2021-12-01 1 1 0 Senate 0 0

Wednesday, 1 December 2021

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

DOCUMENTS 6941 DOCUMENTS Tabling 6941 Urban Congestion Fund 6941 Order for the Production of Documents 6941 09:31 The PRESIDENT 30484 On Monday the Senate agreed to an order for the production of documents requiring the Minister representing the Prime Minister to provide to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee documents relating to the Urban Congestion Fund. I table a letter from the chair of the committee advising that the order has not been complied with. BILLS 6941 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 5) Bill 2021 6941

Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 5) Bill 2021

Second Reading 6941 09:32 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I would like to begin my remarks by acknowledging the passing of Mr David Dalaithngu. Mr Dalaithngu was a remarkable storyteller, painter, dancer and actor. His powerful presence connected with audiences across the world. Most Australians of my generation have Storm Boy etched on their memory—a powerful childhood exposure to a different way of seeing the world. At a time when it was uncommon to see First Nations actors on screen and racial stereotypes dominated Australian society, Mr Dalaithngu brought culture and country to mainstream audiences in a way unseen before. He transformed Australian cinema. I offer my deepest condolences to the families in Ramingining, Maningrida, Darwin, Murray Bridge and across Australia. This bill is labelled a Treasury bill. Weirdly, it combines non-controversial changes to corporate insolvency law with what is perhaps the biggest overhaul of screen policy settings in decades, so I will confine my comments to just schedule 1 of this bill, which deals with screen policy. It's important to place this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 5) Bill 2021, in the context of some recent history in terms of how this government has treated the screen industry and existing tax support structures. Australia's screen industry has given us some incredible Australian stories: Gallipoli, Wake in Fright, A Country Practice, The Secret Life of Us, Paper Planes, The Dry. As a country we are capable of making incredible film and television. In January this year the government used a non-disallowable instrument to completely change the local content quota system. It effectively removed the requirement for certain types of content, such as Australian children's television, to be made at all. Eleven months on, children's television productions tell us their commissions have completely collapsed. That is an entirely predictable outcome but it doesn't mean it is any less worrying. The Australian market is a small one in global terms. Premium film and television is expensive to make. There are some movies which have been huge commercial successes—Gallipoli, Crocodile Dundee, Muriel's Wedding—but there are others which have told incredible Australian stories and which might not have got off the ground without government support. Samson and Delilah, Hearts and Bones and Alex and Me come to mind. Our industry requires a level of government support in order to flourish and to continue to produce great Australian content. It's the kind of equation you see in many areas of government policy. There is a public good at stake—that is, the production of Australian film and television shows. If the market won't provide that outcome on its own, government steps in to help. One part of that framework is Australian content for television. But, as I've said, the government's approach to this is killing this sector. For many years commercial television networks were required to produce a certain amount of Australian children's content, documentary and drama each year. The other part is taxation offsets for film and TV production and post-production services which make it easier for Australian made shows and films to get off the ground. What has been so odd about the government's approach is that for many years this has been common ground in terms of policy. Both sides of politics have agreed that nobody wants our kids growing up without hearing Australian accents on the TV screen. We want to see local heroes at the local cinema. But this government have walked away from that consensus, and what's disgraceful is that they use the cover of COVID to do so. Last year, when the minister used the cover of COVID to suspend the subquotas for the different television genres for a year, they swore black and blue—just a year, they said—that it was a temporary measure. But those who feared there was more going on were sadly proved right. As I said, 11 months on from a decision to remove those subquotas, children's television production companies tell us their commissions have collapsed. The government's next step in their campaign was to try to halve Foxtel's local content quota from 10 per cent to five per cent. A lot of people might not realise how much fantastic content has come out of Foxtel—Love My Way, Upright, Picnic at Hanging Rock, Wentworth, just to name a few. This time government senators were awake—well done to those government senators—and they said no. They along with other senators recommended in a bipartisan report that the section that halved Foxtel's Australian content requirement be dropped from the bill. They backed Labor's position, and the government backed down. It shouldn't have come to that—it shouldn't have been necessary—but it did. This bill is part 3 of the government's attack on the local screen industry. It's not as bad as it might have been. Their original plan was even worse. The original plan included a reduction in a producer's offset from 40 per cent to 30 per cent for an Australian feature film. That would have devastated the Australian film industry. It would have meant films like The Dressmaker would not have been made. It took a coalition of film producers and stars to come together. They travelled to Canberra several times to make the government listen. It also took a groundswell of support from everyday Australians who'd enjoyed a summer of Australian film—Higher Ground, Penguin Bloom, The Dry,just imagine last summer without them. That part has been dropped from this bill. Unfortunately, many other parts of this bill are just as damaging to the industry, and I'll go through a few of these in turn. The threshold for qualifying expenditure to access producer offset for film has been doubled, from $500,000 to $1 million. That means the only productions that will be able to access the producer offset will be large, premium productions. It's pretty obvious what the problem is: many smaller productions that need the offset to get off the ground will not go ahead. This particularly impacts documentary productions, which typically have an expenditure of just over $500,000. There are some fantastic examples of recent Australian documentaries—In My Blood It Runs provides just one example. These are true Australian stories, and the government wants to cut them off at the knees. The threshold for qualifying expenditure to access post digital and visual effects offsets, PDV for short, has also doubled, from $500,000 to $1 million. A lot of Australians might not realise how immensely successful the PDV industry is. It's a growing industry and it's incredibly important and a heavy hitter on the world stage. This is one of our great exports. Lots of people might not have heard of Animal Logic, but lots of Australians will have watched their work—Captain Marvel, Peter Rabbit and The LEGO Movie are just some examples. They are considered one of the best outfits in the world. I've had the very good fortune of touring their studios, meeting their CEO, seeing their vision. This is an incredible example of outstanding Australian innovation, leveraging some of our best capabilities. We are a country that has terrific levels of education, high levels of digital literacy and immensely qualified people doing really creative things. The Australian Post & VFX Alliance estimates that 400 jobs in this incredible sector are at stake if this change goes ahead. The Gallipoli clause, which allows expenditure incurred overseas to be claimed against the offset, will also be removed. This clause was inspired by the classic Australian movie Gallipoli, and it means that Australian films that need to shoot in overseas locations are not disadvantaged. The reality is that sometimes Australian stories require part of their production to be filmed overseas, particularly given the diversity of our population. Imagine the film Lion if parts of it could not have been filmed in India. Imagine Gallipoli without their having gone overseas to film it. It just doesn't make sense. This is a completely blunt instrument. If the government is trying to encourage Australian employment in the screen industry, this is not the way to go about it. Other more minor measures in this schedule include the removal of certain types of expenditure that can be claimed against the offset, such as overheads, copyright, and other measures designed to limit the coverage of the current offsets. I don't dispute that there are good parts in this bill, or just one good part, and that is raising the producer offset from 20 per cent to 30 per cent for television productions. I want the industry to know that Labor appreciates how important this change is to them. It has been a long fight to get there. As these changes are due to retrospectively apply from 1 July, many television productions have already budgeted for this change. They are desperately awaiting the passage of this legislation. Despite everything in this bill having been announced in September last year, and the bill itself having been introduced back in June, the government have left it until now, the second last day in the last sitting week of the year, to list the bill. It's inexplicable. It's left Australian producers desperate and put the financing of local productions at risk. The government has wasted time, playing silly political games, for absolutely no reason, and the industry has paid the price. Labor will move an amendment to this bill that will seek to remove the damaging parts of this bill while keeping the increase to the producer offset for television intact. We recognise the urgency and the importance of the bill's passage. We won't stand in the way. But we utterly reject the government's attempt to bundle measures that are unambiguously good for the industry in with measures that are damaging to other parts of the industry. This approach, careless at best, malicious at worst, tells you everything about this government's respect for Australian stories. 09:42 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise this morning to contribute to the debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 5) Bill 2021, a piece of legislation that makes changes to Australia's screen sector and our film industry, changes that have been long debated. It's a piece of legislation that, despite having been flagged more than 12 months ago, is still far from perfect. In fact it desperately needs fixing. The debate over how we support Australian stories in this country has been long fought. How much time do we give Australian stories on our own television screens? How much do we fund and support those producing and making Australian stories to ensure we have a true representation of what we tell ourselves, what we tell the rest of the world and how we reflect on our own history? Storytelling is such an important part of who we are as a community and as a society. The history of storytelling has been around for tens of thousands of years. Today we're debating a piece of legislation that is so important to making sure that here in Australia we can continue to tell our stories, to help us understand who we are, to help us reflect on the things we value, to help us understand how others see us. It's part of soft diplomacy. It's part of education. It's part of fostering social cohesion and wellbeing. Storytelling helps us be more empathetic both as individuals and as a community. It helps us deal with division and difficult issues. Storytelling is important for making sure we understand our history and the debates over our history. If it wasn't for storytelling and the Australian screen sector, many Australians would have no idea of the history well before white settlement; no idea of the struggles, the richness of culture and the history of our First Nations people. If it wasn't for our Australian screen sector, many of the stories that have been covered over the years would never have been told to an audience that needed to hear them. As a mum, I've always been incredibly passionate about making sure that we have Australian children's programming so that our kids can access a window into how they see the world and see themselves reflected in what they see on screen to help them make sense of who they are and where we all fit. But, time after time after time, those who passionately tell these stories, make these stories and produce these stories have been under attack by government policy. They haven't been prioritised and nurtured the way they should. We've seen changes in the last year that attack the number of Australian stories on our television screens by changes to the quotas and subquotas—regulations that say a certain amount of content on our TV screens and on our streaming services should be Australian, Australian made. This is so we're not just being bombarded with stories from overseas and our children are not just being bombarded with shows straight out of the United States, which bear little resemblance to what growing up in Australia is like for Aussie kids. I came to politics with a desperation for social change. I think most of us in this place are here because we want to make the world better, our community better. We want to do the best we can to help improve our communities, and one of the best ways of achieving social change—that is, of course, changing hearts and minds and bringing people along with you—is by telling stories. Our Australian screen sector is needed if we are to progress and be better as an Australian society, particularly for those of us wanting to see social change in some of the areas that have been the most difficult to discuss. If it wasn't for storytelling, we wouldn't have the truth about our First Nations history. If it wasn't for storytelling on our television screens and through our films, we wouldn't have progressed marriage equality in this country in the way that we have. If it wasn't for the power of storytelling, we wouldn't know about the horrors and histories in relation to the stolen generation. If it wasn't for the power of storytelling, we wouldn't know about the fights that women—not just in Australia but around the world—have taken up to achieve equality. This bill makes it more difficult for the people who tell these powerful stories to keep doing it. There is a good part of this piece of legislation—that, of course, is the increase to the producer offset for television, something that has been long and hard fought for, and has finally been put on the table. But this legislation is riddled with whack after whack to a sector that needs nurturing and support because it is in and of itself a public good. It's essential to being a respectful and empathetic society that we're able to tell our own stories. A number of the elements of this piece of legislation dismantle the important work of documentary-makers in this country. The history of documentaries in Australia is essential, and it is a powerful part of recording our history—tackling those difficult issues and dealing with things that have perhaps been too divisive to discuss. Documentary-making is an important part of public interest journalism in this country. But the changes in this piece of legislation will make it harder for documentary-makers to do their job. It'll make it harder for documentaries to be made about issues that perhaps aren't already being ventilated, because, unless you're going to spend $1 million making your documentary, you're not going to be able to access this support. That means that, under these laws, so many documentaries in Australia just wouldn't have been made. There are the changes to the Gallipoli clause, which is about allowing footage filmed overseas that is part of an Australian film to be counted as part of the producer offset. That doesn't make any sense. We are part of the world. Australia isn't its own isolated unit, separate from everyone else. Our stories connect us to the rest of the world and so should our films, in the way we reflect Australia's position in the world. Cutting the Gallipoli clause will only make Australia more isolated. Art, creative work and storytelling in this way is such an important part of soft diplomacy, and it is so often underestimated in the conversations and debates that we hear from politicians and those represented in, particularly at this point, some of the highly contested discussions about Australia's role in our region right now—our relationship with China, the Pacific and the United States. Being able to use soft diplomacy and the power of storytelling is essential if we are to de-escalate conflict and find pathways towards agreement with our neighbours. It's far too often dismissed. I'm not sure if I've ever heard Mr Peter Dutton, while he stands on his soapbox speaking about the conflict with China, ever talk about embracing the power of our creative workers or the power of storytelling and the role soft diplomacy can play. He seems all too busy looking to thump his fist and pull the trigger. This is the problem with the government's approach to this issue and to the arts industry across the board. They have been attacked time and time again. The COVID-19 pandemic has hit the arts sector harder than any other industry, whether it's live performance or on screen, and, rather than stepping in to support our artists, we have another piece of legislation bowled up today to the Senate which will dismantle the good work they do. This is why the Australian Greens will be supporting the opposition's amendments before the chamber. These are amendments that we too had flagged. They're important changes to fix this piece of legislation and to send a message to those who dedicate their life to telling our stories as Australians, the diversity of our stories as Australians, and to let them know, 'We have your back'. The parliament and those of us who are here making policy day in, day out, we have your back. We know what you do is important. It's not some luxury lifestyle, some vocation that doesn't contribute as some on the other side would have you believe. Being an artist is a real job. Being a filmmaker is an important job. Producing Australian stories that we can tell ourselves to help us understand and be more empathetic about our differences—that is essential. And we will fight to improve this piece of legislation, because we have your back. I don't know what's going to happen with these amendments. I hope the crossbench see the value in supporting not just the tens of thousands of jobs that are on the line—by the way, if this government gets its way and these changes happen, that will cost jobs. This is the government that says it stands for the economy. Well, this industry is an essential part of Australia's creative economy and they need to stop being used as Scott Morrison's plaything. Artists and creative workers in this country are sick of being kicked time and time and time again. The contribution that artists make to our society, our community, our public debate is so essential. We value it. We will fight for it. And we will try to fix this legislation so that you don't have to keep begging and scrimping every single day. I applaud the proposed changes and commend them to other members in this place. 09:57 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I rise to make some brief remarks about the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 5) Bill 2021. These are important matters. The way that we regulate the arts and the media sectors will be some of the most important economic and social judgements that parliament will make over the next decade or so. We are looking down the barrel of having a vastly greater percentage of foreign control of media organisations simply by virtue of the massive digital disruption we are living through. Basically, everyone knows that there are five very large companies based in the United States that started out as forms of digital supply organisations and are effectively morphing into everything: production companies, banks et cetera. We need to be nimble in the way that we run our affairs in this country. Now, these particular measures deal with the tax incentives and offsets available to production companies. I note that the Screen Producers Australia organisation has called for this to be dealt with by this parliament in this year, to provide the certainty that is required for these producers. That is entirely valid and welcome, and I'm sure the Senate and the parliament will be able to achieve that goal for the industry. I know there are lots of people who are following this debate very closely, because there are jobs that hang off these things. Tax offsets and incentives are important. We know that from these arrangements and we know that from the research and development tax incentive. The reality is that you wouldn't have organisations like Canva in Australia employing thousands of people unless you had tax offsets, because those companies would set up shop in Silicon Valley with the official family of the digital world, which is already over there. My point is that these are at first glance details but they are connected to an important and much broader agenda for the country: what are the settings we're going to have to ensure that Australians can get access to Australian content and that Australians can work in the digital, tech and media businesses, which are morphing into, effectively, one sector? That is going to be a very big question, and we can't get stuck with static policy settings. We can't have policy settings which were put in place 20 or 30 years ago, when the media landscape was radically different. I welcome this measure. I note that the minister and the government have listened to the Senate committee process here. Once again, we see that the Senate committees probably do some of the best work of the parliament in providing that additional scrutiny and providing the capacity for people to have their say. It is very important that we protect and preserve the institution of the Senate committees, which are celebrating 51 years this year, because they serve a really important role in giving people access to policymakers. In this case, I think the revisions here are very sensible, and I look forward to this legislation being debated and passed. 10:01 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia Although the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 5) Bill 2021 implements a large number of measures, most of them are minor technical changes which are uncontentious. The exceptions to this are the changes to the screen production incentive, which could have significant impacts on our film and television industry. I have serious reservations about this measure and have had them since it was first introduced in June. Judging by the representations made to my office and to the Senate bill inquiry, those reservations are very much widely shared. My fundamental concern is that this strikes me as a very narrow change. The government says that the incentive changes are intended to drive the local industry towards higher-quality productions, and it seems reasonable to believe that that will in fact be the effect. But what I want to know is how this measure fits into a broader strategy for the local screen industry. The Commonwealth puts many millions of dollars into subsidising this industry every year. We have done so for decades, and it's likely that we'll continue to do so for decades to come. But it is astonishing that we do this without having a clear strategy for the industry. The minister for the arts should have a vision for the sector—a vision of where the industry could be in five years or 10 years time. We obviously have the talent and the resources for our screen industry to do incredible things, and there is so much potential to build on those strengths and take our industry to the next level. So there should be a strategy, jointly developed by the minister, the department and the industry, which sets out how to take the industry from its current position to the next level. We should have a clear idea of how government money and regulation will be used to support this strategy. If we had a vision and a strategy and I could see how this measure contributed to it, I would have no problem whatsoever supporting this bill. I will always support empowering our local industries. But we don't have a vision and we don't have a strategy. This measure isn't part of a long-term plan. It's just a fiddle—a play with the policy levers to see what happens. Unfortunately, it's a fiddle that is likely to have some serious detrimental effects on parts of the industry. A lot of industry stakeholders have made it clear that this bill will be quite damaging to their businesses and will probably lead to some job losses. Ordinarily, these issues would be picked up by broad consultation and engagement with industry. That would have given government the opportunity to reconsider some of the measures, but that clearly did not happen. There may have been consultation, but it was not broad. It failed to include all parts of the industry. And it was not deep; many stakeholders were not consulted about all of the measures that are under consideration and many of them were stunned by what was ultimately included in this bill. This is simply not good enough. It's a failure of government, and the failure was so obvious that the government was forced to acknowledge it in the bill inquiry report. But they continue to press on with what was obviously a flawed and somewhat harmful bill. This leaves the Senate in an invidious position. If we support the bill, we will enable the government's damaging changes to some parts of the industry, but, if we oppose it, certain film subsidies will not be paid as expected, and that will be particularly damaging for productions that are currently underway, many of which have already secured external financing on the basis of these subsidies. That could lead to production businesses becoming insolvent and some projects immediately shutting down. It will also damage the reputation of the Australian industry and may deter future projects from coming to our shores. Both outcomes are damaging to local industry, who, frankly, have done nothing wrong here. They deserve a lot better from this government. But we still have to make a decision, and I've decided to listen to the industry, who tell me that the passage of this bill is now the lesser of two evils. It will still be harmful, it will still be damaging, but it is less harmful than the alternative. So I will be supporting this bill. 10:06 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I too rise to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 5) Bill 2021. Like Senator Griff, I have had many conversations with the industry, who have stressed to me, as Senator Griff quite rightly says, that it is the lesser of two evils. But, importantly, for the changes to the Australian screen production incentive, it is imperative that the parliament pass this as soon as possible. As Senator McAllister pointed out in her contribution earlier and Senator Griff also noted, many productions have received finance on the basis that this change will go through and will be retrospective to 1 July this year. So it is imperative that we pass this bill. I participated in the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee process that reviewed this bill and I want to note that the committee, while it found that support for the bill was mixed, noted that the support for schedule 1 of the bill, which facilitates the increase to the Australian screen production incentive, was overwhelming and the committee recommended that the bill be passed. Furthermore, industry organisations such as Free TV Australia and Screen Producers Australia have advised of the need for timely passage of this bill to give the industry the certainty and the confidence they need to make important investment decisions so that we can have the Australian content that every contributor today has highlighted is important. Senator Hanson-Young quite rightly spoke of the need for us to be able to hear, see, listen to and watch Australian stories. I also want to note how many of those Australian stories are produced in regional Australia and the economic input of the screen production industry in regional areas—places like Broken Hill, where we've seen some fantastic screen productions; and the little town of Silverton, which is proudly home to the fabulous Mad Max Museum. These regional areas benefit from our screen production sector, and the screen production sector benefits from the screen production incentive. Several witnesses to the inquiry, however, did raise concerns about the increase in the qualifying Australian production expenditure threshold, and I want to address those concerns today. These concerns were particularly dominant in the documentary sector. However, the department did point out that Screen Australia is being provided an extra $33 million in additional funding to target and support high-quality and culturally important Australian content, with a focus on the documentary sector. A number of stakeholders also raised concerns about the increased threshold on the post, digital and visual effects sector, or the PDV sector, highlighting that often PDV work is split between several smaller companies. They raised the concern that meeting that $1 million threshold is a bridge too far. However, in their response submission—admittedly, late submission—to the committee, the department did clarify that what is commonly known as the QAPE threshold of $1 million applies to the whole production, not the individual contract. So a production company would be able to enter into PDV contracts with multiple companies at less than the $1 million as long as the total equated to the million dollars. The committee also noted that the threshold remains unchanged at $500,000 for shorter form productions of up to 60 minutes for non-feature length content. Based on that information, the committee recommended the bill be passed but it also recommended that the department consult with industry further to develop measures to strengthen the Australian screen production incentive requirements to maximise the value of work awarded to Australian PDV providers. I sincerely hope that the department has taken that recommendation on board and commenced that work to see what we can do to continue to encourage the use of Australian PDV providers who are located all over Australia. The beauty about post-production work is that it can be done almost anywhere, and we have some fantastic PDV companies based in regional New South Wales—a big shout-out to them. I hope that the successful passage of this bill today sees much more investment in Australian content, Australian screen production and Australian post-production, digital and visual effects. Thank you. 10:12 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Firstly, I would like to thank those senators who have contributed to this debate today. Schedule 1 to the bill makes a range of reforms to the Australian screen production incentive, including increasing the producer offset for films that are not feature films released in cinemas to 30 per cent of the total qualifying Australian production expenditure and various threshold and integrity amendments across the three screen tax offsets. I can also confirm that the government has agreed to the recommendations of the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee to increase the copyright threshold for documentaries, and I thank senators involved in the preparation of that report. Overall, the changes to the Australian screen production incentive will ensure the screen tax offsets effectively target areas that require support and encourage production and commercial distribution of quality Australian screen content in a digital environment. Schedule 2 to the bill relates to small business insolvency. The main small business insolvency reforms which came into effect on 1 January 2021 introduced new insolvency processes suitable for small businesses, reducing complexity, time and costs. These processes enable more Australian small businesses to quickly restructure. Where restructure is not possible, businesses can wind up faster, enabling greater returns for creditors and employees. This measure makes consequential amendments which will support the operation of the new insolvency processes. Schedule 3 to the bill makes minor and technical amendments to Treasury portfolio legislation. This includes amendments that clarify the law to ensure that it operates in accordance with the policy intent, making minor policy changes to improve administrative outcomes or remedy unintended consequences and correct technical or drafting defects. I commend this bill to the Senate. I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved in this bill. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 6947 10:15 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I move the government amendment on sheet ZA122: (1)—Schedule 1, item 14, page 6 (lines 7 to 11), omit subsection 376-150(3), substitute: (3) Expenditure incurred by the company to acquire copyright, or a licence in relation to copyright, is covered by item 2 of the table in subsection (1) only to the extent to which it does not exceed: (a) in relation to a *tax offset under this Division for the 2021-22 or 2022-23 income year: (i) if the *film is a *documentary—50% of the total of all the company's *production expenditure on the film; or (ii) otherwise—30% of the total of all the company's production expenditure on the film; or (b) in relation to a tax offset under this Division for a later income year—30% of the total of all the company's production expenditure on the film. This amendment increases the copyright cap for documentaries from 30 per cent to 50 per cent of qualifying Australian production expenditure for two years, from 1 July 2021. The bill containing reforms to the Australian screen production incentive was referred to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. The committee delivered its report on 31 August and recommended that the copyright cap, a measure that limits the amount of Australian held copyright that can be claimed under the offset, be set at an initial rate of 50 per cent instead of the proposed 30 per cent, in order to monitor the initial impact on the sector. This change will increase payments by an estimated $1.3 million over the forward estimates. A copyright cap of 50 per cent remains consistent with the policy intent of encouraging the creation of new content. Accepting the committee's recommendation of a 50 per cent copyright cap on documentary productions for two years is consistent with the aim of the broader reforms. It will also provide the sector with an appropriate adjustment period. This change will alleviate concerns around the impact of the changes—in particular, for documentary-makers. Based on historical data, it's expected that all documentary productions either will benefit from the change to the cap by being able to claim up to 50 per cent of their copyright costs instead of 30 per cent or will not be impacted at all. Additional funding, as mentioned by Senator Davey, has been allocated to Screen Australia, and setting the copyright cap for documentary productions to 50 per cent for two years will give the documentary sector more time to adjust to the broader reforms. The government will continue to monitor the impacts of its policy settings on the screen production sector. 10:17 Senator M 121628 New South Wales cALLISTER () (): Labor supports this amendment. It was recommended by the Senate committee that inquired into this bill, as the minister has pointed out. I do want to make clear, though, that Labor's position is that no change should be made to the existing settings on copyright expenditure eligibility thresholds at all. But we won't stand in the way of implementing this recommendation, which will at least blunt the initial impact of the measures contained in this bill on the documentary sector. 10:18 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia The Greens support this amendment. However, we would prefer that there were no changes being made to the copyright elements in relation to these matters, particularly for documentaries. We are extremely concerned that, through this piece of legislation, the government is cutting documentary-making in this country off at the knees. It's going to make it very difficult for documentary-makers in Australia to get finance to be able to tell their stories, to be able to report. Such an essential part of public interest journalism in this country comes from documentaries. Such an important part of our record of history and our telling of history comes from documentaries. Documentary-making is so important in helping policymakers and those of us in public life to understand how the community is feeling, to ventilate difficult issues, to come to a consensus of community. I don't understand why the Scott Morrison and Barnaby Joyce government is so intent on tearing down the documentary sector in Australia. Is it because you don't like people reporting history, telling things as they are, calling out issues that previously have gone unreported? Australia has a proud history of making documentaries, and really good ones, and that is being put at risk by several elements of this piece of legislation. This amendment will limit some of that damage but not all of it. It's just mindless insanity that the government continues to whack and destroy Australia's documentary sector in this way. Question agreed to. 10:21 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales by leave—I move opposition amendment (5) on sheet 1351: (5) Schedule 1, item 28, page 7 (line 23) to page 8 (line 3), omit the item, substitute: 28 Application of amendments The amendments made by this Schedule apply in respect of the tax offset under section 376-55 (the producer offset) to films commencing principal photography on or after 1 July 2021. The opposition also opposes schedule 1 in the following terms: (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 14 and 15), to be opposed. (2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (lines 26 and 27), to be opposed. (3) Schedule 1, items 9 to 23, page 5 (line 7) to page 7 (line 7), to be opposed. (4) Schedule 1, item 25, page 7 (lines 11 and 12), to be opposed. As I indicated in my remarks in the second reading debate, these amendments seek to remove the most damaging parts of this bill. This bill represents, as I indicated, the third stage in a rolling attack by the government on the Australian screen industry. Measure after measure contained in this bill creates circumstances where Australian television programs, Australian films and Australian documentaries will struggle to get off the ground. I point particularly to those parts of the bill that raise the threshold for eligibility from $500,000 to a million dollars. This is a very significant increase, and it means that many small-scale local productions—those productions which do indeed tell Australian stories—will not be able to get off the ground. We recognise the urgency and importance of passing this bill, and, as Senator Griff pointed out, the way that the bill has been assembled places senators in an invidious position. Do we pass a measure that is desperately needed, that has been banked by the television sector, and, in doing so, pass other measures which film producers and documentary producers tell us are going to be a problem? It's on that basis that Labor is seeking to amend this bill. The amendments before you seek to excise those parts of the bill that would do the most damage. I do ask senators to give consideration to support for these. We're not going to stand in the way of the bill and hold things up, but it would be better for Australian industry—Australian film and television—if the amendments that are before you now were passed. 10:23 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise just to indicate support for these amendments. They address issues that were covered by the Senate inquiry into this piece of legislation, and all seek to reduce the damage to the local Australian screen sector that is in this bill—in particular, damage to those small-scale productions which we know are so essential not just to telling our Australian stories, our local stories, but to the local industry. This house, being the state chamber, has senators from all around the country, and in our different states we have very localised, unique screen and film sectors. This bill, as it stands, is going to devastate those local production houses—the local stories coming out of our states—and we need to fix it. This is not asking for anything more than keeping the status quo. There's plenty more that could be done, but we're not asking for anything more. We're just asking for damage not to be done here. Let's take out the bits of this piece of legislation that drive a truck through Australian production, that drive a truck through Australian stories and documentary making. We're not asking for any more money, Minister, through you, Chair. We're simply asking that the government accept that the settings for these smaller productions and for documentaries need to be left as they are, otherwise we risk devastating an industry that, in fact, is only just starting to recover since the pandemic began. Senator McAllister was correct in her articulation of the wicked problem we have here. It is that, while there is one element of this bill whose passing is desperately needed, there are a whole lot of other elements of this bill that are going to devastate the rest of the industry. They will pit our creatives, our filmmakers and our producers—our storytellers—against each other. This is not a very good thing to do to a sector that is already struggling to get back up and running. Why on earth the government is being so pig-headed about this is beyond me. I know that over there on the government side Mr Morrison has hardly put himself up as the hero of the arts. He rarely utters the word. He has continued to talk down to the broad arts sector. He refuses to deal with the very harsh reality that the sector is feeling right now because of COVID. Let's not forget that this is the government that cut the department of the arts in the first place. We understand we're dealing with a very difficult mindset when it comes to Mr Morrison and his approach to arts and creatives in this country, but, honestly, this is an unnecessary attack. It's nasty. Pitting the sector against itself is a nasty thing to do. That's what the government's doing here. It is picking winners and letting everybody else fail. These amendments go some way to trying to fix this and, for those of us in smaller states where our production industry is really starting to become part of our local economies, it is essential that these amendments pass to protect the sector. I hope the crossbench will support the amendments. 10:28 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The government opposes this amendment. The government is pursuing an integrated package of reforms, including support to attract a pipeline of inbound production, changes to the Australian Screen Production Incentive, and additional funding for Screen Australia and the Australian Children's Television Foundation. Changes to the Australian Screen Production Incentive are designed specifically to refocus government support to that sector, encouraging it to target expenditure towards on-screen quality and incentivising the creation of original Australian stories that can better compete in the global marketplace. They will also support producers to create content of ambition and scale that will meet audience expectations. This is being achieved through careful balancing and targeting of the Australian government's tax offset policy settings to achieve the objective of supporting a mix of domestic and international production, generating jobs and stimulating the economy. Major amendments to this bill, like the amendment proposed by Labor, will significantly diminish the effectiveness of the changes and upset the balance that's needed to achieve the objectives of creating local Australian content which can compete for domestic and global audiences while also generating jobs and stimulating the economy. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 287062 The question is phrased in a particular way, that if you support the opposition amendments you will vote no and if you support the government's position you will vote in the affirmative. The question is that items (2), (6), (9) to (13), (15) to (23), and (25) of schedule 1 stand as printed and that item (14) of schedule 1, as amended, be agreed to. Question negatived. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question now is that amendment (5) be agreed to. Question agreed to. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Patrick has a further amendment. 10:31 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I rise to indicate that I don't intend to move my amendment. There's a difficulty with the government in that currently it's hiding the financial reports of 1,119 large proprietary companies. That creates a situation which, when these large proprietary companies—and these are not my words; these are the words of ASIC in response to submissions made to an Economics Committee inquiry into corporate tax avoidance—don't disclose their financial statements publicly, can give rise to aggressive tax avoidance. Sadly, this is an exemption from reporting that applies to only a limited number of companies. These are very wealthy family companies and, also sadly, as has been shown by Michael West, mates of the Liberal Party—donors to the Liberal Party. Whilst I would love to move this amendment, I understand that the Greens and Labor won't support it. I understand that they aren't supporting it because they don't want to withhold money from the television and movie sector. I'm somewhat sympathetic to that, because the government has in fact let this languish on the Notice Paper for some considerable amount of time. So, whilst not moving the amendment, I think it might be appropriate for those other parties to state why they won't support it in this instance. 10:33 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Just in disclosure to the chamber: I thank Senator Patrick for withdrawing his amendment. Again, this is the difficulty we're in: this government plays a game with the lives, livelihoods and jobs of everyday Australians in that if you don't do it their way you get zilch. It's their way or the highway. That just totally characterises this Prime Minister, doesn't it? If Mr Morrison doesn't get his way then it's all somebody else's fault and the whole show is off. Bang! Tantrum! Point your finger somewhere else; that's what the government does every time—every time!—the pressure is on. We need a bit more strength of character from someone who wants to lead the country, I would suggest. Rather than just thumping a fist and saying, 'My way or the highway!' being a leader actually requires listening, consulting, talking and showing. But all we get from Mr Morrison is thumping, grumping and pointing at someone else. That's all we get. So thank you, Senator Patrick, but, really, this is an indictment on the government. We on this side and in the Greens understand that the disclosure of this information is important and that the government hide this information to cover up for their mates in big business. We don't think it's appropriate. This chamber has said that time and time again, but of course Mr Morrison runs this country as if no-one else matters. That's why we're in the position we are in. It is with great reluctance that we're not able to progress those particular amendments today. 10:35 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I wish to accept Senator Patrick's invitation for an explanation of Labor's approach to his amendments. Of course Labor fully supports the principles in the amendments Senator Patrick has circulated. I know that this is something that Senator Patrick has been concerned about for some time. Indeed, we've cooperated in this chamber to try to get this outcome in different bills. Unfortunately, the government consistently resist this proposition—for reasons best known to them. Why is it that large private companies are not subject to ordinary transparency measures? Why is it that the government persist in this protection racket, this grandfathering arrangement, that they seem totally unable to walk away from? It's part of an ongoing culture of secrecy. It's a depressing indictment on their approach to government in general. Unfortunately, we have seen amendments of this kind that are passed in this chamber be rejected in the other place. I have indicated throughout this debate that we do not want to see this bill held up. We know that there are television producers depending on the passage of this bill. It's on that basis that we did indicate to Senator Patrick that on this occasion we would not have been in a position to support his amendments had he moved them. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 6950 10:37 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority Board and Other Improvements) Bill 2019 6950

Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority Board and Other Improvements) Bill 2019

