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:

Aged Care Legislation (Emergency Leave) Bill 2020

Export Control Legislation Amendment (Certification of Narcotic Exports) Bill 2020

National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2020

Privacy Amendment (Public Health Contact Information) Bill 2020; and

Superannuation Amendment (PSSAP Membership) Bill 2020.

Leave granted.

I move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Privacy Amendment (Public Health Contact Information) Bill 2020 will ensure that there are strong ongoing privacy protections to support the download, use and eventual decommissioning of the Australian Government's COVIDSafe app.

At release, COVIDSafe was supported by interim privacy protections contained in the Minister for Health's Determination under the Biosecurity Act 2015. Building on this, the purpose of this Bill is to:

1. Enshrine the privacy protections in the Determination into primary legislation by inserting a new Part into the Privacy Act 1988

2. Give the Australian Information Commissioner oversight of COVIDSafe app data, and

3. Introduce additional provisions that clarify protections in the Determination.

The Bill guarantees that the Australian public can have confidence that their privacy will be protected if they download and use COVIDSafe. An increase in the uptake of COVIDSafe will help States and Territories to trace outbreaks and combat the spread of COVID-19.

Background

To understand the Bill's privacy protections, it is first crucial to understand how COVIDSafe operates and handles personal information. You will also see that strong privacy protections have been built into the design of COVIDSafe, as it requires users to provide the minimal amount of information required for contact tracing, which is encrypted until it is required by Health officials.

COVIDSafe is a voluntary app developed by the Australian Government that was launched on 26 April 2020. COVIDSafe can be installed on Android and iOS personal devices to collect information to assist State and Territory health officials when they conduct contact tracing to combat the spread of COVID-19.

When a person downloads COVIDSafe, they are asked to register by entering a limited amount of personal information: a name or pseudonym, an age range, a mobile phone number and a postcode. Once verified by text message, this information is then uploaded in an encrypted form to the National COVIDSafe Data Store.

Once a user has registered, COVIDSafe works by using Bluetooth signals to record encrypted data about close contacts with other users and stores this locally on their device. If this data is not uploaded to the National COVIDSafe Data Store, it is deleted on a rolling 21-day basis. Unlike manual contact tracing, COVIDSafe can record close contacts who are not known to the user – for example, people who sit near a user on the bus, at an event, or in line at the supermarket. When a COVIDSafe user tests positive for COVID-19, they will be contacted by a health official in their state or territory as part of the usual contact tracing process. When making contact, the health official will ask the person if they use COVIDSafe. If they do, the health official will send them a code by text message to enter in the app. If the code is entered, the user consents to uploading the encrypted data about their close contacts to the National COVIDSafe Data Store.

Once information about close contacts is uploaded, state and territory contact tracers can access this information to notify the positive user's close contacts that they may have been exposed to the coronavirus. From this point, contact tracers will inform people at risk of COVID-19 that they have been exposed, without identifying the infected app user. Contact tracers will step people at risk through what to do next, such as getting tested or self-isolating.

COVIDSafe has the potential to significantly speed up existing manual contact tracing processes, and in turn could accelerate the pace at which governments can ease restrictions while still keeping Australians safe.

Biosecurity declaration

The Australian public must have confidence that COVIDSafe protects their privacy for it to be used and highly effective in combating the spread of COVID-19. To this end, the Minister for Health, the Hon Greg Hunt MP, made a determination under the Biosecurity Act on 25 April 2020—before COVIDSafe's launch. This Determination provided strong interim privacy protections for data collected through COVIDSafe, prior to the passage of this Bill.

The Determination contains provisions that:

Finally, the Determination created criminal offences for the breach of the above requirements, with a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment.

Enshrining the Determination

The Australian Government has now developed this Bill to enshrine the COVIDSafe privacy protections in the Determination in primary legislation.

The protections in the Bill will apply to all COVIDSafe data from the point at which the Bill commences, even if that data was created before the Bill commenced. Until the Bill is passed, the Determination will continue to apply to the handling of COVIDSafe app data.

The Bill will also override the effect of any previously-enacted laws under section 94ZD. This means that the Bill will apply in place of any other laws that may apply, including the Determination, once it passes into law. At that point, those handling the COVIDSafe app data will have a single legislative reference – the Commonwealth Privacy Act.

Criminal offences under the Bill

While I do not plan to address those areas of the Bill which directly replicate the Determination, I note that key criminal offences from the Determination continue to apply, and remain subject to the same penalties. These penalties are imprisonment for five years, a fine of 300 penalty units ($63,000), or both. The offences include:

Committing criminal offences will breach the Privacy Act

The Bill ensures oversight of COVIDSafe app data by the Australian Information Commissioner (the Commissioner). The offences under the Bill will also be breaches of the Privacy Act in certain circumstances. Therefore, (under section 94R) if a person commits an offence under the Bill and that person is either:

then the person's conduct will also breach the Privacy Act.

This gives individuals affected by the breach more options for enforcement because they will have the option to make a complaint to the Commissioner in addition to being able to report the matter to law enforcement.

Broader application of the Privacy Act

The Bill will go further than the Determination by ensuring that COVIDSafe app data must also be treated as 'personal information' under the Privacy Act (section 94Q). This automatically applies a range of existing Privacy Act protections to COVIDSafe app data, including privacy policy, notification, and security obligations. The Commissioner will be able to undertake a formal assessment of whether an entity subject to the Privacy Act, or a State or Territory health authority handling COVIDSafe app data, is complying with the requirements in the Bill.

The Commissioner will also have discretion to refer matters that may constitute a breach of a State or Territory privacy law to the responsible State or Territory privacy regulator.

There is an additional requirement that the Commissioner provide regular public reports on the performance and exercise of her new powers and functions under Part VIIIA.

Application of Notifiable Data Breaches scheme

The Bill applies the existing Notifiable Data Beaches Scheme to COVIDSafe app data under section 94S. The Bill requires the administrator of the National COVIDSafe data store, or a State or Territory health authority handling COVIDSafe app data to notify the Commissioner of any data breach involving COVIDSafe app data. The Commissioner will then have the power to require that breach to be notified to affected individuals.

The notification requirement would be automatic in the event of a data breach (much stronger than the Privacy Act's existing data breach notification requirements).

Summary of further differences between the Bill and Determination

The Bill also includes new clauses which:

I will now outline why these changes have been made.

Requiring the use of COVIDSafe

The prohibition on requiring a person to use the COVIDSafe app has been clarified under section 94H. A person will not be liable for this offence if they require a person to use COVIDSafe before entering their private residence, reflecting the normal expectation that a person is generally free to deny another person access to their home for any reason. However, this exemption is limited—it would not apply to other situations covered by the offence involving a commercial relationship, such as a landlord/tenant relationship, a share house relationship or an employment relationship.

Protections for former COVIDSafe users

Section 94N is a new provision that guarantees that COVIDSafe will not be used to collect any further data from people who have chosen to delete the app. Section 94N provides that if a user re-registers for the app, data collection can resume. This protection provides further assurance that a user's consent is central to COVIDSafe data collection.

Administration of the National COVIDSafe Data Store

The Bill designates the Australian Department of Health as the administrator of the National COVIDSafe Data Store, and allows it to delegate some or all of these functions to certain Commonwealth Government agencies under the proposed section 94Z. The Department of Health must make that delegation via a 'notifiable instrument', meaning the delegation will always be announced publicly. Importantly, an enforcement body or intelligence agency cannot be designated as the Data Store administrator.

Currently, the Digital Transformation Agency (DTA) is responsible for technical administration of COVIDSafe and the National COVIDSafe Data Store, in consultation with the Department of Health. When the Bill comes into law, the Department of Health would formally delegate some of its administrator functions to the DTA to reflect this arrangement. If the Department of Health later delegates these functions to another agency, Health will need to publicly announce that fact via notifiable instrument.

Deleting the National COVIDSafe Data Store

Finally, the Bill also includes a more specific process for deletion of the National COVIDSafe Data Store once the pandemic is over, compared to the Determination. This includes a process for the Minister for Health to determine the end of the COVIDSafe Data Period under section 94Y and by outlining the actions that then need to be taken by section 94P.

Reporting requirements

The Bill includes a requirement that the Minister for Health report to the Parliament as soon as practicable after each 6 month period on the operation and effectiveness of the COVIDSafe app. This underscores the Government's commitment to transparency about the operation and effectiveness of COVIDSafe and the unprecedented privacy and security protections built around the app's data handling.

Repeal of the Bill

Schedule 2 of the Bill will result in the legislation being automatically repealed 90 days after the Minister for Health issues a determination that the COVIDSafe app is no longer required under section 94Y. The Acts Interpretation Act 1901 will apply to preserve the effect of the repealed law so that an investigation into a possible breach of a repealed law can continue or can be commenced after repeal.

Conclusion

This Bill will guarantee that Australians' privacy is protected when they choose to download and use COVIDSafe. By enshrining the Biosecurity Determination into primary legislation, and ensuring the Information Commissioner has the power to hear complaints about the mishandling of COVIDSafe app data under the Privacy Act, the public can be assured that the Government is doing all it can to keep their data as secure as possible. With the passage of this Bill, we sincerely hope that the Australian public will take note of the unprecedented strength of these privacy protections, choose to download the app, and help their fellow Australians combat the spread of COVID-19.

Since the beginning of this public health crisis, Labor has sought to work constructively and in good faith with the government to ensure that Australians are kept safe in this health emergency. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, on many occasions, Labor is looking for outcomes not arguments. That is the spirit in which we approached this bill and the government's contact tracing app more generally. Labor believes that a contact tracing app can be a valuable tool for protecting Australians from COVID-19. But it will only be a valuable tool if a sufficient number of Australians download it. The Prime Minister has said that 40 per cent of the Australian population need to download the app for it to be an effective public health tool. That means about 10 million Australians.

The government is well short of that figure, at the moment. About 5.6 million Australians have reportedly downloaded the COVIDSafe app. Now the Prime Minister appears to be walking away from his target of 10 million COVIDSafe downloads. He now claims that we only need 40 per cent of all smart-phone users in Australia to download the app. But that target is not based on science; it's based on politics. The truth is that many experts believe that the Prime Minister's original 40 per cent target falls well short of what is needed. Researchers at the University of Oxford, for example, have estimated that 56 per cent of the UK population would have to install a contact tracing app for it to be effective, representing 80 per cent of all smart-phone users in that country. Our own Chief Medical Officer said that in his view a good uptake of the app in Australia would be well over half of the Australian population.

Targets should be based on science not politics. So if the Prime Minister is serious about listening to the public health experts, he should be increasing his original target of 40 per cent of the population and doing everything to reach it. He should not be decreasing his target for political reasons. I say this not because I want the Prime Minister to fail. I say this because I want the COVIDSafe tracing app to succeed as a public health measure. To encourage as many Australians as possible to download the COVID-19 contact tracing app the public must have absolute faith that their privacy will be protected and that the data collected by the app will never be misused.

That is why Labor has worked constructively with the government to improve this bill prior to its introduction to the parliament, and we are pleased that many of our suggestions have been adopted by the government. As a result of our engagement with the government this is a stronger piece of legislation, which takes privacy concerns seriously. As a result of the government adopting Labor's suggestions, a number of changes have been made. There is now greater clarity about what data is protected by the strict privacy safeguards contained in the bill. The bill now provides for greater oversight of the COVIDSafe app and the handling of COVIDSafe data by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. The bill now makes it clear that no intelligence agency or law enforcement body can be given a role in administering the COVIDSafe data store. Where it is unlikely to prejudice a law enforcement investigation, the bill now allows the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner to continue an investigation, even where the investigation overlaps with an investigation by law enforcement. And the bill now includes a number of public reporting requirements so that the Australian people can be kept informed about the operation and effectiveness of the app and the level of compliance with the privacy safeguards contained in the bill.

Necessarily, this bill was drafted quickly and it has not gone through the usual parliamentary committee processes of review. As such, it has not received the same degree of scrutiny that a bill would typically be subjected to. For that reason, my colleagues and I on the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19 have indicated that we intend to oversee the COVIDSafe app by reviewing its rollout and investigating privacy and other concerns that have been raised in relation to the app. More generally, Labor will keep an eye on how the measures in the bill are implemented, in order to ensure that they are effective and are working as intended. We expect the government to do the same.

This bill does not address every concern about privacy and it does not address any of the concerns that have been raised about the technology. For example, while this bill will give the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner additional responsibilities, it will not provide her with any additional resources. Last Wednesday, the Attorney-General's Department told the COVID-19 select committee that there's no intention to provide additional resources. They said: 'The Privacy Commissioner is able to undertake this work within their existing resources.' With respect, that assertion is just not credible. The Privacy Commissioner, who is also the information and freedom of information commissioner, requires additional resources. We know this, because she needed additional resources before anyone had even heard of COVID-19. You don't have to take my word for it. Have a look at the transcript from Senate estimates last October, when the Privacy Commissioner told Senate estimates that her office was already severely under-resourced, before these additional responsibilities were given to her. The Attorney-General told Labor that his department, despite its evidence to the select committee last Wednesday, is now engaging with the commissioner to ensure that she has the necessary resources to perform the important oversight functions provided for in this bill. Labor looks forward to receiving an update from the Attorney-General over the coming days.

Following the passage of this bill, Labor believes the most important thing the government can do to encourage people to download the COVIDSafe app is to be open and transparent with Australians. To gain the trust of Australians, the Morrison government must trust Australians. Publishing the source code for the app was a good start, but it's not enough. The government must be as transparent as possible about everything to do with the COVIDSafe app, whether it be providing additional technical information in relation to the app or being up-front about how the app is working in practice. I might just say that in evidence to the Senate select committee there were considerable concerns about how well this technology actually worked. I know those concerns remain in place in many parts of the community. This is also a matter that the government must be transparent about and must do everything possible to fix. The government should be transparent about other matters, too, such as the reason it made the extraordinary decision to award the COVIDSafe data storage to Amazon Web Services instead of an Australian certified cloud service provider. That single inexplicable decision by the Morrison government has done more to undermine public confidence in the COVIDSafe contact tracing app than any of the app's fiercest critics. I know a number of my colleagues will be speaking on this matter. There is considerable concern in the Australian community about the government's decision to award this tender to an overseas based organisation. That is something we will be pursuing in the debate today.

The government must also provide the Australian people, including older and culturally and linguistically diverse Australians and Australians with disabilities, with clear, easy-to-understand, accurate information about the app. I was very concerned about the evidence of the Digital Transformation Agency to the Senate select committee last week, in which it was revealed that the app will be provided in English only. Obviously, for many Australians from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds some form of translation should be considered for this app. I would urge the government to think about that.

Finally and most obviously, Australians will have no reason to download or keep using the app if the technology does not work or if it is not secure. For that reason, the government must urgently address the technical and security concerns that have been raised about the app by technology experts and members of the public. All you have to do is look at Twitter to see the comments that many technical experts and security experts have raised. Again, I would urge the government to take those concerns seriously. But, with those caveats, I commend the bill to the Senate.

The Australian Greens will be supporting the Privacy Amendment (Public Health Contact Information) Bill 2020, because it is not enabling legislation for the app—because the app is already out there on people's devices in significant numbers—but is in fact enabling legislation in the main around privacy protections associated with the data collected via the app. That's a very important distinction. This bill is an improvement on the determination that it effectively replaces. It introduces additional privacy protections that were not present in Minister Hunt's determination. It introduces other remedies that were not present in the determination and it introduces oversight under the Privacy Act that was not present in the determination. It also provides coverage over state and territory health officials. I will speak more about that later.

I want to commend the government for releasing a draft of this legislation publicly. Obviously, this has been a far quicker process than we would normally go through, both in terms of how the government has dealt with it and in terms of how the Senate has dealt with it, but we understand the urgency here, driven by the pandemic we all are living through. I also want to commend the government for introducing protections in this legislation that the Australian Greens and others argued were lacking in the determination. The privacy protections contained in this bill are in fact far more robust than the privacy protections contained in regard to many other data that the government holds. It begs the question as to why the government believes that this data should be protected by more robust privacy protections than, for example, the metadata that the government requires corporations to keep. These privacy protections should be standard, not the exception.

We understand the urgency and respect the need for this legislation, particularly as the COVIDSafe app has been live since 26 April and has been downloaded by approximately 5½ million people. However, we retain concerns around the security provisions associated with the data that this app will collect and we also retain concerns around transparency.

To set a bit of context, I want to touch off on this government's record of privacy breaches and data security mismanagement over the last few years. To say this government has a cavalier attitude towards data security would be a gross understatement. This is the government responsible for our metadata laws in Australia. The metadata laws were sold to the Australian people on the basis of protecting us from terrorism and are now being used by local councils to investigate littering and to investigate people for having unregistered pets. To describe that as scope creep would again be a gross understatement. This is the government that deliberately leaked to a media outlet the private information of a Centrelink client who was critical of Centrelink's illegal robodebt scheme. This is the government that repeatedly leaked private medical information of people seeking asylum to the media in an attempt to undermine the medevac legislation. This is the government responsible for the census fail. This is the government that failed to properly de-identify Medicare data which ended up for sale on the dark web. This app is being championed among others by Minister Robert, who falsely claimed the Centrelink website fell apart because of a denial-of-service attack. If there's scepticism in the community about this government's capacity to protect people's personal information, that is entirely down to the government's own actions and failure to protect people's data in the past and to its cavalier attitude towards data protection.

Nearly two weeks after releasing the app and three weeks after Minister Robert said he would, the government did finally release the source code for COVIDSafe. This is an important step for transparency, and I thank the government and congratulate it for doing that. But the government has also said that it's considering publicly releasing the data management protocols that either have been or will be signed between the Commonwealth government and state and territory governments. Those protocols will govern how state and territory governments handle the data that, in the event of a positive test for coronavirus, is then provided to state and territory health authorities to allow them to go through the contact tracing process. I would ask the minister, if she's able, to update the Senate about whether or not those protocols have been signed and whether the government still intends to make those data management protocols or agreements public.

Another concern the Greens have, and Senator Watt referred to this in his contribution, and this is a concern that's also shared widely through the tech sector and the privacy sector, is around the US CLOUD Act—that is, the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act in the US. The CLOUD Act was enacted in 2018 to provide that US based cloud and technology companies could be compelled to hand over data held offshore, under warrant, to US security agencies. We don't have a bilateral CLOUD Act agreement in place with the US. The government has assured everyone there's nothing to see here and we should move along. However, Home Affairs, in its submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security inquiry into the Telecommunications Amendment International Production Orders Bill 2020, along with numerous international law firms around the world have advised otherwise. The issue is that, because Amazon Web Services is an American company with its head office in the US, it is entirely possible a US court could exercise personal jurisdiction over its Australian operations and require that data be handed over to US security agencies. When I asked the Attorney-General's Department about this last week in the Senate select committee, they were unable to give a 100 per cent guarantee that this data would not be handed over under US warrant to a US intelligence agency.

The great tragedy of all this, though, is that this situation could have been avoided if the government had awarded or even opened tendering for the hosting contract to one of the three Australian cloud service providers with Australian Signals Directorate certification. They are Australian companies with Australian infrastructure employing Australians technicians and they would not fall under the jurisdiction of the US CLOUD Act. But the government didn't do that. It made the inexplicable and so far unexplained decision to award this contract to AWS, a company with its head office in Seattle. Despite saying we should stay together and we will get through this together, despite continually saying we need to secure Australian jobs and livelihoods, this contract was awarded to a company with a head office overseas.

I also want to refer briefly to some of the messaging that the government's been using around this app, which the Australian Greens regard as reckless or dangerous. The Prime Minister saying that using the app was like putting on sunscreen to go out in the sun was misleading at best, dangerous at worst, because, of course, the app does not offer users any direct protection from contracting coronavirus; likewise, 'slip, slop, slap the app'—again, misleading at best, dangerous at worst. The government shouldn't be cavalier around this issue. It's a pandemic, for goodness sake; people's lives are at stake here.

I also want to touch on the way that the data will be collected by this app and misrepresentations about it. The government has said that when a user tests positive the app will allow the user to consent to the upload of only contacts that came within 1.5 metres of the user for 15 minutes or more, but according to the government's own privacy impact assessment, by law firm Maddocks, the app in fact collects and uploads data about all users who have come within bluetooth signal range for even a minute within the past 21 days. Mobile device bluetooth has a range of around 10 metres, which means it will collect data on anyone who spends time within a 10-metre range of the user. Although the Department of Health has said in response to the PIA that it would put in place restrictions to bluetooth digital handshakes, this bill, not unreasonably, includes no such protections. So I ask the minister whether she is able to respond to that concern in her second reading contribution later.

About 5.5 million people have now downloaded the app, which is about 21 per cent of the total population. It's getting close to the government's goal, although it's worth pointing out that a mathematical model from Oxford University suggests that around 60 per cent of the population needs to use a tracing app to 'stop the epidemic'. This government's goal appears to be only 40 per cent.

As I said, we'll support this legislation, but we do have concerns around the lack of some privacy protections. We believe this bill could be improved, and we'll be moving amendments in the committee stage to give the government the opportunity to beef up protections around the data collected by this app. Those concerns, specifically, regard the limited prohibitions on COVIDSafe app data, which we'd like to see broadened, and the fact that there is no fixed trigger for the sunsetting of this bill. We hold concerns regarding coverage of rules against coercion and transparency of COVIDSafe operations. We hold concerns also about assurances of data being deleted under this bill. These have been met part way by the government in the latest iteration of this legislation; however, more needs to be done, which we will address in our amendments. I also want to touch on the fact that this app is only in English. There are a lot of people in this country for whom English is a second language, and there are many people in Australia who do not have a high level of English comprehension. This app needs to be made available in ways that people can easily understand, and that includes being available in different languages so that people whose first language is not English also have the opportunity to make an informed decision about whether or not to download this app.

I won't be downloading this app, because I simply don't trust the government with data about who I am proximate to. I wish the government had gone down a different route, one that many other governments in the world have gone down, in which there is no centralised store of data. The data simply remains on people's mobile devices and, should someone test positive for coronavirus, a message is sent to people who that person was proximate to, letting them know that they've been proximate to someone who has tested positive, and therefore gives them the opportunity to decide to go and get tested themselves.

The Australian Greens will support this legislation because it's not enabling legislation for the app but is enabling legislation for privacy protections associated with the data collected by the app, and that is a very important distinction.

I too rise to speak on the Privacy Amendment (Public Health Contact Information) Bill 2020. I should start by saying that I've downloaded the app. In fact, I downloaded it as soon as it became available in the App Store; it was a couple of hours before the registrations were available. Like many Australians, I think, I was sitting there pressing refresh, waiting to be able to register it. I didn't start with that sort of enthusiasm. While at that stage I was very enthusiastic to download it, when the idea of the app first came up I did have some reservations about it. While I fully accepted the intentions and what we were trying to do with it, I was very careful to make sure that it wasn't in any way in breach of the standards of privacy that Australians expect. So in the time I have available today I'm going to talk you through what I've done to make sure that this app and the system it uses are protecting our privacy and ensuring Australians can download it with confidence that they will be protected.

As the Prime Minister said yesterday, Australia is winning the coronavirus battle, but we have not yet won. Industrialised contact tracing through the COVIDSafe app will be a primary measure of success as we move down the long road to recovery. It's a critical tool which will enable Australians to get back to life as it was before: to go back to work, TAFE, university and all those great things that we like to do in our spare time and on weekends together, importantly with family and friends. Again Australians are leading the way. Downloads are continuing to trend upwards—we're well over the five million mark now—and this demonstrates that Australians want to get back to business as usual as well as they can. The app is the tool to ensure that this happens as quickly as possible. We know that if that number is to continue to climb people need to have the confidence to download it. It's good to see that, with the unprecedented challenge we face, most of us in this place have downloaded it ourselves.

But there is more to this than political squabbles and pointscoring. Not only should we be downloading the app, if we support it, we should be doing everything we possibly can as individual members of this place to give Australians that confidence also.

Just last week, I held an online forum or conference live on my Facebook page, and I certainly recommend watching it if anyone here hasn't seen it. On that online forum I had Geoff Quattromani, a tech commentator who, like many others in the tech community, has spent much of his time dissecting and examining every function of the app. Many people watched that forum online. It's still available, and many people still are watching it. Geoff is on board with this app. He's encouraging people to download it. On the online forum on Facebook, I was also joined by Chris Rodwell, the CEO of Western Australia's Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and Dr Andrew Miller, the president of the Western Australian branch of the Australian Medical Association. They made the case for how important it is that we start this road to recovery and the next phases of our three-step plan as soon as possible. In every community represented in this place, businesses are being hit hard, particularly those in service and consumer-facing industries, and this flows on to their supply chains—the manufacturing and, in particular, agricultural industries. Our health system, which is geared towards dealing with the coronavirus challenge, will also need to tackle the backlog of elective surgery and other health related concerns. All three of those people on the forum supported the app as an effective tool to get Australians back to these sectors.

It was a good discussion which covered a number of community concerns, particularly about what the app does and, importantly, what it doesn't do. Some people were extraordinarily supportive. We had lots of people online, and they were commenting and asking questions of the presenters on the forum. Some viewed it as doing something for the greater good. Indeed, some needed some convincing, and some were downright against, and that's fair enough. That's to be expected. We are at an unprecedented point in our history, so I and our panel and my office work to resolve those concerns.

Effectively, what this app does is take the process which is already in place from our state health authorities and move it from being a manual process, which takes some time and relies on your memory for the most part, to happening on your smartphone. Some people, when they are told that they've got a positive result, could actually be quite ill, so they're sitting there being treated for their health condition and, at the same time, having to recall who they have been in touch with at a very critical and, no doubt, emotional time for them. So this takes that manual process, digitises it and makes it a more efficient process.

It will not geolocate you. It will not share names or phone numbers. It will just share a unique reference code via the bluetooth handshake. This data will only be shared between the two devices. After you've downloaded it and you've been using it as you're going about your business, there is a second step: if you do test positive, you then also have to opt into sharing that data with the relevant health authorities. So there is a two-step process. If you never contract coronavirus, the data is simply stored on your phone until you delete the app or until the data is deleted after a 21-day rolling cycle. So the data is in your hands. It is in the hands of the phone holder. You decide what you do with it and, in the event that you do share it, the appropriate protections are put in place. It will be stored in Australia, and transmitting or communicating it overseas will be an offence.

There has been no more vocal advocate for ensuring the appropriate protections are in place than me. I'm a bit of a technical person. I'm normally an early adopter when it comes to tech things, but I like to pull these things apart and see how they work. I don't just accept that it works; I want to know why and how. In the initial phases, I admit I did have some concerns. I spoke about them at great length with the government and worked them through, and I also took plenty of feedback from my constituents in Western Australia about this. From all this, along with many of my colleagues who no doubt had a similar position, I've become confident that the product that we are delivering has these protections in place.

As a government, we've heard, listened to and acted upon the concerns of the community. That's why this bill has been introduced: to enshrine privacy protections in legislation. We could have just done it by giving an assurance, but we wanted to make sure that we put in place the legislation so that Australians can be confident that it is law. A breach of a provision of the bill or a breach of the Privacy Act will be a criminal offence.

In addition to codifying the protections of the determination, the bill will introduce the following measures: the national privacy regulator, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, will have oversight of the app data and can manage complaints about mishandling of COVIDSafe app data and conduct assessments relating to the maintenance and handling of the data; the Privacy Act Notifiable Data Breaches scheme will be extended to apply to the COVIDSafe app data; the interaction between the powers and obligations of the OAIC in relation to COVIDSafe app data with the powers of the state and territory privacy regulators and the Australian Federal Police will be clarified; the administrator of the national COVIDSafe data store will delete users' registration upon request; an individual will be required to delete COVIDSafe app data if the data is received in error; no data can be collected from users who have chosen to delete the app; and a process will be put in place for the app to be deleted at the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, and users will be notified accordingly. These are strong protections which should give people every confidence to download the app, and I encourage them to do so, as have I.

We are in a unique period of our history, and we must never forget that. As much as it now appears just part and parcel of our everyday lives, we must do all that we can to help Australians emerge out of this crisis. But Australians are rising to the challenge. In fact, they've been doing this for several months already. It's amazing, and I think all Australians can be proud of what their fellow Australians have been doing. Sadly, though, in many cases this has resulted in a loss of income and not being able to attend work, TAFE, university or funerals—the most devastating impact of this situation. Of course, sadly, there have been some lives lost.

Australians have put their lives on hold. We are doing our part to get back to business as usual in the best possible way that we can. So it is time for the parliament to do its part and uphold the confidence that Australians have placed in it. This is why I commend this bill, and, along with it, the rigorous oversight that will no doubt come in the later part of this debate, to the Senate.

I also rise to speak on the Privacy Amendment (Public Health Contact Information) Bill 2020. As we've heard from previous speakers, this bill seeks to amend the Privacy Act by introducing a range of privacy protections for information that Australians provide through the COVIDSafe app, the contact tracing app released on 26 April 2020. In the best interests of public welfare, in order to assist in Australia's ongoing COVID-19 response, Labor has agreed to support this bill. Notwithstanding this support, Labor is aware of concerns with the functionality of the app as well as concerns raised by software experts regarding the security of the app. It's important that we speak to these issues in this chamber today and acknowledge them.

Downloads of the app number around five million, or 20 per cent of the population in Australia—only halfway to where we need to be, if we are to meet the Prime Minister's own stated target of 40 per cent of the population connected to the app. Ultimately, the public won't come on board unless they have confidence that their privacy will be protected. Given this government's track record on technology, you can hardly blame them for that reluctance.

The app offers an automated version of contract tracing through bluetooth. It enables a user's phone to identify who is near and to prepare a record of who its user has been near. We are told these records are ready to go, in case a user contracts COVID-19, allowing immediate contact to be made with people who have come into contact with the user. The government has stated the app will only take a very limited amount of personal data from app users, such as their name, mobile number, postcode and age range. We have been assured it won't keep track of where a user is or who a user is with. Appropriately, it makes it an offence to collect, use or disclose that data except in a number of prescribed circumstances, including where the collection, use or disclosure of the data is by a person employed by a state or territory health authority for the purpose of contact tracing.

Furthermore, the bill makes it an offence to retain COVID app data on a database outside Australia or to disclose COVID app data to a person outside of Australia, except where the person is a health official undertaking contact tracing. It also imposes a range of obligations on the government, including to ensure that the COVID app data is not retained on a mobile telecommunications device for more than 21 days, to delete all of an app user's data from the national COVIDSafe data store as soon as practicable upon request and to delete all COVID app data from the national COVIDSafe data store when the health minister is satisfied that COVIDSafe is no longer required to prevent or control the spread of COVID-19 in Australia.

The bill also gives the Privacy Commissioner specific oversight to ensure appropriate enforcement. Labor's shadow Attorney-General has sought assurances from the government on whether the Privacy Commissioner has sufficient resources to enable her to fulfil the additional oversight responsibilities under the bill as well as other protective amendments for the bill which are appropriate to seek and implement.

Ultimately, Labor wants see this app work. I've downloaded it, as have many of my colleagues. A contact tracing app can be a valuable tool in our fight against coronavirus. But the government needs to be very clear about whether the app works and what protections are in place to protect Australian citizens. We have consistently raised and sought reassurances concerning functionality, privacy and consent. Broadly speaking, we have raised issues at the Senate select committee hearings into the COVID response, including why the app doesn't work on iPhones unless it's open in the background and why it's not compatible with things like the diabetes monitoring app. I am particularly concerned about what protections are in place for Australians' data and for Australians' privacy.

We need to acknowledge that legislation alone cannot build confidence in the COVIDSafe app. It won't give the public the confidence they need to download this app on the levels we need to see them downloading the app for it to work. That's why Labor has called on the government to address the technical concerns raised about the app by ensuring the thing works as it should, as it was intended to do. The government needs to provide additional resources to the Privacy Commissioner so Australians can be confident that, in addition to having the powers she needs to protect the privacy of app users, she has the resources she requires to exercise those powers in an appropriate circumstance. The government needs to be transparent and provide Australians with as much information as possible so that they can have confidence in this app and what it means for their data, privacy and security.

I want to briefly comment on the awarding of this important contract to Amazon Web Services. America is of course one of our enduring allies—a nation state with which we share many of the same values. I'm not in a position to pass judgement on why this contract could not be given to a local firm and whether there is an issue of capability or cost, or a combination of these factors or any others. What I am in a position to say is that data management in the modern world we live in is becoming an ever-growing national security responsibility which our government needs to manage and needs to manage better. The same sensitivities we engage in when it comes to intelligence and national security issues should equally apply here.

Just as we engage in issues of sovereignty when discussing the sustainment and rebuild of the nation's submarine fleet, so must we consider the necessity of data sovereignty. Indeed, if there is one sentiment that many Australians have been relaying recently during the COVID-19 crisis, it is that Australia needs to get back to producing things and to reclaim a certain amount of sovereignty, so that we are able to take charge of our own futures and be less reliant on others. If there is one thing Australians are producing plenty of in our digitalised economy, it is data. Some say that data in the 21st century is what oil was in the 18th century—an immensely untapped, valuable asset. Not only would increasing our sovereign capability in this area be good for local jobs and our economy; it would also improve our national security credentials. In times of crisis, as we can see here, this matters.

I think it's also important that, when discussing this app, we take an opportunity to reflect on what is an ever-growing digital divide in Australia. We know technology is not available to all Australians equally, and that if you have access to technology you have access to a greater range of opportunities in Australia than if you do not. This divide is growing larger and larger. It's particularly evident in issues of age, where we know plenty of older Australians have difficulty accessing and using technology. For many years we have seen this produce negative outcomes for their participation in our economy.

If you take the issue of financial payments, not having access to a smartphone and, therefore, to certain payment platforms through the phone that other Australians have makes payments very difficult. During this COVID crisis, more businesses have moved to not accepting cash or trying not to accept cash, changing to digital payments, which leaves those without access to these sorts of technologies even further behind and even more anxious about how they participate in the economy and participate in our world. We are seeing fewer bank branches and fewer ATMs. We are seeing banks and businesses rely more on contactless payments. This app just represents another example, like contactless payments, where the divide between those who can afford and access and use technology is far greater.

There are plenty of people, I'm sure, in Australia who would like to download this appropriate, participate in what government is doing here and be part of protecting their fellow citizens from COVID-19, but, because of their lack of access to the right technology, they're not able to do so. As our reliance on technology grows stronger and, indeed, as government's reliance on personal hand-held technology in their policy responses grows even stronger, we need to have a conversation in this place about how we ensure that we don't have a whole section of our community left behind by this digital divide.

Notwithstanding these issues that I've raised, I support the development of this app and, as I said, I did download the app. I was happy to do so and happy to participate in supporting my community and protecting my community the best I could. If it's used appropriately, if it's implemented properly, it will be an important tool in our fight against this devastating virus. But just because I've said it's important, just because I've downloaded it, does not mean I do not acknowledge the privacy risks and the issues around data sovereignty and digital access, as I've raised today. I think it's important that we have that conversation. It's not a single conversation. It'll be an important part of our role in monitoring the rollout of this app and the use of this app to ensure those issues are carefully looked at and carefully managed. It's over to the government now, with the app's implementation, to protect Australians' privacy, sovereignty and, ultimately, health. We will be watching them closely, but, in the interim, I'm happy to support this app.

I rise to support this bill, the Privacy Amendment (Public Health Contact Information) Bill 2020, and to commend the government for their timely rolling out of these protective measures that are supporting the good outcomes that we have seen so far in our fight against the coronavirus. I think we in this country can take pride in having established a record of firsts when it comes to taking action against the virus. We were one of the first countries to restrict travel from Wuhan, and China, where the disease originated. There was some controversy when we did that. Some believe that that was an overreaction, but it has proved to be incredibly wise and prescient of us to have taken that action. Likewise, it was followed up with further restrictions on travel as the disease spread to other countries in the world. Obviously, we took extremely serious action to shut down businesses and reduce the risk to Australians—some of the first in the world, particularly given the scope and scale of the virus at the time that we took those actions. And here we are today discussing the use of an app in Australia which has been rolled out and has already been out there for a few weeks, and we're one of the first Western countries in the world to have this technology up and running. I do recognise that some other countries, like Singapore, have this app ready to go. It's technology they had in place, given their experience with SARS and previous pandemics, but the Australian government has been very quick to see what worked around the world and adopt those technologies for the benefit and health of Australians as soon as possible.

This app is designed to be one of the measures we are taking to reduce the risk of coronavirus, and it's going to become even more important as we take the essential steps to open up our economy and to help people get back on their feet, get back into their job and reopen their business to the extent they can. What will become extremely important in that environment is our ability to test for and trace and suppress outbreaks of the virus that almost inevitably will occur from time to time.

I want to pay tribute to our health authorities that are already doing tracing, or were doing tracing pre the COVIDSafe app, for their performance and their work. It's a laborious and intensive process, and I do commend the health authorities for what they have done. And, even without this technology, they've done a remarkable job in quickly getting on top of outbreaks, be they in aged-care homes or, more recently, in the abattoir in Melbourne. Those frontline workers deserve our enormous gratitude. Their systems are working well but they are not fail-safe systems; they do rely incredibly on the goodwill and cooperation of people who are infected—and their memory. As we know, one of the risks with this virus is its long incubation period compared to other coronaviruses or flus, and that means those that are infected have to go back a long period of time, up to 14 days, and try to remember who they had close contact with, for following up all those potential cases. That's obviously not a foolproof process. Technology can help and assist here, and that's what this app is all about.

I want to put it on the record that I do understand the concerns that some have expressed around privacy. I do understand that those concerns are elevated when data is being provided to governments. Even though the Australian government will not itself access this data, it's being provided, potentially, to state and territory government authorities—which I will come to. I completely understand the concerns about data provided in that way. It has to be well managed, protected and regulated. That's what we're doing here in this bill, and I support that.

I also support the rights of those Australians not to download the app. Although I have encouraged and do encourage Australians to do so—and I will get to the reasons why I think it's important to do so, even for your own purposes—I do want to say that we should respect those who have a different view. We are very fortunate to be a free and open society where we tolerate differences of opinions, and, as I said, there are legitimate concerns there, but, on balance, I think they are being protected rightly, and we should download this app. But if that is not the view of some Australians, I respect that and I think their decision should be respected.

Notwithstanding that, we have seen, of course, millions of Australians taking action to download the app. I welcome that and encourage more to do so. I do so because I think this app is of incredible importance to the individual, to the person themselves, not just to protect the community. If I were to be infected—and I hope that I won't be, but if I were to be infected—I'd want to provide information to authorities about who I'd been in close contact with in the previous 14 days. I'd want to be able to cooperate. And I think most Australians would. This technology can be a tool to help you do that, because it is difficult to remember where you've been and what you've done two weeks before. So having a piece of technology that helps record that effectively for you, automatically, I think is of enormous advantage.

I use other apps, like Google Maps, which provide data, information, to a third party. I use them because I don't want to go back to the world of the UBD—it's a lot easier to use apps like Google Maps. There's also great benefit in using social media to connect with other people. You do give up some data there, but you get a corresponding benefit. Likewise, here, yes, the data, the information, is potentially provided, if you're infected, but you get a corresponding benefit in terms of being able to help and assist our frontline health workers, who are doing the best they can in difficult environments. As I said earlier, we should be supporting those Australians who are out there on the front line of our health system, and this app helps support them.

It's not our only tool, of course, but the fact that the government has been able to roll it out so quickly is imperative. I do want to get to the fact that we're strongly protecting the data in this app, and doing so here with this legislation today. I think it's important to stress, as other speakers have, that, while the app is on your phone collecting data, the data is only stored on your phone for that period before you may be infected. The data is not recording location or where you've been; all that it's recording is simply bluetooth interactions with other phones that have the app that are in close proximity to you at the time. It makes a record of those over time, and only if you then choose does the data get uploaded to the state and territory authorities who can access it to help with their test and trace activities. So you'd only choose to do that if you had to provide that information, which would be in the event of you having been infected and being asked to track and trace back who you had been in contact with. So you control the data. You control it. You don't lose control of the data by just downloading the app. You only upload the data when and if you're in that situation of having to help our health authorities, and I think that's a well-designed feature which should be widely advertised.

As we've outlined in this bill, we're making sure we put added protections in place to ensure the information can only be used for the purposes of testing and tracing for the COVID-19 virus. That was outlined in a regulation made by Greg Hunt when the app was launched a few weeks ago. What we're doing today is enshrining those protections in legislation. I don't believe protections of this nature have been used before, but it shows the seriousness with which we're fighting this virus that we are enshrining specifically in law that the information collected here can only be used for these purposes and no others. And penalties will apply if people are using the information for other reasons.

I'll finish where I started: that we have been able to achieve the remarkable reduction in coronavirus cases because we have been taking first steps—because we have been moving ahead of the curve, so to speak. The rollout of this app is another example of where we are doing that. I'd encourage all Australians to do it. I commend the government for getting it out so quickly and for the protections they're enshrining in law today.

I rise in support of the Privacy Amendment (Public Health Contact Information) Bill 2020. I and the Australian Labor Party are supporting this bill because it will protect and enshrine in law the protections the Australian public deserves and expects when it comes to the government—to any government. I want to thank the close to six million Australians who've downloaded the COVIDSafe app. I do encourage more people to download it. This is just one small step that Australians can take as part of our national effort to stop the spread of COVID-19.

Downloading this app does not replace hand washing or hand sanitising. It does not replace social distancing. And we must remember: there are still people in our community with health problems or compromised immune systems, and we should refrain from visiting them. Importantly, if you are sick, do not go to work. The app does not solve any of those problems. It is an assistance to our effort to ensure that COVID-19 remains flattened and the community remains safeguarded from the virus.

COVID-19 does still exist in the community. We have undertaken a monumental effort to suppress its spread as much as possible. Children stopped going to school and started learning from home, teachers learned how to move their classes online and parents became teachers' aides. Hundreds of thousands of Australians have worked from home. Sadly, many thousands have lost their jobs and been forced to stay at home.

Now, as our combined health efforts continue and we begin the economic recovery, we must look at ways we can ensure the virus does not take hold in our country again. This app is one of those ways, and, with an app like this, the law must protect the privacy of Australians. Prior to the release of this app, state and territory public health officers have undertaken manual contact tracing. Manual contact tracing means someone diagnosed with coronavirus painstakingly trying to remember the people they have come into contact with and when. While our public health officials have carried out excellent contact tracing in this country, even if you have a near-perfect memory or an impeccable diary, there will always be gaps as to who you have come into contact with. The contact tracing app, this app, relies on technology to digitise this process, to supplement, not replace, manual or paper based tracing, to make sure we can continue to suppress the virus. Not only does the app provide the opportunity to improve the timeliness of contact tracing, it also offers the opportunity to improve reliability.

