Dry and I reckon I could come up with about 50 companies during that one stubby. And you, with your experience, would probably have another 50 companies just from South Australia alone. This nation is corrupt and rort—the underpayment of wages in the trucking industry alone. The mob over there rub their hands together because some high-profile chef's been touched up because he's done something wrong, or Bunnings has done something wrong or, they said, even Maurice Blackburn. Go for it! What about the hardworking men and women in the transport industry? Some of the shams and scams going through the industry will be no surprise to you, Mr Acting Deputy President. One of the greatest scams in this nation is called 'kilometre rates'. This goes back to the time in your previous life, Mr Acting Deputy President, when you were negotiating these enterprise bargaining agreements and rates, before we got the EBA system, and the fights we had with the industry bodies about average speed and all that sort of stuff. There are some very good employers out there who pay a kilometre rate. It's negotiated. It's above the award kilometre rate. And they'll do the right thing and pay hourly while the guys and girls are loading or unloading, or whatever they're doing. Fine, no worries. The majority of employers in the road transport industry, predominantly in the interstate line haul sector, are absolutely ripping off their drivers. I'll talk about the eastern seaboard, because this mob over there probably haven't been past Jerrabomberra; that's as close as they've got to the west, where the real trucking starts. The employers say it's 880 kilometres between Melbourne and Sydney, so they'll pay for 880 kilometres, not taking into account that drivers have probably spent five or six hours running around Melbourne or Sydney doing the loading. Someone's got to actually wash the bucket of nuts and bolts; someone's got to put the fuel in it. They don't pay for that. That's all part of the kilometre rate. The drivers just do that for love! If you have to change a tyre halfway between Melbourne and Sydney, or Sydney and Brisbane, or Adelaide and wherever—you don't get paid for changing the tyres. That's all part of your kilometre rate. So don't expect to get paid for all the add-ons. This goes on day in, day out in this nation. I challenge anyone to tell me that I am wrong. I know I'm not wrong. I know because the drivers tell me this. That side over there spout about how wonderful they are—'We love jobs and we love workers!'—but half of you wouldn't know a worker if they fell over one. You wouldn't have a clue what a worker goes through. You're all privileged. So don't sit here on $200,000-odd a year and tell us how wonderful it is out there. You're asleep at the wheel! Senator Bragg interjecting— Senator STERLE e68 If you want a debate, mate, I'll give you a debate. I'll debate you day in, day out. Don't you dare step into my space if you're not informed, mate, because this is my area and I know it damn well! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 204953 Order! Senator STERLE e68 I apologise. It happens when you get spivs that interrupt on something they know nothing about. I'll tell you about another scam, and you've only got to go to SEEK.com to see it. One of the worst offenders in Queensland, QLS Logistics, is advertising on SEEK. They say: 'Come and drive our trucks; be prepared to work six days a week; you can work 10, 12 or 14 hours a day, no worries'—as long as you've got an ABN. This is sham contracting. They'll pay you as a subcontractor. Do you know why? It's because they're not going to pay you penalty rates, superannuation, holiday pay and sick leave and they're not going to give you rostered days off. This is what's going on. I report it to Fair Work Australia. I give it to the Fair Work Ombudsman. They came back to me. Like I said, they're underresourced. I've got examples here of some of the shams and I'll share some of them with you. If anyone wants to interrupt and challenge me, feel free. This is from the Fair Work Ombudsman on underpayments in the transport area. One company had $132,000 in underpayments, another had a baby amount of $35,000, another had $60,200 and another one had $251,000. These are just single employers! How do you—I nearly said the fun word! How do you actually rip off your truck drivers to the tune of $251,000? Don't go away—others include $43,000 and $286,000 in underpayments. This is from the Fair Work Ombudsman, not Sterle making it up. This is what's going on out there, ladies and gentlemen. Everyone thinks it's all rainbows and unicorns out there in the trucking industry. It is far from rainbows and unicorns. Wouldn't you mob go into a spin if your cucumbers weren't on the shelves at Coles next to the bread for your watercress and cucumber sandwiches! Wouldn't you spin out then! Wouldn't you spin out if your latte or your chai or whatever you drink wasn't in the store at Coles or Woolies because the poor truckies hadn't got it there! Senator Bragg interjecting— Senator STERLE e68 Senator Bragg, put it in writing. I'd love to hear from you even more. In fact, I challenge you, mate: prove me wrong. We'll take it outside. We'll take 38 steps to the right of here, where no-one's protected by parliamentary privilege. I know, mate, because I'm the one doing it; I'm the one talking to truckies. I'll give you another one while you're all thinking it's rainbows and unicorns out there: Toll Fast. Mr Acting Deputy President Gallacher, how many companies were they before they all became Toll? I'm talking about back when you and I were organisers and you rose to the dizzy heights of state secretary and I ended up getting side shifted over to being a senator—just joking! How many times have we seen the big companies win? These are the ones that win. I'm reliably told by my good mate Richie Olsen that there is a massive blue going around Australia. Toll Fast have about 500 owner-drivers. These are couriers who've got their own one-tonne and two-tonne vehicles running around. One of their biggest clients is Officeworks. Toll Group had that problem with the internet—they got raided and all that sort of stuff—and their 500 owner-drivers around the nation have not been paid in six months. It's six months late. They haven't got their pay. I know for a fact that around Australia the union is blueing this with Toll. They're one of the two biggest transport companies in Australia. How the heck can they look anyone in the eye knowing that they have not paid their people for six months? How does anyone do that? You wouldn't get away with that in the Wild West. This is what's going on. People are fighting a major transport company—government contracts and all sorts of stuff—for their underpayments and against wrong classifications. If the big boys can do it—and normally I don't have a problem with the big boys, because we have the opportunity to get it sorted out—how the hell do the little ones not think that they can get away with it? What irks me even more as I talk to transport operators and talk to the good trucking companies all through Australia—and there are many good trucking companies—is that they're being screwed the living daylights out of the top of the supply chain. This is where all the pain comes down from these corporate captains, these magnificent corporate citizens. And I'm not just going to Coles and Woolies; I'm throwing the mining companies in there too, like BlueScope Steel. They're all as bad as each other, the whole damn lot of them, because they exonerate themselves from any employer-employee relationship; they just contract it out. I tell you what, if you're worried about Uber, wait until that gets into the trucking industry. And Amazon said it's prepared to lose money for 10 years to disrupt what's going on here in Australia. So while you're out there with your talking notes and prepared speeches—I don't have a prepared speech—and what the minister's told you to say about these wonderful things that you're doing, cast your mind back to what I've said. Walk outside and ask people in the street how it's going for them. I'm the first one to put my hand up to say we need to support young people getting into industry. You don't even put money into training for the transport industry. This is one industry that cannot attract kids. When you hear all the horror stories about how they're treated, the lack of toilets and the poor facilities, no wonder no-one wants to go into it. (Time expired) 17:08 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I rise this afternoon to address this matter of public importance. I think it is important in all things to put the changes that we are proposing to this parliament into a framework, because you need to know why you're doing something before you do it. In my first speech to this place I reflected upon the words of Theodore Roosevelt after the coal strike of 1902, who said: Now I believe in rich people who act squarely, and in labor unions which are managed with wisdom and justice; but when either employee or employer, labouring man or capitalist, goes wrong, I have to clinch him, and that is all there is to it. That is exactly our agenda here. We're not coming into this place to try and pursue an agenda to try and aid any organisation, whether it be a corporation or a union. We know who we represent here; we represent the people. In my case, I represent the people of New South Wales. There is no question that industrial relations is an area where there's been far too much ideology and not enough problem-solving. There are people who come into this place who are not sure who they represent. They're not sure whether they represent the people or whether they represent a union or, in some cases, whether they represent a super fund. This is a very important point of clarity for us. Why would we pursue these changes to the labour laws? The answer is that we believe there is a need to create more investment and, ultimately, job opportunities for the Australian people, who we all represent in this place. I'll step through a few of these changes that the Attorney-General is proposing. The first is nailing down a definition of 'casual worker'. After the Rossato case, this has been an area of great conjecture. People would be aware that Australian companies are now sitting on liabilities of about $40 billion after that court case, because it's backdated, effectively. So this legislation is designed to put in place a situation where, after 12 months of reasonably consistent casual employment, a worker can convert to a permanent part-time role. That is an option for that person under this legislation. If we don't legislate this, all those liabilities are going to sit there on the books—in some cases accounted for, in other cases not accounted for—of Australian businesses, and the class actions are already starting. That is an important piece of certainty for Australian workers and Australian businesses. Trying to have longer-term agreements, as the bill proposes, is a very worthwhile idea. We are competing for new investment for major projects. We always have been. This is a country that has competed for the best brains and foreign investment since the First Fleet, and that is the status today. I have been reflecting upon the geopolitical changes in Hong Kong. I think a lot of the debate around China is quite unsophisticated. My view would be that Hong Kong will still be an important gateway to China but it will not be the same regional centre for finance and technology. Why would you put your executives in danger, of the international security law, as you would be in Hong Kong? I think there is a lot of money that will come out of Hong Kong that will create new jobs, and those jobs could be in Sydney, they could be in Singapore or they could be in Tokyo. I think it's incumbent upon this parliament to find ways to improve our competitive position so we can attract that marginal investment, that mobile capital, and we can have those additional workers in Australia. We're also looking to improve the operation of the BOOT test so that there is a real worker test, a real scenario, not a hypothetical. This Fair Work Commission has created an art form of slowing down and jamming and gumming up the works and running the enterprise bargaining system into the ground, in this country, to the point where award reliance is higher than it was years ago. The whole point of enterprise bargaining is that workplaces can decide what's important for them, above and beyond the basic award rates. But with enterprise bargaining, basically, dead it is incumbent on this parliament to try and reboot that. All in all, we're committed to more investment and more jobs. 17:13 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland In serving the people of Queensland and Australia, I note that Labor is fixated on the problems not the solution. The facts are that the government listened to One Nation's legitimate concerns for employers and employees and it booted out the BOOT. One Nation achieved that. One Nation is doing more for Western Australian workers and employers than Labor. That is, in part, thanks to our Western Australian team, Robin Scott, an ex-Freo sparky who works hard for the people of the mining and pastoral region in WA, and Colin Tincknell, the One Nation WA state leader who proudly represents the South West region. Workers should be concerned that Labor and some union bosses have abandoned them. Casual workers are being abused and the needs of small business—Australia's largest employer of workers—have been all but ignored by everyone except One Nation. I have stood up to put a stop to these abuses for casual workers that the unions, the Labor Party and politicians like Joel Fitzgibbon knowingly ignored for years. Recently, the CFMEU mining division agreed with me that their union has ignored casuals for many years. I applaud that person in the CFMEU for having the courage to do that, and lawyers for the ETU and CFMEU confirmed that, in their opinion—and I agree with them—the IR system needs to be free from lawyers. For Labor to say that it's going to be easier for employers to cut wages and conditions is not enough. Labor need to step up and show everyday Australians what Australia's IR problems are and what they would do better. Labor, like Joel Fitzgibbon, are all talk and no action. One Nation wants genuine industrial relations reform for the benefit of employees and employers, especially for small business and their employees, and the best way to do that is to listen and contribute to a better system. We have been listening widely and hearing the concerns from industry, union bosses, employer and employee groups, welfare groups, casual and injured workers, and small business. I care and I will fight to protect workers' legal and moral entitlements, just as I am doing in Queensland and I am doing in the Hunter Valley, even though it is not in my state. One Nation stands for the workers that Labor and Joel Fitzgibbon continue to ignore. 17:15 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland It is great to stand up here today and respond to Senator Sterle's idea that we are planning to cut pay, because there is no greater example of how pay is cut in this country than superannuation. It takes 9½ per cent of somebody's wage, rips it out of their pocket, sends it to some big city somewhere to some unaccountable person who doesn't have to repay it to the person when they are 60. There is no capital guarantee with superannuation. We are going to go to 12 per cent here, so that is another 2½ per cent that could go into someone's pocket. The workers are going to miss out on that because it isn't going to go into their pockets; it is going to go to some blowhard in some ivory palace somewhere. I have a lot of time for Senator Sterle. We struck a real chord in the year before last when we were down in Wangaratta when he said that he grew up on his father's lap driving a truck, and that is how I grew up. I grew up on a farm. I can remember as a young child sitting on my father's lap, sitting behind the wheel of big truck as well. At the end of the day, what we share in common is the spirit of the battlers. This is the problem with superannuation: the battlers don't get to see it. The battlers don't get to see any superannuation; it goes to the blowhards in the ivory towers. I don't know why blue-collar workers support superannuation. I don't know why they want it to go to these ivory towers. If you want to support workers' conditions, let them have control of their hard-earned wages. But it doesn't end there. Labor have got this crazy scheme now where they are going to increase what they call portability. They are going to rip out 25 per cent of casuals' loading. They are going to say, 'Don't worry about that. It isn't going into your pocket, no. Let us look after it for you.' Here we go again. It is the same old theme of collectivism, the same old theme of command and control that says: 'No, you don't know what you are doing with your money; we know best.' This is typical Labor, through and through—command and control, don't let the casuals have their money. It is estimated that $8,000 a year will get ripped out of workers' pockets. Labor are going to reduce the loading for casuals. A lot of people in casual labour actually want to be in casual labour. They might be the secondary breadwinner in the family and might want to work around the primary breadwinner, so they may only want to work Saturday or Sunday. They might like the flexibility of coming and going and not being locked into a fixed contract. They might be students who occasionally get a bit of extra work on the weekend or get a bit of extra work over the holidays but don't want to be forced into permanent work, and they sure as hell don't want to lose their loading. They don't want to lose their loading. But, of course, Labor cannot help themselves. They have to take that money and look after it for themselves, because that is the way they get to clip the ticket and that is the way they get to exert more command and control over the worker. They want to deny the worker individual freedoms. Then, of course, the greatest threat to working conditions in this country is the cost of energy. What Labor want to do is go to unreliable, non-recyclable energy. That is right. This is the crazy thing: they call this energy renewable energy. You can't renew lithium batteries. You can't renew solar panels. You can't renew windmills, mate. These lithium batteries are one per cent ore body. You've got to mine a hundred tonnes of the stuff just to get to the ore, and that's before you bring in stripping ratios. Sometimes stripping ratios are 10 to one. How much dirt are we going to have to dig up in this country to get one battery? It's exorbitant, and that is going to drive the price of energy up. Of course, Labor think it's great to have more people in energy creation. But this just goes to show that they don't understand business. You don't want to increase the number of workers involved in the input costs of a business; you actually want to increase the output. We on this side of the chamber want more people in manufacturing producing outputs, not producing inputs. We've seen that up in Queensland, where the Queensland Labor government have been subsidising foreign companies to basically produce energy at the expense of our own coal-fired power stations, which meant that last year they made a loss for the first time ever. 17:21 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Everyone should have a home and a good job and a good school and good health care and food in the fridge and a warm place to sleep. Everyone should have the essentials of life that you need to live a good life. The reality for so many people in our community for so long has been that these essentials have been out of reach, that struggle has been the daily background noise to existence. I am 26 years old. In 1994, the year that I was born, the Newstart payment rose for the final time in a 26-year period and, for the 26 years I've been on this planet, it has stayed exactly where it was, at the same time as more money than can be conceived of has flown into the pockets of big corporations and the companies that donate to the major parties in this place. For those 26 years, the community have been campaigning with the Greens to increase what was Newstart and is now called JobSeeker so that it is above the poverty line, so that people can have access to those essentials, so that the struggle can be a little bit less. The Morrison government has announced a $3.50 a day increase. That is not an increase; it is an insult. It is an insult to all those who campaigned for so long to raise the rate. It is an insult to every person who gave their time to tell their member of parliament about the need for an increase, and it will not be accepted—not by the Greens. We will continue to campaign for a JobSeeker rate which is above the poverty line, that alleviates the struggle that is people's existence far too often. We will keep campaigning on it and we will be clear that this is our goal. We will not mince our words. We will continue to work with the community for a real increase to JobSeeker. 