Second Reading 6950 10:38 Senator McMAHON 282728 Northern Territory As I was saying last night when I opened my contribution on the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority Board and Other Improvements) Bill 2019, the importance of agricultural and veterinary chemicals and their regulation can't be overemphasised. How has this come before us? It's not something we thought up yesterday; it has been a long process. It was part of the 2015 Agricultural competitiveness white paper. The government committed to streamline access to agvet chemicals and better manage the risks they pose whilst at the same time retaining protection for the health, welfare and safety of humans, animals, plants and the environment. The Morrison-Joyce government recognises the need to better balance regulatory effort with risk and improve veterinary surgeons', farmers' and other users' access to newer and better agricultural and veterinary chemicals, including many medications. This government also recognises the need to ensure that our regulatory agencies have effective governance arrangements, with clear accountability and transparency. The department consulted on potential agvet chemical reforms between 2015 and 2018. Stakeholder feedback indicated widespread interest in reform and support for a more efficient and effective regulatory system. I can personally report that people in industry that I have been speaking to recently—as you're well aware, I'm very close to this industry, being a veterinary surgeon—have talked about how they have seen improvements in the way that the APVMA works, in the way that it approves medications and chemicals and in the time that it takes to get approvals through. That was a big thing that industry has had for many, many years. This is quite a small agency and it's often dealing with hundreds of applications at any one time. Industry has been concerned for many years about the time taken to get things approved. I am very pleased to report that under the previous ag minister, Senator McKenzie, and under the current ag minister, Mr Littleproud, there have been incremental improvements. Industry is still looking for more improvements to be made, but they are quite impressed with the steps that have been taken to improve these areas. The APVMA is probably an agency that a lot of people haven't really heard of and don't really pay a lot of attention to, but, as I've stated, it is a vital agency. It approves and regulates all of the chemicals that are used in agriculture. It's absolutely vital for our agricultural industries. We have a very strong agricultural industry in Australia. We have a proud history of our agriculture and the food and fibre that we produce. For all of this to be efficient, effective and safe relies on the efficient regulation of the chemicals that are used in it. Although many Australians would not have heard of this agency, the vast majority of Australians have animals, or have at some stage owned animals. They've owned either farm animals or companion animals, pets or performance animals, such as racing horses and greyhounds, or horses that are used in competition. The veterinary side of it is very vital for production animals. Veterinarians and the medications that we have access to are vital for animal health and welfare in our production systems. These range from intensive production systems, such as chicken and pigs, to quite extensive systems, such as beef cattle. The treatment, the maintenance of not only the health but, as I said, the welfare is absolutely vital. It's vital we get the medications that are used in doing that approved in a timely manner. It's vital that they are regulated in a way that, as I said, is safe, efficient and effective. We also have companion pets. Most people in Australia will be well aware of pet cats, dogs and birds, and these days reptiles, fish. Veterinary medications that are regulated by this agency are absolutely vital for all of these companion animals. Modern veterinary medicine is increasingly coming into line with human medicine, and people are increasingly demanding improved treatments and outcomes for their pets. In fact, these days it is quite common for pets to undergo chemotherapy for cancer, to have complex surgeries—including complex orthopaedic surgeries and complex soft-tissue surgeries—and to take medications for many emerging and existing diseases and conditions. The regulation and approval of these medications is vital to pets and their owners. We're a very small country, in terms of population and in terms of our pets and our veterinary industry, compared to countries such as the US and the UK, so we don't have a lot of medications that are developed in this country. We rely heavily on both human medications and medications that are developed overseas. These have to be approved in Australia to be used, and that is where this agency comes in. It is absolutely critical in getting timely approval for these medications and in making sure that the testing and regulation that have been done overseas are appropriate for Australian conditions and for Australian pets and production systems. This bill will improve the APVMA's governance, reduce the regulatory burden on industry, support the APVMA's operations, strengthen the integrity of the regulation system and enhance the way the regulation operates. I've already spoken about how this agency operates and the fact that it's important to increase efficiency and the time in which various medications and chemicals are approved. One example of this is minor use permits. These are permits that are granted by the agency for chemicals and medications that generally don't have widespread use or are needed in a very urgent situation. They're generally used in small amounts, with small production systems, and there may not have been the time or it may not have been worthwhile to the company to go through the full registration process, which is quite expensive and quite onerous. An example of where these are used in veterinary medicine is autogenous vaccines, where you have an outbreak of a disease on a particular property. We're trying to get away from the widespread use of antimicrobials, and that's where these vaccines are important. There will be a veterinary investigation on a property where a disease is occurring. Identified bacteria—the cause of the disease outbreak—will be found and a vaccine will be developed for the specific bacteria on that specific property. You're not going to go through a whole regulation process to get a vaccine to market for use on one or two individual properties. That's where the minor use permits come in. One of the issues that has come about is that, while the APVMA has five months in which to approve one of these minor use permits, the agency can go back to the proponent with a question about the information that's contained in the permit application and that then triggers another five months. So you can have almost a year between a disease being identified on a property and a permit being issued for the vaccine to combat that disease. Anyone would acknowledge that that's not desirable. We need to speed this process up. We still need to maintain safety and efficacy, but we need to speed this process up. That is where this will come into effect, so that we're continually improving the governance of the APVMA and we're continually improving its efficiency and effectiveness. As someone who is intimately involved in the agricultural and veterinary industries, I thank the ministers involved. As I said, Minister McKenzie has been instrumental in this, and I thank her for the work that she's done on it. Industry certainly strongly welcomes and recommends this bill and the improvements in effectiveness and efficiency that it will bring about. 10:50 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I did listen with interest to Senator McMahon's contribution to this debate, which is rooted very much in her own expertise in this area. It does cause me to reflect that it is a pity, in my view—I'm not sure what Senator McMahon's views is—that she won't be back here in the next term, because bringing that perspective is very important. I'm sure there are a lot of things about which I don't agree with Senator McMahon, but she does genuinely bring perspective and expertise from that sector with her. I think it is a bit of a symbol of the decline of the modern National Party that instead of continuing to put people from the agriculture sector into parliament—somebody who brings that particular set of expertise with them—they've decided, in this case in the Northern Territory, to put a Sky After Dark right-wing operator into the parliament. I just wanted to say that at the outset of this discussion. Senator McMahon is right. Yes, these issues about the regulation of agricultural and veterinary chemicals are important for the future of our agriculture sector, but they do have an impact, too, for people who operate in the veterinary industry, in terms of people's companion animals and also in terms of the greyhound-racing and horse-racing industries. They are critical questions. The chemicals that are regulated and the process for utilising the chemicals that are regulated are important also from an animal welfare and environmental perspective. They are often powerful and dangerous chemicals that require an effective regulatory system. Just like chemicals that are used for human health, the applications of these chemicals should be properly enforced in a proper compliance regime. Of course, human health and animal health aren't interchangeable. I've noticed that the coalition backbench isn't immune from having members on it who think that products that are used for horse health, for example, might have applications for human health. There have been some characters who inhabit the government's backbench who've been urging Australians—who should be paying attention to real scientific research, not to people in their cellars doing their own research—to buy horse paste and use it on themselves, instead of getting themselves properly vaccinated. Those people ought to stop. They ought to pay attention to the science, and they ought to actually act in the national interest. More broadly in agriculture, we've seen falling public investment in agricultural research and falling public investment in research. I take Senator McMahon's point: Australia is small, in population terms, compared with the rest of the world. But our agriculture industry is large compared with the rest of the world, so our investment in public research—whether in veterinary medicine or pesticides or on broader questions of genomic research, plant development, animal husbandry and on-farm activity—ought to be punching above its weight in global terms. But it's not. At both the Commonwealth and state levels, public investment in these areas has continued to decline. We have big challenges, as a country, in agriculture—in terms of water availability, future animal and plant diseases, and insulating Australian agriculture. We have been a step ahead in developments in animal and plant disease and in productivity, but we are absolutely behind the eight ball in terms of the Commonwealth's engagement with Australian agriculture in the effort to lift Australian agriculture up the value chain so that we're not just exporting raw commodities overseas but also creating good jobs in country towns—food processing jobs in particular: meatworks in our north, making just-in-time food products for the South-East Asian market. We are falling well and truly behind in those areas. It's all very well for the National Farmers Federation and the government—and, indeed, the Labor Party—to say they support the National Farmers Federation's objective of $100 billion in agriculture exports by 2030. But it's not enough. On-farm productivity in Australia has continued to rise every year since the 1970s except for drought years. Australian farmers—the 86,000 farming operations—have been doing their bit in lifting productivity. The real lift in national productivity will be in shifting Australian agriculture up the value chain, not just operating on the basis of incremental improvements in on-farm productivity and then being a function of volume and price. We should be leading the world in these areas. Returning to just this agency, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority controls the assessment and registration of all these chemicals as well as the supply activities right up to the point of retail sale. The bill really proposes to just create an additional governance arrangement. That governance arrangement was the result of the Independent Review of the Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Regulatory System in Australia. They are correct that the APVMA is one of the few corporate Commonwealth entities without a board. The other Commonwealth regulatory entities that have direct responsibilities for human life and health—Food Standards Australia, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority—all have boards, and the APVMA does haven't a board. Gosh, it needed one. Somebody needed to stand up in the public interest when the then Deputy Prime Minister—and again Deputy Prime Minister—Mr Joyce announced the transfer of the APVMA's offices to Armidale without any process. But, on the basis that this has been proposed and it's consistent with what's happening more broadly, Labor will be supporting the bill. It is worth noting that critical stakeholder groups have expressed some concerns with the design of the bill. They say it will have no independent power over the authority, there's no clear policy rationale for it to exist and, as always, the costs will be borne by farmers themselves through higher prices. It's not often you can construct a governance system that alienates all of the stakeholders in the sector, but, of course, this is the modern National Party. Senator Canavan says, correctly, that they don't represent farmers anymore. There's an utter hypocrisy in this legislation. We'll support it. There needs to be some governance over this authority. A few years ago, the Deputy Prime Minister filmed himself yelling at the sky about how he doesn't want government in his life. It was quite an odd video. If you haven't seen it, you should watch it. In the other chamber, he mocked the concept of achieving public policy outcomes through legislation or even regulation, which is an odd thing for a bloke who sits in the parliament to say. It is notable that the Deputy Prime Minister wanted to get a whole lot more government in the lives of the citizens of Armidale by moving the APVMA there. It's hard to accept the claim he made at the time that this was all about creating jobs in regional Australia. At that time, the government was embarked upon a course of deleting thousands of public sector jobs. Thousands of public servant jobs were deleted all across regional Australia at the same time, and the New England government cuts to agricultural research devastated scores of jobs in the Deputy Prime Minister's own electorate. Two hundred jobs were gone from the local university, the University of New England. The relocation was opposed by the department. Almost all of the serious stakeholders opposed it. Even Ernst & Young, when commissioned to provide a report, argued there would be little or no benefit. It wasn't legislated. There was no cabinet process. There was no consultation. It was utterly bungled. The APVMA and Minister Joyce forgot to hire an office space. Public servants, for months, were reduced to going and sitting in McDonald's to use the wi-fi. Eighty-five per cent of the staff refused to move. It's been plagued with financial difficulty ever since. It's cost at least $26 million. There's no way of calculating the real financial cost of this utter bungle. It's hard not to think that having some board, even with the deficiencies of this regulatory system, would have provided some assistance at protecting this capability from Mr Joyce's pre-emptive and senseless approach to this move. The other thing that gives me pause for thought, in this, is it allows yet another government board that the government can make appointments to. We've seen what happens with the National Party and Mr Joyce, in particular, and their approach to government appointments. Recently, the mayor of Tamworth, who's retiring, sat down with the Prime Minister as he outlined in the Northern Daily Leader, which is a fantastic newspaper based in Tamworth, that he was worried about what he'd be doing to occupy his mind in his retirement. So he spoke to his old mate, Mr Joyce, and Mr Joyce appointed him as the chair of Infrastructure Australia. It entirely swept aside any idea of merit, any idea of what's in the national interest. He just appointed his mate who needed a retirement job. It's a 'men's shed for mates' approach in the National Party these days. I hope, but I don't trust, that the Morrison government and Mr Joyce can make fair-dinkum appointments to this board—appointments that are actually in the national interest—by appointing people like Senator McMahon who've actually got a little bit of expertise in this area rather than appointing former staffers, retiring councillors, political fixers, branch stackers and National Party mates to all of these boards, because that's all this government has been capable of doing when it comes to public appointments. As I say, there's a deep complacency in the National Party about the future of Australian agriculture. Much more work needs to be done. We'll support this legislation, but what Australian agriculture needs is a government that actually stands up for it and actually does a little bit of work. 11:05 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania [by video link] I want to start by pointing out, for those who might be watching this debate today or reading the Hansard, that it is curious that this legislation, the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority Board and Other Improvements) Bill 2019, in one form or another has been kicking around this chamber and the House, and through a number of reviews, for nearly seven years. For background: the regulation of chemical products in Australia, or the regulatory framework for managing pesticides and veterinary medicines in Australia, is collectively referred to as the National Registration Scheme for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals, or the NRS, and this is a partnership between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. The assessment and registration of agricultural and veterinary or agvet chemicals, as well as the control of supply activities up to the point of retail sale, is undertaken by the APVMA, and control of the use of agvet chemicals after sale is the responsibility of individual states and territories. The Agvet Code is contained in a schedule under the code act, and, under the NRS, the Agvet Code operates together with the code of each participating jurisdiction to constitute a single national code applying through Australia. Now, going back to 2008, this regulatory framework has had a number of reviews and those reviews, which I haven't got time to go into in any detail, essentially led to legislation in 2013—eight years ago—and that was called the 2013 amendment act. I remember the debate, when that bill came before the parliament back in 2013. The act, it was said, would encourage the development of newer and safer chemicals by providing more flexible and streamlined regulatory processes with higher levels of transparency and predictability for business seeking approval for agvet chemicals to enter the market. It was claimed that the reforms should result in a more straightforward assessment process that would be easy to understand and more cost-effective to administer, and, particularly for products of low regulatory concern, the reform system as established by those amendments should be faster, deliver more predictable outcomes and result in improved health and environmental protection for the broader community. Now, despite the lengthy consultation which led to the 2013 amendment act, as it said in the Bills Digest, it was not without its critics as it was unclear whether the relevant amendments would lead to greater efficiencies, which they were intended to create. Of greatest concern were the following: the potential for increased cost for registrants and applicants; and increased complexity in the regulatory system, which might result in the loss of existing agricultural chemical products and discourage the introduction of newer modern chemistry and biological products and the potential loss from the Australian market of useful products that were safe and effective to use, due to the need to obtain reapproval or reregistration of these products. This sounds like good, wholesome policy content, but you need to look at the politics of this. This bill, after a very long consultation process and nearly seven years of reviews, was dissented from by the coalition senators at the time that it went to committee. They also voted against this bill when it came to the Senate. That led to a 2013 federal election promise to review and overturn the 2013 amendment act. That gave birth to the coalition's 2014 amending act after that election promise. The coalition government got elected in 2013, and clearly they were doing the bidding of the chemical industry, who wanted to make it even easier to register products. It's taken another seven years for this legislation to get before us today. I'm not sure what the basis is of the government's lethargy in relation to this bill. I also note that this legislation has been on the papers in the Senate now for many months and is continually put to the back of government bills. Nevertheless, in the final hours of the 2021 parliamentary year, we now have this bill before us. There are a lot of concerns that a number of stakeholders have with this bill, and the Greens have made it very clear in its earlier iteration—my colleague Senator Janet Rice had the agricultural portfolio for the Greens back in 2019—that we don't support making it easier for large chemical companies to register products. We believe this is counterproductive both for farmers and for community trust in the Agvet Code and legislative framework we have in this country. Let's be honest: this bill serves two purposes but one master. The first purpose is supposedly to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of regulation. The second purpose re-establishes a board for the APVMA. Both purposes serve the need of the pesticide industry, and it's been raised by a number of stakeholders such as the National Toxics Network and Public Health Association of Australia, including in the Senate inquiry into this bill, that these dangers are a recipe for further deregulation, which we're seeing in this bill. This puts consumers at risk and undermines trust in the framework. We believe it puts at risk public health, smaller farms, biodiversity and the science of the process. The bill seeks to introduce a streamlined process for approvals. The streamlined process, part of the codified doublespeak of privatisation and neoliberalism, removes a whole subset of chemicals from the regulatory scheme. Big industry need is prioritised at the expense of scientific and environmental safeguards. I would like to point out that I have used these chemicals myself as a vineyard owner and a small business operator. Over many years I tried to move my vineyard to biodynamic farming from the use of, in my early years, the use of things such as glycophosphate, Roundup and various pesticides and insecticides that are covered in this bill. I've done my training to get certified to use agricultural chemicals. I did many hours of training to try to understand these bills. My father was a farmer and often used agricultural chemicals. Many of my friends who I went to school with were farmers who have used these chemicals. Interestingly, at my 30-year school reunion, which I think shows my age, this issue was discussed—how many friends I went to school with who had lost their fathers to cancer, working on farms over many years. There was a real concern about what caused that high level of cancer and whether it was exposure to using crop chemicals, pesticides and herbicides. I think this is a real issue for farmers that have to use these chemicals every day. They have to have a system and a framework that they have trust in. This bill would permit the APVMA applying a disqualifying criteria to any application for new chemicals. This criteria in this bill is poorly explained and opens up decision-making to arbitrary judgement rather than defined scientific and public health analysis. Furthermore, even if disqualified through this mechanism, an applicant could still apply for approval and registration under other provisions of the Agvet Code. The bill proposes extending the rejection period for protected information. This is essentially copyright for chemicals. Extending the protection period means that large corporations can monopolise chemicals, preventing farmers from accessing generic cheaper goods. Given the financial pressures many farmers face, this also risks the prospect of more imported counterfeit products entering the market. These concerns are all in the bill's digest and have been raised by very respected stakeholders in this debate. Part 4 of the bill makes changes that restrict mandatory reporting for total chemical product quantities. In effect, this means data on active constituents is lost. There are already limits on available data on chemicals in Australia, particularly on the relationship between cause and effect on public health and on their effectiveness. Further restrictions of data mean more risk of chemicals entering the market that are lacking in detailed information. The bill establishes a new board of the APVMA, and this has been one of the most controversial aspects of this legislation, ostensibly to support the chief executive in governance of the APVMA. What the government are glossing over, however, is the fact that an advisory board already exists under the administration act but they've failed to appoint positions on this board for a number of years. In fact, the last appointments expired in 2015. Why is this the case? This is a very good question for the minister to answer. The current advisory board gives plenty of scope for appointments to be made on the basis of experience in the regulation of chemical products, toxicology, consumer interests, public health and work health and safety. It beggars belief that the government has consistently, and one can only assume deliberately, failed to fulfil a board designed to support all functions of the regulatory framework run by the APVMA. I believe the board is a transparent attempt to stock the APVMA with industry figures. I understand Labor, in their contribution yesterday, speaking to this bill said that they've expressed concerns, as they have in their response to the latest piece of legislation. The bills digest, quoting the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee report, said: The majority view of the Committee was that the Bill should be passed.[45] However, Australian Labor Party (ALP) Senators expressed their 'deep concerns about the policy rationale for the implementation of a Governance Board' because, amongst other things: The APVMA Governance Board will not have the power to independently set the APVMA's strategic direction, drive its operational performance, set an appropriate risk management framework and ensure greater accountability. Under the proposed legislation the Minister will continue to have the power to direct the APVMA and will be provided with the power to direct the board in the performance of its functions. Therefore, it appears the Governance Board will just be another layer of regulation which will add additional cost to Australian farmers. My concern goes beyond the fact that this will just be another additional cost to farmers. It will be over whether the board is actually truly independent of the chemicals industry and figures within this industry or advocacy groups lobbying for lower regulation and increased or more rapid approvals of their products. I would like to point out, as a kind of backdrop or frame to this debate, that groups of experts, such as the National Toxics Network, have made it clear that Australia already has a very lax system of control of agricultural chemicals. This would put us further out of step with the EU, the US and Canada, which are increasingly looking at new research and information into key chemicals that we use on our farms and chemicals I openly admitted that I used when I first started my vineyard, such as Roundup or glyphosate. I have here before me new reports out of the EU in recent weeks around the validity of the science, especially around human safety, that has gone into the registration of these products. There have been concerns raised in recent months about a product called fipronil, which I also used to control European wasps on my vineyard, that can have negative effects, especially on bee populations. These chemicals are being reviewed all around the world yet, in this bill before us today, we are going to be passing legislation that makes it even easier for chemicals such as these, especially if they're considered to be consumer chemicals, to be registered, which, I believe, is totally unacceptable. In fact, I believe that many farmers, especially small farmers—and my state is absolutely full of smaller farmers who are trying to grow high-value niche products that rely on a clean, green and clever brand—think that any deregulation of agricultural chemicals is going to put their industry and its reputation further at risk. I think we need to be very clear here that this bill is not what's needed for the Australian agricultural industry, and the Greens will oppose it. After neglecting the APVMA and its authoritative scientific advice for so many years, the government is instead seeking to elevate industry voices to progress their own agenda. I would ask that people do read the submissions that were made to the rural and regional affairs committee most recently on this bill, and note the concerns of experts in relation to protecting health, safety and the environment. I will just finish by saying that the Greens will oppose this bill, as we did in 2019. 11:20 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria It gives me great pleasure to provide this second reading debate speech on behalf of the agriculture minister, David Littleproud, with respect to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority Board and Other Improvements) Bill 2019. Australians need access to safe and effective agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines. They protect our crops, livestock and domestic pets; they safeguard our environment from invasive weeds and pests; and they meet consumer needs for things such as household insecticides. Agvet chemicals, as these products are commonly known, have brought long-term benefits to Australian agriculture by supporting increased productivity, better-quality produce and more competitive industries. It's important that the regulation of agvet chemicals continues to be streamlined to maximise the benefits for Australia. It's also imperative to ensure that the strong safeguards built into the regulation of agvet chemicals are not compromised. Through a cooperative scheme with the states and territories, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, the APVMA, is the national regulator of agvet chemicals up to and including the point of supply. The APVMA has an important role to ensure that agvet chemicals supplied in Australia are safe for people, animals, plants and the environment and don't adversely impact our trade market access. The APVMA needs to be both efficient and effective in its regulation of agvet chemicals, and I thank the senators who have made contributions today to that effect. The bill supports these objectives by streamlining regulatory processes, while strengthening vital protections for the health and safety of humans, animals and the environment. Given its vital role, the APVMA also requires robust governance arrangements that reflect modern practices to ensure the accountability and performance of the regulator. The bill supports this critical outcome by establishing the APVMA board and ceasing the advisory board. Legislation underpinning the APVMA and agvet chemical regulation was developed in the 1990s, and we have announced a comprehensive review of the whole legislative framework from first principles. In the meantime, however, the chemical industry has made it clear that there are simple and non-controversial changes that could be done right now to improve the efficiency of the agvet chemical regulatory framework, reducing costs and increasing the speed with which farmers can get access to safe and effective chemicals. The bill therefore includes measures to improve the administrative efficiency of the APVMA and promote quicker access to chemical products. This has been one of the key issues that industry, stakeholders and primary producers have raised with us as a government time and time again, and it's our government which is dealing with this. The measures in the bill reduce the regulatory burden for applications by increasing the APVMA's flexibility when dealing with minor errors in applications and for information that can be taken into account during an application. The bill will also enable the APVMA to choose, where appropriate, to use computerised decision-making as part of the process, thereby increasing efficiency whilst maintaining appropriate checks and balances. Computerised decision-making might be used, for example, in decisions involving an administrative check of an application. The bill also makes changes to enable the use of new, simpler processes for assessments based on risk. Specifically, the bill provides for new prescribed approval and registration processes that will be quicker and less costly than those which are currently available, whilst ensuring that the chemicals assessed are safe and effective. These new processes will apply for those active constituents, chemical products and labels that require minimal or no assessment of technical information, and will retain the requirement that the product meet the relevant statutory criteria, including in relation to the safety of humans, plants, animals and the environment. This measure has the potential to free up the time of the APVMA assessors so they can focus on more complex assessments. The bill removes the need for industry to undertake two unrelated reporting activities: one for levies based on chemical product sales and a second, more complex reporting activity on active constituent quantities. It simplifies and aligns these reporting processes based on the quantity and value of product sales. This significantly reduces reporting costs for industry without compromising the availability of information for our international reporting obligations and policy development needs. The chemical industry has been seeking changes to these burdensome reporting requirements for some time, and the bill delivers on those changes. The bill also provides for incentives for registration holders to include on product labels certain uses of chemical products that they do not ordinarily register. Similar to the approaches applied internationally, the incentives in the bill operate by extending data protection periods on information for up to five years if certain priority users are included on the labels. These extensions would be prescribed in the regulations. Based on the experience of these incentives overseas, this will encourage more priority uses on labels, including minor uses where the costs of adding the use are not justified by the additional commercial returns to chemical manufacturers. This will significantly benefit Australian farmers. Don't believe Senator Ayres's rhetoric. Other measures in the bill enable the holder of an approval or registration to vary the approval or registration while it is suspended. This will ensure that the issue identified that led to the suspension of the approval or registration can be appropriately rectified at the holder's request. The bill also makes changes to strengthen the integrity of the regulatory framework. To perform its role, the regulator of the APVMA has to rely on information provided to it by applicants. The bill provides the APVMA with a broader suite of sanctions that will allow it to proportionally respond to any false or misleading information it receives. This includes both administrative sanctions and civil pecuniary penalties. Industry understands the importance of increasing the range of compliance options available to the APVMA. The bill further bolsters the integrity of the system by harmonising the need to inform the APVMA of new information, including information that shows a substance may no longer meet the safety criteria across all holders and applicants. The bill also includes measures to improve risk communication about chemical products. This increases the integrity and transparency of voluntary recalls of agvet chemicals and modernises the legislation so the reporting obligations are very clear for persons recalling these chemicals. Importantly, the bill introduces a five-person skill-based governance board for the APVMA. This board will provide the APVMA with additional skills and experience to deliver an increasingly accountable, efficient and effective organisation. Currently, all responsibility for the APVMA strategic leadership, governance and day-to-day operation rests with the chief executive officer. The CEO is therefore responsible for setting, implementing and monitoring the APVMA's policies without any other direct support. This is an unreasonable and unsustainable management burden on the CEO that is not effective or efficient for the APVMA's successful long-term operation and ongoing improvement. The board will be accountable as an authority under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act. It will ensure the proper, efficient and effective performance of the APVMA's functions and determine the policies, objectives and strategies that the APVMA will follow. In addition, the board will play an important role in implementing the outcomes of the government's comprehensive review of the whole agvet legislative framework from first principles. The board, appointed by the Minister for Agriculture, David Littleproud, will consist of a chair, the APVMA CEO and three other members selected on the basis of their skills. Board members will be appointed on a part-time basis. The CEO is included as an ex officio board member to support informed and collective decision-making and ensure the policies are effectively integrated into day-to-day operations. The APVMA will continue to deliver independent and evidence-based decisions. The board will oversee how the APVMA does its job by establishing and monitoring the framework under which it operates. Day-to-day administration and decision-making such as registering individual chemical products and undertaking compliance and enforcement activities will remain the responsibility of the APVMA's CEO. The APVMA is one of the few corporate Commonwealth entities that doesn't have a governance board to ensure corporate compliance and management accountability. All other Commonwealth regulatory entities with direct responsibility for protecting human life and/or health have governance boards. So this is a great reform. The board model chosen by the government is comparable with other corporate Commonwealth entities and with private sector companies. Its proposed size, composition, role, functions, duties and powers conform to Commonwealth policies, as well as modern best practice guidance on corporate governance. Board members will be required to have appropriate qualifications, skills or experience in financial management, law, risk management, public sector governance, science and/or public health. The board will be able to establish committees to assist it perform its functions and exercise its powers. These committees will provide a mechanism to seek input from and engage directly with industry stakeholders and other experts as required. The bill provides transparency around ministerial directions to the board. Any written directions made to the board by the minister will be notifiable instruments with the particulars and effects of these directions reported to the APVMA's annual report. The bill additionally requires a review of the operation of the board after four years to ensure it is actually being effective and efficient. The bill also ceases the existing APVMA advisory board. The advisory board had no legislative power to direct a particular course of action and has not been operational since 2015. There are further measures in the bill clarifying meanings or addressing deficiencies or inconsistencies in relation to the regulation of agvet chemicals, which is great to see. These are largely minor issues; however, when considered together they improve the overall operational efficiency of the APVMA. The measures in the bill represent a considered approach to improving agvet legislation and have been developed through a program of engagement with all stakeholders. The board measures have been developed through a process of detailed, targeted consultation with stakeholders directly affected by the APVMA's governance. Other measures in the bill have also been consulted on publicly, and this has confirmed that these measures will deliver benefits to the industry, the regulator and the broader community. The bill will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the national system for regulating agvet chemicals while strengthening its integrity and positioning the APVMA to become a modern and sustainable regulator. It will ensure that safe and effective agvet chemicals continue to be available to our community now and into the future. A more efficient regulator will deliver flow-on benefits to the APVMA's clients, including improved client services and reduced regulatory burden, which will reduce the cost of doing business. On behalf of the minister, I would like to thank all those involved. As has been noted in comments today by both sides of the chamber, this has been a long process and we believe we've got the settings right. The APVMA is a great example of our government's commitment to decentralised government services to the regions, closer to the communities that they serve. History has borne out that, whilst controversial at the time, moving the APVMA to Armidale has been a benefit not just to the agency but also to the broader community and hasn't actually resulted in some of the perceived challenges by those who opposed it. I would like to thank previous Minister Joyce and the current minister, Minister Littleproud, for ensuring that this fantastic bill gets the support of the Senate to hopefully pass today with amendment. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that this bill be now read a second time.    

The Senate divided. [11:38]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)

 26 AYES Abetz, E. Askew, W. Bragg, A. J. Canavan, M. J. Carr, K. J. Chandler, C. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Fierravanti-Wells, C. A. Griff, S. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Lines, S. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. McMahon, S. J. O'Sullivan, M. A. Patrick, R. L. Scarr, P. M. Small, B. J. Smith, D. A. (Teller) Stoker, A. J. 7 NOES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 In Committee 6959 11:40 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I take this opportunity to table a supplementary explanatory memorandum, and I seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (4) on sheet TK188 together. Leave granted. Senator McKENZIE 207825 I move: (1) Schedule 1, item 22, page 14 (after line 11), at the end of section 34KA, add: Powers may be conferred on the APV MA (5) In relation to an extension of a protection period, or ending such an extension, the regulations may confer a power to make a decision of an administrative character on the APVMA. (2) Schedule 1, item 25, page 14 (line 28), omit "Instead, an extension of a limitation period must not occur unless,", substitute "One of the circumstances in which there may be an extension of a limitation period under the regulations is if,". (3) Schedule 1, item 25, page 15 (after line 10), at the end of section 34MA, add: Powers may be conferred on the APVMA (5) In relation to an extension of a limitation period, or ending such an extension, the regulations may confer a power to make a decision of an administrative character on the APVMA. (4) Schedule 1, item 36, page 21 (lines 7 to 15), omit subsection 5F(1), substitute: (1) The APVMA may arrange for the use, under the APVMA's control, of computer programs for any purposes for which the APVMA may, or must, under this Code: (a) make a decision of a kind determined in an instrument under subsection (1A); or (b) exercise any power, or comply with any obligation, related to making a decision to which paragraph (a) applies; or (c) do anything else related to making a decision to which paragraph (a) applies or related to exercising a power, or complying with an obligation, to which paragraph (b) applies. (1A) The APVMA may, by legislative instrument, determine kinds of decisions for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a). The APVMA may, in that instrument, also determine conditions of use of a computer program as mentioned in subsection (1). (1B) The APVMA must take all reasonable steps to ensure that decisions made by the operation of a computer program under an arrangement made under subsection (1) are correct. Note: In addition, subsection 1A(2) of this Code sets out how this Code is to be implemented (which covers the making of an arrangement under subsection (1) of this section). 11:41 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania [by video link] Minister, I raised in my second reading contribution that the advisory board for APVMA already exists under the previous administration act but that the government has failed to appoint positions to this board for a number of years. The last appointments expired in 2015. Do you agree with this, and can you explain to the chamber why there have been no appointments to this board now for the last six years? The CHAIR 112096 Just before I call the minister: Senator Whish-Wilson, your sound is coming across quite muffled. I think that the minister understood what you were asking but, if not, she can seek clarification. 11:42 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Senator, were you asking me if I agreed to setting up the board as proposed in the bill, and asking why the government hadn't appointed anyone to the advisory board over recent years? Senator Whish 195565 Yes. Senator McKENZIE 207825 I absolutely agreed with setting up this board as the appropriate model of governance. Every other Commonwealth entity of this type has a similar governance arrangement to that we are proposing in this bill. I think it will give the right level of oversight, accountability and transparency and also ensure that the role of the CEO of the APVMA can focus on the day-to-day duties and leave that largely governance oversight to the appropriate mechanism in the board. As to why vacant positions on the advisory board that have existed in the past have not been filled, obviously that's been a decision of government. As you know, currently there's a nine-person advisory board. It had no legislative powers to direct any course of action. So it being in existence or not didn't actually result in any direct kinds of specific actions out of the CEO. The course we've taken is appropriate. It's taken some time to get agreement to the changes that we have proposed. They're before the Senate now and, rightfully, we're looking for the Senate to support them. 11:44 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania [by video link] Minister, you haven't explained why the government hasn't appointed anyone to these positions previously. I ask you again: why have there been no appointments in the last six years? I understand why you are setting the board up now. But why didn't you use the previous act to set up appointments to help the CEO of the APVMA? 11:45 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria As I said in my previous answer, there are two reasons. There was a decision of government, specifically, by current and previous agriculture ministers. As I said, the advisory board had no legislative powers to direct any course of action. The APVMA already has the ability to consult with stakeholders without that advisory board. As such, while the advisory board created considerable costs, it actually didn't necessarily serve that regulatory function and the government made the decision to cease the board on this basis. That is why we're now putting in the actual governance board that we are—because, as I said earlier, it was a decision of government and the advisory board, as it stood, couldn't direct in the way that you may think it might have been able to, Senator Whish-Wilson. 11:46 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania [by video link] Well, it may have been able to if it had actually been set up. Minister, you mentioned it was a decision of government. I want to raise again the concerns that were raised by the Labor Party and the Greens during the 2019 inquiry into the bill by the rural and regional affairs committee: The APVMA Governance Board will not have the power to independently set the APVMA's strategic direction, drive its operational performance, set an appropriate risk management framework and ensure greater accountability. Under the proposed legislation the Minister will continue to have the power to direct the APVMA and will be provided with the power to direct the board in the performance of its functions. Is this still is case with the bill before us today? Will the minister be able to direct the APVMA governance board once it's set up? 11:47 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria The minister will still be able to direct the APVMA governance board. 11:47 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania [by video link] I understand this is designed to assist the APVMA's CEO. But what's the point of appointing a board with various levels of expertise if the minister can still direct it—for example, in relation to its strategic direction, its operational performance, its risk management framework and its accountability? Will decisions of this board be made public? And will there be transparency around what it advises the minister? 11:48 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria The minister can already direct the Chief Executive Officer, and there are a range of other functions that the board will be conducting. All the directions of the minister will be published in the annual report, so it won't be a heavy level of direction, I imagine, from current or future ministers. 11:48 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania [by video link] So the directions of a minister might be published in annual reports, but will the advice of the new APVMA board also be made public? Will the minutes of board meetings be subject to orders for the production of documents, or other processes? 11:48 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria My advice it that it is just the directions from the minister that will be published in the annual report. 11:49 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania [by video link] There was concern raised—and we went through it in the second reading debate—over the many reviews we've had over the years, including the previous Senate committee inquiry into the 2019 bill and the inquiry into the bill before us today, that this APVMA board might be stacked by the minister, or by the government, especially in favour of industry. You may be aware, minister, there were very strong criticisms in relation to Minister Littleproud's first principles review into this issue, and that review has led to this legislation today. What assurances can you give that the construction of this board, that constitutes the advice, will be independent of industry? By that I mean the chemical industry, that makes these veterinary and other chemicals that are applying for registration. 11:50 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria As was said in the second reading speech, this will be a skill based board. This is a regulatory body that regulates chemicals—so not to hear, take on and listen to advice of those involved in that industry wouldn't result in functional regulation into the future. We need to make sure that the regulation of agvet chemicals in this country is safe, sustainable, good for human health, good for animal health and good for the environment. That's exactly what this advisory board skill set will do. They also need to have a range of skills, including risk management and public governance. 11:51 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania [by video link] Minister, going back to that first principles review by a panel of experts, much of which has been incorporated in the legislation today, are you aware of concerns that the panel's mandate prioritised costs to industry over the environment? There were questions raised over its chair, Ken Matthews. I and others asked questions about this in Senate estimates, and Mr Matthews has publicly acknowledged concerns about potential conflicts of interest. He was recently the chair of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council of Australia, whose members include some of the biggest producers, importers and users of pesticides. They include CropLife Australia, AusBiotech and the National Farmers Federation. He acknowledged that environment groups were cranky about his appointment, but, in fairness, he said he didn't believe the industry was pleased with this report. What assurances can you give us that this panel, given Mr Littleproud's record in relation to the panel of review, will be independent of industry? 11:52 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I've already answered, the fact that this will be a skill based board and that industry is an important voice within the regulation of these types of products. I hope you're not suggesting that the APVMA doesn't use the very best regulatory science on which to base its decision about the safe and sustainable regulation of agricultural and veterinary chemicals in this country. Internationally, Australia is known for basing its decision around these matters on science, and that underpins so much of our successful trading relationships, particularly in agricultural products. I've already answered the question, with respect to the skill set of the board. 11:53 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania [by video link] I raised it in my second reading speech as well, Minister. Expert groups such as the National Toxics Network, which is basically made up of scientists, believe Australia has a very lax system of control of agricultural chemicals and we're out of lock step with other countries such as the EU, the US and Canada. For example, there's new information coming to light—I always leave these things to the scientific process, Minister. I don't criticise scientists. I think it's their job, through a scientific process, to be constantly critiquing each other's—hopefully—independent research. You may be aware that last Friday, only a couple of days ago, there was a new report out of the EU. It highlights that only two out of 11 herbicide studies given to EU regulators are now deemed reliable. So nine out of 11 studies that were used for the regulation of these chemicals, on further review under the scientific process, have been shown to be unreliable in terms of looking at the impacts on human health. I can send the chamber a copy of that report. If I were there, I would seek to table it. My point is that the scientific process is ongoing, and it is a factual point—a point of significant controversy both in Australia and elsewhere—that industry contributes to and pays for research studies into its own products. My question is on the theme I just raised. I meant very seriously what I said in my second reading speech about farmers being the most at-risk cohort in human health from the use of pesticides and herbicides. Of course, pesticides and herbicides can have broader environmental impacts when they get into rivers and streams, and they potentially impact soil health—something I was very familiar with as a grapegrower myself. Have there been any studies done looking at farmers as a cohort and cancer rates in farming communities versus other controls in other parts of our community? Have there been any health impact studies on farmers, who use these chemicals more than anyone else? 11:56 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Senator, you've traversed this particular broad topic in many Senate inquiries, not just related to this bill. Your question in no way relates to the bill before the Senate today. The whole point of having a body like the APVMA and an efficient and effective regulatory framework is that primary producers across the country will be safely able to use chemicals on farm. 11:56 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania [by video link] Minister, I'd ask you to reconsider your response. The question I'm asking is absolutely critical, pivotal and fundamental to this bill that we have before us today. No-one is impacted more by potential health impacts from the use of herbicides and pesticides than farmers. They're used in weed control by local governments and there are other cohorts who use them, but farmers are essentially the key people using these products. So if there's a lax system, or a suboptimal or substandard system for registering products that could potentially be dangerous to human health, then that is exactly what we're debating today. So I would ask that you reconsider and I will ask the question again. Have there been any studies done on cancer rates in farmers versus controls or in other community cohorts? 11:57 The CHAIR 112096 Senator Whish-Wilson, do you have any further questions? 11:57 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania [by video link] Unless I have a second voice, I probably won't get to ask more than one more question, but I will just put this on record. Yes, you're right, Senator McKenzie, the Greens have raised these questions and these issues over many years; however, I haven't because I'm new to the portfolio within the Greens. From my own personal experience as a grape farmer having used these chemicals, and that of all my mates I went to boarding school with who were farmers, I know that this is a significant matter of interest amongst the farming community. They're the users of these products. On the other side, of course, we have the producers who manufacture them and who want to get them to market and make as much money as possible. Then in between we have scientists and other experts. My point that I will finish on is: it's not the APVMA I'm criticising, Minister, it's your government. You've taken seven years to bring this legislation before the parliament today. I'm not sure why there's been a lack of urgency to get this legislation passed. I'm not sure why it has sat on the NoticePaper for months and months and has always been pushed to the bottom of the pile. I think farmers' health, as well as the health of the environment and the health of our ecosystem, is an absolutely critical, acute thing that we need to be debating and addressing. I, my party and many stakeholders out there feel that today is a missed opportunity to have that serious debate. I'll put on the record that I know Labor were moving amendments today. I understand those amendments have been withdrawn. They've come to some arrangement with the government and they're leaving it to the government to use its discretion as to how it appoints that board. I have no faith that your government will prioritise the interests of farmers and the health of the environment over the interests of big industry. That has always been your modus operandi since I can remember. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 6963 12:01 Senator McK 207825 Victoria ENZIE (—) (): I move: That this bill be now read a third time. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the bill be read a third time.    

The Senate divided. [12:06]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)

 27 AYES Askew, W. Bragg, A. J. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Ciccone, R. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Fierravanti-Wells, C. A. Gallagher, K. R. Griff, S. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Lines, S. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. McMahon, S. J. O'Sullivan, M. A. Patrick, R. L. Reynolds, L. K. Scarr, P. M. Small, B. J. Smith, D. A. (Teller) Stoker, A. J. 7 NOES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