To be a valuable tool, the app has to work. Australians have to have confidence that there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that their privacy is protected. The government released the app with some safeguards in place. The health minister made a determination under section 447 of the Biosecurity Act in relation to the COVIDSafe app on 25 April. The determination included a number of privacy protections for information that Australians provided to the app, and now this bill replaces that determination. Through this crisis, particularly when it comes to passing important legislation, Labor has always been constructive. We have not stood in the way during this unprecedented crisis, because it has required an unprecedented response. That's why we will support the passage of this legislation.

While not perfect, the bill will introduce very strong privacy safeguards. In some respects, these safeguards are unprecedented in Commonwealth law. Like the determination which preceded it, the bill would make it an offence to collect, use or disclose app data except in a number of prescribed circumstances. These include where the collection, use or disclosure of the data is by a person employed by a state or territory health authority for the purpose of contact tracing. The bill would also impose a range of obligations on the Commonwealth, including: to ensure that COVIDSafe app data is not retained on a mobile telecommunications device for more than 21 days; to delete all of an app user's data from the National COVIDSafe Data Store as soon as practical, upon request; and to delete all COVIDSafe app from the National COVIDSafe Data Store when the health minister is satisfied the COVIDSafe app is no longer required to prevent or control the spread of COVID-19 in Australia.

Labor—in particular, my Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security colleague the shadow Attorney-General—has worked with the government to improve the legislation and strengthen protections that the Australian people deserve. I thank the government for accepting a number of those suggestions. There will now be greater oversight of the COVIDSafe app by the Privacy Commissioner. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner is an independent statutory agency overseen by the Australian Information Commissioner and Privacy Commissioner. The legislation now requires the health minister and the Privacy Commissioner to produce regular public reports about the app every six months. There are now additional oversight and certification responsibilities on the Privacy Commissioner to ensure that the Commonwealth complies with its obligation to delete all COVIDSafe data when the app is no longer in use.

It is reasonable to see how the Privacy Commissioner's workload will increase as a result of these important responsibilities. Labor urges the government to ensure that the Privacy Commissioner has sufficient resources to fill the additional oversight responsibilities. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner should not be stretched or have to reduce its other capabilities to undertake these important COVIDSafe app oversight duties. Importantly, there is a new provision clarifying that law enforcement and intelligence services may not be given any role in administering or accessing the COVIDSafe Data Store. These protections are unprecedented and mean Australian law enforcement officials and security agencies will not be able to access the app data.

There are legitimate concerns about the government's decision to award the data storage contract relating to the app to Amazon Web Services in the United States. This means that COVIDSafe app data may be obtainable by the United States law enforcement authorities. This concern could have been avoided if the government had chosen to award the data storage contract to an Australian based, owned and operated cloud service provider. In fact, at a time when the Australian economy needs as much stimulus as possible due to this unprecedented economic crisis, I'm perplexed as to why the government did not award the contract to an Australian company.

Regrettably, the concerns about Australian web services cannot be addressed in legislation. Australian law does not override American law, in the same way that American law does not trump ours. However, the government—in particular, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Home Affairs—could address these concerns in non-legislative means. The Foreign Minister could seek diplomatic assurances from the United States, and the Minister for Home Affairs could ensure that access to COVIDSafe app data is excluded from any security or intelligence-sharing arrangement with the United States. He could do this as part of the CLOUD Act executive agreement which is currently being negotiated with the United States. I urge the Minister for Home Affairs to pursue this option as it will provide further assurances to the Australian public and hopefully will result in more downloads of the app. If the government wants this app to be embraced by millions more Australians—something that could continue to keep COVID-19 at bay—they would be taking these steps.

There is no 'set and forget' when it comes to social distancing or washing hands, and the same applies to this app. Labor remains committed to seeing how the measures in the bill are being implemented to ensure that they are working as intended. We will do that through the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19, of which I am a member along with Senators Gallagher and Watt from Labor. We have already had the opportunity to scrutinise the app and we will continue to do so because parliamentary scrutiny is one of the pillars of our democracy. It was through the COVID committee that we learnt the health department never provided the government any advice about targets. In an interview on Perth radio station 6PR on 15 April, the interviewer asked the Prime Minister: 'Reports are that as many as 40 per cent of the population might need to download it for it to work. Is that right or not?' The Prime Minister replied: 'Yes, it is. You'd need at least that.' Forty per cent was the target the Prime Minister set, back on 15 April, for the app to be effective. He had no advice from the health department that that was the target needed. However, in question time in the other place yesterday, the Prime Minister stated: 'We have no real target.' He then said that any target related to a percentage of the number of smartphones in Australia rather than to the Australian population. It's easy to get close to achieving a target if you keep moving the goalposts.

It's small things like this that can make the public question their trust in government. The federal government, along with the state and territory governments, have asked the community to trust them. I acknowledge and understand the reservations and the concerns people have had about the idea of this app, because I myself have also had them. As the saying goes, you can't constantly lie and expect the people to trust you. I'm not calling this government liars when it comes to this app or legislation but, for far too long, the Morrison government have treated the parliament, the press gallery and the Australian people with contempt. They have shirked scrutiny and they have refused to be held accountable. They have dismissed legitimate questions as 'gossip' or said they are matters for 'the Canberra bubble'. They've said one thing and then turned around and done another. And far too often the government chooses marketing spin over substance, ads over outcomes, and marketing over what matters. So you can understand why some Australians have been sceptical about an app such as this and the ability of this government to ensure their privacy. Let's remember: the Australian people first found out about this app not because the Australian parliament was advised but because the New Zealand parliament was told about it. The people of New Zealand were told about the Australian government's plan for this app before the people of Australia were.

We will never know if the government's lack of communication and rush to announce this app have impacted the app's download numbers, but there's one thing I will make clear: the COVIDSafe app does not track your location; it only relies on bluetooth, and only when you come into close contact with someone else—approximately 1½ metres—for 15 minutes or more. This data is then stored on your phone and will remain there for 21 days. It will only be released to health authorities if you choose to release it to them, whether it's because you've been diagnosed with COVID-19 or because someone you have come into contact with has. Finally, if you do release your data to state and territory health authorities, it can only be accessed by them. Regrettably, some of these facts weren't communicated clearly or effectively by the government when this app was first announced in the New Zealand parliament. This was a misstep by the government, and they've been having to clean up this mess ever since. This is what happens when you roll out a minister who wasn't aware he was charging taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars for excess internet downloads to be your spokesperson for this app. I commend the health minister for cleaning up after the social services minister and clarifying any confusion the government has created about this app.

I have downloaded this app because I understand the importance to the broader community of being able to effectively contact-trace outbreaks of COVID-19. This app can be a critical tool in the COVID-19 exit strategy if it works well and if our privacy is safeguarded. We definitely won't be standing in the way of the app, and now is definitely not the time for further amendments or political stunts in this parliament. We will not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. We want this app to be a useful tool, and that depends on getting it right. That's why Labor has worked with the government on amendments to strengthen the privacy protections in the app. The government must be as transparent as possible about everything to do with the COVIDSafe app, including providing additional technical information in relation to the app and being up-front about how the app is working in practice.

This legislation will give Australians more confidence that their privacy will be safeguarded if they choose to download the app. It can play a role alongside social distancing, paper-based contact tracing, handwashing, staying at home when we are sick and all of the other public health measures Australians have taken up in order to safeguard themselves, their family, their community and their country against the threat of coronavirus.

I thank the whips for assisting me as I juggle committee and chamber duties. Centre Alliance will be supporting the bill before the Senate this morning, the Privacy Amendment (Public Health Contact Information) Bill 2020. I will acknowledge that, as Senator Keneally pointed out, the government has been quite willing to negotiate amendments and work with other parties to improve the bill. In fact, Centre Alliance have been talking with the Attorney's office and have worked with the government on a number of amendments. There are still some amendments that we will put to the Senate during the committee stage. But, in principle, the process has been good, and I thank the government for that.

I'm on record as saying that I haven't downloaded the application, but I'm neutral as to whether people should or shouldn't. It's a matter for their own circumstances. I have been concerned that the protections that have been put in place have been done by way of ministerial determination, because that means that, with the stroke of a pen, they can be changed at any time. I think what's happening today makes it a much more robust arrangement and certainly puts me much more at ease in respect of the privacy issues. So I think that's a tick in the box, assuming this passes the parliament today.

There are some concerns about the application, however, that I think we need to air and that the government needs to be up-front about. As I said, I'm neutral; I think everyone should download the application based on their own circumstances. I think there are likely to be fewer and fewer privacy reasons now for not downloading it. However, I think we need to be up-front about the performance of the application. We are asking people to download an application that sits on their phone, and we know, anecdotally—as I've heard from a number of people I've talked to that have the app—that it drains the battery pretty quickly, for example. That's a small penalty to pay in relation to dealing with a pandemic, but only if the application ends up having a useful effect.

This leads to a couple of issues which I think need to be addressed, the first being that this application originated in Singapore. When it was first talked about, there were discussions about its origin and the fact that 20 per cent of the Singaporean population had downloaded the app. Yet at the COVID committee I asked—and have not yet received a response—whether or not the Australian government sought any advice as to the app's effectiveness. What effectiveness does a 20 per cent take-up give you in terms of health outcomes? We heard the Prime Minister talk about 40 per cent here. But, as the Department of Health confirmed, we did no modelling, so we don't know whether 40 per cent gives you 2X, 3X or 4X in terms of outcome. It's not been modelled. We don't know, because the department hasn't modelled it, what the right take-up is. I think that is a problem and it's a problem that should be addressed. We want to make sure that we have legitimate targets for the population. There is a report out of Oxford university that suggests the take-up rate needs to be above 50 per cent. I think we just need to be straight-up with the Australian public, and we also need to know these numbers ourselves so we can make sure we pitch and contribute to achieving those numbers. Is this linear in terms of the take-up verses the outcome, or is there some sort of other curve shape that says the application is pretty much useless unless at least 30 per cent download it? I'd like to see that data; I'd like to see the modelling done. The government hasn't committed to doing that, and I think that's a mistake.

The second area of concern is how effective the application is. In the COVID committee, we asked officials about whether or not the application is actually effective. The answer was talk about how many people had downloaded it. That's the answer to a different question. There are concerns—and the DTA gave evidence to the Senate—that there is degradation in the performance of the application in circumstances where the application is in the background, or, indeed, in circumstances where the phone is locked. I think it's proper that that deterioration be quantified, and that information should be provided to the Australian public. I have put questions on notice asking for the test data to be provided to the Senate, and obviously to the Australian public, and hopefully the DTA will be compliant in providing a significant amount of test data—not just the best cases but also the situations where it doesn't work at all, the point being just to be open and upfront.

From all the evidence that I heard, I suspect the application is not doing very much at this point in time. That's not a criticism of government. Back when the application was proposed, we were in a different situation than we are in now. We were looking at the upside of a curve. We're now looking at a flattened curve. I applaud the government for throwing everything at this application when it was conceived, for saying, 'This could be a tool that will contribute.' But, if there are problems with it, just be honest with the Australian public. Let them be well informed so that they can make a good decision about downloading it. If it's the case that it's not working well now, but in two weeks time we get an upgrade from Apple and Google, as foreshadowed in respect of bluetooth, we then let the public know that, and we don't take a marketing approach. We take a well-informed approach where we inform the Australian public.

I thought it was worth sharing that with the Senate. I do support the bill and I do support the application. As the bill lays out, it is a matter of choice for people as to whether to download it. Let's be very open and honest about its utility, about how well it is working at this point in time and about what the required uptakes are, such that we can protect the Australian public. I commend the bill to the Senate.

It's my great pleasure to rise and speak on the Privacy Amendment (Public Health Contact Information) Bill 2020, a bill that I commend to the Senate. I'm pleased to see bipartisan support for the bill. This is the first time I have spoken in the Senate since the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic. I want to place on record first and foremost my thanks to the Australian people. The response to the pandemic has been extraordinary. The ability of the Australian people to stand up, to listen to the government, to listen to the professional medical advice, to listen to our frontline health workers and to respond as they have has been incredible. We have seen a dramatic flattening of the curve. I think most Australians would be very, very proud of how our nation has performed, particularly when you consider what is happening overseas in some countries. I also want to thank the nearly six million Australians who have downloaded the COVIDSafe app. We know that this is not a be-all and end-all but an important tool to slow the spread of the virus. Of course, this bill is all about making sure that there are appropriate health protections.

I also want to pay tribute to the Prime Minister and to his leadership team, particularly Senator Cormann; the Treasurer, Mr Frydenberg; and the health minister, Mr Hunt. The measures that our government have put in place in response to the pandemic have been overwhelmingly positively received by the Australian people. In saying that, I also acknowledge the role of the national cabinet, which I think has been very important as well. Our government is all about making sure that we save lives and livelihoods. Whether it's the jobseeker payment, JobKeeper, the stimulus payments we're providing, the early release of super, the cash flow boost, the government backed loans, the childcare fee relief, the health response, telehealth, our domestic violence response or our response with 100 new respiratory clinics, right across the health sector, I think all Australians can be very, very proud of the work of the national cabinet, including, of course, the work of our government.

I also want to acknowledge and say thank you to our frontline health workers—our doctors, nurses, cleaners and paramedics—and those who work on the frontline in our economy at the moment, in our supermarkets, our pharmacies, our cafes and our restaurants. The restrictions have been very, very difficult. We are seeing an easing of those restrictions. As I said, Australians have responded absolutely magnificently to the challenge, and I do very much acknowledge the incredible effort of all Australians.

This bill is all about protecting the privacy of Australians. We have reiterated and made clear how important it is to download the COVIDSafe app. As the Prime Minister has said, it's a bit like putting on sunscreen when you go out in the sun. It gives us protection as a nation. It is the ticket to ensuring that we can actually ease our restrictions. The COVIDSafe app is an important public health initiative that will keep you, your family and our community safe from further spread of coronavirus. It is all about speeding up contact tracing. Public health officials, of course, are doing a magnificent job, when there is a positive diagnosis, of identifying those who have come into contact with someone who has been diagnosed positively, but the COVIDSafe app speeds up the process. That's why it is so important for as many Australians as possible to download the app.

The app uses bluetooth to look for other phones, like a bluetooth handshake. There is no way that someone's location can be recorded, so it's very, very limited in its use. It only keeps contact information for 21 days, and this covers the maximum incubation period for the virus and the time it takes for someone to be tested for COVID-19. To be effective, users should have the app running in the back ground when coming into contact with others. The phone does not need to be unlocked for the app to work, but the bluetooth does need to be activated. It then securely makes a digital handshake, which notes the date and time, the distance and the duration of the contact. All information collected by the app is securely encrypted and stored in the app on the user's phone. No-one, not even the user, can access this information. Unless and until a person is diagnosed with COVID-19, no contact information collected in the app is disclosed or able to be accessed.

There are very, very strong privacy measures already in place with the app. There have been a number of amendments that have also been accepted, and they are to ensure that there are strong ongoing and further privacy protections to support the download, use and eventual decommissioning of the Australian government's COVIDSafe mobile application. Very briefly, the key additional protections which have been included are that the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner will have oversight of the COVIDSafe app data. The Information Commissioner can manage complaints about mishandling of the COVIDSafe data and conduct assessments relating to the maintenance and handling of that data. The Privacy Act's Notifiable Data Breaches Scheme will be extended to apply to COVIDSafe data. There will be clarification of the interaction between the powers and obligations of the Information Commissioner in relation to COVIDSafe data with the powers of state and territory privacy regulators and the Australian Federal Police. The administrator of the national COVIDSafe data store will delete users' registration data upon request. An individual will be required to delete COVIDSafe data if they receive it in error. No data can be collected from users who have chosen to delete the COVIDSafe app. A process will also be put in place for COVIDSafe data to be deleted at the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, and users will be notified accordingly. The amendments also make changes to some of the language used in the Biosecurity Act determination in order to better match the language and the structure of the Privacy Act. A couple of other technical changes which ensure the workability of the amendments will be included. It's now clearer that penalties do not inadvertently apply to individuals, businesses or agencies who only collect COVIDSafe app data incidentally to the collection of non-COVIDSafe app data, such as backing up mobile devices. In essence, we have been very receptive to some of the concerns that have been raised in relation to the privacy of the COVIDSafe app.

I would like to finish my contribution by again calling on all Australians to please download the app. It is incredibly important. Of course it doesn't replace all of the other health advice which is so important—the social distancing, maintaining a space of at least 1.5 metres from anyone else, essentially acting as if people that we come into contact with actually have the virus to minimise the spread of the virus, the hand washing, and all of the other critical health advice which has been provided. If we can speed up that contact tracing through the app, this will of course ensure that we can mitigate the risk and minimise the spread of the virus. Again, I want to say thank you to the Australian people for everything this nation has done to slow the spread of the virus and to respond so magnificently to this pandemic. I commend this bill to the Senate.

This is Australia's ticket to normality in the form of an app. Before I touch on the app, I do want to reiterate the remarks made by other senators about Australia's performance in the face of this pandemic. There is no other jurisdiction, no other country, you'd rather be living in than Australia at this juncture, based on all the health factors, whether that be transmission or whether that be fatalities. We've been able to do that while keeping large parts of the economy open, which I think is very encouraging and obviously a better result than some other jurisdictions.

In terms of contact tracing, which is something that I've experienced as someone who unfortunately contracted the coronavirus, it is a very manual process. It does require you to sit down with state health officials and try to piece together where you've been and who you've been in touch with so that other people can be made aware that they need to self-isolate. In my case, I had basically 10 days between transmission and actually being diagnosed with coronavirus. In that time I travelled throughout the metropolitan and country areas of New South Wales, and I came in touch with many, many people. The level of anxiety that you have when you think that you may have infected someone with coronavirus is quite high. If the speed and accuracy of contact tracing can be improved through an app, then that is going to relieve the anxiety and really improve health outcomes. In the case of my interaction with Senator Patrick, if the app had been already up and running and we'd both had it on our phones, it's a fair case to say that I probably wouldn't have been able to pass on the coronavirus. That is a real-world example of the app in practice.

It doesn't track your geolocation. It does not use location services. It uses bluetooth technology to do a digital handshake when you have come in touch with someone—really close personal contact—for 15 minutes. We're talking about a metre and a half apart. It makes a digital record, and then that's able to be stored away in the case that someone is diagnosed as a positive case.

The privacy safeguards, I know, are very important to people and have been the subject of some debate. This bill establishes that the OAIC will run the arrangements. It establishes rules for the collection, use and deletion of data. Very importantly, it ensures that the data is only available to the health workers in each state and territory. That means that it is only people who need to undertake contact tracing who will be able to access the data. We have established it as a criminal offence for anyone to use that data in any other way.

There has been some discussion this morning in the chamber about the question of whether or not this data could be transferred to another jurisdiction. There is no case to be made for that in any way. The laws that would be passed by this parliament if this bill is endorsed by this chamber would make it a criminal offence for the data to be transferred to another country. Just because a company, Amazon Web Services, which is doing business in Australia happens have a US parent, it doesn't mean that Australia's laws don't apply. Australia's laws always apply. Frankly, this sort of nativism and anti-international agenda, whether you're looking at migration or foreign investment, has no place in a modern society like Australia.

I just want to thank the state health workers, because, having been through the coronavirus, I know that the contact tracing the state health workers are doing is quite a stressful and challenging task. In New South Wales, which is the biggest jurisdiction and has had the most cases—probably because Sydney is Australia's global city—they have really done an amazing job. Yesterday was International Nurses Day. A lot of the people who are doing the contact tracing are nurses by profession. I have a number of nurses in my family, and I'm very proud of them, and I owe a great debt to the people who looked after me and my family in the state health system.

Often people want to think about the esoterics of legislation. This app will relieve the burden on the state health workers who are having to perform manual contact tracing, so the more people who download the app, the lighter the load will be on the nurses and the health workers. But of course it will also have the dividend of providing more accurate and up-to-date information about people who have come in touch with a positive case of coronavirus.

Technology improves lives. I see that every day in the fintech inquiry that I chair. This is another great example of technology giving us a much faster ticket to freedom and consolidating our efforts as a jurisdiction—and this is the jurisdiction, the country, you want to be living in as the world faces this shocking pandemic.

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I have pleasure in saying that One Nation will be supporting the Privacy Amendment (Public Health Contact Information) Bill 2020. That doesn't mean that I will be downloading the app, as I'll explain. But, firstly, I would like to compliment the Attorney-General for the work that went into this bill. When Minister Hunt's regulations came out to accompany the app launch, my office had a number of reservations about the level of security provided on the data. This bill was needed to clear up those issues, and it has done so. I will mention these things in passing, for the benefit of our constituents, and then I will move on to the security risks that the app itself still represents.

I did have a concern that the government was giving bad players an opportunity to access data on the server without detection. There are two aspects to this. There is the app itself and then there is the uploading of data to the server and the storing and the use of that data. So I did have a concern that the government was giving bad players an opportunity to access data on the server without detection. The decision to ask the Office of the National Data Commissioner to overview data storage and access is a wise choice that addresses this concern. We are pleased with that.

I was also worried about Amazon having access to both the client file, which is needed to identify app users, and the data file for COVID-positive users. This in effect gave Amazon access to significant personal information of app users. Let me explain bit more. The separation now of the key file and the data file itself, under the supervision of the commissioner, is the best way of making sure Amazon and the government keep each other honest. Well done. In other words, we've got Amazon storing the data and the government having the keys. Both are needed. It can't be separate. Not one party can have control.

There is one issue here to do with the cryptography on the unique user IDs. The open-source app that the COVIDSafe app took as a starting point only requires 32-bit encryption. I had hoped the app developers would have taken that up to 128-bit and would ask the commissioner to consider that.

Let me turn to a number of security issues in the app itself that need to be addressed. My office has put out a detailed sheet on this; so let me quickly mention them here and move on. First, the user ID can stick in the phone case, causing a phone to broadcast multiple different user IDs over extended periods of time, which increases the chances of a phone being tracked. Second, the COVIDSafe app overrides phone security settings to use the same handshake address for a phone over the life of the app, instead of changing every few minutes. This is a major security issue in the app. Third, the COVIDSafe app stores the make and model of the other phones it has matched in plain text, where it can be easily read. This approach is not necessary, since this data could easily be tracked when the app is registered, instead of storing it in the phone.

Fourth, if someone has named their phone—such as, in my case, Malcolm's iPhone—under some circumstances, this real name is what the other phone stores. App users who have named their phone with their real name may be exposing themselves to danger. This results from the app using different ways of broadcasting data to maximise the chance of a match. This tells us that the developers have taken a deliberate decision to compromise safety to achieve the most number of matches.

Fifth, data stored to the cloud is not deleted. If a cloud service is used to back up or sync a phone, the COVIDSafe app contact log gets backed up to the cloud. This can be viewed by anyone with a sign-in without the phone user's knowledge. I acknowledge that this bill makes the behaviour illegal, but not storing some of the data in plain English would have been a far better choice.

Sixth, an app running in the background will not match with another app running in the background on an iPhone. Seventh, the app does not meet the government's own standard for app accessibility, WCAG 2.0 A. It fails accessibility tests on font size and field width. Aren't people with a disability the first people that need to get this app? So that was sloppy.

Eighth, errors that were detected early in the release of the app have still not been fixed. Registration fails over wi-fi, which is used in poor reception areas. Bluetooth conflicts with external devices. Power management on an iPhone interferes with the app. Three per cent of older phones cannot use the app. An alert message advising users that they have tested positive for COVID was being accidentally triggered. This was fixed by deleting the message. So, currently, the app can't be used to alert users when they actually do test positive.

I must however compliment the government for this sudden concern about security. Where was the concern about peoples' privacy in this government's capture and use of the metadata of every Australian? This government is storing texts, telephone call details, social media posts, websites visited and website comments for every Australian. At Senate estimates, we discovered that, in 2019, there were 297,000 accesses of the metadata records of everyday Australians by 22 different government agencies. How many of these accesses were accompanied by a warrant? None; not one warrant. I understand this government feels the need to get this app in wide use and is prepared to write good data protection rules to achieve that. So I would ask the government to show it really cares about the privacy of everyday Australians by revisiting the wider issue of government use of private data, because the government's track record on security is poor.

As I've explained, the shortfalls initially in our assessment of the app were to do with data storage and access of that. That has now been resolved, or will be resolved once this privacy bill passes. However, the reverse is the case for the app. We were originally happy with the app, and we now see a number of flaws in it around security issues with regard to people being able to track the phone owner, the phone user, and that is not acceptable.

I also want to make a comment about the blackmail that is being used by the government to push this app. Minister Hunt said, 'You want to go to the footy? Download the app.' We have just heard Senator Bragg saying, 'This is our ticket to freedom.' No, it's not. There are far more effective tickets to freedom. The Australian people have already shown a highly responsible approach to managing this COVID virus. We need to stop the blackmail, stop the control that is pushed over us, and we need to get back to the freedoms that are inherent in being everyday Australians. Part of our birthright, part of the citizenry that we have, is that we are entitled to rights and freedoms. When we have permission from a government to do something that is not a freedom. That is the reverse, because it is being withheld until the permission is granted. We need to rely upon the trustworthiness, the competence and the sense of responsibility of everyday Australians right around the country.

Let me summarise by saying that this bill is necessary, and that is why One Nation will be supporting it. It is welcome. Secondly, the app is not up to scratch, and that's why I won't be downloading it. Thirdly, we need to get back to freedom properly.

I rise to speak to the Privacy Amendment (Public Health Contact Information) Bill 2020. Let me start by sending my profound thanks to the many unsung heroes of this pandemic—the doctors, the nurses, the healthcare workers, the patient care attendants and the health officials, all of whom have put themselves on the line. But, beyond health, the childcare workers, the teachers, the scientists, the supermarket employees and the cleaners—the people who have allowed us to continue to function as a society—have, at great risk, sacrificed so much to help save the lives of others and to support us during this critical time.

I've spoken to many of my medical colleagues about the real-world implications of this virus and they have told me some harrowing stories. When the data was emerging from Europe and we heard those stories about what life was like in ICU in Italy and other parts of Europe, I spoke to some of my colleagues who themselves are anaesthetists and intensivists. They were discussing how they would live apart from their families during this epidemic, so that their children, their wives and their elderly parents weren't put at risk. I want to say thank you to them.

At a personal level, of course it has been difficult for many people. I resigned to self-isolate. I didn't think it would be forced on the entire Australian community. I've stayed at home; I've followed the advice of health experts. Lucy, the boys and I are finding new ways of doing everyday things. I know it has been hard on my elderly parents. They miss their grandkids; they miss the social connection. It has been tough on everyone, but it must also be said that it could have been a hell of a lot tougher.

Australia's response so far to COVID-19 has been, by most measures, a success. There's a hell of a long way to go, but, to date, we've made some good decisions and had some good luck because we're an island continent; we're a long way from the rest of the world. There's the tyranny of distance, but, when it comes to a pandemic, there's also the tyranny of proximity. We're lucky that this pandemic reached us in summer. We think there might be some seasonal variation with regard to the way this virus behaves—so, yes, we've had some good luck, but we've also made some very good decisions. When it comes to a government that has made some terrible decisions over so many other issues, you have to ask yourself: why? The simple answer is that this response has been led by the medical and public health experts on the basis of the best possible evidence and modelling. The Australian Health Protection Principal Committee has brought together the vast expertise of our public health community. We are absolutely blessed to have some of the best public health professionals anywhere in the world helping to drive the response to this epidemic. They made some tough decisions early that proved to be the right decisions such as restrictions on travel, particularly from China, then Europe and other countries across the world. We've seen a proportionate response in terms of the restriction of activities, driven—it must be said—by significant pressure from some state jurisdictions. Overall it has led to us flattening the curve, which was our objective at the start.

I have to say, I've asked myself a number of times: why it is that the government decides to listen to the experts when confronting a major threat to our health, yet ignore the experts and the science when faced with a threat not just to human health but to all life on earth? Look at our response to climate change to date. We know what the answer is: a response driven by vested, powerful interest groups; by money; by massive corporate donations; by the lobbying that goes on behind closed doors; and by the threat of campaigns from some of those vested interest groups. Just imagine if, in terms of responding to the threat of catastrophic climate change, this government had put science and expertise front and centre—more jobs, more investment, clean air, energy independence, freedom from the shackles of big energy companies. Yet they have failed comprehensively to deliver.

As I said, the response to COVID-19 to date has been a success. I've tried to cut the government some slack along the way; we are confronted with significant uncertainty when it comes to how we respond to this virus. But it must be said that early on many of the messages were confused and contradictory. It must be said that, when it came to outbreaks like that on the Ruby Princess, there were some very, very poor decisions made. It should cause a rethink to the way we structure border security in this country.

There were many other lessons learnt. We learnt that when it came to personal protective equipment in our medical stockpile, the government simply did not have enough to keep our health workers safe. There was a lot of talk about providing ventilators during the initial stages of this pandemic. But ventilators are no good if you don't have the personal protective equipment to operate them, the gowns, the masks and the face shields. On talking to my colleagues in intensive care units, they weren't concerned about access to ventilators; they were concerned about access to personal protective equipment. Through the course of this pandemic, we've learnt that the medical stockpile was dangerously unprepared. We must learn those lessons and learn them for any future pandemic.

The government have got to make sure that they conduct a detailed review of the medical stockpile not just when it comes to personal protective equipment but when it comes to all facets of the drugs and other equipment necessary when confronted with a pandemic like this. That means ensuring that we've got local manufacturing capacity to produce those goods when and where they need it. We've also called for the government to make the influenza vaccine free for all Australians. We know how critical it is, with the flu season upon us, that vulnerable Australians—indeed, all Australians—protect themselves against the risk of influenza. We do know that if someone were to contract the flu, they would be at significantly higher risk of complications from COVID-19.

We've supported the rollout of the broadscale telehealth item numbers. It has been a hell of a long time coming, and we know now that it has served Australians very well during this pandemic. It's of concern that many Australians aren't seeing medical professionals during this crisis. I would encourage everybody to continue to maintain a relationship with their local doctor, with their community health centre and with practice nurses because those chronic medical conditions—diabetes, heart disease, hypertension—all need to be managed, and need to be managed with regular engagement with a health worker. See a doctor. Make sure that you're getting the appropriate treatment that you need.

The government has to keep these telehealth items in place after this crisis. They are an essential part of modern medicine. They give people more choices about how they engage with health practitioners, and they've got the potential to go some way to bridging the divide between urban and rural and remote communities with respect to health care. Of course, it's not just in health care. We know that, in so many other industries, the move to use online technologies has the capacity to reduce pressures on commuting and to support women in the workplace and more family friendly work environments. We need to speed up support for everybody to be able to access those technologies.

To the COVIDSafe app, I have to start with the government's track record when it comes to establishing legal protection for the use of data that they collect. Their track record is abysmal. From mandatory data retention to the My Health Record site, the government has a history of surveilling its own citizens and failing to protect private information. The data retention laws allowed warrantless access to personal data. We fought against it and we lost. It's absolutely crystal clear that the My Health Record legislation, for example, required amendment, and we achieved that in the Senate as a result of long and sustained advocacy so that personal data could be protected and that important reform could be implemented. We saw people's Medicare numbers, a key piece of identity information, being sold on the dark web. That caught people by surprise. So the government's track record on managing people's data is not good.

However, I am pleased that the government has listened to the criticism directed against it when it comes to this app and is looking at tightening up the protections in this legislation for the data collected by the COVIDSafe app. Of course, it doesn't guarantee that the data's safe. It doesn't mean that there might not be some scope creep in the future, and that's why it is so critical that the Senate support amendments that will be moved by my colleague Senator McKim to further ensure protections. I'd urge all senators to support those amendments.

I say to all Australians: this is clearly a voluntary decision. People need to weigh up the decision for themselves. I've had to do that personally—to weigh up this government's track record on data protection against my role as someone who's been a public health specialist and a GP. I'm aware that, from a public health perspective, this app does have the potential to help contact-tracing officials to more quickly and effectively identify and contact people who may have come into contact with COVID-19.

It's new technology. We aren't sure just how effective it'll be. It's not going to render traditional contact tracing redundant. It won't be a panacea, but it may help and, if it can stop an outbreak faster, it has the potential to save lives. So it's on the basis of weighing up those options and considering that, if we were to download this app, we could potentially save lives that I have decided that I will download this app. Whether we download it or not, it's so critical that we continue to invest in our public health workforce and that we continue traditional contact tracing because that is at the heart of a sustained response to this pandemic. That's why I support this legislation and that is why I will be downloading this app.

Right now the concern is that we are potentially facing, with the easing of restrictions, a second wave. We've seen that in many other jurisdictions, such as South Korea and China, and that is obviously of concern to many of us here. We don't know right now what the pathway out looks like. We know that the hunt is on for a vaccine. I'm watching that closely. There's a very promising candidate here, at the University of Queensland, but the truth is there have been many candidates for vaccines and many failed candidates for vaccines. A vaccine to treat this pandemic is a possibility, not a certainty. Remember, when HIV first emerged, we were promised that a vaccine would be developed within a few years. Many decades down the track, we still do not have one.

Look, many armchair experts will tell you what they believe the pathway out of this is. The truth is that none of us knows exactly what the blueprint to move forward through this pandemic looks like. What I do know is that restricting people's activities has bought us some time and that some of the decisions informed by our public health experts have bought us time. I know that the virus is likely to be with us for years. I know that easing restrictions risks another peak in the pandemic. But I also know that the longer these restrictions are in place the harder life will be for many people.

This isn't a trade-off between health and the economy, because poverty and unemployment and lack of access to education also have a profound impact on peoples' health. It's why we need to continue to invest in the response that's needed, it's why we need to continue to trust expertise and it's why I will be downloading this app.

I too rise to speak on the Privacy Amendment (Public Health Contact Information) Bill 2020 and thank all colleagues who have come previously for their contribution. It's good to see what I think is unanimity around this chamber on the benefits of having a contact tracing app such as this one in place to assist us in dealing with what has been an absolutely shocking pandemic. None of us could have predicted just a few short months ago where we would be today and what we would be discussing today. We probably all thought a few months ago that we would be talking significantly about economics. We would have just seen a budget handed down, and obviously that is not the case. Instead we are dealing with one of the most serious crises to hit the globe in a very long time.

As we look at the way we have so far—and there is a long way to go—dealt with this global pandemic in Australia, I just say the Australian people have been absolutely magnificent in working with the government, both our government and the state governments, and in dealing with this pandemic. I think the Australian people have done themselves very proud indeed. We see them taking the steps required to make sure we deal with this pandemic in a responsible way, in a way that protects the most vulnerable in our community.

As many senators have already said, this app is not a panacea unto itself. This app doesn't mean we can stop washing our hands or coughing into our elbows or maintaining safe social distance or not gathering in large crowds for the foreseeable future. But what this app does do is it adds a very important tool to the toolkit of the public health officials who are attempting to do the contact tracing, which is so important. We've all heard it: the test, trace, suppress. When someone has become exposed and contracted this very dangerous virus, this app will assist greatly those state public health officers who are trying to track down the contacts of that person as quickly, efficiently and effectively as possible.

It's designed to help keep you safe. It's designed to help keep your family safe and your community safe, by slowing down and, as I said, by tracing and suppressing this virus. Early notification of possible exposure is extraordinarily important in dealing with those local outbreaks, which we know will happen and we've seen already—the meatworks in Victoria and the outbreak in Tasmania a little while back. We've seen these outbreaks, and we know that this app will help quickly track and trace the people involved in those outbreaks.

There are significant protections involved, and, like my colleagues, I congratulate the ministers responsible in this area. In particular I'll thank my colleague from Western Australia Christian Porter for his responsiveness in dealing with some of the concerns about the treatment of data when the idea of this app was initially being discussed and as the initial phase of development was underway. I think all the ministers involved in this process have been extraordinarily responsive in making sure we get the balance right. There are understandable concerns and there is a balance to be struck, but I think in seeing the fact that this place seemingly will support this bill in a unanimous fashion recognises that those ministers have been responsive and that the correct balance has been struck.

There are a number of layers of volunteerism about this app. First of all, you choose to download it, and I absolutely encourage you to do so. For those millions of Australians who have, I thank you. When you're thinking about the rest of Australians who are thinking about when and whether to download the app, I would just absolutely urge you to think about why we adopt something like this. We adopt it to help protect our families, our parents, our grandparents. We adopt it to help protect our essential service workers, who many in this place have thanked. I certainly add my voice to the thanks to our many essential service workers, from the health system to those who have been continuing to work in our grocery stores making sure we've got food to eat, right across the economy. Those essential parts of the economy that have kept going at risk to themselves will help to be protected if you download this app.

We are helping to protect the vulnerable, those with a suppression of their immune system due to an underlying health condition. We're helping to protect the old. When my family is out walking in the park we want to say 'G'day' to the older Australian who lives up the road from us. We want to do that in the confidence that we have as many systems and structures in place as we can to protect as many of our vulnerable Australians as we can.

Of course there's a secondary voluntary point in the app, and that is: unless and until a person is diagnosed with COVID-19, no contact information collected in the app is disclosed or able to be accessed. I think that is a very important second part of the way this app functions. It's very important to providing that balance and providing that level of certainty to the Australian public. I really do urge all Australians to think seriously, if you haven't already, about downloading this app, about doing everything we can to make sure that our path out of this pandemic is as smooth and as efficient and as quick as it possibly can be.

Before I speak specifically on the bill that's before us, I want to use this opportunity to talk about the massive impact that COVID-19 has had on our society and our economy. It's the first time that I've had a chance to speak about COVID-19 and the pandemic in this chamber since it rose, having not been here for the last two sitting days. It is such a massive thing that our globe is going through, certainly within my lifetime: its unexpected nature—how our lives have been turned upside down, how our economy has been turned upside down, how our society has been turned upside down; and then the responses to it—how things that were seen to be impossible we've realised we have to do, like the huge support for the communities in terms of maintaining jobs. Clearly from the Greens' position there's more that we feel the government needs to be doing. But, in general, as a society we are all in it together and we have all worked together to get us through this time of crisis in the best shape possible.

I really want to pay tribute to the people who have been there on the frontline getting us through—the healthcare workers obviously, but those other frontline workers too. I was thinking today, here in Parliament House, at the high risk, having brought people in from all over the country, and there are the cleaners going about their business. They are the people who are on the frontline—they are the people who are having to go from office to office and who are most at risk—and the people working in public transport and the people stocking the shelves at the supermarkets. Whereas, so many of us have had the ability—obviously with its problems as well—to work from home. They are the people whose jobs can't be done from home. So I really want to send my thanks to them.

I also want to acknowledge the huge impacts on people—obviously the people who have lost loved ones, and it's devastating. But at least we can look, because of the work that we've done in Australia, at how the loss of life has been much more limited than in other parts of the world. I really do give thanks for that.

I also acknowledge the impacts on people who haven't lost their lives but are going to have ongoing health concerns. Suddenly their lives have been changed. They thought that life was going forward and they now have to deal with the after-effects of stroke or other neurological or lung problems. And, of course, there are people who have lost employment; people who haven't been able to continue with their studies; people who find themselves not knowing what life has ahead for them; people who are really struggling with the social isolation; and people who are struggling with mental health problems, whether it's young people or older people. People are really doing it tough because of the social isolation and the physical distancing that's going on.

I also want to acknowledge how this pandemic has made very clear the role of government, the importance of having government action and the importance of us all working together, being able to trust that our government is taking action in our interests and that the action is transparent and accountable. It's been a real test for our democracy. I have been pleased to see that, during this pandemic, trust in our democracy has gone up, and that can only be a good thing. Obviously, that trust has to be earnt and that transparency and accountability is crucial.

I move on to the Privacy Amendment (Public Health Contact Information) Bill 2020. First of all, so much has already been said about the privacy issues surrounding the app. I support the remarks that have been made by my colleagues, including the member for Melbourne, in the other place, and my colleague Senator McKim here, and the comments that Senator Di Natale made just before. I'm aware that this legislation concerns privacy issues rather than the app itself, but clearly the two are related. You don't have one without the other. Journalist Bernard Keane has critiqued the app, arguing that it provides a false sense of security. What it will deliver primarily is a false sense of security for people and a sense that something is being done, which, by the way, is standard for technological solutionism. There's a belief that a social or economic problem can be solved with maybe a keystroke and some great, new piece of tech, without anyone having to make hard decisions or undergo sacrifices. It's the inflation of micro-level solutions—'A particular tool will help me with a problem or address a need of mine'—to complex, macro, global-level problems.

The truth is, as we know, that this app is only a tiny part of what needs to be done and it's going to be a long, hard struggle to save lives in the face of this pandemic. COVID-19 has changed so much of our lives and we're not about to snap back either economically or socially. We don't have any silver bullets yet. There's been all the discussion about this app. Regardless of the privacy issues and people's concerns, weighing up the privacy issues with the value of having the app, this app still has faults. I am going to wait and see whether the amendments that the Greens are putting up today are adopted to overcome some of those privacy concerns before I make a final decision to download the app. My decision on whether to download the app has also been seriously influenced by the fact that it actually doesn't work very well on my iPhone. What's the point of me having an app on my phone that isn't actually working when I am waiting in a queue doing my emails or talking to somebody on the phone? It's just when you would want it: waiting in a queue at the supermarket or somewhere for 15 minutes. And, of course, there's the issue of the 15 minutes, as well as the usefulness of it. When you're in those circumstances, when you might be doing something else on your phone and the app is not working, what's the point of it? The technology may overcome these problems, but it's not a silver bullet.

In terms of tackling this pandemic, there is no one thing that will solve it. Even if we get to have a vaccine, its impact will depend crucially on surmounting a range of other challenges: clear science communication, effective public health systems, and effective international aid that supports our neighbours to make sure that people all around the world can access this vaccine as they deal with the same challenges. So much depends on other, harder challenges: how we as a society care for each other, public health, mental health support and income support. These are the crucial issues that we have to face and these are the challenges that this app isn't going to fix. And getting the privacy concerns right isn't going to fix these challenges either.