17:23 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I realise that Senator Steele-John came in and made a contribution to this discussion; in fact, the MPI today is about employers and ensuring workers get fair pay, entitlements and conditions. Labor would have you believe that this is a government that isn't looking after workers, when in fact the only side proposing to cut wages and cost jobs is sitting on the opposite side of the chamber, the Labor Party. We recently heard opposition leader Anthony Albanese announce his undercooked and disappointing attempt at an industrial relations policy. It has nothing to help employers and employees work together, nothing to grow jobs, nothing to address underpayments or fix a broken enterprise bargaining system. But do you know what it does contain? It contains either a $20 billion a year business tax or, on the other side, a cut in casual pay equal to, on average, $153 a week. Yep, that's right. The Attorney-General's Department has estimated that just one element of the plan proposed by those opposite—extending paid annual leave, sick leave and long service leave entitlements to casual employees and independent contractors—would cost up to $20.3 billion per year. A $20 billion per year business tax. Over the course of the last week we've heard that those opposite suggest quickly that this isn't the plan, but then we saw the ACTU suggest that Labor's policy would actually be to cut casuals' pay to extend these new entitlements. The Attorney-General's Department has estimated this would cost a casual employee, on average, $153 a week. So which side of this chamber has a desire to cut pay? It is not this one. As we have shown through the pandemic, the government is constructive and pragmatic when it comes to industrial relations policy. We focused on measures designed to regrow jobs, to boost wages and to enhance productivity, doing so in the same cooperative spirit that the country has so successfully embraced in our approach to the pandemic. We have done this through extensive consultation with unions and industry, aiming to bring people together and not divide them. What the country doesn't need is more attempts by Anthony Albanese and the Labor Party to turn workplaces into battlegrounds, pitching employers against employees for their own political purposes. We had hoped that 2021 might see the opposition adopt a more mature approach to industrial relations. But sadly their continued bluff, attitude and outright lies about what our government is proposing shows that they remain hopelessly fixated, as always, not on solving problems but playing politics. The government's willingness to consult widely was evidenced last week when it announced the removal of the temporary section 189 amendment. By refusing to back the bill Anthony Albanese has shown he is only concerned about protecting one job: his own. The government's IR package addresses known problems within our industrial relations system and Labor's Fair Work Act. The reforms will not only support wages growth and help grow the jobs lost to the pandemic but tackle broader issues like underemployment, job security, underpayment of wages and the failure of Labor's enterprise bargaining system to drive wages and productivity growth. In fact, it is a Liberal government that is working to deliver these outcomes. In continuing to oppose the government's IR bill here is what the Labor Party is against: tougher civil penalties and new criminal penalties to stamp out wage theft, a quicker way to recover underpayments when they occur, a quicker enterprise approval process through the Fair Work Commission to help deliver pay rises more quickly. But, of course, it's old Labor saying, 'Let's block everything and change nothing.' What else do they want to block? The opportunity for more hours of work for almost 30 per cent of part-time employees in the retail sector and around 40 per cent of part-time employees in the accommodation and food services sector. So much for Labor being on your side. Definitely not if you are a part-time worker or a—(Time expired) 17:28 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I rise to speak on this very important matter that concerns Australian workers' pay and conditions. This government has no plan for secure jobs. Instead, it's making it easier for employers to cut workers' pay and conditions. One of the many lessons from the COVID pandemic has been how insecure work has threatened our nation's health and the economy. When casual workers don't receive sick pay they lack the financial means to stay home when sick, even with a highly contagious disease like COVID in the community. We know this because we have seen it happen. Aged-care workers, childcare workers and security guards facing financial insecurity if they take a sick day. We've also seen casual workers having to work multiple jobs to ensure that they get enough hours. This is bad not just for the health and hip pockets of those workers and their families, but also for society and for our economy as a whole. We need to learn the lessons of this pandemic. The government's approach actually entrenches insecure work. Insecure work comes in many forms. I have heard from many workers their frustration at being rolled over from one contract to the next, in some cases for years on end. It makes it hard for people to plan ahead. It makes it hard for people to start a family. It makes it hard for them just to survive. I see this in the Northern Territory with families and governments and the Community Development Program. The current design of the CDP does not address the real employment challenges facing remote communities, including lack of demand for labour, lack of the skills required to take up available jobs and the health effects of poverty. The government's broken and discriminatory Community Development Program is no substitute for a plan for job creation and economic development. But the Morrison government has no plan for jobs—certainly not in regard to the more than 33,000 people on CDP. The problems with insecure work in Australia have only gotten worse over time. Our industrial relations system has not kept pace. The coalition's industrial relations omnibus bill makes work less secure and cuts pay. Public health experts have labelled it an immediate threat to public health. They cite modelling that paid leave, including for flu and other infectious diseases, can reduce workplace infections by at least 25 per cent. The ACTU has said the bill fails the government's own test and that workers will be worse off. The government's changes will make jobs less secure, they'll make it easier for employers to casualise permanent jobs, and they'll allow employers to pay workers less than the award safety net. That is completely the opposite of what this country needs. The bill creates a path for employers to cut back due to the impact of COVID-19 on their business and wipes out back pay claims for misclassified casuals. The existing better off overall test would be suspended, allowing enterprise agreements to avoid minimum standards of modern awards, making enterprise agreements a mechanism for lowering wages and standards. Working people have also sacrificed so much during the pandemic, and they are hurting. The government's bill will hurt them even more. As the CPSU says, the coalition government's proposed changes will accelerate the incidence of insecure work, undermine genuine collective bargaining and suppress wages growth. Impacts will be felt across the entire workforce—casual and permanent workers alike. As if workers haven't suffered enough battling to make ends meet during COVID, this new legislative offensive is so pro business that workers could be hired on a casual basis in virtually any position that employers deem to be casual. This is because the Morrison government's IR changes include a new definition of 'casual employee' that effectively overturns two recent Federal Court decisions. The matters of WorkPac v Skene and WorkPac v Rossato found that employees were not in fact casuals but, rather, permanent workers, principally because they were given rosters up to a year in advance. The tourism industry in the Northern Territory relies heavily on casual workers for human resources, and casual workers rely heavily on the tourism sector for work. Northern Territory government investment through tourism vouchers, Roadhouse to Recovery grants and the Visitor Experience Enhancement Program, as well as the federal government's JobKeeper scheme, have helped the local tourism sector survive. It has also created a false positive, which will soon run out. Scott Morrison is leaving the tourism sector behind and putting jobs at risk by ignoring industry pleas for support beyond the end of JobKeeper. As the months of government inaction continue, tourism workers and businesses are understandably becoming increasingly anxious about whether they will still have a job after 28 March. A survey by the Australian Federation of Travel Agents shows that, if JobKeeper is not extended, three out of every 10 travel agencies will close immediately across Australia. We've seen travel agencies close during the pandemic. Do we really need to see more? And travel agents are not alone, with many international-facing tourism businesses likely to be among the last to recover from the economic impacts of COVID-19. In December almost 2,000 Territory businesses were still receiving JobKeeper, with payments worth $29.3 million to the Northern Territory economy. The Morrison government keeps saying it needs more data before it will make a decision, but people's livelihoods are at risk. The president of the Australian Federation of Travel Agents, Mr Darren Rudd, has warned that, once JobKeeper ends, eight out of 10 people still working in travel will be out of a job, and 30 per cent of businesses will close and 52 per cent will be at risk if support is not extended again beyond 28 March. The Prime Minister is not on the side of travel agents and tourism workers. He is leaving them to go it alone while he focuses on photo ops and announcements and never delivers. Just have a look at the rush that he made to Kakadu just over two years ago, and we're still waiting. Australians in insecure work or looking for work are anguished by the uncertainty and they cannot plan for their future. Labor is calling on the government to provide Australians looking for work with certainty about what support will be available to them after March. Australian workers deserve this. Territory workers deserve this. Labor has a secure jobs plan and it involves job security explicitly inserted into the Fair Work Act, rights for gig economy workers, casual work properly defined in law, more secure public sector jobs and so much more. As we know, the Morrison government does not care about Australian workers. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT F49 There are no further speakers on the MPI. DOCUMENTS 1513 DOCUMENTS Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment 1513 Consideration 1513 17:38 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I rise to take note of the document Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997—Livestock mortalities during export by sea—report for the period 1 July to 31 December 2020. These latest numbers help to confirm that in 2020, despite it being the year in which so much of the global economy and global trade was disrupted, the brutality of the live export trade still went on. Nothing, it seems, will stop the Australian government from continuing to export sheep and cattle for profit. Alarmingly, the mortality rate for cattle on board the ships remains about the same as it has been for the last five years, and this is despite the government saying, again and again, how much the live export trade is improving and how they can make this cruel industry acceptable from an animal welfare perspective. But it seems nothing really is changing. The government registered more than 1,200 mortalities of Australian cattle on voyages during 2020, which was of course the year of COVID-19. Nothing is changing for these animals, who continue to suffer on these ships of misery. The news isn't much better for sheep either, with more than 1,700 mortalities of sheep on board recorded last year. Thousands of animals are dying as they are exported in horrible conditions, and there is absolutely no need to do so. That's bad enough on its own. I do have to make the point as well that considering onboard mortalities is a pretty outdated way of measuring animal welfare experiences on board live exports ships. So long as there is a live export industry, there should be routine reportable measures against animal welfare indicators, on top of the death tally. The community should be able to see these measures transparently, and parliament should be able to scrutinise them. These should include measures such as experiences of heat stress, stocking densities and pen conditions. That would show us what is really going on on these ships. Without such animal welfare indicators transparently present and in a timely manner, it's impossible to know the conditions that these animals are being put under on these ships. We know what happens on these ships; they are miserable, cruel places. Such transparency would further expose what is an industry that is rotten to the core and incapable of making live export at all compatible with animal welfare. We have to shut it down. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT F49 Are you seeking leave to continue your remarks? Senator FARUQI 250362 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 1513 COMMITTEES Report 1513 17:41 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales Pursuant to order and at the request of the chairs of the respective committees, I present reports on the examination of annual reports tabled by 31 October 2020. COVID-19 Select Committee 1514 Report 1514 17:42 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I present the second interim report of the Select Committee on COVID-19 on public interest immunity claims. I move: That the consideration of the recommendations made in the report be a business of the Senate order of the day for 15 March 2021. I indicate to senators that, after the question on this motion is put, I will move a motion to take note of the report to enable other senators to speak. Question agreed to. Senator GALLAGHER ING I move: That the Senate take note of the report. This report should never have been needed to be written, but the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19 has to update the Senate on how the government, through its inappropriate use of public interest immunity claims, has wilfully obstructed access to information crucial to the committee's inquiry. The Senate must act to reassert its pre-eminent role in holding the executive to account and reject this government's secretive agenda designed to protect the executive. If we fail to stand up for the Senate's power of inquiry, the Senate will become a toothless tiger that gets spoonfed only the information that the government wants to feed it. That is not how our system is meant to operate. As senators will remember, the COVID-19 committee was established on the 8 April last year to scrutinise the government's response to COVID-19 at a time when it was unclear when the Senate would sit due to the pandemic. At the time, the former leader of the government Senator Cormann said: We welcome the scrutiny. We do believe there is a need for scrutiny. We understand and appreciate that, in these extraordinary times, the government has been required to make very significant decisions, and … … … it is appropriate that those judgements that we make are scrutinised and challenged to help us make even better decisions as we go along. Despite this, the committee finds that, in practice, the government's approach in responding to requests for information has been at best lazy and at worst a deliberate abuse of the public interest immunity process. I say this in the context that not all the information requested by committees should always be released. In fact the committee has accepted two claims of public interest immunity, because it was reasonable to do so. That is why we have in place clear guidance through the 2009 Cormann motion that information can only be withheld from the Senate through a properly made PII claim. Yet we have seen a consistent refusal from the government to provide information to the committee or to follow the process that they insisted on when they were last in opposition. We have seen public servants, who clearly know the answers to questions, refuse to answer before being reminded of their obligations to the Senate, and then they refer the matter to the minister for consideration. This is where, I think, the government hopes it ends as nothing seems to happen once these claims get referred to ministers. It's fallen to the committee and the committee chair, me, to write to ministers, reminding them about the referral and asking for a response. This process alone has taken months to complete—hardly a shining example of transparency and scrutiny at work. We have then seen claim after claim of public interest immunity come in, usually without addressing in any satisfactory way the public harm that would be caused by the release of the information being sought. So, for the Senate's information, the information being denied to it includes whether