 Telstra Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 6963

Telstra Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021

Second Reading 6963 12:08 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I rise to speak on the Telstra Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 and indicate at the outset that Labor supports this bill. I'd like to begin with a quote: It is good to see that the National Party have extracted this deal— What's happened to Senator McKenzie? She's disappeared— The National Party has used this position of leverage to get both the money on the table and the legislation on the table to fix the problems. That is what the National Party does. We are few in number but we managed to extract a deal and I sit here today with my colleagues proud of what we have achieved. Senators may wonder when this statement was made and by whom. It was made on 14 September 2005 during the second reading debate on the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill by the now Deputy Prime Minister. This was the last step in then Senator Barnaby Joyce's selling out to the Liberals and agreeing to the privatisation of Telstra as a vertical integrated monopoly, a process that began in 1996. This was a dark day for infrastructure investment and a dark day for competition policy and common sense. It was a day when we were told that regulatory obligations imposed on Telstra would serve the public interest and deliver the service and infrastructure investment that Australians needed. As we now know, those assurances from then Senator Joyce turned out to be non-existent. Telstra is no longer a vertically integrated monopoly because, after a decade of dithering by the coalition, the Labor Party structurally separated it. We did so in the national interest and in the name of competition policy. The bill currently before the Senate arises from Telstra, as a private entity, seeking to restructure its business to better align the management and operations of its assets with the T22 strategy. This time the restructuring is one that Telstra is pursuing of its own accord, rather than in response to government. Telstra has stated publicly its plan to restructure the company into separate legal entities. Those entities include Telstra Group, InfraCo, TowerCo and ServeCo. These entities will hold different classes of assets and operate at different layers of the network. The explanatory memorandum notes: Telstra does not require Government approval to undertake the restructure. However, without legislative and regulatory change, a range of key obligations that currently apply to Telstra would become ineffective or cease to apply to the successor entities. As such, my understanding is that, primarily, this bill seeks to address three key issues that arise from Telstra's proposed restructure. The first is to repoint Telstra's specific obligations that would otherwise cease to apply to new Telstra entities and to the entities in the Telstra Group. Secondly, it will introduce a ministerial directions power which enables the minister of the day to direct demerged Telstra entities to fulfill their existing regulatory obligations or to assist in the delivery of the obligations of another Telstra entity. This can include cooperation between entities to fulfil regulatory obligations or to uphold obligations in the NBN-Telstra definitive agreements. Thirdly, the bill has been drafted to ensure that the facility's access framework has its integrated integrity upheld and that the restructuring does not inadvertently move assets outside the scope of the regime. Furthermore, the explanatory memorandum to the bill states: The Bill has been developed on the principle of regulatory equivalence. That is, that the regulatory obligations that currently fall on Telstra should also fall on the entities in the new corporate group in approximately the same way. While Telstra is free to restructure its business as it sees fit, successive Parliaments have placed and maintained a range of obligations on that business, and it is important that these remain effective. This is an appropriate principle which Labor supports. However, Labor does not interpret this to mean that equivalence is in a purely technical or legalistic sense but in a practical sense too. That is the lens we have put on the bill. Based on briefings Labor has received from the department of infrastructure and communications, and from Telstra, we are satisfied that the proposed measures in the bill give effect to regulatory equivalence. And, in circumstances where unforeseen issues could arise, the bill affords the minister the necessary direction and makes powers to deal with them. Clearly, a lot of technical consideration has been put into this bill, and Labor thanks those who have provided briefings. It should also be noted that Telstra has been proactive in identifying employment related issues and bringing them to the attention of policymakers. Separate instruments in the Senate are dealing with the grandfathering of employment benefits for Telstra employees and, based on consultations with unions, Labor is satisfied that those issues are being dealt with adequately. As such, Labor will support the bill. Talk about the structure of Telstra, the NBN and its regulatory obligations conjures up many memories. You would be hard pressed to find a group of people more unqualified on broadband, technology and the telecommunications policy than the current Morrison-Joyce Liberal-National coalition. In the mid-1990s, the Liberal-National government began the process of privatising Telstra as a vertically integrated— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 The time for this debate has now expired. We'll move to senators' statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 6965 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Senate Committees 6965 12:15 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I rise to make a statement about the Senate committee system and its engagement on a particular issue. I think it's a very troubling precedent that we've seen in this place over the last week, where the Senate has voted to close down a legitimate area of inquiry. I am talking about the inquiry into the ABC's complaints-handling system; this inquiry has been deferred and effectively thereby cancelled. The Senate committee system, which was put in place permanently in 1970—and, of course, last year we reflected upon the 50th anniversary of that system—I would say gives Australian people the greatest possible access to our democracy. It is an incredibly successful system in that it provides for scrutiny of government. There has been much legitimate debate about corruption and about integrity issues, as you would expect in a country like Australia. I often think that the debate misses the point that there are already strong integrity measures in existence. You have an Auditor-General. You have parliamentary scrutiny. You have parliamentary scrutiny through Senate estimates and through those standing committees which were established in 1970 during the Gorton government. About 10 years ago, Stephen Holt wrote a very interesting piece about the history of this system. In the fifties, Jim Odgers, I think, was the first person to propose this system, but it was adopted, as I said, in 1970, largely at the behest of Lionel Murphy and some others who put in place this system, which, of course, is modelled on the US committee system, which Odgers himself went to study in the United States. So I think this is a system that everyone would agree has served the country very well, and I think we want to be mindful of the precedents we set. We need to be very careful that we don't walk back scrutiny or accountability, because the principle here is that any government agency that receives an appropriation is accountable to the Senate and its committee system, and that is an important principle which I think we all should be very careful to preserve. After all, we are the custodians of this system. So I regret that this judgement was made, although I respect the judgement, and I think we should reflect upon the policy contribution of these committees as well. It's not just scrutiny of government; it's also been the case, often through the select committees over the past 50 years, that significant policy developments have followed, including scrutiny of government and freedom of information. The adoption of the metric system was sent to a select committee. There was a very long running committee into superannuation. I may have a different view about how that's all landed, but the reality is that these committees have done very significant policy development and they've also done very important scrutiny of government. I would say that the worst thing we do in Canberra is the run-of-the-mill question time stuff. You could not find a person who would say that that is a good use of taxpayers' funds. But I would say the best thing that we do is through the committees. The committees provide a high level of collegiality, an opportunity for policy development and an opportunity for government agencies and the government itself to be scrutinised. That is why I asked to have this time today to make the point that the Senate voting against having an inquiry into a government agency which receives an appropriation is a very dangerous precedent indeed. The terms of reference for this particular inquiry, which was to be conducted through the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, established under the standing order 25(2)(a)(v), was to look at the adequacy of the existing arrangements on the accessibility, responsiveness and efficiency of complaints handling. This has nothing to do with anything other than that. It has nothing to do with editorial independence, as some have argued. It has nothing to do with internal interference. It has to do with how a Commonwealth funded agency deals with the public. It has nothing to do with editorial independence, which is preserved under the ABC's act, the charter and the editorial standards. I don't think anyone of any political stripe would ever want to interfere with that, although we may at times be disappointed with the coverage. The reality is that there are many groups in our community that are unhappy with the complaints-handling function of this agency, and that is a matter of public record. You need only to look at what some multicultural groups have to say, what some veterans groups have to say and what many individuals have to say, which is that they are unhappy with the way that their complaints are handled. Either they have not been treated seriously, or they have not been answered in a timely manner or mistakes have been made on a repeated basis. I would say that this quite extraordinary intervention from the ABC, asking the Senate not to do something, is a really risky precedent for the Senate and for the committee system. It is not a highly unusual inquiry. There are already three or four similar inquiries being conducted through legislation committees, which are reviewing the performance of government agencies. So it is not a highly unusual inquiry. Equally, it is not a very good principle for officials appointed by the government to try to direct the elected parliament in any way. Sure, people are entitled to provide their advice, but the explicit nature of how this was done is, I think, very dangerous in a democracy like Australia. I don't think that any government agency should be trying to force the elected parliament to do anything other than provide advice which is frank and fearless. I think that sort of direct politicisation is very risky, and, as I said, I regret very much the precedent that has been set here. The Senate committee system is one of the strongest institutions in our democracy, and it ought to be protected and defended by all. There are legitimate issues here that the Senate committee was proposing to look into in a very surgical manner and I think they are entirely legitimate. And so I regret the judgement that has been made and I place on record that I think this is a precedent that people will regret, because closing down the house of review's capacity to conduct legitimate inquiry into taxpayer funded organisations is a very important role for the Senate. Macintyre, Professor Stuart, AO 6966 12:24 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria I'd like to speak about the passing of Emeritus laureate Professor Stuart Macintyre. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend his funeral, which was held in Melbourne yesterday. On 22 November Australia lost one of its greatest and most prodigious historians and public intellectuals. Stuart Macintyre, who died of cancer at the age of 74, was pre-eminently a historian of the left but, as the tributes to him from colleagues of all political persuasions testify, his scholarship was academically rigorous and never merely partisan in its approach. That did not stop him being a target in the so-called history wars because he defended the discipline of history as an inquiry into truth, an inquiry into the events and attitudes of the past that have made us the people we are today, an inquiry that must be conducted without shrinking from those aspects of our past that cannot be raised. Conservative critics derided this as the black armband view of Australian history. Stuart was not intimidated by such a label; instead, he pointed to what those who used this term were actually doing. In his book, The History Wars, he wrote: 'In submitting history to a loyalty test, they are debasing it.' In his lectures to the generations of students and the numerous articles and books, Stuart taught that acknowledging the truth about the past is the first and most necessary step in building a better future. Graeme Davison, another celebrated historian, was quoted in an obituary in the Australian recently saying: Macintyre was first and foremost a scholar with a deep devotion to his craft. He read constantly and widely. He resisted dogma, political or intellectual. His friendships transcended political alignments and intellectual fashion. He dressed respectably and spoke courteously, weighing his words carefully. He wrote elegantly and with as much sympathy and insight about Victorian liberals as he did about communist trade unionists. Another obituarist, Michael Lazarus, who wrote in the Jacobin magazine, said: Macintyre was more than a writer and researcher. His encyclopaedic knowledge of Australian and working-class history was equalled only by his generosity as a teacher. He gave his time freely and magnanimously, and his dedication to imparting his knowledge and advice reflected the best traditions of the twentieth-century left. I can testify to the truth of those by personal experience. I found him to be an inspiring teacher. I was one of Stuart's students at the University of Melbourne and he supervised my masters thesis on the factional mobilisation in the 1930s of the Victorian Labor Party. He was a mentor who became a lifelong friend. Stuart was an intellectual activist. He dedicated his time unselfishly outside of the university's duties, whether it be serving on the Victorian and national libraries, the Academy of the Humanities, the Heritage Council of Victoria or as President of the Historic Association or reviewing the history and civics curriculum or as an editor. He was a willing participant in political campaigns to defend democratic values. He was chair of the 'bias is bad news' committee during the time of the Kirner government in Victoria and, more recently, was chair of the International Brigade memorial committee. The long list of Stuart's books include several that can deservedly be called landmarks. Some would say his greatest work is the two-volume history of the Communist Party of Australia. His first volume, The Reds: The Communist Party of Australia from Origins to Illegality, is regarded as the definitive text on the CPA. It's not a dry narrative of branch meetings and party congresses, of speeches and resolutions carried and lost; above all else, it is a history of people who were, who became, communists. It tells us their individual stories, illuminating their life experiences that led them to make their political choices. Stuart was a member of the Communist Party for many years, which he joined as an undergraduate. When he returned from his postgraduate studies at Cambridge he joined the Labor Party. The second volume of his history on Australian communism, The Party—The Communist Party of Australia from heyday to reckoning, willbe published in February next year. When it appears, I have no doubt, it will be widely read amongst his peers in the history profession. It will be both earnestly and appreciatively criticised by some of them. Stuart will have expected no less, and his judgement on the history of the CPA will be amongst his greatest work, and that claim will probably stand the test of time. For me, another of his books was his contribution to the understanding of Australia's national story. Australia's Boldest Experiment: War and Reconstruction in the 1940s is the history of the country in the 1940s. Specifically, it tells how the Curtin and Chifley governments set out to build a nation that was both more equal and more prosperous than the one that had gone to war in 1939. The Department of Post-War Reconstruction was created in 1942 when the end of the Pacific war was not even in sight. Most people criticised the government's decision to begin work on reconstruction at the time when the country was in such immediate danger, but the decision was vindicated by the policies that led to the public investment in manufacturing, housing, social activity, in universities and in the social agencies. Australia was transformed by the vision and achievements of the Curtin and Chifley governments, which stand us in good stead today. Stuart wrote many books, but here I want to make note of one more: A Concise History of Australia. It's a short book, but it runs to five editions, the most recent in 2020. It lays bare the national story, its triumphs and its failures. Above all, it's told in a lucid and elegant prose, which cannot be said of every work of academic history. Stuart's socialism drew him into the course of Australian history, rather than separating him from that history. He lived the view that history is a never-ending dialogue between the past and the present. Stuart Macintyre, I believe, can aptly be compared with Manning Clark. Both had a prodigiously extensive knowledge of Australian history. Both wrote with erudition and wore their erudition lightly. Stuart's writing was in the tradition of the great British historiography of the Whig or liberal historians such as George Trevalyan and Thomas McAulay, even EH Carr. He shared the socialist historian Eric Hobsbawn's view that history cannot be subdivided into narrow, specialist fields that lose sight of the great narratives of social development. Great historians write in a way that readily appeals to a wider readership, even in the works that are addressed to academic peers. I repeat: in this regard, Stuart was one such great historian. With the passing of Stuart Macintyre, we have lost a great Australian. I extend my condolences to his wife, Martha; to his daughters, Mary and Jessie; and to all those who knew and loved him. Climate Change 6967 12:32 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria We're about to finish another year in the Senate. I became a senator 7½ years ago. Seven years in one job, one place or one relationship is often when you ask yourself whether it's time to move on, whether what you're doing is really the most important and worthwhile thing to be doing. I've been doing that in recent months, reflecting on the great unfinished business of my time here. In my first speech in this place, I said that my agenda for my time here was clear: I wanted to be able to look my grandchildren in the eye and tell them that it was during my time in the Senate that Australia turned the corner and legislated to begin the shift to a zero-carbon safe-climate economy. Sadly, 7½ years on, I do not see us much closer. Finally the government has been dragged, kicking and screaming, to commit to a target of net zero by 2050, but it hasn't got the short-term targets—there is no meaningful target for 2030 to support that—and it hasn't begun to shift our economy away from coal, gas and oil to renewable energy. And the Labor Party is prevaricating and resisting setting science-based targets because of the influence of the coal, gas and oil companies. We know what the science says. If we are going to have a better-than-even chance of keeping the world below 1.5 degrees hotter than preindustrial levels, we need to act urgently—not just talk about it—to slash our carbon pollution. The science says that, to have a better-than-even chance of keeping below 1.5 degrees, Australia needs to reduce its carbon pollution by 74 per cent by 2030. That means slashing our pollution by three-quarters in the next nine years. I met with leading Australian climate scientists yesterday, who briefed me on the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Shayne McGregor and Julie Arblaster, from Monash University; Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, from the University of New South Wales; and Andrew King, from the University of Melbourne. I wanted to name them, because our Australian climate scientists are absolute heroes. They are at the coalface, to use a very appropriate metaphor. They are sitting in the fire. They can see. They're scientists, saying, 'This is how the world is unfolding.' The world is now 1.1 degrees hotter than it was before we started belching carbon into the atmosphere in great amounts. At current trajectories and countries' commitments to reduce carbon pollution we are still headed for more than three degrees of heating. What Shane, Julie, Sarah and Andrew told me yesterday was sobering: unless we take serious action to slash our carbon pollution we are facing a pretty horrific increase in extreme heat events, in extreme fires, in drought conditions. The ongoing rise in sea level is already washing away our coastlines. I don't know about you, but every time I visit any beach around the country I am horrified by the level of coastal erosion. That, my friends, is our climate crisis at work. Yesterday I was shown a diagram that showed that a very small increase in sea level, just a few centimetres, can lead to the sea retreating tens, if not hundreds, of metres. That's a lot of coastal land that's being lost. Sadly, all that is very consistent with what I laid out in my first speech, where I said: We are major contributors to the world being on track to being four degrees hotter in my children's lifetime. Without urgent and meaningful action, it will not be possible to grow food crops across vast swathes of the world. In Australia, the climate of current wheat growing areas like Dubbo will become like the Central Australian desert. Extreme heatwaves will occur every 10 years instead of every 100—more extreme than the heatwave southern Australia experienced in 2009, that resulted in the Black Saturday bushfires and the deaths of hundreds of people. Land that is home to hundreds of millions of people, including Australian suburbs and beaches, will be swept away by the sea. The Great Barrier Reef will be but a memory. And Antarctica… will be on its way to being irretrievably ice free. Goodbye gorgeous Adelie penguins. What the scientists told me yesterday, however, was that there is still hope. If we take urgent action now it's not too late. We can avoid the tipping points that will lead to the melting of the Antarctic ice sheets and the total thawing of the Greenland permafrost. The world can still act to keep global heating below 1.45 degrees but that time is fast running out. In the IPCC report the science tells us that if we want to have an 83 per cent chance of keeping global heating below 1.5 degrees we need to reach net zero carbon in six years. If we're willing to risk a 50 per cent chance of reaching 1.5 degrees hotter than now then we can leave reaching net zero for 11 years—that is 2032. So, hello! Pay attention, everyone in this place. I don't care what party you're from. I want you to look that science in the eye, to sit in the fire with our climate scientists and to commit to taking the action that's needed to reach net zero carbon in that time. Do not give me any gumf about Australia being a special case because our economy is so dependent on fossil fuels or that there's no point us acting until China does or that somehow magic new unicorn technology of carbon capture and storage is going to make everything okay. These are desperate arguments of desperate immoral peoples who, rather than looking the science in the eye, are selling out our future; who are happy to leave our kids, and us in our old age and future generations, and all other life that we share this planet with, with a damaged, compromised world, full of hurt and harm and almost certain widespread famine, war and pestilence. All countries need to act. We have the power here in Australia so we need to be acting here. Yes, we can do our best to influence other countries, but fundamentally it is our responsibility to do what we as Australians can do. In my first speech, I set out some suggestions of what we needed to do: … set pollution reduction targets based on science; stop subsidising fossil fuels; create more jobs by boosting clean energy production and energy conservation; start closing coal-fired power stations; say no to new coal and gas exports; and make the big polluters pay for the damage they are doing. All of these measures are as relevant, if not much more relevant, today as they were seven years ago. ut, sadly, we haven't made much progress on any of them, other than there is now broad recognition of the importance for jobs in the Australian economy of increased clean energy production. But that's only half a tick out of six. The thing that's so urgent for Australia now, which is so much more urgent than it was seven years ago, is to have no new coal and gas. Fracking the Beetaloo basin must not go ahead. Expansion of gas production at Scarborough in the Pilbara in WA must not go ahead. The Adani coalmine must not go ahead. And why the heck are both parties in this place—Labor is supporting the government in doing this—giving hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to coal and gas companies? It absolutely beggars belief. As we get to the end of this term of the Morrison government, I know what I want my next year in the Senate to deliver: I want this government kicked out. I want a change of government. For the sake of our future and our climate, I want the Greens in shared power with the next government so that we can push that next government further and faster to listen to the science, to have science-based targets, to make the polluters pay, to see a shift to 100 per cent renewable energy and to be out of coal, gas and oil domestically. Then we'll have all the jobs that go with that. Let's make the most of our huge renewable energy resources: turbocharge green hydrogen production, accelerate the shift to electric vehicles and put energy, conservation and zero carbon production at the heart of our manufacturing, agriculture and building industries. In particular, we need no new coal and gas, and to end our climate-bomb fossil fuel exports. Australia then needs to play its part in creating a safe future for us all; a future we can feel positive and hopeful about and where young people can feel positive about their future. It is possible, but to achieve it we need to kick this climate-denialist government out and to have the Greens in the balance of power to help achieve it. Federal Election, Queensland: Floods 6969 12:41 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland We are blessed that we live in one of the oldest and most successful democracies in the world. Our good fortune has come not through chance but rather off the back of over a century's worth of people, paid and unpaid, who have worked to make it so through blood, sweat and tears. Our democracy works because countless Australians have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect the freedoms inherent in democracy. But as society has changed, so should our electoral system be fine-tuned. Now is the time for immediate action by parliament on certain changes to uphold the integrity of our elections. Our system relies on openness and transparency that is upheld in the expression of voter choice and intent. Elections should be not only fair, open and transparent but be seen to be so. We must always work to fine-tune our electoral system. That's why I'm calling to introduce optional preferential voting to replace the current system of compulsory preferential voting, and to introduce the Robson rotation of candidate names on ballot papers in federal elections for the House of Representatives. These two simple measures will enhance the democratic process by promoting fairness and simplifying the electoral system. They will promote voter choice and uphold voter intent and participation by minimising and diminishing vote informalities. Both these recommendations were part of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters' final report into the conduct of the 2019 federal election, a report that was tabled by me, as chair of the committee, in December last year. These are sensible reforms which can be made easily to strengthen the integrity of our voting process. In the 2019 election there was a rise in informal votes across the country, with New South Wales having the highest rate of vote informality. JSCEM identified that there are multiple factors behind this, with the main ones being having English as a second language, the number of candidates on the ballot paper and the proximity to state and territory elections which have different voting systems. Many informal votes in federal elections arise from the failure to preference or by preferencing correctly. The current system is complex, can be confused with other voting systems in Australia and requires simplification. Introducing optional preferential voting to replace the existing system of full or compulsory preferential voting will simplify the voting process. Not only will it reduce voter confusion; it will further enhance voter choice. Under optional preferential voting, voters have greater choice at the ballot box. Voters have the right to choose whether or not they wish to preference other candidates. They definitely should not be compelled to allocate a vote to every candidate, especially those they fundamentally disagree with. However, voters would still have the option to preference. They may preference two or more other candidates they like or they may preference all of them. Any argument that suggests optional preferential voting leads to wasted votes is false and undermines the principle of voter determination in electoral outcomes. Optional preferential voting puts the power in the voters' hands to vote for their preferred candidate and optimise their ability to choose who they vote for. If a voter would rather have their vote exhaust because their preferred candidate has lost then that is their choice. The right to not vote for a candidate that a voter does not support or does not know is fundamental to a voter's right to take part in elections, upholding the notion that the voter is the primary determinant of who they vote for and the electoral outcome. To compel a voter not only is unfair but undermines the integrity of our system. Optional preferential voting is a win for voter choice and a win for democracy. Another reform that will substantially enhance our electoral process for the better is to introduce the Robson rotation for House of Representatives ballot papers. The Robson rotation is a mechanism by which the order of candidates' names is randomised from one ballot paper to another. This measure will increase fairness in the electoral process, as it will reduce the advantage for candidates who draw favourable positions on the ballot paper. The existing system, where one ballot paper is used, enables candidates who have drawn more favourable positions to benefit from down-the-line, linear or donkey votes. Variations of the Robson rotation are currently used in both Tasmania and the ACT. It is an effective, fair model of printing ballot papers. Introducing a system that prints ballot papers in batches, which allows for all candidates to feature equally in various positions on the ballot paper, will diminish any real or perceived advantage obtained from such positions. The randomisation of the order that candidates appear on ballot papers promotes fairness in the democratic process, as it removes the advantages associated with candidates being positioned in one of the more favourable positions. Favourable positions are those that are traditionally advantageous if drawn in the ballot. They include the top, the bottom and the middle positions on the ballot paper. These are the positions that candidates and their campaign managers get excited about. These changes to the ballot papers will increase the fairness of the electoral system, by removing any real or perceived advantage, as all candidates will feature in these positions. This will more evenly distribute between all candidates the benefit from down-the-ballot, linear or donkey votes. Stamping out potential advantages in ballot paper positioning is crucial for upholding the integrity of our elections. As such, it's an advantage that could easily be the difference in who is elected. The final measure that I believe is essential to fair and open elections is voter ID. Voter ID laws are needed to empower voters, increase transparency, establish further safeguards and create consistency. We line up to show our IDs at pubs and to get into the election. To be honest, most people already show ID when they attend to vote. It is an expectation from voters and an expectation from those who already participate in the democratic process. Voter ID will boost public confidence in election outcomes, stop multiple-voters and safeguard our democracy against electoral fraud. The argument from across the chamber suggests that there is no issue. It would appear that Labor and the Greens are running a protection racket to protect voter fraud, and that is sad. We currently do not know the extent to which electoral fraud exists. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator McGRATH 217241 Those who are listening at home may hear the wittering away from opposition senators—opposition senators who wish to run a protection racket for voter fraud, and that is very sad. The proposal that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters brought forward in its recommendation was that, if a voter is unable to present a valid ID on polling day, another enrolled voter with an ID can attest to their identity, or the voter can cast a declaration vote. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has recommended that nearly all forms of ID can be accepted, from a Medicare card to a bill from a service provider. This will ensure that eligible voters will never be denied the opportunity to cast their vote. Declaration votes are already cast when a voter attends a polling booth in another state or is assigned to a neighbouring electorate. These are sensible reforms that will ensure the integrity of our elections. Having voter ID, having optional preferential voting and having the Robson rotation for House of Representatives ballot papers will ensure that our electoral system is fine-tuned, that it is improved, and that it is sanctified and protected for future elections. So it is time to deliver on optional preferential voting, the Robson rotation and voter ID laws. Deputy President, I come from Queensland, and Queensland has been inundated with rain. We welcome rain. Just down the road from where I live, there is a community called Inglewood. Most of Inglewood spent last night on high ground away from their homes. The mayor of the local council there, Lawrence Springborg, was with his community throughout the night. I want to pay tribute to the community of Inglewood and the other communities in the broader Darling Downs who have been impacted by the recent rains. Indeed, photos have been sent to me of my own place. My house is luckily on a rise, but all the roads to it are under at least a metre of water. I'd like to thank all those who have been helping fellow members of the community across the Southern Downs and across the Darling Downs for the work they have done to help us get through this inundation. But the good news is that our dams are full. COVID-19 6970 12:51 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia We're here today in the last sitting week of the year, and I want to take this opportunity to express my deep thanks and appreciation to Australians after what has been an incredibly tough year. Of course, different states have experienced it differently, and individual Australians have experienced it differently, too. But it has been tough for many—indeed, for all of us, in different ways. It has been tough for those of us who have had our lives impacted: those Australians whose livelihoods have been impacted and those who have missed special moments, and final moments, with those that they love. It has been tough for families struggling with changing work requirements, schooling from home, caring arrangements changing at the last minute, insecure work and, often, not keeping up with the need to adapt and shift the caring arrangements for those they love and care for. It was been tough for our elderly, who have been kept away from those that they love, for too long and for too much of the year. Today I want to acknowledge our essential workers especially, because their experiences, wherever they live in Australia, have been really, really tough. I want to start with our health workers because, from day one of this pandemic, they have been on the front line of the fight against this virus, going above and beyond to keep our communities safe. In hospitals, nurses and doctors volunteered without question to staff COVID wards, even as we were just learning what this virus was and what it meant. We all remember the images of doctors removing their protective equipment to reveal faces marked or imprinted with lines from their goggles and masks, the scars from their service. Nurses stood by the sides of patients who could only see their families through video feeds, while the patients were given oxygen or, in the worst cases, put on ventilators or put into comas. Testing clinics were staffed around the clock by teams of individuals who worked well beyond their rostered shifts to keep the queues moving during times of increased testing and need. Our pathologists have worked around the clock, too, testing Australians and helping us to track and contain the spread of the virus. In our medi-hotels, Australian workers served as receptionists, cleaners and security guards, doing their best to support people and to keep them safe in facilities that were never built for quarantine. In the early days, many of these workers had zero training in managing potentially COVID-positive guests. We saw time and time again outbreaks due to leaks in these hotels and the blame placed at the feet of workers—workers who were within a system which was already fatally flawed. Our early childhood workers were sent to work early on, caring for the children of essential workers without personal protection equipment and without proper protocols and guidelines in place to keep the children they care for safe, to keep the families of those children safe and to keep themselves safe. They were crying out and saying, 'We're essential workers, too,' but no-one was listening to them, no-one was stumping up with the PPE and no-one was stepping in to make sure that they felt safe and supported. Our retail workers, our workers in DCs, fronted up, and continue to front up, to work every single day during the pandemic to keep the shelves stocked and the check-outs moving. These workers could not work from home, and we would have been absolutely lost without them. The workers in our supermarkets—many of whom are young, many of whom are women and many of whom have significant and, indeed, unproportionate caring responsibilities to others—turned up each day, even when their leaders weren't turning up for them. They have been some of the most vulnerable and some of the most exposed to the risks of COVID, but they turned up and did the work and they weren't given the acknowledgement that they deserved for this work for far too long. Of course, while many Australians worked from home, our transport and delivery drivers and our truck drivers fronted up each day as well, meeting the increased workload and meeting the increased demand from a growing number of parcels, from growing online shopping and from growing deliveries. These workers stepped up, working longer hours or extra shifts in an industry which is already characterised by excessive hours and by dangerous conditions. Then they had challenges in crossing borders, waiting for testing and huge delays in a job which can already be far too unsafe. For so many of our essential workers, this pandemic has highlighted what they already know—that the impact of casual and insecure work can be devastating for families. Indeed, in a situation like this, it can be dangerous. If we learn one thing from this pandemic, it must be that we need to urgently tackle the crisis of insecure work in Australia. And we must fight the growing Americanisation of our industrial system and conservative efforts that seek to undermine the hard-fought-for rights of Australian workers. Our essential workers have been through a lot these past two years. They deserve our thanks and they deserve our acknowledgement, not in words but in action—action that sees them paid what they deserve; action that sees their workplace rights protected and advanced; action that helps keep them safe, as they have worked so hard throughout this pandemic to keep us safe; and action that ensures they're treated with the respect that they deserve. A recent study by the University of Sydney and the ANU found that more than half of retail workers reported having been abused at work during the pandemic. The study found that women workers from a non-English speaking background and younger workers bore the brunt of this abuse more than others. We all remember the images across our television screens of individuals refusing to wear masks, of retail workers being the ones forced to enforce this, of our check-out operators being abused, of team members abused and the horrific scenes in the aisles of supermarkets—unacceptable behaviour and un-Australian behaviour. As we head into the Christmas period—with all the joy and rest that that brings for so many of us but where, too, stress and tension can run high and where our retail workers are under as many pressures as ever—I fear this will get worse. Our retail workers are essential workers. They deserve respect. There is absolutely no place for the abuse or harassment of retail workers. As we lead up to this Christmas period, I am so proud to support the SDA's No One Deserves A Serve campaign, and I urge all senators in this place to support it too. As I have said, acknowledging our frontline workers is about more than thanks and it's about more than acknowledgement. It's about making sure they are safe at work and making sure that they're paid what they deserve. That is why it is just beyond belief that in my home state of South Australia the Liberal Marshall government are denying these workers Christmas Day penalty rates. In every other state and territory Christmas Day is a public holiday, no matter which day of the week it falls on, but in South Australia it is not. That means, while office workers—indeed, state government workers—get a public holiday on the Monday, and that's great, they should, our retail workers, our hospitality workers, who turn up to work on Christmas Day won't be guaranteed penalty rates. Make no mistake, the Liberal government could have fixed this. They still can. Parliament in South Australia is still sitting. For goodness sake, in the year that we have had, in the year that our essential workers have had, surely this isn't beyond even the South Australian Liberals. Our frontline and essential workers have kept us safe throughout COVID. They have worked tirelessly around the clock. It's a great sacrifice to themselves, to their families, to the people they love and care for. They have looked after our relatives when we've been kept apart due to lockdowns or border closures. They've kept the shelves stocked, the supermarkets open, the distribution centres manned. They've kept Australians moving throughout this pandemic. They've kept our freight and our stock and our goods moving throughout this pandemic. They've kept our early learning centres open. They've helped our doctors and nurses go to work. They've helped our children learn from home. They've been manning our medi-hotels. They've been caring for our sick. They've been caring for our elderly in some of the most difficult circumstances those in our caring workforce have ever had to endure. It's time now that we repay their service with the respect, the acknowledgement and the deeds that they deserve, both in words and in action. Voter Identification Laws 6972 13:02 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania From time to time, I will put a question to the public: 'How would you vote if you were me?' I asked that recently on the government's proposed voter identification laws. The laws would require people to provide some form of government issued identification when presenting to vote on election day. I had just over 33½ thousand submissions. Overall, nearly two-thirds of voters opposed the laws. Sixty-four per cent of people taking my survey opposed the laws. In every state and territory, a majority of voters opposed the bill. I want to make it clear that when I do a survey I don't hand over the wheel and say whichever side gets the most votes decides how I'll vote. I have a job to do. It's not my job to get other people to do my job. I'm supposed to use my judgement and values, and I don't apologise for that. One of the things I value is politicians who care what I think. I want to be that kind of politician. I want to know what my supporters think, because that's how politics gets better. So when I do a survey I'm not asking people to decide for me; I'm asking, 'If you were in my shoes, how would you vote and why would you vote that way?' I'm asking it as much to see their position as I am to see their reasoning behind it. It's like a massive team meeting, where everyone who wants to speak up gets the chance to have their say. I would say that's called democracy. I listen to the arguments and I make my decision. I have listened to the arguments and have generally tried to engage both sides of the debate. On balance, I don't think the laws do the job. I'll be voting 'no' on the Morrison government's laws. It's not because the laws are racist. I don't accept they are. I can accept that they might have a bigger impact on the Indigenous community than everyone else, but that doesn't make it racist. All the law does is ask for identification. I don't think it's racist to ask for identification. If you get asked for ID when you get on a plane and airlines, they are not racist for asking for it. But just because it's not racist doesn't mean it's not bad. I thought about the problem the bill is trying to solve, and some opponents of the bill have argued that there isn't a problem here to solve. Maybe that's true, and maybe it's not—it doesn't really matter, actually, because I can accept that there might be a problem here and still think this bill is bad. To be clear, I don't think there's evidence that there is widespread voter fraud. I don't think there is evidence that it's becoming widespread. But it doesn't take widespread fraud for it to potentially decide an election result. Seats are getting tighter these days. If 280 voters in Bass in Tasmania voted differently in 2019, the Liberals would not have won that seat and I'd have had the numbers in parliament to form a majority government; 280 voters isn't a lot. So, just because there isn't widespread voter fraud doesn't mean there isn't a need to prevent it. To put it another way, if you car is never broken into, do you need to lock it? If your house has never burned down, do you need insurance on it? The best time to prevent a disaster is before it's happened, I reckon—probably the only way to do it. I don't know whether the problem is big, but it doesn't matter to the argument. So, let's say there's a problem. The next question is: does this fix it? Asking someone for identification might make it harder for them to vote under someone else's name. How often that's happening—well, nobody knows. Let's say it's happening a lot; let's presume it is. Would it make it harder for someone to vote more than once? Not really—not on the day, anyway. You'd be able to go from booth to booth, flashing your ID and ticking the box, but you'd get caught in the end, when someone went and tried to balance the books. But you wouldn't get caught on the day. So, once your votes were thrown out, you'd have just wasted a perfect Saturday being a plain pest. That's all you would have done—and probably eaten too many snags on the barbie! So, you'd be caught anyway. That would be captured under the current rules that are already there. The only way it might not be caught would be if you were attempting to vote as more than one person. Asking for ID would stop that—asking someone for identification, asking them to prove that they are who they say they are. That's about all it does. That's the problem this bill seeks to address. It's the only thing it could really solve. The first question I would ask myself is, does this bill fix a problem? Maybe not a current problem, but it could prevent a future one from developing. Second, is this solution appropriate to the problem? Well, maybe—partially. It would prevent people from voting using someone else's name. Nobody knows whether people are doing that, but, if they are, this would stop it. Third, are there benefits from fixing this problem? Sure. I want people to have confidence that the election results are based on the proper exercise of democracy. I want people to have faith in election outcomes. I don't want us rioting because elections are being 'stolen'. I want us knowing that conspiracy theories about vote rigging are simply that: fake news. We won't get there if we don't show the public that we take the integrity of elections seriously. Fourth, are there risks from fixing this problem this way? Yes, absolutely there are. The risk is the unintended consequences in terms of the effects this would have on the voters at large. That's not a small thing. You're asking 16 million Australians to prove they are who they say they are, in order to stop maybe 1,000 people—and I don't know, because I haven't seen the evidence on the table, so we're guessing here, generously—from doing the wrong thing. These 1,000 people would be spread throughout the country and wouldn't have a measurable impact on an election result. The people who can't prove that they're themselves are given other ways to vote, but we don't know whether those alternatives are not enough or are too much. If you offer too many alternatives you just make it easy for people to avoid the rules anyway. So, there's a risk that this bill will end up making things worse, so some people who are entitled to vote just won't—in order to make sure that other people who are trying to vote more than once do not. Finally, my fifth question would be, do the benefits outweigh the risks? No way—not even close. Put it this way. I'm prepared to accept that there's a possibility that there's some benefit from these laws. But if you're going to be honest about this you've also got to be fair-minded enough to accept that there's risk. Are there enough protections to allow people to vote legitimately without ID? Well, that's the big question, isn't it? Does this bill actually get the right balance? As I was reading through the responses, to be honest I wasn't any clearer on the answer. Then I realised that that's because there is no way to know. We're making a big change to the way people vote and we are really doing it blind. We are blindfolded. We haven't done it before, so we don't know if the protections that the bill puts in place are appropriate. Are they enough? Are they too much? Will they work? Will there be time to communicate the changes to the public? If we had a bit more time to work through those questions, we might be able to get a clear idea of what works and what doesn't. But we haven't been given the time to work out those questions; we've had a solution dropped in our laps that's basically a solution with a blindfold attached. We're told to put it on and see what happens. I don't think so. If the protections in place aren't enough, then thousands of people trying to vote legitimately, as is their democratic right, will be prevented from doing so. That would be a disaster. That would be a disaster many times worse than the problem this bill is supposed to prevent. If the protections in place are enough, then maybe a thousand people trying to vote illegitimately, which is wrong, will be prevented from voting multiple times. That's a good thing. But we've already got some protection against instances of multiple voting, so at least we're only strengthening our protections against a problem. Nobody has any idea what effect this bill will have on an election that is supposed to happen in three months, maybe—six months at most; who knows? We're in the shadow of a fresh election and we're being asked to make radical changes to how we vote, with no trials and certainly no evidence, apparently just on a theory. That's what we're doing here. This is where we've got to in the Senate. These people are supposed to be looking at all the evidence under a microscope and making sure that evidence is correct. We haven't done that. As a matter of fact, it makes us, as senators, look really poor. We're supposed to be making the laws of the land. This is where we're at. We just flick things up there and vote for them without evidence on the table. That's where your Australian parliament has got to today. Well, I'm not going to be a part of that, and that's why I'm out. I'm voting 'no' on the Liberal Party's voter identification laws, and they're my reasons. Greef, Mrs Avril, Greef, Mr Colin, Australian Capital Territory: Drug Laws 6974 13:12 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory On 19 July 1970, Avril Briggs had just turned 17. Her mother and father were heading to the harbour to see a Royal Navy ship called HMS Ulster. Avril decided that she would go with them. Little did she know that this decision would change her life forever. On the ship was this cocky Yorkshire sailor named Colin, who asked Avril out that night. Avril was absolutely horrified at the thought. Avril's nanny had told her that she would probably come home with a sailor, to which she replied: 'I wouldn't have a sailor if he was wrapped up in five-pound notes.' After he asked three times, Avril finally agreed to go out that night in a group. After the night out had come to an end, the full group went back to Avril's house for a late-night supper with her parents. When it was time for Colin and his friends to leave, they promised to write to each other. Colin admits that he was not a great writer but was determined to keep in touch with the special girl he had just met. Avril and Colin kept up the letters and, in November that year, Avril decided to join the navy. She wanted to join as a nurse but was not old enough, so she decided to be a radar plotter, without any idea of what it meant other than a posting to Portsmouth, where Colin was based. After joining the Women's Royal Naval Service in November and going through the first four-week training and induction program, Avril was finally allowed to go into the nearest town to see Colin, hoping like nothing else that they still liked each other, as it was only the second time they had actually seen each other. They would spend only a short time together, as Avril was only allowed off the base for a few hours in the afternoon. It was then that Colin asked if Avril would come and stay with his parents for New Year's in Halifax. While incredibly nervous, Avril said yes. Avril met the Greefs, who were incredibly kind to her; Colin's mum even remarked, 'That's the sort of girl I wish you would marry.' Little did she know that by then Colin had already proposed, even though they had only met up the three times. Constantly trying to meet up while they were both in the navy was hard. The men were not allowed into the women's quarters and vice versa. They had to use public transport and didn't get a lot of time. The outcome was that they had to go to a pub every time they wanted to meet. It was very costly, and it was always full of other sailors who knew them both. Avril and Colin had planned on getting married in 1972, but, when Colin was suddenly told he was being posted, they decided to get married before he left. At short notice, they decided Christmas Eve of 1971 would be their wedding day. Only years later, when Avril was organising a Christmas lunch, did she realise how inconvenient that was for their family and friends. The total bill for the reception came to 41 pounds—not bad for dinner and wine for 43 guests. The entire thing finished by about 5 pm, and, having no money for a honeymoon, they all went to the pub, where Avril had great delight in telling anyone who would listen that she was now Mrs Greef. One of the first things Colin learned about Avril when they moved in together was her great cooking skills. Though he was very nervous when she first bought a chicken to roast, as he didn't think she knew what she was doing, it turned out she did and he was lucky to find a wife who was such a great cook. I can personally say that Colin's fear was misplaced that day, as my wife and I are lucky enough to have experienced Avril's incredible cooking skills. The Greefs came to Australia in the 1970s as a young couple with two young children, two wooden crates of personal belongings and only about $500 to their names. Colin and Avril have built an incredible life together. They've had two girls, Kelley and Shan, and four grandchildren. As for most, life has had its fair share of ups and downs, but they've done it together. While at times they might've wanted to throttle each other—especially with the constant tension of Colin being a neat-freak and Avril definitely not—they've worked on their marriage, they've faced challenges together and they are a great example for family and friends around them. One of the stories that encapsulate the type of people Colin and Avril are is the way they choose to spend their wedding anniversary each year. Unlike most couples, who might get dressed up and head out for a nice dinner together to celebrate the past year, Colin and Avril choose to spend their time giving to others. Colin puts on his Santa suit and Avril dresses as Mrs Claus and together they head out to the houses of family and friends, gifts in hand, and do their absolute best to spread Christmas cheer to children all around Canberra. To Colin and Avril, there is nothing more important in their world than their family and friends. They've always put the needs of others before their own. Colin spends a considerable amount of time volunteering, helping with defence veterans' groups and at the local police station and bringing music and joy to disadvantaged children. Avril, every single day, does little thankless tasks for her family and friends to make their days just that bit better, including making the most incredible quilts, while continuing her work as a nurse, even after trying to retire on a number of occasions now. They are kind; they are loving; they are selfless. The world needs more people like Colin and Avril. This Christmas Eve, Colin and Avril will again suit up and head out with their gifts. Their family and friends will enjoy watching their children take photos with Santa. But this year will be different. I share this story, today, of Avril and Colin, because this year it will be Colin and Avril's 50th wedding anniversary—something that deserves special acknowledgement. Congratulations to you both on what is an incredible milestone. You continually bless the lives of those who know you. On a less happy matter, the ACT Labor-Greens government are now one step closer to passing a bill in the ACT assembly that removes criminal penalties in relation to hard drugs like cocaine, heroin and ice in our city. While it's true that this extreme Labor-Greens government have had some wacky policies in the past, this must take the cake. I simply can't believe that this is the path they want to go down. These drugs ruin not only the lives of those who take them but also the lives of their families, our frontline workers and many innocent bystanders who find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. AFP Commissioner Reece Kershaw recently stated, when asked about these laws: … being law enforcement officers, we see the carnage that cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine does. It just doesn't make sense that you'd want to legalise that. He went on to say: It's going to mean that organised crime will want to target this community in particular because they can move their product quite easily. It just makes it more difficult for us to combat the rise of cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin use. They're not recreational drugs. With police already overrun because of the Labor-Greens government's refusal to implement anticonsorting laws, making Canberra a hotspot for bikie gangs, this is the last thing that our city needs. While we might stand in this place and feel disconnected from the happenings in the ACT Legislative Assembly, these are the same policies held by the federal Greens. They have no shame in pointing out that, if they form an alliance with the ALP after the next election, they will be pushing their policies. hese are the kinds of dangerous, extreme policies we can expect of a Labor-Greens government. They want to halve defence spending in this country—that's what the Greens want to do—leaving this country vulnerable to outside threats, not to mention cutting thousands of jobs here in the ACT. It is estimated that this one Greens policy would result in the loss of 13,000 jobs here in Canberra in both the public and the private sector for those who work hard to support our troops and our defence efforts. The Labor-Greens policy in the assembly, which after that committee report seems to be coming closer to fruition, is to decriminalise some of these hard drugs like ice, heroin and cocaine, and to cut defence spending. We're seeing at an ACT level what a Labor-Greens government looks like. Adam Bandt has made it very clear that if they hold the balance of power after the next election, and there is a Labor government, they will be asking a price of the Labor Party to form government with them, and these are some of the extreme policies they have on the table—the decriminalisation of hard drugs like ice and halving our defence budget. That would be devastating at a national level, but here in the ACT, where we're already starting to see those types of policies, we would see the devastating effects of these drugs policies and of those policies that would cut thousands of jobs here in the ACT. Rural and Regional Services: Health, Morrison Government 6975 13:21 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise to respond in part to some of the comments that we've just heard from Senator Seselja, who is in here decrying everyone but this government. In this constant failure to attach to reality, those in this government keep talking as if they haven't been in government. All the problems that have been described 'will be far worse if we get change', but this is the third term of a government that is failing Australians. Today, I want to speak to the state of rural health care, particularly in our great state of New South Wales. It's in a mess. People cannot get the care that they need in so many of our communities. Under 10 years of coalition government in New South Wales, and eight years of the federal government under Mr Abbott, Mr Turnbull and Mr Morrison, the reality is we've had this change of three different leaders but the same bad policy. The health outcomes for those who call rural and remote Australia their home have plummeted—that's whether they've got a Liberal or a National Party member representing them. They are not doing their job. They are not doing their job in this place. They are not standing up for those local communities. There was a New South Wales parliament inquiry into health outcomes and access to health and hospital services in rural, regional and remote New South Wales, and what it discovered was truly shocking. Some people would remember the report from earlier this year, which told tales of neglect and government ignorance of the suffering that has been inflicted on the communities across New South Wales. In Deniliquin, we heard that midwives wouldn't give birth in their own maternity ward, because they knew. We heard of how staff shortages meant that tea ladies were looking after infants and that community members were travelling to Echuca, across the border and into Victoria, because the New South Wales health system wasn't delivering for them. I've heard senators in this place disrespectfully playing with the name of the Premier of Victoria, making a joke of what's going on in terms of access to services, and the reality is it's far better if you get sick in Victoria than it is if you get sick in New South Wales. It's just not good enough. In Trundle, a little four-year-old child had to wait for one year to get a specialist appointment in Newcastle—and that's not even a small community. That is a big, big town, a city with a long history of well and truly over 150 years. Then, waiting for a year to get an appointment, they had to wait another three months to get a diagnosis of cancer. I don't know how anybody who's listening to this across the nation, or anybody in this chamber, could fail to have empathy for a family that had been on that kind of a dystopian health journey: to not be able to get a diagnosis and then, finally, after a delay, finding out it's cancer. We know that the reality of people accessing services through trying to get into their GP is in decay. In over 40 towns in western New South Wales, the predictions are that there might not be a GP in the next 10 to 15 years. There are towns that are really, really struggling right now. Even on the Central Coast, where I live—just over 100 kilometres from Sydney—people cannot get in to see their GP. About 60 GP registrar places have been made available, which is not very many if you get north of the border. I call it the border with Sydney, but it's the Brooklyn Bridge over the Hawkesbury River. Once you get north of that you're in my home country, the land of the Darkinyung and the Kuringgai people. You get there and you go all the way up to Armidale for this health district. It's not a district; it's a massive landmass. And the reality is that, of 60 places offered for GPs, often only about 40 take it—for a training session, for a year. Do you know one of the reasons why they don't go there? They can't get their own family into a GP. That is the description of a death spiral for access to GPs, and that's why Labor has pushed for an inquiry. The Senate will be on the Central Coast on 14 December, hearing from local people about how diabolically hard it is, after eight years of federal government and 10 years of state Liberal government, to try and actually get something as basic as access to your local doctor. This situation is clearly untenable. Our rural and remote healthcare system is absolutely buckling under the weight of multiple longstanding issues. Staffing shortages, distances and the lack of community transport services are all chronic issues and are endemic to the rural healthcare system. They're all things that no individual can fix. Only a government can fix these things, and a government that cared would have fixed them, instead of them leading to further and further decay of the system, and that's what we've seen under the Liberal government in New South Wales for 10 years and the Liberal government at a federal level for eight years. Local governments are being forced to subsidise local medical centres. They're paying for doctors and keeping those vital medical services in town, because the federal and state governments have failed in their jobs. That is putting a really great strain on already overburdened budgets from ratepayers. It's a small rate base in rural Australia. The economics of it just don't work, and the governments just walk away and walk away. And they've been walking away for so long that now people can't walk into a GP. Twenty-one local councils were named in Local Government NSW's submission, including Forbes, Carrathool, Bourke, Wagga Wagga, Coonamble, Edward River, Gilgandra, Gunnedah, Gwydir, Hay, the Lachlan Shire, Murrumbidgee, Narrandera, Temora, Upper Lachlan and the Wentworth Shire Council—all of those within my duty seats, and all of them councils paying thousands, tens of thousands and in some cases hundreds of thousands of dollars to fill the gap in the current healthcare services. All of the people in every single one of those great places across New South Wales deserve better. Their Liberal National representatives in this place have not stood up for them, and the proof of the failure of representation is in their everyday experiences with their families and with the people they love and work with. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data shows that people living in rural and remote areas have a higher rate of hospitalisation, a higher rate of mortality, a higher rate of injury, and poorer access to and a higher rate of use of primary healthcare services than those living in metropolitan areas. In rural and remote communities, the AIHW notes that potentially preventable hospitalisation rates were as much as 2½ times as high as those in major cities, and that's because the system and the structure are not there to support access to health. Inequality—under this government, seeking a fourth term, a second decade of opportunity to ruin the nation. Inequality due to your postcode is now endemic in our system. We have to work and we have to change the government if we are to erase the injustices imposed by the tyranny of distance overseen by this government. Beautiful and productive regions of Australia and the important industries they support are the engine room of the Australian economy. They shouldn't be forced to travel for eight hours to get to a doctor for essential health care. (Time expired) Debate interrupted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU I'll now proceed to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS 6977 STATEMENTS NAIDOC Awards 6977 13:30 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I'm proud and excited to share with the Senate the news of this year's national NAIDOC Award recipients. These annual awards recognise the outstanding contributions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people make in this country in their communities and with their families. Whether it is sport or social justice, the winners demonstrate strength in maintaining culture and working towards a better society. The 10 winners include: Female Elder of the Year, Christobel Swan, from Central Australia; Pat O'Shane AM took the Lifetime Achievement Award; Ernest Hoolihan was Male Elder of the Year 2021; Artist of the Year was Bobbi Lockyer, Scholar of the Year was Sasha Purcell; and Apprentice of the Year was Jarron Andy. I encourage senators and everybody listening to go to the naidoc.org.au website and look at all of the winners, in particular their stories. I wish personally to acknowledge my uncle and family in Booroolola and Gadrian Hoosan, who received the Caring for Country Award, and all those who look after country. Finally, the Sportsperson of the Year is my son, CJ McCarthy-Grogan. I give a special shout-out to you, CJ. It's been an enormous year, particularly with the disruption to your studies overseas. It was wonderful to have had you back in Australia. To have you representing the Australian Paralympics wheelchair basketball team is an absolute honour. I know that you are incredibly humbled by the recognition not only from your peers across the country but also from the Northern Territory NAIDOC committee because of your work for people with disabilities and their families. Thank you, son, for being so inspiring to all Australians. COVID-19: Child Care 6977 13:32 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland [by video link] I rise to question why the Queensland Labor government puts so little value in early childhood education. The mark of a good government is how it treats people. The economy is important, as is defence and infrastructure, but it's the policies that affect people that matter most. In that regard, Queensland's government applies neither common sense nor reasonable judgement to its decisions, and its people who suffer because of it. After nearly two years the Queensland government continues to make decisions that are confusing and inconsistent, and, frankly, people have had enough. Here is a comment from a Queensland childcare provider: 'I'm all for vaccinations and possibly would consider mandates a solution but Labor's execution announced this morning is a shocker. How are we meant to staff our childcare centre with holiday leave already approved and some staff unable to work due to them refusing vaccination? Do I hand them a resignation for Christmas? Vacation care plans have been made for school-aged children that may not be able to be covered. All well and good for school based teachers—the school will be closed—but long day care services do not have that luxury. This short-notice decision reflects the value placed on early childhood education. I don't think for a minute Labor support us more than any other party, as they are often made to appear. No-one really thought this through. Happy holidays, Educators.' Queenslanders have exchanged keeping us safe for dictatorship in extraordinary times. Labor has repaid this good faith with inconsistency, with incompetence and with policies which penalise individuals unnecessarily. People deserve better than Labor, much, much better. Assange, Mr Julian Paul 6977 13:34 Senator WHISH-WILSO 195565 Tasmania N () (): [by video link] Stella Morris, Julian Assange's partner, tweeted today that a decision is imminent on this Walkley Award winning Australian's trial in the UK in relation to him being sent to the US on extradition. It's high time that this parliament got serious about Julian Assange. We have moved motions in this chamber, which have been supported by the Australian Senate, recognising his persecution and yet we have heard nothing from this government in relation to the stunning and very disturbing revelations recently about CIA plots by our ally, the US, to kidnap or assassinate Julian Assange. We have heard nothing from our foreign minister about what our government has done to raise this issue with the US. I would like to say today that the Greens will seek to introduce a motion in this Senate for a references inquiry through the Defence, Foreign Affairs and Trade Committee, to use this Senate's resources to get to the bottom of this. It's high time we got serious about helping this Australian citizen, who has been subject to punishment by process: the continuous use of legal warfare against this individual. He has rights like any Australian citizen has rights, and we need to stand up for him. We would be very hopeful of that inquiry getting the support of Labor and the crossbench. It would be a short inquiry with a number of hearings in Canberra. We hope to deliver this inquiry around the election, early next year. Let's get on with it. Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces 6978 13:36 Senator LINES 112096 Western Australia I want to talk about the Jenkins report, which was released yesterday. We all need to be shocked about what it said. It was truly a shocking revelation about this place as a workplace, leading out to our electorate offices. More than a third of people who responded who are current employees talked about being sexually harassed—more than a third! Every single senator and MP in this place should be standing up today and demanding action. More than a third of staff currently employed talked about being bullied by their employers. And the shocking statistics are that the repeated offences are massive. We note that 82 per cent of people who talked about being bullied said that other people were bullied, and that 66 per cent of people who said they had been sexually harassed talked about other people also being sexually harassed. This place is about power and privilege. It's an aggressive workplace; there are way too many men here and the redress needs to come from more women MPs and senators, more women as staffers and all of us taking responsibility to call this out. I can't say, 'Hey, it's not me,' because that's not what the public sees. The public sees all of us as being tarred with the same brush here. We're all being held responsible to make this parliament a better place. I, for one, made a pact with myself about six months ago that I would call it out, because I've been abused at work. I know what it feels like to be voiceless and powerless. The fact that we're currently doing that to staff in this place is an absolute disgrace. It has to stop. COVID-19: Vaccination 6978 13:38 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland [by video link] Today I will table a petition calling on this parliament to pass our One Nation legislation stopping COVID-19 injection discrimination. This petition was launched only 22 days ago. In that short time more than 200,000 Australians have put their names to it. People's strong opposition to injection, coercion, discrimination and separation continues to grow. Last weekend, many thousands of Australians exercised what little freedom remains to them to protest injection mandates. Australians have spoken loudly and emphatically, and senators will ignore this growing voice at their grave peril. The collusion last week to block this legislation from being referred to a parliamentary inquiry sends a clear message from parliament to the Australian people, and that is that the people must be silenced. Parliament's clear message is that we, the people, must not be given the opportunity to say that we oppose injection coercion and discrimination. The message is that senators here are very frightened at what we all might say at an inquiry. Always beneath control there is fear. Senators are afraid that when we speak we will expose their false narrative that everyone opposed to injection coercion and discrimination is an extremist antivaxxer conspiracist. Many people who have signed this petition are fully injected against COVID-19. We the people are not against injections; we're against government coercion and government approved discrimination. We the people understand this issue is much greater than COVID-19 injections and pandemic restrictions. We the people understand this is about some of the fundamental principles of Australian democracy: freedom of speech, individual autonomy and the right to choose our own fate. Senators, our job is not to silence the Australian people; our job is to listen to the Australian people and do what the people tell us. As senators, we're not dictators; we're servants. Senators, the people are telling you to pass the legislation and end this pandemic of discrimination. Centre for National Resilience 6979 13:40 Senator McMAHON 282728 Northern Territory I rise today to speak about the sad decay and decline of the Centre for National Resilience, the quarantine facility at Howard Springs in the Northern Territory, under the watch of the Gunner Labor government. This facility was considered world-class, gold standard, under Professor Len Notaras and his AUSMAT team. It has gone from gold standard to winning the wooden spoon. Just last week we had three people presumed to have actually caught COVID within the centre. We had one person abscond. They got out of the centre and were found hours later at a bar in Darwin's CBD. Just today we have news of three people absconding from the centre and being found in Palmerston. People are just going over the very small fence and getting out. This never happened under Professor Len Notaras. That's why it was considered to be gold standard. It wasn't the physical buildings of the facility itself; it was the management. Less than six months since the facility was handed over to Michael Gunner it has gone into absolute decline. It has gone from being the shining light of quarantine facilities around the world and around Australia. We've had people come to the Northern Territory to examine the facility and see what we're doing that is working so well. It was working well until the management of the facility was handed over to Michael Gunner. It has gone from being the shining light to a chaotic failure. It's very sad that in less than six months it has been torn apart and is no longer functional. Defence Procurement 6979 13:42 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia Yesterday in question time I asked Senator Payne about the government's decision to acquire nuclear powered submarines. Given the subs won't be delivered until the 2040s and the strategic threat from China is likely to have passed long before then, I asked her to explain that decision. It was revealing that no explanation was forthcoming. I do not blame Senator Payne for this. Instead, it is a symptom of this government's tendency to make big announcements to catch the spotlight with that showy display without doing the work to ensure decisions are right. The government has committed this country to acquiring nuclear powered submarines at huge and unknown cost. It has committed this country to supporting the United States in defence of Taiwan at huge and unknown cost. It has undermined our relationship with France, a key partner in the Asia-Pacific, at huge and unknown cost. It has deeply damaged our relationship with China, which until recently was our biggest trade partner, at huge and unknown cost. It has done all this without clear justification. The Prime Minister and his cabinet have made these decisions on our behalf without telling us why they are necessary or why we should bear these costs. Instead of acquiring nuclear submarines, we could have acquired the French submarines and still had enough money left over to transform every school and hospital in Australia. We deserve better government than this. We deserve a government that actually works through policy options, weighs up the consequences and makes decisions in the national interest, not their personal political interest. That is what we were elected for, and that is what the Australian people deserve. Workplace Safety 6979 13:44 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I want to direct my remarks today to the families of Jack Brownlee and Charlie Howkins—that's Lana Cormie and Mr and Mrs Brownlee. I also want to draw attention to Kate Catanzariti. I'm going to speak today about the ongoing and increasing scourge of deaths in workplaces across Australia. This year, 194 workers have tragically lost their lives in industrial accidents. That's more than four a week. That's more than one every two days in Australia. These horrible occurrences are particularly prominent in the construction, mining, transportation and horticulture industries. In particular, 16 people in the Seasonal Worker Program have died, a stark increase from the zero deaths in the program between 2017 and 2019. This year, 2021, marks the second year running that the rate of industrial deaths has risen. The Liberals and Nationals refuse to implement the reforms needed to ensure accountability and safety for our worksites, and tragically workers continue to die needlessly. I once again urge the government to act on the recommendations of the They never came home report, which we tabled in this place, by the committee chaired very ably by former Deputy President Senator Marshall. Bring on and respond to the Boland review. Follow in the footsteps of the Victoria, Queensland and Northern Territory Labor governments and introduce a national regime for industrial manslaughter. We need industrial manslaughter to be criminalised in this country. We need to ensure that workers who go to work come home. One death on a worksite is one death too many. I will continue to raise my voice for these families, who have a right to expect so much more of the government. They should not elect this one, because it's done nothing in eight years. I also want to honour and recognise Senator Gallacher's reminder that, during the 12 months from the end of December 2020, 170 people died in crashes involving heavy trucks, and they aren't even counted in those figures. There's work to be done. (Time expired) Bob Brown Foundation Environment Awards 6980 13:46 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia [by video link] Here in WA, we have a long and proud history of our community mobilising and organising in the face of government decisions that put our community and our environment at risk, from the antinuclear movements of the 1980s to the truly remarkable protection of James Price Point, in WA's north-west, against fracking—a campaign that took place in 2013. Right now we are bearing witness to the next chapter in WA's environmental history. I'm so proud to have seen some of these incredible community-led campaigns recognised at the Bob Brown Foundation Environment Awards last week. I can't tell you how proud I am to see WA climate activist Bella Burgemeister recognised, jointly with a number of others, as Young Environmentalist of the Year. Bella is a litigant in the landmark Sharma v Minister for the Environment class action. She is a truly impressive young person and has a really bright future ahead of her. I'm also really chuffed to see Jess Beckerling's tireless work with the WA Forest Alliance acknowledged with the Environmentalist of the Year award. She's been a champion for WA forests for as long as I can remember and was instrumental in the WA government's recent decision to ban native forest logging. It is a real privilege to work with people like Bella and Jess, who are committed to creating a future where our environment, our wildlife and our future generations thrive. It's what the Greens were founded on and it's what we will continue to champion proudly in this place. Commissioner of Taxation 6980 13:48 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Yesterday, Labor Senator O'Neill presented the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges report on whether the Commissioner of Taxation committed a contempt by refusing to comply with an order of the Senate. He refused to produce a list of all employers with an annual turnover of greater than $10 million that received a JobKeeper payment. The Privileges Committee decided against a finding of contempt. No action is to be taken in response to the defiance of a Senate order. The committee, acting outside its remit, has made a compromise with the commissioner that he will supply information about JobKeeper recipients in a way that he claims enables the Senate to fulfil its accountability function, whilst excluding details that would identify entities that received JobKeeper. So we're likely to receive a list that has no company names on it. How pathetic. But that's what the Privileges Committee has come to. I'm not surprised Liberal senators signed up to this, but I expected better from Labor. Labor condemned the waste of billions of taxpayer dollars paid to profitable corporations through JobKeeper. The member for Fenner, Dr Andrew Leigh, has, like me, energetically campaigned to shame some of those corporations to give back the JobKeeper payments they did not need. A list with company names would have made these efforts much more successful. The Privileges Committee has gone to water, with Labor members too afraid to defend the rights and privileges of the Senate that were obtained over centuries in the UK—too afraid to stand up to the executive government. The Senate was weakened yesterday. Erskine May would be turning in his grave. Journalists often refer to the committee as 'the powerful Senate Privileges Committee'. In the interests of accuracy, they should really change that adjective from 'powerful' to 'piss-weak'. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Order! Senator Patrick, you know that's not parliamentary. Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces 6980 13:50 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Yesterday Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins handed down her report into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces, Set the standard. This report was born from the bravery of women who once shared our workplace and who started a much-needed movement for change. Its findings and recommendations are thanks to the participation of everyone who has worked in this building, past and present, and shared their personal experiences—some of them deeply traumatic—with the reviewers. The report noted the sense of pride that so many people in this building feel when they start work in this place. I know that feeling. I felt it first as a staffer and I still feel it as a senator. Either as elected officials or as staff, we have the incredible privilege to serve in the heart of our democracy—to make a difference, to fight for a better nation, no matter what our vision for better may look like. But far too many who have held that privilege have been deeply failed by a toxic culture and by a workplace that hasn't been safe enough or respectful enough and hasn't supported them as it should. And it matters especially that it has happened here, because the people in this building set the standards for our nation. If this place can fail women, especially so badly, then is it any wonder that so many women around our nation feel unsafe or disrespected in their homes and communities? Today I want to say to the staff in this building: you deserve to always feel a sense of pride for the work you do here. And, when you've decided to call time on your service here, you deserve to carry that pride fondly into the next phase of your life. This is an incredible institution. But as a workplace it has deeply failed too many who serve within it. It is unacceptable and it must change. With urgency, with depth and with the greatest ambition, I urge leadership in this space and action for those who deserve their concerns to be treated with the utmost seriousness and urgency. Morrison Government 6981 13:52 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales When Donald Trump was US President, Prime Minister Scott Morrison was, rightly, criticised for his cosy friendship with this white nationalist leader who was impeached twice and tried to steal an election. But not much has been said about the Prime Minister's cosy friendship with another far-Right leader, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India. Dangerous nationalism and authoritarianism, with strong anti-Muslim and anti-Sikh elements, have skyrocketed in India under Modi, and his administration should be condemned. This escalating nationalism has had direct impacts for the Indian diaspora in Australia, as racism and hatred threaten communities who belong to minorities and who have been critical of Modi's agenda. Community members shared with me logs of messages in large online communities, particularly on Facebook and WhatsApp, that are directly influenced by Modi's nationalist agenda and contain hate speech targeted at minority groups. This includes labelling the target groups as 'terrorist sympathisers', 'criminals', 'rapists' and 'vermin'. Words can escalate. This year there have been several publicly reported incidents of violence and altercations between groups, including an attack on four young Sikh men in Harris Park, Sydney, at the height of domestic protests in India over Modi's farming laws. The impact of this hateful politics on many in our community is extremely concerning. It's a direct result of the importation of the nationalist politics of Modi and the Australian government's refusal to call it out. I call on the members of the government and the Prime Minister to condemn far-Right politics and to call out the Modi administration for its authoritarian, nationalist agenda. Bingham, Sir Eardley Max, QC 6981 13:54 Senator ABETZ N26 Tasmania It's right and proper to honour those who have made a lifetime's contribution to their community. Sir Max Bingham was such a person, who recently passed at the age of 94. Tasmania has lost one of its outstanding sons with the passing of Sir Max. Sir Max's reputation as a scholar, gentleman and intellect is without peer. I had the privilege of first meeting Sir Max when he was a member for Denison and leader of the state opposition when I first joined the Liberal Party in my home state of Tasmania. He was impressive with his insights and personal demeanour. Sir Max was a giant in the state parliament, and I have no doubt he would have made an exceptionally competent premier. Chances are, he was the best premier Tasmania never had. Unfortunately, he missed out on leading our state. Some would say he was too good for the cut and thrust of public life. But, as an attorney-general, deputy premier and police minister, he was exceptionally highly regarded by all within the legal fraternity and the police force, who considered him a true friend. After his distinguished career in the Royal Australian Navy and as a barrister, magistrate and parliamentarian, he further distinguished himself by serving on the National Crime Authority and then the equivalent of the integrity commission in Queensland as its first chair. Today I want to salute the life and service of Sir Max Bingham and extend my condolences to his family. South Australia: Girls with Attitude 6981 13:56 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia The release yesterday of Kate Jenkins' review into workplace culture in this building had some shocking content, especially on the treatment of women in this place. What I want to talk about today is some of the groups that really are making a fundamental difference. In particular I want to highlight the work of one group I recently visited that gave me hope. The next generation understand these issues, they take them seriously and they are ready to tackle them head on. Girls with Attitude is a student leadership group at Para Hills School in Adelaide. They got together to address the everyday sexism and disrespect that the girls in the school were experiencing. They had a passion to work together and to create a safer and more respectful school environment. The school and its students have, after three years of this program, reported a significant shift in the culture of what happens in the playground, what happens in the classroom and what happens across the whole school community. Girls with Attitude has developed a campaign in conjunction with the Northern Adelaide Domestic Violence Service aimed at identifying the roots of gendered violence and developing strategies to shift those harmful attitudes towards girls and women. I heard about how these girls, as young as 10, were already facing discrimination on the basis of their gender, and how it affects their lives and the lives of those close to them. We've got a lot to learn from groups like this. They know firsthand what it's like to be a girl in this country, and they know what needs to be changed to make a safer and more equal society for them to grow in. A big take-away from my meeting with the girls was how utterly, utterly fearless they are. They've got big dreams and big aspirations, and we could learn an awful lot in this place from a group of primary students addressing culture. (Time expired) Social Media: Anti-Trolling Legislation 6982 13:58 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland The Morrison government is tackling the problem of online trolling and ensuring administrators of social media pages aren't liable for the comments that other people make on their page. Our anti-trolling bill ensures that people won't be able to use anonymous social media accounts to defame other people online. It represents action on an issue that so many parents express worry about. Victims of this behaviour will have the ability to unmask an anonymous user, allowing them to pursue them in court. This will ensure that laws governing people's conduct in the real world will also apply for people online. There will be safeguards to ensure that these mechanisms can't be abused. There will also be provisions that allow the Attorney-General to intervene in cases such as where there is a major power imbalance. Importantly, the bill clarifies that people who have social media pages are not liable for defamatory comments that other people make on their pages, resolving an issue of uncertainty that had been created by the High Court's decision in the matter of Voller. Without this reform, countless individuals and businesses could inadvertently get caught up in legal battles for failing to moderate the comments on their posts, even if they lack the time and resources to be able to complete that task. It shifts responsibility for these comments back on to the people who make them. The bill won't solve all problems with social media, of course, but it's an important step and it's using accountability to drive better culture online. The PRESIDENT 30484 It being 2 pm, we'll move to questions without notice. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 6982 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 6982 14:00 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Birmingham. The national accounts released today show that the Australian economy contracted by 1.9 per cent in the September quarter. Can the minister confirm that growth in the September quarter is the worst out of the 28 OECD countries that have reported so far? 14:00 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Gallagher for the question. I can confirm the release of the national accounts today, which show a contraction of 1.9 per cent through the September quarter. This is the result and the price of lockdowns. It is not an unanticipated result, although it is in fact ahead of market expectations in terms of what the result was likely to be. I'd don't have the precise tally for the quarterly figures across OECD countries that the senator asked for. But it is certainly the case that Australia's economic performance in recovery through the pandemic is in the top 3 across advanced economies across the world, with our performance in recovery and three-year growth stronger than Germany, Canada, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and many others. Through the course of this year there have been many disruptions. Since the delta variant became the dominant variant of COVID-19 there have been lockdowns or state of emergency declarations in at least 81 different countries. That has obviously had significant impacts right around the world. But, in Australia, growth remains up 3.9 per cent throughout the year. Growth remains up 3.9 per cent throughout the year, driven by strong performances in a number of sectors, with our rural exports, in particular, driving strongly, increasing by 47 per cent throughout the year. The terms of trade and trade surplus for Australia are now the highest on record. This is a demonstration of just one area of the policies that our government has pursued to create the maximum range of opportunities for Australian businesses and exporters. Our government is delivering for them, and delivering for the nation as well. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question? 14:02 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory In the September quarter, America's economy grew by 0.5 per cent, the UK's by 1.3 per cent, Canada's by 1.3 per cent, Germany's by 1.7 per cent and France's by 3.0 per cent, but the Australian economy contracted by 1.9 per cent. If the Morrison government was doing such a great job managing the economy, why is our September downturn the worst in the OECD so far and the third-biggest downturn in the history of the national accounts? 14:03 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia If you have to ask what the cause of the economic impact in the September quarter was then, clearly, you don't understand much about how the economy operates. The cause was very clearly the lockdowns that occurred across the country. That's evident from the fact that the dominant factor in relation to the downturn was the decline in household consumption. Unsurprisingly, household consumption declines when people are living under lockdown restrictions. But we know that the rebound is strong. We know that because the ABS payroll jobs data shows 350,000 jobs coming back from September already—350,000 jobs coming back in that short period of time. We know that Australia's global performance, as I said before, is, on the three-year growth, from the depths of the pandemic, in the top 3 in the world. Those opposite can seek to select a narrow band of time, but we have the demonstration and the evidence that Australian jobs and— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Gallagher, a second supplementary? 14:04 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Can the minister confirm that, if Mr Morrison had done his two jobs on vaccine and quarantine, the Australian economy and Australia would be in a much better position than they are in now? 14:05 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The Labor Party do not understand the cause of economic distress that comes from lockdowns, and the Labor Party seem to think the Prime Minister of Australia only has two jobs to do. They are wrong on all counts. What is helping to fuel that recovery, the 350,000 jobs that have come back just in the space of a month or so, are the policies our government has implemented. Our economic recovery plan, fuelled by the fact that Australians have more money in their pockets through tax cuts we have delivered—$1.5 billion a month, on average, of support going through—fuelled by policies outlined in the budget to encourage businesses to invest more, particularly across machinery and equipment, which we have seen such strong growth of, will make sure that we do not just have the growth now but that we have more productive and competitive businesses to fuel the export boom we are seeing across Australia, and growth across so many other sectors. (Time expired) Workplace Relations: Maritime Industry 6983 14:06 Senator ABETZ N26 Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Industrial Relations, Senator Cash. Can the minister update the Senate on the risks to Australia's vital maritime supply chains and our economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead-up to Christmas? 14:06 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator Abetz for the question. As we all know, Australia is an island nation. We are bordered by three of the world's oceans. What that means for Australians is that ports are the gateway to our open trading economy. Anything that is done to interfere with our ports and to slow productivity has a direct impact on Australians. Exports, in fact, make up about a quarter of Australia's gross domestic product. As we know, ports also employ hundreds of thousands of Australians right across our great country. As we also know, Australians themselves rely on many imported goods in their everyday lives. In the lead-up to Christmas in particular, when people are out there spending money and businesses are looking to get access to the products that they need, we need to ensure our ports operate both smoothly and efficiently. What we do know is that there is an ongoing threat of further industrial action at our ports prior to Christmas. For all of those businesses out there who rely on getting their product into the country, this is a great worry. The Morrison government does, of course, continue to be briefed regularly on this threat and on supply chain pressures. The National Coordination Mechanism is meeting weekly with industry players in the lead-up to Christmas. The one thing we continue to say to the parties involved in this dispute is 'Negotiate in good faith and please resolve your issues.' But, at the same time, the government's position is very, very clear. The Morrison government stands ready to take action, if needed, to protect the Australian economy from serious harm. We will stand up for all of those businesses out there, for all of those Australians out there, and make sure that at this time of year they have access to the goods they need. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Abetz, a supplementary question? 14:08 Senator ABETZ N26 Tasmania With Australia being a trading nation, how important is it for Australians and Australian businesses to have both a working and productive waterfront? Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 30484 Before I call the minister, there is a lot of discussion happening on my left. All interjections are disorderly. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Wong, you are not helping. 14:09 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia As we all know, inefficient ports end up being a tax on all of us. They end up costing Australians money. They can end up costing businesses jobs. That is not good for any of us, and that is why the Morrison-Joyce government has taken action to improve the productivity of our ports, not only through infrastructure projects but also through removing regulatory roadblocks for trade. We've introduced the simplified trade system, which has been streamlining compliance costs for Australian importers and exporters whilst upgrading our legacy ICT systems. Whilst this is working, we know that productivity at our ports remains a challenge. This has been going on for a very long time, particularly impacting Australia's maritime supply chains. So, the Treasurer will release terms of reference for a Productivity Commission inquiry into the efficiency of our maritime logistics system. We need to ensure that productivity on our ports is the best as it can be. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Abetz, a second supplementary? 14:10 Senator ABETZ N26 Tasmania I thank the minister for the good news about the Productivity Commission inquiry and ask further: what risks is the minister aware of to a productive and effective shipping industry, particularly to our mum-and-dad family businesses? 14:10 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I'll take that interjection from Senator Ayres, because it's actually not the New South Wales government, Senator Ayres; it is a potential Albanese government. That is actually the risk to port productivity in Australia: a potential Albanese government that is beholden to the unions—a government that is beholden to the MUA. If you are beholden to the MUA, that means that if you do need to step up and take action to ensure that Australian families can get access to the goods and services they need and ensure that Australian businesses can get access to the product they need then you won't be able to say no. That is not a good thing, because, when you have an inefficient port system, when action is being taken that quite literally closes things down, you need a government that is strong; you need a government that understands that productivity on our ports is essential to ensuring that, in particular, our economic recovery from COVID-19 continues. (Time expired) Workplace Relations: Mining Industry 6985 14:11 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, Senator McKenzie. The Minerals Council of Australia has admitted that mine workers who are employed as casuals by labour hire companies are paid, on average, 24 per cent less then permanent employees of the mine operator. Does the Deputy Prime Minister support labour hire being used to undermine the pay of mine workers in regional Australia? 14:12 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria On behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister, I will say that what we do support is ongoing investment in a sustainable, responsible and economically viable minerals industry so that workers in the resources industry, not just across Central Queensland but also right across your own home state of New South Wales, can have sustainable, rewarding careers in an industry that underpins not just local economies in regional Australia but indeed— The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Ayres, a point of order? Senator Ayres 16913 On relevance: it's very clear that the minister is not going remotely go close to answering the question, which was—if I can remind you—about whether the Deputy Prime Minister supports labour hire being used to undermine the pay of mine workers in regional Australia. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Ayres, I think we do need to acknowledge that the minister had only just started her answer. You've brought her back to your question. Senator McKENZIE 207825 I didn't forget your question. I was just reiterating the National Party's and the Liberal Party's commitment to a sustainable resources sector to ensure that these workers are absolutely being employed. And I'm just wondering whether, post next election—if you're planning to be in alliance and coalition with the Greens—you will actually hold the same views and whether the workers you purport to represent and stand up for in this place will actually be looking to you and asking: 'Why didn't you stand up for us? Why didn't you back a coal industry? Why didn't you back a gas industry?' These guys want to shut everything down. If it has the word 'fossil' in it— The PRESIDENT 30484 Are you rising on a point of order, Senator Ayres? Senator Ayres 16913 I am. I know that the minister wants to stick to the partisan talking points— The PRESIDENT 30484 What is the point of order? Senator Ayres 16913 The point of order is on relevance. She is not in the same galaxy as the question. The PRESIDENT 30484 Minister, I will bring you back to the question. It was a reasonably narrowly framed question. I believe you were going towards the question, but I will bring you back to the question. Minister, you have the call. You have 38 seconds remaining. Senator McKENZIE 207825 Thank you. The government believes in a workplace relations system that promotes fair, safe, harmonious and productive workplaces, that encourages employers and employees to work together—not a system that pits them against each other. When it comes to labour hire, specifically, which is a proportion of all employees, it has been stable at less than two per cent over the last decade. Of the nearly 13 million employed Australians, fewer than 115,000 were employees paid by labour hire firms. That is only 1.1 per cent of all employees. The record high of 1.5 per cent was recorded under a previous Labor government in both 2008— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Ayres, a supplementary question? 14:15 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Deputy Prime Minister Joyce refused to answer a question about the impact of same job, same pay in regional Australia last week, handballing it to Minister Fletcher, who claimed: 'This so-called same job, same pay issue is essentially a made-up issue.' Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with Mr Fletcher that same job, same pay is 'a made-up issue'? 14:16 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I assume that Senator Ayres is referring to his bill, and what I'm wanting to put on the table is what the government's view is around labour hire companies. My advice is that almost all labour hire companies use enterprise agreements that are signed off and by the CFMMEU. We support as a government an industrial relations system. The government doesn't set the wages; that's a negotiated outcome between workers. H onourable senator interjecting— Senator McKENZIE 207825 Yes, let's remember who set up the Fair Work system that we're operating under! The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU Yes, on direct relevance. We are putting a direct quote to the minister and asking if the Deputy Prime Minister agrees with Mr Fletcher that same job, same pay is a 'made-up issue'. The PRESIDENT 30484 I've allowed you to restate the question to the minister. Minister, you have the call. Senator McKENZIE 207825 What I'm going to, in answering the question, is that our government supports an industrial relations system which relates to jobs, which relates to wages, who gets paid for what, when and where. I've been directly relevant to the question, in both my first answer and in my second. In terms of helping our nation recover from COVID-19— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Ayres, a second supplementary question? 14:18 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales BHP, the largest miner in Australia, told the Senate Job Security Committee that more than half of its workers at mine sites, nationwide, are employed by labour hire or other contractors. Does the Deputy Prime Minister believe that two mine workers in regional Australia doing exactly the same job should get the same pay? 14:18 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister wants businesses in this country to operate legally and under the law. We want to make sure that we have rewarding, sustainable careers not just in the mining industry, Senator Ayres, but right across the economy in regional Australia, and for people, local workers, to be paid correctly and fairly for the work that they do. That is why, under your Fair Work system, we've done the changes that we have been able to get through in this particular period of government. But we want to make sure that employees are protected, that they are having rewarding careers. The PRESIDENT 30484 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Ayres, on a point of order? Senator Ayres 16913 It's not remotely relevant. Each of these questions is constructed, as you indicated earlier, quite narrowly. The question was: 'Does the Deputy Prime Minister believe that two mine workers, working side by side, doing the same job should get the same pay?' and she hasn't come close to beginning answering that question. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Ayres, you have restated a part of the question. Senator McKenzie, I believe, was being relevant to the question. I will return to Senator McKenzie. Senator McKENZIE 207825 As I stated in my previous answer, the enterprise agreements negotiated in the coalmining industry are signed off by the CFMEU, so if you have an issue with how people are being paid in that area then maybe you need to go see your mates. Your private member's bill is actually discouraging employment right across Australia. Commonwealth Integrity Commission 6987 14:20 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland My question is to the Attorney-General. There has been extensive criticism of the government's Integrity Commission model—judged to be the weakest in Australia. We've been told repeatedly that the department and the Attorney have been considering feedback received during multiple rounds of consultation. At estimates in March this year both the department and Assistant Minister Stoker said of the draft exposure bill: 'We've identified some ways in which it could be improved. We're quite sincere in our desire to reflect that feedback in the next version.' Yet this week the Prime Minister and several other ministers have said that the government's proposal remains unchanged from the exposure draft. Why hasn't feedback been taken into account? Was it always just sham consultation to allow you to delay tabling your bill? 14:21 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Senator Waters, no, the consultation was genuine consultation. Certainly the issue we have is this: we have a bill to deliver a Commonwealth Integrity Commission, that is a bill that we have. It is a bill that has been out there. Not only do we have a bill, we have actually committed funding of $150 million to fund the body when it gets up. We have consulted widely on its structure. What our proposed model will do will build on the already strong anticorruption arrangements that exist at the Commonwealth level. We have released our bill to the public. In fact, if you were to join us, we could forget about the Labor Party, because they just want a political witch-hunt. They just want a political witch-hunt when it comes to a Commonwealth Integrity Commission. They are not interested in a model that ensures that integrity is pursued in a manner which— The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Waters on a point of order? Senator Waters 192970 Yes, a point of order on relevance. My question went to whether or not feedback from the consultation has been reflected in the draft. Nobody wants to hear a lecture about the politics. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Waters, I was listening to the minister. There was also a long preamble and, as you know, direct relevance is judged on the whole question, not merely the last part of the question. Attorney-General, you have the call. Senator CASH I0M Thank you. You see, Senator Waters, unfortunately from that comment I'm going to assume that you also do not want to support the Commonwealth government's Integrity Commission. The fact of the matter is we have a model. The bill is out there. We have funded the model. We have released our bill to implement it. This should be something that is not just bipartisan. It should be a multipartisan approach to putting in place a model that ensures that integrity is pursued in a manner which respects due process and democracy. Clearly from your comments, Senator Waters, you are also not interested in doing that. If you are interested in a political witch-hunt, nothing more and nothing less, then that is not something we are going to agree on. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Waters, a supplementary question? 14:23 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland At the National Press Club today Geoffrey Watson SC said: 'Public hearings, where the ICAC has determined that they're in the public interest'— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator WATERS 192970 Are you going to make some more interjections—I dare you!—or can I ask my question? The PRESIDENT 30484 Order! An honourable senator interjecting— Senator WATERS 192970 Yes, this is question time. I do get to ask you questions. That is how this works. The PRESIDENT 30484 Order! This is not a time for discussion across the chamber. Senator Waters, resume your seat. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 30484 Order! On my right. The questioner and the person answering the question should both be heard in silence. Senator Waters, please continue your question. Senator WATERS 192970 Thank you, President. As I was saying, Geoffrey Watson SC said: 'Public hearings, where the ICAC has determined that they are in the public interest, are essential to deter maladministration, expose corruption, earn public trust and allow ICAC findings and process to be interrogated.' Yet members of this government have described it a witch-hunt, a kangaroo court and the Spanish inquisition. Why does the government continue to demonise transparency and continue the protection racket it's been running for years? The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Waters, I allowed you to continue there, as you were interrupted during your question. But I believe, to be honest, that the question would have gone over time regardless. I will give the Attorney-General the call. 14:25 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Mr President, I'm glad you actually allowed Senator Waters to run over time, because I didn't hear everything she said but I did catch the words 'spanish inquisition'. Senator Waters, that is exactly what we are not going to pursue: a spanish inquisition. That's because, at the end of the day, this needs to be a body which ensures that integrity is pursued in a manner which respects both due process and democracy. Senator Waters seems to forget, and the Labor Party seems to forget as well, that the Commonwealth Integrity Commission is to investigate corruption—serious corruption. It is not a tool that is to be used for vexatious and politically motivated claims. They want a spanish inquisition, and that's not something which we're going to support. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Waters, a second supplementary question? 14:26 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland At the Press Club today, former chair of the Law Council of Australia and now president of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties Pauline Wright said that the threshold set by the government's model would prevent most matters from even being investigated. She described that as 'unconscionable'. Why is the government proposing an integrity commission that would not be able to investigate most breaches of integrity? 14:26 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I completely disagree with what Senator Waters has just quoted. The government's model which we have put forward builds on the already strong anticorruption arrangements which exist at the Commonwealth level. The body that we've put forward would be a specialised investigation body for the most serious forms of corruption, with the resources and powers necessary to fulfil that role. At the same time, for some reason, the Australian Greens don't seem to agree with this. The body will have appropriate safeguards, Senator Waters, to protect the rights and reputations of the people it investigates, and will also have robust oversight through an independent inspector-general and a dedicated parliamentary committee. The telling words from everything that you have said, Senator Waters, are 'spanish inquisition'. Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces 6988 14:27 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Payne. Will the minister update the Senate on the steps the Liberals and Nationals government has taken this year in relation to supporting Australian women and focusing on their safety? 14:28 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator Hughes for her question. Yesterday's report on Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner has underscored the task that is ahead of us, both here and nationally. This is a task to which we as a government are very strongly committed. Too many Australians, particularly women, do continue to face harassment, violence and inequality across the country. However, we have made progress in important areas. Addressing inequality is fundamental, and that is why the Morrison government is supporting women's leadership and strengthening women's options by helping to enhance economic security. We've established a cabinet task force dedicated to women's safety and economic security, including ministers with specific responsibilities in those areas—and I acknowledge Senator Ruston, Senator Hume and Senator Stoker and their roles. Our Women's Budget Statement is investing a record $1.1 billion in women's safety. Measures include the escaping violence payment and the Safe Places Emergency Accommodation program, with 780 additional emergency accommodation places for women and children. And there's the Stop it at the Start campaign about creating more respectful attitudes. We have funded, or fully implemented, most of the recommendations of the Respect@Work report, with further work underway. We are finalising the next National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children, following a valuable and important national summit. We've also funded national partnerships with states and territories for frontline services during COVID-19. Just as within parliament we must work across parties in addressing these issues, nationally we must work between governments, with the private sector, community and advocacy groups and frontline organisations. This is a task for all Australians. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Hughes, a supplementary question? 14:30 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Can the minister outline the government's investments in women's economic security and workforce participation? 14:30 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales Through a $1.9 billion investment in the Women's Budget Statement of May this year and our broader policies, the Morrison government is working to build women's economic security and to grow women's workforce participation. We've increased the child-care subsidy to make child care more affordable. Our Boosting Female Founders Initiative has awarded nearly $12 million to 51 women-owned and led start-ups. Our Career Revive program is supporting 60 additional employers to attract or retain women after they take a career break, and the Family Home Guarantee is supporting single parents to buy a home. We know the COVID pandemic has had a particular impact on women's employment, but our economic recovery plan has helped create jobs, rebuild our economy and provide the conditions to enhance women's economic security. We will continue to focus on these tasks as we build the recovery. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Hughes, a second supplementary question? 14:31 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Can the minister also outline to the Senate the government's support for women's leadership and equality? 14:31 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales This government is strongly committed to supporting more women into leadership positions. We've expanded the successful Women's Leadership and Development Program and funded over 70 projects across Australia in both urban and regional areas that support around 50,000 women and girls into employment and leadership opportunities. Our Academy for Enterprising Girls, for example, is developing young women's skills in entrepreneurship and is now supporting over 6,300 students. We're also leading by example. We are less than half a per cent away from our goal of having 50 per cent of women holding government board positions. We set that target and we will meet it. Under the Morrison government, the gender pay gap has narrowed to its lowest level on record, at 13.4 per cent. But I acknowledge and recognise that the impact of COVID-19 and consecutive lockdowns has impacted that figure. Continuing to narrow the gap and enhance women's leadership and equality remain our priorities. Commonwealth Integrity Commission 6989 14:32 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Senator Fierravanti-Wells has described the draft Commonwealth Integrity Commission model put up by the Morrison-Joyce government as 'the weakest and least effective integrity agency in the country'. Is Senator Fierravanti-Wells right? 14:32 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Urquhart for her question. The answer to her question, in short, is no. The model that Senator Cash was speaking about in the chamber just before is a model that has been carefully developed to ensure that it focuses where an integrity commission should focus in terms of the elimination of corruption, tackling corruption in public office and ensuring that public officials and office holders are held to account and that you do effectively prevent that. It builds upon what is a very strong existing framework in the Commonwealth government. We should never underplay the important role that our existing integrity agencies, police agencies and others play in relation to ensuring that the law is upheld in Australia and that we do have one of the best systems, arguably, in the world in terms of transparency, accountability and the legal arrangements that apply in our country to ensure that in this country everyone is held to account and everyone operates within the law. But the government recognises the opportunity to enhance that framework, and that's the work that Senator Cash and her predecessor have done in developing this model. They have developed a model that is underpinned by hundreds of pages of legislation. I remind Senator Urquhart and her colleagues that the Labor Party's integrity commission is a two-page glossy brochure at present. So Senator Cash has hundreds of pages of legislation, that, if the Labor Party were willing to back it, could be passed through this parliament. Senator Urquhart, you and your team have two pages. It's a nice glossy brochure—congratulations to those who did the design work—but of course it's not actually an integrity commission model at all. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Urquhart, a supplementary question? 14:34 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania Senator Fierravanti-Wells has also said: Negative public perceptions are compounded when politicians dig their heels in, spin the story and fail to take responsibility for their actions. Is Senator Fierravanti-Wells referring to Mr Morrison? 14:35 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Senator Fierravanti-Wells is as entitled as any of the other 75 senators elected to this place to come into this chamber, to provide speeches, to give general reflections in relation to the way in which politics operate. I recognise— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 30484 Order on my left! Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X the enormous contribution that Senator Fierravanti-Wells makes, on behalf of New South Wales, to our party and to our government in particular, and she has done so through a wide range of different roles. But I know, as well, that the model for an integrity commission we have developed is a sound model—a model that strikes the balance of ensuring that we would have an integrity commission focused on rooting out corruption, and on prosecuting where applicable, but not on show trials. I know those opposite just want show trials; they just want politics. We actually want effective reform. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 30484 Order! The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator McAllister! Senator Urquhart, a second supplementary question? 14:36 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania Senator Fierravanti-Wells has asked: … those who resist the introduction of an effective federal integrity body raise people's curiosity. One has to ask the question: are they conflicted? Why are they resisting the implementation of such a body? What is Mr Morrison trying to hide from the last eight years? 14:37 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia We're a government that proudly turns up, answers questions—even sometimes quite silly ones—and works its way through all the different processes. Indeed, having said that we would develop an integrity commission, we spelled out the type of integrity commission that we would develop. We've gone through the process of developing that into legislation. We have the legislation there. We've budgeted $150 million to support it and to provide for it. The only barrier— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 30484 Minister— Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X to it actually passing— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 30484 Minister— Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X into law are those opposite, who say— The 10000 Minister! Resume your seat. Until there is silence in the chamber— The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Wong! It's an answer to one of your questions, Senator Wong; you possibly should be listening to the answer. Interjections are always disorderly. I cannot hear the minister and he's standing only a few metres from me. Minister, you have the call. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Mr President, their two-page glossy was developed by the member for Isaacs, the shadow Attorney-General. But of course we know his track record, which shows what the Labor Party really want. He's sought, on nine different occasions, to refer matters to the Australian Federal Police, and they've all been tossed out because it's all just about frivolous politics, all about show trials, all about smearing and allegations by those opposite. Cybersafety 6991 14:38 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts, Senator Hume. Can the minister update the Senate on how the Liberal and Nationals government is committed to keeping Australian women and all Australians safe online? 14:39 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I thank Senator Chandler for her question. The Morrison government has been at the forefront of delivering measures designed to give people the protection of the rule of law online, just as they have it offline. We cannot accept a situation in which social media is a place where cowards use the shield of anonymity to bully, harass and ruin lives. For too long, trolls, bots and bigots have flourished online behind a digital curtain of anonymity. That's why we, on this side of the chamber, have been steadfastly committed to measures that keep Australians, particularly women and children, safe online. This government established the world-first eSafety Commissioner and legislation to deal with abhorrent and violent material online. This year we passed the Online Safety Act, which will take effect in January. This act gives the eSafety Commissioner new powers and digital platforms more responsibility. There's a new adult cyberabuse take-down scheme and a stronger cyberbullying scheme, reducing take-down periods from 48 hours to 24 hours and giving the eSafety Commissioner the power to respond more quickly to the worst of the worst content, such as child sexual abuse material, no matter where it's hosted. Importantly, we've provided Australia's eSafety Commissioner with the power to order tech companies to report on how they are responding to these harms so that Australian parents know what these companies are doing to make their products safe for kids and families. If the companies don't respond, they can expect hefty fines of over half a million dollars. Since we came to government, the coalition have not stopped fighting to keep Australians safe online, whether it's the Online Safety Act or the recently announced antitrolling bill. These measures are all part of our plan to keep Australians safe online. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Chandler, a supplementary question? 14:41 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Can the minister explain how the government's strong stance on online safety will be bolstered through the proposed new antitrolling laws? 14:41 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The Morrison government is acting urgently to develop world-leading reforms to protect all Australians who maintain social media accounts. This legislation will protect social media users from liability when third parties post defamatory comments on their page and will also empower Australians to unmask anonymous originators of defamatory comments and content. We want to give a voice and a pathway forward to the voiceless and protect the unfairly targeted, like a young woman suffering unwarranted attacks about her appearance or perceived sexuality, or parents struggling to figure out how to stop the cyberbullying of their teenage daughter. These reforms will permit more Australians to seek redress for online harms, because anonymity should not be weaponised to abuse, harass, bully or destroy people's reputations. The Morrison government is committed to keeping Australian women and, indeed, all Australians safe at all times, in the real world and online. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Chandler, a second supplementary question? 14:42 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Can the minister outline any other initiatives that will work towards protecting Australians online and how these build on the government's previous investments? 14:42 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria In addition to the new powers that force global social media giants to unmask anonymous online trolls, the Morrison government has today announced a parliamentary committee to put big tech under the microscope. Australians are rightly concerned about whether big tech is doing enough to keep kids safe online. As the Prime Minister said, big tech created these platforms. They have a responsibility to ensure that their users are safe. Big tech has big questions to answer, but we want to hear from real Australians—from teachers, parents, athletes, small businesses and more—about their experience and what it is that they want to see changed. This inquiry will give Australians an opportunity to air concerns and give the tech companies an opportunity to deliver solutions. The Morrison government is committed to keeping Australians safe at all times, in the real world and online. (Time expired) COVID-19: Arts and Entertainment Industry 6992 14:43 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Birmingham. With the WHO declaring omicron a COVID variant of concern, which could lead to further restrictions and has already led to border closures, Australia's live music and entertainment industries are again in chaos. Concerned that they don't have the insurance to cover them in the upcoming seasons, they've issued an urgent call to your government and the Prime Minister to step in and fund a government insurance scheme for them. When will the Prime Minister do this? Why is the Prime Minister risking these small businesses and this economy simply because of your refusal to act? 14:44 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Hanson-Young for her question. At the outset, as I think I've said on every day so far this week, I urge caution in relation to some of the commentary around the omicron variant of COVID-19. There are still things that are not yet known about it, which is why some precautionary steps have been taken, such as the two-week deferral of Australia's reopening for movement of students and other particular visa-category holders. Many experts are highlighting that perhaps some of the concerns around this variant are less than were first thought in the initial couple of days when we became more aware of it publicly. Nonetheless, we take the matter seriously. We've also taken quite seriously support for the creative economy. The creative economy COVID support package was originally $250 million. Since then, we have increased it to over $475 million. That's in addition to some $730 million provided to the creative and performing arts subdivision of industry through JobKeeper, and about $119 provided in cash-flow payments to creative and performing arts organisations. Altogether, we can see that the COVID support has been well in excess of $1 billion through a range of different measures. That's in addition to the business-as-usual funding provided to the arts sector of around $750 million per annum from the government, along with other additional support. So I don't accept the characterisation from Senator Hanson-Young in relation to an absence of support. Support has been significant, extensive and expanded throughout the course of the pandemic. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Hanson-Young, a supplementary question? 14:46 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia My question was specifically in relation to an insurance support program—a guarantee for insurance. There is a market failure. Other countries have recognised this. The UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and New Zealand have all put in place insurance schemes to fill this market gap. That is the role of government. Why won't you act? 14:47 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The $200 million RISE program—the Restart Investment Sustain and Expand fund—delivers on some of the objectives that Senator Hanson-Young is precisely asking about. It supports programs and initiatives to be able to restart. When events are postponed due to COVID restrictions, we've been working with funding recipients to assist them in relation to the rescheduling. The funding is there to provide that support and that underwriting to ensure that an event can proceed even if there are concerns and doubts that exist around that. But it and the Commonwealth government's programs don't operate in isolations. They operate alongside many state government ventures, and it is not unusual for many of these major events to be operated by state government agencies and instrumentalities too. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Hanson-Young, a second supplementary question? 14:48 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Last year the Prime Minister stood with Guy Sebastian and made a bunch of promises for the live music and entertainment industry. Very little of that has come to fruition. Now we see the industry on its knees, begging you to act to stop them from going bust. Prime Minister, What would Guy Sebastian say? 14:48 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I'm not actually the Prime Minister, nor am I Guy Sebastian, so I'm not particularly well placed to address those aspects in that form. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Hanson-Young on a point of order? Senator I0U I'd like to correct the record. I didn't mean to give Senator Birmingham a promotion that he will never actually achieve. I take that back. The PRESIDENT 30484 It's starting to look a lot like Christmas. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X It cuts deep, Senator Hanson-Young—I'm hurt!—it really does. An honourable senator interjecting— Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X I'm definitely not going to sing, that's true. Mr President, these are serious issues. It is why more than $1 billion of additional COVID-19 assistance has been provided to the creative industries, the live-performance industry being a key part of that. But, in addition to all of those funding principles, the work in the national plan to help drive reopening is a key part of that and is something that our government has led, and encouraged the states and territories to follow, to make sure these sectors can get back to business, which I know is what they want to do most. (Time expired) Glen Eira City Council 6993 14:50 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts, Senator Hume. Glen Eira council revealed that their future funding was threatened by Minister Fletcher when they questioned the benefit of two car park projects based in the Liberal seat of Goldstein. Mr Fletcher's letter states: 'Such a decision could well have the long-term consequence of reducing the chance of future applications for Commonwealth funding for the City of Glen Eira being successful.' Why did the minister threaten the council? 14:51 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I thank Senator Walsh for her question. I am not familiar with the correspondence to which she is referring. Perhaps she could table that correspondence so that we can all become familiar with that correspondence. What I can say is that the provision of commuter car parks under the Urban Congestion Fund was an important commitment and part of the Australian government's budgeted more than $5 million towards busting congestion, reducing time that people spend going to work and coming home from work, and spending more time with their families. We know that this is an important election commitment. It was not just an election commitment; it was a budgeted commitment. We know how important it was because it was a very similar program to that of the Labor Party. In fact, the Labor Party park-and-ride fund was almost identical. It was announced the day after it was announced by then opposition leader Bill Shorten. There were announcements of commuter car parks in places like Woy Woy. The day after the fund was announced, it was announced, by Woy Woy, by Senator Deb O'Neill. Does that sound right to Senator O'Neill? You announced a car park. That's extraordinary! The PRESIDENT 30484 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU A point of order on direct relevance. The question went to why Minister Fletcher threatened the council. The minister said she's not aware. I have, here, the letter from Mr Fletcher, in which the threat is made. I seek leave to table it so the minister can respond directly to the question. The PRESID 30484 Is leave granted? Leave is granted. Minister, I'll just rule on the point of order. I will bring you back to the question. It was a reasonably specific question. I'll bring you back to the question, and you have the call for 35 seconds. Senator HUM 266499 I thank, very much, Senator Wong for obliging the government with a copy of the letter. It would have been much handier if we'd had that at the beginning of the question. If you would like us to respond to a piece of correspondence it would be very handy if we actually had the correspondence in front of us while we were answering the question. But that's alright, you can do a little bit of political pointscoring. What I can tell you is that in 2018 Glen Eira council provided the member for Goldstein with a set of project proposals that included commuter car park upgrades in Bentleigh and Elsternwick. As is the prerogative of all members of the House— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Walsh, a supplementary question? 14:54 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria An independent report found that the proposed commuter car parks wouldn't remove cars from the road but would increase congestion around the car parks. How many car parks will the Morrison-Joyce government fund for their own political purposes, against the advice of their departments and the wishes of state and local governments who deliver them? 14:54 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria What I can say, and was continuing to say, is that, as is his prerogative—and as is the prerogative of all members of the House—the member for Goldstein advocated for his community and successfully secured funding for those projects in Glen Eira. On those projects, in August 2020 the mayor of the council said, 'Substantial federal government funding— The PRESIDENT 30484 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator O'Neill, please withdraw. Senator O'Neill 140651 I didn't call her a [inaudible]. The PRESIDENT 30484 Sorry. I may have misheard. Senator O'Neill, if you did not say something disorderly— Senator O'Neill 140651 I did not use the word that you don't want me to name again, but I did say something about truth, yes. The PRESIDENT 30484 Minister, you have the call. Senator HUME 266499 I thank Senator O'Neill for her good manners. On the projects, in August 2020 the mayor of the council said, 'Substantial federal government'—I'm quoting, and I know you love a good quote, Senator O'Neill—'funding has allowed us to bring forward these two— Senator HUME 266499 I'm sorry, Senator Wong. I can't hear myself, let alone you. The PRESIDENT 30484 Order, Senator Wong! Minister, you have the call. Senator HUME 266499 'Substantial federal government funding'—this is from the council—'has allowed us to bring forward these two priority projects, meaning that— (Time expired) The 10000 Senator Walsh? 14:56 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Given the council said that the proposed car parks would create more congestion, can the minister confirm that this money was just another taxpayer funded rort to get Mr Tim Wilson re-elected in Goldstein? 14:57 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Can I suggest that Mr Wilson has absolutely no problem beating whatever candidate you put up in Goldstein. What I can say is that what we are seeing is nothing more than a petty partisan stunt by Labor and, dare I say, by the Greens councillors in Glen Eira, who are determined to strip their own constituents of hard-won funding to generate a headline and score a cheap political point. I wonder who they learned that from. International Day of People with Disability 6995 14:57 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia My question is to a fellow Western Australian, the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Senator Reynolds. It's a question I'm sure we'll all be united on. Can the minister please advise the Senate of why International Day of People with Disability is so important? 14:58 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Thank you to Senator O'Sullivan for his commitment to people with disability right across our nation. Here in this place we often focus on what divides us, instead of on those things that unite us and on achieving what we could be proud of— The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Thorpe, is this a point of order? Senator Thorpe 280304 Point of order: in the last eight hours, we've had two Aboriginal women die in custody! The PRESIDENT 30484 There is no point of order. Senator Thorpe, resume your seat. The PRESIDENT 30484 There is no point of order. Senator Thorpe! The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Thorpe. Order in the chamber. Minister, you have the call. Senator REYNOLDS 250216 I think that was a great example of one of the things that can inadvertently divide us in this chamber. This Friday, 3 December, is International Day of People with Disability. It is a great opportunity for us all in this chamber to focus on the things that unite us and the achievements that we can all be proud of. This day is about recognising people with disability and how we all support them to realise their aspirations and realise their full potential. The NDIS plays a critically important role in supporting 480,000 Australians to achieve their own life goals, just as we all aspire to do. Let me share with you one of the 480,000 individual stories of how the NDIS is changing lives. Mr Kupics from Victoria wrote to me recently and said: 'My support worker and the NDIS funding have provided me with the opportunities I never ever thought I would have again.' The letter goes on, saying how exercise, healthy eating and getting outside to enjoy the sunshine have been completely life changing for him, as it allows Mr Kupics to stay positive and also to continue to work. He also said: 'I can't be thankful enough for my government implementing the NDIS.' On International Day of People with Disability, we unite across the political divide to acknowledge the contribution of people with disability and our bipartisan, in fact multipartisan, support for their aspirations. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator O'Sullivan, a supplementary question? 15:01 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Minister, how is the NDIS helping to deliver on Australia's commitment to implementing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability? 15:01 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Thank you again for the question. Australians can also be incredibly proud that we were one of the first nations in 2007 to sign the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability. We can also be very proud that we continue to lead the world in implementation. Again, the NDIS is a great example of this as a world-first scheme that promotes dignity and respect and puts participants at the heart of decision-making about their own lives and about what they aspire to achieve. Choice and control mean that NDIS participants are more able to participate in our community and in society both economically and personally and also to live their lives independently. The Morrison government is committed to ensuring that the NDIS endures and continues to deliver for the 480,000 participants and also for their families, whose lives have been changed by this scheme. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator O'Sullivan, a second supplementary question? 15:02 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I thank the minister for that answer. How is the Liberal and National government ensuring that all NDIS participants are provided opportunities to participate and achieve their goals? 15:02 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Thank you very much, again, for that question. The NDIS has been transformative for hundreds of thousands of Australians with permanent and very significant disability. It's also important to remember that it not only changes their lives; it also changes the lives of their family and those who love and care for them. Being a world's-first scheme, there were bound to be teething issues with a scheme still being designed as it was rolled out to welcome hundreds of thousands of individuals into the scheme. But, with eight years experience behind us now, now is the time to again work together to mature and to evolve the scheme. I would like to thank the states and territories and also, in particular, the disability representative organisations for their engagement on a wide range of issues and reforms to continue to improve the scheme. I will shortly be bringing forward a bill for the Senate to consider to further improve the participant experience. (Time expired) Senator Birmingham H6X I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. BUSINESS 6996 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 6996 15:04 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of legislation. The PRESIDENT 30484 Is leave granted? An opposition senator: No. The PRESIDENT 30484 Leave is not granted. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that a motion relating to the consideration of legislation may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate. And I move: That the question be now put. The PRESIDENT 30484 The question is that the question now be put.    