In particular, I want to talk today about a community that faces a set of unique challenges in the midst of this pandemic. Over the past weeks as we've experienced this pandemic, I've met with several organisations and individuals from lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, gender-diverse, intersex and queer communities to check in on their work and get their insight into what COVID-19 has meant for them and the people they work with. Their concerns echo the points covered in the paper put together by Equality Australia, published after they assembled a roundtable of LGBTIQ+ and allied organisations to discuss COVID-19 impacts on LGBTIQ+ communities. Some of the issues that Equality Australia raised include the health disparities which put some LGBTIQ+ people at greater risk of severe health consequences from contracting COVID-19; the mental health disparities, particularly in rates of depression and suicide, which place LGBTIQ+ people at significant risk when faced with physical-distancing measures and greater isolation; a sudden loss of community support and cultural spaces; barriers to finding comfort and connection with our chosen families; and the possibility for some of living in unsafe and/or unsupportive environments. The third broad area of impacts is the historical and continuing experiences of discrimination, which make accessing inclusive health care, support, services and information, and interacting with law enforcement, more challenging, while LGBTIQ+ organisations are themselves insufficiently supported to meet the increased demand for their services. Equality Australia said that this potentially devastating combination of impacts and consequences may be further compounded and magnified for those with additional needs based on other attributes, such as disability or age.

With regard to other LGBTIQ+ organisations, I recently met with Joe Ball, the CEO of Switchboard Victoria. It was incredible to hear about the work that that organisation are doing during this crisis. They've been continuing to provide a support line even as we face a pandemic. They made the hard decision that they wouldn't have volunteers staffing their line, so they've had a massively increased financial impost from employing paid staff. But they also made the decision that the paid staff staffing their helpline still needed to be able to come into their headquarters, because it was just not safe for people, mentally, to have to cope with what they were hearing on that helpline; they needed to be there to support each other. Tragically, I hear that many of the calls they've been receiving are from people who are in fear for their safety because they've had to shift locations or change how they live due to health risks during this pandemic. Their work is crucial and must be supported.

Another organisation I've spoken to is Minus18, who work with young queer people. They are facing compounding challenges because of the massive unemployment that has hit young people. Overwhelmingly, they are people in casualised employment; they are working in the hospitality and tourism industries. They are losing their jobs and have been struggling to be supported, even after that. The Equality Australia report spoke about the resilience, resourcefulness and creativity of LGBTIQ+ people in the face of this crisis. I want to acknowledge and pay tribute to all of those characteristics and more. This is an incredibly difficult time for everyone, and people in LGBTIQ+ communities and their families face unique and acute impacts.

This app tackles a tiny part of the challenges that we, as a society, face. It's a tiny contribution to what needs to occur to keep everyone in our society safe and healthy in the face of this pandemic. I know that much more is being done, but much more remains to be done. We need to be considering more urgent government action to provide more support. LGBTIQ+ people and their families, in particular, must be able to access services without fear of discrimination, and they must have access to safe housing and other services in this crisis. Governments at all levels need to fund these services. They need to be focusing on this as well as applications like this app. They need to be funding the services that people need, from health to housing, and not cut corners on this. I know from speaking to these frontline services that we get amazing bang for the buck from them. Even without any funding, they stretch their resources to the limits. They should be adequately funded and properly resourced as part of the national response to this pandemic.

As we're considering this app today, there is still more work to be done to make sure that it is fit for purpose and that it doesn't compromise people's privacy. But, as I said, it is only a tiny part of what we still need to do to keep our society safe and healthy in the face of this pandemic.

I appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate on the Privacy Amendment (Public Health Contact Information) Bill 2020. Like many people in this place, I made the decision quite quickly to download the app. I did it with some reservations. The government's record, practically, in securing private information, is not a strong record. But, more concerning, the government's interest in protecting privacy, particularly digital privacy, appears to be extremely limited. My experience with the government is that both their practical capabilities in terms of effecting any protections they may wish to put in place and their willingness to do so have combined to produce a series of problems in relation to government digital projects, and that made me very hesitant. I should, of course, indicate that that hesitation is not particularly about my own privacy; it's about the overall framework for privacy that has been put in place by the government. That said, the government appears to have made quite serious attempts, both in the original determination by the minister and in the bill that is before the chamber at this time, to put in place serious safeguards to support privacy. It's on that basis that we're supportive of this legislation.

My hope is that this experience will encourage the government to give consideration to these same matters when it develops other interventions that also go to privacy. Part of the problem, of course, is that, when we ask the community to engage with the government's app, they've seen all of the other instances where government has appeared indifferent to their privacy, and we reap what we sow. But on this occasion Labor has sought to support the government's public health response, and it has seen that this app represents a sincere attempt to support a broader public health response to contain the impact of the pandemic.

I want to turn to the broad nature of that response. At its heart, the government has asked all Australians to trust the health advice being provided by government and to trust in one another that, together, the actions that we all choose to take voluntarily, without compulsion, will support the health of our citizens. Not everybody is equally vulnerable to the impacts of COVID-19. It's clear that people with pre-existing health conditions are more vulnerable both to contracting the virus and to the impacts of the virus. It's clear that there are some parts of our community for whom the social determinants of health render them vulnerable over their lifetime to poorer health outcomes who are themselves more vulnerable to the impacts of the virus. In my own conversations in my own family, I've made it clear to younger family members that, yes, they may not be impacted as severely by this virus, but older people in our community, people that they know, people that they love, are likely to be impacted and it's on that basis we all have engaged in the social-distancing measures that have been requested of us. It is fundamentally an approach built on trust—trust in the scientific advice, trust in the medical advice, trust that government is acting in our best interests, trust that governments are collaborating within the federation to protect the Australian community, trust that all of the people around us—all the people in our neighbourhoods and in our workplaces—are doing our best with the advice we have to prevent the spread of the virus. It makes us realise what an important asset trust actually is in a democratic system. It should provide cause for reflection in this place about what is required amongst parliamentarians, amongst political representatives, to build and sustain trust, not just in this policy area but in all policy areas, because it is fundamental to our ability to respond to the circumstances we find ourselves in now and it will be fundamental to our ability to respond to challenges that will arise in the future.

I do want to sound a note of caution about over-reliance on the app as a public health solution. The government laid out a range of measures necessary to protect the community, and we shouldn't think that the app itself provides a kind of magical protection. Indeed the government's own criteria for take-up of the app seems to have changed dramatically. At first it was indicated what was required was 40 per cent of the population. It now appears the goalposts have moved and what is required for the app to be effective is 40 per cent of the adult population who use a mobile phone. That shift alone should provide some indication that this is not an exact science and, in fact, what is required is the implementation of a whole suite of measures, most of which do not rely on technology. Most of the measures rely, as I said earlier, on individual citizens taking a decision to voluntarily make choices that will protect fellow citizens by limiting our interaction with one another.

I do think that now that we have moved out of the acute phase of this crisis and into what will be a long period of transition back to some kind of normality, we should think carefully about the opportunities to engage civil society in support of that objective. We are blessed with leaders right across our community who stand up in their local communities and voluntarily play a role. They choose to play a role as a leader of a sporting association, choose to play a role as a leader in a school P&C, choose to play a role as a leader in a local environment group. These are leaders who are fundamental to establishing the kind of trust at a local and personal level within a community that allows our society to function. They are leaders who are not often recognised but who would be immensely valuable in the fight we are presently engaged in to contain this pandemic. They are probably infinitely more powerful than an app and, as we develop our response and roll it out across the community, we ought to be thinking about the kinds of community engagement that might be possible if we really leverage the power of civil society to respond to the challenge before us.

This app is important. It will give our remarkable public health officials new tools to engage in contact tracing. It will supplement the data that they already have before them when they engage in that contact tracing process. I want to place on record my thanks, particularly to the health workers in my home state in New South Wales, who have been working so hard, such long hours in a sensitive environment with people who are unwell, for engaging in contact tracing. This app will do a great deal to support their work and it's on that basis we provide support but we do need to remember that the public health response is much broader than simply a piece of technology. I urge government to continue thinking about that, to be respectful of the community, to understand that a genuine response over a long period of time is going to need to involve many, many people and that the best way to do that is through transparency and an overall posture of respect to those many leaders in our community who already do so much to keep all of our organisations working.

I am very grateful for the opportunity to make a few remarks on the legislation before the Senate, the Privacy Amendment (Public Health Contact Information) Bill 2020. Labor's proposition for this legislation is the same as Labor's approach to all of the government's responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. In all of the government's public health and economic responses, we have taken a cautiously constructive approach. We have pointed out where there are problems. We have supported through this parliament wave after wave of economic propositions. The first tranche of the government's economic response was clearly insufficient, and we pointed that out at the time. With the second and third tranches of the government's economic response, we pointed out the deficiencies of all of those propositions but supported them through this place. That's the approach that we've taken in relation to the COVIDSafe app.

I do think that our approach in relation to the COVIDSafe app has been more successful in developing change in the government's approach to the legislation and the practical implementation. There have been some constructive changes and constructive discussions that have happened over the last couple of weeks that have improved the application of the COVIDSafe app. Those safeguards are, I think, useful in improving the operation and privacy aspects of the app. But, critically, our job as members of parliament is to make sure that we're encouraging as many Australians as possible to sign up to and to use the app properly to maximise its effectiveness.

There are new provisions that impose six-monthly reporting requirements on the Minister for Health and the Privacy Commissioner in respect of the COVIDSafe app. There is a new provision that confers additional oversight and certification responsibilities on the Privacy Commissioner to ensure that the Commonwealth complies with its obligations to delete all of the COVIDSafe data when the app is no longer in use. There is also a new provision—there because of Labor advocacy—clarifying that law enforcement and intelligence services may not be given any role in administering the COVIDSafe data store. Those are very significant improvements. Those changes are only there because Labor has engaged in constructive negotiations and discussions with the government. It doesn't mean that the bill is perfect. It doesn't mean that all of the issues are resolved. But we do believe that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

We believe that there should be a unanimous view coming out from leaders in the community, encouraging Australians to sign up to the app. But that hasn't been the approach that everybody in the parliament has taken. Some members of this parliament—all of them on the government side—have taken the opportunity to yahoo and carry on in their communities, and a number of them have quite deliberately set out their personal objections and encouraged other Australians to take a cynical approach to the app. That's been, I think, quite destructive.

I was being interviewed on radio in New England shortly after the local member, Mr Joyce, had been interviewed. He had been telling anybody who would listen that there was no way that Barnaby Joyce, the member for New England, would be signing up to the COVIDSafe app. I don't criticise Australians who make the decision not to sign up to the app for making that decision. That is entirely a matter for them. I do say that people in positions of leadership, people who've had significant positions of leadership in this country and who, it appears, aspire in the future to have significant positions of leadership, have a responsibility to use appropriate language. Those who aspire, in a quite uniquely destructive, National Party kind of way, to future positions of leadership, like that which we saw over the course of the last week—I don't think the word 'spectacle' does justice to what happened in Eden-Monaro over the course of the last week—where we saw the spectacle of that toxic self-interest unfurl and unravel for the Australian people, have a responsibility to use cautious language, to use language that's appropriate and to actually have read a few things before they open their mouths.

There are significant issues that are given rise to when there is an app like this that collects the kind of data that it collects, and it's quite appropriate for people concerned about civil liberties and about privacy to ventilate those concerns and to make sure that those concerns are satisfied. That is not what the member for New England was doing. He has never before in his political life shown the slightest regard for issues of privacy or of civil liberties. What he was doing was a sort of performance art, yahooing for the crowd in an effort to garner the support of people who are cynical about the government's activities in this area.

I haven't seen Mr Joyce talking about the data that people hand over to Google or the data that people hand over to Facebook. He's been nowhere to be seen on some of the difficult questions that government and our intelligence community have had to grapple with, in terms of the appropriate levels of privacy protections and data protections, when dealing with the kinds of issues that they deal with. He's been nowhere to be seen on any of those issues. But on this issue he's been popping up on regional radio, as a sort of toxic dwarf, trying to garner support for himself. That's not a model of leadership for members of parliament or senators. That's not what's happened for the majority of the parliament.

There are criticisms—I think valid criticisms—of the approach that the government has taken. I listened carefully to the comments that Ed Husic made about the government's decision to award the data storage contracts to Amazon Web Services, and I think his remarks were—I appreciate now in hindsight—a useful commentary. There were alternative Australian providers of data services who could have been considered. The government has chosen an overseas provider, and that comes with some risks. Some people say the requirement for individuals to download COVIDSafe is too narrow; the bill doesn't ensure that the COVID app data is retained in the data store for the minimum period necessary to complete contact tracing; and the bill doesn't prescribe some of the appropriate core design principles. Those are, I think, legitimate criticisms, but we are where we are and the legislation is in front of us. Improvements have been made, and I think it's time for the Senate chamber to support the legislation and move forward.

Five million Australians have downloaded the COVIDSafe app. It is not clear, and it has never been clear, what the threshold is for COVIDSafe to be effective in doing its work. At one point, the government said 40 per cent of Australians signing up was an effective level. The government's backtracked very quickly away from that proposition. It is now unclear—and I hope that this is dealt with in the course of the Senate committee inquiry into the government's coronavirus response—what an effective level is for Australians to sign up and properly utilise the COVIDSafe app.

As I say, it's very important that the legislation is passed. It's very important that Australians download the app. It's very important that Australians use the app properly—making sure their bluetooth is turned on when they leave home; making sure they do all the right things—but, as Senator McAllister said prior to me stepping up to make a few remarks, it is not a magic response that is going to take the place of all of the other things that must occur to keep Australians safe in the context of this virus. We cannot have an overreliance on the COVIDSafe app. We need to encourage Australians to participate in it, but we can't allow that to become a reason for Australians not to follow the directions of public health authorities and not to do the things that we have so successfully done as a community. We still need to do social distancing, probably for many months to come. It's true that each of the states has had a different response and a different approach to the restrictions that have been applied to Australians and Australian businesses over the period. It is very important that Australians in each of our communities follow the directions and work constructively with the state governments.

The national cabinet has been an interesting process to observe. In some respects, the national cabinet has helped, I think, this Prime Minister to not make some pretty bad decisions. The national cabinet's been pretty useful at restraining some of the Prime Minister's worst instincts when it comes to dealing with the crisis. When you look overseas, you can see the sort of robotically conservative politics that we've seen in the American political system. We must guard against that kind of behaviour, that kind of politics, emerging on the Australian scene. There are plenty of people on the other side of politics who are interested in promoting those sorts of propositions. We've seen armed demonstrations inside state parliaments in the United States—people with weapons charging into the parliaments. That's not the American democracy or politics that I remember being such an inspiration to democracies around the world.

We've seen strange copy demonstrations around the country. The Prime Minister says it's okay for people to go and do that, and I suppose it is if they follow the social-distancing requirements. But we have seen emerging expressions from some members on the other side of politics—some members of the Liberal Party, particularly in Victoria, really starting to harden their opposition to the approach that the Andrews government has taken. It's a narrow, shallow, venal approach that has been, I think, a real problem in terms of our job here, which is to inspire confidence and trust from the Australian people in the government's approach. I noticed Mr Tim Smith, a local MP that nobody had ever heard of before, on his feet and getting stuck into the Andrews government's approach. That's inconsistent with where the Prime Minister's been and where the national cabinet's been. It's inconsistent with the kind of unity that we need to inspire around our struggle against this dangerous pandemic virus, and it's inconsistent with the approach that we should be taking to the legislation that's in front of the Senate this afternoon.

I thank all senators for their contribution to the debate on the Privacy Amendment (Public Health Contact Information) Bill 2020 today. The bill will implement the strongest possible ongoing privacy protections for data collected and generated by the Australian government's COVIDSafe app. Passage of this bill today will give the Australian public the greatest confidence that their personal information is secure when they choose to download and use COVIDSafe, thereby helping Australia to combat the spread of COVID-19.

The bill was designed to replace and enhance the interim privacy protections for COVIDSafe app data that were provided by the Minister for Health's biosecurity determination. This bill, very importantly, enshrines these privacy protections in primary legislation by inserting a new part into the Privacy Act 1988. Key provisions from the determination formalised by the bill include the criminal offence for unauthorised collection, disclosure and use of COVIDSafe app data and the criminal offence for requiring another person to download and use COVIDSafe or upload their data to the national COVIDSafe data store.

The bill also goes further than the determination. It does this by introducing new additional privacy protections, the most significant of which extends the Australian Privacy Principles, the Notifiable Data Breaches scheme and the oversight of the Australian Information Commissioner to COVIDSafe app data. This means that a breach of the bill will also be a breach of the Privacy Act, including cases of breach by state and territory health officials.

This is not the only privacy protection that this bill strengthens. The law now includes provisions that guarantee no further data can be collected from former COVIDSafe users and that establish a clear, legislatively defined process for how all data in the national COVIDSafe data store will be deleted when the COVIDSafe app is no longer required.

A number of points have been raised in the debate today. Let me refer to those briefly. Firstly, the contract with AWS is a combination of hosting, development and operational services, which is more extensive than services provided by pure hosting providers. While there are several Australian CLOUD providers that could have provided elements of the service that AWS has provided, AWS's ability to scale very quickly in this pandemic context and to provide a broader range of services is beneficial for the purposes to which the COVIDSafe app is to be put. In relation to the CLOUD Act, any transfer of data to any country outside Australia will constitute a criminal offence under the provisions of the bill and attract a penalty of five years imprisonment.

I understand there are also issues raised in relation to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. I would affirm for the record that, since this government was elected, funding to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner has increased by over 75 per cent. As we do with all agencies, we'll continue to work with the OAIC to understand their resourcing requirements moving forward.

All of the agreements with the states and territories are signed. All of the states and territories have received appropriate training and are ready to access the data. Those agreements will of course need to be revised to take account of the final form of the amendments made to the Privacy Act 1988 by the parliament. We will also seek the approval of the states and territories to release those revised agreements.

This bill goes to unprecedented lengths to protect data collected and generated by the COVIDSafe app. It is important that we do that. As reiterated by the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Health in recent days, we have made COVIDSafe app data the most private and secure personal information in the country, whether that information is collected by a government agency or a private organisation.

By passing this bill through the Senate and into law, I sincerely echo the Attorney-General's own sincere hope that it gives all Australians the confidence they need to download and use the COVIDSafe app, as I have and as 5.83 million Australians have. Achieving a high uptake of COVIDSafe is important to help state and territory contact tracers get on top of outbreaks. It's very important work that they do, and it will build upon the work of over five million Australians, as I have said, who have already downloaded the app and are helping us to stop the spread of COVID-19.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Through you, Madam Chair, I thank Minister Payne for her responses to issues that were raised during the second reading contributions of many senators, including Australian Greens senators. I'm very pleased to hear that states and territories have been asked whether they would be happy with the data management protocols being released publicly. I understand there may need to be some revisions to those agreements or protocols as a result of this legislation being passed, but I genuinely hope that we and the Australian people are able to understand what particular safeguards are in those agreements or protocols. When the relevant data goes to state and territory health authorities, that does constitute one of the major vulnerabilities of the data that will be collected by the app.

Minister Payne also responded to questions that had been raised by a number of senators in regard to the operation of the US CLOUD Act by reminding us of something that we already knew—that this legislation does criminalise the provision of data overseas. Given the way the US CLOUD Act operates, Minister, I just need to place on the record that there is no way that you or anyone else can give the Senate, and therefore the Australian people, a 100 per cent guarantee that the data collected by this app will not end up in the hands of US law enforcement and security agencies. That is because under the US CLOUD Act, which specifically relates to data stored overseas from the US—and obviously that would include data stored in Australia—data is available and may be accessed under warrants issued by a US court. I asked the Attorney-General's Department about this in the Senate select committee last week, and it became clear that that 100 per cent guarantee could not be given. Even though I acknowledge the government has done its best by legislating here in Australia, the simple fact remains that the head of AWS in the US is likely to be far more concerned about the operation of US law than about the operation of Australian law. So, Minister, if you're able to give that 100 per cent guarantee, please feel free to do that. I don't think you'll be able to, and that constitutes another potential vulnerability for the data under this act.

Minister, I acknowledge that you weren't in the chamber during my contribution. That's obviously no criticism of you. Minister Cash, from memory, was the duty minister. But I did raise an issue, and I'd be appreciative if you'd be able to seek some advice on it and respond to me in the committee stage. That is around the data collected by this app not being limited to a 15-minute duration or to data being collected within a certain bluetooth range. So could you please confirm that this app actually collects data of a close contact, no matter what the duration of that contact is—in other words, a contact does not have to be for 15 minutes or more for this app to collect the data—and that the filtering of that data, if you like, will actually be done by state and territory health agencies after they receive the data. They will then filter it and only take action in regard to contacts of more than 15 minutes duration. If you're able to address that, Minister, I'd appreciate that.

Thank you, Senator McKim, for that question. Let me, to the extent I am able, provide some information. The last point that you made about the filtering process only using the data which is relevant is definitely correct. I am advised that it isn't technologically feasible to ignore the bluetooth signals of other users beyond 1.5 metres because of the nature of bluetooth technology, which means that signals can be detected within about 10 metres. The COVIDSafe app detects the strength of bluetooth signals, not the distance. The app uses the detected strength of bluetooth signals to estimate the distance between users. So the government has put in place access restrictions to digital handshakes uploaded to the national COVIDSafe data store, and personnel in state and territory health authorities can only access digital handshakes which meet the risk parameters set on the basis of the medical advice about the risks of exposure to COVID-19. That ensures that the minimum amount of information required for contact tracing is what is collected from users.

Thanks very much, Minister. That addresses the issue of the range. I wonder if you'd be able to give a response on the issue of duration in the same context. It is my understanding that the app will record contacts of any duration between two people who've downloaded the app, and then the same filtering process will occur at state and territory health agencies. I'd be appreciative if you could respond to that issue specifically.

Thank you, Senator McKim. I understand that that is correct, and then that is filtered and restricted in the same way in terms of access.

Minister, just on the point about Amazon Web Services, I think you said that the reason, or one of the reasons, that the contract was awarded to Amazon was that Australian providers were not able to provide the full range of services that were required, or words to that effect. Could you please let us know which services are required and cannot be provided by local providers?

Thank you, Senator Watt. What I said was that there are several Australian cloud providers that could provide elements of the services. What AWS brings together is a combination of hosting, development and operational services, plus the ability to scale that very quickly and provide a broader range of services. If there's any further information I can provide on that, I'll come back to you.

That would be appreciated. There's obviously a lot of interest in this aspect, so I think some further detail about exactly what was required that could not be sourced locally would be of great interest to people.

Just following up from that conversation, are you able to tell us, Minister—noting that this has raised an issue, albeit perhaps incidental, in respect of the operation of the CLOUD Act—how long the contract for AWS is currently for? Is the intention when that contract expires to look at perhaps an alternative supplier, an Australian supplier, to remove all of that risk?

I will take that on notice and come back to you.

Thank you. By the way, Minister, I was very impressed with your technical versatility there. As someone with an engineering background, I can say that was quite impressive. But have you engaged at all with anyone in the US in respect of concerns that have been raised about the CLOUD Act and its intersection with the COVIDSafe app here in Australia?

Thank you very much, Senator Patrick. No, these matters have been handled by the responsible portfolio ministers, including, obviously, the Attorney-General.

Senator Patrick asked a very similar question to the one I was going to ask. Minister, because you are the foreign minister—and a captive audience at the moment, I might add—it gives me the opportunity to urge you to engage with your counterparts in the US and seek a diplomatic assurance from the US government that there will be no attempts to access the COVIDSafe data under the US CLOUD Act. I will simply leave that with you. I'm not able to do that. You are, and I think that would be helpful if those diplomatic assurances could be sought.

You gave a number of answers—which were appreciated—in your previous contributions. Just to follow up on the data management protocols that we were discussing earlier, why was it decided that this legislation would not create an offence in regard to state and territory health authorities accessing data outside the parameters that you discussed earlier? There is no doubt—and I acknowledged this in my speech on the second reading—that the privacy parameters around this data enshrined in this act are significantly more robust than those associated with other information on citizens that the government and corporations collect. But it does seem to me that you're relying on agreements between the Commonwealth and state and territory authorities rather than legislating to make sure that state and Commonwealth authorities treat this data with respect.

First I would say that the state and territory authorities are subject to the provisions of the act. If they breach the act in their use or application of the data, they would be subject to the penalties contained therein. They are, of course, subject to the operation of the Privacy Act 1988 in all of their work as well. I'm not sure if there is a specific issue you are seeking to clarify, but in the general I expect and the government expects that, by the passing of this bill, state and territory authorities who are dealing with the data are subject to its provisions and would be caught within that.

I didn't quite catch the full exchange regarding diplomatic assurances. Were you advising that you have made those?

Senator Payne interjecting—

Okay. Is there a reason that you haven't made those diplomatic assurances at this stage or sought those?

As I would expect, the bill before the chamber has been dealt with by the responsible portfolio areas, which are the Attorney General's Department and the Department of Home Affairs, and so engagements are bound to be undertaken by them.

But obviously it's not their role to seek diplomatic assurances from another government. That would surely be your role as foreign minister. I'm asking why within government there hasn't been a decision for you to seek those assurances.

Those agencies work with international counterparts all the time in their work. If we thought that it was necessary to do so, we would make those appropriate requests.

So you can't shed any light for us on why the agencies that you say are responsible for seeking those assurances have not chosen to do so.

No, they may have done so. That is a matter of which I would of course take on notice as a representing minister.

I'd appreciate it if you could take on notice whether those assurances have been sought and, if not, why not.

Firstly, can I ask whether any Australian intelligence agencies have made any requests to the developers of the COVIDSafe app to create a back door into the app under powers granted by the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018?

No.

Thank you, and I'm very happy to hear that. Can I ask whether any contracts are in place with either Apple or Google relating to the COVIDSafe act? If so, do they have any access to any of the COVIDSafe data as part of these contracts?

I can assure that there is no access to the data of that nature.

Are there any contracts between the government and Apple or Google relating to the COVIDSafe app?

There are none that I am aware of and none that I have been advised of.

Thank you, Minister. I appreciate your response. I think I'll now move to some of the amendments that have been circulated in the chamber.

Senator Watt interjecting—

Sorry, you can do it afterwards, Murray, but I'm happy for you to do it now.

I was going to say I don't mind either way, but point of order: I was going to make the point that I have a few more general questions that don't relate to specific amendments. If it is more convenient to do those now, is that okay?

That sounds suitable.

Minister, there has been a lot of discussion about the targets that the Prime Minister and other ministers set for the uptake of this app, and I think there's still a great degree of confusion out there about this. I think the reason that it matters so much is that, again, the Prime Minister and other ministers have repeatedly made clear that the easing of restrictions is linked to the uptake of the app—and I say this as someone who downloaded the app on the first night. You did as well, Minister Payne. I think many of us did. I'm very supportive of the downloading. I've been trying to get others to do so as well. I certainly did that on the basis that the Prime Minister and others had made clear that the easing of restrictions was linked to people downloading it. Just to start with, is the easing of restrictions linked to the percentage of the population that downloads the app?

As I think was canvassed in the debate earlier, and I wasn't here for all of it, I acknowledge, the desire in relation to the app is to have as many people be like you and me—to download the app to assist in the process, particularly around contact tracing—and the ambition is for this to be as many Australians as possible. But the approach to easing of restrictions, as you will have seen through the national cabinet process, is based on the health advice that's received through the AHPPC, where it's possible for Australia and Australians to do. And the states and territories—your state, my state; quite different in their approaches—are using that as the premise, not based on the number of people who have downloaded the app.

So the decisions around the easing of restrictions are not linked to the achievement of any particular rate of downloading the app.

That's correct.

That leaves me a little confused. There were many statements by the Prime Minister and other ministers, in the lead-up to that national cabinet meeting, that said the reason we had to download the app was so that we would have the restrictions eased. Is that not correct?

I think, self-evidently, the endeavour to put in place an app of this nature and to encourage Australians to take up using the app, to download it, is an important part of the pathway out of the most onerous aspects of the COVID-19 restrictions that have been put in place.

We do encourage as many Australians as possible to download the app, because that will help—absolutely that will help—with all of these processes, including contact tracing. We know, and you would be aware, that the contact tracing process is extraordinarily intensive for health authorities. Any mechanism which assists with that process is invaluable in delivering the outcomes we need, to make sure that if there is an issue, if there is an outbreak, all of the contingencies that we need to be planning for, across states and territories and through the national cabinet and the Commonwealth government—if there is a need to do that major contact tracing, we have a better facilitated process for that. The app will provide that, but the number of downloads is not conditional, in terms of the lifting of restrictions.

The lifting of restrictions is a complex process. It's being addressed, step by step, in a very deliberate way through the national cabinet and, as I said, states and territories will make their own decisions in relation to that. The advice and process the national cabinet has followed has been made very clear publicly.

I certainly appreciate that the more people who download the app the more effective it will be, and I appreciate the purpose of the app. I'm left wondering why it was that the Prime Minister and other ministers, in the lead-up to that national cabinet meeting, repeatedly told people that downloading the app was the key to having restrictions eased, if what I understand you're saying is that there is no link.

A greater ability to determine where there are infections and the contacts that have been experienced around those infections is going to assist in this entire process. I think that's quite compellingly logical. That's one of the reasons the app is so important. It contributes to an ability to change the way we have had to do business in recent months, change the way we have had to live, and to what we've asked Australians to do in recent months—and which they have done, overwhelmingly, with great willingness and great support for this significant national undertaking—to address the spread of coronavirus in this country.

The downloading of the app facilitates, makes easier—whatever words you would want to use—a lot of those processes, in terms of contact tracing, in terms of being able to understand people's engagement if there are outbreaks or issues that need to be considered. I think what the Prime Minister and other ministers have been very clear about is how important that is to the progress and process of moving out of the most extreme of the restrictions that we have had to deal with.

Supplementary to that, downloading the app itself doesn't do anything. You have to turn it on and it has to work to achieve something. My question goes to that area. The COVID committee has heard evidence from the DTA and Department of Health that there are, currently, degradations in the application's performance, particularly in relation to when the application is running in the background, or if the phone is locked. That creates a situation where you could have 100 per cent of the people downloading the application, and if it doesn't work it doesn't help at all. I'm not suggesting that's the case.

Are you in a position of give some better guidance as to, overall, how you feel the application is working through the iterative process? Minister, this is not a criticism. I understand you took on this as something you could throw at the problem . From an engineering background, I know there are always issues with an application as it comes online. I'm trying to understand what the status of it is right now and how you will inform the public as iterations of the software and some of the fixes are made, so you're being open and honest with the people who have downloaded it or that it may encourage others to download it.

We might be going to challenge my technical capacity, but I appreciate your engineering experience being gentle with me, if you don't mind. The update process will operate, and does, in the way you would expect any app update to work: through messages on phones and through the government's messaging, and the states' and territories' messaging, about that.

Let me go through some of the points I have here, and we will see if they address the concerns that you have. Most definitely, let me be very clear in saying that the COVIDSafe app works. From its launch, the app has been collecting data about users' close contacts after they download and register in the app. So if a user is diagnosed with COVID-19 they may upload close-contact data to assist state and territory contact-tracing efforts.

There has been, as you have observed, some public discussion about whether COVIDSafe works on iOS devices. The government is assured that the app operates on these devices as intended. We are aware of the variability in the quality of bluetooth signals—

Progress reported.

On 15 April this year, two young women from the University of Melbourne were walking along Elizabeth Street in Melbourne, in my home state of Victoria, when they were assaulted because of their race and ethnicity. To these two students I would like to say: we stand with you. A week later, a family in Knoxfield, in the electorate of Aston, woke twice in one week to find the words 'leave and die' and 'COVID-19 China die' graffitied on their garage. Someone also threw a large rock through their front window. To Jackson and your family I would like to say: we stand with you. Earlier this month, in Carnegie, a manager of a bubble tea shop was verbally abused while at her place of work. When she politely stood up for herself she became the target of anonymous threatening phone calls and text messages. To Jennifer I would like to say: we stand with you. To all families and individuals, business owners and international students who have faced racist attacks in Victoria and across Australia because of the coronavirus pandemic I would like to say: we stand with you.

These unprovoked attacks are just a small sample of the increased racism being experienced by some Victorians. Unfortunately, more recently these attacks are not so unique. It troubles me that I could spend this entire time listing instances of racism that have occurred in my home state over the past month. My heart breaks when I put myself in the shoes of those facing these attacks, to imagine what they would be feeling and what they are going through. It is just unfathomable to me, yet it has become the reality for some.

It troubles me that as we grapple with the challenges of Coronavirus, coming together as a nation, many Asian Australians face daily the fear of being the target of racist attacks. They should not have to. Everyone has the right to feel safe in their homes and their communities. When we say the words 'we're all in this together', as we all have, the reality is that some face underlying challenges that they simply shouldn’t need to face.

In the short time that I have I would like to touch on an issue that was brought to my attention by a constituent who is of Australian Chinese heritage. It's an issue that many may not understand at first glance but highlights that our choice of words and how we discuss coronavirus are something we should be mindful about. Calling COVID-19 'the China virus' is trying to blame a people for a virus that could have appeared anywhere. Pandemics have appeared and do appear in many different countries. Australia is right to call for an independent inquiry. All nations affected by this disease should back international calls for an inquiry. An inquiry should be called in to any event that affects the world to the extent that COVID-19 has, but that should happen regardless of where it arises.

When we seek answers about where the root of these racist attacks in Australia stem from, it seems that a small number of people hold prejudices and cannot separate Australians of Asian heritage from what we believe are the origins of coronavirus. As my colleague in the other place the member for Chisholm, Gladys Liu, aptly said, the coronavirus is not for Chinese Australians to answer for. I couldn’t agree more with the member for Chisholm. Nor is it the responsibility of any private citizen living their daily life in what is one of the most successful multicultural nations in the world.

In time, when we are not dealing with a pandemic, what will be needed is an independent review of the coronavirus outbreak, which has caused health, economic and social impacts that are unprecedented, in our lifetimes at least. We believe that, in time, an honest assessment of events will be critical to learning important lessons and to improving our response to future events such as another pandemic. The desire for an inquiry is not a political manoeuvre whatsoever. It is about knowing what went wrong, what we can do better and how can we strengthen our public health policy for the better. What this inquiry is not is an attempt to push away nations or to divide people. The global recovery will require all countries, including China, to come together.

Recently I hosted one of my regular roundtable engagements with foreign diplomats of the Victorian consular corps to discuss the coronavirus crisis and the challenges that they and many of their diaspora are facing. In amongst the issues around international students, tourists trying to get home, working-holiday backpackers and the repatriation of their citizens, some of the consuls-general raised concerns about the rise in racist attacks against members of their communities in Australia. In particular, I must acknowledge Mrs Mazita Marzuki, the Consul-General of Malaysia, and Mr Long Zhou, the Consul-General of China, for their personal and ongoing engagement with me on this issue. I recently had a conversation with the ambassador for Singapore also, knowing that some of his citizens have been attacked as well. I recently posted letters to editors in newspapers in Singapore and Malaysia and I thanked them for looking at how we are facing this issue.

It saddens me those who represent our neighbours and partners in the region are seeing this ugliness. These are not the values Australia promotes. It does not represent who we are as a people. It is completely against the modern, accepting and open society that Australia is known for. Our acting Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, Minister Tudge, who is also the member for Aston, has said:

We have one of the greatest multicultural countries in the world, where we welcome people from across the planet to our shores, and in doing so, we've all been enriched. And we encourage tolerance.

As a government, we have worked quickly to address these racist attacks.

In order for us to get back on track as a nation, we must come together and we must tackle this virus together. All people of Australia, whether you arrived here recently or whether your family has walked these lands since time immemorial, should never have to accept aggressive acts towards them, let alone based on their heritage. I utterly condemn all racist attacks and behaviours against people in Australia. All Australians are in this challenge together, and only together will we get through this.

Can I begin by endorsing the remarks of Senator Van. The pandemic has sparked calls for a rapid and radical decoupling of Australia's trade and political engagement with China, and this is despite the fact that our resources and agricultural sectors have been the main beneficiaries of the massive growth in trade with China. These calls have now been extended, unfortunately, beyond trade to science and research. Those making such calls ought to be very, very careful of what they wish for.

We know that the COVID-19 pandemic will ultimately be overcome only by science, by the development of a vaccine. That will depend on the collaborative efforts of scientists from all over the world, including Australia. But some conservative politicians—this is where I might differ from Senator Van—have been only too-willing accomplices in scurrilous media attacks on science. In response to media reports suggesting that eminent scientists have been dupes of the Chinese government, if not actively disloyal, they have called for an end to international collaboration in research until it can be regulated, it's alleged, to protect our national security. This is a demand that ignores the fact that the activities of our scientists in universities and public research agencies are already subject to strict security controls and state ethics legislation, and that these controls are in fact much, much stronger than those that exist within the United States. We've seen no reports of any breaches of relevant legislation, such as the Defence Trade Controls Act or the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act. In fact, if there had been breaches, those would have to be reported by law.

Demands by these maverick politicians also ignore the fact that our intelligence agencies in Australia and elsewhere have expressed profound doubt about the claims that have been made by these media campaigns. Media stories such as those by Sharri Markson, published in The Daily Telegraph and other News Limited mastheads, were first reported to derive their information from what they called a dossier—a dossier compiled, they said, by Western intelligence sources. That was a shaky claim at best, but it does not even appear to be supported by our own intelligence agencies. It's most likely to be a collection of media reports. It's been suggested that in fact Ms Markson obtained those materials from US diplomats acting in support of President Trump's re-election campaign. We don't know the truth of that, but anyone who remembers how an earlier US administration used stories planted in the global media to spread the fiction of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq would certainly recognise the tactic.

President Trump, of course—and Senator Van is quite right about this—has been intent on blaming China for the pandemic. He calls COVID-19 'the Chinese disease' and claims to have seen 'very strong evidence' that the virus originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Such language can only serve to inflame racism and xenophobia. Evidence has not been produced, and the claim is contrary to the conclusions of scientists around the world who have studied the genetic make-up of the coronavirus. They have indicated that the virus was not created in a laboratory; it was transmitted from animals to humans. There have been suggestions the virus arose in the Wuhan wildlife markets. However, other experts—such as Professor Maureen Miller, recently interviewed on the ABC, who is in fact a virus expert from Columbia University, and her reports were supported by researchers at the Los Alamos National Laboratory—suggest that the virus may well have seen life first in Guangdong as early as September and has mutated several times since then, spreading to Wuhan, and then to France and to Germany.

The Prime Minister not adhered to President Trump's declarations on the origin of the virus. Nor have Ministers Birmingham, Andrews or Littleproud supported the calls that have been made to bust open our relationship with China on science research or on trade. But that hasn't deterred the actions of the mavericks within the coalition. Their ill-considered, reckless and irresponsible calls work directly against our national interest.

Equally disturbing is their assault on the reputation of our leading scientists and researchers. This is a new low, even in the long history of shameful attacks on science by members of this government. It recalls the campaigns directed against science by the far-Right politicians in Europe in the 1930s, campaigns that also shrugged off any need for evidence, campaigns run by people who assured us that, if you keep repeating a slur, however ill-founded, sooner or later people will believe it. Most recently, Ms Markson announced 'explosive revelations' that research leading to the unveiling of the genetic sequencing of novel coronavirus was undertaken by the University of Sydney and the Chinese Academy of Military Medical Sciences. She names, among other scientists involved in the research, Professor Wu-Chun Cao of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Professor Edward Holmes of the University of Sydney. Ms Markson implies that the collaboration was somehow or other inappropriate but doesn't tell us why. Earlier Ms Markson tried to find the somehow sinister proposition that Dr Trevor Drew, the director of CSIRO's Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness in Geelong—which was formerly known as the Animal Health Laboratory—had worked with Dr Tu Chang-Chung, the director of the Chinese Academy of Military Medical Science. In other words, two scientists working on shared research interests are caught working in a collaborative manner, and that's it! The working relationship between Dr Drew and Dr Tu was seen as a fact in itself—and the only fact—and out of this arose a dark web of hits that Australian security had been endangered.

Ms Markson also reported that Dr Shi Zheng-Li and Dr Peng Zhao of the Wuhan Institute of Virology had previously worked at the CSIRO facility in Geelong. Again, that's the only fact that's reported. It's hardly surprising that Chinese and other scientists interested in the transmission of viruses from animals to humans sought to conduct research at the Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness. Anyone who recalls how CSIRO traced the transmission of the Hendra virus from bats to horses to humans should understand that. We should recall that four Australians died when that outbreak occurred and that CSIRO was the lead agency in combatting that outbreak. Yet, to these mavericks, the collaboration should be suspended and all international collaboration should be stopped. Ignoring just how extensive the regulations are, they effectively claim that we should establish a new blacklist. These mavericks ought to know just how strict the protections of our national security are, already built into legislation in this country, and that any breaches of the Defence Trade Controls Act and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act are in fact required to be reported to parliament. None have been—none.

We should understand the foundations of anything Ms Markson chose to report about this collaboration. Researchers from CSIRO and the universities collaborate with colleagues from all over the world, not just China but the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Singapore and others. International collaboration will be the essential element in our defeat of the COVID-19 pandemic. That's the message that our Chief Scientist, Dr Finkel, delivered to the UNESCO meeting last month on behalf of the government. Smearing the reputation of scientists with baseless allegations puts at risk the international effort to develop a vaccine. The Prime Minister should reprimand those in his ranks who are not supporting that effort. (Time expired)

I rise today to speak about the impact that COVID-19 has had on hundreds of thousands of artists and entertainers right across Australia. We know that this has been a tough time for all Australians. From having to stay away from loved ones and find new ways to celebrate birthdays and have coffee catch-ups, to those who have lost jobs and livelihoods, with no idea of what awaits them in the future, or those who have tragically lost a family member or friend due to the health crisis of COVID-19, we have all felt these impacts in one way or another. There have been few things that have brought us together during these isolated times, but there has been one thing that we have all been able to turn to and take comfort from, and that's our arts and our entertainment industry. A good book, our favourite TV show or film, musicians doing gigs via social media, and virtual exhibitions have all offered us an outlet to both escape and come together. This is not the first time, of course. We saw only recently, over summer, that it was artists and creatives that were there in the midst of the bushfire crisis and were the first to step up, help out and raise money at a much-needed time.

But there is no denying that this time around the people who work in these industries have been left behind by the government. There has been no targeted package for this sector like there has for others. No matter how many times the government insists that JobKeeper is there to help them, the truth is that a large number of workers in these industries have fallen and are continuing to fall through the gaps, left with nothing. ABS data has shown just how hard the arts and entertainment sector has been hit. Ninety-four per cent of arts and recreation businesses have been impacted. A huge 53 per cent of businesses have stopped operating entirely. Twenty-seven per cent of people in the arts and recreation sector have lost their jobs. Of the one million Australians who have lost their jobs during this time, one-third have come from arts and recreation. I want to make this very, very clear: we are at a very real risk of losing an entire generation of Australian artists and creative institutions if we don't do something now to help them. This neglect is now taking a serious toll on the already underfunded sector.