a US law enforcement agency could access data collected by the COVIDSafe app; when the Chief Medical Officer first briefed cabinet and the date on which the national cabinet first agreed to a suppression strategy, not an elimination strategy; the modelling underpinning the government's health response to COVID-19; the economic modelling underpinning the government's response, including on the design of JobKeeper and the rate of JobSeeker; a presentation by the Productivity Commission to national cabinet; when the former minister for aged care, now minister for aged care services, first briefed the cabinet about the pandemic, and if he briefed them at all on the royal commission report or during the outbreak in residential aged care in Victoria; and also the department of social security's advice on the reintroduction of the liquid assets test. The reasons for withholding this information include a reference to legal professional privilege—a reason the Senate has never accepted as sufficient grounds in and of itself to refuse information to the parliament; claims relying only on general statements about the sanctity of cabinet information, which, again, is not a ground the Senate has accepted to refuse and fails to comply with the Cormann order; claims that providing the information would somehow reveal cabinet deliberations, which are clearly not true because the committee never asked what was discussed. We merely sought information such as the date when things happened or modelling that would assist with the understanding of the government's response. At no stage in any of these claims did ministers address the public harm that could be caused specifically by the release of such information. Causing political harm to a minister or a government is not a legitimate reason to withhold information that the Senate has requested, but it appears to me that this is the government's main motivation. The refusal to provide the committee with key information obstructs the committee in undertaking its scrutiny responsibilities and, frankly, if it wasn't such a flagrant abuse of the PII process, it would be a joke. Why on earth is the government refusing to answer when the Chief Medical Officer first briefed cabinet? Is it because he didn't do it until later into the pandemic? Why is the minister for aged care services refusing to answer when he first briefed the cabinet on the unfolding crisis in residential aged care? Is it because it never happened? Why can't the government front up and explain when they agreed on a suppression strategy for the pandemic? Why can't the Senate have access to presentations given by the Productivity Commission or Treasury to national cabinet? It seems the staff of state and territory governments are allowed access, but the Australian Senate is not. How can we question decisions if we're denied access to modelling or expert advice that informed those decisions after they were taken? How can we scrutinise the timeliness of the response when the government won't even give us the dates of key decisions or ministerial briefings? The government should respect the role of the Senate and its committee but the government, through an arrogant abuse of public interest immunity, has treated and, unless there are consequences, will continue to treat this place with contempt. The current approach from the government is not exclusive to the COVID-19 committee either. I see it used by public servants and ministers all the time to hide from scrutiny, particularly during estimates. There are other ways outside the PII claims that the government routinely denies public access to information, rejecting freedom-of-information requests, giving late or evasive answers to questions on notice and refusing to comply with orders for the production of documents. There is no shortage of examples where this government unreasonably denies, usually on political grounds, access to information. I say to the Senate: as the current generation of senators, we must stand up for the powers and purpose of the Senate. This Senate will outlive all of us, and it falls to us to stand up and protect what is clearly a conscious attempt by a secretive government to whittle away the powers of this Senate, which have been clearly established over decades. We cannot allow the Senate to receive only information that it is politically convenient for the government to provide. To accept the government's approach, as outlined in this report, of withholding key information from public view would erode and undermine the Senate's power of inquiry. As chair of this select committee, I don't want to see that happen, nor will my fellow committee members allow it, neither should any senator in this place. I commend the report to the Senate. 17:50 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria In my capacity as the Deputy Chair the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19, I rise to make a brief contribution in response to that of the Chair of the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19. I have very much enjoyed working with the chair and all members of the committee. It is not uncommon for, and I certainly don't object to, a Senate committee taking issue with the use of public interest immunity claims by governments, but I think it's important to place these particular disputes between the committee and the government over a handful of public interest immunity claims in the wider context of the work of the committee. I think it's important for the record, and government senators have made additional comments in this report, to note that, since the committee was established on, I agree, a bipartisan basis, as Senator Gallagher noted, 39 public hearings have been held; the health department has appeared 10 times before the committee; the Treasury has appeared eight times before the committee; the committee has, as of a few days ago, sent out 2,273 questions on notice both to the government and to other witnesses before the inquiry; government agencies and departments have answered almost 2,000 questions on notice to the committee; and all of this was done in the midst of the most unprecedented global pandemic in our lifetimes and the associated economic crisis. So I think it's a bit unreasonable for the chair to characterise the government as being uncooperative or secretive. It actually shows a high degree of cooperation and a high degree of respect for the Senate. It's not unusual for there to have been a handful of issues of disagreement on PII claims, but let's put that handful—literally a handful—of disagreements between the committee and the government in the context of what is actually an amazing degree of cooperation and bipartisanship, which has been upheld throughout this process. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT F49 Senator Gallagher has indicated that she is seeking leave to continue her remarks on the second interim report of the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee 1517 Delegated Legislation Monitor 1517 17:53 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I present Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 4 of 2021 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I rise to speak to the tabling of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation's Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 4 of 2021. I would like once again to draw the chamber's attention to the committee's comments regarding legislative instruments made by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. These instruments address a range of subject matters within ASIC's portfolio by providing for exemptions from and modifications to certain provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 and other acts of parliament. At the outset, I take this opportunity to express the committee's concern that it has taken over four months to reach a resolution in relation to the committee's systemic scrutiny concerns about these instruments. However, as I have previously advised the chamber, excessive delays in resolving the committee's scrutiny concerns are not limited to any one portfolio. It is for this reason that yesterday I, jointly with the deputy chair, moved a motion in relation to the importance of constructive and timely engagement with the committee. I will further reflect on the terms of this motion shortly. The instruments in question alter the operation of primary legislation made by this parliament and were intended to remain in force for substantial periods of time—the majority, up to 10 years. This contravenes the committee's longstanding expectation that instruments which modify or exempt persons or entities from the operation of primary legislation should cease to operate no more than three years after they commence. The committee considers that a shorter sunsetting period is essential to ensure that there is a minimum degree of regular parliamentary oversight of such instruments. The committee also considers that these instruments raise systemic concerns about the application of ASIC's exemption and modification powers and the application of similar powers across government more broadly. For this reason, the committee continues to apply its approach to instruments which modify the operation of primary legislation consistently across all portfolios. The fact that a legislative instrument is made by an independent agency does not in any way diminish the need for the parliament to effectively exercise control over its delegated legislative power. Noting this, on 4 February, the committee wrote to the Treasurer to request that the five ASIC instruments be amended to ensure that, in effect, they cease to operate three years after commencement. However, the committee did not receive a response to this request until the evening of 18 February. It is concerning that this lack of timely engagement prevented the committee from advising the Senate about its views on the instruments in its delegated legislation monitor tabled last week. Despite the delay in providing the response, the Treasurer's response recognised the importance of Treasury instruments being consistent with the committee's scrutiny principles and reiterated that he shares the committee's concerns in relation to the importance of parliamentary oversight of legislative instruments. The Treasurer's comments in this response also incorporated three further ASIC instruments which the committee had raised separately with the Treasurer and which had also been the subject of notices of motion to disallow. In responding to the committee's systemic scrutiny concerns about the ASIC instruments, the Treasurer undertook to engage in further good-faith discussions with the committee following the tabling of the committee's final report of its inquiry into the exemption of delegated legislation from parliamentary oversight. These discussions would address the ASIC instruments of current interest to the committee, in addition to other legislative instruments in the Treasury portfolio more broadly. This is very important given the fact that the Treasury portfolio has a very large number of legislative instruments—indeed, I believe it has the largest. The committee considers that the approach developed as a result of this engagement may serve as a model for addressing the committee's scrutiny concerns about instruments which modify the operation of primary legislation in other portfolios in the future. In addition, in response to the committee's scrutiny concerns, ASIC has amended the ASIC Corporations (Litigation Funding Schemes) Instrument 2020 to provide that it will cease five years after commencement. The committee considers that this amendment is a positive indication that the Treasurer and ASIC will continue to engage with the committee to resolve its systemic concerns about the application of ASIC's modification and exemption powers more broadly. In light of the Treasurer's undertaking to engage with the committee to resolve the committee's scrutiny concerns in relation to legislative instruments across the Treasury portfolio and the amendment of the litigation funding schemes instrument, the committee has concluded its examination of six of the eight instruments. However, the committee has not received a substantive response in relation to the specific scrutiny concerns raised with the Treasurer in relation to two remaining instruments: the ASIC Credit (Notice Requirements for Unlicensed Carried Over Instrument Lenders) Instrument 2020 and the ASIC Credit (Electronic Precontractual Disclosure) Instrument 2020. While some aspects of the committee's scrutiny concerns about these two instruments have been addressed by the Treasurer in his most recent correspondence, the committee considers that the remaining scrutiny concerns must be resolved before it can conclude its examination of the instruments. The Treasurer's response to these ongoing scrutiny concerns will assist the committee in determining whether to withdraw the disallowance notices currently in place on the two instruments. Finally, I welcomed the Senate's agreement yesterday for a motion which I moved jointly with the deputy chair, Senator Carr, that re-emphasised the importance of the work of this committee. In the motion, the Senate reiterated that one of its essential functions is to scrutinise the lawmaking power that the parliament has delegated to the executive and endorse the position that the Senate must hold the executive to account in this regard. Importantly, the Senate affirmed the central part that the committee has played since 1932 in supporting the Senate in this fundamental role. It also recognises that, to effectively fulfil its mandate, the committee relies on the constructive and timely engagement of ministers and agencies on the technical scrutiny concerns raised by the committee. Therefore, the Senate called on all ministers and agencies to respond to the committee's request for information in relation to its technical scrutiny concerns within the time frame set by the committee and to implement undertakings made to the committee in a timely manner. I thank the Senate for re-endorsing the importance of the committee role and take this opportunity to draw the terms of the motion to the attention of all ministers, shadow ministers and agencies. With these comments I commend the committee's Delegated Legislation Monitor 4 2021 to the Senate. Question agreed to. Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 1519 Report 1519 18:01 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria On behalf of the Chair of Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the report of its review of declared areas provisions. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I am pleased to present the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's report into the Review of 'Declared areas' provisions: Sections 119.2 and 119.3 of the Criminal Code. This is the first report I present as chair of the intelligence and security committee and, as such, I would like to acknowledge the former chair of the committee, Mr Andrew Hastie MP, for his significant contribution to the committee and to national security policy over the last two parliaments and for his role in chairing the inquiry into these provisions last year. I look forward to working in collaboration with all members of the committee on important national security and intelligence matters in the bipartisan spirit that has been a consistent feature of its work. This is the report of the review of the operation, effectiveness and implications of the declared areas as required under subparagraph 29.1 of the Intelligence Services Act 2001. In brief terms, section 119.2 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence for an Australian citizen to enter or remain in an area in a foreign country that is declared by the Minister for Foreign Affairs under section 119.3 of the Criminal Code. There are exemptions where a declared area offence does not apply if a person enters an area for one or more legitimate purposes specified in section 119.2. A declaration by the foreign minister ceases to have effect after three years, and the committee may review a declaration and report to parliament at any time a declaration is in effect. There have only been two declarations made under the provisions to date. The al-Raqqa province in Syria was declared on 4 December 2014, and Mosul district in Iraq was declared on 2 March 2015 and re-declared on 2 March 2018. Both declarations have since been revoked by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and there are currently no declared areas under section 119.3 of the Criminal Code. In fulfilling its obligation under the Intelligence Services Act to review the declared area provisions, the committee has considered the current and evolving international security threat environment, the purpose of and necessity of the provisions, the operation and effectiveness of the provisions including their usage to date and their deterrent effect, the intersection of the provision with human rights and civil liberties, and proposed additional exceptions for legitimate travel to declared areas. In making its recommendations, the committee also considered the current and future uncertain geopolitical environment, which has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 global pandemic. The committee found that it would not be prudent to repeal the declared areas provisions during a period of great uncertainty. As such, the committee recommended: the declared area provisions of the Criminal Code be extended for a further three years to a new sunset date of 7 September 2024; the Criminal Code be amended to provide that the PJCIS may review the operation and effectiveness of declared area provisions prior to the new sunset date; and, within 18 months of this report, the committee receive a briefing from government agencies on the use, proportionality and effectiveness of the declared area provisions. In addition, the committee also believes there is merit in implementing a regulation to allow citizens to apply for permission to travel to a declared area in special circumstances. Therefore, rather than extending exceptions under the current provisions of the Criminal Code, the government could consider applications based on merit and a relevant security threat assessment. The committee recommended that the Criminal Code be amended to allow Australian citizens to request an exemption from the Minister for Foreign Affairs to travel to a declared area for reasons not listed under section 119.2 and, importantly, that the minister's decision would not be subject to a merit review. I commend the report to the Senate. Question agreed to. Scrutiny of Bills Committee 1520 Scrutiny Digest 1520 18:05 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria On behalf of the Chair of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Senator Polley, I present Scrutiny Digest No. 4 of 2021. DOCUMENTS 1520 DOCUMENTS Defence Procurement 1520 Order for the Production of Documents 1520 18:05 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria On behalf of the Chair of the Economics References Committee, Senator Gallacher, I present a statement relating to an order for the production of documents concerning the committee's inquiry into Australia's sovereign naval shipbuilding capability. COMMITTEES 1520 COMMITTEES Public Accounts and Audit Committee 1520 Executive Minutes 1520 18:05 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present six executive minutes to various reports of the committee. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 1520 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Members of Parliament: Staff 1520 18:06 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I table a response to a question taken on notice during question time on Monday 22 February and additional information to an answer on Tuesday 23 February 2021, asked by Senators Waters, and to a question asked on 18 Ferbary 2021 by Senator McAllister, relating to allegations of sexual assault, and seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows— Dear Mr President I write with regard to a question I took on notice from Senator Waters during Question Time on Monday 22 February 2021 and my letter that day responding to the question, and to add to an answer I provided to Senator Waters during Question Time on Tuesday 23 February 2021, on the matter of Members of Parliament Staff. I am advised that, at the request of Minister Reynolds' office, the Department of Parliamentary Services cancelled the Parliament House access pass of the male staff member in question on 27 March 2019 and no pass, either staff or sponsored, has been issued to this person since that time. I am also advised that given that the logs for signing in guests to Parliament House are manually recorded, it is impossible to establish quickly if the person in question has been signed into the building by a pass holder at any time since March 2019, and of course any member of the public was able to freely enter its public areas prior to COVID-19 restrictions. I am also advised by the Attorney-General's Department, which is responsible for administering the Lobbyist Register, that the individual in question is not currently listed on the Lobbyist Register. The individual has previously been registered but was deregistered from the Lobbyist Register in May 2020. The Lobbyist Register does not contain information about individual meetings that lobbyists undertake. I also write to add to an answer I provided to Senator McAllister during Question Time on Thursday 18 February 2021, on the matter of Members of Parliament Staff. I am not aware of any incidents of backgrounding and the Prime Minister is not aware of any incidents. As I have stated, the Prime Minister does not approve of such activities. I have copied this letter to the Prime Minister, Senator Waters and Senator McAllister. Yours sincerely Simon Birmingham Minister for Finance 24 February 2021 DOCUMENTS 1521 DOCUMENTS Defence Procurement 1521 Order for the Production of Documents 1521 18:06 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I table documents relating to the order for the production of documents concerning future submarines. COMMITTEES 1521 COMMITTEES Autism Select Committee 1521 Membership 1521 18:06 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT F49 The President has received a letter requesting a change in the membership of a committee. 18:06 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria by leave—I move: That the resolution of appointment of the Select Committee on Autism be amended to provide that: (a) Senator Griff cease to be a member of the committee; and (b) a new deputy chair, who is a non-government member of the committee, be elected by the committee. Question agreed to. BILLS 1522 BILLS Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020 1522

Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020

First Reading 1522 18:07 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 1522 18:08 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020 will provide stronger protections for academic freedom and freedom of speech in Australia, by giving effect to recommendations from the 2019 independent review into freedom of speech in higher education undertaken by the Honourable Robert French AC, former Chief Justice of the High Court Chief of Australia. The Bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (HESA) to: provide a new definition of academic freedom that enshrines in law principles of freedom of expression that are an essential part of the life of our universities, for both academic staff and students; substitute the existing term 'free intellectual inquiry' in relevant provisions with the terms 'freedom of speech' and 'academic freedom', to align the language of those provisions with Mr French's proposed Model Code for the Protection of Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom in Australian Higher Education Providers. In replacing 'free intellectual inquiry', the amendments appropriately distinguish freedom of speech as a common freedom from elements of freedom of speech and intellectual inquiry that are central and distinctive aspects of academic freedom. Key characteristics of academic freedom are set out in the new definition. The Australian Government is strongly committed to supporting academic freedom and freedom of speech in Australian universities. Our universities are critical institutions where ideas are debated and challenged. We must ensure they are places that protect all free speech, even where what is being said may be unpopular or challenging. That is why, in November 2018, following reports of concerning incidents on university campuses across Australia, I announced the independent review into freedom of speech, undertaken by Mr French. Mr French's review was a cooperative and consultative project that respected Australian universities' long held and deeply valued autonomy. As Mr French observed in his review: even a limited number of incidents seen as affecting freedom of speech may have an adverse impact on public perception of the higher education sector. I released the final report in April last year and announced that the Government had accepted all his recommendations. The central recommendation was adoption of a Model Code on freedom of speech and academic freedom across the higher education sector. Consistent with this approach, Mr French recommended amendments to HESA and the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) legislative instrument to align this legislation with the Model Code. The amendments I am introducing today are one of three key elements in the Government's commitment to strengthen protections for academic freedom and freedom of speech in Australian higher education. In addition, we are working with and supporting universities to align their policy frameworks with Mr French's Model Code. The French Model Code sets out a framework for universities that protects freedom of speech and academic freedom as paramount values of Australian universities. All universities have undertaken to adopt the Model Code, in a way that is consistent with their individual legislative frameworks. In August 2020, to support their efforts in implementing the Code, I announced a review by lawyer and former Vice-Chancellor of Deakin University, Professor (Emeritus) Sally Walker AM, to evaluate the alignment of university policies with the principles of the Model Code. A third element is focused on supporting the work of institutions and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency to monitor compliance with relevant quality standards. This will involve making changes to the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) legislative instrument to align its language with HESA and the Model Code. As work to implement the Model Code is well advanced across our university sector, these amendments are necessary to ensure consistency between the legislation and university statutes, and to support regulators and universities alike, in promoting academic freedom and freedom of speech in higher education campuses across Australia. Mr French identified support for academic freedom, freedom of speech and institutional autonomy as the three central tenets of his Model Code. More than 56 years ago, in August 1964, Prime Minister Robert Menzies gave voice to the importance of these elements. Speaking at the University of New South Wales, Mr Menzies described the right and duty of universities and academics to pursue new knowledge as 'of the most vital importance for human progress in all fields of knowledge'. He noted that a university that treated an academic as no more than a person 'hired to study as directed and to teach in accordance with rules laid down by other people, would be an extremely strange university; it would have failed to understand the immense importance of true academic freedom.' In the history of western civilisation, from the death of Socrates nearly two and a half thousand years ago, to the Cold War era that helped shape modern geopolitics, scholars and the institutions that support and nurture them have been subject to internal and external incursions on their freedom to explore, understand, critique, engage with, and disseminate knowledge about the world. The first quarter of the 21st century is no exception. Australia's university sector is affected by pressures at home and abroad that may diminish academic freedom on campus. It is vital to Australia's sovereignty and our moral, social, political and economic wellbeing that universities, their staff and students, and their governance bodies be empowered to resist these incursions. The legislation that regulates higher education should support them in this task. The Government considers that adoption of the French Model Code is the most effective means to ensure Australia's higher education providers are supported to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom, protecting Australia's reputation for quality higher education. The consistency of language to be achieved by the measures in this Bill will facilitate adoption of, and compliance with, the Code, and provide for more consistent and transparent policies in relation to freedom of expression and academic freedom across the university sector, including key elements, principles, and any necessary limitations imposed on these freedoms. I commend the Bill. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour. Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 1524

Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021

First Reading 1524 18:09 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 1524 18:10 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— Today I am introducing the Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021, which amends the Australian Research Council Act 2001 to ensure continuity of funding to Australia's research community, through the funding schemes of the Australian Research Council or ARC. This Bill will amend the Australian Research Council Act to update the existing funding caps and insert new funding caps through until 30 June 2024 to allow continued funding of quality research in Australia. This routine update to the ARC's funding caps provides for anticipated inflationary growth so that the Government can continue to support thousands of individual research projects. These projects represent the cutting edge of Australia's research effort, undertaken in universities and research institutes across the country. These efforts have been part of the Australian response to the COVID virus. In July last year, a research team from Monash University and the ARC Centre of Excellence in Convergent BioNano Science and Technology developed a test to detect positive COVID cases in about 20 minutes, and identify whether someone has contracted the virus. As early as March last year, research teams at the ARC Centre of Excellence in Population Ageing Research had developed the first wide-ranging global economic assessment of the effects of the COVID virus to help policymakers prepare a coordinated response to the economic costs of a pandemic as the virus evolves. As working from home became widespread across Australia and the world, a research team led by ARC Laureate Professor Sharon Parker at Curtin University, began to survey approximately 1000 workers from all around the world, asking them about their experience of working from home. Their ARC-funded research is helping us to qualify and understand the transformative effect that COVID is having on people's lives and workplaces. Over the next four years, with the passage of this Bill, the ARC will deliver more than $3 billion in funding for research projects like these, ranging in size from the tens of thousands of dollars, to the tens of millions. ARC funding supports a huge variety of basic and applied research, as well as providing valuable research fellowships, research training, research collaboration and research infrastructure to the sector. This Bill ensures the continuing support of many thousands of jobs in Australia's research sector, as well as many more jobs in the industries that rely on our home grown research expertise to stay ahead of the curve. Australia's ability to respond to the challenges of the future relies in a large part on the knowledge built from the research strength of our universities. It is in order to support and grow that strength that we bring this Bill to the Parliament. The Bill also amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to swiftly implement the Government's 2020-21 MYEFO decision to re-categorise the University of Notre Dame (UNDA) as a Table A provider, and to make a minor amendment to correct a typographical error. The re-categorisation of UNDA as a Table A provider places UNDA on a more equal footing with other universities, to better serve its students and continue to achieve comparable outcomes to other Table A providers. UNDA has proven that it delivers high-quality teaching and produces job‑ready graduates. For many years, UNDA has been teaching a significant number of students in areas such as teaching and nursing. UNDA's domestic bachelor student load is similar to, and in some cases greater than, other Table A providers. According to the 2018-2020 Graduate Outcomes Survey, 88.7 per cent of UNDA's graduates found employment within four months of graduation, exceeding the national average of 86.3 per cent. In the 2019‑2020 Course Experience Questionnaire, UNDA also rated significantly higher for graduate satisfaction at 91 per cent versus the national average of 80.4 per cent. However, UNDA currently receives a limited amount of Commonwealth supported places due to its status as a Table B provider, and this amount has not increased since 2015. This means UNDA has not been able to keep up with student demand for Commonwealth supported places with limited choice and equity for its students. This re-categorisation means that all non-medical domestic undergraduate students, including future students and current domestic full-fee paying students, will benefit from access to a Commonwealth supported places, with the Commonwealth subsidising part of their study. Importantly, as a Table A university, UNDA will be able to offer Commonwealth supported places to students in all fields of education. This is an investment of $27.2 million over four years from 2020-21 and $133.3 million over ten years to 2029-30 to support UNDA's current and future students. As a transitional arrangement, provisions in Part 2-2 of HESA will continue to apply to UNDA as if it were a Table B provider for 2021. This means that UNDA will not be treated as a Table A provider for the purposes of receiving Commonwealth Grant Scheme (CGS) funding under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 until 2022. This approach is necessary to assist in the administration of UNDA's CGS funding agreement, noting that the amendments to re-categorise UNDA as a Table A provider will commence partway through the 2021 grant year. However, to give effect to the Government decision to transition UNDA's eligible students to Commonwealth supported places from Semester 1 2021, it is intended that the Commonwealth Grant Scheme Guidelines 2020 be amended in early 2021 to ensure that UNDA will receive CGS funding as a Table B provider for all of its non-medical domestic undergraduate students in 2021, and that these students will be able to access Commonwealth supported places in 2021. This means that UNDA will receive the same amount of CGS funding, as a Table B provider, for its students in 2021 that it would have received as a Table A provider. The amendments to HESA will also give UNDA access to new funding arrangements provided to Table A providers under the Job-ready Graduates reforms. This includes funding from the National Priorities Industry Linkage Fund to support enhanced engagement with universities and industry, and demand-driven funding to support all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students from regional and remote communities to go to university. This recategorisation of UNDA as a Table A provider is fully supported by the university and its community. It is crucial that we make this amendment now to better position the university to serve its community and meet the challenges of the future. I commend this Bill. Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111. COMMITTEES 1526 COMMITTEES Membership 1526 Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 1526 Reference 1526 18:11 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I move: That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 2 August 2021: The need to reduce carbon pollution from the transport sector, with particular reference to: (a) the need to urgently transition to a net zero economy by 2035 to address the climate crisis, including through emissions reductions in the transport sector; (b) the urgent need for government policies to support a rapid transition to electric vehicles, including through consumer incentives, government procurement and other policies; (c) opportunities for the manufacturing of electric vehicle and electric vehicle components in Australia; (d) the need for federal resourcing and planning to support walking and cycling; (e) reducing emissions from shipping and aviation; (f) the need for a broader transport transition plan, to coordinate and support workers, communities and companies in the transition to a net zero economy; and (g) any other related matters deemed relevant by the committee. I'm proposing this inquiry because what is missing from this place, other than in Greens contributions in multiple debates, is serious consideration of the most existential issue facing humanity today both here in Australia and around the world. Basically, if global humanity doesn't do what's necessary to tackle our climate crisis then we are cactus. Almost 20 per cent of the carbon pollution from Australia comes from transport. We have to tackle our transport pollution if we are serious about tackling our carbon pollution. But at the moment there isn't a way forward that has been proposed by this government or this parliament. A few weeks ago we saw the Liberal Party's release of their Future Fuels Strategy discussion paper, and in a way it actually summed up the Liberal Party's approach to electric vehicles, to transport emissions and, indeed, to the climate crisis. It was late, it was devoid of meaningful content and, basically, it was just pathetic. Before I go on with the specifics of what this inquiry would encompass, which I envisage would enable us to lay out what we could and should be doing in the transport sector to slash our carbon pollution to zero as soon as possible, I want to lay out the problem of our climate crisis, because it does not seem to have sunk in to most people in this place what a huge problem we are facing. Barely over a year ago we saw Australia burn. We had more than 12.6 million hectares burnt in the 2019-20 summer fires. Twenty per cent of the mainland forests of Australia burnt, including forests that have never been burnt before in thousands and thousands of years. There were over three billion animals killed. The smoke from the fires alone was linked to more than 4,000 hospital admissions and 445 deaths, and that is in addition to the 30-odd people who, tragically, were killed in the fires. This has occurred with global warming of just over one degree, so frankly I am terrified to think of what we will face with three or more degrees of warming by the turn of the century. That turn of the century—I just want you to think about this—is in 79 years time. That's within the lifetime of the children and the grandchildren who we love and hold dear today. We are facing an existential crisis of more than three degrees of global warming. Tragically it's not just fires. The climate crisis means multiple species are facing extinction, with the homes they live in disappearing as climate change causes our environments to become hotter and drier and fires more intense and more frequent. We know there will be extreme weather—it's not just fires, it's also floods—and we've already seen insurance costs in Queensland absolutely skyrocket and become incredibly difficult to get. People can't get insurance for their property. We're seeing the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef affecting so many other precious life forms in our oceans. And we're seeing the rising sea levels, the rising tides and the threats to shore-front properties, infrastructure and people's whole towns. At the moment we're at about 1.2 degrees of warming. There is strong evidence that, at or around 1.5 degrees of warming, both the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets will have reached their tipping point—that is, melting will be locked in because of the level of heat that's in the atmosphere. Can we just stop and think about what that means. The melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets means eight metres of sea level rise. Current science is saying that, on the way to that eight-metre rise, we're looking at somewhere between two and three metres of sea level rise by the turn of the century—again, in the lifetime of children alive today. I'll give you one example of what that means. The Fishermans Bend development project that's currently underway in Melbourne is touted as the largest urban renewal development in the country. It's projected to be home to approximately 80,000 residents by 2050 and provide employment for up to 80,000 people. The only problem is that, by 2100, the vast majority of it will be under water, because it is all less than two metres above sea level, as will a huge area of our coastal cities, including places like my childhood home in Altona in Melbourne. This is the problem we are facing and, sadly, our current Liberal government has failed Australia. There have been years of opportunity when we could have acted at much lower cost than what we are facing now. Future generations are going to pay the price for the greed, the hypocrisy and the selfishness of the fossil fuel barons and their lackeys in the Liberal Party. The Labor Party is not much better. They don't even have a target for carbon reduction by 2030. They are saying 'zero carbon by 2050', but 2050 is too late. The science is in. We need to be reaching zero carbon well before then. Delaying action is the new denial. We need to act on our climate crisis, and that is the underlying reason for this referral. As I've said, transport is 20 per cent of our carbon pollution. We are well underway in the shift to renewable energy in the electricity sector, but that's not the case in transport. There was an article in The Guardian today basically saying the amount of solar and wind coming online is happening faster than was expected; it's providing power at a cheaper rate than was expected, causing electricity prices to come down; and it's going to mean earlier closure of the coal fired power stations than was previously expected. It's also inevitable that, with that reduction in the price of renewable electricity, it's going to outcompete gas on price within a couple of years. So things are happening when it comes to stage 3 energy but we are lagging when it comes to transport. It's absolutely essential that we sort out how we can shift to zero carbon transport as soon as possible. Currently, we are just missing out on so many opportunities. The most obvious one is the Liberal Party's failure to act on electric vehicles. This was a real opportunity for Australia. We could have had really exciting opportunities in embracing new technologies. We could have built our science and research sector up in supporting the shift to electric vehicles. We could have supported Australian manufacturing opportunities in components for batteries or maybe even entire vehicles. Wouldn't that be amazing—building entire vehicles here in Australia? We could have made driving around this continent cleaner, greener and cheaper for everybody. Instead, we had our Prime Minister running a campaign against electric vehicles during the election campaign. We know that there were claims that tradies couldn't possibly drive an electric vehicle and that nobody was going to be able to tow anything. After the election was over, I asked the department of the environment if there was any substance to the claims made during the election campaign, and, of course, there wasn't. We are broken down at the side of the road when it comes to electric vehicles. Other countries are zooming past us, racing along. The conservative UK government now has a commitment to ensuring that all new vehicles sold in the UK after 2030—that's in nine years time—will be electric vehicles. And that radical environment group General Motors has announced that all of its vehicles are going to be electric from 2035. Around the world, many countries are offering clear incentives and support for consumers, enabling them to drive clean, green electric vehicles. But in Australia we've got the Liberal Party and our Liberal-National government sitting on their hands. As a result, we're becoming a dumping ground for manufacturers who know that they can take their dirty, polluting and inefficient vehicles and bring them to Australia because the Liberal Party will not protect Australians or the environment. We need to be improving our vehicle emissions standards, because Australia is lagging years behind the rest of the world, leaving us with dirty, polluting cars that are damaging our health. What's more, the Liberal Party's failure at a Commonwealth level has led to greater problems at a state level. We've seen toll-road companies lobbying for state governments to impose taxes on electric vehicles. To be clear, there is a debate that needs to be had about road charging, and we know that congestion charging could deliver real benefits. We need to have that discussion here about road pricing. But dirty deals being done behind closed doors with no community consultation must not be how we determine national transport policy. We are very glad to see that opposition to these short-sighted taxes is mounting in Victoria and South Australia. In the meantime, I'm glad the Senate's agreed to send my COAG Reform Fund Amendment (No Electric Vehicle Taxes) Bill 2020 off to the Economics Committee to examine it. It's a very straightforward bill that would ensure those jurisdictions that impose unfair taxes on electric vehicles would lose the revenue they'd get from those taxes. There's a real opportunity for national leadership here. If the Liberal Party is going to try to hold things up on electric vehicles, it must not be an excuse for state governments to make things even worse and impose additional barriers on electric vehicles. Beyond electric vehicles, the Liberal Party's failure to act on climate has huge implications for the transport sector. There is a recent report by ClimateWorks entitled Moving to zero:accelerating the transition to zero emissions transport. It spells out why this is so important. It says: Transport is the fastest growing and third largest source of emissions in Australia, behind electricity and stationary energy sectors. Australia's road vehicle fleet is one of the most energy- and emissions-intensive in the world; the nation's per capita aviation emissions are the world's highest. An opportunity exists for Australia to turn these trends around and become a global leader in zero-emissions transport. That report highlights the need to act and that there is an opportunity to make a meaningful difference. Crucially, they say it's not a moonshot. The strategies to inform Australia's transport networks are known, with many ready to be implemented this decade. Widespread, rapid adoption of well-established solutions, along with mature and demonstrated technologies, can achieve much of what is needed this decade. Substantial investment in research, development and commercialisation can close the gap to zero emissions across the transport sector. The report provides clear recommendations for action across the country, of how we can do what we need to do to address the climate crisis. Hence, this referral to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. I think this Senate needs to be looking at reports like this. It needs to be looking at the research and it needs to be saying, 'What can we be doing in the transport sector to reach zero carbon transport as quickly as possible?' and laying out, as per the terms of reference, some of the things that would be addressed in this inquiry and what needs to be done. We would end up with recommendations, I expect, that the government needs to provide a clear plan. It is a clear, necessary role for government, because it's government inaction that's causing problems. It's not just about electric vehicles for passengers. We need to work out what we're going to do with heavy vehicles, freight, aviation and shipping. How do we shift them to zero carbon as well? It's possible. Other countries around the world are tackling it. We are sitting on our hands and not taking the action that's needed. There is massive benefit as well in actually giving people the opportunity and the choice to shift out of their private vehicles and into public transport. It's so straightforward to make public transport zero carbon. Electric trains, electric trams, electric buses, electric ferries—not difficult to imagine. There are big benefits for healthy and livable cities too, if you get that mode shift and give people the choice to get out of their private vehicles and into public transport. We also need to get serious about walking and cycling as transport modes. A healthy, balanced, zero carbon passenger transport mix in our cities would be around a third of trips being undertaken by private electric cars, powered by 100 per cent renewable energy, a third being zero carbon public transport and a third being walking and cycling. For the regions, again, if you've got electric vehicles, fast trains and buses to connect the regions to each other and to the cities, and high-speed rail between Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney and Brisbane, we can reach zero carbon transport. I call upon the Senate to support this important referral to lay out the evidence base of what can and must be done so that we can reach zero carbon in transport, just as we can across the whole sector of the Australian economy. Thank you. 18:26 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Let's have a bit of fun with some facts. Neither H2O, water, nor CO2, carbon dioxide, is a pollutant. Neither water nor carbon dioxide is a pollutant. The two products from burning hydrocarbon fuels—coal, oil, natural gas—are water and carbon dioxide. We have carbon in every cell of our bodies. The term 'organic' refers to something that contains carbon. Earth: the thing that makes our planet so livable, the thing that makes our planet so unique, is the fact that we have more carbon concentrated on our planet than is the case across the universe. Carbon is essential for life, but the Greens don't understand that carbon is not carbon dioxide. They tell us that we need to cut our carbon dioxide from the use of coal, oil and natural gas, but then they talk about carbon. Carbon dioxide is a gas. Carbon is a solid in every cell of your body. So let's deal with some facts. Let's have a bit of fun. Carbon dioxide is just 0.04 per cent of Earth's air. That is 4/100ths of a per cent. Carbon dioxide is scientifically classified as a trace gas, because there's so little of it. There's barely a trace of it. Now, some people are going to say, 'Oh, but cyanide can kill you with just a trace.' That's true. That's a chemical effect. But the claimed effect of carbon dioxide from the Greens of global warming, climate catastrophe and the greatest existential threat that we now face is a physical effect. A trace gas has no physical effect that can be recorded, as I'll show you in a minute. Next point: carbon dioxide is non-toxic and not noxious. It's highly beneficial to and essential for all plants on this planet. Everything green that's natural relies upon carbon dioxide, and it benefits when carbon dioxide levels are far higher than now. Carbon dioxide is colourless, odourless and tasteless. Nature produces—and this is from the United Nations climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—97 per cent of the carbon dioxide produced annually on our planet. That means that nature produces 32 times more than the entire human production of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide does not discolour the air. Carbon dioxide does not impair the quality of water or soil. None of what I'm talking about is new. I've compiled it, but none of it's new. Carbon dioxide does not create light, create heat, create noise or create radioactivity. It doesn't distort our senses. It does not degrade the environment, nor impair its usefulness, nor render our environment offensive. Carbon dioxide doesn't harm ecosystems and, in fact, is essential for all ecosystems. Carbon dioxide does not harm plants and animals, nor humans. In fact, we put it in our kids' soft drink. We put it in our champagne. We put it in our beer. We put it in soda water—we carbonate it by putting carbon dioxide in there. It's essential for all plants and animals. Carbon dioxide does not cause discomfort, instability, wooziness or disorders of any kind. It does not accumulate. It does not upset nature's balance. It's essential for nature and life on this planet. It remains in the air for only a short time before nature cycles it into plants, animal tissue, the oceans and natural accumulations. It does not contaminate, apart from nature's extremely high and concentrated volumes of carbon dioxide from some volcanos and even then it's only locally and briefly under rare natural conditions when in concentrations and amounts are far higher than anything humans can produce. Carbon dioxide is not a foreign substance. In the past, on this planet, under the current atmosphere, there have been times when carbon dioxide levels were 130 times higher than the concentration in the earth today. In fact, in the last 200 years, scientists have measured carbon dioxide levels up to 40 per cent higher than they are today. But the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, from the UN ignores those measurements, which were taken, in some cases, by Nobel Prize winners—science prize winners. All they do instead is take one reading from one place over the last 70 years. As you can see from the list I've just read, carbon dioxide is not pollution. The Greens are talking about doing an inquiry into carbon, yet they say it's the carbon dioxide that's causing this climate change that's supposedly going on. Let's look at something else then, as carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Let's have a look at this climate change crisis that the Greens are talking about. I'm unique in this Senate for holding the CSIRO accountable. All of the other senators have not done their jobs. Former Senator Ian Macdonald, from the Senate in 2016, pointed that out to me. He pointed out that no-one in this parliament ever debated the science until I arrived. We still haven't had the debate, because I've challenged the Greens and they have gone without responding to my challenge for a debate more than 125 days. Senator Waters has gone more than 10¼ years without responding to my challenge for a debate. They won't debate me, because they haven't got the science. Let's listen to the people that the Greens rely on for their science. I have cross-examined the CSIRO. I've had three presentations and several sessions at Senate estimates. In their first presentation under my cross-examination the CSIRO admitted that they had never said that carbon dioxide from human activity is a threat or a danger. Never. That means we don't need any of these policies. Let's go to the next session we had with the CSIRO. Each of these sessions were 2½ to three hours long. The CSIRO said that today's temperatures are not unprecedented—that's referring to the blip that ended back in 1995. We have had stasis of temperatures since then—no warming in the last 26 years. The current temperatures are not unprecedented. My third point is that the CSIRO admitted that they and other bodies around the world rely, for their predictions, on unvalidated, erroneous computer models. That says two things. Firstly, the models are wrong. They're erroneous and invalidated, yet they're using them to make projections. Secondly, it confirms they don't have the evidence. If they had the evidence, they would have presented it. Instead, they've come up with some lame models, which have already failed. The fourth thing that I will mention about the so-called science is that, when they failed to provide me with the empirical evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity affects the climate and needs to be cut, I gave them a very simple test. I asked them to show me anything unprecedented in the earth's climate in the last 10,000 years. They failed that. I then gave them the absolutely simplest goal of providing me with empirical scientific evidence showing that there has been a statistically significant change to any factor in earth's climate. They failed that. They can't even point to a change in climate, because we all know that climate varies quite naturally, most of it cyclically, but sometimes a combination of cycles makes it look like it's highly random. That's the point. Not only that, there are scientists whom I've communicated with directly, including members who are lead authors for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, such as Dr John Christy. He was a lead author until he left the United Nations climate body because of the corruption. He was disgusted and sickened by it. These and many other scientists have confirmed to me that nowhere in the world has anyone ever presented any