The Senate divided. [15:08]
(The President—Senator Brockman)

 33 AYES Abetz, E. Askew, W. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Fierravanti-Wells, C. A. Griff, S. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kitching, K. J. E. Lambie, J. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. McMahon, S. J. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payne, M. A. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Small, B. J. Smith, D. A. (Teller) Stoker, A. J. 8 NOES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Patrick, R. L. Rice, J. E. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:09 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria (In division) [Inaudible.] Two dead black— The PRESIDENT 30484 Order in the chamber! Senator Thorpe 280304 You've got blood on your hands! The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Thorpe and Senator McKenzie! The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Thorpe, we all have to be responsible for our own actions. Allow the whips to do the count! The PRESIDENT 30484 Order! Senator Thorpe and Senator Canavan! Senator Birmingham H6X Mr President, can I ask all senators—those voting with the ayes and those voting with the noes—for silence to assist the tellers in the count of this process. That's from all corners of the chamber, please. The PRESIDENT 30484 There should be silence in the chamber during the counting of a division. The question now is that the suspension be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:12]
(The President—Senator Brockman)

 33 AYES Abetz, E. Askew, W. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Fierravanti-Wells, C. A. Griff, S. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kitching, K. J. E. Lambie, J. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. McMahon, S. J. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payne, M. A. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Small, B. J. Smith, D. A. (Teller) Stoker, A. J. 8 NOES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Patrick, R. L. Rice, J. E. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:14 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move: That a motion relating to the consideration of legislation may be moved immediately and be determined without amendment or debate. I also move: That the question be now put. The PRESIDENT 30484 The question is that the question now be put.    

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

 34 AYES Abetz, E. Askew, W. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Fawcett, D. J. Fierravanti-Wells, C. A. Griff, S. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kitching, K. J. E. Lambie, J. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. McMahon, S. J. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payne, M. A. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Small, B. J. Smith, D. A. (Teller) Stoker, A. J. 8 NOES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Patrick, R. L. Rice, J. E. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

15:17 The PRESIDENT 30484 I will now put that the precedence motion be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:18]
(The President—Senator Brockman)

 34 AYES Abetz, E. Askew, W. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Fawcett, D. J. Fierravanti-Wells, C. A. Griff, S. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kitching, K. J. E. Lambie, J. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. McMahon, S. J. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payne, M. A. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Small, B. J. Smith, D. A. (Teller) Stoker, A. J. 8 NOES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Patrick, R. L. Rice, J. E. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:21 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move the motion as circulated: That: (a) the hours of meeting for today be 9.30 am to adjournment; (b) the following bills be called on immediately and have precedence over all other business: (i) Telstra Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021, (ii) Autonomous Sanction Reform (Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021, (iii) Defence Legislation Amendment (Discipline Reform) Bill 2021, and (iv) Electoral Legislation Amendment (Political Campaigners) Bill 2021; (c) if consideration of the bills has not concluded by 6.20 pm the questions on all remaining stages be put without debate; (d) paragraph (c) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and (e) following consideration of the bills, the routine of business be as follows: (i) petitions, (ii) notices of motion, (iii) postponement and rearrangement of business, (iv) discovery of formal business, (v) tabling and consideration of committee reports, and (vi) adjournment without debate. The PRESIDENT 30484 The question is the motion be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:22]
(The President—Senator Brockman)

 32 AYES Abetz, E. Askew, W. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Fawcett, D. J. Fierravanti-Wells, C. A. Griff, S. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kitching, K. J. E. Lambie, J. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. McMahon, S. J. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Small, B. J. Smith, D. A. (Teller) Stoker, A. J. 8 NOES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Patrick, R. L. Rice, J. E. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 BILLS 7001 BILLS Telstra Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 7001

Telstra Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021

Second Reading 7001 15:24 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales It is terrific to be able to continue my remarks about this bill, the Telstra Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021. I note that the changes proposed in this bill still maintain a significant degree of control over this corporation. I think it is incumbent upon us as the elected officials to consider the longer-term view here about the mass disruption of the technology industry of telecommunications, the role of big-tech organisations, and media disruption. We need to think about whether or not we should be sustaining highly detailed, quite prescriptive arrangements for particular companies that were once monopolies. I think that's a good question for us to consider. The changes proposed in this bill that is before the chamber are an updating and upgrading of the functioning of the governance arrangements of the corporation. I think, given that there's always been a heavy need to have regulation for telecommunications companies, especially to provide universal services into the regions, it is, of course, appropriate that this be updated over time. But, as I say, I think that over the long term we want to make sure that we have an economy that is governed by dynamic rules, that isn't stuck in the past and that isn't looking to put in place arrangements which hold the country back. It's very important that this particular bill pass now, but I suggest that the chamber, the government and the parliament consider further opportunities to upgrade all of our settings in this space. 15:27 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I thank those senators who have contributed to the debate on this bill, the Telstra Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021. I also thank the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for its report on the bill and its recommendation that the bill be passed. This bill will amend a range of telecommunication legislation to maintain regulatory obligations that protect consumers and promote competition, in response to Telstra's proposed restructure. These obligations cover core parts of Telstra's longstanding regulatory arrangements, including its corporate obligations, put in place at the time of its privatisation. Without legislative amendment, there is a risk that Telstra's obligations would become less effective or cease to apply to its successor entities following this or any future restructure. While there have been significant changes in the telecommunication industry over the past decade, Telstra continues to play a key role nationally both in metropolitan and in regional, rural and remote Australia. Telstra's role has long been underpinned by a range of regulated consumer safeguards, including the universal service obligation, which requires Telstra to deliver basic telephone and payphone services in rural and remote areas; the customer service guarantee; the network reliability framework; priority assistance; and the operation of the triple-0 emergency call service. The effect of this bill, if passed, is that obligations which presently apply to Telstra under its current organisational structure will continue to apply following Telstra's restructuring. This, in turn, will be important to achieving the continued protection of consumers, the promotion of competition and the support of Telstra's public interest roles in Australia's telecommunications market. I commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 7002 15:29 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 As no amendments to the bill have been circulated and no senator requires a committee stage, I shall call the minister to move the third reading. 15:29 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021 7002

Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021

Second Reading 7002 15:29 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I rise to speak on behalf of the Labor Party on the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021, which seeks to amend the Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011 to enable the listing of individuals and entities responsible for or complicit in egregious conduct, including the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, threats to international peace and security, malicious cyber activity, serious violations or serious abuses of human rights, activities undermining good governance or the rule of law including serious corruption. This is an important addition to Australia's existing Autonomous Sanctions Act introduced and passed by Labor in 2011. It significantly broadens the scope of activities counter to Australia's interests for which financial sanctions may be applied. For the past 10 years, Australia's ability to implement sanctions against individuals was more limited to those responsible for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats to international peace and security, and to regimes that committed grave human rights abuses or acts of aggression. These sanctions enabled Australia to take seriously our international commitments to peace and security, while further augmenting pressure on foreign regimes where the UN Security Council sanctions had been adopted; for example, those which were applied in relation to Iran and North Korea as well as for Syria, Zimbabwe and Russia. But it has become increasingly apparent that an update and broadening of the scope of activities to which sanctions may be applied is necessary. We are more than 70 years from the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As Eleanor Roosevelt described it, the 'international Magna Carta for all mankind'—or humankind. With its foundations in the four freedoms proclaimed by her husband—freedom of speech, freedom to worship, freedom from want, freedom from fear—with its recognition that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and its implication that, to be sincere, this must encompass civil and socioeconomic rights, it remains as profound as ever and perhaps it remains as aspirational as ever. Because while we have seen so many advances in human rights, we have also seen stagnation and we have seen deterioration. While the pandemic has fostered greater awareness and debate in some societies about the devastations of poverty and inequality, in other places, political leaders have sought to manipulate the circumstances of the pandemic to further weaken human rights. Sadly, this is also not a new phenomenon. Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian lawyer and tax auditor, who was hired in 2007 to investigate corruption by Russian interior ministry officials. After uncovering a US$230 million scam, Magnitsky was arrested, detained and tortured. Denied medical treatment and family visits, he died in prison in 2009 at the age of 37. It is in his name that advocates around the world have sought to shed light on those individuals, governments and regimes that use their power to crush dissent and resist accountability and those who commit gross human rights violations. In the absence of sufficient accountability mechanisms that raise the cost of such behaviour, it falls to nation-states to act. Previously, through our UN commitments, Australia targeted entire regimes for nefarious behaviours, grave abuses and serious risks to international peace and security. The Autonomous Sanctions Act that a Labor government brought forward and legislated in 2011 enabled sanctions that targeted countries and individuals independent of multilateral arrangements and these have proved an important tool of Australia's foreign policy, targeting those responsible for egregious behaviours whilst limiting the negative consequence on others by depriving access to capital, goods and services. But it is clear we need to go beyond what has traditionally been the realm of sanctions, threats to international peace and security. We need to use sanctions to help support agreed international norms of human rights and to be a force for positive change. As the global Magnitsky movement has shown, depriving human rights abusers of their wealth and ability to travel can hit them where it hurts. Magnitsky sanctions will ensure that those responsible cannot seek safe haven for themselves or for their assets in Australia. Legislation referencing Mr Magnitsky has been enacted in various jurisdictions, including in the US, the European Union, Canada and the United Kingdom, since 2012. In Australia, Labor and others have been calling for Australia to join our friends and partners in the introduction of Magnitsky-style sanctions for some time. As shadow foreign minister, I've previously raised the need for such sanctions with the Turnbull and Morrison governments, including with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. For some time, the prevailing view in the Morrison and Turnbull governments was that such a regime was not necessary—that the Autonomous Sanctions Act, introduced by Labor, already allowed for the listing of individuals and entities complicit in human rights abuses abroad. But Labor took the view that Australia being part of the global Magnitsky movement was in our national interests because it is in our interests that we work to generate and preserve global public goods. Shaping the world for the better, something all of us in public life should aspire to, includes promoting issues and principles which we believe are of common benefit to all nations and all peoples. This is at the heart of Labor's foreign policy tradition. Magnitsky sanctions and formalised engagements with NGOs to target those responsible for human rights abuses are contemporary expressions of that tradition. Enshrining in law those actions that are counter to our interests is an important signal to the perpetrators and beneficiaries of egregious human rights abuses, as well as threats to international peace and security. Working with our like-minded partners would enable effective and timely targeting of individuals and entities responsible for such conduct, whilst also minimising the impact on the broader population. In December last year, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade recommended the Australian government 'enact standalone targeted sanctions legislation to address human rights violations and corruption', or a Magnitsky act, that should be able to receive nominations from any sources. I acknowledge the committee and its chair, Senator Fawcett; and, in particular, the Human Rights Sub-Committee, chaired by Mr Andrews; and the Labor members of that committee and the subcommittee—Ms Swanson, Senators Ayres and Kitching, Mr Gorman, Mr Hayes, Mr Hill, Mr Khalil, Senators McCarthy, O'Neill and Sheldon, and Ms Vamvakinou—for their leadership and work to bring this bill into existence. The Morrison government did not respond to the committee's recommendations until August this year, and it has taken a further three months for this bill to be introduced. Whilst it is a welcome step that the government has introduced it, the delay in introducing Magnitsky-style sanctions has sent a regrettable message—that Australia is not committed and that we do not take human rights abuses seriously. Meanwhile, we have seen increasing and disturbing reports of human rights violations around the world, and, in some places, political leaders have sought to manipulate the circumstances of the pandemic to further weaken human rights. Mr Magnitsky is not alone among those who seek to expose abuse and wrongdoings by those in power. As we speak today, Chinese citizen journalist Zhang Zhan is on a hunger strike and at risk of dying without the urgent medical requirements she needs. Ms Zhang was sentenced to four years of prison in December 2020 for social media posts critical of the handling of the early COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan. The 1 February military coup in Myanmar was a direct attack on the country's ongoing democratic transition—a democratic transition which Australia and Australians had been deeply supportive of. The subsequent violent crackdown against those protesting the coup saw thousands of political prisoners detained and civilians killed by security forces. Ten months have passed, and Australia stands alone amongst the UK, the United States, Canada and the European Union in refusing to apply any additional targeted sanctions against those responsible for the violence. And now we have reports that Australia's Future Fund—that is, taxpayers' funds—has been investing in joint ventures with the Tatmadaw and Chinese weapons manufacturers dealing in Myanmar. I have written to the minister and expressed my deep concern about these reports. Our Future Fund should not be investing in Tatmadaw linked entities and should not be profiting from the Tatmadaw's attack on Myanmar's democracy. Importantly, the regulations of this bill enable the listing of individuals or entities that engage in serious violations of a person's right not to be held in slavery or be required to perform forced labour. Modern slavery is real. Modern slavery, including forced labour and forced marriage, still affects millions of people, including in our region. In 2017, an estimated 40 million people around the world were living in conditions of modern slavery, and 24.9 million of them were in forced labour situations. Research by the Walk Free Foundation has found that one in every 130 women and girls around the world are living in modern slavery. When it comes to criticising these violations, Australia cannot bring the moral credibility we need to the table unless we strengthen our own Modern Slavery Act. So I again continue my call on the Morrison government to work with us and the crossbench to improve the Modern Slavery Act, to introduce tougher penalties for noncompliance and to strengthen mandatory reporting requirements on possible exposures to abuses. Certainly, if elected, Labor will place ending modern slavery as a central priority of our international human rights engagement. This would include sanctions against those directly profiting from forced labour and modern slavery. It is incumbent upon the Australian government to prosecute our interests, including support for human rights and democratic freedoms. Decisions to implement sanctions against individuals and entities are and should remain executive decisions of government, which have to take account of all relevant factors, including foreign and strategic interests and implications of bilateral relations. But it would also be appropriate to consult more widely. The process leading up to this legislation has laid bare some of the deficiencies in the Morrison government's engagement with human rights advocates and diaspora community groups. So often, their insights—not to mention their real-time reporting and on-the-ground knowledge—have been ignored. If elected, Labor would correct this. We also believe that the themes of the bill under which sanctions can be applied are insufficiently wide. The bill does not cover the violations of the rules and norms of armed conflict. It does not cover the crime of genocide or other crimes against humanity. It does not cover instances where rape and sexual violence are used as weapons of war. It does not cover the targeting of civilians, nor the manipulation or blockage of humanitarian aid in conflict zones. This is why we will amend this legislation to enshrine violations of international humanitarian law—the law of conflict as an additional theme under which sanctions can be applied. This is a view that has been clearly communicated—certainly, to us, and I assume to the government—by human rights NGOs, including Human Rights Watch Australia and Save the Children, and I thank them publicly for their constructive engagement in providing feedback to the government's bill. There is a further amendment I urge the government to consider. This is Australia's Magnitsky Act, which is why, today, we will move an amendment to include 'Magnitsky' in the title of the bill, as a strong signal of Australia's support for the global Magnitsky movement. 15:42 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I rise to speak on the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021. First up, I do want to thank the foreign minister and her office for their work on this legislation. As the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade set out in a unanimous report, it's important that Australia adopt Magnitsky legislation and be part of the global Magnitsky movement, to enable the application of targeted sanctions against human rights abusers. This legislation isn't called Magnitsky legislation, but, in enacting this framework, Australia will be following in the steps of other countries around the world, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and others, who have created legislative frameworks to impose targeted sanctions against human rights abusers. This legislation does not go as far as the unanimous committee report recommended, but it is a very good beginning. I and the Greens will be moving amendments to strengthen and improve this legislation so that it goes closer to what the committee report unanimously recommended. But, in talking about committee reports and bills and targeted sanctions frameworks, it's easy to lose sight of why this matters. It matters because this framework, when applied correctly, can be a tool to support human rights around the world and to respond to those who attack and undermine them. I want to share the story of an anonymous prisoner who was taken captive by junta forces in Myanmar: The soldiers in rural Myanmar twisted the young man's skin with pliers and kicked him in the chest until he couldn't breathe. Then they taunted him about his family until his heart ached, too: "Your mom," they jeered, "cannot save you anymore." The young man and his friend, randomly arrested as they rode their bikes home, were subjected to hours of agony inside a town hall transformed by the military into a torture center. As the interrogators' blows rained down, their relentless questions tumbled through his mind. "There was no break – it was constant," he says … Sadly, that isn't an isolated story. From the same reporting by AP of torture by the junta forces: The prisoners came from every corner of the country and from various ethnic groups, and ranged from a 16-year-old girl to monks. Some were detained for protesting against the military, others for no discernible reason. Multiple military units and police were involved in the interrogations, their methods of torture similar across Myanmar. The attacks by junta forces on human rights and democratic freedoms have been relentless since the coup in February this year—and I want to acknowledge the work of others in this place, including Senator Smith and the member for Wills in the other place and many others in this building, as we have worked together to highlight the horrific situation in Myanmar. Australia should respond to the human rights abuses occurring in Myanmar and elsewhere around the world. We think targeted sanctions are a good step and an important step in responding to the human rights abuses. I use Myanmar as an example, but this issue is much broader and goes to countries around the world. Here in Australia, we must be doing more to address human rights violations. We cannot claim to impose sanctions with any credibility unless we are willing to uphold human rights here in Australia. That must start with justice for First Nations peoples but address a whole range of issues. I'm proud to be part of the Greens, who call out human rights abuses wherever they occur. My heart goes out to the two First Nations women who we have just heard have died in custody in the last day. Our response must include where human rights abuses occur in other countries as well. In West Papua we have seen attacks on civilian populations. In the Philippines, protesters have been killed. In China, we have consistently called for action on targeted sanctions against the officials who have been responsible for the cultural genocide of the Uighur people. Our approach to human rights should be consistent, calling out human rights abuses wherever they occur, whether by Australia's allies, including the United States and India, or against Tibetans and Hongkongers or in other countries around the world. Australia should place human rights at the centre of our approach to foreign policy, not just a selfish interpretation of what's in the national interest. And, sadly, we need more than a legislative framework that enables the minister impose sanctions. We need a fair process and we need the political will to impose sanctions. In raising the issue of the will to impose sanctions, I want to return to and highlight particularly the case of Myanmar and to foreshadow that we've got substantive amendments to the bill that go to some of these points. I'd like to quote here from a submission provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the joint standing committee during the inquiry. Keep in mind that this was written before this bill was introduced, early in the inquiry, referring to the existing legislative framework. The submission states: Within the current autonomous sanctions framework, Australia could establish thematic sanctions regimes, such as a human rights based regime, where the regime is not tied to a particular country. Such a regime could comprise targeted financial sanctions and travel bans, which could be directed against individuals or entities designated or declared on human rights grounds. This submission outlines two ways to establish a thematic human rights based regime: one, by way of new standalone legislation, or, two, through incorporation into the existing autonomous sanctions framework by way of an amendment to regulations. Clearly DFAT's very public advice was that there was no need for a new act in order to impose targeted sanctions on human rights grounds. We welcome these amendments that will make it clearer that there is an opportunity to impose thematic sanctions, including on human rights grounds, but the fundamental point here is that we could have been using the existing legislative framework to impose thematic sanctions. We could have imposed targeted sanctions against the generals leading the coup in Myanmar when it started in 2021. The reason that we chose not to, as far as we can tell, based on multiple rounds of multiple questions in Senate estimates, is that the Minister for Foreign Affairs believes that it's in Australia's interest to follow the approach of ASEAN. Sadly, that point has been addressed repeatedly and publicly but to no avail. I'd like to quote from a letter written by current and former ASEAN members of parliament: More than six months since the military coup and the subsequent campaign of violence unleashed by the Myanmar Army, ASEAN has failed in its responsibility to the people of Myanmar, and the broader international community.    …   …   … ASEAN's very own principles of non-interference and consensus-based decision making prevent the bloc from taking any meaningful steps towards an end of violence in Myanmar. Even its provisions of humanitarian aid, if it takes place, risks further legitimizing the junta, and not reach those in need. In that regard we would like to echo the findings of our fellow parliamentarians from Australia who in their recent Inquiry into certain aspects of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Annual Report 2019-20—Myanmar, noted that: "there are complex relations within and between ASEAN nations, and that this led to concerns that ASEAN would not intervene decisively on the Myanmar crisis. This reflects a fundamental problem in the current legislative approach that we are looking at today. It simply strengthens the legislative framework for powers that the foreign minister already has but has refused to use. We support this bill, and we welcome it, but it does not address this fundamental problem, which is that Australia has not imposed targeted sanctions using the legislative tools already available. This goes now to the amendments we will be debating later today. I can foreshadow that we will welcome and support the amendments circulated by the Labor Party. In turn, our amendments, I believe, would significantly improve the bill, if supported. In particular, I'd like to go to the issue of how the minister selects which individuals should be targets of sanctions. The joint standing committee report says: The Sub-committee considers that there should be an established and transparent pathway for organisations to nominate a person for sanctionable conduct. The Sub-committee recommends that an independent advisory body be created to receive nominations, consider them and make recommendations to the Minister for a decision. This would provide a degree of public confidence in the process of nomination, and allow representations from those people and organisations directly affected. The structure and composition of this body would be the subject of further consultation, however the Sub-committee considers it should include the ability to conduct its inquiry in public and to publish reasons for its decision. It is also important that recommendations by the independent advisory body must be considered by the Minister and that the Minister must give reasons for any decision not to adopt a recommendation by the advisory body. This is a very important recommendation from the committee and it is extremely disappointing that it's not been adopted in the legislation that we are discussing this afternoon. However, in its response, the government notes that the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade could fulfil some of the functions of that independent advisory body. Given that, I hope that the minister will welcome the amendments that I'll be moving today. Broadly speaking, those amendments, the ones on sheet 1502, would create a framework to enable referrals to the minister, including through the joint standing committee. The minister would remain the decision-maker and the power to impose sanctions would remain with the executive, unchanged by the amendment. All that would change is there would be an established and transparent pathway to nominate individuals for sanctionable conduct. The United States adopts a similar approach, with congressional committees able to refer names with a response required from the executive government. We think this is a very reasonable, balanced approach and it addresses a fundamental flaw in this legislation. I will be moving a number of other amendments, but let me reiterate: we welcome this bill and are keen to ensure it passes before the end of the year—we are keen to ensure that it passes today—but we think it can be improved. The amendments we have circulated will help improve the bill and, in turn, provide a better framework for protecting human rights. I want to go through some of the details of the amendments, because I'm not at all certain, with the guillotining of debate, that we're going to get to full committee stage for this bill or whether we're just going to ram through amendments. I will go through some of the points with each of my amendments. Let me reiterate: my amendment sheet 1502 addresses an important gap in the current bill. It creates an established and transparent pathway for referrals and provides for review in three years, as recommended by the joint standing committee. This is a fundamental point: if this bill is to genuinely create a framework for protecting human rights and not simply create targeted sanctions as a tool that the minister can use for geopolitical reasons, then there must be a capacity for an established, transparent pathway for human rights abusers to be nominated. Here in Australia we have seen horrific human rights abuses. And some of Australia's close regional neighbours, as well as major international allies, have committed significant human rights abuses. That includes the Indonesian government, the Philippines government, the government of India and the United States government. If the Australian government is to avoid claims that targeted sanctions are anything more than a thinly-veiled tool for advancing Australia's so-called 'national interest' under the guise of human rights then there must be some basic framework and those transparent pathways to how these sanctions are applied. My amendments on sheet 1508 reflect recommendations from the joint standing committee and our consultation with civil society. We think that they will significantly improve the framework and the capacity of civil society to engage in these issues while not detracting from the minister's powers. I reiterate: the Australian Greens will support this legislation, but I do look forward to the support of others in this place for our amendments. We think they would improve the bill significantly. I also wish to note that I circulated a second reading amendment but I'm not going to proceed with it. 15:56 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria I am pleased today to rise to speak on the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021. The world is at a tipping point in the struggle against creeping or, in some places, marching, authoritarianism. In Australia, we live with the benefits of a stable and prosperous democracy. Its superiority over any other model of political and economic organisation may seem self-evident, but this is actually not the case for many people in many parts of the world. Democracy and personal liberty cannot be taken for granted anywhere or at any time. They must be defended and, if I may put it this way, they must be defended aggressively in all of our countries. The practical application of human freedom through political participation in democracy as a universal idea is central to our humanity, and so are human rights and the protection of human rights. While these notions had their origins in Europe and North America, they are not Western in essence. They are universal, and just as applicable in the developing world as they are in the developed world. As the United States Declaration of Independence expresses it: WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness— … And the Declaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen de 1789 contains a very similar principle Art. 1er. Les hommes naissent et demeurent libres et egaux en droits. Les distinctions sociales ne peuvent etre fondees que sur l'utilite commune. We must remind ourselves that these are quite radical ideals. Throughout history they have not been the norm. For evidence of how fragile democracy is, we need only look at certain parts of the world where, in recent years, we have seen a slide back to authoritarian governments. In that context, the fault lines are there for all of us to see. Many of the great democracies, the 'free world', if you like—and I'm sorry that that has become a controversial expression, but it's the free world of which I'm very proud—Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Japan, New Zealand and, of course, our great alliance partner the United States of America, respect human rights, the rule of law, the protection of private property rights and the right to speak out about political issues without fear of a knock on the door at midnight. Just imagine what that's like to live with—someone coming to knock on your door to take you away. Of course, democracies don't always do this perfectly. The Declaration of Independence, which I quoted earlier, has not always guaranteed that the United States is free from error or the oppression and dispossession of its own citizens. And yet its ideals have lit the way to freedom. One only has to look at the T-shirts of those marching for freedom recently in Cuba or Hong Kong; those T-shirts were adorned with the American flag, the Stars and Stripes. However, no less a figure than Dr Martin Luther King Jr invoked that very phrase, 'We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal,' in the struggle for civil rights that led his nation to a more perfect union. And therein lies the genius of democracy: our willingness to accept imperfection, to own up to our mistakes, and then to use them as an example of how to be better and how to do better. The authoritarian world—I won't name individual countries—does not respect anything other than the maintenance and projection of power. It has ever been thus. Without the protections and due processes of democracy, even the most prosperous businesspeople can lose everything overnight, and we've seen this quite recently in a country in our region. The most innocent citizen can be jailed without cause. The most seemingly powerful official can be sent straight to jail, after a show trial, if she or he falls foul of their authoritarian ruler. In the authoritarian world, the average citizen lives looking over their shoulder, watched by facial recognition cameras, judged by a police state, randomly punished in the most brutal prisons imaginable, all while these abuses are aided, abetted and covered up by a controlled media. As democratic senator for New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said: 'If the newspapers of a country are filled with good news, the jails of that country will be filled with good people.' It is not wrong to say that one side, for all of our faults—which are many—is good and to say, equally, that to deny basic human rights and due process to any person is evil. 'Evil' is a word that some are uncomfortable with in our modern age. It is a word without which we cannot do, and I am idealistic enough to believe that you support good and you oppose evil, even if it costs you, even if it hurts you. History will judge us for this. Future generations will judge us for this. In this modern age, there are regimes run by the dregs of humanity, who, because they are so inhumane, torture and jail and murder their own citizens, and break their spirits; delight in causing fear; take away hope and humanity; place their citizens in concentration camps; steal from their compatriots; and enforce slavery and arbitrary detention. If you understand the beauty that it is to be a human being, of being alive and vital; if you believe in the dignity of human beings, then you can't really allow such evil to go unchallenged. And, if you do believe in the beauty of human life, then, for every person who lives under such regimes and cannot stand in the light but is shoved into the dark, you understand why Magnitsky legislation is necessary and you also understand why democracies must be supreme. President Kennedy said in his inaugural address that 'the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God'. Senator Abetz N26 Hear, hear! Senator KITCHING 247512 Thank you, Senator Abetz. He was, of course, when he said those words, referring to the Soviet Union, and look at it today—plus ca change. I'm not saying that democracies are always right. After all, it was from his jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama, that Martin Luther King Jr wrote these words, which should still ring in our ears—and they certainly ring in mine very often. He wrote: Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. But it is democracies where there is sunlight and transparency, that have a rule of law, that respect the rights of minorities, that believe in free and fair elections, that believe in the freedom of the press and that believe in human rights. It is they that are the promised land for those who suffer at the mean and ugly hands of authoritarian regimes. Democracies need to grow, not to contract. For those of us in this parliament and around the world who do not hold out an appeasing hand to those who commit human rights abuses, who do not hold out a slippery hand to those who engage in large-scale corruption; for those of us who tell these evil people, 'No, we will not look away while you do wrong,' but rather look them straight in the eye and say, 'We shall make pariahs of you all'; for those of us who choose to fight for the best world we can have; for those of us who will fight for justice and righteousness, we have made the only choice there is to make. I was recently in one of the oldest centres of democracy on this earth, Westminster, for an awards ceremony. I am honoured and humbled that I received an award for outstanding contribution to Magnitsky legislation. An honourable senator: Congratulations. Senator KITCHING 247512 Thank you. I will never forget some of the people I met there and had an opportunity to become better acquainted with in meetings concerning Magnitsky legislation. They included people whose hands have been permanently affected by the poison that agents of the Russian state had administered. Their hands are red and disfigured, the veins distorted. They have had to learn to walk again because they were so badly affected by the poison. They included people who were not able to come at all, because they are imprisoned with no due process or no process at all. They included journalists who have been threatened because they have written about despots and the money trails of their corruption and who are still being threatened years after their books and columns were published. Their publishers have been threatened, through both legal and extrajudicial means, and their families have been threatened. Maybe today is the day that they, or one of their children, put their hand on a doorknob at their home and that doorknob has been coated in poison. That's happened to people. Whether it be the Republic of Conscience, as imagined by Seamus Heaney, which makes clear that we are self-aware beings capable of self-examination, or whether we are guided by the Bible, the Torah, the Koran or the Vedas in the Bhagavad Gita, or whether it is what we see in our daily dealings with other human beings, we learn to distinguish what is right and what is wrong, what is moral and what is immoral and, indeed, what is good and what is evil. If we don't call out evil where it lurks, and if we don't fight back when given the opportunity to diminish and defeat evil, then who are we? What are we doing in this place? It is for that reason—the lack of respect for the rights of their fellow human beings—that we observe the phenomenon of those who have gamed the authoritarian system by stealing or by engaging in the most heinous human rights abuses and corruption and then seeking the safety of the free world's jurisdictions. They seek to protect themselves and their ill-gotten gains with the very protections they deny to the victims of their regimes. Our system of land title gives you as close to absolute certainty that no-one can steal your property from you. In the authoritarian world, there is no such safety. If someone with power wants to take, he or she can do just that. There might be the occasional fig leaf of pretend process, but the outcome is the same. That brings us to this bill. This bill is inspired by Sergei Magnitsky, an employee of hedge fund manager Bill Browder. Sergei Magnitsky was murdered by Russian crooks connected to the highest levels of the current Russian regime. He died in a Russian prison after being tortured. He was murdered because he had uncovered what were successful attempts to steal hundreds of millions of dollars from the Russian state. Mr Browder, the employer of Sergei Magnitsky, is a prosperous man, and I spent a quite a lot of time with him in London recently. He could have continued with a quiet and comfortable life, but he was so outraged and saddened that he has dedicated his life to what are now called Magnitsky laws. Prior to the introduction of the bill we are speaking on today, local proposals to do the same have been driven by many in this place. I want to talk about Michael Danby, who was the first person I talked to about Magnitsky legislation, having seen Bill Browder interviewed on 7.30. But I also want to acknowledge Senator Payne and her office, as Senator Rice has said. I want to acknowledge Senator Rice, and I want to acknowledge Senator James Paterson—another Victorian, so maybe Victoria really is where the good people are. I want to acknowledge Mr Hastie, in the other place, the Hon. Kevin Andrews and Mr Chris Hayes. And I want to acknowledge Senator Abetz and Senator Fierravanti-Wells. Although this was done in the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, the Senate standing committee was equally committed to this legislation, so I appreciate the work of my fellow committee members. On 3 December 2019, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women, Senator the Hon. Marise Payne, asked the Human Rights Subcommittee of the joint standing committee to inquire into the use of targeted sanctions. In that committee, we heard from a number of expert witnesses, both local and international. These included Bill Browder and prominent international lawyers Geoffrey Robertson QC and Amal Clooney, as well as former Canadian Attorney-General Professor Irwin Cotler. I met all of these people in London, and they have been, and remain, very generous with their time. I want to say thank you to them—they were amazing sounding-boards. I'd also like to also acknowledge again the members of the joint standing committee, particularly those on the Human Rights Subcommittee. I think it's also important—and this will be the last point I make—to synchronise our local response, through the passing of this bill, with the responses of like-minded democracies, which is why I'm so pleased Labor will be moving an amendment to put 'Magnitsky' into the title of this bill. In a world of growing authoritarianism, the harmonisation of this type of legislation becomes a weapon for democratic pushback. I'm in regular contact with New Zealand and Japanese legislators, and they hope to enact their own Magnitsky legislation. I think this will be very important for our region. A strong and clear message will be sent to lower-ranking officials and criminal thugs that their crimes, whether on behalf of or protected by their superiors, will not be immune from international consequences. This legislation says to them: 'Your stolen money is no good here. No matter how you steal from your people, there will be no shopping trips to Paris, no harbourfront mansions in Sydney, no skiing in Aspen and no nest egg in a Western bank.' Like King Midas, they will have lots of gold but no way to enjoy it. It will also say: 'You are beneath contempt. You are so loathsome that we have judged you and we will say so in public—we will name you. Australia will not be a fence for stolen goods nor a hollow log for stolen money.' This legislation is important. We are a democracy and as a democracy we should stand with other democracies and other like-minded people around the world and say no to the evil that we also see in our world. 16:11 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I rise to speak to the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021. I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by my colleague Senator Janet Rice. Senator Rice eloquently expressed the position of the Greens. We support this bill, but Senator Rice will be moving amendments, hopefully, to make this bill stronger. While we are talking about human rights and human rights abuses today I want to use this opportunity to highlight the hypocrisy on human rights in this chamber. Ever since I joined parliamentary life and, indeed, well before that I have been talking, perhaps non-stop, about human rights. My first speech in the New South Wales parliament way back in 2013 discussed the plight of girls in Pakistan. I have supported the human rights and self-determination of many marginalised and persecuted peoples around the world. In this chamber many senators get up and speak about human rights violations and human rights abuses—indeed, as they are doing today—but definitely choices are made about whose human rights will get the nod in here and whose are taboo. I can tell you that there is one group of people whose human rights don't matter to those opposite me—the Palestinian people. Palestinians for decades have been amongst the most oppressed people in the world. They are subject to daily humiliation, brutality and violence by the Israeli government. Their human rights are being violated and abused every single day, but in here they are not considered human enough to have rights. Obviously, they are not equal and everyone is not equal in the eyes of many in this chamber. Israeli authorities continue to persecute and oppress Palestinian people. Settlement and occupation continues. Violence continues. The Gaza blockade continues. Homes continue to be demolished. Palestinians are routinely subjected to dispossession, violence, forcible separation, persecution and humiliation. Yet as soon as you raise these injustices you are hounded and condemned. Shamefully and shamelessly they try to label you as anti-Semitic. It is all designed to shut you up, to silence you. I can tell you that your false accusations are not going to silence me. I will not be backing down in calling for an end to these injustices of settler colonialism, as I will not be backing down in talking about human rights abuses wherever they happen. Just recently the Israeli government labelled six Palestinian civil society and human rights organisations as terrorist groups. This is another attempt to criminalise criticism of Israel. This is an appalling and alarming decision, and it must be condemned, but there is no condemnation from the Australian government—all while they stand up here today and talk about human rights abuses. The former World Vision manager of operations in Gaza, Mohammed El Halabi, has been in detention in Israeli custody since 2016—that's five years ago. Israeli authorities allege that he diverted US$50 million donated to World Vision to armed groups for terrorism purposes, but comprehensive audits by World Vision and the Australian government found no evidence of funds being diverted. Yet he languishes in detention, his trial held behind closed doors in secret. So why aren't the so-called arbiters of human rights, who are sitting across the chamber, jumping up and down for a fair and transparent trial? Why has the Morrison government remained quiet about Mohammed's plight? They just don't care about Palestinian human rights and justice. In fact, they want to silence those who want justice for Palestinians. That's why Prime Minister Scott Morrison was so enthusiastic to adopt the IHRA working definition of anti-Semitism, which has been used to silence critics of the Israeli government for its human rights abuses of Palestinian people. It is clear that there is a very shallow understanding of human rights in this place. Human rights cannot be discarded when they become politically inconvenient. The reality is that many of those who are human rights converts when it comes to helping certain causes are just fairweather friends, because the ultimate taboo in Australian politics is to talk about the human rights of the Palestinian people. The hypocrisy on human rights in here can be seen by people out there. The reality is that change is not going to come from this chamber. It will come from out there, where people are rightly angry at the decades upon decades of injustices towards Palestinian people. They are tired of your silence. They are tired of being silenced. They are speaking up and they are standing up. I am one of those people who will not be silenced. 16:17 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I rise to speak on the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021. I have continued over the years to advocate for the enactment of laws to deal with perpetrators of human rights abuse and corruption by those who transfer assets to use them in countries which are usually democratic and financially stable. I thank Senator Kitching for her comments and for the strong sentiment with which she expressed them. I know that those of us who have been on this journey agree very much with the sentiment of her comments. She outlined the history of the Magnitsky legislation following the death of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, the work that Bill Browder has focused on and the efforts made internationally to bring human rights perpetrators to the front line of responsibility in introducing targeted sanctions. Standalone Magnitsky legislation has been introduced in various countries. I'm very pleased that the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, of which I'm a member, has recommended that we enact world-leading law to apply targeted sanctions to perpetrators of serious human rights abuse and corruption, so as to align Australia with the global movement and to limit opportunities for human rights abusers, corrupt officials and their beneficiaries to enjoy the proceeds of their abuse. The recommendations that were made by the committee were aimed at strengthening our commitment to protecting human rights, including banning entry of perpetrators to Australia and the capacity to seize assets. Therefore, proper and targeted sanctions legislation will make Australian places and institutions off limits to people who have profited from unconscionable conduct. I would have liked to see standalone legislation enacted, rather than an extension of the sanctions framework that we are now adopting. Having said that, I think this is a very good start to legislation. I am pleased that we are adopting the amendments that are going to be proposed by the Labor Party, as I understand, most especially to ensure that the name Magnitsky is included in the title, to emphasise the important links with the global movement. I am disappointed, though, that we are not going to have a watchlist of people being considered for sanctioning, given that many of them come from the range of authoritarian regimes that Senator Kitching referred to and that I have made comments about, particularly in relation to the communist regime in China and its skulduggery. I note that perhaps in the past there has been a reluctance and resistance to a full-blown Magnitsky standalone sanctions act. Whilst I think this piece of legislation is a good step in the right direction, I do think that ultimately there is scope for us to strengthen and enhance the framework in the future. 16:20 Senator ABETZ N26 Tasmania The Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021 has my full support. Much has been written and said about this legislation and other like pieces in other jurisdictions around the world. I commend Senator Kitching on an exceptionally good and powerful speech, the full contents of which I adopt, and I again congratulate her on a very, very good exposition on the matters that are before the chamber. I'm also delighted that, as I understand, the two amendments that Labor are moving will be adopted. To have the Magnitsky name in the title is, I think, fitting for this martyr, and that is what he is. So we're delighted that that is going to occur. I also understand that, in a breakout of bipartisanship, the Greens amendment in relation to having this legislation reviewed after three years by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade will also be adopted by the government. I think this bill has been one of the examples of our parliament working at its very best. I recall the journey myself, and I pay tribute to the former member for Melbourne Ports. He was the one that first made me aware of the name Magnitsky and then of the legislation that might be put forward in honour of his name. I then wrote to relevant people on my side of politics and got the polite 'not needed' response, which was then followed up with an acceptance that it might be a good idea for the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's subcommittee on human rights to have a look at this idea and whether it is needed in Australia. I was very pleased to be able to serve on that committee and come down with a unanimous report, where all members of the committee, under the very able chairmanship of the member for Menzies, Kevin Andrews, produced a result which has now been adopted, from what I can gather, by all sides of the parliament in both chambers. In short, that which is before us is legislation I fully support. Given the time constraints, I simply ask people who want to know my thoughts about this matter to read and look at things I may or may not have said in the past, but especially to read Senator Kitching's speech. 16:23 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I rise to make a contribution on the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021 to introduce a Magnitsky-style sanctions regime for Australia. It will be a brief contribution because of the time management motion in place to ensure this and other important legislation pass tonight. A Magnitsky-style sanctions regime is an idea whose time has come and, in the current geopolitical environment, has an irresistible logic. It has in recent times become a very popular cause, and I expect it will shortly pass this chamber unanimously, but that was not always the case. It was only a few years ago that it was a very lonely cause. I'm proud to have been one of the early advocates for Magnitsky sanctions before it was my party's policy to introduce them. I recognise that there are a number of others in the chamber and in the other place who were also early supporters of this important cause, in particular Senator Kitching and of course the member for Menzies, Kevin Andrews, who did a wonderful job chairing that inquiry. But I want to pay tribute to someone who has been recognised by others as well in this debate and who was earlier than all of us in in recognising the importance of this initiative, and that is of course the former member for Melbourne Ports, Michael Danby. Michael was publicly making the case for Magnitsky sanctions before it was cool and introduced in the previous parliament a private members' bill to legislate them. He in turn was inspired by Bill Browder and Senator John McCain, who pioneered and first instituted these sanctions in the United States, and they have since been widely adopted across the world. The sanctions were first enacted in memory of Sergei Magnitsky, who was murdered in custody in Russia, but this has since become a much wider cause for those who are oppressed all around the world. I'm very pleased that Australia is now standing with like-minded countries, including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union and many others, in equipping ourselves with a vital tool to combat rising authoritarianism. It is time democracies had the ability to push back and enact a real and personal cost for those who abuse human rights and seek to reshape the international rules-based order from one that respects the freedoms of the individual to one where the power can be exercised without any restraint. No longer will human rights abusing and corrupt foreign officials be able to comfort themselves with the idea that, even if they were sanctioned by our partners, Australia could be a safe haven for their ill-gotten gains or a refuge for them to flee to. I hope that soon, in a few years time, as momentum for sanction regimes like this grows all around the world, there will be nowhere that they can seek comfort or shelter. I am particularly pleased to see a uniquely Australian innovation in this version of a Magnitsky act. For the first time ever in the world, our act will equip us to target not only those who abuse human rights or engage in seriously corrupt conduct but also those who threaten our national interest in the cyber realm. This will become an increasingly important tool to help shape and deter our adversaries. In addition to the other measures we have at our disposal, like publicly attributing responsibility for cyberattacks, it will be particularly powerful if our allies and friends who already have Magnitsky schemes amend them to include this provision, and I encourage them to do so. Acting in concert, we can wield a powerful weapon of deterrence against those who seek to do us harm. In conclusion, I'd like to thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne, for bringing this proposal to the parliament today. It was Senator Payne who first referred this issue to the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, and it is Senator Payne who has brought forward this robust legislation today. In addition to the foreign relations act, which passed this time last year and which ensures that the federal government is in charge of our foreign policy—as it should be—Australia is equipping ourselves with the tools we need to defend our democracy, our sovereignty and our freedom in a dangerous world. In passing the bill tonight, and I hope in the House tomorrow, the parliament of Australia is sending a very strong message to those who would seek to bully and threaten us in seeking to change who we are. Australia is a proud liberal democracy. We will stand up for ourselves, our interests and our values on the international stage, no matter what you throw at us. 16:28 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Before the minister concludes the debate on the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021, as chair of Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade I'd like to thank the minister for her referral to the committee for us to consider this. I'd like to thank colleagues from all sides of the chamber and also the House for their constructive engagement, particularly Mr Kevin Andrews, who chaired the subcommittee. I'd also like to thank the executive for their constructive engagement after the report and their decision to proceed. I think it's quite appropriate that our system of democracy has worked—and worked well. It's why we should defend it, and I commend this bill to the house. 16:29 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales Let me begin by acknowledging and thanking those colleagues who have spoken on the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021 for their contributions to this very important debate. Some colleagues have been part of the policy discussion on Magnitsky-style legislation for many years, in particular colleagues who have spoken in here this afternoon. I acknowledge the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Senator Fawcett; the chair of the joint standing subcommittee, from the other place, Mr Kevin Andrews, and colleagues on the committee. That includes, of course, those across the parliament: Senator Rice, Senator Kitching, Senator Wong, my good friend Senator Paterson, Senator Abetz, Senator Fierravanti-Wells and many other colleagues who have contributed over time. This is an important reform. It's an important response to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's inquiry into the use of sanctions to target human rights abuses and violations. Senator Paterson is right: Australia has a strong history of promoting and protecting human rights globally, supporting the international rules based order and acting for the peace and security of the international community. As a government we've used our existing country-specific autonomous sanctions regimes to those ends, whether that includes human rights violations in Syria or Russian threats to sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Establishing new thematic sanctions will enhance the government's longstanding use of autonomous sanctions as a strategic foreign policy tool through which Australia can impose costs on and influence and deter those responsible for egregious situations of international concern, while minimising impacts on general populations. With this reform Australia introduces Magnitsky-style sanctions. The Magnitsky movement to establish thematic sanctions addressing human rights and corruption was indeed inspired by Sergei Magnitsky, the Russian lawyer who exposed fraud committed by Russian government officials, who was arrested and imprisoned. Subjected to degrading treatment and tortured, he died in custody on 16 November 2009. Through the advocacy of Bill Browder, whose firm Hermitage Capital Management Mr Magnitsky was advising, in 2012 the US congress passed the Magnitsky act, banning travel and freezing assets of those Russian officials responsible. Since then countries including Canada, the United States, the European Union and the United Kingdom began to create or update their respective sanctions frameworks to enable perpetrators of this egregious conduct to be sanctioned in a more timely way no matter where the conduct occurs. While that debate gathered momentum internationally, as others have said, I referred the matter for inquiry by the joint standing committee. An increasing number of like-minded countries have joined the movement. The bill is timely for Australia. It's a reform which will mean Australia can take timely action, including with like-minded partners, where its in the national interest, in response to situations of international concern wherever they occur in the world. Denying the perpetrators and beneficiaries of egregious acts from accessing our economy is essential and ensures they cannot benefit from the freedoms our democracy and rules based society allows. This reform will, importantly, ensure that Australia does not become an isolated, attractive safe haven for such people and entities and their illegal gains. Our government response included a commitment to introduce a new thematic cyber-regime, in addition to the regime canvassed by the committee. This additional tool will serve alongside other law enforcement and operational mechanisms to enhance Australia's responses to instances of egregious malicious cyberactivity that impact our interests. The government response also agreed to the Attorney-General being consulted in the making of thematic sanctions by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The minister will also consult any other relevant ministers to ensure consideration of all relevant foreign policy and national interest equities. These amendments set out the executive process by which thematic sanction decisions are made, not the material on which the minister can rely. In making a listing the minister can consider any relevant material that will assist in being reasonably satisfied the criteria are met, including credible material and information obtained by non-government organisations. The government strongly encourages public engagement on human rights and corruption issues and regular consultation with civil society, and will continue to receive suggestions for sanctions listings from a range of sources. The regulations will provide the specific criteria under which a person or entity could be sanctioned under these new thematic regimes should it be in Australia's national interests to do so. Embedding the new thematic regimes in our existing autonomous sanctions framework means that established processes and safeguards will continue to apply, not be duplicated across multiple sanctions, acts and frameworks. That's important to provide certainty and continuity for all of those who engage with our autonomous sanctions framework. This is similar to the approach taken by the United Kingdom, which does not have a standalone act and has a similar framework with regulations under an overarching act. The government encourages public engagement on these significant issues, and we look forward to continuing to receive future recommendations from parliament and civil society on possible listings. The bill will support the ongoing role of sanctions as a primary tool of statecraft by which Australia can define, defend and demonstrate our values globally, and can support a robust international rules based order. This is a significant reform, and I thank all of those who have worked collaboratively on it. I commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 7013 16:35 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—I move: (1)—Clause 1, page 1 (lines 5 and 6), omit "Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Thematic Sanctions) Act 2021", substitute "Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Magnitsky-style and Other Thematic Sanctions) Act 2021". (2)—Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 25), at the end of subsection 3(3), add: ; (f) serious violations of international humanitarian law. The amendments at item (2) goes to an expansion of the themes under which sanctions may be implemented to include serious violations of international humanitarian law. We are also, as flagged in my speech, seeking to move changes to the title of the legislation to include 'Magnitsky-style and Other Thematic Sanctions'. 16:36 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales The government supports both these amendments—in the interests of time! 16:37 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank the government for its support. 16:37 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I would indicate that we will also support these amendments. In particular, I think that amending the title to refer to Magnitsky is a very important amendment, so we're very happy to support it. Question agreed to. 16:37 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I move: (1) Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert: 4 Review of operation of amendments (1) The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade must commence a review of the operation of the amendments made by this Act as soon as possible after the end of 3 years after this Act commences. (2) The Committee must prepare a written report of the review. (3) The Committee must table the report in each House of the Parliament. This amendment requires the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to undertake a review of the operation of the amendments in the bill three years after it commences. This reflects recommendation 28 of the review and committee report by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Clearly, this is an important and significant step forward in our sanctions regime. I think that having this review process is also going to be incredibly important, to see just how many people are being sanctioned and what they're being sanctioned for—all of the issues that need to be reviewed. I understand that there's now going to be support for this amendment by the government, which I'm very thankful for and very pleased to acknowledge. Having this review process in the legislation I think is a significant improvement. 16:38 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales The government supports this amendment. Question agreed to. 16:39 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria by leave—I move: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 1), after "Amendments", insert "relating to thematic sanctions". (3) Page 5 (after line 13), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 2 — Amendments relating to targeted sanctions for human rights violations Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011 1 After paragraph 3(1)(b) insert: (ba) require the Minister to inform the Parliament about the application of autonomous sanctions for serious violations or serious abuses of human rights; and 2 Section 4 Insert: associated entity: an entity is an associated entity in relation to a person if: (a) the person controls, whether alone or jointly with another person and whether directly or indirectly: (i) at least 50% of the total value of the issued share capital of the entity; or (ii) at least 50% of the rights to distributions of capital or profits of the entity; or (iii) the right to cast at least 50% of the maximum number of votes that might be cast at a general meeting (however described) of the entity; or (iv) the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the board or other group of persons responsible for the administration or management of the affairs of the entity; or (b) the person has authority or responsibility for, or significant influence over, planning, directing or controlling the activities of the entity. However, an entity is not an associated entity in relation to a person if the person is an external administrator (within the meaning of Schedule 2 to the Corporations Act 2001) of the entity, or holds a similar position under a law of a foreign country. human rights has the same meaning as in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011. 3 After Part 2 Insert: Part 2A — Ministerial statements on sanctions relating to human rights 15A Minister must give statement on request by Parliam ent (1) This section applies if a resolution is passed by: (a) either House of the Parliament; or (b) the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade; or (c) the Human Rights Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade; or (d) the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee; requiring the Minister to prepare a statement in accordance with subsection (2) in relation to: (e) a person; or (f) a person and any associated entity of the person. (2) The Minister must prepare a statement setting out: (a) whether, in the Minister's opinion, the person is responsible for serious violations or serious abuses of human rights; and (b) whether autonomous sanctions will be applied to the person or associated entity; and (c) if autonomous sanctions will be applied—a description of those autonomous sanctions; and (d) if autonomous sanctions will not be applied—the reasons why autonomous sanctions will not be applied; and (e) details of any consultations undertaken by the Minister in preparing the statement, including any consultations with civil society. (3) The Minister must table the statement in both Houses of the Parliament within 120 days after the day the resolution is passed. 15B Minister m ust give statement in relation to Myanmar (1) The Minister must, within 30 days after the day on which this section commences: (a) prepare a statement in relation to the 2021 coup d'etat in Myanmar; and (b) table the statement in both Houses of the Parliament. (2) The statement must set out: (a) whether each person to whom subsection (3) applies is, in the Minister's opinion, responsible for serious violations or serious abuses of human rights; and (b) whether autonomous sanctions will be applied to those persons or associated entities of those persons; and (c) if autonomous sanctions will be applied—a description of those autonomous sanctions; and (d) if autonomous sanctions will not be applied—the reasons why autonomous sanctions will not be applied; and (e) details of any consultations undertaken by the Minister in preparing the statement, including any consultations with civil society. (3) This subsection applies to a person if: (a) the person is: (i) a former member of the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC); or (ii) a person who the Minister is satisfied is a business associate of the Myanmar military; or (iii) a current or former minister or a current or former deputy minister; or (iv) a current or former military officer of the rank of Brigadier-General or higher; or (v) a senior official in any of Myanmar's security or corrections agencies; or (vi) a current or former senior officeholder of the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) or the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA); or (vii) a senior official or executive in a state-owned or a military-owned enterprise; or (viii) an immediate family member of a person mentioned in any of subparagraphs (i) to (vii); or (ix) any other person that the Minister may designate as a designated person or declare as a declared person for Myanmar under subregulation 6(1) of the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011; and (b) the person is, or has been, responsible for, or complicit in, the 2021 coup d'etat in Myanmar. These amendments go to the issue of who ends up being sanctioned and the process of determining who ends up being sanctioned. As I foreshadowed in my speech in the second reading debate, the Greens think it's very important that these amendments would create an established and transparent pathway for referrals. It's fundamental, because if this bill is genuinely to create a framework for protecting human rights—and not simply creating a targeted sanctions regime as a tool that can be used to pick and choose who you are sanctioning—there has to be a capacity for an established, transparent pathway for human rights abusers to be nominated. It shouldn't depend on whether they are our allies, and nor should it depend on any narrow definition of what is determined by the minister to be in our 'national interest'. I want to go to the issue of Myanmar, where the minister has determined it's not in our national interest to sanction the human rights abusers, the members of the junta who undertook the coup in Myanmar—because it has been determined that it's not in our national interest. It is so important that we actually have a transparent, accountable pathway so that civil society and others can be putting forward nominations, and they can be investigated and they can be reported on. The measures here lay out those sorts of processes and lay out the need for the minister to give a statement on request by parliament, in particular, in the case of Myanmar. And Myanmar is a really important case in point, because we've had the ability to be imposing sanctions on Myanmar. The minister had the ability to do so under our existing legislation, but she has chosen not to. And so, actually having that transparent pathway for individuals to be proposed is very significant. I want to ask some questions of the minister relating to Myanmar, because I think it goes to the point of where this bill now needs to be strengthened. Minister, on 5 October you made the Autonomous Sanctions (Designated and Declared Persons—Myanmar) Amendment (Continuation of Effect) Instrument 2021. Did you seek advice from the department about adding names to that list? 16:42 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator Rice for her question. I have engaged regularly with both the department and the post and with counterparts on these questions, including in relation to sanctions issues. I want to be very clear, Acting Deputy Chair, that I have said many times that our policy settings, including sanctions, are kept under active consideration. That is absolutely right, and, in fact, the case to which Senator Rice refers validates that. I've always said that I do not rule out the application of sanctions, and we are continuing to actively consider our response. Those options are on the table, including pursuant to these reforms. We, of course, respect the efforts of partners who have determined that imposing sanctions is the most appropriate measure for them. At this point, as the senator knows, because we have discussed this at some length across a number of estimates processes as well, that is not Australia's view. 16:43 Senator RI 155410 Victoria CE (—) (): That goes to the point that it's not Australia's view. But there is no transparent process that people can be part of and that the community can be part of as to why or why not targeted sanctions are being applied, or not being applied, for people who are absolutely—there is no doubt whatsoever—human right abusers, who would be eligible under this legislation as it stands, and certainly under the revised legislation, to have sanctions taken against them. Minister, in the Autonomous Sanctions (Designated and Declared Persons—Myanmar) Amendment (Continuation of Effect) Instrument 2021 you maintained the designation of five people: Aung Kyaw Zaw, Maung Maung Soe, Aung Aung, Than Oo and Khin Maung Soe. Did you consider sanctioning Min Aung Hlaing, the commander-in-chief and the leader of the coup, when you made that designation? 16:44 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I don't have anything to add to my previous response. 16:44 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I don't want to take up too much time in the chamber as I know the time constraints we are under. Can I confirm, however, Minister, that, even under the revised legislation that we will be approving today, your process, and your decision to not impose sanctions on the leader of the coup so far, would remain unchanged? 16:45 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales No, Senator, and I refer you to my previous response, where I said that these are matters that are kept, maintained, under review. 16:45 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Minister, if we had had this revised legislation, your decision, up until now, to not impose sanctions would still have been possible under this legislation. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 283585 Senator Wong, were you seeking the call? 16:45 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I don't want to interrupt the flow of questioning, but, if I might just indicate Labor's position—if that's alright with Senator Rice—Labor is not supportive of these amendments. I do want to just make two points, though. The first, in relation to Myanmar, is that we have taken a different view to that which Senator Payne has outlined, and we do believe that—given the attack on the democratic transition, given the violence that has been perpetrated against citizens, given the participation in and the execution of a coup against the government of the day and given Australia's length of engagement in the democratic transition—there is a case for additional targeted sanctions against those responsible for the violence, and I placed that on the record in the second reading debate. Having said that, really the way to understand Senator Rice's amendments on sheet 1502 is that they go to the relative roles of the executive and the parliament. On this, we do have a different view to that of the Australian Greens. We may not agree with the government's decisions in relation to which sanctions it seeks to impose or not impose, but we do think that, in our system, the government of the day has to make that decision, considering all of the information which is available to government. So we are not supportive of the schema that is laid out in Senator Rice's amendments, which essentially provides to the parliament a much greater engagement on what we think is really the responsibility of executive government. It's a responsibility which, at times, governments may not exercise in the way the opposition thinks it might, or, if the shoe were on the other foot, the coalition, the now government, thinks is correct, and certainly the minor parties. But these are significant decisions, they are important decisions and they are not decisions which are made for symbolism; they are decisions which are made soberly around how we progress Australia's national interests, which include, as this deals with, ensuring that we seek to shape the world for the better through what we do in foreign policy. I do think there is a place for consultation, which is one of the themes of the amendment that Senator Rice has moved. Certainly we gain a great deal from our consultation with human rights NGOs. They have participated in discussions with us which have informed our amendments. I would assume any party of government would do so. But, ultimately, we do believe these decisions are matters which ought be made in the best judgement of whoever is responsible—executive government—at the time they're being made. 16:49 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I did want to clarify—and it goes to the point, the heart, of this—that this does not take away the power of the minister to make that decision; it does not take away the power of the executive government. It lays out a transparent pathway. It sets out that the minister must prepare a statement setting out whether, in the minister's opinion, the person's responsible for serious violations or abuses of human rights; whether autonomous sanctions will be applied to the person or associated entity; and, if they'll be applied, a description of those autonomous sanctions; and, if they won't be applied, the reason why autonomous sanctions will not be applied. It's basically making it transparent, and much more objective, than having the potential for decisions on who is sanctioned being made on a judgement from the minister on these opaque grounds of national interest or of our relationship with other countries, which means that we could have a sanctions regime where we pick and choose. We can decide, 'Yes, we're going to sanction human rights abuses occurring here,' but not sanction others elsewhere because it's not seen to be in our national interest, despite the fact that they may be just as egregious. If it's determined to be not in our national interest by the minister—and there is no process for setting out an assessment process—then nothing will occur. My point is that this does nothing. It maintains the power of the minister and the executive government to still be the ones to decide on sanctions; it just makes the process fairer and clearer. 16:51 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator Rice and Senator Wong for their contributions. Senator Wong has made some salient points, particularly in relation to the role of the executive. I say to the chamber that the decisions that are made are already subject to parliamentary scrutiny. They are legislative instruments, including the scrutiny by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation. They are disallowable by the parliament. I think it is important to acknowledge the points that have been made in relation to the clear and plain fact that, from time to time, governments will need to exercise judgement in relation to these matters, based on all of the information that is available to them in the context of the sorts of issues that have to be considered—in particular, in the application of sanctions, which is obviously a very serious and very considered decision to be taken by a government. We have also said in the past that the suggestion that prior notice be given to parliament does rather defeat the purpose of these steps if it gives potential sanctions targets an opportunity to move or conceal assets. That would ultimately dilute the purpose of listings as well. 16:52 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I want to go to the other part of this amendment on sheet 1502, particularly the part on the minister giving a statement in relation to Myanmar. We have heard the reasons we need a transparent process as to why or why not sanctions are being imposed, which we currently don't have. This amendment would make the minister give a statement as to whether people who have been proposed for sanctions are responsible for serious violations or abuses of human rights, whether or not sanctions will be applied, and the details of any consultations undertaken by the minister in preparing the statement. This goes to the holes in our current sanctions regime and the holes that will still be there even when we pass these amendments today. We have heard that the information that has so far been informing you, Minister, on why not to apply sanctions are that it's not in our national interest and that it's not conducive to maintaining a good relationship with ASEAN. In terms of ASEAN, do you think, Minister, that the strategy so far is working? We have welcomed ASEAN's decision to uninvite Min Aung Hlaing from upcoming meetings, but other participants in the junta have participated in ASEAN meetings. Do you think that the strategy of maintaining that good relationship with ASEAN is working in terms of applying appropriate pressure on the leaders of the coup in Myanmar? 16:54 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I take the point that Senator Rice is making in relation to Myanmar. We have, as I've previously advised the chamber, discussed these matters at length in the estimates context. I would be happy, as I have previously done this week, to meet again with the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in relation to these matters. But I do not think that this is an appropriate amendment for this bill; it's not in the right place. If the Senator wishes to take up this issue in a more appropriate construct, then of course the chamber would consider that. 16:55 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Thank you, Minister. I look forward to taking you up on that offer. Again, with regard to our relationship with ASEAN and Myanmar, the Philippines foreign secretary told the Lowy Institute recently that if ASEAN did not take a tough stand on Myanmar, it risks being perceived as 'bunch of guys who always agree with each other on the worthless things'. Minister, do you think ASEAN has taken a tough stand on Myanmar? 16:55 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales On 24 April the leaders of 10 ASEAN nations met in Jakarta to address the crisis in Myanmar and the impact of the coup by the regime. To bring that meeting together, not only in the context of COVID but also given the history of ASEAN, was a significant step for those leaders. To determine the development of the five points of consensus, which were brought together as a result of that meeting and the appointment, ultimately, of a special envoy in the person of the second foreign minister of Brunei, Darussalam Erywan, was also a very significant step. I acknowledge—as I have acknowledged publicly elsewhere—that the lack of goodwill which has been displayed by the regime in Myanmar in relation to that has not helped with ASEAN's efforts to advance their response and their engagement. But Australia strongly supports the work of ASEAN in this regard, the work of the special envoy, and all endeavours for that approach by ASEAN to progress. 16:57 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Minister, given that we haven't applied further targeted sanctions on Myanmar so far—and I take your point that it's still open, and I'm looking forward to that further consideration of it—given that there are so many people here in Australia, Myanmar diaspora community members and others who are desperately con concerned to see action taken against the coup leaders, and given that, without this amendment, the legislation is not going to change the situation and will continue to enable you to fairly opaquely decide whether or not to apply sanctions to the coup leaders in Myanmar, what do you say to the people of Myanmar, the diaspora members and community members here in Australia who say that Australia is not doing enough and that people are dying while Australia adheres to a failed strategy? 16:58 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I would respectfully not agree, Senator, with that interpretation. As a minister in the government with responsibility for these matters, there is an expectation that I would take into account—that the foreign minister of our nation would take into account—our interests, our objectives and the best options to achieve outcomes, and ultimately these reforms are about Australia's interests as well as the issues that have been discussed in other remarks today. Senator, in the interests of time I am not going to reiterate all of the steps that Australia has taken in relation to Myanmar. But, again, you and I have discussed those in our estimates exchanges. I have reiterated my strong support for the ASEAN initiatives in relation to addressing this. I share the frustration of a number of ASEAN members, which has been expressed publicly in relation to this. I share concerns, particularly in terms of operational support for the military, for the Tatmadaw. We have joined calls and led calls for the ceasing of the transfer of arms, materiel, dual use equipment and technical assistance to the ministry and its representatives. We already have an arms embargo, and we are supportive of calls for a global arms embargo and will continue to do that. But I don't agree with the proposition that you are putting—that this amendment should be included in this bill for this purpose. I don't think it is the appropriate place. Question negatived. 17:00 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I would like it recorded that the Australian Greens voted aye for those amendments. I seek leave to move Greens amendments(1) to (6) on sheet 1508 together. Leave granted Senator RICE 155410 I move Greens amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 1508 together. (1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 25), at the end of subsection 3(3), add: ; (f) failures to comply with international human rights law or international humanitarian law. (2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 16), at the end of subsection 10(4), add: ; and (e) if the proposed proscription addresses a matter mentioned in paragraph 3(3)(d) or (f)—the Minister must consider any credible information provided by a civil society organisation that monitors violations or abuses of human rights or has expertise in international human rights law or international humanitarian law. (3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 30), at the end of subsection 10(5), add: ; and (e) if the proscription addresses a matter mentioned in paragraph 3(3)(d) or (f)—the Minister must consider any credible information provided by a civil society organisation that monitors violations or abuses of human rights or has expertise in international human rights law or international humanitarian law. (4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (after line 33), at the end of the item, add: (7) The regulations must prescribe one or more processes under which a civil society organisation may provide information to the Minister as mentioned in paragraphs (4)(e) and (5)(e). (8) Without limiting subsection (7), the regulations may provide for any of the following: (a) the Minister to convene regular meetings with civil society organisations; (b) the Minister to convene such other meetings with civil society organisations as are necessary to respond to an international crisis; (c) opportunities for civil society organisations to provide information in confidence to the Minister; (d) the development of strategies and guidelines for ministerial and departmental engagement with civil society organisations. (5) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 33), after item 6, insert: 6A Before section 28 Insert: 27A Annual report on sanctions (1) The Minister must prepare a report on the autonomous sanctions applied under this Act during each calendar year. (2) The Minister must table a copy of the report in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the end of the calendar year to which the report relates. (6) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (after line 13), at the end of the item, add: (5) Section 27A of the Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to calendar years beginning on or after the commencement of this item. These amendments reflect recommendations of the joint standing committee and our consultation with civil society. We think they will significantly improve the framework and the capacity of civil society to engage on the issues that are being addressed—whether to apply targeted sanctions while not distracting from the minister's powers. 17:01 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales The government does not support the amendment. We have always considered credible information that is provided to us by civil society and we will continue to do that, including conducting regular consultation. We receive suggestions for sanctions listing from a range of sources. It's absolutely the expectation that that would continue, and I know what a constructive role that non-government organisations have played in the development of this legislation and in these discussions today. Any individual or organisation can make representations to government regarding the potential sanctions targets. We have dealt with some of the other aspects of the amendments on 1508 already. Question negatived. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 7020 17:03 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. NOTICES 7020 NOTICES Withdrawal 7020 17:04 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I withdraw contingent notice of motion No. 5A on the Notice Paper. BILLS 7020 BILLS Defence Legislation Amendment (Discipline Reform) Bill 2021 7020