I could stand here for my entire 10-minute speech and just list the numbers of artists, performers and businesses who have been completely stripped of their livelihoods. Just today the Woodford Folk Festival, Australia's biggest music and cultural festival, have shared their concerns that, if the event doesn't go ahead this year, it may be gone for good. This festival alone contributes over $20 million to its local economy each and every year. That's a lot of jobs. That's a lot of economic stimulus in that area. There is an endless list of festivals and events that have been cancelled right across the country, including the Byron Bay Bluesfest and Dark Mofo in Tasmania. These cancellations affect so many, from the participating artists to the tech support and the crew, but it flows beyond that: it's the local tourism industry, the local hotels, the B&B owners, the restaurants and the other tourism businesses in those areas. The entire community feels a loss when festivals like this have to cancel and close down.

ABS data has shown us that arts, recreation, accommodation and food services have suffered the most from COVID-19. Sixty per cent of the jobs lost during COVID-19 thus far are in these sectors. These industries exist in an ecosystem, and one cannot live without the other. Without a healthy arts and entertainment sector, tourism and hospitality just suffer, and they continue to suffer greatly. We now risk entire organisations collapsing. Australian galleries have lost huge amounts of income, with regional galleries still reeling from the bushfires as well. This has been hit after hit after hit.

Contemporary art space Carriageworks in Sydney being forced into voluntary administration made the headlines in recent weeks. The list of severely wounded organisations and businesses grows. The Sydney Symphony Orchestra is facing a $20 million hit to its revenue. That's a lot of jobs. After recently being knocked back for funding, the Restless Dance Theatre in Adelaide has now had to suffer through the stresses of COVID-19. Adelaide's iconic live music venue The Gov is also on the brink today of calling in liquidators. The owner recently stated that they just won't be able to survive in the coming months. These closures filter down to every artist, performer and employee.

I was contacted earlier this week by an Adelaide woman whose husband works in the film industry in Adelaide and is out of work, with no clear pathway. They have an 18-month-old child and a second kid on the way. But right now they have no idea how they are going to recover from this devastating blow and they've got no help from the government programs already announced.

Arts and entertainment contribute $112 billion to our economy, yet they have been left out in the cold. We need to ensure that there is enough support for a smooth recovery and the opportunity for economic stimulus. Arts and entertainment are such a huge part of our lives. We need them. Arts and entertainment help us to process what we're going through, to make sense of the world around us. We need our artists to be there at the end of this to help us heal. At the moment, they've been left out in the cold, left on their own, and there is no hope coming from the government. We will need them after this just as much as we've needed them during lockdown.

This is exactly why we need an economic stimulus package for the arts and entertainment industry. Earlier this week I announced a plan for a package to chart a pathway to recovery. The plan comprises three main elements. The first is an artist-in-residence program, a $300 million project that would see an artist in residence in every school and library across the country. This is about investing in the value of the next generation of artists as well as getting our artists and authors back to work. It would enable visual artists, authors and writers to engage their skills to help mentor Australia's young people and students. The project would be focused on job creation and community development, building an enhanced appreciation for our creative industries.

The second element of this package is the billion stories fund—$1 billion put into an Australian content fund to kickstart the Australian screen industry. Productions are job rich, including creative, scriptwriting, IT, lighting, sound engineers, crews, costumes, tradespeople, marketing, logistics—the list goes on. Making sure we can tell our Australian stories when we get through this crisis, when we get to the end, is going to be essential. It is vital for our cultural identity, but it's important for education and local jobs.

Finally, the third element that we need a stimulus package for is our live performance, live Australia. A $1 billion grant fund is needed to inject money into Australia's festival, music and live performance sector, which needs cash flow right now to recover and restart—investing in and creating incentives for the planning and delivery of events, live music and performance projects for metropolitan, suburban and regional communities. These projects are job rich and provide the economic kick that is so desperately needed for instant stimulus in the communities where they occur.

This package would not only put artists and creatives back to work but it would build on our cultural capital that is so at risk of falling over at the moment. We are going to need to restore our social fabric as we come out of this crisis. We need to create jobs for those who have been hardest hit and we need to create hope for the Australian community, with stories that reflect the Australian identity and show the value of really coming together.

If we are to learn anything from COVID-19, it's that the country needs to get a lot more serious about paying down the national debt and growing the economy. Yesterday the Treasurer outlined the significant blow the Australian economy is suffering from coronavirus. There's no doubt that important initiatives like JobKeeper are crucial to the national recovery and to ensuring our economy fares through the crisis in greater stead than the rest of the globe. However, now more than ever the challenges we face and their effect on the bottom line should pose a necessary reminder to all of us of the importance of strong economic management and sensible fiscal expenditure. Despite the commendable efforts of consecutive Liberal-Nationals governments to return the budget back to surplus, the coronavirus stimulus spending through such initiatives has undoubtedly added years, if not decades, onto our debt repayments, and, as the Treasurer said yesterday, there is no money tree. It is a shame that such hard work has driven economic growth to be obliterated in a few short months, because of the coronavirus. But it is at times like these that the country benefits from a balanced budget, sound economic policy and low national debt. It equips us better to ride out the downturn and the hardship during such uncertain times. A direct comparison lies with the miscalculated and reckless cash exodus of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments, orchestrated by then Treasurer Wayne Swan.

It's more disappointing to see Labor already spruiking their socialist playbook to increase hardworking Australians' taxes and hobble the national economy in the process. It's this exact approach that created the debt in the first place. Fortunately, the Morrison-McCormack government knows that we cannot tax our way to prosperity. Rather, our recovery relies on economic growth through driving business investment and job creation.

Pulling out of the storm that is COVID-19 will be difficult, but it's not impossible. Now more than ever, we need to focus on practical and sensible solutions that reflect classical coalition principles to grow the economy, invest in infrastructure and upskill our workforce. Cutting tax, in addition to cutting red tape, is the best way to grow the economy. To help pubs, clubs and restaurants recover through this process, I support calls to temporarily, at least, scrap the FBT on hospitality in order to help them get through this storm.

But today I am talking about cutting inefficient, ineffective and burdensome red tape that is holding back thousands of Australian businesses. Upon being elected, our government has been able to consistently reduce the annual net cost of complying with regulatory reform. However, to ensure we lower regulatory burdens on Australian businesses, we must focus on cutting the larger and deep-rooted regulation. To do so, we must be wary of presuming that all regulations have similar regulatory burdens and we must recognise the evolving nature of government and that continuing changes in markets, technologies, preferences and attitudes can undermine the effectiveness of previous reforms. In other words, we must be cautious not just to tackle the low-hanging fruit. That's why I am calling for regulatory reform to be put back atop the agenda and proposing accountability measures to ensure it remains a continuing consideration for the whole of government. I'm going to write to every minister, recommending that the coalition government establishes a government and departmental-wide audit of all regulatory impacts in order to not only identify existing and new regulatory burdens but to assess their effect. In doing so, I'm proposing that the whole of government should adopt a stewardship approach to cutting red tape, where all ministers and departmental secretaries are tasked with reducing the number of regulatory impacts. This approach would see each minister being directly responsible for the process of monitoring, reviewing and cutting regulation and would require the minister to update the parliament every six months.

Before the scaremongering chorus starts, I will state this plainly: less regulation does not mean fewer protections or worse outcomes. It simply means that government cannot be so rigid as to assume that regulation is always the best way to achieve these outcomes or to ensure those protections. If there is a simpler, faster or easier way for business to achieve the same desired result, we must be prepared to embrace it and allow industry the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances and to take advantage of opportunities as they arise. While we are thankfully ahead of the curve on the health front, we must now also position our economy to take full advantage of our first-mover status and offer every opportunity to get Australia and Australians back to work.

At a time when we are facing and considering the threats and opportunities that are impacting upon our great southern land, I want to raise in the Senate a man who saw the potential of Australia: James Cook. Cook was not just an explorer. His curiosity knew no bounds and his ability as a navigator and leader of men knew no equal. He is one of the greats. While much has recently been spoken and acknowledged on the anniversary of his arrival in Botany Bay 250 years ago, Cook's voyage along the east coast of Australia resulted in the naming of many great natural landmarks as we know them today. One of the significant areas is located not far from my Nambour office in the Hinterland of the Sunshine Coast, the Glass House Mountains. The Glass House Mountains were named by Lieutenant James Cook, in 1770. On Thursday 17 May 1770, almost 250 years ago to the day, Cook noted in his journal:

These hills lie but a little way inland and not far from each other, they are very remarkable on account of their singular form elevation, which very much resemble glass houses which occasioned my giving them that name …

The glass houses referred to by Cook were the glass-making foundries in Yorkshire, England, which reminded him off a familiar landscape. Both the natural and national significance of these incredible mountains have been recognised in various ways since. On 3 August 2006, then Prime Minister John Howard visited the mountains and announced the Glass House Mountains were of national significance. Prime Minister Howard named them as the 32nd entry on the National Heritage List, joining important Australian sites such as the Sydney Opera House. When we can start freely moving around our great country again, I, along with Andrew Powell, the LNP member for Glass House, Stuart Coward, the LNP candidate for Caloundra, along with local federal MPs Terry Young and Andrew Wallace, encourage those who have not already done so to take the opportunity to discover the beauty and appreciate the historical significance of the Glass House Mountains.

I rise to speak today in relation to some issues around COVID-19. I know that many of us have been inundated with emails, requests, phone calls et cetera from many of our constituents. But today I want to read into Hansard some extracts of emails from some travel agents in my part of Braddon on the north-west coast of Tassie. One is from a very well-respected couple who have been in the industry for over 36 years. I want to share their words with the chamber today, because I think they spell out some of the anomalies in some of the assistance that's been provided by the government. They say: 'We've weathered the storms before—some large, like the pilots strike, SARS, Gulf War, MERS, the Ansett collapse, terrorism and the like—but nothing like COVID-19, as it's so global and the shutdown complete. As a partnership, the government is doing nothing to allow us to still operate and earn what we are both entitled to, as longstanding taxpayers. When the stimulus was first announced, like so many, it took days to get a Centrelink CRN. We'd never been in the system. This was to seek jobseeker. Why? We have no income. We work every day with more of the same—cancelling, deferring. We live off the suppliers and the airlines' commission. When it's cancelled, it's given back, or it should be, which means a lot of what we've earnt from last July financial year will also be given back. From around February the 8th, we are over 95 per cent down on the previous year and have had no income, and this will go on through the year until all of the 2020 and early 2021 are sorted by the travel providers. Then came JobKeeper. What a relief, until we were advised, as a partnership, only one of us was entitled. Back we go to Centrelink, who very quickly, I must say, rang Murray. The first comment to Murray was, "Oh, you are too old—you have to apply for a pension, and Robyn, the JobKeeper." So, to Centrelink to apply for a pension. Over four hours online for questions that are meaningless when you have assets and really don't want a pension, and a big envelope posted off to Canberra. And to this day, no comment, no acknowledgement, nothing.' Then she goes on to say: 'Speaking with our accountant a few weeks ago, he said that there was no age limit on JobKeeper. So back to the ATO site and, instead of me, register Murray for JobKeeper, and I had to go to Centrelink to register for jobseeker. More fun and games, with two choices of answers. "Are you unemployed?" "No, as I work most days with the travel mess for around seven hours, about 35 hours a week, without pay." Then, the next question: "Has your business been impacted by COVID?" "Yes, it's travel." Then the fun and games begin. All the financials of the business, not much sense showing our working account business account as it's clients' money, not ours. As quick as the supplier pays back our clients' fund, we pay it out, gross, not net. Our industry is left behind. Nowhere in the paperwork is there an area to say what we have earnt from last July is now being refunded. We earn commission paid by suppliers—no-one to speak to, the phone drops out or "call back later". We are busy day after day. Our industry needs support. A cafe has been able to sell takeaways and will soon reopen to diners. Large retailers had a few weeks of closure, and then it will be business as usual. Other industries will bounce back and earn money from when they can open their doors. We won't have business as usual until our borders across the Australia and New Zealand bubble open and the ban on international travel is lifted, which may well hinge on a COVID-19 vaccination, like the current proof of yellow fever, and other considerations like rapid COVID-19 temperature checks, no quarantine periods after travel. We want people to recognise that we have no attention, as all the talk is about how badly tourism or hotels or restaurants are doing. They have at least been able to keep their earnings from the beginning of this financial year. This should not be hard, but no-one is listening because no-one can listen. It's all about online, send forms. Not much gratitude to a couple who have worked tirelessly in their local environment and have paid taxes, respectively, for 60 and 45 years, with no burden on the Australian tax system. But now, there is no salary for either of us. Locally, we were able to receive the Tasmanian government stimulus, $2,500, and we've applied for the business hardship grant of $15,000. That is great if we are accepted. It would pay business expenses to keep us going until better times.'

I have had quite a few emails, but I've picked out a couple. The next person who wrote to me said: 'My business has been taking a turn for the worst for the best part of 10 weeks. The travel industry has been hit the hardest ever since travel cancellations started to happen on our China bookings back in February. Being a sole trader, I do not receive a set wage. I only earn a salary from my commission. Therefore, since the government travel ban and global borders closed, this in turn has ceased any forward bookings for my small business, resulting in nil commission. My workload has not decreased. I'm currently working around the clock for my clients for no salary, to cancel their upcoming reservations or to amend them. Not only has my business had 100 per cent downturn, I'm also having to pay back previous money earnt, my income, on these client files which I've worked, or are working on so hard. Like so many other businesses, we've all been hit, and I understand that we're all under extreme pressure. But I just wanted to reach out and say that travel agents, sole traders especially, are different, in the fact that we haven't just lost our job and wages, but we're still working for no wage and having to refund the moneys that we previously earnt. I'm also unable to apply for another job, as I'm still working for my clients who are cancelling, and I doubt many businesses are having to do this. I have had to reduce my home loan payments, suspend my private health payments, suspend my car loan payments and adjust my PAYG tax instalments and a whole range of other things that I've had to manage so that I can actually manage through the next eight to 12 months, because I'm being very realistic. Cafes, beauty salons, restaurants et cetera will all start to open back up over the coming weeks, but there is no way that I can see myself starting to book international travel until the end of 2020 or even perhaps the start or later of 2021. I have also been successful in receiving the $2,500 small business grant from the Tasmanian government, which I'm extremely grateful for, and I have applied for the JobKeeper payment. I have everything crossed that I will be eligible for this payment. It's the only thing keeping me going at this stage—knowing that this might be possible. I feel that I just needed to speak out on behalf of travel agents in Tasmania, as we really don't have a loud voice when it comes to things like this. So many other job titles are being mentioned in this current COVID-19 crisis, but I haven't heard anyone mention the extremely hardworking and soon-to-be-broke travel agent.'

So those are some of the words out of at least two emails I received from, as I said, travel agents in my neck of the woods in Tasmania. These people have been in business. I'm sure all over the country there are many, many more of these, and I would ask that the government have a look at these issues and at least help these people, because they are affected much more than many other businesses. This is a difficult time for everyone, but these businesses in particular do not see a light at the end of the tunnel until, as they said in their own words—and they know their business—the end of 2020 or, likely, well into the first quarter of 2021.

I am getting the same messages Senator Urquhart is about the travel agents, especially the ones in Tasmania, and it is dreadful. The stories are horrific, so I too ask the government: please have a look at this. These guys deserve a lot better. They've worked their whole careers and their whole lives to build up to where they are today, and they are having it all taken off them by something that has nothing to do with them. So please could the government have a look at that.

Where I'm from, on the north-west coast of Tasmania, we've seen the worst of COVID-19. As a matter of fact, we were the epicentre. But we're also starting to turn a corner, which is great. That's come at a huge cost, and that's clear. Businesses have had to shut. People have had to go without pay. We've had a huge dent in our economy, and we've still seen people becoming seriously ill and even dying. But we're starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel—what's been a pretty dark tunnel at that. We're not home and hosed yet, so, Tasmanians, don't become complacent. You can't just ignore social distancing requirements because things are starting to improve. You can't go out and socialise the way we used to. You can't travel wherever you want to or visit whoever you want whenever you want. We can't start sliding back to where we were. That goes not just for our health but also for our economy.

I don't want to nitpick either. All up, we've spent a huge amount of money, and it's being done to give people a safety net. Of course, some have still been missed from the safety net, but it has been a huge amount of money. It's not just what we've spent; it's also what we have not received in tax, as businesses have shut their doors and closed their trade. If you don't trade, you don't earn an income. No income means no tax back to the economy. So it's really important we turn our minds now to how to climb out of this huge economic hole we've all been thrown into. Just as different regions and different states have had totally different experiences of COVID-19, there are going to be local paths to economic recovery. 'One size fits all' isn't going to cut it—certainly not for this.

On the north-west coast of Tasmania, we all know the wind farms at Woolnorth and now Granville Harbour on the north-west coast. The idea of generating clean energy from spinning turbines that helps light homes through electricity grids is well understood, but that's small-fry stuff compared to what's possible these days. Tasmania has huge potential to generate clean hydrogen. It takes energy to split a water particle into two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. That energy comes from either coal, gas or renewables. Clean hydrogen comes from renewable sources, and it's being used to produce a renewable battery. Hydrogen has the potential to store and move energy to places without access to the grid. Hydrogen fuel cells can one day replace diesel and farm machinery. Tasmania can be a new kind of energy exporter, earning income as Tasmania's overseas markets climb over each other for what we can produce better than just about anyone else. A study released by Hydro Tasmania last year found that Tasmania can produce hydrogen about 15 per cent more cheaply than anywhere else in the world, and the west coast is an ideal area within the state to take up this opportunity. We can do it cheaper, we can do it cleaner, we can do it better, and I'll tell you now: we can do it right now.

Hydrogen is also a huge job creator. We've already seen the positive economic impact of the Granville Harbour Wind Farm on towns like Burnie—my own town—and Zeehan. As for hydrogen, well, let's put it this way: it's like it's on steroids. It has the potential to create a new engine of economic growth that attracts skilled jobs, investment and the chance to revitalise west coast towns. When has there been a better time to get this off the ground? We have a world-class wind resource, abundant water and the space to create an industry that, properly managed, can deliver economic gains without the environmental impacts of mining. We can avoid the problems of the past by carefully selecting areas where we can build wind farms that have minimal environmental and social impacts and where we can realistically reconcile the environment and the economy.

The state government recognises the potential of the sector, and good on them for doing that. They've released the Tasmanian Renewable Hydrogen Action Plan, and that's a damn good start for Tasmania. What I'm advocating now is for the rubber to hit the road. Put the pedal to the metal, as they say. The COVID-19 crisis, and the need to kickstart our economic activity, presents an ideal opportunity for government to support projects that can deliver much and generate economic transition as well as recovery.

There are thousands of jobs for Tasmanians available here, close to nearly 5,000, if we seize the moment with both hands. The economy we snap back to won't be anything like the economy we left in March this year—we'll be honest—but if we can return to something similar, we will be doing okay. I want us to get back to having schools open, tourism businesses operating, cafes open for a sit-down lunch, cinemas running again. I want Tasmania's racing industry, which supports over 5,000 jobs around the state, back doing what it does best. It has just got to be done in a way that's safe. It's not worth letting people die just so we can go to the movies sooner rather than later and it's got to be done in a way that's smart.

We can be choosey about which bits of the economy of old we return to and which parts we choose to leave behind. For me, reshaping the economy means backing the businesses, the industries and the technologies that have the ability to transform how we do what we do best. Hydrogen is such a big opportunity for Australia and especially in Tasmania; it is huge. Like I said, we can do it cheaper, we can do it at scale and we're set for success. The question is whether we jump at it or we let someone else jump first. Backing home-grown technologies and industries is a recipe for success. It is a way to grow the economy and keep it growing in good times and bad, but we are making it so hard for people to buy Australian-made. We've got labels that say something is 'Australian made', a 'product of Australia', 'Australian grown' or just 'Australian'. They all mean different things and they're all used in different contexts.

If you ask someone on the street what they're buying when they buy with something with a slogan on it, they will tell you they are buying something that was produced in Australia and that's not always right. It's legal for someone to claim their product is made in Australia so long as half the total cost of producing the product was spent in Australia and that's terribly misleading. You get to count shipping as part of the cost of producing too. So if you're buying something from overseas, you're able to claim you made it here and sell it to the consumers, as long as you change the product a bit and you spend enough money shipping it. We ask people to do the right thing and buy Australian whenever they can but part of that is on all of us here in parliament to make it easy for people to do that with confidence.

Why aren't all products required to label their country of origin? Why don't we require every product to say where it's from? Some say we should leave it up to consumers. If they care about the country a product is made in, they will buy products that choose to include a label of country of origin. The ones that don't include the label won't get sold, and the market will take it off us. If we don't have enough products including that label, consumers can't compare products reliably. Consumers who find only 10 per cent of products they are comparing have a label will stop checking for it and that undercuts the value of the Australian-made logo. That's got to change. If you want to take Australia back to making Australian products again, make it easier for consumers to back them too.

The law has to change because it's too complicated, too easy to game, too easy to rip off customers who are trying to help the little guy, do the right thing and buy Australian-made. It's time to change the law to put control back in the hands of the shopper instead of the seller. Let's make it easier; let's do the right thing. Let's do the Australian thing. Australia's going to be a very different country as a result of COVID-19, and the world is going to be a very different place.

COVID-19 has shown us that we're vulnerable, extremely vulnerable. We are critically vulnerable and we are relying on other countries to sell us medical equipment that's needed here. If we are going to retake our economic sovereignty, retake the will of our economic destiny, we need to plan how we're going to do that in the future. Back the industries that give us the edge to maintain our fuel security, our national security, our economic security, our food security. Back consumers with the tools they need to buy local. Back Australians to back Australia. Let's get on with it.

I rise this afternoon to recognise several special occasions, many of them impacted by the coronavirus pandemic, and to pay tribute to the organisations that have in difficult circumstances continued to ensure these events have remained meaningful to their communities and to guests like myself. I'd like to begin, of course, with the Anzac Day dawn services and marches which were cancelled across Western Australia, indeed across the whole country, this year.

On 25 April, we honoured our Anzac heroes very differently, as balconies, driveways and social media became the new platforms where we showed as a grateful nation our gratitude for the sacrifices of our many servicemen and women. The year 2020 represented significant anniversaries both for the Gallipoli landing and the end of World War II, so I was delighted many West Australians could participate in the Anzac Day driveway dawn service and send a strong message of support to our veterans and to the Australian Defence Force community.

It was an honour to pay my respects and privately lay wreaths prior to Anzac Day with the Jewish Community Council of Western Australia president, Joan Hillman, at the Jewish War Memorial at Kings Park. In addition, I was able to join with the Mount Lawley Inglewood RSL vice president, Oliver Lovelle JP, at the Mount Lawley Cenotaph and Wanarroo vice-president, Peter Tuck, at the Wanarroo Memorial Park. I was grateful to be able to pay my respects as a senator for Western Australia, not just for myself and my family, but on behalf of the whole community.

I would like to recognise the deserving recipients of RSLWA life membership and 50-year certificates in the RSL state congress awards that were also announced and celebrated on Anzac Day. Of the West Australians honoured for their devoted service, I'm particularly pleased to congratulate and honour Oliver Lovelle; the Highgate sub-branch past president, Stephen Chamarette; and Geoff Simpson OAM, also of the Highgate sub-branch, of which I'm proud to be an affiliate member. My congratulations go also to the recipient of the prestigious ANZAC of the Year Award, retired Army Lance Corporal David Scott, for his exceptional contribution to RSL Australia, WA veterans and the broader community.

Finally, I wish to acknowledge a number of West Australians who have been recognised in the 2020 Australian Bravery Decorations that were honoured in March. David O'Dowd of Cocos Keeling Islands received a bravery medal for the courage he showed in rescuing two people from a surf rip off the islands. Simon Werne of Kalgoorlie was bestowed with a Commendation for Brave Conduct for his valiant deeds during the rescue of a disabled man from a house fire in Albion, Queensland. Robert Brown of Ashfield, Dennis Collinson of Oakford, Edward Trindall of Bullsbrook and the late William Matson of Bassendean all received a Group Bravery Citation for their conduct during the capture of a violent offender near Fitzroy Crossing in Western Australia's far north.

The WA Korean and Vietnamese communities also commemorated war milestones recently. The Korean Veterans Association in Western Australia marked the 69th anniversary of the Battle of Kapyong, or Kapyong Day, which honours the sacrifice of United Nations personnel, including Australians, in the defence of South Korea. I recognise the work of the Korean Veterans Association in Western Australia, under President Jinkil Lee, for improving knowledge of the battle and what is sometimes referred to as 'the forgotten war’.

It was a privilege to join with Vietnamese Community in Western Australia President Anh Nguyen and many others to remember the 45th anniversary of Black April at Tu Do Park and Koondoola Peace Park on 30 April. Black April marks the capture of Saigon, and ultimately South Vietnam, in 1975. It’s on occasions such as Black April that we also acknowledge the great determination and resilience of the Vietnamese community in Western Australia and indeed across our whole country.

Easter 2020 was unlike any we’ve experienced before. But it was still a special time for WA’s Christian and Orthodox communities, and I was delighted to pass on my special blessings on these occasions. A number of churches across Perth’s northern suburbs streamed Easter services online, which was embraced by many parishioners, and it was heartening to see outreach services, guidance and prayers still being provided at a time when they are most needed.

March and April saw some equally sacred events for Perth’s Jewish, Sikh, Nepalese, Iranian and Indian communities. Yom HaShoah, or Holocaust Remembrance Day, is the commemoration of the murder of six million Jews in the Holocaust. In previous years, I would have joined with many others in Western Australia's Jewish community to observe this most solemn event. Instead, I was able to participate in a digital commemoration on 20 April. At the time of this moving tribute, I was reminded of comments made by Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel: 'We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.' I would also add my deepest thanks for the remarks made by Rabbi Solomon in that very solemn commemoration and his very enlightened insights into the importance of the event.

Like Easter, the Feast of the Passover, from 8 to 16 April, was affected by COVID-19. Synagogue services were suspended and our Jewish community across Western Australia was unable to mark the occasion as they traditionally would. However, I was pleased to extend a message of support from Prime Minister Scott Morrison and convey my personal good wishes to all in the Jewish Community Council of Western Australia.

Despite the absence of the usual parades, banquets, reunions and religious ceremonies, I was delighted to wish Nepali Association of Western Australia President Mani Paneru, Honorary Consul of Nepal Fred Brown and Perth’s Nepalese Community a happy, peaceful and prosperous Nepal Sambat, or Nepali New Year, on 13 April.

Due to the suspension of religious services at the gurdwaras, the Sikh Gurdwara Perth Vaisakhi celebration, or Sikh New Year, also on 13 April, was streamed via Facebook. This was another occasion when I could share a well-received message from the Prime Minister to Perth’s Sikh community as well as extend my own Happy Vaisakhi wishes to Sikh Gurdwara Perth President Navtej Kaur Uppal.

Sadly, the Iranian Community of Western Australia had to cancel the Persian Festival of Fire and the Eid Nowruz celebration in March. Fortunately, I was still able to pass on my best wishes and the best wishes of others to ICWA President Morteza Tabatabaee.

I finish with perhaps the most vibrant event of all, which fortunately did go ahead this year. Holi, or the Festival of Colours, was marked by the scattering of coloured powder, or gulal, at the Indian Society of Western Australia's Holi 2020 celebration at Langley Park. My thanks go to outgoing ISWA President Surya Ambati for sharing the joy of Holi with the wider WA community.

These events, and the WA community’s determination to observe their special days of both joy and sadness in spite of the pandemic, have been nothing short of inspirational. It goes to demonstrate the vitality but also the versatility of Western Australia's many ethnic communities.

It is with deep sadness that I stand in the Australian Senate today to place on the record my condolences to the families, friends and colleagues of Leading Senior Constable Lynette Taylor, Senior Constable Kevin King, Constable Glen Humphris and Constable Josh Prestney. These four Victorian police officers lost their lives in the line of duty on Wednesday 22 April in what can only be described as a shocking road accident on the Eastern Freeway in Melbourne. Buildings and monuments right across Australia, and in particular in my home state of Victoria, have been lit up with blue, and fellow police and emergency services personnel have held their silence. A state memorial will be held when the coronavirus measures are gradually lifted. I'm grateful to have the opportunity today to recognise these four fine police officers who have been taken from us far too soon.

Leading senior constable Lynette Taylor was a credit to the uniform she proudly wore every single day. She faithfully served the people of Victoria for 31 years and was recognised for her work with the National Medal, the National Police Service medal and the Victoria Police Service medal. Colleagues described Lynette as funny, always smiling, and constantly looking out for others when they needed her and needed her advice. She had a sense of adventure and was looking forward to building a coastal home with her partner so they could get away for some quiet time fishing every now and then.

Senior Constable Kevin King brought great compassion to his role—the kind of police officer who, having booked an elderly woman for drink-driving, would then escort her home, making sure that she was safe and sound, despite the circumstances in which the two of them had met. Friends and colleagues have recalled Kevin as having the kind of good judgement to know that being a traffic cop is more than just issuing infringement tickets.

Constable Glen Humphris graduated recently from the police academy. Glen was honoured by his colleagues of Victoria Police and those of the New South Wales Police Force, who stood on the sides of the road and saluted as the vehicle carrying him home was escorted from Melbourne all the way up north to Newcastle. This tribute was simply his fellow police officers offering a simple but deeply profound mark of respect.

Constable Josh Prestney was 28 years old. A Collingwood supporter like me, he had just came out of police training and, on his first assignment with the Nunawading Highway Patrol, he was eager to fulfil his oath to keep and preserve the peace. His father described him as a hero, and, that, Josh certainly is—as they all are.

Anyone who takes up the mantle of blue to protect our community from harm is worthy of the parliament's admiration. As we remember these four fine police officers, I also wish to recognise the thousands of police officers who continue to serve not just the people of Victoria but the people of every other jurisdiction in our great Commonwealth, with those officers including the Federal Police. Our community has always been aware of the role that the police and emergency services play—and, I should add, the parliamentary security that protects the very politicians in this place—and the sacrifices that they make in making sure that our freedoms are protected, but the events of 22 April have brought that into stark focus for all of us. Still, to this day, it is just as shocking to look at the front pages of newspapers and see the carnage that unfolded, and to think, 'That could have been one of my relatives, serving that day as a member of the Victoria Police.' So I want to thank you for this work, despite the risks, to help us keep a safe and peaceful place to live.

To the families of the four police officers: there are few things that I or anyone else in this place can say that will fill the void left in your lives. But know that they will never be forgotten, know that all Victorians now and forever will remember the bravery each has shown so that we can be safe, and know that our gratitude for this has no end.

Later today, the Senate will have a motion before it which I am very pleased to move—and also to have the support of my fellow Victorian senators, and I wanted to say thankyou to each and every one of them. It acknowledges the loss of the four Victoria Police officers who were killed in the line of duty. It expresses its condolences to their families, friends and colleagues. It offers support to all police and emergency services, which they deserve, and also to the members of the public that rendered assistance when all the carnage unfolded on 22 April. Finally, it extends gratitude to all current serving police officers and emergency services personnel.

The Australian parliament grieve with you, and we are thinking of you. I want to thank everyone for their support for the motion later this afternoon.

It being 2 pm, we will move to questions without notice.

My question is to the minister for trade, Senator Birmingham. In recent days, China has restricted red meat exports from four of Australia's largest abattoirs and signalled that Australian barley exports may face a tariff of up to 80 per cent. Has the minister yet been able to secure a conversation with his counterpart in China regarding these issues?

I thank the senator for his question. As I've said publicly, we have requested dialogue and I have requested dialogue and discussions with my counterpart. We have not secured said meeting as yet. I would hope that that would be forthcoming. Nonetheless, the government is pursuing all possible avenues in support of assisting our barley producers and beef producers in relation to maintaining their market access to China. China has made clear, both publicly and privately, that these are technical matters of trade dispute that date back variously some 12 to 18 months in terms of issues with those particular businesses or sectors.

Why now?

To take Senator Watt's question in the interjection there: I'm happy to say, in relation to barley, that it's an 18 month process, an antidumping investigation, that has always had a deadline of 19 May in terms of the determination of that. So why now? Well, if you'd actually followed the process you would understand very clearly that it was instigated some time ago. The deadline that is there is one that has been in place. We are working with the Australian barley industry to make sure we put a response in to the draft determination that is as compelling as possible, that is based on the economic evidence that Australia's barley producers, like all of our grain growers, are some of the most productive and efficient in the world. They do not receive trade distorting or market distorting subsidies. They do not dump product below production cost on global markets anywhere in the world. They simply produce at great volume, when the climate allows, and at high quality and with efficient prices and competitive prices, because of their skill and expertise.

Senator Chisholm, a supplementary question?

The Dinmore meatworks in Ipswich in Queensland is the largest beef processing plant in the Southern Hemisphere. The plant is one of the region's largest employers, with more than 2,000 local workers relying on it for their livelihoods. Can the minister assure the Senate and workers at facilities like Dinmore that the government has dedicated to this issue the level of attention and resources it demands?

Yes, I can assure those workers. In relation to the four abattoirs that have had their permits to export to China suspended, those suspensions have been as a result—according to Chinese authorities—of irregularities or discrepancies in relation to labelling standards and the like against customs and quarantine matters. We are now working intensively with those processors to make sure that the evidence is provided back as to how they have rectified any of those discrepancies and how they have put in place effective processes and procedures to make sure that they are not repeated again in the future. I would note that, in 2017, there were around six meatworks that faced a similar process as a result of actions by Chinese authorities. Those issues took some time to rectify, but rectified they were. And we will work as quickly and expeditiously as we can to see these are rectified as well.

Order. Senator Chisholm, a final supplementary question?

What is the government doing to assist Australian exporters impacted by recent trade restrictions announced by China and protect the thousands of jobs currently at risk at places like Dinmore meatworks in Ipswich?

Obviously, just in relation to our barley industry and those four meat processors, I've outlined the types of steps that we're taking with those sectors to be able to respond to Chinese authorities in a thoughtful way, based on the evidence, that demonstrates that, as I say, Australia's barley producers operate in the most competitive of ways and in no way are subsidised by government to dump product into other markets. In the case of our meat producers, they produce high quality, high value product. They of course need to abide by the customs and quarantine requirements of any market to which they export, and, where there have been any discrepancies, we want to make sure, to uphold the standards and reputation of all of Australia's meat industry, that they have policies and procedures in place to be able to meet the standards and expectations of the markets to which they export.

More generally, as I've told the Senate many times, we continue to open new market access opportunities for many businesses, such as the ones with Indonesia that will come into effect on 5 July.

Order, Senator Birmingham. Senator Hughes.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Cash. Can the minister update the Senate on the impact the coronavirus pandemic has had on Australians and their mental health and why it's important to ensure support is available to protect the lives and livelihoods of Australians?

The Senate will be aware that earlier today the minister for health addressed the parliament and gave an update on Australia's response to the COVID-19 situation. As at 6:30 am today, Australia has 6,970 confirmed cases of COVID-19. More than 6,257 of them have fully recovered. Fifteen people are in intensive care and 13 people are on ventilators. Sadly, there has been a total of 98 deaths from the virus. The rate of increase in new cases has gone from 25 to 30 per cent per day, at the peak of growth in cases at the end of March, to less than half a per cent a day now. The rate of increase has been below 0.5 per cent for 23 consecutive days.

Globally, more than four million cases have been confirmed, with more than 290,000 deaths. This puts the threat we face in the clearest context. As the minister has stated, we need to be clear: our work is not finished, and the virus is not defeated. There is still a long way to go, and we have a long road to travel to protect our national health.

Last week we saw a very powerful piece of work from Pat McGorry and Ian Hickie, from the University of Sydney, highlighting the extent to which Australians' mental health is at risk in a major economic downturn. We know that supporting Australians to get back to work is critical for their economic security and their aspirations but also to help with their mental health. These factors are intrinsically linked. This is a deeply human reminder of the importance of assisting people to get back to work.

Senate Hughes, a supplementary question?

What additional measures has the Morrison government put in place to support Australians with their mental health during this difficult time?

The government's $74 million mental health support package will make sure that Australians have access to the right services and the right support wherever they are around the country. The expanded telehealth program is playing a critical role in providing mental health care and support during the pandemic. About half of all mental health Medicare subsidised services are currently provided by telehealth as well as a significant proportion of general consultations under the $669 million program.

We have implemented a new, free-of-charge, 24/7 Beyond Blue support service, which is available via phone or online. We've also established a dedicated program for our heroic frontline health workers, led by the Black Dog Institute, to keep this essential workforce well. Supporting the mental health of Australians during this pandemic is a priority of the Morrison government.

Senator Hughes, a final supplementary question?

How do these measures build upon the government's previous investment to protect Australians' mental and physical health?

The Minister for Health today announced the new position of deputy chief medical officer for mental health. Leading psychiatrist Dr Ruth Vine has been appointed—and we extend our congratulations to her—as a deputy chief medical officer with expertise in mental health.

Just as the government is modelling the spread of COVID-19 infection to continue flattening the curve, we are also closely monitoring mental health service usage so that we can respond quickly and thus lessen the mental health impacts of the pandemic and the recovery phase. As a next step, a national mental health pandemic response plan will this week be discussed with states and territories through the national cabinet. The plan has been prepared with the support of the National Mental Health Commission in consultation with states and territories and key stakeholders. Again, the mental health and wellbeing of Australians is a priority.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Darcy Moran, from Victoria, has been a hospitality worker for 15 years and has never been unemployed during that time. Yet, like 46 per cent of casuals in that sector, Darcy has been with his current employer for less than 12 months, making him ineligible for JobKeeper. Does the minister think it is fair to exclude Darcy and workers like him from the program?

What we think would be fair to Darcy is if the state government in Victoria started easing restrictions so that businesses in Victoria could employ people like Darcy and give people like Darcy a job. That is what we think would be fair. That is point No. 1.

You have asked if it would be fair. We want to see businesses around Australia start getting back into business so they can hire more Australians again, including people like Darcy. In relation to the JobKeeper program, which provides support to more than 5.5 million working Australians, the eligibility criteria are very clear. The program is designed to keep employees connected to their employer where that is possible. In relation to casuals, that relates to long-term casuals where there is an established relationship with the employer. In fact, it is based on the definition in the Fair Work Act. It is the Fair Work Act that describes a long-term casual as somebody who has been with the same employer for at least 12 months, and that is of course what we are using. It is not right to say that there is no support available to Darcy. I don't know the specific circumstances, but, for those who find themselves unfortunately out of a job in the current circumstances, the appropriate jobseeker support arrangements are in place, supplemented by the COVID supplement, which effectively doubles the jobseeker payment. That is of course the appropriate way for us to provide an enhanced social safety net in the circumstances. But it is now time—

Order, Senator Cormann. Senator Walsh, a supplementary question?

ABS figures released last week showed that hospitality has been one of the hardest-hit sectors in this crisis, with more than a third of jobs lost. With 78 per cent of hospitality workers casual, does the minister agree that the workers who are hardest hit by this crisis have the least access to JobKeeper?

I certainly agree that the hospitality sector is one of the sectors that have been hardest hit, and it's also a sector that can recover very quickly once the restrictions are eased. Indeed, there is an opportunity now for restrictions to be eased and for the hospitality sector to start increasing its activity again so that it can start employing more Australians. That is something that we would like to see happen, phased in appropriately over the next few weeks and months. All of these announcements have been made. The truth is that there are appropriate supports in place for workers in the circumstance where they have lost their job. The jobseeker payments have been effectively doubled through the COVID supplement, which is in place for a six-month period.

Senator Walsh, a final supplementary question?

Up to one million workers who contribute to industries like hospitality, health, education and caregiving will miss out on JobKeeper, lose their job and lose their connection to their workplace. These workers have been there for Australians, including during this crisis. Why is the government not there for them now?

For every jobseeker who is unable to find a job, we've of course eased eligibility—we've waived waiting periods. We've waived various tests that are required to be met, and we've also made adjustments to the partner income and the like. So we've made it easier for people to access jobseeker if they're out of work. We've effectively doubled the jobseeker payment to help Australians who've lost their job through this period.

In relation to JobKeeper, as I've indicated—and I think we've gone around and around this issue for some time now—this is about keeping workers with an established connection to an employer connected to their employer, and, indeed, that is what this program is there for. As far as casuals are concerned, we have included casuals, but we have included long-term casuals, who have worked for the same employer for more than 12 months. That is an appropriate test. It's a test that is reflected in the Fair Work Act already, and that is, of course, why we provided it. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. Last week, the Treasurer announced a six-month delay in legislation associated with the 76 recommendations from the Hayne banking royal commission. These recommendations would underpin the biggest sector reform to financial services and our financial system in decades, and many of them will be crucial to Australians in the difficult economic times ahead. The sector has had over 15 months to prepare for this reform but still has recently been on public record calling for legislative delays due to this pandemic. Minister, why have you succumbed to lobbying pressure from the big banks and delayed this much-needed critical reform, and what's to stop big business putting up other reasons in the future that it is not a convenient time for legislative reform for them?

I don't think that any reasonable Australian would argue with the proposition that given the circumstances—given the extent of the crisis and given the need to ensure that our banks and our financial system can focus 100 per cent on supporting our economy through this period—the decisions that were made by the Treasurer to defer the implementation of relevant measures is appropriate. I don't think that anyone would disagree—that is, I don't think anyone reasonable would disagree—with the proposition that, in the circumstances, it is entirely appropriate for this deferral to have occurred, and of course, at the right time, we will revisit those reforms.

Senator Whish-Wilson, a supplementary question?

Minister, has the government considered simply legislating this reform now with extensions to effective start dates, which is common for a lot of legislation in this place, or are you working directly with the big banks on writing this legislation?

Legislation is developed in the usual way, subject to proper consultation with all relevant stakeholders.

Senator Whish-Wilson, a final supplementary question?

Minister, all political parties agreed to legislate the full suite of Hayne recommendations on the day they were released, which makes this royal commission unique, and I'll stress again that that was 15 months ago. Given the legislation is non-controversial, why won't you recall parliament and support the Greens' motion to do so in the coming weeks so we can do our job and pass this critical reform now?

Right now, what the Australian people want us to do is to ensure that we keep them safe from a second wave of the coronavirus, and then they want to ensure that we continue to support them through this difficult economic transition and that we maximise the opportunities for all Australians to benefit from a strong economic recovery on the other side. That is, of course, precisely what we're focusing on. At the next election, you will be able to deliver your report card on our performance as a government. We'll be putting forward our report card and our plans for the future, and the Australian people will make a decision on whether they'd prefer your approach or our approach.