empirical scientific evidence showing that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut—not NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, not the UK Met Office, not the Bureau of Meteorology, not the CSIRO, not any university, not any academic, not any science paper and not any journal. Check for yourself and tell me if I'm wrong. The third thing I want to say is that the Greens lunatic policies are not based on science. You'll notice that Senator Rice, in her comments, never once mentioned any proof of causation. Instead, as substitutes for science, they use emotion, stories, fantasies, dreams and promises. That's all they have. Policy needs to be based on specific, quantified cause and effect—this much carbon dioxide is growing because of humans, and this much is the impact. That has never been presented anywhere in the world. The CSIRO's failed three times with me, and it has never been done by anyone. Once we have that measured effect, which no-one has produced so far, then and only then can we shape a policy. Then and only then can we measure the progress along the road of implementing that policy. Without that, it's fundamentally flawed. Then, if we had the connection, specified and quantified, we can cost it to see the benefits of Senator Rice's dreams and fantasies versus the impact on our human species of this climate madness that people are going on with. As a result of this madness, both the Liberal-National government and the Labor Party have driven our electricity prices from being the lowest in the world to the highest in the world, all on unicorn farts and rainbows, and nothing else—nothing substantial; claims of carbon pollution. Then we have this telling factor. The No. 1 factor that drove the rapid improvement in human's standard of living over the last 170 years was the relentless decrease in the price of energy from 1850 until the mid-nineties. Since then, in Australia, we have gone the other way. We've started to increase prices. We've now doubled and tripled prices for electricity in some areas and nothing has changed. Coal-fired power stations have become more efficient. Yet we have an increase in price because of the artificial regulations and the artificial impediments on the most productive and efficient source of electricity generation and the subsidies for the dreams of solar and wind, which are inherently high and will never catch up with coal, hydro or nuclear. We had a relentless decrease in the price of electricity over 170 years until 25 years ago. That relentless decrease in the price of electricity and energy meant an increase in productivity and an increase in wealth. That's what has led to humans now living lives that are longer, safer, easier, more comfortable and more healthy and having far more choices than anyone could ever have imagined. This Greens lunacy, calling carbon dioxide a 'carbon'—calling a gas a solid—is driving a decarbonisation that is, in effect, deindustrialisation. Look around us. What will disappear is all the material benefits we've had over the last 150 years. Opinion and emotion are not science. There is no need to have this reference to the committee, because there is no science underpinning the Greens' call for this reference. We need to get back to the facts, get back to straight logic, stop dreaming, think about the many people who benefit from the wonderful hydrocarbon fuels—natural gas, coal and oil—and look after the people of this planet. 18:41 Senator DODSON SR5 Western Australia I'll speak a few words in relation to this motion. Labor will not be supporting this referral as written. Labor believes this is an important issue and proposed sensible changes to the Greens which would have allowed us to support a referral to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. As always, though, the Greens were more interested in trying to make a political point than they were in finding solutions to the challenges facing Australia. Labor firmly believes in the future of electric vehicles and the need to progress our economy to net zero emissions by 2050. As the only party of government with a serious interest in addressing climate change, Labor will continue to be open to engaging across the parliament regarding these important issues. We encourage other parties to take the same approach. 18:42 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Australia has a track record of meeting and beating our international commitments. We've beaten our 2020 target by 459 million tonnes and we're back on track to beat our 2030 target. But climate change is a global problem and it requires global action. That's why Australia is committed to the Paris Agreement and to investing in the new and emerging technologies that will make net zero emissions achievable. The government has a comprehensive suite of policies to reduce emissions from the transport sector. The government is committed to enabling consumer choice when it comes to new vehicle and fuel technologies. We are already backing electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, hybrids and biofuels through a range of initiatives, including the $74.5 million Future Fuels Package in the 2020-21 budget and the $2 billion Climate Solutions Fund. Question negatived. 18:43 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Could you please note for the Hansard record that the Greens have voted for this motion. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT F49 So noted. BILLS 1534 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021 1534

Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021

In Committee 1534 Third Reading 1534 18:45 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Treasury Laws Amendment (Reuniting More Superannuation) Bill 2020 1534

Treasury Laws Amendment (Reuniting More Superannuation) Bill 2020

Second Reading 1534 18:46 Senator DODSON SR5 Western Australia On behalf of the opposition, I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reuniting More Superannuation) Bill 2020. At the outset, I can confirm that the opposition will be supporting this bill. Labor has a proud track record on superannuation and will continue to fight for a stronger and fairer superannuation system. Our superannuation system sits alongside the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Medicare and the National Disability Insurance Scheme as a significant national achievement. Unfortunately, too many Australians still retire without adequate retirement savings. This is why our superannuation system needs to be strengthened and protected, not undermined. Every Australian deserves dignity in retirement. As originally drafted, this bill contained a single schedule that amends the Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997, the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, and the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Act 1999 to facilitate the closure of eligible rollover funds by 30 June 2021. This measure addresses recommendation 5 of the 2019 Productivity Commission inquiry into superannuation, which recommended that the Australian Taxation Office be responsible for holding lost superannuation accounts and that the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority oversee the winding up of eligible rollover funds. These changes build on the 2019 protecting your super legislation, which saw low-balance and inactive accounts transferred by trustees to the Australian tax office but not to eligible rollover funds. Since the implementation of the protecting your super legislation, fund trustees have been required to transfer inactive or low-balance accounts to the Australian tax office. Eligible rollover funds were designed to look after unclaimed superannuation, but essentially they are now redundant. This legislation provides a timetable to wrap up the remaining ERFs by 30 June 2021, with funds transferred to the Australian tax office. This will allow the Australian Taxation Commissioner to reunite superannuation accounts they receive from eligible rollover funds with the members' active accounts. The Australian tax office has successfully reunited more than 2.1 million lost or forgotten superannuation accounts. This is a great success rate over a 10-year period. Labor will continue to support measures that target duplication accounts and stronger, fairer superannuation schemes and systems. The opposition will be supporting the government's amendments, as circulated on sheet SH137. As outlined in the supplementary memorandum circulated with the amendments, the amendments delay the operation of the charges proposed to be made by schedule 1 of the bill to provide trustees of eligible rollover funds additional time to exit the market. In addition, the government amendments insert schedule 2 to the bill: … to provide that a superannuation provider may pay to the Commissioner any amount it holds on behalf of a member, former member or non-member spouse, if it reasonably believes that paying the amount to the Commissioner is in the best interests of the member, former member or non-member spouse, and for reunification by the Commissioner of those amounts with the member, former member or non-member spouse's active superannuation account. Australia has a superannuation scheme that is the envy of many countries around the world. It was established by a Labor government to ensure that people could live in retirement with a measure of dignity. This is not a history that is shared with those on the opposite side of the chamber. For decades now, the coalition in opposition and in government have worked to undermine and dismantle the system that has been helping to bring security and dignity to Australians in retirement, to reduce the burden on the social security system and to build our national prosperity. There are those opposite who would halt the rise of the superannuation guarantee or, worse still, abolish it altogether. Before the last election, Mr Morrison promised that he would leave superannuation alone, a very straightforward promise one would have thought. But now he appears to have changed his mind and he has a plan to cut workers' superannuation. Labor will fight this unfair plan. It is unfair that the Prime Minister and every other minister of parliament pulls in 15.4 per cent superannuation on their earnings, but the Prime Minister and government senators and members reckon that 9.5 per cent is enough for ordinary workers. Mr Morrison engaged consultants to try to back in his plan to cut workers' superannuation, and they said 9.5 per cent might be enough under certain circumstances. But, on further examination, these certain circumstances are wages growing by four per cent every year well into the future. When wages have not grown by four per cent for the last decade, this is simply fanciful. The Prime Minister will accrue more superannuation in two years than the average Australian retires on. It is absolutely critical that the Prime Minister keep his promise to leave superannuation alone. Whilst Mr Morrison might not be backing workers to 12 per cent, Labor is backing workers with a 100 per cent commitment to the legislated superannuation guarantee rise. The Labor leader, Mr Albanese, and the shadow minister for finance, Mr Jones, reaffirmed Labor's commitment last week. We call on the government to make the same commitment. Freezing or repealing the legislation increases will not lead to pay increases and will not change super tax benefits for high-income earners. The original timetable has already been delayed twice. This has cost workers retiring today between $60,000 and $100,000 in their superannuation balances. The Reserve Bank has identified low productivity growth, globalisation, underemployment and a decline in bargaining power—all of these—as drags on wages growth. Wages are weak not because of superannuation guarantees but because the government has no credible economic plan to raise them. We agree that workers need a pay rise. We do not think it should be paid for with super cuts. The last time the Liberals and Nationals froze the superannuation guarantee, what happened? Did we see an explosion in wages growth? No, we did not. Wages growth did not pick up. In fact, we had record low wages growth instead. The Liberal Party has form when it comes to undermining superannuation. Those opposite have opposed every increase. Whilst this bill makes sensible changes that we support, we know what lies around the corner. Government senators continue to have free reign to advocate measures that will undermine the strength of our superannuation scheme and undermine a decent retirement for millions of Australians. It is time for the government to keep its commitment and unequivocally reaffirm the promise of the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, before the last election when he said he would leave superannuation alone. 18:55 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I rise to address the bill before the chamber, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reuniting More Superannuation) Bill 2020. I think it's very hard to avoid considering the context of this bill. We are talking here about a government program for private pensions, which is what superannuation is, and I think the history of the scheme is highly relevant to this bill. This history is one of the many major flaws with this scheme. Originally, in modern times, the Whitlam government had a review to work out what sort of super scheme they should have. They didn't proceed with anything. Then, in 1992, the Keating government put in place the superannuation guarantee arrangements. Of course, in doing so, the Keating government gave the keys of the city to the unions and the banks, and the unions and the banks have run this scheme in their own interests, not in the interests of members, for the past 30 years. There are more lurks and rorts in this scheme than you can think of. It is impossible to think of another industry in Australia where the door opens and the money just falls in. That has created a culture within the superannuation sector where, because people are disconnected by law from their own money, there is very much the view that this is not our money so we'll waste it and we'll charge high fees on it. It has only been during this pandemic, when we've had changes like the early release scheme, that you've seen for the first time people thinking, 'Okay, this actually is my money and I'm going to do something with it.' The data that came out of the early release scheme, where almost $40 billion came from superannuation, showed that 60 per cent of that money went into people's personal balance sheets to improve their personal position by paying down debts and paying down mortgages. The flaw at the centre of this system has been paternalism and separation from the Australian people, with opaque, bizarre schemes designed by people to feather their own nests. The macrostats here, I think, are essential and critical. Who could imagine an intergenerational retirement scheme, an intergenerational policy, with no framework and no objective—nothing. No-one knows what the hell this thing is for. It is perhaps to reduce pension outlays. It is perhaps to increase standards of living in retirement. It is perhaps designed to reduce our reliance on foreign capital. If it is any of those things, it's a big, red fail on all those fronts, because this system costs the budget more than it saves. Can you imagine? We're going to have a national savings scheme that is designed to save the budget money but costs the budget more money than it saves, not just now but every year until 2050 and beyond. There is no projection that exists from any actuary, private sector or public sector, that shows that this scheme will ever become positive to the budget or that it will ever improve the nation's balance sheet. It is a scheme which is way off the path, and that is a major problem. This particular issue of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reuniting More Superannuation) Bill 2020 is a very good initiative. It's one of a number of initiatives that Senator Hume has initiated in this place and it has already achieved a number of important changes so that people have more of their money. But I have to say that, in a system which is replete with lurks and rorts, this would have to be amongst the best in terms of a scheme that helps vested interests, not workers. These are called eligible rollover funds. They are where the workers' money is deliberately sent because the funds don't want to find the worker. The average fee is 1.63 per cent according to Rainmaker. It's extraordinary, when you think that you can go down to Vanguard and get an Aussie shares fund, an indexed fund, for 10 or 15 basis points—10 or 15 basis points, yet these people want to charge workers 1.63 per cent. It is criminal, but this has been a feature of the scheme. I give great credit to the government, in particular Senator Hume, for putting forward this initiative now, but it is ridiculous that it has taken us 30 years to get to the point where we decide to clean these things up. The macroproblem we have here is that we have a scheme with no objective, no framework and no capacity to ever deliver anything for the Australian budget. In fact, the only thing it delivers is more cost to the budget. It is also regrettable that this scheme has no real prospect of ever reducing people's reliance on pensions. Even the Intergenerational report shows that, by 2050, 70 per cent of Australians will be on the pension. Even if we went to 12 per cent super we would still have 70 per cent of people on the pension, because if we want more than 50 per cent of people to be self-funded in retirement we need to look at contribution rates of 20 per cent or more, which is just not realistic. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 76760 Senator Gallacher, on a point of order? Senator Gallacher 204953 It's a point of order on relevance and anticipation: A senator shall not digress from the subject matter of any question under discussion, or anticipate the discussion of any subject which appears on the Notice Paper. Senator Bragg has continually referred to things of no relevance to this legislation and has made false and misleading statements to the chamber, and does so on a regular basis. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 76760 I do not consider Senator Bragg's comments to be lacking relevance. The senator still has time to respond. Senator BRAGG 256063 Thanks for that, Senator Gallacher. I appreciate that. It was good. This is a bill that's designed to improve the system, so I think that's good and I look forward to your support, Labor's support, for it. It's going to clean up the mess that was put in place by Paul Keating 30 years ago when he gave this scheme to the banks and the unions to run in their own interests, not in the interests of workers. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator BRAGG 256063 You don't care about the workers. Don't pretend you care about workers; it makes me sick. This bill is going to improve the operation of the superannuation scheme. Accounts under $6,000 will have to go to the ATO. The ATO will then, through the tax file number matching system, relocate that money to the individual worker. So, ultimately, people will pay fewer fees because there will be fewer multiple accounts, and that is a good thing. But, best of all, in the case of eligible rollover funds, which because of this legislation will become a thing of the past, people won't be paying 1.63 per cent, on average. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator BRAGG 256063 It's really shameful that you would defend that. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator BRAGG 256063 I'll go through the fees. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator BRAGG 256063 I'm going to tell you. I know you're desperate to hear. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator BRAGG 256063 I'm going to tell you. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 76760 Senator Bragg, could you direct your remarks through the chair. Senator BRAGG 256063 There's AMP Eligible Rollover Fund, 1.4 per cent; Australian Eligible Rollover Fund, 1.7 per cent; Australia's Unclaimed Super Fund, 50 basis points; SMF Eligible Rollover Fund, 2.48 per cent—wow! There's Super Safeguard, 2.84 per cent, and SuperTrace eligible rollover fund, 2.47 per cent. That's an average of 1.63 per cent. Those are shamefully high fees. It doesn't matter whether they're union funds, bank funds, industry funds or retail funds. We're not here to run people's agendas. We're here for the Australian people. So it is regrettable that, again, the interjections from the Labor Party show they're not interested in fixing this system. They only have sectional interests, which is very disappointing and unbecoming. At the end of the day, it shouldn't matter to anyone what type of fund it is. These fees are ridiculous, and they'll be a thing of the past thanks to this legislation, which I look forward to seeing Labor support. Ultimately, this is another step in the journey to getting this system to a place where it does work. I accept that there are a range of views about superannuation, and I hear the interjections that come from Labor all the time. There are a range of views about this. There are some people in this place who would like to abolish super, and there are some people who would like to see a 20 per cent super guarantee. I am on the record as saying I think the idea is good but it should be recalibrated so it works harder for the workers. I don't think we should be sitting in here running a protection racket for the banks and unions who've charged super-high fees for 30 years and have delivered nothing. The system costs more than it saves, it gets no-one off the pension and you defend it for reasons that are known only to you. But I think this is a good idea, to try to make the system work as well as it can. There's a lot more we should do. I commend Senator Hume and her excellent work and advocacy to the chamber and this bill. 19:06 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reuniting More Superannuation) Bill 2020. From the outset, let me say that Labor supports this bill and the government's amendments. The bill responds to recommendations of the Productivity Commission's 2018 report Superannuation: assessing efficiency and competitiveness and builds on changes contained in the 2019 'protecting your super' legislation. This bill is part of a suite of initiatives that support the Australian tax office to reunite multiple inactive or low-balance accounts with members' active accounts. The bill finalises arrangements for the transfer of the money, in these accounts, from eligible rollover funds to the ATO. The eligible rollover funds were designed to look after unclaimed superannuation and their role is, essentially, now redundant. APRA will oversee the wind up of the fund. Under arrangements already in place, the ATO has been able to reunite multiple accounts, over two million that were lost, with their owners. The bill before the Senate will enable even more members to be reunited with their superannuation savings. Labor has a very proud record on superannuation. Back in 1972, just 32 per cent of workers were covered by superannuation arrangements. This represented 36 per cent of male workers but just 15 per cent of females. It is the vision and determination of progressive Labor governments and Labor unions that delivered what is now a world-class universal superannuation system. That is why we are calling on the Prime Minister to rule out the freezing or appealing of the legislation that will deliver the super guarantee increase. This government simply cannot be trusted when it comes to superannuation. John Howard froze super and said wages would rise, and they didn't. Tony Abbott froze super and said wages would rise, and they didn't. Scott Morrison wants to freeze super and says wages will rise, and they won't. The Liberals can't be trusted with your superannuation. They came into government in 2013 and froze super. Did wages rise? No. Wage growth has been the slowest on record under this government. It is a Liberal lie that freezing your super will lift your wages. It is a Liberal lie that is designed to suppress wages and super. And it is a Liberal lie that will leave workers worse off in their retirement. Superannuation is a proud legacy of the Australian Labor Party, and we will always fight for Australians' superannuation. We will always fight for a dignified retirement for all Australians, and we will fight the attacks on superannuation by those on the other side. It was Gough Whitlam who first advanced the case for a national superannuation scheme, to improve equity and broaden superannuation coverage. He set up a national superannuation committee of inquiry but, unfortunately, by the time the committee reported, a conservative government was in power and it rejected a national superannuation scheme. Since then, the attacks from the other side have continued day after day, year after year, because those people opposite on those benches do not want Australians to be able to retire with their own funds and to retire in dignity. It was the Hawke Labor government and the Australian union movement that reignited the push for a national superannuation scheme. It was Bob Hawke who began discussions with the ACTU on broadening access to superannuation as part of the accord. Then with the support of the Labor government, the ACTU's national wage case claim sought a three per cent superannuation contribution by employers to be paid into an industry fund. The accord continued to deliver pay and super increases. In 1991, Labor announced in the budget the superannuation guarantee. This was a historic moment that we should celebrate. This historic Labor initiative delivered a major extension of superannuation coverage, an efficient method of encouraging employers to comply with their obligation. What a great thing it is. It's not a scary thing; it's nothing to be frightened of when unions, employers and governments work together to deliver outcomes for the people of Australia. It's a great thing. It is nothing to be frightened of, because the people of Australia have benefitted from workers, employers and governments working together, and Australia is now the fourth-largest holder of pension fund assets in the world. We have almost $3 trillion in superannuation assets under investment; 15 million superannuation fund members own this national wealth. And because of this, generations of older Australians can retire with dignity. Labor has continued to support positive changes to superannuation and its regulation. Too many Australians still retire with inadequate savings, and Labor will continue to protect and strengthen superannuation arrangements. That's why we are committed to seeing the legislated super guarantee rise to 12 per cent. We will continue to protect superannuation from attacks by Liberal governments. We know that the two previous delays to super guarantee increases have cost workers between $60,000 and $100,000 in their superannuation balances. Let's not forget that, in 1995, Tony Abbott said: Compulsory superannuation is one of the biggest con jobs ever foisted by government on the Australian people. … The government is making us worse off now so that it will be better off in the future. And his views live on. Senator Rennick—hello, Senator Rennick!—has called superannuation a 'cancer' and went as far as to attack his own party, saying the coalition 'sold out its values when it didn't stop the cancer called superannuation'. It doesn't stop with Senator Rennick. I'm speaking after Senator Bragg, who believes there needs to be 'drastic surgery' to Australia's superannuation funds. And what would this drastic surgery look like? Senator Bragg last year told us exactly how he thought superannuation should be voluntary for low-income workers. Why do they need super? Why do they need to be able to retire with dignity? Then we have the member for Goldstein. In a recent motion in the House, the member claimed Australians are retiring in poverty because they are forced to save for superannuation at the cost of saving a deposit on a home. The members' contortion of these important issues—saving for retirement and barriers to home ownership—shows just how unfit this government really is. It is true that many Australian families are struggling and that saving for a deposit and home ownership are out of reach. So wouldn't it be good if the government had a policy that improved access to affordable housing? Wouldn't that be good? It is false for the member to portray saving for home ownership and saving for retirement as a zero-sum game. Instead, the government should be working on plans to boost wages and boost retirement incomes. Since 2013, under this government's watch, wages have been growing at about two per cent a year and, again, this is the slowest growth on record since the end of the Second World War. As the economist Richard Denniss points out, low wages have been a goal of the coalition and of businesses for decades. We are told that low wages will deliver benefits that will trickle down to all Australians. Well, Australians are still waiting. Just one result of the government's wage suppressing policies is that it's even harder for people to save for a deposit to buy a home or for anything else. Another impact is that superannuation savings are also lower. Jim Stanford of the Centre for Future Work says unprecedented low wage growth shows no indication of rebounding, and this is because low wage growth is the result of deliberate coalition policies. This was confirmed by former federal Treasurer Senator Cormann, who let slip that downward flexibility of wages was a design feature of the coalition's economic framework. I also want to say, briefly, something about the effect that raiding super funds has had on retirement incomes. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority has reported that more than $37 billion has been withdrawn from retirement funds through the federal government's COVID early release scheme. This represents 4.9 million applications by Australians to access up to $20,000 in both the previous and current financial years. This scheme has been accessed predominantly by people under 35. For people aged 30, $20,000 withdrawn last year would mean almost $80,000 less superannuation by the time they retire. Industry Super Australia has said that the government scheme will leave younger people poorer at retirement. It said: Busting into super early comes at a steep cost for the individual and future taxpayers. As a society we shouldn't be demanding our young people pay the price yet again. One of the fathers of superannuation, Paul Keating, has noted that when the government allowed people to take money out of their retirement savings in super to spend now, it in effect asked those least able to afford it to stump up $30 billion worth of stimulus at the expense of their own security in retirement. It was Labor that created Australia's superannuation system so that every Australian can have dignity in retirement. We know that government members are pushing to erode our world-class superannuation system, including by delaying increases and moving to a voluntary system. Only Labor will strengthen and protect our superannuation system for millions of Australians. 19:17 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise today in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reuniting More Superannuation) Bill 2020. This bill reminds me of one of my favourite movies—I got to see it again last year during COVID—called The Untouchables. There's a scene whereby the great Jim Malone played by Sean Connery was pulled out of retirement and he was going to crack down on corruption and gangsters. In the scene where he gets killed—it's a fantastic scene; one of the best death scenes of all time—he's listening to music and cooking dinner. This gangster walks along the hallway, and it's all quiet. Jim Malone turns around and he's got a big shotgun. He goes, 'You're just like a wop. You bring a knife to a gunfight. Now get out you dago bastard.' He walks out along the hallway and, as he steps out the door, he's gunned down machine gun style—rat-tat-tat. Then he crawls back along, as he's bleeding out, and he calls Kevin Costner to let him know that the gangsters have got him. This bit of legislation is pretty much like bringing a knife to a gunfight, because effectively it doesn't do enough to crack down on superannuation. What we really need to do is just get rid of the whole thing. I want to be like Eliot Ness, one of the world's most famous accountants, who cracked down. Superannuation is like a whole bunch of white-collar gangsters, Eliot Ness style, who are ripping $40 billion in fees off each year. This is gangsterism, legalised by white-collar corporates, and I don't know why we allow it to happen. If Paul Keating had said to the Australian public—back in 1991 when he passed it in the August budget and then it was introduced July 1992—'In 25 years time, I'm going to take 10 per cent of your income and give it to someone you've never met and you may or may not get it back when you're 60,' do you think they would've voted for it? We don't know and we'll never know because there was never a mandate. There was never a referendum on this. What we do know, however, is that New Zealand had a referendum on it and they voted 92 to eight per cent against compulsory super. You've got to ask yourself: what is it about Labor? Why are they so afraid to have a referendum on compulsory super? I'll tell you why: it's all about command and control. These guys don't want the workers to have their money— Debate interrupted. STATEMENTS 1542 STATEMENTS Parliamentary Language 1542 19:20 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I'd like to withdraw an interjection that I made during question time today. While it wasn't recorded in Hansard, the inference was inappropriate. ADJOURNMENT 1542 ADJOURNMENT Members of Parliament: Conduct 1542 19:20 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I rise to raise serious concerns about a secret funding agreement between the current member for Corangamite, Libby Coker, and the construction division of the CFMMEU, headed by John Setka. This is a dirty, rotten deal shrouded in secrecy, in threats and in factional war games, and it involves the most militant law-breaking union in the country. According to a report in The Age newspaper last July, Ms Coker owes the CFMMEU hundreds of thousands of dollars. This was the amount pumped into her election campaign by union bosses at the last federal election. The union also provided dozen of campaign volunteers. John Setka is now demanding this money be repaid. Libby Coker was more than happy to sell her soul to the country's most militant union, which has been fined over $19.3 million and counting for breaking the law on average more than twice a week for the last 16 years or so. Right now, the CFMMEU and 65 of its representatives are before the courts across 34 separate matters brought by the Australian Building and Construction Commission, facing allegations of hundreds of suspected contraventions of workplace laws. What is the basis of this debt to one of Australia's most militant unions? Precisely how much is owed and why? So far, Ms Coker refuses to provide details. We know that she, along with the member for Cooper, Ged Kearney, defected from the industrial Left faction of the Victorian Labor Party to the Socialist Left faction. But I say: what is the price of doing so? As I called for last July, the people of Corangamite deserve a full and honest explanation. Ms Coker rode into parliament on the back of the CFMMEU. The people of Corangamite deserve to know what has gone on. We've seen the court find the CFMMEU engaged in a form of extortion by inventing false safety claims against a New South Wales crane company in a bid to intimidate them into doing the union's bidding. We've seen them fined by the court for placing workers in danger in Tasmania, harassing and intimidating female public servants and police in New South Wales, and pressuring workers at a project in Queensland into joining the union and using their entire pay cheques to pay for union fees. We have seen the CFMMEU fined by the court for kicking non-union apprentices off worksites, for repeated unlawful entries, blockades and threats on Melbourne construction sites, and for unlawful stoppages across multiple worksites across Brisbane. I say: shame. Bob Hawke had the courage to call them out. In 2015, in reference to the CFMEU, he said: It is just appalling. I mean, I wouldn't tolerate it. You know what I did with the Builders Labourers Federation—I would throw them out. All of these issues have been exposed by the same tough cop on the beat, the ABCC, and yet this is the very same regulator that Mr Albanese and the Labor Party have now pledged to scrap. They've pledged to reduce oversight of the militant CFMMEU. When you factor in that the ABCC has not only taken action to crack down on the CFMMEU but also recovered millions of dollars in wages and entitlements for thousands of employees in the building and construction sector, Labor's determination to get rid of the regulator is even more absurd. It points to one thing: John Setka and the CFMMEUs' influence over the Labor Party is alive and well. With the CFMMEU donating more than $7 million to the Labor Party since 2013—money the Labor Party is very happy to accept—it is no wonder. As for the lacklustre Ms Coker, who has done so little to fight for her constituents, the people of Corangamite deserve to know the price she paid to get herself elected. Bennett, Private George 1543 19:25 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales It's tough losing, isn't it? And it's difficult for people to come to grips with it. I appreciate that. Perhaps Senator Henderson should just let it go. Private George Bennett was a Gamilaraay man who grew up on Yuraba reserve in northern New South Wales. In 1916 he travelled to Armidale to enlist. At the time one in every four Aboriginal men who attempted to enlist was rejected on the basis of their race. He became one of the 850 Aboriginal men who served with the AIF during World War I. On 3 September 1916 he sailed to the Western Front. He witnessed some of the most terrible battles of the First World War: Bullecourt, Ypres and Passchendaele. He took part in the famous advance on Mont St Quentin, regarded as one of the finest achievements of the AIF. He was heavily gassed at Amiens and would struggle