Defence Legislation Amendment (Discipline Reform) Bill 2021

Second Reading 7020 17:05 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria I'm pleased to speak on the Defence Legislation Amendment (Discipline Reform) Bill 2021, which was introduced into the parliament in August and passed the House of Representatives on 1 September. The bill is aimed at reforming the system of military discipline for those who serve in our Defence Force, by improving the way discipline officers and summary authorities operate under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982. Our military discipline system provides the Australian Defence Force with an Australian legal framework that is able to be applied on operations anywhere in the world. However, the system of discipline in the Australian military has become slow and unresponsive under the weight of administration required to address minor breaches of discipline. Reform is required to modernise our current system that predates modern warfare, technologies and tactical requirements and the way our Defence Force is organised. On this basis, Labor will be supporting this legislation. To defend Australia and our national interests we must maintain an operationally capable Defence Force that demonstrates high levels of discipline, professionalism, competence and commitment. The women and men who join the Australian Defence Force are subject to military law—in addition to civilian law—which has its own discipline system and capacity to impose punishments and orders under the Defence Force Discipline Act. The act provides a comprehensive system of military discipline that must be trusted by the Australian people—and, most importantly, by those who serve in our Defence Force—to be applied fairly and effectively in all circumstances. The system of discipline administered by the ADF must encourage the men and women of our Defence Force to be accountable for their actions and, importantly, to learn and grow from their mistakes. Because the people in our Defence Force work and live with one another and within teams, they have a perfectly reasonable expectation that any wrongdoing or breach of discipline will be dealt with quickly and fairly. Failure to do so may put the lives of others at risk, erode morale and adversely affect unit cohesion and fighting capability. Military service and the need to maintain discipline place constraints and responsibilities on the people of our Defence Force. These challenges are unique and are experienced by few of their fellow Australians. A separate system of military discipline is, therefore, essential to enable the Defence Force to deal with matters that relate directly to its discipline, morale and operational capability. It is in this context of a disciplined fighting force that in some cases breaches of military discipline by the people in our Defence Force are dealt with more severely than would be the case if a civilian engaged in similar conduct. The military discipline system operates in Australia and overseas in times of peace, conflict and war. Enforcing military discipline is essential at all times, both in training for operations and during conflict in often difficult and dangerous circumstances. Those in the ADF are legally bound to follow all lawful commands, including orders that involve considerable risk to their own life and the lives of others or that require them to use lethal force against an enemy. The military discipline system administered under the Defence Force Discipline Act has three tiers. At the lowest level is a disciplinary infringement scheme. This enables minor breaches of discipline to be dealt with by the issue of an infringement notice. A person can choose to admit the breach of discipline and be dealt with by a discipline officer, who may impose a low-level punishment, such as a fine or reprimand. This has some similarity to being issued a speeding ticket by the police—you can accept the ticket and pay the fine or you may choose to contest the matter in court. The second tier is the summary system. This comprises subordinate summary authorities, commanding officers and superior summary authorities. These proceedings are adversarial in nature, with criminal-law-like procedures within the disciplinary infringement scheme, and are not administered by legally trained personnel. At the highest level are superior tribunals. These comprise Defence Force magistrates and restricted and general courts martial, which deal with more serious matters and apply criminal law procedures. As early as 1989 the Defence Force Discipline Legislation Board of Review, chaired by the Hon. Xavier Connor AO, QC, reviewed the operation of the newly enacted Defence Force Discipline Act on behalf of the parliament. He observed: 'For the most part, service discipline, particularly as administered by summary authorities, has to do with matters which do not contain any element of criminality and which would not constitute an "offence" under civil law. Many of them are of quite a minor nature and probably in more than 90 per cent of these the facts are not in dispute.' These matters referred to by the review board range from actions such as those relating to operations against an enemy force to not attending duty on time to the unauthorised discharge of a weapon to having dirty boots on parade. Discipline lies at the heart of service in any defence force. In 2005 the Senate committee commenting on change within the Australian Defence Force military discipline system noted: Military command is in many ways defined by obedience and conformity. Discipline is, along with leadership, a crucial underpinning of command. In fact, it was the then Labor opposition that initiated this inquiry in 2003 to hear evidence from ADF personnel and their families about the military justice system. The broader context for this bill is that Australian Defence Force commanders have a duty of care to all people under their command, whether at home in Australia or deployed overseas. The priority is not just about maintaining discipline. Equally important is the welfare of our sailors, soldiers and aviators who serve in the Australian Defence Force. By simplifying the disciplinary processes, the time required to resolve commonly occurring minor breaches of military discipline could be significantly reduced. This would ease the strain on those involved with a disciplinary process. A 2017 review directed by the Chief of the Defence Force found that aspects of the current system were overly complex and difficult to use. The review found, in particular, that summary discipline matters were taking too long to resolve and adversely impacting the people accused of wrongdoing. Delays in resolving breaches of military discipline also adversely affects the morale and, potentially, the safety of other people. This is particularly so in circumstances where the people in our Defence Force live, work and operate closely together. The current adversarial court-like summary disciplinary system has not been serving our defence personnel as best it might. Many senior non-commissioned officers and junior officers are reluctant to use it. There has been a lack of confidence in applying and understanding the complex court-like requirements of the adversarial summary proceedings. As a consequence, use of the summary discipline system has been in constant and consistent decline. The operation of the summary discipline system has proved problematic in recent conflicts and the nature of modern warfare has changed significantly since the act commenced in 1985. Our Defence Force personnel have been deployed in smaller Australian formations, often either as independent units or embedded with our allies, frequently far from administrative support. The complexities of the summary discipline system, particularly given the frequency, nature and length of overseas operations, has often resulted in unacceptable delays in resolving or finalising breaches of military discipline. Given this feedback, Labor acknowledges that the reforms in this bill would build on and are consistent with the Defence values of service, courage, respect, integrity and excellence. But we question why it has taken four years to bring the bill on. The reforms will provide Australian Defence Force commanders and the men and women who serve under their command with a system of discipline that allows for minor breaches of discipline to be dealt with quickly and fairly. We note more serious offending would continue to be dealt with by a superior military tribunal or referred to civilian authorities as appropriate. The bill will reform the discipline system in three ways. Schedule 1 will expand the operation of the highly regarded and effective disciplinary infringement scheme. The changes will allow a greater range of minor breaches of military discipline to be dealt with more quickly and fairly and with less formality within the disciplinary infringement scheme, rather than by the more complex and adversarial service tribunal processes. This bill introduces a new senior discipline officer position, creating a two-tier disciplinary infringement scheme. Labor welcomes additional safeguards included in the bill to ensure the scheme continues to be operated fairly. In particular, this reform to military discipline preserves the right of anyone facing a disciplinary infringement to make an informed decision, whether to choose to have their matter dealt with under the disciplinary infringement scheme and appear before a discipline officer or a senior discipline officer in a non-adversarial process. Schedule 2 would modernise the discipline system structure. It reduces its complexity by removing the subordinate summary authority. It would realign the rank and punishment jurisdiction of summary authorities, ensuring a logical progression in terms of the rank of the accused person, the seriousness of the breach of military discipline, the level of punishment that may be imposed and the seniority of the summary authority. Schedule 3 would further reform the military discipline system by introducing several new service offences. These relate to cyberbullying, receipt of a benefit or allowance and failure to perform a duty or activity. Cyberbullying conduct is corrosive to discipline and can have an extremely adverse effect on the mental wellbeing of its victims. The new cyberbullying service offence would send a very strong message to those in our Defence Force that the use of social media to cyberbully another person is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in the ADF. The intention of this new service offence is to enable Defence to protect victims of cyberbullying through early intervention and by putting a stop to the cyberbullying behaviour before it gets out of hand. It would protect the people who choose to serve in our Defence Force. Current safeguards for persons accused of breaching military discipline will remain. Crucially, under the disciplinary infringement scheme, a person must choose to be dealt with by a discipline officer or senior discipline officer. Additional safeguards included in the bill are: the requirement for any reasonable excuse to be considered before issuing a disciplinary infringement notice; the ability of a discipline officer or senior discipline officer to dismiss an infringement if the officer considers the person has a reasonable excuse for committing the infringement; punishments imposed by a senior discipline officer must be reviewed by a commanding officer. On review, a commanding officer will have the power to confirm a punishment decision; substitute a punishment decision with a reduced punishment; or decide that no punishment be imposed, or that the discipline infringement be dismissed with no punishment imposed. On the surface, these proposed changes would appear to have a positive effect on improving the administration of discipline for all those who serve in our Defence Force. However, it was not clear to us whether the changes were strictly necessary and there had been little consultation with legal experts in the wider defence community prior to the introduction of the bill. At the same time, it is important to ensure that we get the balance right between administrative efficiency on the one hand and fairness, the preservation of legal rights and access to justice for ADF members on the other. In particular, the minister had not provided a compelling explanation or any concrete evidence as to how exactly the amendments in the bill would enhance the ADF's operational effectiveness. In addition, Labor was concerned that, under the proposed changes, ADF members would have to choose to be dealt with under the infringement scheme. Further, the adversarial procedures, simplified rules of evidence and Criminal Code Act 1995 provisions that apply to summary authority proceedings will not apply to the new disciplinary infringement scheme. Labor's view was that any changes should not remove rights and should be broadly consistent with what applies at the upper levels of the military justice system and in civilian courts. We do not want to stand in the way of genuine reform. However, we want to ensure that the military justice system competently balances the following twin objectives. First, it must ensure that the ADF's operational needs for effective and efficient discipline are met. Second, it must uphold objective and independent standards of justice that the public has confidence in and that protect the rights of ADF personnel and ensure fair treatment. These are the principles that would guide an Albanese Labor government and we would look to continue the process of reform to ensure military justice is fair and effective. Labor agreed to support the bill in the House but refer it to a Senate inquiry and to reserve our final position in the Senate subject to that. To that end, Labor moved to refer the bill to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for an inquiry to ensure proper scrutiny and stakeholder consultation and to help clarify the consequences of the amendment. The committee introduced a short inquiry on the papers and this provided an opportunity for defence community stakeholders, like the Australian Defence Association, the Defence Force Welfare Association and legal experts, like the ANU Centre for Military Security and Law, to examine and comment on the bill. Submissions to the inquiry were very supportive of the bill. Most stakeholders supported removing the subordinate summary authority and expanding the disciplinary infringement scheme to improve its effectiveness to deal with minor breaches of discipline. This should allow for early intervention and reduce delays thereby improving operational effectiveness. Submitters also broadly endorsed the proposed restructure of summary authorities to realign the jurisdiction of discipline officers and summary authorities in terms of the types of breach, rank of individual and available punishments. Most also agreed with the introduction of new service offences to better manage breaches of discipline in the modern ADF. We note some submissions raised concerns about aspects of the proposed reform of the disciplinary infringement scheme and the new service offences, notably the new cyberbullying offence. However, the committee was satisfied with the need for this offence and the protections available for ADF members dealt with under the offence. The committee reported back on 14 October recommending the bill be passed without amendment. Based on the committee's recommendation, on balance, Labor will now be supporting the bill in the Senate in its current form. We note that some submitters to the inquiry suggested that changes may need to be reviewed down the track to see if they're operating as intended and that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. We think that this is a sensible proposal. In addition, as some submitters noted, the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide is likely to examine the role of the military justice system and issues of abuse, mistreatment and bullying in the ADF. So it's possible that further reforms to the military justice system may be required in the near future, based on its findings and recommendations. (Time expired) 17:20 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia [by video link] As I speak about the Defence Legislation Amendment (Discipline Reform) Bill 2021, as the spokesperson for the Greens on matters in relation to peace and veterans' affairs, I would like to acknowledge that the context in which we have met as a chamber this week has been one in which there is now an operating royal commission investigating matters relating to Defence Force suicide. I'd like to pay tribute to the many campaigners, family members and advocates who have fought for so long to achieve this vital opportunity for justice in the face of much resistance and dismissal, particularly from the current government. I can't help but reflect upon the fact that this is at least the second royal commission, if we include the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, that this government has been dragged to implement and action, kicking and screaming, by the relevant community. Given that context, I'd like to make a couple of key observations in relation to the bill. I want to put on the record clearly that the Greens cannot support the proposed reforms to the Defence discipline system at this time. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide has only just started, and its public hearings and examination of evidence have only just got underway. We note that the disciplinary system will be under intensive investigation and scrutiny, which is exactly the right thing to do. It is our view that any reforms proposed should be considered in the light of evidence and recommendations that come from the community and the commission through this process. Whilst we understand that the intention of this reform is to simplify the operation of aspects of the disciplinary system, we are concerned that, on balance, this may serve to exacerbate existing cultural and structural issues that we know cause considerable harm to serving personnel, including, but not limited to, bullying, gender-based violence and bastardisation. We have significant reservations about the proposed expansion of the disciplinary infringement scheme. As stated by GAP Veteran & Legal Services in its submission to the inquiry on the bill: Reforming the operation of the scheme is not, of itself, accomplished by merely expanding its application such that it can be 'used in more situations'. In light of the fact that, in accepting the jurisdiction of the scheme as opposed to being dealt with by a tribunal process inclusive of representation by a lay defending officer, the member is, in essence, pleading guilty to the offence, greater safeguards are required to prevent or limit abuse of the process. We note with concern that the proposed legislation expands the types of offences that the scheme deals with: anything from turning up late to work to behaving abusively towards colleagues is captured in this scheme. We're concerned that the scope of offences doesn't amount to just minor service discipline matters, as suggested by the explanatory memorandum. These concerns are exacerbated by a lack of clarity on what happens should a servicemember become a repeat offender. Do they continue to get away with minor disciplinary actions when, in reality, their behaviour warrants more severe consequences? This is one of the key outstanding questions. Our view is that the application of the rule of law and access to justice may not be achieved by expanding the scheme in this way. Further, we accept evidence from the authors of the GAP submission that the disciplinary infringement scheme has been improperly used and weaponised by ineffective chains of command—specifically, that this scheme and its structure enable more senior members of command to exercise their authority unfairly and to issue infringements as a way of asserting improper power over more-junior members. We also note that a key safeguarding mechanism that is meant to counterbalance the abovementioned issues—the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force—is subject to considerable criticism and is likely to form part of a lot of the evidence to the royal commission itself. This again highlights the need to delay consideration of this legislation until the effectiveness of this oversight body in upholding the rights and responsibilities of the ADF and its serving members is better understood. As is the case in many other areas of law, the Greens are concerned that the reliance on delegated legislation—in this instance, empowering the CDF to make rules in relation to the use or discretion of disciplinary infringement records—diminishes the role of parliamentary scrutiny and of parliamentary oversight. As was made clear in submissions to the inquiry, there is a great need to ensure the application of the disciplinary infringement system: that it is operating effectively and that its application is one which does not leave the CDF without limits on transparency and accountability. To this end, we note and support the concerns raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. It has stated in its digest that the committee has raised concerns about the proposed section 9FA and section 42 under the relevant sections of the bill. That makes particular mention of these concerns. Notwithstanding the details of the bill, the Greens would like to put on record that, in principle, defence being empowered to investigate itself and its personnel without sufficient safeguards and accountability to civilian authorities is a cause for significant concern. The proper and fair application of the law and the justice system is essential and goes to the very heart and integrity of a functioning ADF. We hear the concerns of serving and ex-serving personnel who have experienced significant systemic violence and injustice through the defence disciplinary system, and we are very alive to the reality that this system may not work as intended. In summary, we have a number of principled and substantive concerns with respect to the proposed changes to the disciplinary system and the ways in which they will work in practice. In our view, these proposed changes carry the potential of serious unintended consequences that must be considered fully, particularly in the light of the current royal commission, which will gather evidence on the systems and culture that underlie the ADF and its functions. We note and acknowledge that this bill is proposing a number of important updates to the nature of offences to be considered as offences by the disciplinary system, particularly cyberbullying, but we think the application of these provisions and the consequences they carry must be further assessed before they are implemented. For those reasons, we will be opposing the bill, alongside Senator Lambie. 17:29 Senator ABETZ N26 Tasmania The Defence Legislation Amendment (Discipline Reform) Bill 2021 improves the management of disciplinary issues in the Australian Defence Force. The reform measures will result in a military discipline system that is easier to understand and use. This will reduce unnecessary delays, while being fair to all those involved, and allow commanders to more simply and quickly address poor behaviour and create opportunity for early intervention to better support the people in our Defence Force to continue as positive contributors to their service. The majority of breaches covered by the act are of a uniquely military nature. They range from offences relating to operations against an enemy to being late for work. Serious criminal offences or other illegal conduct are usually referred to civilian authorities, such as the police. It is critical that breaches of discipline are resolved quickly and fairly to maintain morale and ensure good order and fighting capability. We need to maintain an operationally capable Defence Force with the highest levels of professional competence, commitment and discipline, both on and off duty. The bill will reform the military discipline system, in particular the lower-level summary system and disciplinary infringement scheme. This will make it easier to use when dealing with minor discipline matters, particularly when deployed on operations. It will do this in three ways. Firstly, it will build on what is working well—the disciplinary infringement scheme—by enabling a wider range of minor breaches of military discipline to be managed quickly and simply as disciplinary infringements rather than service offences, where complex, adversarial, court-like procedures apply. Secondly, it will provide a better-structured discipline hierarchy based on the seriousness of the offending, available punishments, rank of the individual and seniority of the discipline authority. Thirdly and finally, the changes introduce several new service offences relevant to the modern ADF. Those new service offences include cyberbullying, and the related offence of failure to comply with a removal order concerning cyberbullying material; failing to perform a duty or an activity; and failing to notify a change in circumstances when in receipt of a benefit or entitlement. The changes will build on the very successful and highly regarded disciplinary infringement scheme. Many senior non-commissioned officers and junior officers had little confidence in using the summary discipline system because of its complexity. Its use has been in constant and consistent decline, from 1,743 summary trials in 2009 to just about half of that, 923, in 2019. The people in our Defence Force live, work and fight alongside each other. Delays in dealing with discipline matters erode morale and impact mental wellbeing. Delays can also affect the careers of our people, beyond the intended discipline action. This is because leave, attendance at courses, and promotional prospects are often on hold until a discipline matter is finalised. This places undue stress on all involved. Having had the pleasure of chairing this inquiry, I commend the explanatory memorandum, the minister's second reading speech and the bill to the Senate. 17:33 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I don't support the Defence Legislation Amendment (Discipline Reform) Bill 2021. It's a shame that we couldn't have had all those diggers come forward and listen to what sort of legal system we have in our Defence Force. I can tell you: it's not a legal system; it's a bastardised abuse system, and that is half the reason that we are losing diggers to suicide. This is absolute abuse. The DFDA, and the power it gives those officers out there, does nothing but give the power to abuse diggers. We have a royal commission for this. I thought this was the whole point of hitting veteran suicide. The royal commission is going to go in and examine what is going on in our defence forces, and I can tell you now: you are going to see a lot of abuse matters coming up and a lot of cover-up. It's still going through the Royal Military College. Four females who have been through there in the last five years came forward to me yesterday in tears, saying, 'We've been raped and abused.' I've now sent them to a lawyer so they can get their submissions ready to go to the royal commissioner. That is where we are at. The Defence Force Discipline Act does enormous damage to serving members, and that's the reality. It is used to bully people. People are getting charged for things they never did, and they're too scared to take it to a tribunal because they know, as I do, their careers are over; it is finished for them. Not only will they get discharged; it'll say, 'Administrative discharge; see you later.' Imagine trying to get a job once you say: 'I was wronged in the military. I was accused of doing this, but I actually didn't do it.' Imagine trying to explain that to an employer. It ruins a digger's life. I wish you would not do this today, because what you are doing here is making the situation worse. You are giving more control to the people who are doing the bullying and the bastardisation. I'd love to see you give that sort of load to the diggers. I tell you what: there's some karma to come at those high-ranking officers. When someone has an injury and they're looking like they could get a medical discharge, it is not uncommon to see them getting picked up for things they should never get charged for. All of a sudden they end up fired up with, like I said, an admin discharge. There's no medical discharge for the abuse that they've had to go through in this process. This Defence Force Discipline Act—she's been gone for a long time. I'll get into some more stories, very shortly, about when I was serving and what's being been going on since then. This bill won't fix it. In fact, it will actually make things worse. You will see more suicides because you're just giving more control to the abusers. All these new offences will do is open it up to more abuse. Take the new offence 'failure to perform a duty'. It's a strict liability offence, which means it doesn't matter if someone had a good reason for failing to carry out their duty. The punishment is dismissal from the Defence Force. If you're too sick to do what you're told, or if you're injured, or if you're given an order that you can't possibly comply with, you could get the boot from the Defence Force through no fault of your own. Let's use an example that's been going on at 7RAR, which I brought up last year and again this year, with Lieutenant Colonel Gower. There were diggers over there that were on a medical chit to say that they were so psychologically damaged that there was no way should they have a weapon in their hands, let alone go to a range practice. Do you know what that little bugger did? That little bugger made them sign waivers. When I reported that to the very top of our Defence Force, do you know what they did— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator, a point of order? Senator Davey 281697 The language that was used was not appropriate parliamentary language. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Lambie, I just ask you to reflect on your language. Please proceed. Senator LAMBIE 250026 Do you know what happened to that Lieutenant Colonel? I'll tell you what happened. He got scurried out in the middle of the night. Three months later he showed up and he was promoted to colonel. What's new? Who's being done over here? That's what's going on. The power imbalances are terribly wrong in the ADF, and that's a recipe for disaster. I can assure you that this thing is only going to make it worse. I served in the military police. We all know that. I'm going to tell you some little stories about that today while I have the time. I'm going to tell you how well we are trained out there. They'd been promising—certainly since I was in there—that they were going to train us up to the level of expertise so that when we walked out we were pretty much trained like civilian police. We are trained to take a simple statement, how to use a speed camera and pretty much how to warn people if they haven't got a beret on. That's what the taxpayer pays for, for the eight or nine weeks we were sitting there. That's what you train us with. It is getting that bad in there right now that you have investigations going on where you're not even using the military police. They're not even using the military police, with the little bit of expertise that they have, to do those written statements of fact to be used as evidence for any court proceedings that are going on. They're using what they call 'fact-finds.' You'll hear about these fact-finds from the royal commission. I imagine it won't take the royal commission long before they say, 'Get rid of them.' These fact-finds are doing enormous damage. You have sergeants, warrant officers and lieutenants with no experience whatsoever in how to write a statement, let alone how to correlate evidence and write that. That fact-find, which has no central records, goes nowhere. Basically it goes up to whoever is in that commanding officer spot, and he puts it through the shredder and says, 'Nothing to see here.' That's where we're at in our Defence Force. I have seen in my time some really great officers be officers in command and, because they were too close to their diggers, commanding officers of units say, 'Hey, big boy, this is what I want you to do: go and charge a couple of your diggers and show them who's boss.' This is not a legal system; this is a system of abuse. Sometimes there will be 30 or 40 people in that unit. That's all there is. That gives one person all that power to be judge and jury. That one person, if they don't like the digger, the digger's gone. They're absolutely gone. If you are lucky and your commanding officer likes you or you're extremely valuable because you're the only one who has that experience, you're safe; you're good to go, you stay. This is how the system works. It is not a legal system; it is a system of abuse and that's all it is. There are ways to fix this. For example, when I was a corporal in the military police, I accessed all the computers. I tell you, I could determine, even at my level, who was going to be charged and who was not. I could remove those statements if I didn't like them. I could remove them if I believe their regimental sergeant majors in their units will take care of their own men so they don't walk around with black marks near their name. Back then we used to get extra duties. We didn't charge every digger. That's how it worked. Even at corporal level, I could put in or remove whatever I wanted out of the computer. I decided the fate at a corporate level. This is your legal system. This is really, really bad. But what is worse, which really annoys me, is there is a royal commission going on. Seriously, there is a royal commission going on. Do you not want to wait? All you're doing is passing over more power to the abusers. If you put this through then, after that first suicide out of this, I will be back in here. I want you to think really carefully about this because, quite frankly, I want you to delay it. If you really want to do something about the suicides in Defence at this point in time before the royal commission starts putting its recommendations in, then I'm begging you not to put this bill through. Once again, on 7.30 last Monday night, we saw a young fella gagged up, taped up, gaffer tape all over him, being abused. Your Defence Force, your military, knew about that for months and tried to shove it under the carpet. That's what happened to that poor young fella. That's your high-ranking officers doing that. That's the harm they're bringing to these people. It's not a system of war. It doesn't work. You cannot have these people who you are working closely with decide your fate. They cannot be judge and jury. It is a disaster, an absolute disaster. If you put this third tier in, if you put these infringement notices in, then all you are doing is slapping a digger around more. As soon as we take a complaint higher up—hey, see you later—there goes your career and, by the way, we will make sure we charge you on the way out. Just for taking us on, we will stick our chests out at you. That's how it is. We have problems with the leadership in our military and a very, very big part is the legal system that does not work. It's like I said: this is a system of bastardisation and abuse. That is all this legal system has become. So I'm asking you, before you make any moves you need to halt. Trust me, if you just get through to March and April when you start hearing those stories coming out of the royal commission thick and fast, you will regret this move. All you will do is take more diggers' lives through suicide. That's all this bill is going to do: give more power to the abusers and do over more diggers. It's not a legal system. You cannot lead a legal system internally. You need an independent legal system that's on the outside. You need better trained military police out there. They were actually promised—what we should have got—25 or 30 years ago, so we could walk out with a qualification that doesn't just say, 'Here's one for "security guard".' That's ripping a digger off—what else is new!—when it comes to them being educated. I'm just asking you: don't vote for this bill. Just put it on hold, because you're getting it really, really wrong, and you will bring more suicides. It is the system that is in a mess. It is a shame the diggers can't come forward and that they couldn't have stood in front of us, even behind camera, because they're too scared to. I'm running around like there's no tomorrow trying to convince them to at least come in camera with the royal commission and trust that process. I'm begging them. I'm not asking them to just do it for themselves but for their mates that they've lost, because if they don't come forward, the system will never change. And it certainly hasn't got better since I was in there. I've seen it with my own eyes. These big commanding officers up there have got no idea how to deal with females in combat units and infantry units, no idea whatsoever, let alone with any psychological issues. I'm trying to say this politely, but most men aren't good at that anyway, and the military men are even worse. We have massive culture problems in there that are going to come out. But one of the big reasons we are losing diggers and they're taking their lives is that they've been bullied and abused by their commanders, through what you call in here a 'legal system'. It's a legal system of abuse. You go ahead and vote for it, because I'll be standing up here, not so long in the future, saying: 'I told you so. You're getting it wrong. And unless you've served in there, unless you've been in the military police, unless you've been other on the other side of it—and seen that it's still happening, and they're all coming to you—you have no idea what you are voting on today. I'll tell you what you're voting for: more bastardisation and more abuse to every digger that serves our military. That's what you are voting on today. You should be ashamed of yourselves. You've got a royal commission out there looking into this, and you're going straight over the top of it without even hearing what's coming through. Seriously! Don't vote for this. You're getting it wrong. 17:48 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales Let me begin by thanking those members and senators who have contributed to the debate on this bill, the Defence Legislation Amendment (Discipline Reform) Bill 2021, and a number of those members and senators who have served in our defence forces who have brought their experience to this bill. I would note that the bill has been scrutinised by committees in this parliament, including the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, and through their diligence those committees have strengthened its content. The intent of this bill is to reform the system of military discipline for those who serve in our Defence Force by modernising and improving the way that discipline officers and summary authorities operate under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982. The reforms are intended to result in a discipline system that is easier to understand and to use and that reduces delays, while introducing new checks and balances to ensure that discipline continues to operate fairly. The reforms in this bill are intended to provide those in our Defence Force with far greater choice to have minor breaches of discipline managed as a disciplinary infringement without the strength of the lengthy, criminal-like investigations and court-like procedures that apply to matters dealt with by summary and superior military tribunals. Indeed, for the first time since the scheme's introduction in 1995, we do make clear what the disciplinary infringement scheme is and how it operates. Those impacted by poor discipline will benefit from having matters resolved more quickly. That is essential, because our people live and work and fight together. These reforms will also allow commanders to more simply and quickly address poor behaviour and create opportunity for early intervention to better support the people in our Defence Force to continue as a positive contributor to their service. These reforms will encourage our service women and men to be accountable for their actions and, importantly, enabled to learn and grow from their mistakes. These reforms provide a more logical structure to the various discipline authorities based on the seriousness of the offending, the rank, the experience of the alleged offender, and the authority and experience of the discipline authority. These changes to the DFDA will reform the military discipline system so that the people in our Defence Force will benefit from a discipline system that is easier to use, particularly at the lowest levels and particularly when the ADF is deployed on operations. It is more timely and responsive, enabling commanders to effectively manage personnel and address behavioural concerns. And it is fair and just towards all people involved in the disciplinary process. Further, it is trusted by people in our Defence Force and the Australian community and also is responsive to contemporary technology and how it is used. The bill demonstrates the commitment of this government to achieving a fair and just military discipline system for those who serve our nation and to meet the disciplinary needs of the Australian Defence Force. I acknowledge the contribution of Senator Kitching on behalf of the opposition in relation to this bill. I also acknowledge the comments of Senator Lambie in relation to the contemporaneous commencement of the royal commission with the progress of this bill. I acknowledge the points Senator Lambie has made, but it is the view of the government that addressing the issues I have outlined in my summing-up speech is important, and I don't think the operation of the royal commission necessarily negates the importance of progressing these matters. I do want to thank all those who serve and have served in the defence of our nation and acknowledge sincerely the sacrifices they and their families have made. I also table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to this bill. The addendum responds to concerns raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that this bill be now read a second time.    

The Senate divided. [17:57]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

 26 AYES Abetz, E. Askew, W. Bragg, A. J. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. (Teller) Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Fierravanti-Wells, C. A. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kitching, K. J. E. McLachlan, A. L. McMahon, S. J. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Patrick, R. L. Payne, M. A. Scarr, P. M. Seselja, Z. M. Small, B. J. Smith, D. A. Stoker, A. J. Walsh, J. C. 9 NOES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Griff, S. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. (Teller) McKim, N. J. Rice, J. E. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 In Committee 7029 17:59 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendment (1) to be moved to the Defence Legislation Amendment (Discipline Reform) Bill 2021. I move government amendment on sheet ZA126: (1) Schedule 3, item 2, page 48 (line 2), omit "as offensive or", substitute "in all the circumstances". The purpose of this amendment is to insert the term 'in all the circumstances' and to remove the word 'offensive' from the new cyberbullying offence set out in clause 2 of schedule 3 of the bill. A cyberbullying offence will apply when a defence member has used a social media service or relevant electronic service in a way that a reasonable person would regard in all the circumstances as threatening, intimidating, harassing or humiliating another person. The Human Rights Committee has suggested in its report on 20 October that the cyberbullying offence be adjusted by either removing the offensive provision or limiting application of the offence to situations where there is a service connection and the need to maintain military discipline. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee also raised concern over the appropriateness of what a reasonable person would regard as the offensive use of a social media service or an electronic service. In moving this amendment, the government has listened to the concerns raised by these committees, and in response has proposed this amendment to the cyberbullying offence to omit 'as offensive or' and to substitute 'in all the circumstances'. 18:01 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I wish to place on the record the Greens' opposition to this amendment. 18:01 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I would like to put our opposition to this amendment on record as well, please. 18:01 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria Labor knows that the government has proposed an amendment to the new cyberbullying offence in the Defence Legislation Amendment (Discipline Reform) Bill 2021, set out at new section 48A. The effect of this would be that cyberbullying offences would apply when a defence member has used a social media service or relevant electronic service in a way that a reasonable person would regard in all the circumstances as threatening, intimidating, harassing or humiliating another person, but would not necessarily regard as offensive. The government says this is a response to concerns raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. Labor will be opposing the amendment. In terms of the substance, we are concerned that the amendment narrows and weakens the proposed cyberbullying offence. Indeed, the government's own supplementary explanatory memorandum to the amendment acknowledges as much. We understand the issue that the minister is trying to address here but we are broadly satisfied with the interpretive guidance that has been provided in response to the questions from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights about proportionality in relation to this new offence. Labor will not be supporting the amendment because we do not think that removing the word 'offensive' will have the desired overall effect of reflecting the reality of cyberbullying—that is, that a lot of it does come down to offence, or content that is considered offensive. The amendment appears to rely on a libertarian freedom of expression or free speech argument that we believe is inconsistent with the need to maintain a strong system of military discipline, which is the objective of the overall bill. Labor may be open to retaining the words 'in all the circumstances as threatening, intimidating, harassing or humiliating', but we think it's essential to retain the word 'offensive'. Otherwise, this risks watering down the offence. In terms of process and consultation, we are also disappointed that the government has tried to ram this amendment through at the eleventh hour. This amendment was known about for some time, but the government provided us with it and the supplementary explanatory memorandum only yesterday, potentially only an hour or so before the bill could have been debated. This is not simply a minor or technical amendment, so this was not enough time to consider properly the proposed change. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 140651 The question is that the amendment be agreed to.    

The committee divided. [18:08]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator O'Neill)

 19 AYES Abetz, E. Askew, W. Bragg, A. J. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. (Teller) Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hume, J. McKenzie, B. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payne, M. A. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Seselja, Z. M. Small, B. J. Smith, D. A. 24 NOES Ayres, T. Carr, K. J. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Griff, S. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Keneally, K. K. Kitching, K. J. E. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Patrick, R. L. Rice, J. E. Smith, M. F. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. 14 PAIRS Birmingham, S. J. Wong, P. Brockman, W. E. Green, N. L. Fierravanti-Wells, C. A. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Henderson, S. M. Hanson, P. L. Hughes, H. A. Watt, M. P. McDonald, S. E. Pratt, L. C. McGrath, J. Bilyk, C. L. McLachlan, A. L. Roberts, M. I. McMahon, S. J. Chisholm, A. Molan, A. J. Dodson, P. Paterson, J. W. Sheldon, A. V. Scarr, P. M. Steele-John, J. A. Stoker, A. J. Brown, C. L. Van, D. A. Polley, H.

Senator Sterle did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Ryan
Question negatived.

 18:13 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria The 2017 review directed by the Chief of the Defence Force found that aspects of the current system were overly complex and difficult to use and that summary discipline matters were taking too long to resolve. What were the typical summary discipline matters that were taking too long to resolve? 18:14 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I can advise that the average time taken for such an investigation was 86 days. That, I'm advised, has been reduced to 56 days. In contrast, the time for a discipline officer inquiry is two to three days. 18:14 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria Do you have a list of what the typical summary discipline matters were? 18:14 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I don't have that at the chair with me, but I will see if I can obtain some information for you. 18:14 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria On the amendment, why was the interpretive guidance that was provided in response to the questions from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights about proportionality in relation to this offence not sufficient? 18:15 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales As I understand it, both of the committees responded and said that it was not sufficient—both the scrutiny of bills committee and the human rights committee report. 18:15 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria The minister's initial response to the human rights committee was found to be not sufficient? 18:15 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales Yes, that's correct, as I understand it. 18:15 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria Didn't this support the original form of the offence that was effectively refuting any subsequent amendment? Perhaps I should explain that better. The support of the original form of the offence—was that effectively refuting any subsequent amendment? 18:16 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I'm not sure that I understand your question, but I'll seek some advice from officials as to whether they have anything for me in relation to that. Can I say in relation to the offence categories—your previous question—the ones that I have been advised are relevant are: absent from duty without leave, insubordinate conduct, disobeying a lawful command, failing to comply with a general order, assaults, weapons discharge and prejudicial conduct. 18:17 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria In the minister's initial response to the human rights committee, did he not support the original form of the offence, effectively refuting any subsequent amendment? Did he not assert that the original provision was suitable, necessary and adequate in its balance? 18:17 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I'm not aware of the details of the minister's original response but I think what came back to the chamber today, based on the advice of both the scrutiny of bills committee and the human rights committee, was in accordance with the positions that both those committees took. 18:17 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria In terms of ADF members who are subject to defence discipline and the amendment, is training given to members of the ADF? What kind of training is given? Do most ADF personnel find it to be adequate? 18:18 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I understand that the training is part of initial recruit training. There is also the establishment, in more recent times, of a new-joiners guide and there is a requirement that it must be completed by all members. 18:18 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria In terms of ADF personnel and the strengthening of the cyberbullying offence, is that consistent with the new legislation that has been announced by the Prime Minister in relation to online trolling? 18:19 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales Senator, I think the points I enunciated in my earlier comments on the amendment itself reflect a consistency between the initiative announced by the Prime Minister and colleagues on these matters. Certainly if there were more work to be done, I'm sure the minister would look at that with keen interest. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 140651 It being 6.20 pm, the time allotted for the debate on the bills has expired. In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today, I will now put the question before the chair and then put questions on the remaining stages of this bill and then the electoral bill. The question now is that the bill stand as printed.    

The committee divided. [18:25]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator O'Neill)

 31 AYES Abetz, E. Askew, W. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Carr, K. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. (Teller) Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Fierravanti-Wells, C. A. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kitching, K. J. E. McLachlan, A. L. McMahon, S. J. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Patrick, R. L. Payne, M. A. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Seselja, Z. M. Small, B. J. Smith, D. A. Stoker, A. J. 9 NOES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Griff, S. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.

 Third Reading 7033 18:28 The PRESIDENT 30484 The question is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.    

The Senate divided. [18:29]
(The President—Senator Brockman)

31 AYES Abetz, E. Askew, W. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Carr, K. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. (Teller) Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Fierravanti-Wells, C. A. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kitching, K. J. E. McLachlan, A. L. McMahon, S. J. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Patrick, R. L. Payne, M. A. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Seselja, Z. M. Small, B. J. Smith, D. A. Stoker, A. J. 9 NOES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Griff, S. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Political Campaigners) Bill 2021 7033

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Political Campaigners) Bill 2021

Second Reading 7033 18:32 The PRESIDENT 30484 The question is that the bill be now read a second time.    

The Senate divided. [18:33]
(The President—Senator Brockman)

31 AYES Abetz, E. Askew, W. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Carr, K. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. (teller) Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Fierravanti-Wells, C. A. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kitching, K. J. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. McMahon, S. J. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payne, M. A. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Seselja, Z. M. Small, B. J. Smith, D. A. Stoker, A. J. 10 NOES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Griff, S. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (teller) Patrick, R. L. Rice, J. E. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 18:35 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. 18:35 The PRESIDENT 30484 I will now deal with the circulated amendments to the bill, starting with government amendments. The question is that government amendments on sheet ZD154, as circulated by the government, be agreed to. Government's circulated amendments— (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 5), omit "$100,000", substitute "$250,000". (2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 17), omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". (3) Schedule 2, item 2, page 4 (line 9), omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". (4) Schedule 2, item 4, page 4 (line 28), omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". (5) Schedule 2, item 13, page 6 (lines 15 and 16), omit "political campaigners, associated", substitute "significant third parties, associated". (6) Schedule 2, item 14, page 6 (line 18), omit ", political campaigners or", substitute ", significant third parties or". (7) Schedule 2, item 15, page 6 (lines 21 and 22), omit "political campaigner, associated", substitute "significant third party, associated". (8) Schedule 2, item 16, page 6 (line 24), omit ", political campaigners", substitute ", significant third parties". (9) Schedule 2, item 17, page 6 (lines 26 and 27), omit the item, substitute: 17 Subparagraph 302D(1)(a)(ii) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party or an associated entity". (10) Schedule 2, item 18, page 6 (line 29), omit ", political campaigner", substitute ", significant third party". (11) Schedule 2, item 19, page 7 (lines 1 and 2), omit the item, substitute: 19 Subparagraph 302F(1)(a)(ii) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party or an associated entity". (12) Schedule 2, item 20, page 7 (lines 3 and 4), omit the item, substitute: 20 Paragraph 302F(1)(b) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party, associated entity". (13) Schedule 2, item 22, page 7 (lines 8 to 10), omit the item, substitute: 22 Paragraphs 302H(1)(b) and (c) Omit "political campaigner" (wherever occurring), substitute "significant third party, associated entity". (14) Schedule 2, item 24, page 7 (line 16), omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". (15) Schedule 2, item 24, page 7 (line 19), omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". (16) Schedule 2, item 24, page 7 (line 20), omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". (17) Schedule 2, item 24, page 7 (lines 23 and 24), omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". (18) Schedule 2, item 24, page 8 (line 6), omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". (19) Schedule 2, item 24, page 8 (line 9), omit "campaigner", substitute "significant third party". (20) Schedule 2, item 24, page 8 (line 11), omit "campaigner", substitute "significant third party". (21) Schedule 2, item 24, page 8 (line 15), omit "campaigner", substitute "significant third party". (22) Schedule 2, item 35, page 10 (line 14), omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". (23) Schedule 2, item 35, page 10 (line 19), omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". (24) Schedule 2, item 35, page 10 (lines 24 and 25), omit "political campaigner as if "30 days after the person or entity is registered as a political campaigner", substitute "person or entity as if "30 days after the person or entity is registered as a significant third party". (25) Page 11 (after line 4), at the end of the bill, add: Schedule 3 — Name change for political campaigners Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 1 Paragraph 4AA(4)(b) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". 2 Section 286A Omit "It also deals with gifts and other financial matters relating to parties, candidates, groups, political campaigners", substitute "It also deals with gifts and other financial matters relating to parties, candidates, groups, political campaigners, significant third parties". 3 Section 286A Omit "Political campaigners", substitute "Significant third parties". 4 Section 286A Omit "groups) and political campaigners", substitute "groups) and significant third parties". 5 Section 286A Omit "Broadly, gifts to political entities, political campaigners", substitute "Broadly, gifts to political entities, significant third parties". 6 Section 286A (paragraph (b) of paragraph beginning "There are obligations to disclose") Omit "political campaigners", substitute "significant third parties". 7 Section 286A Omit "Each financial year, registered political parties, political campaigners", substitute "Each financial year, registered political parties, significant third parties". 8 Subsection 287(1) (definition of political campaigner ) Repeal the definition (including the notes), substitute: political campaigner: see subsection (11). 9 Subsection 287(1) (definition of regulated entity ) Omit "political campaigner" (wherever occurring), substitute "significant third party". 10 Subsection 287(1) Insert: significant third party means a person or entity that is registered as a significant third party under section 287L. Note 1: See also subsection (8) of this section and section 287C (entities that have branches or are not incorporated). Note 2: See section 287F for when a person or entity is required to be registered as a significant third party. 11 Subsection 287(1) (paragraph (b) of the definition of third party ) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". 12 Subsection 287(8) (heading) Omit "political campaigners", substitute "significant third parties". 13 Subsecti on 287(8) Omit "political campaigner" (wherever occurring), substitute "significant third party". 14 At the end of section 287 Add: References in other laws to political campaigners (11) A reference in another law of the Commonwealth to a person or entity registered under this Act as a political campaigner is taken to be a reference to a person or entity registered under this Act as a significant third party. 15 Subsection 287AB(1) (note 3) Omit "political campaigners", substitute "significant third parties". 16 Subparagraphs 287C(b)(i) and (ii) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". 17 Paragraph 287C(b) Omit "or campaigner", substitute "or significant third party". 18 Paragraph 287C(c) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". 19 Section 287C (note) Omit "political campaigners", substitute "significant third parties". 20 Division 1A of Part XX (heading) Omit "political campaigners", substitute "significant third parties". 21 Section 287D Omit "political campaigner" (wherever occurring), substitute "significant third party". 22 Subdivision B of Division 1A of Part XX (heading) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". 23 Section 287F (heading) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". 24 Subsection 287F(1) Omit "political campaigner" (wherever occurring), substitute "significant third party". 25 Section 287J Omit "political campaigner" (wherever occurring), substitute "significant third party". 26 Paragraph 287K(1)(a) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". 27 Subsection 287L(4) Omit "political campaigner" (wherever occurring), substitute "significant third party". 28 Paragraph 287L(6)(b) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". 29 Section 287M Omit "political campaigner" (wherever occurring), substitute "significant third party". 30 Subparagraph 287N(2)(a)(i) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". 31 Paragraph 287N(2)(b) Omit "political campaigners", substitute "significant third parties". 32 Paragraph 287S(1)(b) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". 33 Subsection 287S(2) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". 34 Section 287V Omit "Political campaigners", substitute "Significant third parties". 35 Section 287V Omit "political campaigners", substitute "significant third parties". 36 Section 292E (heading) Omit "political campaigners", substitute "significant third parties". 37 Subsections 292E(1), (2) and (3) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". 38 Subsection 292E(3) Omit "(the campaigner or entity)". 39 Subsection 292E(3) Omit "campaigner or entity", substitute "significant third party or associated entity". 40 Subparagraph 292F(1)(b)(iii) Omit "political campaigner or associated entity—by the campaigner or entity", substitute "significant third party or associated entity—by the significant third party or associated entity". 41 Paragraph 292F(4)(b) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". 42 Subparagraph 302F(2)(c)(ii) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". 43 Section 302V Omit "Gifts totalling more than the disclosure threshold that are made by a single person to the same registered political party, State branch or political campaigner", substitute "Gifts totalling more than the disclosure threshold that are made by a single person to the same registered political party, State branch or significant third party". 44 Section 302V Omit "There are limitations on loans made to political parties, State branches, political campaigners", substitute "There are limitations on loans made to political parties, State branches, significant third parties". 45 Section 302V Omit "Gifts of more than the disclosure threshold to a political party, State branch, political campaigner", substitute "Gifts of more than the disclosure threshold to a political party, State branch, significant third party". 46 Section 305B (heading) Omit "political campaigners", substitute "significant third parties". 47 Paragraph 305B(1)(c) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". 48 Subsection 305B(1) Omit "branch or campaigner", substitute "branch or significant third party". 49 Subsection 305B(2) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". 50 Subsection 305B(2) Omit "branch or campaigner", substitute "branch or significant third party". 51 Paragraph 305B(3)(c) Omit "branch or campaigner", substitute "branch or significant third party". 52 Subparagraph 305B(3A)(a)(iii) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". 53 Paragraph 306A(1)(c) Omit "political campaigner" (wherever occurring), substitute "significant third party". 54 Paragraph 306A(6)(a) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". 55 Paragraph 306B(1)(a) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". 56 Subsection 3 06B(2) Omit "political campaigner" (wherever occurring), substitute "significant third party". 57 Section 314AAA Omit "political campaigners", substitute "significant third parties". 58 Section 314AAA Omit "parties, campaigners", substitute "parties, significant third parties". 59 Subsection 314AA(2) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". 60 Section 314AB (heading) Omit "political campaigners", substitute "significant third parties". 61 Subsection 314AB(1) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". 62 Subparagraphs 314AB(2)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) Omit "party or campaigner", substitute "registered political party or significant third party". 63 Subparagraph 314AB(2)(a)(iv) Omit "political campaigners—the total amount of electoral expenditure incurred by or with the authority of the campaigner", substitute "significant third parties—the total amount of electoral expenditure incurred by or with the authority of the significant third party". 64 Paragraph 314AB(2)(b) Omit "party, branch or campaigner", substitute "registered political party, branch or significant third party". 65 Subsection 314AB(3) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". 66 Subsection 314AC(1) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". 67 Subsection 314AE(1) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". 68 Subsection 314AEA(5) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". 69 Paragraph 314A EA(6)(a) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". 70 Subparagraph 316(2A)(aaa)(i) Omit "political campaigners", substitute "significant third parties". 71 Subparagraph 316(2A)(aaa)(iv) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". 72 Paragraph 316(2A)(aa) Omit "political campaigner" (wherever occurring), substitute "significant third party". 73 Subsection 316(2B) Omit "political campaigner" (wherever occurring), substitute "significant third party". 74 Paragraphs 316(3A)(a) and (b) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". 75 Paragraph 319A(2A)(b) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". 76 Section 321B (paragraph (aa) of the definition of disclo sure entity ) Omit "political campaigner", substitute "significant third party". 77 Section 321B (note to the definition of disclosure entity ) Omit "political campaigners", substitute "significant third parties". 78 Transitional provisions (1) A person or entity registered as a political campaigner for a financial year immediately before this item commences is taken to be registered as a significant third party for the financial year from the time this item commences. (2) The change of name from political campaigner to significant third party does not affect any rights, liabilities or obligations of a person or entity registered as a political campaigner before this item commences. (3) If, as a result of the amendments made by this Act, amendments in another Act become misdescribed, the amendments in the other Act may be given effect by an editorial change under section 15V of the Legislation Act 2003 (see also paragraph 15X(2)(o) of that Act). The PRESIDENT 30484 Alright. I will split the amendments. The question is that amendment (1) on sheet ZD154 be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [18:37]
(The President—Senator Brockman)

 34 AYES Abetz, E. Askew, W. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Carr, K. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. (Teller) Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Fierravanti-Wells, C. A. Gallagher, K. R. Griff, S. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kitching, K. J. E. Lambie, J. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. McMahon, S. J. O'Sullivan, M. A. Patrick, R. L. Payne, M. A. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Seselja, Z. M. Small, B. J. Smith, D. A. Stoker, A. J. 7 NOES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 18:40 The PRESIDENT 30484 The question now is that the remaining amendments on sheet ZD154 be agreed to. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 30484 I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senators Patrick and Lambie. Senator Griff 76760 I want to vote differently on each of these, if we could have them split. The PRESIDENT 30484 Alright. Then I will put the question on the amendments on sheet 1398 revised 2 first. The question is that those amendments be agreed to. Senator Patrick and Jacqui Lambie Network's circulated amendments— (1) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 4), before item 1, insert: 1A Subsection 287(1) (definition of disclosure threshold) Omit "$13,800", substitute "$1,000". 1B Subsection 287(1) (note to the definition of disclosure threshold) Repeal the note. 1C Subsection 287(1) (paragraph (a) of the definition of third party) Omit "the disclosure threshold", substitute "$10,000". (2) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 10), after item 3, insert: 3A Section 321A Repeal the section.    