My question is for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. Can the minister update the Senate on the effects of the coronavirus pandemic on the Pacific and on how Australia is providing support to our neighbours in their health responses?

I thank Senator Fawcett very much for his question. Very swift action taken by our Pacific neighbours to restrict travel, along with quarantine measures, has very effectively kept COVID-19 infection in the Pacific to a very low rate, but that is not to say that we can be complacent. In fact, we must absolutely continue to be vigilant. Australia has pivoted our development partnerships to help Pacific island countries and Timor-Leste to protect communities from COVID-19. We have, indeed, responded to over 80 requests from the region since January, including for a range of issues: PPE, medical supplies, quarantine management, laboratories, pandemic communications and outreach, isolation facilities, and emergency response services. We're working with the WHO, the Pacific community, New Zealand and the United States to procure and distribute GeneXpert diagnostic equipment to improve COVID-19 testing. This enables COVID-19 test results to be available and delivered in less than an hour, which is essential if countries are to respond quickly to any outbreaks. Testing equipment has already arrived in the Cook Islands, in Fiji, in Kiribati, in PNG, in Nauru, in Niue, in Samoa, in the Solomons, in Tonga, in Tokelau and in Tuvalu, with deliveries expected to other countries in coming days and weeks. We are very grateful for the support we've received from airlines and the ADF for the delivery of a number of those.

Our Pacific step-up initiatives are also pivoting to respond to the needs of our neighbours. Our Pacific women's partnership is supporting crisis centres to provide remote counselling and frontline service support. In Timor-Leste, we're working to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in women's shelters. Our Pacific Fusion Centre is focused on producing targeted and timely information on COVID-19 to support key decision-makers. Our focus is on absolutely supporting our Pacific partners to address the pandemic.

Senator Fawcett, a supplementary question?

Minister, can you advise the Senate on what Australia is doing in the Pacific region to help with the movement of people and essential supplies?

I thank Senator Fawcett. This is a really important question because Australia has a vital role as a transport hub between the Pacific and, usually, the world, but at the moment it's very focused, with our Pacific counterparts and Australia agreeing to establish a pathway for humanitarian, technical and medical supplies. This humanitarian corridor is absolutely essential to delivering life-saving supplies in response also to Tropical Cyclone Harold, which has of course compounded the impact of COVID-19 in the Solomon Islands, in Tonga, in Vanuatu and in Fiji. So we are standing with our Pacific partners as they also move to repair the damage caused by TC Harold.

We have ensured our diplomats, the Australian Federal Police, defence personnel and humanitarian workers have been able to remain in place to support the delivery of key services. The corridor is also facilitating the return of Pacific island and Timorese nationals to their home countries, including from places as far afield as West Africa. (Time expired)

Senator Fawcett, a final supplementary question?

Could you outline to the Senate what Australia is doing to partner with our neighbours to help our region recover economically from the COVID-19 crisis?

We are looking beyond the immediate health security and safety impacts of COVID-19. We're engaging on economic support with PNG, Fiji, the Solomon Islands, Samoa, Tonga, Nauru, Kiribati, Vanuatu, Tuvalu and Timor-Leste. Their small island economies are heavily dependent on tourism and commodity exports. They're particularly vulnerable to the economic impact of COVID-19.

The Australian infrastructure financing facility for the Pacific will promote economic recovery when that point in time is reached by delivering infrastructure focused on jobs and growth and including health infrastructure. We also have new visa measures in place to enable workers in Australia, under the Pacific Labour Scheme and the Seasonal Worker Programme who are unable to return home, to stay here for up to 12 months. They'll be able to support themselves and their families at home, which is pivotal in times of economic difficulty, while also supporting key businesses and industries here in Australia.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Cormann. Can the minister confirm that dnata employees performing identical work as Australians in other firms, and contributing as taxpayers, face unemployment because the government has deliberately excluded them from the JobKeeper wage subsidy?

The company that Senator Sheldon references is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a foreign government owned business; a foreign government owned business which has recently released results showing that they are into their 32nd consecutive year of profitability. So I can confirm that the rules that apply to JobKeeper do not provide JobKeeper payments to Australian local government-owned businesses, do not provide JobKeeper payments to any government-owned businesses in Australia and not to foreign government-owned businesses in Australia.

Senator Sheldon, a supplementary question?

Referring to the exclusion from JobKeeper of 5,500 dnata employees, Liberal MP Craig Kelly has said:

…these airport workers should be included. And these workers were all previous Qantas employees…

Can the minister confirm these workers would have been eligible for JobKeeper simply if they were employed by Qantas?

If a worker is employed by an Australian business that is a wholly-owned Australian business in Australia, and is otherwise eligible because of other requirements being met in relation to turnover variations and the like, then of course workers in that business, through that business, would be able to receive JobKeeper payments. But workers that are working effectively for a foreign government-owned business are not eligible under our rules.

Senator Sheldon, a final supplementary question?

Why won't the Morrison government step up to help workers at firms like dnata and preserve thousands of jobs and livelihoods as it has for millions of Australian workers to date?

I don't think that anyone can credibly argue that we're not stepping up to support Australian workers. We're providing massive support—massive support—to Australian workers. More than 5.5 million Australians are being supported by JobKeeper payment and, of course, we have effectively doubled the jobseeker payments, with a significant increase in the number of Australians now receiving jobseeker payments. We have provided a substantially enhanced social safety net, as well as providing support to businesses to stay connected to their longer-term employees. That is what we've done. The rules are very clear. You do have to draw the line somewhere, and it is true to say that foreign government owned businesses in Australia are not eligible for JobKeeper.

My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Reynolds. As Australia responds to the coronavirus pandemic, can the minister outline to the Senate what actions the Morrison government has taken to support businesses and workers in defence industry through these challenging times?

I thank Senator Henderson for her question and also for her tireless support for defence industry in her home state and across the nation. The Morrison government remains resolutely committed to delivering in ADF capability and also to backing in Australian defence industry throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Our actions are focused in three main areas: firstly, supporting our sovereign industrial capability; secondly, supporting our nation's essential skills, trades and expertise; and, thirdly, supporting our domestic and international supply chains.

To ensure we respond quickly to emerging issues in defence industry, Minister Price and I hold weekly teleconferences with Defence, defence industry CEOs, peak industry bodies and also state and territory advocates. And because of our swift action to support defence industry, since 23 March over $4.7 billion of payments have been made early to defence industry here in Australia. With that payment, I conveyed very strongly my expectations to primes that those early payments must be passed on to small and medium enterprises. I am delighted that that is exactly what they are doing.

This action is supporting over 15,000 Australian companies in the defence supply chain and, most importantly, it is supporting 70,000 Australian livelihoods during this time. Vital defence industry activities are also continuing during COVID-19. For example, Chemring Australia, based near Geelong, secured a US contract to produce countermeasure flares for global F-35 Joint Strike Fighter fleet. The rollout of the first Loyal Wingman aircraft occurred. We commissioned the build of six new Cape Class vessels in Western Australia, and we've also shifted Land 400 Phase 3 roadshows online to ensure Australian businesses have the opportunity to pitch their capability. (Time expired)

Senator Henderson, a supplementary question?

Can the minister outline what actions Defence has taken to provide economic stimulus?

Thank you very much, Senator Henderson. Yes, I can. This government's $200 billion investment in new defence capability is now more important than ever. We must ensure that both our ADF and our defence industry here in Australia remain strong. This government's investment in Australia's defence industry will play an increasingly important part in our nation's economic recovery. In addition to paying out early over $4.7 billion to defence industry, we've implemented a number of other measures to assist defence industry and also to help stimulate our nation's economy. These include increasing and accelerating $850 million in state infrastructure expenditure right across the nation and supporting defence innovation, skilling and sovereign industrial development through our grants programs. We are continuing to proactively identify new opportunities to ensure that defence industry weathers the COVID-19 pandemic.

Senator Henderson, a final supplementary question?

Can the minister outline how the government is continuing to deliver defence capability so our men and women in uniform can continue to defend Australia and its national interests?

Thanks, Senator Henderson, for that question. Can I be very clear to all in this chamber: COVID-19 will not affect funding for the government's $200 billion investment in defence capability, nor will it prevent defence expenditure reaching two per cent of GDP next financial year, which is three years earlier than we promised in 2013. I'm working with Defence to ensure we adapt to the current environment and continue to find innovative ways of doing business during this time. Let me remind all of you in this chamber that, in our six years of government, we've commissioned the Australian build of 63 naval vessels, including 12 Attack-class submarines, and this is backed up with real funding. Under our plan, we have already delivered six naval vessels, with another nine under construction in both Perth and Adelaide. This investment is ensuring our ADF personnel are provided with the capability they need to keep them safe. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. The Morrison government has said it will fast-track Australia's environmental law changes before the independent review currently underway into the EPBC Act is even complete. Isn't it true that the government is using the COVID-19 health crisis as an excuse to greenlight new projects for its mining and development mates and that it's undermining the integrity of the independent review and the work of the independent panel?

What is true is that we're going to focus on growing the economy more strongly again on the other side of this COVID-induced crisis, and all Australians would expect us to do precisely that. It has become way too difficult and way too expensive to get projects off the ground in Australia and, as a country, we need to reflect on that, and we need to ensure that there is an appropriate balance between effective environmental protection and the pursuit of economic opportunity, and that is precisely what our government is doing. We want to see our economy grow more strongly. We want to see more projects getting up. We want to see more projects getting up, which will then allow us to hire more Australians and give them and their families opportunities to get ahead. That is what we want to see, and we will do so in a way in which we will continue to maintain an appropriate focus and keep regard of all of the environmental protection requirements that we, of course, support.

Senator Hanson-Young, a supplementary question?

I have a supplementary question to the minister. The sectors hardest hit by COVID-19 are, indeed, tourism, hospitality, arts and entertainment, making up 60 per cent of the job losses so far, yet the government has stacked their COVID commission full of mining executives and developers who are hell-bent on cutting green tape in the interests of the economy. Your government's more interested in your mates in the mining industry than they are in creating Australian jobs.

I couldn't really see the question at the end of that. I take that as a comment or as a little speech, but, just for the avoidance of any doubt, let me just say that I completely reject the premise of that nonquestion.

Senator Hanson-Young, a final supplementary question?

I have a third question for the minister. The government's appointed a COVID commission. Today, we found out in the COVID committee that, regarding the interests of the members of this commission, it is up to them, personally, to disclose their interests, as to whether the projects they advocate are benefiting them personally. What is the government going to do to commit to ensure their mates aren't feathering their own nest and are, instead, doing what Australia needs?

Order, Senator Hanson-Young. As much of the question as you heard, Senator Cormann.

I was given a statement before instead of a question, so I'm going to give a question back in response to the question. How do you declare your interests if not by yourself? Who declares your interests on your behalf? Who else, other than you, can declare your own interests? That is a genuine question. I'm somewhat intrigued. Let me just say that the people that are serving on the National COVID-19 Coordination Commission are distinguished Australians who are providing great service to our country at a very difficult time. We're very grateful for the service that they're providing—very, very grateful. It is a broad cross-section. I do not agree with the characterisation that Senator Hanson-Young has put on them in one swipe, in a sweeping statement. Let me just say that we support their work and we absolutely have great confidence that they will make the appropriate—

Order, Senator Cormann. The time for the answer has expired. I remind senators to phrase their questions in accordance with standing order 73, which is quite strict on material that shall not be contained in questions.

My question is also to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. When the $2 billion National Bushfire Recovery Fund was announced in January, Prime Minister Scott Morrison claimed the funds would 'be ready to hit the ground in communities where the fire front has passed to help them rebuild'. Can the minister confirm that figures released earlier this week have revealed the government has paid out less than $260 million, or less than one in $8 promised, from its $2 billion fund months after the fires hit?

Sadly, it is my melancholy duty to inform the chamber that unfortunately the opposition simply got it wrong again. We're talking here about a $2 billion bushfire recovery program, which was of course always designed to run over two years. That was always the plan—over two calendar years. And by the end of this financial year—this is by the end of June 2020—about $900 million will have been expensed.

Senator Watt, on a point of order.

A point of order on relevance: my question was about the spending that has occurred, not what might occur one day in the future.

I will continue to listen carefully to the minister's answer. I believe, with respect, he was directly addressing the subject matter of the question.

Let me take Senator Watt through the detail. Five hundred million is being paid out this financial year on the following: over $170 million—

Order, Senator Cormann. Senator Wong, on a point of order.

The point of order is on direct relevance. The question is not about the future. The question was very specific to figures released earlier this week which revealed expenditure to date. The minister has simply been asked to confirm that. He hasn't been asked about future expenditure; he's been asked a very clear question about what has been spent and figures which have been released this week.

On the point of order, Senator Cormann?

On the point of order, as much as I hesitate to correct Senator Wong, the data that Senator Watt is referring to is quite outdated. It's March data. That is why I am providing, in a directly relevant fashion, more up to date information.

Senator Wong.

Mr President, if he wishes to do that, that would be directly relevant, but he's actually saying what will be spent.

I will consider whether the nature of 'directly relevant' has a temporal element to it, but, with all due respect, there was a quotation from Senator Watt about the program. I believe the minister is being directly relevant to the subject matter because the minister can be directly relevant to all or part of a question. I've allowed you to restate the point at the end of the question, but I believe the minister is being directly relevant, while going into detail about the program that is referred to in the quotation contained in the beginning of the question.

Labor, as always, have got this wrong. A $2 billion two-year program, and in the first six months we will have spent nearly half. This is a program that is implemented on an evolving basis. Over $170 million has been allocated to 10,000 small business support grants, over $100 million in expanded primary producer grants, over $32 million in back-to-school support payments, over $60 million in payments to impacted local government areas, over $27 million in mental health support to school communities and emergency services workers, over $50 million in emergency relief and financial counselling, over $26 million for wildlife and habitat recovery, and, by the end of June, $400 million will be paid out of the fund to reimburse states for clean-up costs. And of course the timing of these payments—and that is something else that Senator Watt doesn't understand—actually depends on when the invoices come in. I know the Labor Party wants to just throw the money out without the invoices having come in, but we actually pay on invoice.

Senator Watt, on a point of order.

Again on relevance: is the minister suggesting people that living in tents should be sending invoices?

Senator Watt, that's not a point of order. Senator Cormann, have you concluded your answer? You have. Senator Watt, you have a supplementary question?

I do, Mr President. Can the minister confirm that some of the government's most hyped bushfire funding pledges, including mental health assistance for schools and rural financial counselling, are yet to receive a single dollar? They are not outdated figures; they are figures that were provided in a question on notice answered on Monday this week.

As Senator Watt well knows, answers to questions on notice from estimates go to the period of time when the question is asked, so they are outdated figures. But, in an abundance of openness and transparency and to make sure that I've got the most up-to-date, current information, I will ensure that I provide Senator Watt with an updated answer to the question on notice.

Senator Watt, a final supplementary question?

Australians on the ground in bushfire affected areas know that money is not reaching those who need it. With winter approaching, bushfire victims are still living with friends, in caravans, in temporary accommodation while the government tries to spin what it's actually doing. These people need action, not more marketing. When will the Morrison government actually deliver the money they promised so that bushfire-hit communities can actually rebuild?

Let me just say it very clearly: these are communities that have gone through a terrible crisis, and they are getting significant support from governments, state and federal, and we are working as fast as we can in you know what are, quite frankly, pretty complex circumstances, not made easier by the health crisis that we've also had to deal with very hard on the back of the bushfire crisis. I can see that Senator Watt is intent on pursuing political points here, but let me tell you that communities actually do know that we are doing our absolute best to provide support to them as soon as we can in what is a very difficult circumstance.

My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management, Senator Ruston. Can the minister outline how Australia's agricultural sector and other critical rural and regional sectors such as resources are supporting economic growth during these difficult economic times resulting from the coronavirus pandemic?

Can I thank Senator Canavan for his question and acknowledge the extraordinary contribution he's made in demonstrating the incredible economic support and contribution that these two sectors make to the Australian economy, and noting that these two sectors that he refers to are in rural and regional Australia. Now, more than ever, it is absolutely important that our resources and our agricultural sectors are part of the road to recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, because, despite the challenges that we have been seeing over the last couple of months, it is very pleasing to be able to report that Australia has achieved, once again, record trade surpluses of $10.6 billion. That means that we have now had 27 consecutive months of trade surpluses, and I acknowledge the extraordinary work of Senator Birmingham as the trade minister, and his predecessors, in making sure that our trade continues to support our Australian economy, even through these really tough times. We understand as a government the importance of our international markets and market access, to make sure that we support our agricultural producers and other exporters. Hugely important to areas are agriculture, fisheries and our forestry sectors, which do continue to remain strong despite the crises that we have been confronting, not just the coronavirus but the drought that has been part of the Australian landscape for so long.

This has been largely achieved through the amazing efforts of the free trade agreements that have been put in place, because they do provide extraordinary benefits to agriculture, fisheries and forestry. They provide new market opportunities by reducing tariffs and making sure that our price competitiveness and our efficiency and innovation levels the playing field for Australian producers in the international marketplace. Only last week, we saw Indonesia complete its ratification process for our closer economic partnership agreement with that country.

Senator Canavan, a supplementary question.

Minister, how is the Liberal-National government supporting further investment in agriculture to help grow Australia's exports further?

The government continues to support our agriculture and resource sectors through increased investment, investment in excess of $1.5 billion through programs—the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund and the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility, which is funding 22 new water infrastructure projects across Australia.

More water means more produce, more produce that Australia can export so that we can make sure that we continue to have the income, for Australia, to maintain our standard of living. There are investments in things like the Rookwood Weir, $176 million, up in your area, in the Fitzroy Basin; $242 million to the Dungowan Dam; $325 million to build Wyangala Dam in New South Wales; and $100 million to further modernise the Tasmanian irrigation system. We will continue to support these irrigation projects, because they are the backbone of Australia's agricultural sector.

Senator Canavan, a final supplementary question.

Can the minister explain how important timely approval processes are to encouraging future investments in sectors like agriculture and resources and what measures the government is implementing to help improve approval times?

It is absolutely essential that Australia remains at the forefront of an efficient agricultural producer. We obviously face unprecedented times, at the moment, by changing global market conditions, international competition, new technologies, climate and water risks, and global disruptions such as the pandemic that we are currently facing.

Delays in environmental approval processes add millions of dollars to the cost of major projects. That is why this government is absolutely focused on busting the congestion, to break through these multimillion-dollar backlogs of environmental assessments, to make sure that we continue to deliver these projects, recognising that it's very important that we continue to make sure that our environmental protections are in place but do not delay projects, to make sure that we continue to support our economy with these very important projects. I can advise that we have improved that process from 19 per cent in December to 87 per cent in March, and we are on target to 100 per cent approval by June 2020.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. The Australian National Audit Office has revealed that Prime Minister Morrison's office forced former Minister McKenzie to seek his authority on the approved projects done to the Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program and to inform the Prime Minister of the rollout planned. What authority was the Prime Minister exercising?

I don't accept the characterisation that Senator Farrell has put on it. What I would say is this: I have consistently made clear that the—

An honourable senator interjecting—

Order! Senator Wong, on a point of order?

The point of order is direct relevance. Senator McKenzie just interjected and said it was 'authority to announce'. If that is the government's position, could the Prime Minister's representative indicate that?

With respect, leaders get some latitude. The point is, the minister has been speaking for 12 seconds. I'm not in a position to rule on direct relevance at this point, and that wasn't technically a point of order, Senator Wong. Senator Cormann.

That point of order, quite inappropriately, creates the impression that I haven't previously addressed this. I would refer Senator Wong to the Hansard. I've consistently made the point that the decision-maker in relation to the project was the then Minister for Sport, Senator McKenzie, but that it is—

Senator Wong interjecting—

Order! I can't hear the minister's answer. Senator Cormann.

As I've said on a number of occasions in the past, in relation to announcement arrangements, of course Senator McKenzie liaised with the Prime Minister's Office as appropriate and approval was sought for announcement arrangements. That is something that has been made clear consistently. That is something that I've made clear, in this chamber, as the Prime Minister's representative before. Leaving the rhetorical flourish to one side, nothing that Senator Farrell has just said is in any way inconsistent with what I've previously said to the Senate and, indeed, with what the Prime Minister has previously said publicly. In fact, I refer you to what the Prime Minister said, on ABC television, on 28 February 2020. He said:

What she sought from me was approval to make announcements. So, I mean, she'd made the decisions. She'd authorised the decisions on the 4th of April. And it's commonplace for ministers before they make announcements about projects that they seek approval from the Prime Minister.

That is precisely what happened. That is the consistent answer that we've given to these questions. Senator Wong, inappropriately, trying to create the impression that somehow this is a new revelation, I completely reject.

Senator Farrell, a supplementary question.

The ANAO further confirmed: 'February advice from the Prime Minister's Office to the minister's office was that the Prime Minister had not had a chance to look at the list.' Why did the former minister's office have to wait for the Prime Minister to look at the list?

Thank you very much. It's very simple: it goes to announcement arrangements. The decisions were made by the minister who was responsible and who, incidentally—this is a very popular and very successful program and, as a result of Senator McKenzie exercising, appropriately, her ministerial discretion, she increased the proportion of funding going to Labor-held electorates.

That is a very important point. In this constant smear that Labor is seeking to perpetuate here against a hardworking, distinguished, outstanding member of our team, this persistent smear that you are trying to spread here, you always hide the fact that the minister's discretion actually increased the proportion of funding going into Labor-held electorates, contrary to the decisions that were made at the Public Service level. Minister McKenzie ensured there was a fairer, more appropriate distribution of those funds in what is an outstanding and very successful project. No amount of smear and innuendo from the Labor Party will get anyone away from that.

Senator Farrell, a final supplementary question?

How many times did the Prime Minister review these infamous colour coded spreadsheets?

I don't believe that the Prime Minister had any involvement with spreadsheets of the nature you describe. The Prime Minister, as he has made clear, as Senator McKenzie has made clear, and as I have made clear on a number of occasions now, appropriately was involved in decision-making around announcement arrangements. The projects had been approved by the responsible minister at the time, appropriately and consistent with the ministerial guidelines issued at the time. Announcement arrangements are the same in our government as they would have been in your government. This confected outrage is starting to wear a bit thin, particularly given people are focused on some significantly more important issues right now.

Speaking of important issues, my question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services, Senator Ruston. Can the minister update the Senate on how the Morrison government is boosting services to support the livelihoods of Australians who have been impacted by the coronavirus pandemic?

Thank you very much, Senator Chandler, for your question and the opportunity to tell the chamber what the government has been doing as we face the unprecedented demand and significant new challenges that have been presented by the coronavirus, particularly to Services Australia, who are at the forefront of supporting Australians who have been impacted by this pandemic.

Throughout this time, Services Australia have been required to deliver new and improved income support measures and fast track the Australian government's coronavirus financial support to many, many thousands of Australians in need. We acknowledge that this has been a particularly difficult time for many Australians. Can I acknowledge the extraordinary patience and understanding they have shown as we have had to ramp up the services at Services Australia to a level we have never, ever seen before.

This effort includes the redeployment of over 12,000 additional staff into support centres and call centres, processing claims. Since 27 April, we've got the $550 coronavirus supplement out the door, valuing $1.1 billion for that fortnight to around 1.9 million Australians. We have also ramped up the capability and the stability of our online service systems, particularly MyGov, and we've seen a capacity increase from 6,000 concurrent users to 300,000 concurrent users just in a matter of days. In the month of April, we had an average of 1.7 million Australians on MyGov every single day, and on one day alone we had three million Australians, which is the most we have ever seen on the MyGov website. We also managed to get the $750 stimulus payment out in early April to over 6.8 million Australians—that's $5.1 billion in the hands of Australians who most need it. This is an injection into the Australian economy to support Australians through the corona pandemic.

Senator Chandler, a supplementary question?

I thank the minister for her response. What improvements have the government made to ensure Australians have timely access to the support they need?

The government has made significant and extraordinary changes to the Services Australia delivery mechanism, including making sure the process is simplified. We've moved to digital processing so Australians can get their payments in a timely way, and also from the safety of their own homes. From 25 March 2020, Australians were able to register their intent to make a claim by logging onto their MyGov account, which means that they could register for financial support in a matter of just minutes. We appreciate the patience the Australian community has shown as we have put these systems into place. Services Australia have also introduced a streamlined jobseeker process claim form to allow people to make their claims in 20 questions. This is half the average amount of time for the somebody who is making a typical jobseeker claim. We are absolutely committed to supporting Australians who have needed our support through Services Australia through these unprecedented times.

Senator Chandler, a final supplementary question?

Can the minister advise the Senate: what has been the result of these enhancements?

Since 16 March 2020, Services Australia have processed more than one million jobseeker claims. That's more than double the number of claims we would have processed last year. In the space of six weeks, we've done the equivalent of two years' normal work. This is in addition to the millions of Australians who have accessed our services for health, welfare, child support payments and other services that Services Australia provide to everyday Australians. We have also been able to extend the jobseeker phone line hours from 8 am to 8 pm on workdays. Can I once again extend my thanks to the Australian public for their extraordinary patience as they have had to interact with these new systems as we have got them up and running with the most extraordinary speed.

Can I also thank and acknowledge the extraordinary work of the staff at Services Australia. The frontline staff have had to deal with people who are in very, very distressing circumstances. I thank them for the passion and dedication they have exhibited as they have dealt with Australians who are in extraordinarily vulnerable times.

My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Colbeck. Labor acknowledges the awful situation that has confronted residents, families and staff at Newmarch House in Sydney's west. We want to express our deepest sympathies to all those who have lost loved ones. Does the minister agree that the residents in that centre, their loved ones and the staff at Newmarch House deserve a thorough and independent review of what has gone wrong?

Can I add my thoughts and condolences, and, I'm sure, everybody in the chamber's thoughts and condolences, to the families of residents in all aged-care facilities, and in fact all of those who have lost loved ones to coronavirus. It's had a particularly devastating impact at Newmarch. I've already asked my department to provide me, at an appropriate time, a report of what has occurred there, just as I did with Dorothy Henderson Lodge. My understanding is that report was considered by national cabinet a week or so ago.

It is important that people understand properly what has occurred within these facilities. It is and has been extremely difficult for the families and for the residents. We've seen only too graphically and publicly the concern that they have expressed when they haven't had appropriate levels of communication and information as to what's happening with their loved ones within the facilities.

I am very pleased to say, though, that the interventions of the government and the resources provided by the government have considerably assisted in that respect. There have now been three interventions by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner: an intervention in respect of assistance with senior management capacity within the facility; a communications instruction to Anglicare via Newmarch to provide much better information to families, which I know, from talking to them, is giving them much more comfort with respect to the circumstance of their loved ones; and, of course, the intervention last week with an instruction to comply that was issued by the quality and safety commissioner.

I think we all want to understand the lessons from what's occurred at Newmarch. We continue to work very closely with all of the health authorities that are involved, at the state and Commonwealth levels, in the interests of their residents and their families, because it is important that they get the best possible care.

Senator Ayres, a supplementary question?

Can the minister confirm whether the government will engage the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety to undertake a special investigation into what went wrong at Newmarch House?

The royal commission has been established with its terms of reference and has—appropriately, I think—indicated that it will be looking into the circumstances at Newmarch. But I've asked them—not through a particular form of communication but by public statements—to look at the circumstances with respect to COVID-19 and its management in all aged-care facilities across Australia, because I think it's appropriate. It's not appropriate for me, as minister, to provide a specific direction to the royal commission. They are established through the processes that the government's put in place. They are free to undertake inquiries as they see appropriate. I understand that the opposition has written to the royal commission seeking such a special inquiry, and the royal commission, on my understanding, have responded that they will be looking at it but not in a special sense.

Senator Ayres, a final supplementary question?

Can the minister provide details to the Senate about the government's engagement with the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety beyond the public statements that he says that he's made in relation to the investigation into Newmarch House and COVID-19 and any other aged-care COVID-19 outbreaks?

Thanks for the question. It's not appropriate for me to be directly engaging with the royal commission. That's not an appropriate thing for me to do. We can, through the department, provide information to the royal commission on request, but I have to respect the royal commission and its terms of reference as they've been established by the government. That is my responsibility. So for me to reflect in any way on the royal commission would not be appropriate. It is not an appropriate thing for me to do, and I have taken advice on previous occasions about whether or not I should be engaged directly with the royal commission, because there have been some things that I've thought it was appropriate to do. So I have, I think, expressed the government's view quite frankly with respect to what we would like to see in relation to the royal commission. The royal commission has put out a public statement that it will be investigating the circumstances of COVID-19 in aged care—I think quite appropriately.

I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

I have an answer to a question from Senator Lambie that I took on notice yesterday in question time, regarding the matter of Ordinary Seaman Edward 'Teddy' Sheean. As so poignantly outlined by Senator Lambie yesterday, Ordinary Seaman Sheean was killed in action on 1 December 1942 while performing actions that displayed conspicuous gallantry. Sheean was the subject of a contemporary nomination process which resulted in a posthumous mention in dispatches for his actions in 1942. This award was reviewed by the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal in its 2011 to 2013 valour inquiry, which recommended that no action be taken to award Ordinary Seaman Sheean a Victoria Cross or other further form of recognition for his gallantry or valour. The government accepted the recommendations of the valour inquiry in 2013.

The Victoria Cross for Australia is Australia's highest decoration for gallantry and is the only award in the Australian honours and awards system that is approved by the sovereign. Clear government policy, informed by Her Majesty the Queen's expressed views, would only allow the award of the Victoria Cross in light of compelling new evidence or in the case of manifest injustice. In 2019, the tribunal conducted a review of the valour inquiry's recommendation in relation to the Sheean award and subsequently reported to government. Having received confirmation last night and following up from Senator Lambie's question, I am able to advise the Senate today that the government's view is that the 2019 review by the tribunal did not present any compelling new evidence that might support reconsideration of the valour inquiry's recommendation. That is also my view, and that is also the view of Defence. It is a very difficult decision but, I believe, in the circumstances the right decision.

I must emphasise that the outcomes of the government decision in no way detract from the service, the bravery and the sacrifice of Ordinary Seaman Teddy Sheean. The Royal Australian Navy rightly continues to commemorate the service of Teddy Sheean in a number of ways, including through the naming of a Collins class submarine HMAS Sheean. This is a rare form of commemoration in recognition of Teddy Sheean's exceptional service to our nation and his ultimate sacrifice.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to questions without notice asked by Senators Walsh and Sheldon today relating to the JobKeeper payment.

The minister's answers showed little sympathy for the workers who those opposite have failed to protect throughout this crisis. When the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, announced JobKeeper, the Treasurer, Mr Frydenberg, said, 'Australians know that their government has their back.' Well, many Australians now know that the government doesn't have their back. Instead, this government has abandoned millions of Australian workers, with the design of the JobKeeper scheme throwing them on the scrapheap.

The government has already rejected Labor's proposal to include casuals who have been employed for less than 12 months. We've heard that workers like Darcy, mentioned in Senator Walsh's question to Senator Cormann, have been in their current jobs for 15 years. Yet Darcy himself is ineligible for JobKeeper, because he's been with his current employer for less than 12 months. Darcy is just one of 1.1 million casuals who have missed out on JobKeeper because the government refuses to support them.

We heard the minister make a little, petty political dig at Premier Andrews—that Premier Andrews should just open up hospitality, and he should do it now. If that's the case, Minister, why can't parliament sit now? Why are we not sitting after tomorrow? That's a good question to ask you. Do you really think the premiers should ignore the health advice they are given by their health officials?

Labor has urged the government to improve support for charities, to help workers in the arts and to extend the JobKeeper payment to people on temporary visas. When the scheme was debated in parliament, every one of Labor's amendments was rejected. If the current exclusions aren't bad enough, on 1 May, with the stroke of a pen, this government cancelled the JobKeeper scheme for thousands of workers and companies like Dnata. At Dnata, 5,500 workers had been assured by the company's management that they would be covered. Now they've been told that the government changed the rules without any warning. The same exclusion that affected Dnata workers has also impacted hundreds of workers in hotel chains.

JobKeeper was put in place to support workers in affected businesses. It was supposed to help them retain their jobs during this uncertain time. Whatever happened to the message 'we're all in this together'? If we're all in this together, let me tell you: the Morrison government have just ignored that message. They've just been abandoning millions of workers.

Since the federal government has shut down just about all aviation operations over the last few months, Dnata has had no choice but to stand down workers. But they did so on the understanding that they could collect JobKeeper payments for those workers. Those workers have been relying on JobKeeper payments to help with their rent and their mortgages and to buy groceries for their kids and medications for their kids. I heard Senator Sheldon speaking about it yesterday. He gave an example of a young woman who can't afford medication for her child. This government just put their heads down and ignore that, and say it's not their responsibility. Well, it is their responsibility.

Dnata staff have been told to join Centrelink's queues, knowing that their employment and thousands of their co-workers' jobs are in jeopardy, all because of a nice little loophole the government's dreamt up. It's been all right for these workers to pay their taxes here; many of these workers have worked for Dnata for many, many years—15 to 20 years—and paid their taxes. But all of a sudden the government has said: 'Sorry, we've found this little loophole'—one would presume it's to save money for the government—'so you're all going to miss out. We don't really care about you.'

As I said, Dnata employs about 5,500 people in Australia. They're the people you don't actually see at the airport; if you're sitting next to a window on the lighting side of the plane, you might see them. They're the people who do catering, ground and ramp work. Their staff live right throughout Australia, all in different electorates. In the last six weeks they have faced devastating uncertainty about their jobs and their industry. They've been stripped of shifts and then stood down. They had been told that they would be able to access JobKeeper, but then, after this most recent change, told to go and join the Centrelink queues.

Many Dnata staff have not been paid for extended periods of time, because of the conflicting government advice. They have families. They have people who rely on them. They can't pay their mortgages, rent or other bills, but, as I said, it's okay for them to have been paying tax for many, many years. The government has to overturn this unfair decision. JobKeeper was supposed to apply to all workers to help keep them employed— (Time expired)

I just want to say that these accusations by the Labor Party, saying that we've turned our backs on the workers, happen to be quite tawdry. We have actually doubled, might I add, the jobseeker allowance. I should also add that there are a number of other allowances on top of that which will reduce the difference between the jobseeker and JobKeeper payments to a very small amount. I accept that it's not perfect; we had a very limited time frame in which to bring a financial package to deal with one of the biggest economic, social and health crises this country has faced in a century. And what do we get from the Labor Party? Picking at small issues, at rats and mice.

Greg Hunt, in particular, has put in a fantastic effort on health. We have flattened the curve in the face of hysteria from many media outlets saying we weren't ready, we weren't going to have enough ICU beds et cetera. Well, we had more than enough ICU beds. We got the message out there. We got the quarantine measures in at the borders. We're now in front of many other countries, and we have set an example for many other countries. Hopefully, going forward, we'll be able to reopen sooner and many of these people in casual work will be able to get their jobs, lives and livelihoods back.

I would like to commend the coalition government, particularly Scott Morrison for doing a wonderful job in managing the national cabinet with all the state premiers—let's face it; that is like herding cats in this day and age, but he has managed to do it. He hasn't played politics, yet we're back here on day two of the parliamentary sitting and those opposite are already playing politics. Guys, we're not through this yet. I take the issue with Dnata on board, but it's just one of those things. We also have to balance out the long-term budget with foreign interests and things like that. To Senator Sheldon: I'm happy to work with you later on, on some of these issues, to make sure all hardworking Australians are looked after. I would ask, please, that we still maintain the spirit of cooperation until we're through this. We have to get through the winter months yet.

There are a couple of other things worth pointing out. I think we've got 5½ million people covered by the JobKeeper payment. We've actually doubled the jobseeker payment; we did that pretty much straightaway. All up, this is going to cost us about $130 billion. That is a lot of money that we've got to repay in the future. It's a question of balancing out the long-term effects of this with flattening the curve and keeping people's heads above water. I'd also like to commend the coalition government for investing heavily in mental health. We have to remember that there are not only the health effects of COVID-19 but the health effects of the devastating impact of the economic downturn. Having worked in finance for a number of years, I know what it can be like and what it will do to mental health. I should also commend the Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, who has done a fantastic job working with the various parties on getting these grants out.

I'm running out of things to say. I'll clarify some of these issues so people have a better understanding of what we have done. Employees hired after 1 March 2020 and casual employees who've been employed for less than 12 months as at the first—

Talk about renewable energy!

No, let's not talk about renewable energy. Actually, I've gone on to a separate topic that I will talk about in the last minute, and that is the resentment of Labor towards allowing people to access their superannuation. There's not much point in putting money away for a rainy day if you're never going to get there. At the end of the day, it's very important to keep meals on the table and a roof over the head. The complaining by the Labor Party about letting people—workers—access their hard-earned funds has been very, very tawdry. We're talking about an estimated $10 billion out of $3 trillion. It's less than one per cent of the total funds under management of superannuation. It's reflective of the poor cash management practices of some of the super funds that they haven't got the liquidity in their bank accounts to meet these payments. This is a sign of things to come, because superannuation is a massive Ponzi scheme. When people of my generation get to 60 and they suddenly start withdrawing 40 years worth of super in one year you're going to need 40 workers to replace them. Wait and see what happens then. (Time expired)

Senator Rennick, you did only spend a minute, but taking note is about the answers to certain questions, and it was on JobKeeper. I was very lenient because, as you said, it was only a minute.

Where to begin! Right now there are millions of casual workers and other Australians who are missing out on the JobKeeper program. It seems like the ministers and some of the senators opposite just don't understand the desperate situation that some of these workers are in. JobKeeper is a good program. It's a program that the Labor Party and the union movement pushed for, but it needs to be extended to the workers who really need it. The Treasurer could fix that with the stroke of a pen, but instead he is talking about snapping back when so many people are still in crisis and still need support. I asked Senator Cormann how it's fair to exclude casuals like Darcy Moran, who I spoke to last week. Darcy has been working in hospitality for 15 years with no periods of unemployment but, because of the transient nature of hospitality, has been with his current employer for only a few months. The answer from Senator Cormann was really quite outrageous. He said that the state Premier, Daniel Andrews, should just reopen hospitality. Darcy should just go back to work right now, because the Premier should just reopen hospitality. No, the government should extend the JobKeeper program to those casuals in hospitality who are excluded. It is extraordinary that Senator Cormann has called on Daniel Andrews to reopen the hospitality sector despite the health advice, despite the risks to the workforce, despite the safety concerns of workers and despite the risks to and safety concerns of the community.

It seems that this government just doesn't understand the way the labour market works today under the leadership of this government. So many people are in casual and insecure jobs, and that is why so many people are excluded from the JobKeeper program. In hospitality, 78 per cent of workers are casual, and about half of them have been with their current employer for less than 12 months. That is the reality of work today under the leadership of this government, and that is why JobKeeper needs urgently to be extended to casual workers with less than 12 months, to hard hit sectors like hospitality, the arts and many others. Casual workers like Darcy are really struggling. They are struggling to pay the rent. They're struggling to pay bills and to put food on the table. For Darcy it means that, at 30 years of age, he has had to go home and live with his parents. Moving back in with your parents at the age of 30 after 15 years of continuous work isn't really the dream that many of us have, but it was his only option. It was absolutely gut wrenching for him. He considers himself one of the lucky ones, because he knows that some of those who were employed in hospitality won't be able to stay with family and friends, including, of course, those many temporary migrant workers who also are excluded from the scheme. This is the really grim reality that the government is allowing to happen.

The government's wage subsidy program is failing some of those who are hardest hit by the COVID-19 crisis. As we know, they could fix it with the stroke of a pen, so the question remains: why won't they? There are so many workers out there who need the government to extend JobKeeper to them in their sectors right now. That, of course, includes the dnata workers—more than 5,000 of them—who the government is also choosing to ignore. Their company is ineligible for JobKeeper, as we know, because the company's parent company happens to be a foreign government, but these are Australian jobs and Australian workers who are here right now and are calling on the government for some support. They are calling on the government for assistance. They are calling on the government for backup. They are calling on the government to extend the JobKeeper program to them. The aviation sector has been hard hit, and these workers need government support. As it stands, the JobKeeper program doesn't account for the actual ownership structure of aviation and the reality of how the aviation sector works. We need to send these workers a lifeline. We need to support them and their families. We need them to maintain their connection to their employer.

As is the case with hospitality, we need aviation to be in a strong position to recover after the COVID-19 crisis. We need to extend JobKeeper to these sectors now. (Time expired)

I rise to speak on this important issue of the JobKeeper program. As a senator for Western Australia, I've spent most of my time speaking to as many businesses as I possibly can across the whole state of Western Australia, from the north, up in the Kimberley, right the way down to the South West and into the Great Southern, and of course in Perth as well. Particularly early on, when we were first discussing the JobKeeper program, before all the details were released, and when the consideration of the program was put out there in the public, there was of course a lot of interest. I really commend the Treasurer on the way that he approached this. He called upon colleagues to provide feedback so that it could be fed into the design of the program, and I commend the Treasurer on the way that he consulted with his colleagues on this to make sure that the program was designed in a way that could provide the maximum impact using a system that could be tailored and scaled to meet the demand that was expected. We expected that there could be up to six million people that would be impacted by this and that would be provided with this support. To date there have been over 5½ million businesses and employees that have been impacted and have registered for this, and it really is making a solid impact. As I said, I do commend the Treasurer on the design.

We had to make sure that it was done in such a way that it could be rolled out as quickly as possible, using existing systems rather than having to design new systems that would no doubt be complicated by the fact that you don't have a lengthy lead-in time to set these things up. So we've used existing systems to enable this program to happen. That means that you cannot possibly have it designed to cover every single, conceivable person. This is why we have the safety net of the jobseeker program and the doubling of the jobseeker payment—to ensure that those people that find themselves in a situation where they're not eligible for JobKeeper have the ability to claim jobseeker if they are eligible.

We're seeing the impact of the JobKeeper program. As I said, I've spoken to lots of businesses across the state. One particular business, in the southern suburbs of Perth, is Alba Edible Oils. This business produces oils which go into restaurants and get shipped across the world. With restaurants closing down due to COVID-19, the demand for this business's product is not there right now. Had there not been the JobKeeper program, they estimate they would have laid off about 17 people in their factory. This is an amazing workshop. It's an amazing factory. What they're able to do is incredible, and the time and the energy that they've put into their staff to train and equip them to perform in their workplace is very, very considerable. Had the business lost that connection with its employees, getting back up and running would be very difficult. But the JobKeeper program has enabled that business to retain its staff so that it's ready when we are through this and when the restaurants reopen, as many of them are expected to do in Western Australia as of this coming Monday—and I commend the state government for really leading the way nationally, following the guidance from the national cabinet and being part of the leading edge when it comes to the reopening of our economy in Western Australia. This company is now set up and ready when things move forward.