to breathe for the rest of his life. In 1919 he returned to the country he fought for to be treated as a second-class citizen and sent to the margins of a divided society. His grandson, Len Waters, the first and probably only Aboriginal fighter pilot in World War II, took part in 41 strike missions against the Japanese in the Pacific. In fact, Len Water's story is an incredible story that is immortalised in a book that's well worth colleagues in the Senate reading. On 23 September 1950 Private George Bennett was arrested for public drunkenness and he died that night in the cells at Mungindi Police Station. The coronial records point to the long-term effects of his exposure to mustard gas on the Western Front. Two days later he was buried in an unmarked grave in Mungindi cemetery. Private Bennett's death came four decades before the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, but it is a familiar story, a lonely death in a dark cell for an Aboriginal man. As then Prime Minister Keating said, in a statement in the other chamber, 'The responsibility lies in large measure with entrenched institutionalised racism and discrimination. Those who died were victims of over two centuries of dispossession, prejudice and neglect.' As a nation we failed to give Private Bennett that most basic right, and many others, to die as a free man. That his grave still today goes unidentified and unrecognised by the nation he fought for remains a deep injustice. I've made representations to the Department of Veterans Affairs to arrange for the proper commemoration of this grave. I've had encouraging early discussions with Moree Plains Shire Council about formally identifying and recognising all of the unmarked graves in Mungindi cemetery. My office is aware of at least one other Indigenous serviceman whose grave remains unmarked in that cemetery. I want to thank the Mayor of Moree, Katrina Humphries, and wish her well in her final months after 13 years leading the Moree shire council. So many rural councils in New South Wales are led by strong women local mayors. I want to acknowledge Private Bennett's grandson Mr Kevin Waters who is still alive, and lives in St George, at the age of 92. I want to acknowledge Joe Flick, a remarkable man from Dubbo, an Aboriginal man, who got a Churchill Fellowship to research unmarked graves of Aboriginal servicemen in Europe. He is doing remarkable work and has given me some very good advice. I also wish to recognise the efforts of Mungindi local Kevin Hobday who not only brought Private Bennett's story to my attention but has persistently ensured that it remains there. Particular mention should be made of Aunty Noeline Briggs-Smith OAM, who's led the effort to identify more than 200 graves in the Moree cemetery, including the graves of four Indigenous ex-servicemen. Her decades of advocacy and research have created a model that should be adopted across the country. Of the 850 Aboriginal men who served in World War I, few were given the honour that they deserve. Their exclusion from our national story remains uncorrected. Homelessness, Housing Affordability 1544 19:30 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Tonight I want to talk about homelessness and housing. Over the last few decades, Australian governments have created a housing system that actively impoverishes people and makes inequality worse. Safe, secure, high-quality housing is a human right, not a privilege reserved for those who are able to afford to pay through their noses for it. Instead of ensuring everyone's right to a home, governments have implemented and persisted with policies that benefit big developers and wealthy investors, to everyone else's detriment. The current housing system is designed to maximise profit, not public wellbeing. Homelessness is on the rise and has been for years. In the last budget the federal government locked in a $41 million cut to homelessness services funding despite annual data from the Productivity Commission showing that homelessness services are being forced to turn away one out of every three people who present at a service because there aren't enough beds. From July, services that are already 'running on fumes' will be under even greater strain. People who aren't able to find a bed in a specialist homelessness service face trying to come up with enough money for a dorm bed in a hostel, a boarding house or a motel; another night sleeping rough in their car; couch surfing; or returning to an unsafe home. These are not choices anyone should be making. Younger women experiencing or at risk of homelessness are at particular risk of sexual violence and exploitation. The integration of so many women's refuges into the underfunded homelessness sector means that fewer women escaping domestic violence have access to the complex, specialised support and casework that dedicated women's refuges provide. Women over 55 are the fastest-growing cohort of people experiencing or at risk of homelessness. The feminisation of poverty is compounding in their case, as they have fewer savings and financial assets and smaller superannuation. In December, Equity Economics projected a nine per cent rise in homelessness this year across the country and a huge 19 per cent rise in New South Wales. It's unfathomable that the government can look at a potential rise in homelessness of almost 20 per cent in our biggest state and decide that the current policy settings are 'working just fine, thank you very much'. The situation is poised to get worse. The government's cruel cut to JobSeeker will lock in poverty. When the remaining eviction bans end next month, indebted tenants will be vulnerable to being evicted into homelessness. That's the cruelty of your policies. While the homelessness sector is in crisis, public housing waiting lists continue to swell. The federal and state government investment that is needed to meet the shortfall in stock is nowhere in sight. In New South Wales, the Liberals and Nationals are slashing maintenance budgets, bulldozing public housing and selling off public land to build high-density developments, which are mostly private dwellings. These redevelopments barely replace the number of public or community housing units that they demolish. In several cases they're actually reducing the amount of social housing accommodation overall. In the process, communities are fractured, and vulnerable people are displaced from neighbourhoods they've called home for decades. Communities are fighting back. In Sydney, public housing residents in Glebe and Eveleigh, suburbs with proud working-class histories, are rallying against the state government's proposed destruction of their neighbourhoods and homes. Extraordinarily, some of the residents of these estates have been displaced before, when the government disgracefully sold off the public housing in Millers Point a few years ago. This is farcical. This must not ever happen again. The Greens stand with these residents, and we must push back against proposals to demolish and privatise the homes and neighbourhoods that they have. We know what we need to do to end the inequalities and injustices of our housing system: get rid of the tax concessions for wealthy property investors and speculators; significantly boost funding for homelessness services and tenants advocates; and ensure high national renters rights standards, including rent control and security of tenure. We must wind back the neglect of public housing in this country and build the stock we need to obliterate waiting lists and ensure universal access to housing. Our housing system is broken. It hurts people and communities. This government is hurting people and communities, and we will dismantle the perverse, exploitative, cruel systems that it stands for. Tasmania: Economy 1546 19:35 Senator ABETZ N26 Tasmania Tasmania is the turnaround state. Tasmania's economic health is about as good as it has ever been. Today, my home state of Tasmania, thanks to the shrewd stewardship of federal and state Liberal governments, has economic indicators that are the envy of the other states. First, let's be clear why we on this side pursue good economic outcomes. It's not because we want some prize in pure economics; it is because we want the prize of the good social outcomes and good social dividends that flow from good economic management, such as jobs and a good tax base from which revenue can be raised for hospitals, pensions and other public services. It'd be fair to say that most have done it tough as a result of COVID, and it's rewarding to see that the policy settings delivered for Tasmania by federal and state Liberal governments are now producing results. The latest unemployment figures show that Tasmania boasts the lowest unemployment rate of any state. Indeed, right now there are almost 4,000 more full-time jobs than there were last year. With an unemployment rate of 5.9 per cent, we have more Tasmanians in employment and an economy that can continue to grow and deliver. Indeed, on the other side of the ledger, the net operating deficit of $960 million is now scheduled to be some $157 million lower. Of course, lower debt means less stifling of the economy and, what's more, less mortgaging of the future of the next generation. In the CommSec State of the States report it is very, very clear that, out of the eight indicators, Tasmania rates first and that, out of the others, it rates in the top half each and every time. For the fourth quarter in a row, Tasmania holds the mantle of the best-performing economy. These things do not happen by accident. They happen as a result of good, sound economic management. For that I want to congratulate, firstly, Prime Minister Abbott and Premier Hodgman, who set the policy parameters when they were both opposition leaders and then worked together in a very united manner to ensure that the Tasmanian economy was able to be turbocharged. Prime Minister Morrison and Premier Gutwein continue to build on those foundations today to see the Tasmanian economy grow. What we see is that Tasmania remains Australia's best-performing economy. Tasmania leads the way in the area of equipment investment. If you move on to the other statistics, be they for unemployment or construction work, Tasmania is leading the way. Tasmania remains strongest on the relative population measure, with its 1½ per cent annual population growth rate. There are great figures coming out of Tasmania, and that translates into a good, sound economic future for my fellow Tasmanians. Tasmania has been very strong on dwelling starts, and the other indicators all speak for themselves. There was a time in Canberra when it was nearly embarrassing to admit that you were Tasmanian. People ask; 'What has Tasmania done to have such a vibrant, dynamic and resilient economy?' The answer's pretty simple: it is the shrewd stewardship of Liberal state and federal governments over the past few years that has delivered Tasmania the rightful reputation of being the turnaround state. Workplace Relations 1547 19:40 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I read an article today entitled 'Tech stars want gig economy reform but no minimum wage', in which a number of tech stars—and I call them 'tsars' in this case—were particularly animated in their views regarding the minimum wage. Quoted in that article, Matt Barrie, the founder and chief executive of the ASX listed company Freelancer.com, said he was 'against Labor's idea due to relatively high minimum wages and the existence of casual wages in the industry'. He went on to talk about his view about the minimum wage being inappropriate. And Danny Gorog, the founder and chief executive of Snap Send Solve, said: I think if you start regulating industries too quickly by imposing minimum wages, you can stymie the growth … I think when you have the government coming in over the top going 'here's how it's got to be', I think that can drive the wrong outcomes for these pretty early-stage companies. I'll just say this. Not so long ago in human existence we had slavery. In some countries we still have it. Modern slavery, and slavery over the centuries, has used the same arguments these tech companies are putting up about why gig workers should not have rights. But ending slavery would mean somebody gets the minimum wage and—heaven forbid!—can support their families. It would mean the five riders that have been killed over a two-month period working in food delivery around this country might still be alive. If that's a tech company's idea of how you get growth, that's a tech company that should not be in this economy—or any economy. We have a situation where we've got mothers, sons, daughters and brothers leaving behind grieving families. We have seen destitute individuals being paid half the minimum wage in the food delivery industry. Recently the ABC did a very thorough report regarding the horrible death of a food delivery worker, a gig worker, Dede Fredy. I have spoken about him before. I think these chilling words remind us about where this fight is at. Four-year-old Azka Fredy, his son, is getting used to a new phrase in his vocabulary: 'My father has passed away.' These are five enormous words for a small boy to carry. In September 2020 his dad, 36-year-old Dede Fredy, was hit by a car in Marrickville in Sydney while working as a food delivery rider for Uber Eats. There are challenges for Hungry Panda, for Menu Log and for all the companies that are doing gig work. We have a situation in this country where we've got people being treated like cattle at the behest of these tech giants that are trying to grow. Well, that son is now going to grow up without his father because of the exploitation that has occurred in this country, where people receive such a low wage—half the minimum wage—that, to survive, they have to do extraordinary hours and put themselves at risk every day. A Hungry Panda worker was dismissed for going on strike—and he should have gone on strike. I don't care what political party you are from: if someone treats you the way they've been treated then you should go on strike as well. It's not about politics, it's about humanity. It's about saying to the rich and powerful that we will not stand for what you're doing to us. In the case of the workers terminated by Hungry Panda, two days after the strike, who were accused of being leaders, the reason they went on strike was that they were earning $150 to $200 for a 10- to 12-hour day. The company reduced their income to $3 a delivery, from a high of $9 early in the period they had been working there. The company had no insurance. When this company gave evidence at an inquiry to the New South Wales parliament today, because one of their riders was killed on the road, they turned around and said that they didn't inform WorkCover because, 'We didn't know we had to.' When they were asked why weren't they paying insurance for that worker, they said, 'Because the system doesn't require us to.' That's not a system that should apply in this country. Morrison Government 1548 19:45 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The government at the moment is proposing industrial relations reform. It is tinkering. That's all it is. What I want to do is discuss the bigger picture that we need to consider. First, let's look at the decline of our country. Look at the decline since 1944, with the stealing of property rights from 1996 onwards and with the destruction of the electricity sector, the guts of our manufacturing sector and our agriculture sector. And yet, at a time when other countries have been reducing their electricity prices, Australian electricity prices have doubled or even tripled. We've got a taxation system that's counterproductive, and there's the neglect of our water infrastructure. Overregulation is decimating our manufacturing sector and, in fact, all sectors, especially small business—our biggest employers. Now let's look at the recent devastation from the COVID restrictions, or rather government restrictions imposed as a result of COVID. They're capricious, unsafe and devastating on small business and employees. If you look at Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia, COVID is managing us. Pretty soon JobKeeper ends—in fact, it ends at the end of next month—and then what will happen? Let's come back to what we need. We will work with the government to fix a bad bill—that is, its latest proposal. We will work with them in an attempt to do that. The three aims guiding us are: protecting honest workers, protecting small business and restoring Australia's productive capacity. But not just to recover back to where we were last February before the COVID restrictions from government but to recover back to where we were when we were at the top of the world. We were literally number one for per capita gross domestic product. If I had a wish list, these are the things that would be on it—at least some of them. I would want an inquiry into local government corruption in Queensland. Right across the state the waste of federal funding runs into the billions, with the fraud, the extortion, the corruption, the threats and the intimidation. We want to end that. I would wish for a Commonwealth integrity commission, especially now that, during the last week, we've learnt what happened in this building. We need a proper corruption-ending system in this parliament and in this building. We need to restore integrity. We also need proper industrial relations reform—not the tinkering, the increased complexity nor the abandonment of small business. We need proper reform that looks after all employers and employees. We need proper reform that enables, first of all, employers and employees to restore their primary relationship without the IR club dipping into their pockets and putting handcuffs on them. We need to restore primary workplace relationships. We need to make it easier for people to work. We need to remove the complexity and remove the lawyers and the vultures. We need to reform taxation. We need proper taxation reform—not tinkering and not adding more complexity to tax. We need to make it simpler for companies and small businesses to employ people. We need to make it easier for employees, honest workers, to keep more of their pay for their families. We need reform of the family law system. We need reform of water. We need to do much, much better with our water. We need to return environmental water management to the states. We need to introduce a water register—it's 14 years overdue. We need to introduce a weirs-for-life program and turn around drains in the south-east. We have a comprehensive plan we're going to release soon about what we would do with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and water right across the country. We need to restore farmers' property rights that were stolen in 1996 by the John Howard-John Anderson government. We need to make sure we have lower energy prices. We need to restore coal-fired power stations in this country—build a new one at Collinsville and build a new one in the Hunter Valley. We need to address the PFAS problems that are gutting so many areas. We need to look at infrastructure—the national rail circuit, Inland Rail, the Bradfield Scheme—and do it properly. Above all, we need a government with vision that provides real leadership, not tinkering. Get back to basics. Senate adjourned at 19:50