The Senate divided. [18:42]
(The President—Senator Brockman)

 10 AYES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Griff, S. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Patrick, R. L. Rice, J. E. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. 31 NOES Abetz, E. Askew, W. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Carr, K. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Fierravanti-Wells, C. A. Gallagher, K. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kitching, K. J. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. McMahon, S. J. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payne, M. A. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Seselja, Z. M. Small, B. J. Smith, D. A. Stoker, A. J. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 18:44 The PRESIDENT 30484 I will now put the amendments on sheet 1401 revised 2, which I believe was circulated by Senator Lambie and Senator Patrick. Senator Patrick and Senator Lambie 's circulated amendments— (1) Schedule 2, page 4 (after line 6), after item 1, insert: 1A Subsection 287(1) (definition of regulated entity ) Omit "section 314B", substitute "sections 314AED and 314B". 1B Subsection 287(1) Insert: cost of an eventmeans the sum of amounts incurred for or in connection with the event by the person or entity who held the event. proceeds of an event means the sum of amounts: (a) received by the person or entity who held the event; and (b) derived directly or indirectly from the event. shared event cost: see section 287ABA. (2) Schedule 2, page 4 (after line 9), after item 2, insert: 2A After section 287AB Insert: 287ABA Meaning of shared event cost (1) The shared event cost of an event is the cost of the event, divided by the number of persons who attended the event. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the number of persons who attended an event does not include a person who was present at the event only for the purpose of providing services, including but not limited to catering, entertainment or security services. Example: The cost of an event was $10,000. 110 persons were present at the event. 10 persons were present only for the purpose of providing catering, entertainment and security services. 100 persons attended the event. The shared event cost is $100. (3) Schedule 2, page 7 (after line 10), after item 22, insert: 22A Section 302V After: Gifts totalling more than the disclosure threshold that are made by a single person to the same registered political party, State branch or political campaigner during a financial year must also be disclosed in a return provided to the Electoral Commission. insert: If a gift of more than the disclosure threshold is made with the proceeds of an event meeting certain criteria, the return provided by the person who made the gift must include the details of persons who contributed (or on whose behalf a contribution was made) to such proceeds. 22B After subsection 305A(4) Insert: (4A) For the purposes of this section, if: (a) a gift was made that was wholly or partly derived from the proceeds of an event; and (b) the proceeds of the event were equal to or more than 115% of the cost of the event; the required details of the gift are also: (c) the name and address of each person who made a contribution to the proceeds of the event of equal to or more than 115% of the shared event cost; and (d) the name and address of each person on whose behalf a contribution to the proceeds of the event was made of equal to or more than 115% of the shared event cost. 22C After subsection 305B(3) Insert: (3AA) If: (a) a gift was made that was wholly or partly derived from the proceeds of an event; and (b) the proceeds of the event were equal to or more than 115% of the cost of the event; the return must also set out: (c) the name and address of each person who made a contribution to the proceeds of the event of equal to or more than 115% of the shared event cost; and (d) the name and address of each person on whose behalf a contribution to the proceeds of the event was made of equal to or more than 115% of the shared event cost. 22D Section 314AAA After: Registered political parties, political campaigners and associated entities provide returns each financial year to the Electoral Commission setting out details relating to amounts received or paid or incurred by the parties, campaigners or entities during the year. Third parties also provide annual returns setting out details relating to electoral expenditure incurred by the third parties during the year. insert: Regulated entities (including registered political parties and their State branches, candidates, members of groups, political campaigners, third parties and associated entities) provide returns each financial year to the Electoral Commissioner setting out details of certain events held by the regulated entity, including the proceeds of the event and the names and addresses of those who contributed (or on whose behalf a contribution was made) to such proceeds. (4) Schedule 2, page 10 (after line 2), after item 33, insert: 33A After section 314AEC Insert: 314AED Annual returns relating to proceeds of events (1) This section applies if: (a) a regulated entity holds an event during a financial year; and (b) the proceeds of the event are equal to or more than 115% of the cost of the event; and (c) the proceeds of the event exceed the cost of the event by an amount equal to or more than the disclosure threshold. (2) A return for the financial year must be provided in accordance with this section by: (a) if the regulated entity is a political entity, political campaigner or associated entity—the agent or financial controller of the political entity, political campaigner or associated entity; or (b) if the regulated entity is a third party—the third party. Civil penalty: The higher of the following: (a) 120 penalty units; (b) if an amount is not disclosed under paragraph (4)(b) and there is sufficient evidence for the court to determine the amount, or an estimate of the amount, not disclosed under that paragraph—3 times that amount. (3) The return must be provided to the Electoral Commissioner within 16 weeks after the end of the financial year. (4) The return must specify: (a) the date of the event; and (b) the proceeds of the event; and (c) the cost of the event; and (d) the name and address of each person who made a contribution to the proceeds of the event of equal to or more than 115% of the shared event cost; and (e) the name and address of each person on whose behalf a contribution to the proceeds of the event was made of equal to or more than 115% of the shared event cost. (5) The return must be in the approved form. (6) Subsection 93(2) of the Regulatory Powers Act does not apply in relation to a contravention of subsection (2) of this section.  

The Senate divided. [18:46]
(The President—Senator Brockman)

 9 AYES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Patrick, R. L. Rice, J. E. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. 31 NOES Abetz, E. Askew, W. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Carr, K. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Fierravanti-Wells, C. A. Gallagher, K. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kitching, K. J. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. McMahon, S. J. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payne, M. A. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Seselja, Z. M. Small, B. J. Smith, D. A. Stoker, A. J. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 18:48 The PRESIDENT 30484 I will now move to amendments circulated by the Centre Alliance. The question is that the amendments on sheet 1524 be agreed to. Centre Alliance 's circulated amendments— (1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (lines 11 to 15), omit the item (including the note), substitute: 4 Application of amendments For the purposes of Part XX of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, references to financial years, in subsection 287F(1) of that Act as amended by this Schedule, are references to financial years beginning on or after this item commences. (2) Schedule 2, item 35, page 10 (lines 19 and 20), omit "the financial year in which this item commences and later financial years", substitute "a financial year beginning on or after the commencement of this item". (3) Schedule 2, item 35, page 10 (line 10), omit "subsections 287F(1) and", substitute "subsection". (4) Schedule 2, item 35, page 10 (lines 13 to 16), omit the note to subitem (1), substitute: Note: The effect of this subitem is that a person or entity may be required to be registered as an associated entity before the end of 90 days after the commencement of this item (see subsection 287H(2) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918).    

The Senate divided. [18:49]
(The President—Senator Brockman)

 10 AYES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Griff, S. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Patrick, R. L. Rice, J. E. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. 30 NOES Abetz, E. Askew, W. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Carr, K. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Fierravanti-Wells, C. A. Gallagher, K. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kitching, K. J. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. McMahon, S. J. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payne, M. A. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Small, B. J. Smith, D. A. Stoker, A. J. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

18:51 The PRESIDENT 30484 I will now move on to amendments circulated by the Australian Greens on sheet 1525. The Australian Greens circulated amendment— (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute: 1. The whole of the Act          1 July 2022. The Australian Greens opposed schedule 2 in the following terms— (2) Schedule 2, item 2, page 4 (lines 7 to 9. The PRESIDENT 30484 We will start with item 2 of schedule 2. The question is that item 2 of schedule 2 stand as amended by government amendment 3. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 30484 The question is amendment (1) on sheet 1525 be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [18:53]
(The President—Senator Brockman)

10 AYES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Griff, S. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Patrick, R. L. Rice, J. E. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. 30 NOES Abetz, E. Askew, W. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Carr, K. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Fierravanti-Wells, C. A. Gallagher, K. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kitching, K. J. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. McMahon, S. J. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payne, M. A. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Small, B. J. Smith, D. A. Stoker, A. J. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

18:56 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Can I just ask—because I made a mistake—that, as to Greens amendment (2) on sheet 1525, you record us as saying no, rather than yes, because it was a 'stand as printed', which I belatedly realised. Thank you for your indulgence. The PRESIDENT 30484 Thank you, Senator Waters. Third Reading 7045 18:57 The PRESIDENT 30484 The question is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and that the bill be now passed.    

The Senate divided. [18:58]
(The President—Senator Brockman)

 30 AYES Abetz, E. Askew, W. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Carr, K. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. (Teller) Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Fierravanti-Wells, C. A. Gallagher, K. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kitching, K. J. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. McMahon, S. J. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payne, M. A. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Small, B. J. Smith, D. A. Stoker, A. J. 9 NOES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Patrick, R. L. Rice, J. E. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

 PETITIONS 7046 PETITIONS COVID-19: Vaccination 7046 NOTICES 7047 NOTICES Presentation 7047 19:01 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 business of the Senate notice of motion No. 4 standing in my name for five sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2021 and business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1, standing in my name, for 13 sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Taxation Administration (Data Sharing—Relevant COVID-19 Business Support Program) Declaration 2021. 19:01 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move that the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings: the Biosecurity Amendment (Enhanced Risk Management) Bill 2021 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Superannuation Outcomes For Australians and Helping Australian Businesses Invest) Bill 2021. I also table statements for reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered during these sittings and to seek leave to have the statements incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The statements read as follows— STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2021 SPRING SITTINGS BIOSECURITY AMENDMENT (ENHANCED RISK MANAGEMENT) BILL Purpose of the Bill The bill will amend the Biosecurity Act 2015 to enhance the ability to manage the risk of pests and diseases entering, emerging, establishing themselves or spreading in Australian territory and causing harm to animal, plant and human health, the environment and the economy. It will strengthen the management of biosecurity risks to human health posed by maritime and aviation arrivals through improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the administration of the Biosecurity Act, and increasing a range of civil and criminal penalties to deter non-compliance and provide proportionate penalties. It will amend the Biosecurity Act to increase transparency and efficiency of expenditure on biosecurity related programs and activities by permitting the Agriculture Minister and Health Minister to authorise the expenditure. Reasons for Urgency In line with the Government's priorities, this bill is urgently required to ensure a fit-for-purpose human biosecurity framework that addresses critical challenges identified over the course of Australia's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It seeks to safeguard Australia's economic recovery and human health, both now and into the future. The bill is critical to supporting an effective biosecurity legislative framework to assess and manage both biosecurity and human biosecurity risk, provide certainty, streamline processes and focus resources effectively. Passage of the bill in the 2021 Spring sittings is critical to ensure that appropriate measures to respond to human biosecurity risks are in place to support the safe resumption of regular volumes of international travel and, in particular, the cruise ship industry. (Circulated by authority of the Minister for Agriculture and Northern Australia) STATEMENT OF RE ASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2021 SPRING SITTINGS TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (ENHANCING SUPERANNUATION OUTCOMES FOR AUSTRALIANS AND HELPING AUSTRALIAN BUSINESSES INVEST) BILL 2021 Purpose of the Bill The purpose of the Bill is to: remove the subsection in the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 which exempts an employer from their obligation to pay the superannuation guarantee if their employee's earnings are less than $450 in a calendar month; amend the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to increase the maximum releasable amount of voluntary contributions under the First Home Super Saver Scheme from $30,000 to $50,000; amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA) to reduce the eligibility age for the downsizer contributions to 60; remove the work test requirement for non-concessional and salary sacrifice contributions to allow older Australians greater flexibility to boost their retirement savings; amend the ITAA to allow trustees of self-managed superannuation funds and small Australian Prudential Regulation Authority-regulated funds to choose their preferred method of calculating exempt current pension income in certain circumstances; and allow businesses with aggregated annual turnover or total income of less than $5 billion to deduct the full cost of eligible depreciable assets acquired from 7:30PM AEDT on 6 October 2020 and first used or installed ready for use by 30 June 2023. Reasons for Urgency As most of the amendments in the Bill come into effect from 1 July 2022, timely consideration and passage of the Bill will: provide affected individuals, taxpayers, trustees and advisors with certainty about new arrangements; allow regulators to implement necessary changes; and enable industry to change their systems before the amendments come into effect. (Circulated by authority of the Treasurer) Presentation 7048 COMMITTEES 7050 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 7050 19:02 The PRESIDENT 30484 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being none, I will proceed to the discovery of formal business. BUDGET 7050 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committees 7050 19:03 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: (1) That estimates hearings by legislation committees for 2022 be scheduled as follows: 2021-22 additional estimates: Monday, 14 February and Tuesday, 15 February and if required, Friday, 18 February (Group A) Wednesday, 16 February and Thursday, 17 February and if required, Friday, 18 February (Group B) 2022-23 Budget est imates: Thursday, 31 March, Monday, 4 April and Tuesday, 5 April, and, if required, Friday, 8 April (Group A) Friday, 1 April, Wednesday, 6 April and Thursday, 7 April, and, if required, Friday, 8 April (Group B) Monday, 24 October and Tuesday, 25 October and if required, Friday, 28 October (supplementary hearings—Group A) Wednesday, 26 October and Thursday, 27 October and if required, Friday, 28 October (supplementary hearings—Group B). (2) That cross portfolio estimates hearings on Indigenous matters and on Murray-Darling Basin Plan matters be scheduled for Friday, 18 February, Friday, 8 April, and Friday, 28 October, but not be restricted to these days. (3) That the committees consider the proposed expenditure in accordance with the allocation of departments and agencies to committees agreed to by the Senate. (4) That committees meet in the following groups: Group A: Environment and Communications Finance and Public Administration Legal and Constitutional Affairs Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Group B: Community Affairs Economics Education and Employment Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. (5) That the committees report to the Senate on the following dates: (a) Tuesday, 29 March 2022 in respect of the 2021-22 additional estimates; and (b) Tuesday, 16 May 2022 in respect of the 2022-23 Budget estimates. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 7051 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 7051 19:03 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings: Electoral Legislation Amendment (Annual Disclosure Equality) Bill 2021 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Assurance of Senate Counting) Bill 2021 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Contingency Measures) Bill 2021 Investment Funds Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Exempting Disability Payments from Income Testing and Other Measures) Bill 2021. 19:04 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Mr President, we would like to have the question put separately on one of the bills covered by this motion, the Investment Funds Legislation Amendment Bill 2021, because we wish to vote differently on that bill. The PRESIDENT 30484 The question is that the motion by Senator Duniam, except for in respect of the Investment Funds Legislation Amendment Bill 2021, be agreed to: Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 30484 The question now is that the motion by Senator Duniam in respect of the Investment Funds Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [19:09]
(The President—Senator Brockman)

 33 AYES Abetz, E. Askew, W. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Carr, K. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Fierravanti-Wells, C. A. Gallagher, K. R. Griff, S. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kitching, K. J. E. Lambie, J. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. McMahon, S. J. O'Sullivan, M. A. Patrick, R. L. Payne, M. A. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Small, B. J. Smith, D. A. (Teller) Stoker, A. J. Urquhart, A. E. 7 NOES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 NOTICES 7052 NOTICES Postponement 7052 19:12 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I seek leave to postpone business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1, standing in my name for today, relating to a referral to the Environment and Communications References Committee (Protection of Australia's native forests and wildlife), till tomorrow. Leave granted. COMMITTEES 7053 COMMITTEES Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee 7053 Reference 7053 19:12 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia by leave—because remote participation doesn't allow Senator Hanson to move business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 herself, at the request of Senator Hanson, I move: That the COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2021 be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 7 February 2022. The PRESIDENT 30484 The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [19:17]
(The President—Senator Brockman)

 23 AYES Abetz, E. Askew, W. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Fierravanti-Wells, C. A. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McMahon, S. J. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payne, M. A. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Seselja, Z. M. Smith, D. A. (Teller) Stoker, A. J. 22 NOES Ayres, T. Carr, K. J. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Griff, S. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Keneally, K. K. Kitching, K. J. E. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. Patrick, R. L. Rice, J. E. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. 14 PAIRS Antic, A. Watt, M. P. Birmingham, S. J. Wong, P. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Davey, P. M. Farrell, D. E. Fawcett, D. J. Sheldon, A. V. Hanson, P. L. Steele-John, J. A. McDonald, S. E. Pratt, L. C. McLachlan, A. L. Smith, M. F. Molan, A. J. Dodson, P. Paterson, J. W. Bilyk, C. L. Rennick, G. Chisholm, A. Roberts, M. I. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Small, B. J. Green, N. L. Van, D. A. Polley, H.

Senator Sterle did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Ryan
Question agreed to.

 NOTICES 7054 NOTICES Postponement 7054 19:19 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I seek leave to postpone business of the Senate notice of motion No. 3, standing in my name for today, relating to a referral to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee (Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 and related bills), till tomorrow. Leave granted. STATEMENTS 7054 STATEMENTS 19:19 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I seek leave to make a personal statement. Leave granted. Senator O'NEILL 140651 My apologies to the Senate for delaying the vote. I was actually at my desk. We've just had so many divisions, and it didn't register that it was not a Mickey. I'm very sorry that I've delayed the Senate, and I seek a recommittal of the vote. The PRESIDENT 30484 Minister. Senator Ruston 243273 With the indulgence of the chamber, could I ask Senator O'Neill if we could take that on advisement. I'm not saying no and I'm not saying yes— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator Ruston 243273 Senators—with the indulgence of the chamber, Mr President—we have some very strictly-adhered-to protocols in relation to misadventure, and I was just seeking the opportunity to be able to get some advice in relation to whether this is a normal reason why the chamber would accept a recommittal. Of course, if it is, Senator O'Neill, I'm more than happy to agree to it. However, I would like the opportunity to seek that advice. Senator O'NEILL 140651 If you will allow or prefer me to say that I was in the bathroom, well, I will say that. The PRESIDENT 30484 We will be in formal business for quite a few minutes, so I will allow some discussion to occur. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 30484 Senators, let's just allow that discussion to take place. Let's move to the next motion. BUSINESS 7055 BUSINESS Days And Hours Of Meeting 7055 19:21 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: That the days of meeting of the Senate for 2022 be as follows: Autumn sittings: Tuesday, 8 February to Thursday, 10 February Budget sittings: Tuesday, 29 March and Wednesday, 30 March Winter sittings: Monday, 9 May to Thursday, 12 May Monday, 16 May to Thursday, 19 May Tuesday, 7 June to Thursday, 9 June Monday, 20 June to Thursday, 23 June Monday, 27 June to Thursday, 30 June Spring sittings: Tuesday, 9 August to Thursday, 11 August Monday, 15 August to Thursday, 18 August Monday, 5 September to Thursday, 8 September Monday, 12 September to Thursday, 15 September Monday, 17 October to Thursday, 20 October Monday, 21 November to Thursday, 24 November Monday, 28 November to Thursday, 1 December. 19:21 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I seek leave to move an amendment to the motion and to make a short statement of no more than two minutes. The PRESIDENT 30484 Is leave granted? Senator WATERS 192970 I've sought leave to move the amendment, and I've also sought leave for a two-minute statement. The PRESIDENT 30484 Is leave granted? The PRESIDENT 30484 I believe leave has been granted to move the amendment, but leave has not been granted for the two-minute statement. You have leave for one minute, Senator Waters. Senator WATERS 192970 Thank you, President. I move: Insert: Monday, 28 February to Thursday, 3 March Tuesday, 8 March to Thursday 10 March Senator WATERS 192970 We have moved to add two sitting weeks to this pathetic Senate sitting calendar, which has barely any sitting days in it at all. It is a record-low number of sitting days. We could be debating and passing ICAC legislation. We could be debating and passing legislation to give effect to the Jenkins recommendations. But this Prime Minister, who has set this flaccid calendar, can't face the wrath of the chamber and doesn't have a legislative agenda, and that's why the government have listed barely any sitting days. It's absolutely shameless. We are seeking support from the chamber for the chamber to do its job: to sit and consider legislation and debate it. We've just seen a gag rammed through where we couldn't debate anything. We want some more sitting days so we can do our job: anticorruption legislation and the Jenkins recommendations. Let's do our job. (Time expired) 19:23 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Mr President, can I seek leave to make a short statement? The PRESIDENT 30484 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING I put on the record that Labor won't be supporting Senator Waters's amendment, but we do have sympathy for it. But Labor has taken the position, as a convention of this place—just referring to the previous matter— The PRESIDENT 30484 Order! There is someone on their feet, I assume on a point of order? Senator Small 291406 On a point of order, Mr President. I do apologise to Senator Gallagher for interrupting, but Senator Thorpe just made the most outrageous statement directed at Senator Hughes, which you probably didn't hear. But in the scheme of disgusting statements made in this chamber, that surely ranks at the top of them. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Small, I obviously did not hear the statement. Senator Thorpe— Senator Thorpe 280304 I'm happy to retract, Mr President. I just got a view of something over there that disturbed me. But I'm happy to retract. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Hughes, Senator Thorpe has retracted whatever statement she made. I think we should move on. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 30484 Order! It's the end of a long week; I understand that. Let's try to keep the chamber moving. Senator GALLAGHER ING I was just making the point that Labor has always taken the view that the sitting program is the government's to determine, which is why we won't be supporting your amendment, even though we have sympathy, and we acknowledge that the government have a very low number of sitting days for this chamber because they have lost control of it. But I would point out the purpose of convention in this place to allow the smooth operating of this chamber, and I urge the government to consider that in light of the request that Senator O'Neill made about the previous matter before you, Mr President. 19:25 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement for less than a minute. The PRESIDENT 30484 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator LAMBIE 250026 I cannot believe you people over here. You were down in the lower house going on and on about the Prime Minister and those sitting weeks. We have all this stuff that needs to go through. What are you so concerned about? Is the election that important to you? You buy your seats anyway; you don't earn them. I cannot believe that Tony Burke is down there being a Twitter sensation. Well, take this Twitter! You are full of it. You don't want extra sitting weeks. This is embarrassing for you. You should be doing the right thing. We get paid to sit in here and get the job done. It is an absolutely disgraceful performance by Labor. If we want those extra two sitting weeks, get it done! 19:26 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 30484 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator PATRICK 144292 I would just encourage Labor to support this amendment. I take the point that Senator Gallagher has made about the government control of the Senate. But, of course, we suspend standing orders from time to time. We seek to do that when things are important. Indeed, this is not disorderly; it's simply amending a motion that would permit more sitting days and more scrutiny of government. I urge the government to change their position. 19:27 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 30484 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator WONG 00AOU I want to make a few points here. We as the opposition and in government over decades have taken the view that the government of the day has the right to set the parliamentary sitting schedule. That is the position that we have consistently taken. So the position that we are demonstrating today is no different to the position that successive Senate delegations— Senator WONG 00AOU I am happy to take the interjection, Senator Lambie. What I would say to you is this: we do have a view that this chamber should be run differently. We do have a view that a government should legislate on the things that matter. We do have a view about actually having a government with an agenda. What we say is: elect a Labor government. Elect a Labor government and then we will put forward a Senate program— Senator WONG 00AOU With respect, Senator Patrick, you've voted with the government on many pieces of legislation over many years. The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Wong— Senator WONG 00AOU I understand that people are tired, and I understand that this has been difficult, but I would say— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Wong, the time has expired. If you want to seek leave— Senator WONG 00AOU I would seek leave to finish the point. The PRESIDENT 30484 Leave is granted. Senator WONG 00AOU I thank the Senate. I will make a point about conventions. This place is about the management, in many ways, of conflict and different views about how this country should be run. Part of how we manage and contain some of this conflict is by the observation of conventions. They include things like ministerial accountability, the pairing arrangements and the recommittal of votes. There's a whole range of things, and this is one of them. It is not about ceding control of the chamber; it is about recognising the role of executive government in a Westminster system, because we are also a party of government and we seek to change the country by changing the government. 19:30 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I seek leave to make a one-minute statement. Leave granted. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X I wish to make two points. One is in relation to the sitting calendar, to acknowledge that it is a replication of the 2019 sitting calendar, in terms of accommodating the delivery of a budget in a normal way and enabling the preparation of that budget, but it does identify, of course, the sittings right throughout the course of the year. We all know there will be an election at some stage; however, our intention is fully to deliver upon those sittings and to get the parliament back as quickly as possible if we are in a position to do so. The second point is to acknowledge, as Senator Wong just highlighted, the importance of conventions—the convention of the government establishing the sitting program and of supporting that approach. That is a convention the Liberal and National parties have supported and will continue to support. 19:31 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland by leave—I would like to belatedly add Senator Patrick's name to my amendment. Leave granted. The PRESIDENT 30484 The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Waters to government business motion No. 1 be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [19:35]
(The President—Senator Brockman)

 10 AYES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Griff, S. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Patrick, R. L. Rice, J. E. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. 32 NOES Abetz, E. Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fierravanti-Wells, C. A. Gallagher, K. R. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Keneally, K. K. McAllister, J. R. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. McMahon, S. J. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payne, M. A. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Small, B. J. Smith, D. A. Stoker, A. J. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

19:37 The PRESIDENT 30484 I will now put the substantive motion. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 7059 DOCUMENTS Food Standards Australia New Zealand: Regulatory Impact Statement 7059 Order for the Production of Documents 7059 19:38 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania On behalf of Senator Whish-Wilson I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, by no later than midday on 2 December 2021, the following documents: (a) the agenda (final or draft) and any supporting documents for the food ministers' meeting due to be held on 16 December 2021; and (b) the summary of the submissions made to the Public Consultation – Review of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 - draft Regulatory Impact Statement. 19:38 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 30484 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The Commonwealth does not have permission from relevant state and territory and New Zealand ministers to table the documents that have been requested. Disclosure of documents could damage relationships between governments. Submissions from public consultation will be made public in due course. Question agreed to. Food Standards Australia New Zealand: Submissions 7059 Order for the Production of Documents 7059 19:39 Senator McK JKM Tasmania IM (—) (): On behalf of Senator Whish-Wilson I move: (1) That there be laid on the table, by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, by no later than 8 December 2021, the submissions made to the Public Consultation - Review of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 - draft Regulatory Impact Statement. (2) If the Senate is not sitting when the documents are ready for presentation, the documents are to be presented to the President under standing order 166. Question agreed to. Offshore Petroleum Exploration Acreage Releases 7059 Order for the Production of Documents 7059 19:39 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania At the request of Senator Whish-Wilson, I move: (1) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Water, by no later than 8 December 2021, the following documents: (a) the updated interested stakeholder list that is used for targeted communication in respect of Offshore Petroleum Exploration Acreage Releases; (b) the targeted communication sent to interested stakeholders in respect of the 2021 Offshore Petroleum Exploration Acreage Release for Bonaparte and Browse, Northern Carnarvon, Otway and Sorell, and Gippsland Basins; and (c) the minutes, agendas and correspondence, and any other documentation pertaining to the meetings and workshops held with stakeholders in respect of the facilitated engagement between the offshore petroleum industry and commercial fishing industry (as outlined in the Government response to the Environment and Communications References Committee report Making waves: The impact of seismic testing on fisheries and the marine environment). (2) If the Senate is not sitting when the documents are ready for presentation, the documents are to be presented to the President under standing order 166. Question agreed to. BILLS 7060 BILLS Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Voter Choice Through Optional Preferential Voting and the Robson Rotation) Bill 2021 7060

Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Voter Choice Through Optional Preferential Voting and the Robson Rotation) Bill 2021

First Reading 7060 19:40 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to elections in respect of ballot papers and to provide for optional preferential voting and ensure voter choice. Question agreed to. Senator McGRATH 217241 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 7060 19:41 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I table an explanatory memorandum to the bill and move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— I am pleased, as Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, to present the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Voter Choice Through Optional Preferential Voting and the Robson Rotation) Bill 2021, to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. We are blessed to live in one of the oldest and most successful democracies in the word. The strength of our electoral system works because over a century a lot of people, paid and unpaid, have worked to make it so through blood, sweat and tears. Our system relies on openness and transparency, that is upheld in the expression of voter choice and intent. Elections should not only be fair, open, and transparent, but seen to be so. We must always work to fine-tune our electoral system. This Bill works to improve our electoral system and responds to the final report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the conduct of the 2019 federal election and matters related thereto, which was tabled on 10 December 2020. The Bill adopts Recommendation 2 of the JSCEM report by introducing optional preferential voting to replace the current system of compulsory preferential voting, and by introducing the Robson Rotation of candidates' names on ballot papers in federal elections. The Bill proposes to: reduce the complexity in the democratic process and enhance voter choice in House of Representatives elections, by introducing optional preferential voting to replace the requirement for compulsory preferential voting; uphold voter intention through vote saving provisions that capture voter intent and reduce the risk of vote informality; introduce the Robson Rotation, whereby the position of candidates listed on House of Representatives ballot papers are re-ordered between ballot papers, to remove the effect of advantageous or favoured ballot positions; and increase transparency of elections by removing any real or perceived advantage of ballot paper position by distributing and/or limiting the effect of 'down the ballot paper', 'linear' or 'donkey' votes. Part 1 - Optional Preferential Voting The JSCEM identified a rise in informal votes in the 2019 House of Representatives election, with New South Wales having the highest rate of vote informality. The committee concluded that the increase in informal votes was due to a variety of factors including English as a second language, number of candidates on the ballot paper, and the proximity to state and territory elections that have differing voting systems. This indicates that the current system is complex, can be confused with other voting systems in Australia, and requires simplification. This Bill will introduce optional preferential voting to replace the existing system of full or compulsory preferential voting. This will simplify the voting process and reduce voter confusion, while also enhancing voter choice. Under optional preferential voting, voters will have greater choice at the ballot box. Upon choosing their preferred candidate, voters will now have the choice as to whether or not they wish to preference other candidates. If yes, voters may wish to preference some or all of the candidates and their vote will be formal. This amendment removes the compulsory requirement for voters to number every box. If the voter decides not to preference other candidates, their vote will be formal for their preferred candidate. The purpose of this Part is to enable voters to vote for their preferred candidate and optimise their ability to choose who they vote for. The system enhances voter choice by providing the option for a voter to actively decide when their vote exhausts if their preferred candidate or candidates are excluded in the counting process. The voter has the opportunity to choose not to vote for a candidate. The right to not vote for a candidate that a voter does not support or does not know is fundamental to a voter's right to take part in elections, upholding the notion that the voter is the primary determinant of who they vote for and the electoral outcome. Vote Saving Provisions This Bill will enhance voter participation and reduce vote informality by making the voting process less complex, and introduce vote saving provisions to ensure voter choice. These provisions allow for a vote to remain formal despite having missed or repeated a preference allocation. The voter's preferences will be counted up until the error occurs, which is the point where the voter's intention is no longer clear. With votes to remain formal, despite the ballot papers being marked incorrectly, more votes will be formal—something that the current system fails to achieve. Taken together, the introduction of optional preferential voting and the preference saving provisions will improve transparency and simplify the voting system, thereby enhancing the number of formal votes, and supporting the democratic process. Part 2 - Robson Rotation To increase fairness in the electoral process, this Bill introduces the Robson Rotation for House of Representatives ballot papers, where the order of candidates' names is randomised from one ballot paper to the other. The existing system of using one ballot paper allows for candidates who position favourably in the ballot draw to benefit from 'down the ballot', 'linear' or 'donkey' votes. This Bill introduces a methodology where ballot papers are printed in batches, which broadly reflects the methodology used in Tasmanian elections. This Bill provides for the determination of the order of candidate names on ballot papers, and the printing and distribution of ballot papers. It maintains existing measures to reduce voter confusion if there are similarities in the names of candidates. Overall, the randomisation of the order that candidates appear on ballot papers promotes fairness in the democratic process, as it removes the advantage associated with candidates being positioned in more favourable positions. Favourable positions are those that are traditionally advantageous if drawn in the ballot including the top, the bottom and sometimes the middle position on the ballot paper. These are the positions that campaign managers get excited about. These changes to the ballot papers will increase fairness of the electoral system, by removing any real or perceived advantage. This will more evenly distribute the benefit from 'down the ballot', 'linear' or 'donkey' votes between all candidates. Conclusion This Bill further improves the voting system and upholds the open and transparent voting system, which provides greater voter choice. Part 1 of this Bill provides for optional preferential voting and preference saving provisions to enhance voter choice, intent, and participation by reducing the number of informal ballots. Part 2 introduces the Robson Rotation for House of Representatives ballot papers, to remove the effect of advantageous or favoured ballot positions and improve the fairness of the electoral process. This Bill seeks to improve Australia's democratic process by enhancing voter choice and promoting the transparency, openness, and fairness of our elections. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator McGRATH 217241 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. STATEMENTS 7061 STATEMENTS Personal Explanations 7061 19:41 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I seek leave to make a personal statement. Leave granted. Senator THORPE 280304 I just want to unreservedly take back the comments that I made earlier when interjecting, and I apologise to that senator, Senator Hughes, wholeheartedly. That won't happen again. So I apologise to the senator and also the Senate. DOCUMENTS 7062 DOCUMENTS Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program 7062 Order for the Production of Documents 7062 19:42 Senator H I0U South Australia ANSON-YOUNG () (): I seek leave to amend motion No. 1291 standing in my name, in the terms circulated to the chamber. It was simply a change to the minister's official title. Leave granted. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U I move: That— (a) the Senate notes: (i) the refusal of the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction, the Honourable Angus Taylor, to provide information and documents requested by the Environment and Communications References Committee in a written question on notice dated 31 August 2021 as part of its inquiry into gas production in the Beetaloo Basin, and (ii) the refusal of the Minister for Resources and Water, the Honourable Keith Pitt, to provide documents requested by the Environment and Communications References Committee in a written question on notice, dated 31August 2021, as part of its inquiry into gas production in the Beetaloo Basin; and (b) there be laid on the table by Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction, by no later than 7 December 2021, the following documents: (i) unredacted document 4 of FOI Disclosure Log 21/013/68011M, relating to email correspondence dated 14 January 2021 between Empire Energy and the office of the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction, and (ii) unredacted document 5 of FOI Disclosure Log 21/013/68011M relating to email correspondence dated 25 February 2021 between Empire Energy and the office of the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction; (c) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Water, by no later than 7 December 2021, unredacted FOI Disclosure Document 68003 relating to correspondence between Empire Energy and the office of the Minister for Resources and Water; (d) the names and contact details of private individuals may be redacted from the ordered 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. 19:42 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 30484 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction and the Minister for Resources and Water have complied with the provision of all documents under orders for the production of documents relating to the Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program, and the Senate has already received redacted documents consistent with what has been provided to applicants under the Freedom of Information Act. Question agreed to. Community Development Grants: Grant Award GA1528 7062 Order for the Production of Documents 7062 19:43 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania At the request of Senator Whish-Wilson, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, by no later than 2 December 2021, the following documents: (a) the application made by the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (Tasmania) in respect of the community development grant award GA1528 (the Three Capes Track project); (b) the assessments of the grant applications for GA1528, including any independent viability assessment; (c) the grant agreement in respect of grant award GA1528; (d) the payment schedule for the grant award GA1528; (e) any progress reports, ad-hoc reports and completion report submitted in respect of grant award GA1528; (f) any financial declaration and audited financial acquittal report submitted in respect of grant award GA1528; (g) any grant agreement variation submitted in respect of grant award GA1528; (h) any record of compliance visits in respect of grant award GA1528; and (i) the evaluation/s completed in respect of grant award GA1528. 19:43 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 30484 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 Community development grant projects contribute to local economies, create jobs and boost confidence within a region. They provide much-needed new and upgraded facilities, from sporting facilities to upgrading community centres and small-scale infrastructure. The process includes detailed assessments, including of project viability and sustainability and of project benefits. The government won't oppose this motion but is unable to provide the requested documents within the required time frame. Question agreed to. Environment and Communications References Committee 7063 Order for the Production of Documents 7063 19:44 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia by leave—I, and on behalf of Senators Green and Patrick, move: That— (a) the Senate notes that: (i) in accordance with Senate resolution 44, government responses to committee reports are required within three months of a report being tabled, (ii) since 1973 successive governments have affirmed their commitment to providing such responses, and (iii) the President's report to the Senate of 30 June 2021 indicates that government responses to 18 Senate Environment and Communications References Committee reports tabled in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2021 remain outstanding; (b) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 3 pm on the first sitting Tuesday of 2022, the outstanding government response to each of the 18 Environment and Communications References Committee reports tabled from 2014 to 2021; and (c) in the event that not all government responses to the 18 reports are tabled, the Senate requires that the Minister representing the Prime Minister attend the Senate at 9.30 am on the first sitting Thursday of 2022 to provide an explanation, of no more than 10 minutes, of the Government's failure to provide all outstanding responses; and (i) any senator may, at the conclusion of the explanation, move without notice to take note of the Minister's explanation, or (ii) in the event that the Minister does not respond to the order or provide an explanation, any senator may, without notice, move a motion relating to the Minister's failure to provide either a response or an explanation; (iii) and any motion under paragraph (c) may be debated for no longer than 60 minutes, shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes. 19:44 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a very short statement. The PRESIDENT 30484 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The government will consider the responses and will make a commitment to publish these when finalised. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 7064 COMMITTEES Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee 7064 Reference 7064 19:45 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to recommit business of the Senate No. 2 for a vote, based on the explanation provided by Senator O'Neill. Leave granted. The PRESIDENT 30484 The question is that business of the Senate motion No. 2 be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [19:50]
(The President—Senator Brockman)

 24 AYES Askew, W. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. (Teller) Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. McMahon, S. J. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payne, M. A. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Small, B. J. Smith, D. A. Stoker, A. J. 24 NOES Ayres, T. Carr, K. J. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Griff, S. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Keneally, K. K. Kitching, K. J. E. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Patrick, R. L. Rice, J. E. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Wong, P. 13 PAIRS Abetz, E. Smith, M. F. Antic, A. Green, N. L. Fawcett, D. J. Watt, M. P. Fierravanti-Wells, C. A. Farrell, D. E. Hanson, P. L. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Hume, J. Bilyk, C. L. McDonald, S. E. Pratt, L. C. McKenzie, B. Brown, C. L. Molan, A. J. Dodson, P. Rennick, G. Sheldon, A. V. Roberts, M. I. Steele-John, J. A. Seselja, Z. M. Chisholm, A. Van, D. A. Polley, H.

Senator Sterle did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Ryan.
Question negatived.

 COVID-19 Select Committee 7065 Report 7065 19:52 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I present the third interim report of the Select Committee on COVID-19. I move: That the Senate adopt the recommendations contained in the report proposing orders for the production of documents. Question agreed to. Accordingly, the following resolutions were adopted— COVID-19—Select Committee—Third interim report—Answers to questions—Order for production of documents—Attendance by minister (1) That the Senate notes that the Select Committee on COVID-19 has rejected Senator Cash's public interest immunity claim. (2) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, by no later than midday on 2 December 2021, answers that provide the information sought by the questions listed in Table 2.1 at Appendix 2 of the third interim report of the Select Committee on COVID-19. (3) In the event that the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care fails to table this information:    (a) the Senate requires the Minister to attend the Senate at the conclusion of question time on 2 December 2021 to provide an explanation, of no more than 10 minutes, of the Minister's failure to table the information;    (b) at the conclusion of the Minister's explanation, or in the event that the Minister fails to provide an explanation, any senator may move to take note of the explanation or the failure to provide an explanation; and    (c) any motion under the above paragraph may be debated for no longer than 60 minutes and have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for no longer than 10 minutes each. COVID-19—Select Committee—Third interim report—AstraZeneca vaccine—Order for production of document—Attendance by minister (1) That the Senate notes that the Select Committee on COVID-19 has rejected the Minister for Health and Aged Care's public interest immunity claim. (2) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, by no later than midday on 2 December 2021, details of costs to the Australian Government associated with retooling CSL's domestic facilities for the manufacture of the AstraZeneca vaccine, as requested by Senator Patrick on 28 January 2021 (Committee Hansard, 28 January 2021, p. 28). (3) In the event that the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care fails to table this document:    (a) the Senate requires the Minister to attend the Senate at the conclusion of question time on 2 December 2021 to provide an explanation, of no more than 10 minutes, of the Minister's failure to table the document;    (b) at the conclusion of the Minister's explanation, or in the event that the Minister fails to provide an explanation, any senator may move to take note of the explanation or the failure to provide an explanation; and    (c) any motion under the above paragraph may be debated for no longer than 60 minutes and have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for no longer than 10 minutes each. COVID-19—Select Committee—Third interim report—National Cabinet briefing—Order for production of documents—Attendance by minister (1) That the Senate notes that the Select Committee on COVID-19 has rejected the Minister for Health and Aged Care's public interest immunity claim. (2) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, by no later than midday on 2 December 2021, documents used in the briefing on 19 April 2021 provided by Dr Brendan Murphy, Secretary, and Ms Caroline Edwards PSM, Associate Secretary of the Department of Health, to National Cabinet on domestic and international vaccine supply and changes to the Australian vaccination strategy. (3) In the event that the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care fails to table the documents:    (a) the Senate requires the Minister to attend the Senate at the conclusion of question time on 2 December 2021 to provide an explanation, of no more than 10 minutes, of the Minister's failure to table the documents;    (b) at the conclusion of the Minister's explanation, or in the event that the Minister fails to provide an explanation, any senator may move to take note of the explanation or the failure to provide an explanation; and    (c) any motion under the above paragraph may be debated for no longer than 60 minutes and have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for no longer than 10 minutes each. Senator GALLAGHER ING I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Scrutiny of Bills Committee 7066 Scrutiny Digest 7066 19:53 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Chair of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Senator Polley, I present Scrutiny Digest 18 of 2021. Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee 7066 Delegated Legislation Monitor 7066 19:54 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales On behalf of the Chair of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, Senator Fierravanti-Wells, I present the Delegated legislation monitor 17 of 2021. Treaties Joint Committee 7066 Report 7066 19:54 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the 198th report of the committee relating to European tariff rate quotas following withdrawal of the United Kingdom. National Disability Insurance Scheme Joint Committee 7067 Report 7067 19:54 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I present two reports as listed at item 17 of today's Order of Business, together with accompanying documents. Human Rights Committee, Implementation of the National Redress Scheme Joint Select Committee, Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity Joint Committee 7067 Membership 7067 19:55 The PRESIDENT 30484 I have received a letter requesting changes in the membership of committees. 19:55 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—Joint Statutory Committee— Discharged—Senator Scarr Appointed—Senator McLachlan Human Rights—Joint Statutory Commi ttee— Discharged—Senators Dodson and Green Appointed—Senators O'Neill and Pratt Implementation of the National Redress Scheme—Joint Select Committee— Discharged—Senator Dean Smith Appointed—Senator O'Sullivan. Senate adjourned at 19 : 55