I'm also pleased to see that this company has received a grant from the Commonwealth's Manufacturing Modernisation Fund, enabling the purchase of new equipment which will streamline operations. Again, because of the JobKeeper program they're able to put in place the equipment that's necessary for them to grow and develop, equipment that will enable them to bring in new packaging, which will enable them to export to new markets. This is all possible and they're able to install that equipment because of the JobKeeper program, meaning that when we're out the other side of this they'll be able to launch ahead.

As I said, the jobseeker payment has been doubled, which means that those that don't have that safety net of the JobKeeper have the safety net and the fallback position of the jobseeker program. Those people will be able to be restored into employment once we're through this crisis. (Time expired)

Isn't this just an economically-illogical, cruel, inconsistent and bloody-minded approach to dealing with the question that we raised in question time regarding dnata. Let's just cast our minds back to the great double cross by this government. Senator Rennick quite rightly raised the need for us all to work together. We have done, and we will continue to do so, but working together is also about making constructive, sensible and logical criticism about steps that the government makes and policies that do not make economic sense and that are inconsistent.

What's clear in this particular double cross is that there was a clear understanding, when this proposal regarding JobKeeper was put forward, about the number of people that would be included in JobKeeper, but it has now fallen one million short. There was an understanding between the government and the Australian public as to who was going to be covered. JobKeeper is going to many millions of workers, but we're one million short. There was a capacity, there was an ability and there was an undertaking with regard to these workers being properly covered. I don't call these people 'rats and mice'. I don't think Senator Rennick was talking about the individuals, but he's talking about the cases and examples that we're bringing up.

This case is not a rats-and-mice case; it's 5½ thousand Australian families right across this country. It's 1,061 in New South Wales, to be specific—mums and dads raising their families—who have been left out because the government decided to change its policy and double-cross those workers. It's 1,124 families in Victoria, to be specific—mums and dads raising their kids—wondering what's going to happen tomorrow. They've been double-crossed. It's 1,120 in Queensland, double-crossed. It's 196 in South Australia, also double-crossed. In the Northern Territory it's eight and in the ACT it's 18. They've all been double-crossed by this government, which said one thing and did another. It has short-changed a million people in this country, who are not getting support. There was a deal done and there was an understanding about what this would do to the Australian public. This was not only about giving safety back to the Australian community and supporting them to connect to businesses; it was about stimulating the economy. If you don't believe me, there are two examples. The very well respected Ms Auld, from JP Morgan, and former OECD director Ms Wood believe that higher levels of public spending will be needed to fire up the recovery. Ms Wood says 'we know things like cash payments have been helpful through the crisis in getting people out and spending'. We have to make sure that we're spending the amount of money that you said—we all agreed; the community agreed—is part of a compact that you've now doublecrossed by leaving a million people short in this country and 5,500 dnata workers.

Let's talk about these people and the rats-and-mice issues that we're raising. Donna Pearce is married and has two children aged 21 and 17. She lives in Romsey, in the Macedon Ranges in Victoria, and has worked at what is now dnata's Melbourne Airport site since the 2000 Olympics in Sydney. Let me put this in context. Dnata is a company that purchased Qantas Catering, an Australian catering company, and another Australian company, to make its catering business. These are Australian taxpayers. Not one cent in subsidies goes to dnata. And nor should one cent in subsidies be going to any company—including Qantas, I might add, who have been using their subsidies for people's annual leave entitlements and even sick leave. This is what Ms Pearce had to say—and it is more important than what Senator Rennick, Minister Cormann or I have to say: 'I don't understand what the government's problem is when they don't have an explanation for why they are excluding them. Do they expect the Dubai government to fork out for Australian workers who work in Australia and pay taxes to the Australian government?' Donna and her husband have a mortgage— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to my question today.

Senator Cormann told the Senate today that the government's No. 1 responsibility now is to protect Australian citizens. I would argue that that is exactly what the banking royal commission was set up to do. With its 76 recommendations—recommendations which went to reforms to protect small business, to protect Australian farmers, to protect first Australians, to protect lenders, to protect households, to protect mums and dads, to protect consumers of financial advice—it was one of the biggest reforms we have seen in the financial services sector and the economy in this country. There were 76 recommendations. And so extraordinary were the revelations from this royal commission—and so shocked were the Australian public, many media commentators and parliamentarians in this place—that we saw something extraordinary happen the day Commissioner Hayne handed down his recommendations: the Liberal Party, the LNP, said they would legislate those recommendations in full, before they were even released; and the Labor Party pledged the same thing, as did the Greens and other crossbenchers. What other royal commission have we ever seen that happen on? There were 76 recommendations. They were passed down in February last year, in the 45th Parliament. We are now in the 46th Parliament. It is 15 months later and there is no legislation, and no reform has happened in this country following Commissioner Hayne's recommendations.

We know we are going into a deep recession in this country. We know there are going to be difficult times ahead. I would have thought that if Senator Cormann wanted to protect Australians he would legislate these recommendations. Think about this: at least half of the recommendations by Commissioner Hayne were due to be legislated by June this year. That's next month. I presume that Treasury has been working around the clock to get this legislation ready. Indeed, that's exactly what they've told us at estimates. The reason this critical financial reform which is so important to protect Australians has been delayed is that the big end of town, the big banks, the big financial services companies and the big insurance companies have lobbied this government to delay this reform.

If it was true that because of COVID it was impossible for the banks to be able to do this—even though they have had 15 months, including significant consultation with Treasury to this point—we could still legislate those recommendations and this reform but put in effective starting dates six or 12 months down the track. Why don't we lock it in? So many of us are calling for parliament to resume. The Greens will be putting up a motion to do exactly this in June. We can use this opportunity to legislate this reform when it was due to be legislated. If industry is crying, kicking and screaming, then fine; let's make it effective in six months time, but let's get it done.

Who knows when this government is going to go to the next election. Some are speculating that it may be as early as August next year. If we are then delaying the bulk of the royal commission recommendations and legislation until June next year, which is what the Treasurer said, I would argue that that is one parliamentary sitting away from a potential election. Will we even see it in this parliament? It was an election promise by the Liberal Party that they would legislate these recommendations in full. There is no reason that we should be letting big corporations dictate our legislative agenda in the highest chamber in this country. There is no reason at all—except that they have clearly got to this government.

This was non-controversial. It had unanimous support from all political parties in this place. We could get this legislation done in June if we were to recall parliament and do our job. That's what the Greens want to see and that's what the Australian public want to see. We promised them that, after a $60 million royal commission and the shocking revelations and the significant reform that was outlined, we would do that in this parliament. I urge senators to listen to the Greens, recall parliament and get the job done.

Question agreed to.

It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 27 April 2020, of Ian Raymond Causley, a member of the House of Representatives for the division of Page, New South Wales, from 1996 to 2007.

I seek leave to make a short statement in relation to the petition on regional airport security.

Leave is granted for one minute.

This is a petition of 1,634 predominantly regional South Australians to the Senate requesting that it agree that security screening in regional airports be paid for by the federal government, not regional communities. Air travel is the lifeblood of regional communities. It's how they get their medical support, how they get education services, how they get business services, and how they get access to assistance in terms of agricultural support and so forth. The government has introduced a requirement for security screenings but will not pay for the ongoing operating costs. This is going to cause great problems in relation to regional air routes. We know Whyalla is going to charged an extra $52 per seat to meet this requirement, and it will basically risk the viability of a number of air routes right around South Australia but more broadly around the country.

I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being none, we will proceed.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator O'Neill today for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

Before moving general business notice of motion No. 531, I wish to inform the chamber that Senator Siewert will also sponsor the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senator Siewert, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

  (i) from 14 April 2020, gamblers in the UK can no longer use credit cards to pay for bets—the ban applies to online and offline betting,

  (ii) from 7 May 2020 the UK has also implemented a moratorium on gambling advertising on TV and radio during the pandemic in recognition of the profound effect gambling ads have on the level of problem gambling, and

  (iii) both measures are important consumer protection, especially given the impact of the COVID-19 crisis;

(b) acknowledges that:

  (i) credit cards cannot be used in ATM or EFTPOS machines in offline gambling venues in Australia but are still used for online betting,

  (ii) access to credit card use for gambling can create a unique harm whereby large amounts of debt can be accumulated in a limited period,

  (iii) for Australians experiencing gambling harm, a credit card can lead to severe financial stress for the individual and their family,

  (iv) the prohibition on credit card use for gambling reduces the risks of harm to consumers from gambling with money they do not have,

  (v) there has been an increase in consumer interest in online gambling since the COVID-19 crisis began and while other forms of gambling, such as pokies and casinos are shut down, and

  (vi) Australia ranks number one with the highest gambling losses per capita worldwide—around $1,400 per person;

(c) recognises that many Australians are currently dealing with job losses resulting in severe financial stress, which are stressors for gambling harm; and

(d) calls on the Federal Government to introduce:

  (i) legislation to ban the use of credit cards to pay for online bets, as a matter of urgency, and

  (ii) a moratorium on gambling ads during the pandemic crisis to protect the vulnerable and people experiencing gambling harm. (general business notice of motion no.531)

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government is committed to reducing gaming related harm for Australians gambling online. In November 2018, Commonwealth and state and territory governments launched the National Consumer Protection Framework for Online Wagering in Australia, which provides for the first time strong, nationally consistent protections for consumers of Australia's interactive wagering services. The government has also implemented a website blocking scheme to protect Australians from illegal offshore gambling websites. I encourage anyone affected by problem gambling to access one of our funded financial counsellors for tailored support.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) acknowledges that:

  (i) many private health insurance customers have not had access to elective surgery or extras during the COVID-19 pandemic,

  (ii) private health insurance companies have made large profits during this period due to the reduction in claims as policy holders continue to pay their insurance premiums, and

  (iii) many Australians are experiencing difficulties in attempting to negotiate reductions in premiums or fee cover with their health insurance company until they are able to visit their practitioners again;

(b) notes research published by the Australia Institute which indicates that:

  (i) as a consequence of Commonwealth and State use of private hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic, combined with social distancing measures, benefits claimed by people insured by Australia's private health insurers could fall by an estimated 30% to 50%, resulting in a windfall to private health insurers of between $3.5bn and $5.5bn over a six-month period, and

  (ii) if premiums were reduced in line with reduced services, the Federal Government would also save approximately $1bn to $1.5bn a year in its Public Health Insurance Rebate Subsidy;

(c) recognises that whilst many private health funds are delaying premium hikes that were planned for April, insurers should also return "savings" to customers at this difficult time;

(d) commends those private health insurers that have passed savings on to policy holders during the COVID-19 pandemic; and

(e) calls on the Federal Government to direct the Productivity Commission to undertake an urgent review of the likely reduction in private health insurance fund payments and implement any recommendations. (general business notice of motion no.532)

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Following discussions with the government, private health insurers have a deferred or not implemented the 1 April 2020 premium changes and are implementing a range of measures to support policyholders, including waivers or temporary suspension of premium fees. The government also notes that private health insurers are funding new services such as telehealth for mental health support and certain allied health services where practical and clinically appropriate. The motion, therefore, is based on an incorrect series of premises and also seeks commitments which are against government policy. On that basis, the government cannot support the motion.

Question agreed to.

I, and also on behalf of Senator McAllister, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

  (i) small amount credit contracts (SACCs), known as payday loans, are high-cost loans of up to $2000 for a period of 16 days to 12 months,

  (ii) payday lending is a billion dollar industry where profits are made by charging high fees to consumers, often entrenching them in a cycle of debt,

  (iii) given the current circumstances surrounding COVID-19 and the number of people facing financial hardship due to loss of income, there will likely be an increase in the amount of consumer debt as a result of payday loans,

  (iv) more than 30 consumer and community organisations have called for a ban on payday lending during the COVID-19 crisis,

  (v) the Federal Government has known for years about the harm payday loans can cause, and

  (vi) despite releasing Exposure Draft legislation on Small Amount Credit Contract and Consumer Lease Reforms in October 2017, the Federal Government has failed to take any further action;

(b) acknowledges that:

  (i) many Australians will need access to short-term finance during this crisis, and

  (ii) short-term loan options from banks may not be a viable option for Australians in desperate need of short-term finance during this crisis;

(c) condemns exploitative conduct and the exploitation of borrowers by unscrupulous lenders and affirms that:

  (i) there is no place for predatory lenders within the Australian community, and

  (ii) vulnerable consumers must be protected;

(d) further notes that:

  (i) the South Australian Government believes there has been an increase in predatory practices following the pandemic, and current laws are insufficient to prevent exploitation,

  (ii) the South Australian Attorney General has expressed frustration that the Federal Government could have acted by now but has not, and

  (iii) this failure by the Federal Government is forcing the South Australian Government to crack down independently; and

(e) calls on the Federal Government to urgently introduce and pass legislation to provide critical protections and stop the harm caused by payday loans and consumer leases. (general business notice of motion no.533)

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government recognises the importance of protecting vulnerable consumers of financial products, which is why it is progressing changes designed to enhance protections for consumers of small amount credit contracts and leases. The government is currently considering public submissions on a suite of reforms to small amount credit contracts and consumer leases.

Question agreed to.

Before moving general business notice of motion No. 534, I wish to inform the chamber that Senators Keneally and Walsh will also sponsor the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senators Keneally and Walsh, move:

That the Senate—

(a) recognises Australians are living through an extraordinary challenge for our society and our economy;

(b) notes that:

  (i) the actions taken by our leaders have been necessary to contain the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic to save lives but they have had a significant impact on all of our lives,

  (ii) COVID-19 has nothing to do with race or nationality–and neither fear of the virus nor frustration at the difficulties we all face are excuses for abusing people based on race, nationality or ethnicity,

  (iii) since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, there have been persistent reports of racist abuse and discrimination aimed at people of Chinese and other Asian backgrounds reflected in a spike in racial discrimination complaints to the Human Rights Commission, and

  (iv) the reported racist incidents harm our collective wellbeing at a time when we need to be working together with social cohesion being more important now than ever;

(c) condemns these incidents of racism in the strongest possible terms;

(d) urges all people in Australia to show kindness and support each other in these difficult times; and

(e) calls on the Federal Government to implement a national strategy to combat racism. (general business notice of motion no.534)

Question agreed to.

Before moving general business notice of motion No. 535, I wish to inform the chamber that Senator Keneally will also sponsor the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senator Keneally, move:

That the Senate—

(a) recognises that more than five million Australians speak a language other than English;

(b) notes, given the complexity of COVID-19, that it is essential for these communities to have access to and a clear understanding of vital health information;

(c) acknowledges that trusted and accurate news in language is of particular importance, with misinformation and opinion around COVID-19 providing further challenges for Australians whose first language is not English;

(d) welcomes the launch of the SBS Multilingual Coronavirus Portal operating as a dedicated online information hub with news and information in 63 languages to further support multicultural Australia during the pandemic; and

(e) praises the invaluable work of SBS across its radio, television and online platforms keeping culturally and linguistically diverse communities in Australia informed with vital COVID-19 related news and information to help protect themselves and their communities in challenging circumstances. (general business notice of motion no.535)

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate –

(a) notes that:

(i) the Organisation of African Community in Western Australia (OACWA) held their annual Jambo Africa Festival at Stirling Civic Gardens on Saturday, 29 February 2020;

(ii) the Jambo Africa Festival is the largest annual African festival in Western Australia, featuring an array of music, dancing, arts, cultural performances and authentic African food; and

(iii) in 2018, the Jambo Africa Festival was attended by over 8,000 people; in 2019 it was attended by over 10,000; and in 2020 event organisers anticipated a turnout of approximately 15,000 people representing 40 different African communities, and

(iv) the annual event aims to celebrate diversity and promote cultural awareness and understanding of African culture in Western Australia; and

(b) acknowledges the following OAC Management Committee members for their contribution to the West Australian African community, and for making the 2020 Jambo Africa Festival a great success:

(i) President, Mr Joe Tuazama;

(ii) Vice President (Operations), Ms Elizabeth Lang;

(iii) Vice President (Administration), Dr Casty Nyaga; and

(iv) Secretary General, Mr Cedric Ngadze.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate

(a) acknowledges that April 2020 marks the 250th anniversary of Captain James Cook RN FRS and the HMS Endeavour's first voyage to Australia and the Pacific;

(b) notes that:

(i) Captain Cook's first voyage, departing Plymouth Dockyard in August 1768, was a joint expedition between the Royal Navy and Royal Society to travel to Tahiti to observe the 1769 transit of Venus across the Sun, and to find evidence of the unknown southern continent (Terra Australis Incognita), as theorised by classical Greek geographers and recorded by early Continental European explorers,

(ii) the expedition reached New Zealand in September 1769, where they charted the coastline for six months, and then discovered the south eastern coastline of Australia on 19 April 1770 (ship's log date) or 20 April 1770 (calendar date),

(iii) Captain Cook was the first known European explorer to reach the east coast of Australia, land at Point Hicks and Botany Bay, and map the eastern coastline,

(iv) Captain Cook successfully navigated the Great Barrier Reef, one of the most challenging natural maritime hazards in the world, and

(v) Indigenous Australians had been living here for over 60,000 years at the time of Cook's arrival;

(c) acknowledges Captain Cook's contribution to furthering human knowledge in public health:

(i) no crew were lost to scurvy due to innovative crew health and welfare practices implemented during the voyage, and

(ii) Captain Cook's crew health and welfare practices later proved essential in establishing the link between a deficiency in ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and scurvy; and

(d) acknowledges Sir Joseph Banks (botanist) for his contribution to furthering human knowledge and understanding of the natural world, meticulously documenting a wide variety of previously undiscovered Australian flora and fauna.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The arrival of Captain Cook and the First Fleet in Australia had catastrophic and tragic consequences, for First Nations peoples, that continue today. For many people Captain Cook's arrival symbolises the beginning of the brutal frontier violence and massacres, the forced removal of children from their families, indentured and slave labour and violent attempts to wipe out First Nations languages and culture. It marked the beginning of the ongoing dispossession and oppression for First Nations peoples in this country, the effects of which continue today. First Nations peoples had never ceded sovereignty over their land. We must tell the truth about our shared history, and change is possible when you tell the truth.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Labor will support the motion but we also would like to acknowledge that this motion should acknowledge that First Nations people were living in Australia for tens of thousands of years before James Cook set sail and, contrary to some of the words in the motion, the east coast of Australia was not discovered by Cook, it was indeed very well known to First Nations people who were living along the coastline at the time—just as the plants and animals of this continent were understood, used and managed by First Nations Australians for tens of thousands of years before Cook's voyage.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) acknowledges that:

(i) 20 February 2020 marks Chin National Day,

(ii) this day of celebration is significant for the approximately 1.5 million Chins who reside in the mountainous regions across Myanmar, India and Bangladesh, and

(iii) nearly 8,000 Chin refugees fled their country of origin and found safe haven in Australia;

(b) notes that Chin National Day celebrations were held in the following cities throughout Australia:

(i) Perth, 15 February 2020.

(ii) Adelaide, 15 February 2020;

(iii) Melbourne, 20 February 2020; and

(iv) Brisbane, 29 February 2020; and

(c) acknowledges the Chin Human Rights Organisation's tireless commitment to advancing human rights, democracy, and freedom in Myanmar

Question agreed to.

I, and also on behalf of Senators Hume, Van, Henderson, Paterson, McKenzie, Ryan and Kitching, move:

That the Senate—

(a) acknowledges the tragic loss of four Victoria Police officers who were killed in the line of duty on 22 April 2020;

(b) expresses its condolence to the families, friends and colleagues of:

(i) Leading Senior Constable Lynette Taylor,

(ii) Senior Constable Kevin King,

(iii) Constable Glen Humphris, and

(iv) Constable Josh Prestney;

(c) offers support to all the police and emergency service teams and members of the public that attended the scene; and

(d) extends its gratitude to all police officers and emergency services personnel who serve and routinely put themselves at risk of harm in order to keep our community safe.(general business notice of motion no. 539)

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The Prime Minister yesterday expressed his condolence to the families, friends and colleagues of Leading Senior Constable Lynette Taylor, Senior Constable Kevin King, Constable Glen Humphris and Constable Josh Prestney. He said every Australian felt their deaths, not only Victorians but every Australian, because we know those who wear that police uniform, wherever they do it, anywhere in the country, stand between us and the harm that can befall any of us. The families of those police officers who serve understand this only too well. Their loss during a time when we are feeling vulnerable, at this point, was also more sharply felt. They were four police officers doing their duty, keeping the peace, enforcing the law and upholding the community trust, keeping us safe. We honour their service.

Question agreed to.

With the consent of senators, I'm going to jump around a bit now to try to facilitate the smooth operation of the chamber and deal with non-contentious matters.

I move:

That there be laid on the table, by the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management, by no later than 3:00pm on Thursday 14 May 2020, all copies of correspondence whether written letters or via email, relating to grant funding to successful applicants of the Building Landcare Community and Capacity Grants program.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Australian Government PFAS Taskforce is responsible for whole­-of-government coordination and oversight of Australian Government responses to PFAS contamination; and

(ii) the Australian Government PFAS Taskforce works closely with the government agencies that have regulatory responsibilities, and the government agencies running site investigations, management activities and community engagements; and

(b) resolves to call on the Minister for the Environment, the Hon Sussan Ley, MP to arrange for the tabling in the Senate on the first sitting day following 1 June 2020:

(i) the minutes of the last 3 meetings of the PFAS Taskforce; and

(ii) the dates of each meeting of the PFAS Taskforce, commencing from the first meeting after 2015.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senators Keneally, McAllister, Ayres, O'Neill and Sheldon, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes the challenging circumstances confronted by residents, families and staff as a result of a COVID-19 outbreak at Newmarch House;

(b) conveys our deepest sympathies to those families who have lost loved ones during these difficult times;

(c) further notes that:

(i) as at 12 May, 18 residents have sadly passed away since the outbreak,

(ii) Around 70 residents and staff have tested positive to the COVID-19 virus,

(iii) Newmarch House has experienced a series of infection–control failures, and has a second wave of COVID-19 infections at the facility, and

(iv) the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission has issued Newmarch House with a number of regulatory actions including a notice requiring agreement;

(d) considers that the residents of Newmarch House, their loved ones and staff deserve answers to why there were a series of infection–control failures, and that all Australians must be assured we have the very best infection control practices in aged care; and

(e) calls on the Morrison Government to work with the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety to establish a special investigation into what went wrong at Newmarch House.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The Australian government acknowledges that every death from COVID-19 is a tragedy, and the situation at Anglicare's Newmarch House in Sydney is tragic and concerning. We are aware that the aged care royal commission will be considering submissions relating to the impact of COVID-19 across the entire aged-care sector. Doing anything less would not properly consider the sector's preparedness for dealing with COVID-19. It is also worth noting that the royal commission is independent, and we are unable to compel them to consider a special investigation.

Leave granted.

At the request of Senators Wong, Farrell, Marielle Smith and Gallagher, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) it was the Hawke Labor Government's decision to build the Collins class submarines in Osborne in South Australia that gave life to the modern naval shipbuilding and submarine enterprises in Australia,

(ii) it was the Rudd Labor Government that first committed to building 12 Future Submarines in South Australia,

(iii) it was the Gillard Labor Government that initiated the significant reforms that underpin today's highly successful sustainment arrangements for the Collins class,

(iv) the ASC workforce in South Australia has been instrumental in maintaining Australia's vital submarine capability, and

(v) the Coalition government is reviewing the existing Full Cycle Docking arrangements;

(b) expresses concern that:

(i) the acquisition of the Future Submarines has been delayed by a decade, and with it the jobs promised to South Australian workers, while also creating the risk of a capability gap,

(ii) despite initial claims that 90 per cent of the build of the Future Submarines would occur in Australia, the Government will now only promise that 60 per cent of the cost of the build will be spent locally, and this will include ancillary services like hotels, travel agents, language training and security guards, and

(iii) Prime Minister Morrison and Minister Reynolds have failed to give South Australian workers the certainty they deserve, despite promising a decision would be made before the end of last year; and

(c) calls on the Government to:

(i) give an assurance to everyone working on full–cycle docking that their jobs are secure, because we will need every single one of those workers to ensure we have the skills and personnel in South Australia to construct the Future Submarines; and

(ii) deliver on the promise made by then Minister Pyne that the "people who work on Collins class full cycle docking sustainment and maintenance of the submarines at Osborne…will always have a job."

Mr President, I seek leave to move an amendment to the motion.

Leave is not granted.

Mr President, pursuant to contingent notice of motion I move that so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent a senator from moving an amendment to a motion.

That must be put without debate. The question is to suspend standing orders to the extent necessary to allow Senator Patrick to move an amendment to the motion in the name of Senator Wong and others.

I seek leave to make a one-minute statement in relation to the motion.

Leave not granted.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is not granted. I'm now going to put the motion. The question is that motion No. 560 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 563 by, sadly, amending the number of women killed from 16 to 17, as mentioned in the first paragraph of the motion.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

  (i) 17 women have been killed by violence since the start of 2020, as reported by Counting Dead Women Australia from Destroy The Joint,

  (ii) there is no national government reporting program to record the ongoing toll of women killed by violence in real time and ensure that these horrifying statistics receive ongoing public attention,

  (iii) on average, one woman is murdered every week by her current or former partner,

  (iv) according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey 2016:

(A) more than 370,000 Australian women are subjected to violence from men each year,

(B) 1 in 3 Australian women has experienced physical violence,

(C) 1 in 5 Australian women has experienced sexual violence,

(D) 1 in 6 Australian women has experienced physical or sexual violence by a current or former partner,

(E) 1 in 4 Australian women has experienced emotional abuse by a current or former partner,

(F) Australian women are nearly three times more likely than men to experience violence from an intimate partner, and

(G) Australian women are 2.5 times more likely to be hospitalised for assault injuries arising from family and domestic violence than men, with hospitalisation rates rising by 23% since 2014-2015;

  (v) in 2017, young women aged 15-34 accounted for more than half of reported sexual assaults;

  (vi) there is growing evidence that women with disabilities are more likely to experience violence;

  (vii) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women report experiencing violence at 3.1 times the rate of non-Indigenous women;

  (viii) in 2016-2017, Indigenous women were 32 times as likely to be hospitalised due to family violence as non-Indigenous women;

  (ix) the Fourth Action Plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022 states that the overall prevalence of violence against women will only start to decrease in the very long term as gender roles change,

  (x) the Fourth Action Plan recognises that demand for domestic and family violence services has increased, and will continue to increase, and

  (xi) the COVID-19 crisis has put more women and children at risk of abuse and increased both the demand for domestic and family violence services and the complexity of the models for delivering these services, and

(b) calls on the Government to:

  (i) recognise violence against women as a national security crisis,

  (ii) adequately fund frontline domestic, family and sexual violence and crisis housing services to ensure that all women seeking safety can access these services when and where they need them,

  (iii) legislate for 10 days paid domestic and family violence leave so that women don't have to choose between paying the bills and seeking safety,

  (iv) ensure that all government funded counselling services for domestic and family violence are delivered by expert family violence service providers in accordance with the National Outcome Standards for Perpetrator Interventions,

  (v) implement all 25 recommendations of the 2015 Senate inquiry into domestic violence in Australia, and

  (vi) maintain and publish an official real-time national toll of women killed by violence in Australia.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The Morrison government is committed to preventing, addressing and ultimately ending family domestic and sexual violence in Australia. This government has made the largest ever Commonwealth investment, of $340 million, to support the fourth action plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children, which is focused on prevention and early intervention. An additional $150 million has been provided to prepare for and respond to any increase in domestic, family and sexual violence as a consequence of COVID-19. Delivery of frontline, domestic and family violence services is a matter for the state and territory governments.

Question agreed to.

I, and also on behalf of Senator Steele-John, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that before coronavirus, National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) modelling found that disabled people spent around $107 a week more on basic living costs compared to other Australians,

(b) recognises that disabled people and carers face increased living costs due to the coronavirus pandemic, including costs related to food delivery, groceries, health care, medical supplies, personal protective equipment, transport, utility bills, and

(c) acknowledges that people on the Disability Support Pension and Carer Payment feel left behind by the Government; and

(d) calls on the Government to provide the full $550 coronavirus supplement to Disability Support Pension and Carer Payment recipients in recognition that people on these payments are facing increased living costs at this time.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government is providing disability support pension and carer payment recipients with two $750 economic support payments to provide additional support in the context of the coronavirus outbreak. The coronavirus supplement is a temporary support in recognition of the economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic, which will directly impede peoples' ability to find employment. Accordingly, the coronavirus supplement is payable to jobseeker payment and related allowances, as people on these payments are generally expected to participate in the labour market. Pensions, including the DSP and carer payment, will continue to be paid at the highest rate of payments within the income support system when temporary measures cease.

I seek leave to make a short statement to outline our voting position.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Labor will not be supporting this motion; however, we do have our own motion listed today calling for the government to do more to support people with a disability and carers who have increased costs by allowing them to bring forward the second $750 coronavirus economic support payment.

Question negatived.

by leave—I won't call a division, but could you please note that the Greens supported that proposal and the rest of the chamber didn't?

So noted.

by leave—I want to let the chamber know that Centre Alliance supported that motion.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

  (i) housing is a human right and everyone deserves a home,

  (ii) the COVID-19 crisis has demonstrated how broken our housing system is, with decades of marketisation leading to extraordinarily unfair and inhumane housing outcomes for the community, and

  (iii) we must ensure a home for all during and after this crisis;

(b) calls on the National Cabinet to take leadership and put in place:

  (i) rental holidays and waivers for rent arrears, with increased support to prevent rental debts down the track,

  (ii) a national freeze on rent rises now and after the pandemic, and

  (iii) mortgage relief with no interest accrual, a ban on foreclosures and a freeze on owners' credit ratings;

(c) calls on the Federal Government to increase funding for emergency housing now and beyond this crisis; and

(d) calls on the Federal Government to include construction of 500,000 new public and community homes in Australia's economic stimulus, to create jobs and provide homes to people.

Question negatived.

by leave—I ask that the votes be noted.

So, that the Greens were in support of that motion, in lieu of calling a division?

Yes, and people who weren't and the rest of the chamber.

Senator Faruqi, you can have your vote recorded. The motion was not carried. I can't define others, because they may not all be present in the chamber. Your position is recorded in favour and the majority of the chamber was against.

Before moving general business notice of motion No. 544, I ask that the names of Senators McKim, Siewert, Whish-Wilson, Waters, Hanson-Young, Steele-John, Lines, Urquhart, Wong, Keneally, Pratt, Brown, McAllister, Ayres, Bilyk, Walsh, Sheldon, Carr, Watt and Polley be added to the motion. I also seek leave to amend the motion in the terms circulated.

Leave granted.

I, and also on behalf of Senators McKim, Siewert, Whish-Wilson, Waters, Hanson-Young, Steele-John, Lines, Urquhart, Wong, Keneally, Pratt, Brown, McAllister, Ayres, Bilyk, Walsh, Sheldon, Carr, Watt and Polley move the motion as amended:

That the Senate—

(a) notes the passing of trailblazing unionist and environmental activist, Jack Mundey AO;

(b) extends its sincere and heartfelt condolences to Jack Mundey's family, friends and comrades; and

(c) acknowledges and pays tribute to Jack Mundey's extraordinary legacies, including:

  (i) building a proud working class identity among builders labourers that gave them the confidence and capacity to struggle for improved wages and building site safety and provide principled

leadership in a wide range of social and environmental causes,

  (ii) the Green Bans, through which Jack and the NSW Builders Labourers Federation championed the protection of large swathes of Sydney's irreplaceable bushland, heritage and working-class areas, as well as women's, LGBTIQ and Aboriginal land rights,

  (iii) the foundation and growth of local as well as international green and environmental movements, linked inextricably to the welfare and struggle of workers, and

  (iv) the championing of non-violent direct action in Jack's many fights against social and environmental injustice.

At the request of Senator McCarthy, I move:

That the Senate–

(a) notes that:

  (i) since the start of the coronavirus crisis, the number of people receiving unemployment benefits has increased by over 500,000, to more than 1.3 million,

  (ii) the Department of Social Services expects 1.7 million people to be relying on JobSeeker Payment by September this year,

  (iii) the Government has temporarily increased the JobSeeker Payment, through the Coronavirus Supplement, but only until 24 September 2020,

  (iv) the base rate of JobSeeker Payment – previously Newstart – is too low – it traps people in poverty and prevents them from getting work because they cannot afford essentials like transport, training, clothes, equipment and housing; and

  (v) Deloitte Access Economics has warned the Government against the rapid withdrawal of support, and stated that, at the end of the Coronavirus Supplement period; "there is an obvious case to keep JobSeeker at a higher rate than NewStart"; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to:

  (i) release economic modelling showing the impact on jobs and the economy of suddenly and completely stopping the Coronavirus Supplement, and

  (ii) increase the base rate of the JobSeeker Payment when the Coronavirus Supplement ends, to keep people out of poverty and ensure they can get work when it is available.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government's focus is on growing the economy to provide job opportunities so that people can move into work. Prior to the coronavirus outbreak, we saw the proportion of working-age Australians reliant on payments down to its lowest levels in 30 years at 13.5 per cent, and unemployment was down to 5.1 per cent, with more than 1.5 million jobs since we came to office. We know that the best way to improve peoples' livelihoods is to get them back into the workforce.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Steele-John, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

  (i) Tuesday 12 May 2020 was Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) Awareness Day,

  (ii) ME and CFS are complex, multi-system conditions affecting up to 250,000 Australians – around 25% are so unwell that they are unable to leave home or bed, ME/CFS which affects mostly women and girls – it is a highly misunderstood and underrepresented area of medicine and this has had significant implications for people who journey with it,

  (iii) for too long people who journey with ME/CFS have been ignored, belittled and written-off by society and their government and have been denied care and have suffered discrimination due to outdated and poorly formulated medical guidelines; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to ensure dedicated funding to biomedical research, and increased awareness across our healthcare and social support systems so that people with ME/CFS can have access to the support and care they need.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

  (i) before the temporary coronavirus supplement was introduced, job seekers in Australia were forced to survive on $40 a day, and

  (ii) returning the Jobseeker Payment to the old rate of $40 a day will condemn unemployed Australians to poverty and will act as a barrier to employment,

(b) agrees with the Treasurer that we must ensure that Australia's social safety net is underpinned by a sense of decency and fairness; and

(c) calls on the Government to retain the new rate of Jobseeker Payment of $1115 a fortnight to ensure no one is forced to live in poverty.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Labor will not be supporting this motion. We have moved our own, which calls on the government to permanently increase the rate of JobSeeker payment and not to go back to the precoronavirus rate, which was simply too low. But it is important to note that this proposal would mean people on JobSeeker payment would receive a higher base payment than people on the aged pension, DSP and carer payment.

Question negatived.

by leave—Mr President, under the standing orders I ask that the Greens be recorded as supporting the motion.

So recorded, the Greens supported that motion.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

  (i) more than half the nation's population growth since 2005 has come from overseas migration,

  (ii) in recent years the shape and size of our intake has hurt many Australian workers, contributing to unemployment, underemployment and low wage growth,

  (iii) for Australia to recover economically from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, we need a migration program that puts Australian workers first,

  (iv) governments of all stripes have relied on high levels of migration to boost population to fuel economic growth,

  (v) relying on high levels of migration to boost population to fuel economic growth is arguably a lazy approach,

  (vi) letting lots of migrants come to Australia to drive economic growth rather than increasing productivity or investing in skills and training is a lazy approach,

  (vii) instead of letting lots of migrants come to Australia to drive economic growth we should be increasing productivity or investing in skills and training,

  (viii) it is cynical for the Coalition to cap permanent migration at 160,000 a year and claim it as a "congestion busting" measure, but at the same time allow temporary migration to soar to historically high levels,

  (ix) unlike permanent visas, temporary visas are uncapped,

  (x) as at June 2019 there were 2.1 million temporary visa holders in Australia,

  (xi) Australia hosts the second largest migrant workforce in the OECD, second in total number only to the US,

  (xii) temporary migrants make up a larger part of the labour market than most Australians might realise,

  (xiii) one in five chefs, one in four cooks, one in six hospitality workers, and one in 10 nursing support and personal care workers in Australia hold a temporary visa,

  (xiv) economist Stephen Koukoulas pointed out, before the crisis, that there are 725,000 unemployed and 1,150,000 underemployed Australians who, with the right training, would love to have these roles,

  (xv) wages growth is dead because there are too many temporary work visas for this stage of the economic cycle,

  (xvi) the Coalition's migration policies actually encourage employers in certain geographic areas and some industries to pay temporary migrants a much lower wage than what Australians would earn doing the same job,

  (xvii) the shift to temporary migration means that our migrant intake is younger and lower skilled than it used to be, and this does not help our kids as they join a labour market with 11 per cent youth unemployment,

  (xviii) temporary migration does offer Australia some benefit,

  (xix) in some industries, such as cyber security, where we can't quickly skill up enough Australians to meet demand, temporary migration can fill gaps in the short term, and in regional areas, horticulture relies on temporary migration to supply a seasonal workforce,

  (xx) as a result of COVID-19, Australia will soon have an opportunity to do something we have never done before: restart a migration program,

  (xxi) when Australia restarts its migration program, we must understand that migration is a key economic policy lever that can help or harm Australian workers during the economic recovery and beyond,

  (xxii) Australians should get a fair go and a first go at jobs,

  (xxiii) our post-COVID-19 economic recovery must ensure that Australia shifts away from its increasing reliance on a cheap supply of overseas, temporary labour that undercuts wages for Australian workers and takes jobs Australians could do,

  (xxiv) we must also ensure that regional areas don't only get transient people, but community members who will settle down, buy houses, start businesses and send their kids to the local school,

  (xxv) coming out of the COVID-19 crisis, Australia can seize the opportunity to follow the lead of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Britain's Conservative Party by restricting low-skilled, temporary migration asking businesses to invest instead in productivity and skills to provide better jobs for British citizens; and

  (xxvi) the next few months present a great chance for business, unions and the Government to come together to identify coming skill shortages, and deliver training and re-skilling opportunities to Australian workers so they can fill those jobs; and

(b) calls on the Government to ensure that when Australia restart its migration program, migrants do not return to Australia in the same numbers and in the same composition as before the crisis.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

As we continue to plan our way out of the coronavirus pandemic, this government will continue to maintain clear, consistent immigration policies that are in Australia's best interests.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Labor will be opposing this motion. We will not participate in a cheap political stunt by Senator Hanson, who has cherrypicked and misquoted Senator Keneally's opinion piece. Senator Hanson ignores the fact Senator Keneally celebrated Australia's history as a nation built by permanent migrants and that Australia is the most successful multicultural nation on earth. As Senator Keneally said on ABC radio last week, Labor rejects Senator Hanson's abhorrent views on multiculturalism.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The Jacqui Lambie Network will be supporting this motion.

Question negatived.

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 557 standing in my name relating to food labelling by removing clause (c)(ii).

Leave granted.

I move the motion, as amended:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

  (i) the Federal Government is responsible for country of origin labelling under the "Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard 2016" issued under Part IVB of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010,

  (ii) non-food items are required to be labelled with a country of origin label pursuant to "Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Regulation 2016" issued under the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act 1905, sect. 3;

(b) further notes that:

  (i) that numerous examples of failure to comply with clear country of origin labels are being raised by concerned Australians, and

  (ii) there is a growing public sentiment in favour of locally made products; and

(c) calls on the Government to

  (i) enforce existing provisions in 1(a) and 1(b) on legibility and location of country of origin labelling on imported goods;

by leave—Could we come back to this motion? We need to take further advice. Our advice is to oppose it but I would like to see if that amendment changes our advice.

With the leave of the Senate, we will come back to No. 557 at the conclusion.

I, and also on behalf of Senator Steele-John, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes with deep concern that:

  (i) Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) have created a parallel industrial relations system where corporations write their own rules, and

  (ii) in the last ten years FTAs have seen an erosion of labour standards, and a failure to include protections for human rights and the environment;

(b) calls on the Government to seek to renegotiate FTAs which:

  (i) fail to mandate labour market testing which undermines local jobs and industry,

  (ii) create a parallel industrial relations system which undermines workers' rights and conditions, and

  (iii) leave temporary migrant workers extremely vulnerable to exploitation; and

(c) should the Government fail to renegotiate these FTAs, calls on the Government to withdraw Australia from these damaging FTAs.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Approximately one in five Australian workers are employed in a trade-related activity. Australian exporting businesses on average hire 23 per cent more staff and pay 11 per cent higher wages. Nothing in Australia's free trade agreements change Australia's workplace laws, nor do FTAs allow for the exploitation of workers. Nothing in our FTAs allows for foreign workers to work without the licensing or registration required under Australian laws. Nothing in Australia's FTAs erode our stance on environmental and human rights protections. FTAs were a major reason why in 2019 Australia recorded our largest-ever amount exported in a calendar year of more than $493 billion.

Question negatived.

by leave—Mr President, under the standing orders I ask that the Greens obvious support for this motion be recorded and that the opposition of both major parties also be recorded.

No; the provisions allow for votes in favour to be recorded. People can extrapolate from that who was not in favour. Does anyone else wish to have their vote on that motion recorded?

by leave—Centre Alliance would like to be recorded as supporting the motion.

by leave—One Nation wishes to have its support for that motion recorded, please.

by leave—The Jacqui Lambie Network would like its support recorded as well.

I thank senators. That is a lot quicker than a division!

At the request of Senator Bilyk, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

  (i) the Coronavirus crisis has increased costs for many people with disability and carers, for instance: higher energy bills, extra transport costs from avoiding public transport, grocery delivery charges, missing out on shopping at the market for specials, as well as extra health, and protective equipment costs,

  (ii) despite the two $750 Economic Support Payments, many people on the Disability Support Pension are temporarily receiving a lower payment rate than people on JobSeeker Payment, when the Coronavirus Supplement is taken into account,

  (iii) many carers are also being left in situations where they are worse off—particularly if they are caring for children with disability,

  (iv) the Government can make changes to extend additional support to people who need it with the stroke of a pen; and

  (v) the second Economic Support Payment will not be paid until 13 July—nine weeks away—despite people with disability and carers facing extra costs now; and

(b) calls on the Government to allow people with disability and carers who have increased costs to bring forward the second $750 Economic Support Payment.

I seek leave to make a very short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The Greens will be supporting this motion, but we do not think it replaces the fact that people with disability and carers should have access to increased payments and the supplement. But, of course, the Greens will support anything that helps people with disability and carers.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

  (i) that Australians have resumed or taken up bike riding in large numbers for exercise, leisure, and physically-distanced transport during the COVID-19 related restrictions on broader movement,

  (ii) the importance of well-designed and properly funded infrastructure to support walking and cycling as healthy, clean and efficient modes of active transport for Australians of all ages,

  (iii) that traffic congestion and pollution can be relieved by providing people with safe cycling routes, and

  (iv) that the Federal Government funds a range of transport modes and has historically funded infrastructure for cycling and walking, yet the current government provides very little funding to active transport; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to invest in infrastructure for active transport, both as a stimulus measure in response to the health and economic challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, and as a measure to improve active transport infrastructure beyond the pandemic.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The Australian government is currently investing record levels of funding in infrastructure across the country, partnering with states, territories and local governments. Our investments cover hundreds of major land transport projects which are developed and designed with consideration for active transport provisions as part of the scope of these projects. Projects such as the Gateway Motorway upgrade in Queensland and the Northern Connector project in Adelaide are examples of where the Australian government has provided funding for active transport initiatives. The Australian government also provides opportunity through a range of funding programs for organisations and local government bodies that can be used to fund specific active transport projects, with many funded over the past few years.

The question is that motion No. 547, in the name of Senator Rice, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Pratt, I move general business notice of motion No. 549:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

  (i) the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and Labor, recognising the importance of maintaining the link between workers and employers during the COVID-19 pandemic, argued for a wage subsidy program well before the Prime Minister accepted one was necessary,

  (ii) the Government concedes it undershot its own JobKeeper enrolment targets by half a million workers, as employers trying to understand their eligibility struggle with the complexity of the program and how to access it,

  (iii) data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows massive job losses and hits to workers' wages concentrated in industries dominated by the casual workers the Government has excluded from JobKeeper,

  (iv) the Treasurer still has the power to include more workers in the scheme and protect more jobs, and

  (v) the Government is openly canvassing an early windback of JobKeeper, rather than helping struggling Australians access it; and

(b) calls on the Treasurer to:

  (i) urgently use his power to address gaps in the JobKeeper program to protect more jobs now; and

  (ii) ensure longer-term support is provided to Australian workers, businesses and communities in the months and years ahead.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government's $130 billion JobKeeper program provides unprecedented support to millions of Australians. Eligibility has focused on maximising the reach of the JobKeeper program while ensuring the program is able to be implemented as quickly and as efficiently as possible while remaining sustainable.

The question is that motion No. 549 be agreed to.

At the request of Senators Keneally, Ciccone and Walsh, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Department of Home Affairs is currently overseeing a backlog of 85,000 people still waiting to make their pledge at an Australian citizenship ceremony,

(ii) after years of living in and contributing to our country, prospective citizens are now waiting upwards of two years for a ceremony,

(iii) these Australians are being forced to wait years for the chance to pledge themselves in front of communities they have helped to build,

(iv) citizenship ceremonies are important events that bring our communities together and should be treated with priority,

(v) trials of one-on-one online ceremonies are now taking place and progress is being made, but the Government has provided very little information about who is being included and how long people will need to wait for their ceremony, and

(vi) the Government has not provided vital information to tens of thousands of people who are waiting for their citizenship interviews and tests; and

(b) urges the Government to:

(i) provide transparency to people working to become Australian citizens; and

(ii) act quickly to avoid extending citizenship processing times even further.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Once again, this motion lacks the attention to detail needed to manage this complex area of policy. Eight thousand people have been conferred citizenship in online ceremonies conducted to date, with more than 750 people having been conferred in this way every single day. Already in 2019-20 more than 166,000 people have acquired Australian citizenship. On 6 April 2020, the acting Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs made a clear statement outlining the process for online citizenship ceremonies. A dedicated link is available through the Home Affairs website: covid19.homeaffairs.gov.au.

The question is that motion No. 553 be agreed to.

At the request of Senators Gallacher, Wong, Farrell and Marielle Smith, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

  (i) the management of transport security is critical to our national security and to regional communities in South Australia,

  (ii) on 8 May 2018, the Morrison Government announced measures to "further strengthen Australia's domestic and international aviation security", which included the introduction of body scanners and improved luggage screening technology at airports,

  (iii) regional airlines and airports in South Australia have expressed concern that the cost of these upgrades will make regional airline services economically unviable,

  (iv) the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee began public hearings into this matter on 7 May 2020,

  (v) the Committee heard evidence that

(A) a Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications case study noted the cost of a flight to Whyalla would increase by $52 per passenger per flight,

(B) Whyalla City Council is concerned that an increase in security costs may result in one of the two major airlines that use the airport exit the market, impacting the local economy, and

(C) Regional Express Airlines said that the airline's profit margin is approximately $10 per passenger, and if the airline was required to pay security costs, they would no longer make a profit,

  (vi) at the hearing, Senator Rennick stated that "We're not talking about airports, we're talking about national security, right. And, you know, something that we've got to get sorted out here, because we just had it with the Ruby Princess. Okay, and I'm a member of the federal government, and it's our job to look after national security. So this sort of pushing it out on the private enterprise or rather sort of smaller, it just leads to confusion and ambiguous responsibilities as to who's responsible for what. So I think that we ought to take a good look at whether or not it's better for us to do a holistic national approach, rather than the piecemeal airport by airport, which is going to hurt a lot of airports in the region. And I think before, you know, any more changes in regulations or decisions are made, that we look at a national approach. Because if it's good enough for the US and New Zealand, I think it's something that we should also take a serious look at, I'll just leave it at that. Thanks."

  (vii) Senator Rennick is correct in saying that:

(A) the Morrison Government is responsible for national security at our airports and seaports,

(B) the Morrison Government's current approach to national security has led to "confusion and ambiguous responsibilities as to who's responsible for what", and

(C) the Morrison Government's approach to regional aviation security will potentially "hurt a lot of airports in the region";

(b) commends the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for its' ongoing work in this area, and its long-standing history of representing rural and regional Australians on important policy issues; and

(c) condemns the Morrison Government for its implementation of airport security upgrades to date, which are causing confusion and leading to the potential loss of airports, airline services, and jobs in regional South Australia.

I'll go to Senator Patrick first, and then I'll come to Senator Ruston.

by leave—I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

(d) acknowledges that the position expressed in this motion is consistent with the purpose of the motion for the disallowance of the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Security Controlled Airports) Regulations 2019; and

(e) is of the opinion that senators should support the motion for the disallowance of the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Security Controlled Airports) Regulations 2019.

The question now is the amendment, as circulated in the name of Senator Patrick, to motion No. 554 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

I will now come to Senator Ruston, who is seeking the call on the original unamended motion.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Keeping Australian communities safe from those who seek to do us harm will continue to be the Morrison government's No. 1 priority. The Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Security Controlled Airports) Regulation delivers on recommendations of the Inspector of Transport Security to strengthen security at Australia's airports and particularly those serving rural and regional communities. Regional airports are being supported through the government's $50.1 million Regional Airport Security Screening Fund. The government has announced more than $1.2 billion in funding to support the aviation industry, including keeping regional communities connected, since 18 March 2020. These enhancements to regional aviation security and our commitment to funding to regional airlines and airports underscores the government's commitment to supporting regional communities and the aviation networks upon which they depend.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Labor's motion is just a smokescreen to distract people from understanding that Labor have rolled over to Minister Dutton in not supporting my motion to disallow the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Security Controlled Airports) Regulation. Disallowance would force the government to address the disastrous cost its new security regime will impose on small regional airports to the detriment of regional communities. Senator Keneally doesn't like Mr Dutton, but it's clear she and her Labor colleagues are scared of him. They're scared that he'll portray them as weak on national security issues. If they were to have some courage and were committed to both security and regional Australia, Labor would help to force the minister's hand so that we can get sensible cost-sharing arrangements in place. They're all bark and not a lot of bite.

The question is that motion No. 554 be agreed to.

I advise that Senator Hughes has added her name to the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senators Dean Smith and Hughes, move:

That the Senate notes that—

(a) Australia is the most successful multicultural society in the world, and this success can be credited to the substantial contributions migrants bring to this country;

(b) the increased reporting of racist attacks across the country, as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having on individuals and local communities, is concerning;

(c) coronavirus does not discriminate against any race – it does not infect people based on family heritage and no Australian should ever face aggressive acts based on their race or heritage;

(d) the actions of those who undertake such cowardly behaviour must be condemned in the strongest manner possible, and their behaviour does not represent Australians or Australian society as a whole; and

(e) the Government taken swift action to call out racist behaviour and condemn the actions that seek to divide our socially cohesive nation.

I seek leave to move an amendment to the motion.

Leave granted.

I move:

Omit paragraph (e), substitute:

(e) the Federal Government has not funded a national anti-racism campaign in seven years; and calls on the Morrison Government to:

  (i) implement a national anti-racism strategy that takes a zero-tolerance approach to racism, and

  (ii) implement a national anti-racism campaign.

Question negatived.

by leave—We record that the Labor Party supported our amendment.

Does anyone else wish to have their vote recorded?

by leave—One Nation opposed the amendment.

Could I ask that we vote on (a) through to (d) and then (e) separately.

So I will put clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of motion No. 542 en bloc. The question is that those clauses be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question is that clause (e) of that motion be opposed.

Question agreed.

by leave—We record that the Labor Party voted against.

by leave—The Greens are in opposition, against clause (e). I'd like that recorded.

Before moving general business notice of motion No. 562, I inform the chamber that Senator Griff will also co-sponsor the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senators Faruqi and Griff, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes with serious concern the further marginalisation of ethnically diverse communities in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic;

(b) recognises that:

  (i) anti-Asian racism has spiked during COVID-19, and there has been a sharp increase in reported cases of racist incidents in the public and racial discrimination complaints made to the Australian Human Rights Commission, and

  (ii) the Asian Australian Alliance's COVID-19 Incident Report Survey found that 81% of the respondents said recent racist incidents they experienced were a direct result of the COVID-19 pandemic;

(c) celebrates Australia's cultural diversity as essential to who we are as a nation; and

(d) calls on the Government to:

  (i) fund an ongoing national anti-racism campaign through the Human Rights Commission,

  (ii) establish a charter of rights that ensures everyone in Australia is treated equally with guaranteed access to essential services, and that the Government cannot discriminate against anyone based on the colour of their skin or their visa status,

  (iii) take a stand against racism by adding hate speech to the Criminal Code Act; and

  (iv) ensure that ethnically diverse communities are not left behind in the nation's recovery from COVID-19.

I request that the question be put separately on paragraph (d)(ii) and (iii).

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government condemns racism in the strongest possible terms, particularly in the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, paragraph (d)(ii) of this motion calls for a charter of rights. This is a proposal that has been publicly debated, and for good reasons, including diminishing democratic decision-making and politicising the judiciary, after full public debate it was roundly rejected. It is not supported by the government, because it is not the best way to protect rights in Australia. The provision further equates racism and visa status, which is an entirely false equivalence. The government also considers paragraph (d)(iii) is incorrect. The paragraph calls for adding hate speech to the Criminal Code. It fails to recognise that sections 80.2A and 80.2B already criminalise the urging of violence against groups and against members of groups. For those reasons, this motion cannot be endorsed.

I seek leave to make a short statement about Labor's voting intention.

Leave is granted for one minute.

As outlined by Senator Urquhart, we have asked that this question be voted on separately. We don't support subsection (d). We don't believe that expanding the Criminal Code, which already criminalises incitement to violence, or establishing a charter for access to government services provide effective means to combat racism. What we need is for every member of this parliament to lead by example in rejecting racism and encouraging mutual respect.

The question is that all of the motion except clauses (d)(ii) and (d)(iii) be agreed to.

Question negatived.

On that basis, I don't think I can put the next vote, because it would stand alone and not make sense without the covering clause.

I just want to record, to save another division, that obviously the Greens support all aspects of that motion.

Does anyone else wish to have a position recorded?

We would like our position recorded on the sections of the motion that we supported.

Which is the first vote we just had?

That's right.

Senator Griff?

Centre Alliance supports the original motion.

Senator Hanson?

One Nation opposes the full motion.

Senator Lambie?

The Jacqui Lambie Network opposes the full motion.

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 557 to remove clause (c)(ii).

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

  (i) the Federal Government is responsible for country of origin labelling under the "Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard 2016" issued under Part IVB of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010,

  (ii) non-food items are required to be labelled with a country of origin label pursuant to "Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Regulation 2016" issued under the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act 1905, sect. 3;

(b) further notes that:

  (i) that numerous examples of failure to comply with clear country of origin labels are being raised by concerned Australians, and

  (ii) there is a growing public sentiment in favour of locally made products; and

(c) calls on the Government to

  (i) enforce existing provisions in 1(a) and 1(b) on legibility and location of country of origin labelling on imported goods; and

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to table a statement in relation to notice of motion 560, about the Collins class submarines.

Leave granted.

I table the statement.

I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 today, six proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter was received from Senator Roberts:

Pursuant to Standing Order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

When Australia restarts our migration program, we do not want migrants to return to Australia in the same numbers and in the same composition as before the crisis.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I recognise that, for 230 years, migrants of many races and religions, amazing people from all over the world, have joined us to build our beautiful country into something greater than when they arrived. Now, though, we may be ending 2020 with 1.2 million Australians out of work and 1.2 million temporary visas. For 20 years Senator Hanson has warned that this day would come. In 2016 the Productivity Commission issued its 700-page warning on the imbalance in our immigration policy. The report questioned our high immigration intake's strain on infrastructure, the environment and quality of life in our capital cities. The government ignored the Productivity Commission. Why? To keep the flood of cut-price workers coming and to hide the data showing a per capita recession. That led to long-term pain in relation to infrastructure, housing, wages and state budgets. The inevitable result of that is high unemployment and more underemployment. Many of these unemployed Australians are migrants who came to contribute their labour, yet now languish on jobseeker benefits they don't want instead of going to the job they want. I congratulate one of my Labor colleagues on finally seeing the light and joining us in speaking up on the issue of excessive migration and foreign workers.

People might not be aware that on 3 May in a Sydney Morning Herald opinion piece, Senator Keneally asked:

… do we want migrants to return to Australia in the same numbers and in the same composition as before the crisis?

Senator Keneally's answer was no. The question now is: will Senator Keneally stand by her words and will the Labor Party stand by their shadow immigration minister?

We know that the current coronavirus crisis has changed many things about our economy. One of the most dramatic changes we're seen is, indeed, our migration rate. Right now, our migration is almost zero because this government acted quickly to close our borders to limit the number of coronavirus cases coming into the country. Net overseas migration is expected to drop 30 per cent in 2019-20 and 85 per cent in 2020-21, from 2018-19 levels, due to closed borders. Clearly, there is going to be a long period of time in which migration will be significantly reduced and, as the Prime Minister has said, there is no likelihood of international travel to Australia resuming in the near future.

That will have major impacts on many parts of our economy, and looking at how we can support and rebuild industries affected by the cancellation of international travel will be key to Australia's economic recovery. Tourism, for example, is one of the most important industries that has been affected by this, turning over $45 billion a year. That has been incredibly badly affected as an industry by the coronavirus crisis and, indirectly, as a result of the reduced migration rate. The tourism industry and the hundreds of thousands of Australians that it employs will need visitors to come to Australia when international travel is again safe and possible, and we welcome that occurring when the appropriate time comes.

Another industry that has been significantly impacted by the reduction in migration as a result of coronavirus is agriculture. Agriculture is a key driver of the Australian economy and one which the Morrison government is strongly supporting. It's also a critical component of ensuring Australia's food security. Working holiday-makers are an essential part of Australia's agricultural industries and, indeed, an essential part of the tourism industry. These working holiday-makers are critical to filling workforce shortages in rural and regional areas and they inject over $3 billion into our economy each year. Coming from Tasmania, a state with a thriving tourism industry and a thriving agricultural industry, I am very alive to the impact that these working holiday-makers have on our local economy.

We know working holiday-makers who travel to Australia stay longer, spend more and travel further into regional areas that most other international visitors. That's why we've recently made enhancements to and increased the numbers of places in the work and holiday visa program to better support rural and regional areas. Ideally, we want Australians filling Australian jobs. But when this isn't possible farmers and other employers need to have a workforce available so they can continue their business. Again, in Tasmania that is certainly my experience, in my own state, talking to people, particularly within the agriculture and tourism industries. They appreciate having the ability to draw upon working holiday-makers if they are not able to get locals into jobs.

There needs to be a balance here, but, at the moment, we know it's difficult for these industries without having access to the migrant workforce, as a result of the coronavirus crisis. We will see an 85 per cent reduction on current modelling to migration to Australia, in the next financial year, as a result of the borders having to effectively close due to coronavirus.

The coalition has been consistent, and we have been clear about our approach to managing the integrity and the order of our migration program. It is clarity and consistency that allows businesses and individuals to plan for the future, and I certainly expect that we will see this clarity and consistency continue in the future as we begin, hopefully, one day, to open up our borders again and enable further migration. Conversely, Labor's inconsistency, division and history of mismanagement of the migration program has been on display, as evidenced by some of the commentary we've heard recently. Their shambolic uncoordinated approach, that changes almost daily, demonstrates that they didn't learn anything from their mistakes in government and can't be trusted to manage our migration program.

When my parents came to Australia in the late 1960s they were part of an enormous wave of arrivals who would go on to contribute greatly to the foundations of our nation's economic prosperity. In these times, people knew they could come to Australia in search of a better life. They could put down roots, raise a family, seek new opportunities and make their new home a better place. At the centre of all this was the certainty that permanency provided.

As a result, Australia has become one of the world's most—if not the most—successful migrant nations. Around one-third of all Australians were born overseas and around half of our population are the children and grandchildren of migrants. The majority of Australians know that this is a good thing and that our multicultural society makes us better and stronger. But owing to policy changes initiated in the early 2000s by the then Howard government, and later entrenched over the last seven years by this government, our migration program, unfortunately, has started to shift from being predominantly based on permanency to being based on a more temporary form of migration. I guess that's the heart of the debate on which I and a number of colleagues in this place have made commentary in recent times.

There are many hundreds of thousands of temporary visa holders here in Australia, and we are host to the second largest temporary migrant workforce in the developed world. Temporary migration will always have a place in any modern economy, but it is important that we are carefully examining what that place ought to look like here in Australia. As the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Temporary Migration, that's exactly what I and my Senate colleagues on that committee will be looking at. The terms of reference for our inquiry have tasked that we investigate temporary migration in Australia and the effect that it has on the Australian economy, wages and jobs, social cohesion, and workplace rights and conditions of Australian workers. There is also specific reference to whether permanent residency and permanent migration offer better outcomes to the Australian economy and our community.

I am pleased to say that, so far, we've received over 70 submissions from members of the public, policy experts, industry groups and unions, and that they have all made for interesting reading. I do encourage people to continue providing the committee with submissions. We've heard how the current system can leave temporary visa workers vulnerable to abuse and exploitation, that it can erode wages for workers and allow anticompetitive business behaviours to go unchecked. I've experienced this firsthand. As an official with the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association before entering this place, I represented hundreds of 7-Eleven workers, many of them being temporary visa workers, as they sought compensation for the wage theft and blackmail many had been subjected to. In some instances, workers were paid between $7 and $10 an hour. I met a young foreign student who was making as little as $5. In some cases their employers used their temporary visa status to keep them silent and prevent them from reporting the exploitation that they endured. These are matters, among many others, that the Senate select committee is seeking to inquire into and will report to the Senate on.

Temporary migration impacts a wide range of industries. As my colleague on the other side Senator Chandler had pointed out, hospitality, farming and agriculture are just some areas that we'll no doubt be looking into. Temporary visa workers don't just pick fruit. One in five are chefs, one in four are cooks, one in six are hospitality workers and one in 10 provide nursing support and personal care, and they all hold a temporary visa.

The inquiry will put the focus on important questions. We will ask our fellow Australians if we want to create and profit from an economic underclass, whether we want to stop people who are working in Australia putting down roots and raising a family, as my parents did. When they came here, they were temporary migrants, but now they are very proud Australians. From starting a business and creating ties with neighbours and the community through sport, schools, churches and local groups—the list keeps on going—migrants, whether they are permanent or temporary, do make an enormous contribution to our society here in Australia. Labor understands the benefits of a well-regulated migration program, particularly for skilled workers. But do we as Australians, as the people of a fair society in which a growing proportion are permanently locked out of getting a go? I know firsthand the opportunities Australia can offer many people looking for a better life. I've lived that experience. I know what my parents, their family, friends and the community gave back to this great country.

One of the greatest pleasures each of us has as representatives of our community is welcoming new Australian citizens when they take their pledge of citizenship, and I might say that has been one of the best highlights of my job in the last 18 months. It's a moment of joy and one I want to continue to be available to those who choose to make Australia their home.

I did ponder a bit whether speaking on this matter of public importance was worth it, because it clearly seeks to divide us. But, to be honest, I have had it up to here with One Nation, so I will have my say. This MPI is just another way for them to define who should be in Australia, who is deemed as 'one of us' and who is deemed as the 'other' because of what they look like or where they come from. Let me make one thing crystal clear: when One Nation talk about changing the composition of our migration program, we know what you mean. It's not simply a technical or abstract debate about temporary versus permanent migration, or skilled workers versus family reunion. For One Nation, the party of the Muslim ban and decades of overt racism, it is about something else entirely.

Just two years ago, former Senator Anning, who was elected as a One Nation senator, said the quiet part aloud in his widely condemned first speech, calling for a migration program that reflects the historic European Christian composition of Australian society. That senator, thankfully, has gone, but unfortunately One Nation is still here. If you had your way, I would have never been allowed in this country that I call home, let alone sit in this parliament, in the Senate chamber. Shame on you. For all your talk about supporting good migrants who speak perfect English and assimilate completely, you would rather we just go back to the White Australia Policy. Well, we are not going back to White Australia.

It's not just One Nation sitting here relentlessly pursuing their agenda of racism and xenophobia; it's also the Liberals sitting over there and the Labor Party sitting over there who must cop blame as well. The Liberals have, for years, targeted and fanned the flames of hatred, from targeting the Sudanese community to Lebanese Muslim migrants to asylum seekers and refugees. The Labor Party's hands are dirty as well, with its continual dog whistling Australian-first rhetoric. This posturing and rhetoric normalises and gives oxygen to One Nation's racism and xenophobia. It hurts and damages us. We are not here as fodder for your inherent biases and white supremacy that you want to exert. We are proud upstanding citizens of this country and we work hand to make Australia a better place.

The first thing I would like to note is that the wording of this resolution comes from an article which was written by Senator Keneally. The contributions we have heard so far both from my friend Senator Ciccone and from Senator Farooq did not mention that, did not explicitly recognise that the origin of this resolution comes from the wording of Senator Keneally's article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 3 May 2020. Just as Senator Wong had to go in on Q+A on Monday night and put the pieces together after Senator Keneally's article, now poor old Senator Ciccone has to turn up in the chamber and put the pieces together for the Labor Party after Senator Keneally's article. At least be honest with this chamber that the specific wording in this resolution comes from Senator Keneally's article. Those are her words. I have read the article from front to start; they are her words.

I'd just like to make three points in the time I have available in this debate. The first point I would like to make is, Senator Ciccone, it is good to hear that you're having an inquiry into temporary migration. It would have been a good thing—through you, Acting Deputy President—if Senator Keneally, as the spokesperson for the opposition, might have waited for the inquiry to take full effect and actually come up with some findings before she wrote her article. Can I put to you that, when you're considering your inquiry, you might look at CEDA, the committee for the Economic Development of Australia, report on the effects of temporary migration which was released in July of last year, 2019, after the much-quoted Productivity Commission report. It had two key findings.

First, contrary to some concerns, recent waves of migrants have not had an adverse impact on the wages or jobs of Australian-born workers. That was the first finding. Second, temporary skilled migration has been an overwhelming net positive for the Australian economy, enabling skills shortages to be filled and contributing to the transfer of new knowledge to Australians. Neither of those points were referred to in Senator Keneally's article, but I do commend—through you, Acting Deputy President—to the work of Senator Ciccone's committee that they might have a look at that research report. You'll find it very enlightening.

The second point I would like to make was made by Senator Chandler, which is the importance of temporary migration in relation to Queensland's agriculture industry. During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, I received a copy of a letter from the Australian Banana Growers Council Inc urgently seeking changes to temporary visa arrangements. They said in this letter that the banana industry harvests and packs 52 weeks per year. There are 5,325 workers nationally. Approximately 40 per cent are locals and 60 per cent are either backpackers—for example, on 417 or 462 visas—or from the Seasonal Worker Program on 403 visas. In response to that urgent request that these temporary visa holders have their stays extended to assist the Queensland agriculture industry, the government acted in two ways. Seasonal Worker Program and Pacific Labour Scheme workers, an important part of our Pacific Step-up policy, could extend their stay for up to 12 months to work for approved employers.

Thirdly, working holidaymakers who work in agricultural or food processing will be exempt from the six-month work limitation with the one employer and will be eligible for a further visa to keep working in these critical sectors if their the current visa is due to expire in the next six months. That just shows, even during the course of this pandemic, how important some of those seasonal temporary visa workers are to the economy of my state of Queensland.

The last point I would like to make is this afternoon I had a call with a great fellow who is the councillor of Bulloo Shire in south-west Queensland. His name is John Ferguson. I gave him a call because I saw a quote he gave about the importance of attracting immigrants to country towns like Thargomindah. I want to conclude my contribution of this debate with his words. Shire mayor John Ferguson of Thargomindah wants more people in his town. He said he is not looking at who you are or what colour you are. He said 'you are out there with us and you are part of us, and we are going to welcome you out there'.

I'm proud to be part of a political party, the Labor Party, which recognises and values the contribution that migrants make to Australia. We are a party that has stood strongly for multiculturalism and stood strongly against racism. Australia is the most successful multicultural nation on the planet. Half of us were either born overseas ourselves or have a parent born overseas. We can be so proud of the role that migration has played in our past and can be sure of the important role it will play in our future. It is a vital building block of our society, and the public agree. Eighty-five per cent of Australians believe multiculturalism has been good for Australia, so, like the vast majority of Australians, I am incredibly proud of our country and the strength that we have in our diversity.

I have spent my working life representing some of Australia's lowest paid migrant workers in sectors like cleaning, hospitality and agriculture. I visited migrants in their workplaces. I visited them at their homes. I've stood with them when they've spoken out about the rampant exploitation that they've experienced in these industries. I've listened to them talk about their hopes and dreams for a better life in this country.

I've heard that the hopes and dreams of migrant workers today are the very same hopes and dreams of all Australians, be they First Nation Australians, fourth- or fifth-generation Australians or Australians who've migrated from all over the world in the decades since World War II. Those hopes and dreams are: a good, secure job; to be able to settle down and have a family, a community; to be safe, secure and supported; and to make a contribution back to the society that welcomed you.

Australia's shift from permanent to temporary migration without adequate protections for migrant workers and without adequate paths to permanence has put those basic fundamental hopes and dreams on hold for so many migrants to this country. Our temporary migration program invites people here, not to build a life but just to contribute their labour. Our temporary migration program cannot be said to be delivering that most basic hope of generations of migrants to this country—a good, secure job. In so many cases, temporary migrants are suffering the most from the absolute shame that is the widespread endemic wage theft in our country. International students in the cleaning industry are so often forced into sham contracts well below the Australian minimum wage. Backpackers and students working on farms and in hospitality are facing extreme rip-offs. Wages on farms are as low as just a few dollars an hour. Sexual harassment, coercion and assault have all been reported widely. In hospitality, I've seen wages as low as $12 an hour for migrant workers. It is also workers on temporary skilled visas who are ripped off in the most extraordinary and brutal ways. Earlier this year, I met three women who came here on skilled migration visas who were locked in a house in Canberra and forced to work in a massage parlour. Their families back home in the Philippines were threatened with violence if they spoke out, and eventually they had the courage to do just that.

Our temporary migration program invites people here not to settle down and have a family or a community but to work harder and harder to get by, to put up with the often unlawful wages and working conditions, the lack of respect and, in so many cases, the outright exploitation. Our temporary migration program invites people here not to be safe and secure but to be afraid. Too often, temporary migrants are afraid to speak out because they fear being fired. They fear being reported to Immigration and they fear not being able to survive in this country, away from home, without the job that they have. At the first sign of crisis, this government has said to hundreds of thousands of temporary migrants, 'It's time for you to just go home; we won't support you here.'

What is extraordinary is that, despite all of this, every single temporary migrant worker that I've ever met wants to make a contribution back to this country. They work hard, they pay their taxes and they want to be respected for their contribution. To be clear, it is not the fault of the temporary migrant workers who come to this country that they are treated like this. It is our responsibility, as the host nation, to make sure that migrant workers are treated with the respect that they deserve. It is up to employers to stop the exploitation of temporary migrant workers. Indeed, it is up to all of us to make sure that employers are treating them fairly, with dignity and in line with the rules.

It's not just the temporary migrant workers who lose out from this exploitation, because an attack on these workers is an attack on the rights of every worker in this country. We are and we remain the most successful multicultural society in the world, and our success has been built on the invitation to build a life here, to be able to work and be respected, to lay down roots, to have family and community, and to be safe and secure. Right now, our temporary migration program fails too many migrants who just want what we all want here—a secure future.

How curious that not one Labor senator who's spoken to this matter of public importance has acknowledged the elephant in the room that was revealed by Senator Scarr in his contribution moments ago—that the terms of this MPI put forward by One Nation are lifted directly from the Australian Labor Party's new migration policy, revealed by Senator Keneally in a recent op-ed. Well, to Senator Keneally and to the Australian Labor Party: how proud you must be of your new migration policy, which now has the backing of One Nation. Labor got the front-page treatment with Senator Keneally's op-ed in The Sydney Morning Herald, and that op-ed told migrant workers exactly what you think of them. Now, bang—in comes One Nation to support you. Well, Labor blew the whistle and now the dogs are barking, and no-one should be surprised at that. This is exactly what the Labor Party wanted. It wanted a unity ticket with One Nation to demonise migrant workers, and that is exactly what the Labor Party has got.

The Labor Party's stance since the election has been nothing short of shameful. But we shouldn't be surprised, because back in 2013 it was the Australian Labor Party in government that restarted offshore detention, which resulted in thousands of innocent human beings—men, women and children—being indefinitely detained on Manus Island and Nauru. We all know the death, the human suffering, the torture and the human misery that are still going on today because of that shameful decision made by the Australian Labor Party.

If that's not bad enough, Labor has more recently been attacking people seeking asylum in this country by describing them as airplane people. I've got a lesson for the Australian Labor Party based on human history: it's very dangerous to try and outflank fascists and human rights abusers from the Right. But that is exactly what the Australian Labor Party is doing. It's decided to focus on demonising migrants instead of focusing on the real issues in this country, which are to improve workers' rights and to curb the power of unscrupulous employers. Those are the issues that the Labor Party should be focusing on. You can't hope to improve the lot of workers in Australia by kicking down on temporary visa holders. You cannot hope to protect migrant workers by deporting them or seeking to prevent others from arriving in this country.

Labor is strengthening the cause of Minister Dutton and One Nation and making life more difficult for migrants and temporary visa holders. The Labor Party needs to get with the program and start pushing to help all workers, no matter where they come from. They could start by committing to strengthen the Fair Work Act so that workers have more bargaining power. Maybe, for once in Labor's recent history, it could actually start opposing what the government is trying to do, rather than dog whistling and seeking to lie down with One Nation on the issue of migration policy in this country. I hope the Labor Party is ashamed of itself today.

I'm standing before you as the daughter of a migrant. I'm one of the 49 per cent of Australians who are either migrants themselves or children of first-generation Australians. So I cannot support this matter of public importance at all. I agree with Senator McKim. This matter of public importance fails to look at the real issues that we should be talking about, and one of those real issues is: how do we actually incentivise people to take the jobs that many of these migrants are taking in regional Australia? When I say that, I don't mean they're stealing our jobs, because they're not. They are coming here and voluntarily taking positions that are vacant right across rural and regional Australia. Without these migrants, our regional economies would be devastated. People in old-age homes in regional areas wouldn't have carers. Senator Hanson and Senator Keneally have said one in five chefs are migrants. Well, I bet those one in five are actually working in restaurants in regional Australia. Without them, it would be a very different place out there.

I'm very pleased to hear Senator Ciccone and Senator Walsh stand up and support migration because, like Senator McKim and Senator Scarr, I wasn't sure what Labor would say after reading Senator Keneally's opinion piece. Senator Keneally has concerns largely about temporary migration and temporary migrants. These are the very people who live and work in regional Australia, taking positions that have been languishing and vacant. Don't forget it's this government that brought in the labour market test so that employers can't just go and seek cheap overseas labour. Employers must prove that they can't source labour here onshore before they can apply for a temporary skilled visa, and I'm glad that they can do that.

Senator Keneally in her opinion piece didn't say anything about how you actually get Australians to take the jobs that she thinks we should now prioritise only for Australians, and I haven't heard a solution to that from Senator Hanson either. I've heard nothing about the importance of temporary migration in regional Australia from the Labor Party or from One Nation, and I just want to paint the picture to help Senator Keneally and Senator Hanson understand and learn a bit more about regional Australia, because there are many employers out there who have tried but can't. Regional Development Australia Murray used to run a temporary migration advisory service, and they used to get about 250 applications a year from their area alone seeking skilled migrants. These people fill positions such as nurses, aged-care workers and doctors. I live regionally, and, without skilled migration, I wouldn't have been able to see a doctor in my own town for several years.

I should add that the Nationals in government have also introduced two new regional visas for skilled workers which actually require them to come to regional Australia for three years before they can apply for permanent residence. It works because, once you come to regional Australia and once you see how good regional Australia is, you are more inclined to stay there. That's one thing that we are doing to incentivise new migrants to settle outside our big and congested cities. When we have migration, it's really important that it goes to the areas which need it most.

This matter of public importance raised today does not understand and gets the issue of migration wrong. Migrants, particularly working holiday-makers, are absolutely vital. We have heard about issues in the Northern Territory if we don't have seasonal holiday visa holders and working holiday-makers—and these people are not permanent migrants, admittedly, but are here visiting our nation, spending money in our nation and also helping us get our food and our produce harvested and onto our supermarket shelves. We've found examples where working holiday-makers who fill short-term shortages, particularly in these rural and regional areas, inject over $3 billion into our economy each year. They stay longer, they spend more and they travel further, and that is all good for our economy.

We are working to get our working holiday program right. It's something we're committed to. In the face of this COVID crisis, we have worked hard to extend visas for those who were already in the nation so that we can ensure that we keep people able to do our harvest jobs, able to work in the agricultural sector and able to fill those vacancies so that we can keep our businesses going. Bear in mind that at the moment our migration is currently zero in the face of COVID, and it's having a devastating impact on our economy.

Let's look at where our migration numbers go. Forty-seven per cent of our migrants in 2018-19 were international students. Does anyone seriously want to put 240,000 jobs at risk by slashing that $37 billion industry? We are already seeing, because of COVID-19, the devastating impact that the loss of these international students is having on our regional universities. In fact, Charles Sturt University has put a number on it. The impact could be as high as $80 million a year on that university's bottom line, and that has a flow on impact on our universities' capacity to undertake vital research programs. Twenty-two per cent of our net overseas migration is visitors to Australia, including to regional Australia—that is a $45 billion a year industry. Twelve per cent are skilled migrants. These are people who come here to fill the vacancies, who have the skills we need, who work significantly in regional Australia. They fill critical skills gaps right across the Australian workforce.

The Liberals and the Nationals in government are taking a sensible approach to migration. We have kept migration at 160,000. It is a cap, not a target, but it is also a responsible and realistic figure. We are focusing more and more on skilled migration. We have introduced the new regional visas to ensure that we get people out of our cities and into the bush, and we hope that they stay there.

Since the new temporary skills shortage program commenced—it replaced the shambolic and often abused 457 visa program—we have seen salaries increase. We have seen average remuneration that is $15,000 higher than what was being paid under the 457 program. Again, it was the Liberals and Nationals who implemented the labour market test to ensure that those people are filling a genuine skill shortage rather than being the cheap labour that this motion accuses Australian employers of undertaking.

We are a migrant nation. More than half of our population growth since 2005 has come from migration. High levels of immigration, especially skilled migration, helped sustain Australia's 28 years of uninterrupted economic growth. We wouldn't have the Snowy Hydro or even the Opera House without migration. Migrants have come here to contribute to our country and have made their homes and lives here. But there is a big difference between an economy and a nation built on a properly managed permanent migration scheme and one that is dependent on piecemeal temporary migration. If we are not careful this powerful, unifying, uplifting national idea will soon be nostalgia rather than reality.

Under this Liberal government we are changing from a nation built by permanent migrants to an economy built on temporary migrants. This government has used temporary migration to undercut the value of the permanent scheme. Before Howard, Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison—in fact, for nearly 70 years—our immigration department actually managed the selection, arrival and settlement of migrants and refugees in Australia. As James Button wrote in 2018, we had a model of managed migration. The department arranged English classes and access to health care and welfare. It helped people to find housing, skills and jobs, to learn how to become a good citizen. What do we have now? We have permanent migration capped at 160,000 a year as a so-called congestion-busting measure. At the same time, temporary migration is soaring to historically high levels.

Under Peter Dutton and Scott Morrison, the government couldn't care less about how migrants cope when they arrive on our shores. It's either too expensive or too hard to figure out. Instead of investing properly in permanent migration, which brought us economic and social success, the government has lazily lapsed into a dependence on temporary migration. Where has that landed us? For one thing, we have created an economic underclass of people with no stake or say in our country's future. These are people who have faced appalling conditions but who don't have the right to vote out the very government that created the conditions for their exploitation. Instead of a managed process we have the government turning its back while workers are sent to dodgy labour hire companies and businesses. That's the beginning and end of the migration process and any chance that migrants have of a viable, secure, economic future in our country. These workers are forced to accept pay as low as $4 an hour, often physical or sexual assault, extortionate costs for food and accommodation, and curtailed movement through the withholding of their passports. All this has come up in report after report, as Senator Ciccone highlighted before. All this does is undermine the hard-won conditions and pay of every other worker in this country, as well as the work of the good employers, because the good employers—the ones who do the right thing by paying the right wages and ensuring the right conditions for their workers—are now at a competitive disadvantage.

The ongoing wage theft inquiry has received several submissions that include stories of this system's true impact on the lives of these workers. These submissions reveal that the very insecurity of temporary migration and this government's reliance on it has created the conditions for rampant migrant worker exploitation. Nowhere is it more evident than in the way that temporary visa status is used as a tool by unscrupulous employers across a variety of sectors in the economy to abuse, coerce and denigrate migrant workers. They are forced to accept exploitative, unsafe and illegal conditions and remuneration only because employers can exploit their insecure status.

What is worse is that the government knew about this exploitation long before the current debate. In 2014 we had the Independent Review into the Integrity of the Subclass 457 Program. It was chaired by John Azarias, with a panel of eminently qualified experts. What did they tell us? They told us that a lack of monitoring and sanctions for employers who exploit temporary migrant workers was leading to the whole system being undermined. I commend the Azarias report to all of you who have an interest in the subject.

Then there was the report of the government's own Migrant Workers Taskforce, chaired by Professor Allan Fels and Dr David Cousins—a report that correctly described in horrific detail the state of abuse of migrant workers. Again, this government has made it clear that the report is not a priority. It is being glacially slow to act on the report's very sensible recommendations.

Workers should and will continue to come to Australia in search of an economic future, but this government is completely mismanaging that process at the expense of these workers and our economy. Companies that exploit labour decide who comes to this country. Instead of the economic security, pay and conditions and workplace rights that have embodied an Australian dream that is so attractive to migrants, the government has created conditions for abuse and exploitation. Temporary migration workers are in turn being used by this government to undercut the wages and conditions that in the first place make our country such a great place to work and live in. Australian companies, companies in this country, exploiting migrant workers should not be making decisions on who comes to this country. It should be the government, this parliament and the people of this country.

One Nation submitted today's matter of public importance:

When Australia restarts our migration program, we do not want migrants to return to Australia in the same numbers and in the same composition as before the crisis.

I have to admit that they are not my words; they are Senator Keneally's words, which she used in her article. It's quite interesting. I've always said there should be a debate on this, and I'm pleased that we actually got to call on this debate.

Forcing debate about immigration and foreign workers is often a thankless task. No-one knows this more than me. When you bring up facts such as more than half of the nation's population growth since 2005 has come from overseas migration, you get called a racist. When you explain that instead of flooding Australia with migrants to drive economic growth we should be increasing productivity or investing in skills and training, people call you xenophobic. When you make commonsense statements like, 'Australians should get a fair go and the first go at jobs,' people call you a white supremacist. When you argue, like Senator Keneally did the other day, that once Australia restarts its immigration program migrants must not return to Australia in the same numbers and in the same composition as before the coronavirus crisis, people might even accuse you of stealing One Nation policy.

This is why I today want to say thank you to Labor's shadow immigration minister, Kristina Keneally. I know she will not be getting much support from her Labor colleagues. Reading through some of the recent comments made by Senator Keneally, I can only assume she has spent much of her time in quarantine reading through my speeches from 1996 and taking copious notes, because so much of what she said could have been taken from comments and arguments I've made over the past 24 years. Perhaps Senator Keneally may want to make an admission here today that she's a closet One Nation supporter. I know it took Mark Latham a couple of decades to come out of the One Nation closet, but look how great he's doing! He's a new man and loving it, and so are the Australian people.

Today I want to reassure the Senate that if Senator Keneally wants to cross the floor in support of her own comments and finds herself thrown out of the Labor Party for breaking ranks, I will always have a position in my office for talented immigration speechwriters such as herself. I know I don't often get a chance to congratulate my Labor Senate colleagues, but I always give credit where credit is due. Credit is due, because, by revealing herself as a convert to One Nation's position on immigration, Senator Keneally has proven that what I have long said is true: so powerful are my arguments on immigration that even a staunch opponent of One Nation like Senator Keneally will eventually be dragged kicking and screaming to support cuts to immigration and cuts to foreign workers. I know there are many in the Labor Party, and even more among Labor's allies and the unions, who agree with my position on immigration and foreign workers behind closed doors but refuse to speak the truth publicly out of fear of being called a racist or some other meaningless insult.

Right now, due to coronavirus, there are millions of Australians unemployed or underemployed. These are the people we need to look after, not foreign workers. This is the debate we need to have. We can't go back to our old immigration program. Australians have a right to a job and to a way of life that is not tied to welfare handouts. For decades, the coalition and Labor parties have used mass migration and foreign workers to artificially pump up economic growth. For decades they have cynically used insults and slurs to try and shut down this debate. For decades they have refused to admit that this is creating problems with increased demand on our limited services, housing affordability, unemployment and underemployment, wage stagnation and congestion in our cities. Senator Keneally and I have now warned each and every one of you that if we continue down the same path, the path of mass migration and foreign workers, our economy will come crashing down. I moved a notice of motion today on the floor of parliament, and I'll just read out some of the comments in this notice of motion:

… relying on high levels of immigration to boost population to fuel economic growth is arguably a lazy approach

… letting lots of migrants come to Australia to drive economic growth rather than increasing productivity or investing in skills and training is a lazy approach …

… instead of letting lots of migrants come to Australia to drive economic growth, we should be increasing productivity or investing in skills and training …

… as at June 2019, there were 2.1 million temporary visa holders in Australia …

… Australia hosts the second largest migrant workforce in the OECD, second in total number only to the US …

… one in five chefs, one in four cooks, one in six hospitality workers, and one in 10 nursing support and personal care workers in Australia hold a temporary visa …

Another one says:

… when Australia restarts its immigration program, we must understand that migration is a key economic policy lever that can help or harm Australian workers in the economic recovery and beyond …

Senator Davey talks about regional areas. It says here:

… we must also ensure that regional areas don't only get transient people but community members who will settle down, buy houses, start businesses and send their kids to the local school …

The whole fact is that Labor said I was pulling a stunt. No. All those words were from Senator Keneally, from her article. That was from Labor's shadow minister for immigration, yet they said I was pulling a political stunt. No, I wasn't pulling a political stunt. The fact is that I called Labor out for what this is: they themselves pulled a political stunt. Keneally was the one that actually made those comments, but Labor clearly do not stand by them, because they did not support the notice of motion today. So who's really pulled a political stunt? They use it when it suits them. As I've said, high immigration props up our economy and has been used by both the major political parties.

And I will make a comment about Senator Faruqi today saying that One Nation stands by white supremacy. At no point have we ever. I'm sick of the lies put across in this chamber with regard to One Nation, and I'm going to call that out for what it is. I encourage people to go to One Nation's website and look at our immigration policy, which is nondiscriminatory. That is purely a lie. To talk about immigration policy, we need a debate; Australians want the debate.

That concludes this matter of public importance.

by leave—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move a motion.

At the request of Senator Rennick, I withdraw the notice of motion given earlier today relating to COVID-19.

by leave—I table a document in the form of a nonconforming petition signed by 11,755 people, calling for 457 and 482 skilled visa holders who are stranded abroad as a result of COVID-19 travel bans to be allowed to return to their jobs, homes and families in Australia. I seek leave to make a one-minute statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

There are thousands of temporary visa holders who are currently stranded overseas as a result of the travel bans put in place by the Commonwealth government. In many cases, these people live in Australia, they work in Australia and they pay taxes in Australia. Some are separated from their families who are currently in Australia, while the visa holders are stranded overseas. The government does have a process in place for exemptions from the travel bans to be granted, upon application, and I acknowledge that some visa holders have been granted an exemption and therefore allowed back into the country. But there are no criteria against which applications for exemptions are assessed—and many, many people simply do not understand why they have been banned from returning. At a minimum, people with families and jobs and homes in this country should be allowed back in. (Time expired)

On behalf of Senator Polley, I present Scrutiny Digest No. 6 of 2020, dated 13 May 2020, together with the annual report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills.

On behalf of the Deputy Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Senator Brown, I present the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme on supported independent living, together with the documents presented to the committee, and I move:

  That the Senate take note of the report.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

by leave—I present the report of the Australian delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in London, which took place from 12 to 14 October 2019, and I seek leave to move a motion to take note of the report.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

Along with my colleague Senator Carr, who I notice is in the chamber, I had the honour of representing Australia at the 65th annual session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, which, as I said, was held in London between 12 and 14 October 2019, in that time long ago when people could still travel. Much has changed since then, but one of the constants is the ability of nations to come together where we share values and have common objectives to work together at an executive level, a parliamentary level and, indeed, at the level of agencies within governments—in this case predominantly the defence alliance represented by NATO.

The parliamentary assembly is a forum that facilitates this sort of cooperation between the parliaments of member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Whilst Australia is not one of the 29 members of NATO, we are one of several global partners that cooperate and engage in dialogue with NATO. In fact, we're one of five countries called 'enhanced opportunities partners', with significant dialogue and cooperation with the alliance. That's in recognition of the significant contribution that Australia makes and has made to a number of activities of NATO. Probably the best known of these in recent times is our contribution in Afghanistan. At this point, I note and thank the 26,000 Australian service men and women who have served in Afghanistan. I note and would ask Australians to remember the 41 who've been killed in action and the 261 who have been wounded in action through their service in Afghanistan and, more broadly, the numbers of service men and women and their families who still feel impacts to this day because of service in Afghanistan.

Australia is represented at the annual session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly every second year. Generally we attend with observer status and we don't have a formal role in proceedings. This year, though, I was pleased to be given the opportunity to represent Australia by presenting to the assembly's Defence and Security Committee on developments in Australia and matters of interest to NATO. This invitation came because they have noted and appreciated the steps that Australia has taken in recent years around the defence of our nation and the values that we share with the NATO members

In particular, they were interested to understand what Australia has done to respond to the threat of non-linear warfare. Traditionally people have thought of warfare as a shooting war, where two countries have declared war and militaries engage, but increasingly what we see is that there is a spectrum of activity, from foreign influence to interference, particularly in cyberspace. There is theft of IP. There is disruption of systems. There is fake news and campaigns to disrupt. We've seen some of that in the COVID environment with campaigns to create panic and cause disturbance and distrust within democratic countries by others who don't support that system of government. At the other end of that spectrum, they were interested to understand what Australia is doing with the $200 billion investment in our defence capability which we are making over the next 10 years. Central to that, clearly, is the reinvestment in our air, land and sea capability, as well as a number of capabilities in the cyberdomain.

The questions asked demonstrated particular interest in what's occurring in our region, but one of the points I noted was that, while NATO has traditionally been concerned with, originally, the Soviet Union and now with Russia and its activities, it is becoming increasingly aware of developments in Asia and the reach of developing powers in the Asian region into both North America and Europe. That was a topic of discussion through a number of the presentations that occurred during that time.

There were a number of committee meetings, and there was the plenary session. In addition to the Defence and Security Committee, which I attended, the four other committees examined contemporary issues, including the civil dimensions of security; economics and security; the political dimensions; and science and technology. Because Australia did not have a large delegation—in fact, we are limited to two, so it was Senator Carr and me—we clearly couldn't attend all of the committee meetings, but we did attempt to get to as many as possible, particularly those that were of interest to Australia. My predominant involvement was with the Defence and Security Committee as well as the plenary session. The way these run is that there are a number of bodies that work throughout the year to take topics of interest to nations who develop—

Sorry, Senator Fawcett. Your time has actually expired. I know you do like talking on this topic.

You were clearly so interested, Mr Acting Deputy President.

I take this opportunity to endorse the report of Senator Fawcett and acknowledge the courtesy that he's extended to me this evening and throughout the work of this delegation. I emphasise the value of this parliament participating in this NATO conference and the value of us as a country being able to participate in this matter. I just would like to add a few points and reiterate some comments that I made—in greater detail, perhaps—last November, on 13 November. I was able to participate more through the Political Committee, although I did participate in some of the other committees that Senator Fawcett presented directly to.

NATO faces a range of challenges now that arms control has effectively broken down and the most powerful states of the world—namely the United States, Russia, China and India—have ceased supporting multilateralism. I particularly noted—and the point was made on numerous occasions—that President Trump's often quoted statement, 'The future belongs to patriots, not globalists' had become a slogan for more populist nationalists everywhere, and that the same rapid technological change that had transformed the structures of industrial economies was also posing new challenges for the way in which states intervene in each other's affairs. The conference also gave particular emphasis to the role of climate change and the way that the Antarctic and, particularly, the Arctic were now being opened up as new sources for exploitation of military deployment. All of this poses serious problems for NATO, which it felt was under considerable pressure to deal with the stated claim that it was a global champion of democracy.

With very few exceptions—for instance, Portugal under the Salazar dictatorship—NATO members had been democracies, but they've always sought to uphold human rights and the rule of law. That simply can't be said today. They have contrasted themselves in the past with authoritarian regimes, and that, of course, can't be said today. That discussion in the assemblies made clear that the most perplexing threat to democracy now comes from within NATO states themselves, and some NATO members, especially Hungary and Poland, have governments that are increasingly authoritarian. They're not single-party states but they are governments that curtail basic freedoms, such as freedom of the press and the rule of law. The discussion found that populist governments were taking expression from the resurgence of reactionary nationalism within Europe and that this in itself was becoming a major threat to the fundamental assumptions about the way in which NATO had seen itself as an ideal of liberal democracy, and it threatened the principles that I think were the foundations of the way in which NATO had operated. Not all of these countries are yet full members of NATO, and part of the difficulty for NATO is resolving these inherent tensions. A lot of the rhetoric that we hear to date in Europe is in fact straight out of the 1930s. Given the recent anniversary of the defeat of fascism in Europe, it is deeply disturbing that the resurgence of those forces should now be given legitimacy in some of those regimes.

I particularly welcomed the opportunity to participate in this delegation. I thank Senator Fawcett and the committee secretariat for their support. This has been a very worthwhile experience, and I think the parliament should take every effort to continue the participation in this conference.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of the Minister for Health, I table a ministerial statement on Australia's COVID-19 health response.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

All of us in this chamber and this country have looked in horror at the scenes that we have witnessed, particularly overseas in many parts of the world, as a result of COVID-19. I certainly know that I won't forget in a hurry the images of panic in hospitals in Italy, and there are many other similar scenes that all of us have witnessed in recent months as a result of COVID-19 overseas. Thankfully, Australia, while suffering greatly from COVID-19, has been spared what we have seen in many other countries, although we do need to remember that, despite best efforts, we have seen 97 Australians lose their lives as a result of coronavirus, with a total of 6,948 cases in Australia all up.

Behind these numbers are personal stories, like that of Garry Kirstenfeldt, the second Queenslander to die from coronavirus and the first to die in Queensland. Mr Kirstenfeldt, 68 years old, died on 25 March this year in Toowoomba after recently disembarking from the Voyager of the Seas cruise ship in Sydney. His family say that he was an avid traveller. His children described him as a man with much more life in him. It's truly tragic to see people like Mr Kirstenfeldt cut down by this virus, in his case at the age of only 68.

We know that, without the efforts of many people, there would have been many more like Mr Kirstenfeldt. On behalf of the opposition, I want to thank everyone who has worked on this crisis, in particular in what we're focusing on today—the health response. I want to thank all of the governments, federal, state and territory, for the efforts that they have put in. I know from my participation on the COVID oversight committee, with Senators Gallagher, Keneally and others, that there are officials of this government who have worked incredibly hard over the last few months to protect Australians from this virus.

More than anyone, I want to thank the frontline workers in our health system—the doctors, the nurses, other health workers, the disability care workers, the aged-care workers, the cleaners, and the orderlies in our hospitals, who have really gone above and beyond to look after their fellow Australians. As the Labor leader, Mr Albanese, has said this week, we can't forget them when this crisis is over.

Finally, on behalf of the opposition, I want to thank Australians generally for having risen to the challenge, for by and large listening to the health advice that's been provided, for practising social distancing and for making sacrifices over the last few months, not just to protect themselves and their own families but to protect Australians generally. It is a pretty incredible achievement from Australians, and it has demonstrated some of those values of Australians that we all do cherish.

Labor's approach through the coronavirus crisis has been one where we have attempted to be constructive and look for solutions, not arguments.

We have supported every single initiative that this government has put forward to tackle coronavirus. Where the government has needed criticism and answers have been required, we have made those criticisms and we have sought those answers. Chief among them has been the government's handling of the Ruby Princess cruise ship, something that I know Senator Keneally has been very active on. I know that we are all still seeking more answers about what went on there.

We've made a number of suggestions in a constructive spirit that have been taken up by the government and we thank them for listening. I want to put on record my thanks to many of our own Labor team, who have worked incredibly hard to both support the government in its efforts and also to provide these constructive suggestions. In particular our shadow health minister Chris Bowen has worked day and night on behalf of our Labor team, along with many other members of caucus. I do want to single out for attention the members of our own First Nations caucus committee, including in this chamber senators Dodson and McCarthy, who have put in a huge amount of work focused on protecting remote First Nations communities across our country. So collectively, all of us—governments, oppositions, health workers and Australians in general—have managed at this stage at least to flatten the curve and they deserve our congratulations.

Inevitably, attention is now turning to when restrictions can be eased. As someone who, like many, is working from home with a spouse who is working from home, with two school-aged children doing their schooling from home, I know many Australians are looking forward to restrictions being eased and life going back to normal. But the decisions that we do take from here must continue to be guided by health advice. We can't see political decisions being made or political point scoring being taken in the decisions, particularly in states and territories, around the easing of restrictions. We can't be reckless with these decisions because, even today, clusters remain. Look at Newmarch House and the Cedar Meats abattoir. We have seen in other countries around the world the risk of a second wave of infections. We must ease our restrictions gradually, steadily, sensibly and always based on the best health advice.

In closing, I want to congratulate the government for its efforts and for taking up some of those constructive suggestions that the opposition made. And I again want to congratulate all Australians for what we've achieved so far. Let's make sure it stays that way.

I too would like to take note of the Minister for Health's statement on Australia's COVID-19 health response. I particularly want to focus on the mental health elements of the response. This is a deeply distressing time for Australians, for people around the world, for individuals and for families. The stresses of the pandemic on households, relationships and finances are immense, and we all recognise that. Many people are suffering from the impacts of loneliness as they isolate and cannot see their love ones, particularly older Australians. I know from my personal experience how hard my mother is finding not being able to hug us, not being able to see her grandchildren or great grandchildren. Many people are quite rightly worried about their futures. The mental health impacts of this pandemic are also likely to continue for some time throughout the recovery period as people get back on their feet, so it's not just this particular period.

We recognise and thank the government and the Minister for Health for the additional resources that have been provided to address peoples' mental health and mental ill health, and also recognise the importance of the appointment of the new deputy CMO for mental health. We look forward to seeing the outcomes from National Cabinet, I understand later this week, on its deliberations on the national mental health pandemic response plan, a very important plan that will lead our further mental health response and the way forward.

Having said that, there are still things that we need to be doing. We must ensure that all Australians have access to the mental health supports they need when they need them. I am concerned that some people still are unable to access those services and I'll explain why. Introducing the MBS items for telehealth psychology sessions has provided some immediate relief and is very much appreciated but it doesn't replace face-to-face experiences with a psychologist. I know from the Senate inquiry we had into rural and regional mental health experiences that a number of people expressed very strong support for telehealth for mental health support but others found it was only part of the supports that they needed. I am concerned, having heard reports from a number of people, for those on low incomes who are now finding it difficult to be able to afford to pay the gap in fees for their psychology sessions. This is particularly the case since the bulk-billing rules were changed We need some level of transparency around bulk-billing services and, in particular, people need to know where they can access bulk-billed psychology sessions.

I also think it is time we reviewed the Better Access Initiative. Throughout this pandemic, many people are experiencing relapses in their mental ill health or their symptoms have been amplified due to the stresses of the current situation. For people with moderate or severe mental health conditions, 10 sessions under Better Access is simply not enough, so we think it's time to look at that situation. I've had it proposed to me that, in fact, we may look at a tiered system which provides additional sessions for people with more complex mental health conditions. I would like to strongly suggest that the government looks at that tiered approach, because I know that there are a number of people supporting that approach. That sort of approach will provide security for both the individual and their mental healthcare provider.

We've heard just in recent days the modelling which suggests that there may be a 50 per cent increase in the number of people taking their own lives. This is directly related to the stresses of the pandemic and the recovery period. Last week, Professor Pat McGorry—I know every single member of this place would be well aware of the excellent work of Professor McGorry—called on the government to provide much quicker access to the data on suicide and suicide attempts. I strongly support this call and in fact raised it with the Department of Health this morning in the latest hearing of the COVID committee inquiry. The department answered that they are going to be looking at it. We're keen to see this issue progressed, and we're going to be discussing it further next week. An issue that was raised during the Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs inquiry into the prevention of suicide a large number of years ago now was the need for better access and better understanding of the numbers in more real time. So I very strongly support Professor McGorry's call and look forward to seeing this matter progressed. If we are going to address this issue, we need a much better understanding of where this is occurring and address the causes.

We know that we are going to come out of this pandemic with high levels of unemployment. This will create immense insecurity for individuals and families, placing further pressure on them and, of course, on their mental health also. We must ensure unemployed peoples' mental health is looked after during this difficult period in their lives as they try and find work. Programs such as the individual placement and support trial at headspace have shown very good success in providing mental health care with career guidance and counselling. Now is the time to be looking at expanding these sorts of programs much more significantly across the country and to start providing them to adults as well. Having seen the benefits, I think adults would benefit from them. At the moment the trials, being through headspace, are focused on young people.

It's important that we also make sure we're looking after older people and their longer term prospects. I know, having heard from a number of older people, as I hold the older Australians portfolio for the Australian Greens, that older Australians are worried about their employment prospects. We know from the unemployment figures prior to the pandemic that older workers are remaining on income support for much longer periods and, unfortunately, figure very predominantly in the number of those that have been on unemployment benefits for the long term. So we need to make sure that we have very good mental health supports in place for older Australians as well.

I can't help but note that one of the ways that we will be able to support people most effectively as we come out of this period and move into the recovery period is to make sure that they are adequately supported in their mental health supports, their health supports and also income support. That is why I'm so strongly pursuing the issue of the increase in the jobseeker payment—so that people aren't as financially stressed as they would be if they weren't getting that support.

I too would like to thank everybody who has been involved in addressing the pandemic, particularly frontline workers. We know that they have been working day in and day out and putting their own lives at risk—and, I would also note, putting their families' health at risk. It's very important that we make sure that we call out our support for them whenever we can. I also note that yesterday was International Nurses Day. Being the niece of a nurse and having watched her through her career, I know that they do absolutely vital work. Also, having had a lot of contact with nurses through this process, I know they are absolutely doing vital work. So I give call out for them on the day after International Nurses Day. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I seek leave to lodge a late notice of motion in the name of Senator Gallagher for tomorrow's general business.

Leave granted.

The President has received a letter requesting changes to the membership of a committee.

by leave—I move:

That senators be discharged and appointed to committees as follows:

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee

Discharged—Senator Watt

Participating member: Senator Green

Appointed—Senator Green

Participating member: Senator Watt.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Security Controlled Airports) Regulations 2019, made under the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, be disallowed.

It's worthwhile understanding a little bit of history as to why this disallowance has been lodged. In response to an Inspector-General of Transport Security report, the government announced back in May 2018 an intention to upgrade security at regional airports. All senators and most Australians would be familiar with the sort of equipment that would be installed in these airports—body scanners, luggage screening equipment and so forth. They also announced a $50 million grant fund to cover the capital costs of the equipment across more than 50 airports. All good so far.

I'll just park that there and go back a couple of years to a Senate committee that was running in parallel to all of this, inquiring into the operation, regulation and funding of air route delivery to rural, regional and remote communities. I have to pay considerable applause to the senators involved in that inquiry. Senator Barry O'Sullivan was on that committee, as was Senator Glenn Sterle, who played a big part in that inquiry. I also sat on that committee. During that committee inquiry we were made overtly aware of this particular plan and a number of holes that were in the plan—holes in the execution of it.

The first hole was a shortfall in funding for some of these regional airports. I will talk about Whyalla on a couple of occasions tonight but Whyalla airport is a good example. If you want to install equipment into Whyalla airport, firstly, you've got to have a big enough terminal, and Whyalla airport is not that big. It's particularly important if you want to have both screened and non-screened flights. It requires a larger terminal so that you can have a cleared area and a screened area. Certainly, the funding that was made available didn't contemplate that. I will acknowledge that the government has moved, in terms of ground, to help out some airports with terminal modifications.

Perhaps the biggest problem was the fact that there was no funding to cover the operational expenses, the operational costs. The interesting thing, and the committee basically revealed that, was that there were no studies done. Someone inside Home Affairs looked into the security issue and made a decision—and I'm sure there are good reasons for those decisions and the committee were briefed, to a certain extent, in relation to those reasons—but no-one looked at the problem holistically. No-one looked and said, 'What effect does this have?' There was no RIS carried out either, which makes me wonder whether or not the Office of Best Practice Regulation is doing its job properly.

We now know that the cost is well over $1 million each year to run Whyalla, which is a doubling of the operational costs for the airport per annum. There were no studies done. As a result—and this was the good work of the committee; once again, former Senator Barry O'Sullivan played a big part in this—we impressed upon the department of transport that they had to do some case studies, and off they went to do some case studies. To conclude, and it's really important in the context of this disallowance, what the inquiry found—and it won't come as a surprise to anyone who's gone anywhere near the bush—is that airfares to regional and remote communities are high.

The other factor we need to take into consideration is that regional air routes are the lifeblood of regional communities. They're the way in which we get medical services to the bush. They're the way in which we get medical services to regional centres. They're the way in which people in regional centres hook up with education services. They're the way businesses and agriculture connect with suppliers in the cities. Indeed, they're the way in which families make connections with people in the cities.

The committee found that you can have a situation where a doctor ends up getting frustrated about not being able to get back to Adelaide or Brisbane or Perth on a regular basis, because of the expense—and it is hugely expensive for people in the bush to get their families to the cities—and they leave. When a doctor leaves, suddenly three teachers decide to pack up and go because they don't want to live in a town where there's no doctor. We know, right across this country, there are problems in relation to doctors being available in regional communities. So it is really important that we make sure air services are maintained to these regional centres.

We took evidence from Qantas, Rex and Virgin, but, with my focus on South Australia, Qantas made it very clear that there's not a lot of margin on each seat. You increase the fare by just a little bit and suddenly there's no profit for the airline. Rex was very prescriptive about it. They said that they operate at $10 per seat; evidence to the RRAT committee last week made that clear. That's what they make for every seat, for every flight, if averaged over a year.

If you impose a charge upon a local council, because that's who mostly operates these airports, they pass that on by way of landing costs to the airline and the airline passes it on to the passenger. When the airfare goes up, particularly in some of these remote areas, the competition to the airline is not necessarily between Qantas and Rex but between Rex and the road. People take to the road. That causes a number of problems, in terms of safety and people being tired. Someone who needs to get to a medical appointment might need to drive seven or eight hours to get to that appointment. It creates a more dangerous situation. I'm not making this up. I believe the airlines. Just over the last four or five months in South Australia, and this is before COVID, we saw Rex pulling services out of Mount Gambier. We saw Rex announcing that it was leaving Kangaroo Island. We've seen the cessation of flights to Port Augusta.

We have to look beyond our capital cities. The people in the bush are fantastic and they're doing a whole range of stuff to supply us with food, fabrics, all that sort of stuff. They're really important, and we cannot continue to just lump costs upon them. We cannot continue to make things harder for them.

I'll go to the study that resulted from the pressure that came from the 2018 RRAT committee inquiry. There have been transport department case studies done. The first of the two I've focused on, and this won't surprise you, is Whyalla. The airfares in Whyalla will go up by $52 per passenger. These are not my numbers; these are the department of transport's numbers. This is already on top of the very expensive fares that the RRAT committee heard about last week—that it's cheaper to fly from Adelaide to Bali than it is to fly from Adelaide to Whyalla. That is the evidence the committee received. That's an unacceptable proposition. If this regulation is allowed to continue, we will see services from Whyalla dropped—no question. Just as people like Sanjeev Gupta are trying to put their foot on the accelerator there, we'll have the government putting on the handbrake.

We also took evidence from Armidale last week. I asked the CEO: 'What's the increase in ticket prices as a result of the security screening?' He said: 'I'm not really sure, Senator.' Then we took evidence from Fly Corporate, who fly into Armidale. They made it very clear that the air route most at risk in that little network was in fact Armidale to Brisbane. They said: 'It'll be on the rocks.'

But now we have COVID-19 and the aviation industry has been completely turned upside down. One of the two major carriers in this country has gone into administration. And we are having to prop up Qantas, Rex and other carriers to make sure we at least have some limited services going into our regional centres. I compliment the government on their response in relation to COVID-19. However, there is no question that what's going on here is unfair to people who live in the regions. And it will harm them; it will be devastating for them; they will lose services. This is just another example of chipping away at regional areas. At the end of it, we will look back and say that a bunch of bureaucrats made these decisions without proper consideration as to the effect—people who clearly don't get outside of the territorial limits of Canberra.

I want to make it very clear that my seeking disallowance of this regulation is not about airport security; I support airport security. It's about sharing costs; it's about being fair about how we distribute costs. People in the regions are paying for security but the threat is most likely in the city where they arrive. So we've got people in the regions putting their hands in their pocket to pay extremely high airfares, and they are doing so in the interests of the people in the cities. This is a national security requirement; it should not be a local council cost; it should be looked at nationally.

I acknowledge that there are a number of people in this place who have helped to examine this. Senator Sterle and Senator McDonald, the chair of the RRAT committee, have done a good job in teasing out all of these issues. We are well aware of what's going to happen here. We need to protect people in the regions, we need to stand up for people in the regions, so I ask senators to vote for my disallowance motion.

A sustainable and vibrant regional aviation industry is essential to move our people and our products from the regions to capital cities and the world. Senator Patrick, you've laid on the table a lot of the issues with the Australian regional aviation industry currently and historically. The Nationals have been champions of regional aviation for decades. We have held the ministry. We have built and developed this industry. We have opened up regional Australia so that people can head off to essential services and to visit family, and also so that our products can get to the markets of the world and the professional service industries can make their way into the regions. And, increasingly, we've been able to develop a very healthy regional tourism industry on the back of our regional aviation industry, and that has meant a lot of local jobs. It's not just our ministers who have driven that; it is our National Party senators in this place; it was the former chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee in this place, Senator O'Sullivan. He was a significant champion for the regional aviation industry, as was Senator Williams, from New South Wales, and as is the current chair and great champion for regional aviation Senator McDonald.

Ensuring the safety of the broader Australian community means that we do need to implement appropriate security measures at domestic airports right across the country, and that includes airports in regional communities. But make no mistake: as the Australian community is the beneficiary of that infrastructure, so too should the entire Australian domestic air travel industry pay for that infrastructure. The Nationals Senate team is not supporting the disallowance motion as we welcome moves by the government this week to ensure costs incurred by regional airports to implement improved security screening measures will not be passed on unfairly to regional travellers. The Nationals in the Senate negotiated a positive outcome with the government to ensure travellers do not face disproportionate cost increases, particularly at a time when regional aviation is reeling from the consequences of COVID-19.

I'd like to thank the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development—our own leader, Michael McCormack—for ensuring this happens. As Nationals, we won't take a backward step in standing up for our communities, because that is exactly why they sent each and every one of these senators here: to stand up and negotiate a positive outcome for our communities, which is what we've been able to achieve.

When travel restrictions are lifted we want people to visit the regions. We don't want costs to replace COVID as an impediment to those visits. We support security screening, but right now regional tourism is stagnant and we need to kickstart it again. Adding costs to regional air travel is the wrong thing to do in a post-COVID-19 environment.

This builds on our existing commitments. The Nationals applaud our government's commitment to regional aviation—particularly, in light of the pandemic, agreeing to operation costs for the foreseeable COVID pandemic period for those regional airports. Despite the pandemic, a minimum domestic network servicing—the most critical metropolitan and regional routes in Australia—continues to operate, and that's thanks to the investment by our government. Underwriting the cost of the network comes in addition to more than $1 billion of federal government support for our Australian aviation industry. The network includes all state and territory capital cities and major regional centres such as Albury, Alice Springs, Coffs Harbour, Dubbo, Kalgoorlie, Mildura, Port Lincoln, Rockhampton, Tamworth, Townsville and Wagga Wagga. Our support is delivering affordable access for passengers who must travel, including our essential workers such as frontline medical personnel and Defence personnel. Our action is also supporting essential freight such as critical medicine and personal protective equipment. And all this complements the actions the federal Liberal and National government has already taken to underwrite international flights to get Australians home during this very, very difficult time.

The Nationals in the Senate won't take a backward step in standing up for rural Australia. We look forward to the measures from our government that will ensure that Australians both are safe as they travel and can afford to head out to the regions for work or for fun. And I am very much looking forward to the contribution from a champion of our regional aviation industry and chair of our RRAT committee in this place, Senator McDonald, because she has been intimately involved in the hearings and this investigation since she's arrived.

Labor supports regional security upgrades at our airports. We think our regional airports should have proper security in place. What we think should also happen is that a government should implement those regional airport security upgrades in a way that is not ham-fisted, does not punish regional communities and does not put the future of regional airlines or regional airports into doubt, but that is exactly what is happening under this government's plan to upgrade security at regional airports.

We have heard testimony in this Senate that Whyalla Airport probably can't survive if this government persists with its regional security upgrades in the way they've designed it. We have heard evidence in this place that Rex Airlines think that several of their routes will not be economically viable if the government persist with the program they have started to upgrade regional airport security. We have heard evidence in this place that Armidale Airport says that this Liberal-National government's program of upgrades at regional airports will definitely hurt regional airports.

It is all well and good for the Nationals to come in here and say that they want these costs shared across the entire country, not foisted onto regional airlines and airports, regional councils and regional airline passengers. It's all well and good for the Nationals to say that's what they want, but it is exactly what this Liberal-National government is doing. Make no mistake: if the government, this Liberal-National government, proceeds as it has started—if it does not change the design, the implementation and the cost structure of these security upgrades at regional airports—we will see regional airports in this country close, we will see regional airline routes shut down and we will see regional people paying more to take a flight. That is simply what's going to happen. It is simply the outcome of the government's ham-fisted, short-sighted, 'shove everything onto the regions and let them bear the cost' approach to upgrading airport security in regional communities.

Liberal Senator Rennick went to these hearings. He called for what Senator McKenzie says she wanted. He called for the cost to be shared across all of Australia and not just foisted onto regional communities. Senator McKenzie says she wants it. You know what? I want it. I agree with Senator McKenzie—there has got to be a better way than what this Liberal-National government is delivering. The difference between me and Senator Rennick, and the difference between me and Senator McKenzie, is they are in government. You are in government. You could fix this. Don't just come into the Senate, don't just come into—

Senator McKenzie interjecting—

Oh, she says she is. Well, then, why couldn't the Department of Home Affairs—she stands in here and praises the Minister for Home Affairs in the other place, Minister Dutton—answer the most basic questions in front of the RRAT committee? They could not. They would not commit to the type of cost structure that Senator Rennick proposed. They disregarded it. So it's all well and good for Liberal and National senators to come in here and say, 'Here in Canberra, rah, rah, we're for the regions,' but they fail to deliver any actual change in the government's implementation, definitions, requirements or, indeed, cost recovery for these regional airport security upgrades.

The government can fix this. What will not fix this is Senator Patrick's disallowance motion. I think Senator Patrick has good intentions in his heart. I think his motives are pure. But I think he's using the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a walnut here. I think that Senator Patrick's motion would send the wrong message to the community, because it would actually cancel the security upgrades at regional airports. It would actually do away with them. It would mean that four of our airports, three of them in Senator Patrick's own home state, would no longer have a security upgrade in train.

Senator Patrick interjecting—

Senator Patrick is interjecting on me here. He's had his go. He's had his 15 minutes of fame on this. But I regretfully say to you, Senator Patrick: while I think your motives are pure, your method is not—I won't say that it's mad; it's just not one that we support.

So Labor will not be supporting this disallowance motion. This is the government's problem to fix. Regional Australia have a problem. The government is the threat to their ability to access affordable flights or indeed to have an airport in the community at all, and it is up to the government, this Liberal-National government, to fix it.

I rise to speak on the disallowance motion relating to the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Security Controlled Airports) Regulations 2019. Unlike Labor, the National Party know where the regions are and we fight for the regions every day. We don't just talk about it; we deliver, and that's what we've done tonight.

I'd like to start by affirming my support for the minister's actions in taking these additional steps to secure passenger security. Last week I chaired the Regional and Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee hearing into the introduction of additional security measures to regional airports. These security changes were proposed on the basis of a recommendation arising from a report of the Inspector of Transport Security, ITS, titled Review into security at Australia's security regulated airports. This report contains information that is protected under the Inspector of Transport Security Act 2006. Protected information under this act includes information or documents obtained or generated in the course of exercising powers or performing functions under the ITS Act. The release of the ITS report would have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of the Department of Home Affairs, and the inspector recommended that this report not be made public.

But, sadly, the world is now a place where airport security is an important element for our national security and, most importantly, for our safety, and we rely on the evidence and the advice of experts like the ITS to provide the most up-to-date advice to ensure our airways remain the important connection between regions and cities and that they remain safe. Labor spent a considerable amount of time going over and over a line of questioning over this confidential advice, which was a real distraction from the most important issue, which is: who pays for us to enjoy the national umbrella of safety?

The decisions taken by the Minister for Home Affairs in this regard are important, and I doubt that anyone of any intelligence would question the outcome of greater security utilising the best available technology. I, like every National Party member, undertook to come to this place to represent the people who live in the very places where aviation was born in Australia and to respond to the potential impacts of security charges on regional aviation. The current security measures generally in place at most airports in Australia are as a result of the tragedy of September 11, and the responsibility for ensuring these measures rests with each airport, which is designated as the screening authority charged with operating the security functions. This includes the cost of the procurement and maintenance of capital equipment and also the cost of the screening personnel. These costs are typically recovered via a per passenger charge that is collected by the airlines on each ticket sold and passed back to the airports.

Regional aviation is critical to the success of regional Australia. It allows people to stay connected to their broader communities, to their families, sporting events and holidays, to businesses and to tourism. The ability to fly from Brisbane to Charleville meant I didn't have to drive eight hours in the middle of summer, at six months pregnant, for a much-loved cousin's wedding at Tambo which otherwise I could not have attended. Flights also give people easy access to the Stockman's Hall of Fame at Longreach and the Australian Age of Dinosaurs museum near Winton. Longreach holds the nation's soul in its dusty streets, and the Qantas museum, the Stockman's Hall of Fame and Cooper Creek sunset tours are all must-do tourist activities. And just two hours up the road Winton has a world-registered dark sky sanctuary, where stargazers congregate for crystal-clear views of the heavens. The town also has the Waltzing Matilda Centre and the Australian Age of Dinosaurs museum, where it is impossible not to be infected with museum founder David Elliott's enthusiasm for Australia's prehistoric past, when monsters roamed the outback.

But to give you some perspective: Winton is 500 kilometres from Townsville, 760 kilometres from Rockhampton and nearly 1,200 kilometres from Brisbane. Driving there through the outback is a special event, but many people are denied the opportunity to visit these towns. I hear city based friends talking of mini-breaks. They have the luxury of jumping on a cheap flight to another capital city for a weekend away. The low cost and high frequency of city-to-city flights is completely unimaginable for regionally based Queenslanders. Mount Isa, Roma, Emerald and Rockhampton are all regional centres that value commercial flights so highly. Miners and boarding school kids fill and empty these airports with well-practised ease. High-vis clothes, hard hats and Western hats mix together as miners arrive and depart, and country kids come home from boarding schools excited and leave glassy eyed with emotion. Last time I left Mackay airport, a lady needed a hand. She was travelling to Brisbane for cancer treatment. She was alone. She had no family to get her there or to meet her, but air travel allowed her to get to the specialist 11 hours drive away. In Mount Isa a family considers whether to travel to Townsville to watch their beloved North Queensland Cowboys play. They could drive 10 hours each way but often opt to fork out $500 each to fly, and that's if they're lucky, because surge pricing around Cowboys games can push the costs up significantly. Christmas holidays can feel not very Christmassy at all. Usually, I can fly with the kids for about $300 one way, but last year, on 13 December, I was caught out when airfares skyrocketed to $900 per person one way. Fortunately, it was not an unplanned trip for a funeral or a family emergency or even for a business emergency requiring expert help to be flown to a regional area, which adds significant costs to any regional business. Hopefully, this is painting a picture for you of an essential industry for the many people who live and work in regional Australia, where the tyranny of distance has such a huge effect and where price fluctuations due to airline policies, privatised airports and government regulation make the necessity of air travel horribly expensive for tourists, for families and for business.

When each of us come to this place we come with a sense of purpose, of who we fight for and who we represent. We know the places we come from and the things that are so important to our communities and our people, because people matter. In my maiden speech only last year I spoke about the chasm between city and country, between the people who generate the great wealth of this nation in agriculture, mining and tourism and the cities, where we all seem to need to get to.

One of the silver linings of this corona crisis is the realisation of what we can now do with technology. Remote working, online education, telemedicine, wi-fi notifications and verifications from mobile phones have all come forward at a pace that would not have been imaginable without the urgency of a pandemic. But one of the things we have not been able to solve is how to move ourselves one place to another in a way that is both affordable and safe. It costs 86c for each person to be processed through security in Sydney but more than $30 per person in a regional centre. At Townsville airport this charge is presently $2.71 per departing and arriving passenger and in Mount Isa it's $6.22. Industry is very mindful that these costs are an impost on travel, especially for smaller regional airports, where the costs are typically higher due to low economies of scale. Remember that these are all numbers generated on pre-COVID modelling and numbers.

From January 2021, body scanners and advanced CT X-ray scanning equipment will be introduced at many airports, including Townsville. This will require major redevelopment works. While the federal government has provided funding for the works, airports will have to factor in the increased cost, which will eventually be borne by air travellers. Practically speaking, I understand that the cost of screening would have been invoiced as a lump sum to each airline, who in turn would have claimed it back from the federal government. It is an arrangement that had industry support, but it seems to me, as it seems to my National Party colleagues, that these are all variations on the cost to deliver a single nationwide security network. A nationwide security network allows for a single price to be charged across the nation to cover the great throughput in Sydney and the much less frequent travellers regionally. If we require a nationwide solution then it goes without saying that a nationwide price is the answer.

Costs such as these do not seem significant, but as a retailer in my previous life I know how pricing changes can make the sale of a certain item vary considerably. It does not take a huge increase in costs to push a product out of the reach of average consumers, and in regional areas this can be a factor in stopping a young family moving out there to take one of the many well-paying and stable jobs that so desperately need to be filled.

As I considered these changes, I was forced to study the two incredibly important issues of national security and the costs of living in regional Australia in the one instrument. I support the Minister for Home Affairs in his decisions around where and how security screening is carried out. I believe with every fibre of my being that, as a nation, we cannot accept differential pricing to be loaded onto regional communities to achieve the nation's outcomes. I sincerely thank the minister for his work in reconsidering these costs in this regard.

As we move through this coronavirus crisis and international travel remains somewhere in the distant future, the success and availability of domestic travel will be critical to rebuilding tourism in this nation. I expect that state tourism bodies across the land are currently pitching marketing ideas to lure Australians to Cable Beach in Broome, to the Australian Age of Dinosaurs Museum at Winton, to Whyalla, to Roma's Easter in the Country Festival and to Mindil Beach Sunset Markets in Darwin. Now is a critical time to be ensuring that regional Australians get a fair go—a fair go to attract Australians to see the very best that we have at a price they can afford and in the safe environment that they expect. Again, I want to acknowledge my National Party colleagues for their incredible determination to stand with me to negotiate a better deal for regional airports.

I'm rising today to convey the Greens' support for this disallowance of these regulations, the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Security Controlled Airports) Regulations 2019. In considering whether the Greens were going to support the disallowance of these regulations, I basically was taking three issues into consideration. One: will these regulations actually make aviation and air travel safer? Two: if they do, then what are the costs of doing so and, as the debate tonight has already touched upon, who pays for those costs? Three: are these regulations—these new security arrangements, this solution that has now been quite a long time in the making—and the costs that they are going to impose upon regional airports fit for purpose in this new era that we are now in? It is absolutely certain that, in this COVID-19 era—and I actually won't say post-COVID, because I think it's going to be around for a long time—aviation is going to be very different. We are not going to be going back to as it was before.

Underlying all of this is—as it sounds like there is unanimous agreement across this chamber—that aviation is of fundamental importance, connecting regional communities with each other and connecting regional communities with the capital cities. It is critical for people who live, work and visit regional communities to have safe, efficient and affordable air travel. It's something that those of us who live in the cities take for granted—that we can travel affordably to other parts of our country. But I know that it's not something that can happen. The quote that Senator Patrick told us, of it being cheaper to get to Bali from Adelaide than it is to get to Whyalla, underlines the craziness and how the cost of aviation across this country is not fairly apportioned.

Going back to my three points on deciding whether we were going to support this disallowance: firstly, will these new security regulations actually make air travel safer? I certainly think having better screening at airports is great. You would think it is likely to make air travel from any airport that has these new screening procedures safer than it was before. But there are still regional airports around Australia that aren't going to have any screening. There are still airports where, because of the small throughput of passengers, the decision has been made that it's just not worth the cost impost to be putting this screening in. The passenger load is not high enough and the risk is considered to be low enough. But that raises the question: if you're actually trying to do damage and do harm, and you know which airports have screening, why wouldn't you actually go and board a plane from one of the airports that hasn't got screening?

The whole notion that putting in increased security at particular airports is going to make aviation safer overall is questionable. If we had a model that said, 'Yes, we are having screening at absolutely every airport,' then you could say, 'Yes, that is definitively going to make aviation safer.' In all of the considerations through committees—the RRAT committee and the various inquiries in which we've been talking about this—I am yet to be convinced and yet to see a watertight case that these new security measures are definitively going to make aviation that much safer.

Secondly, let's put that aside and say, 'Yes, it definitely will be safer.' Then what are the costs of doing so and who should pay for those costs? A risk assessment is made. When aircraft that carry over 40 passengers go through airports, those airports will have to have these security measures in place. We've heard that it's going to cost a million dollars a year in Whyalla. We've heard from Senator Davey that it will cost $30 per person in regional airports. There is a cost to doing so. What I had not heard until I heard it in this chamber in the last half an hour is how these costs are going to be apportioned fairly. Up until now, it has been said that the owners of the airports, which are usually local governments, are going to have to pay for these costs. And then those costs are going to be passed on to the travelling public, making already unaffordable regional air travel even less affordable.

I'm very interested to hear the contributions from our Nationals senators about what they have negotiated. I actually want to hear the announcement. Come on, tell us! What is the nationwide solution? What is the nationwide price that has been negotiated? What has been negotiated to show that regional Australians won't face disproportionate cost increases and that these costs won't be passed on unfairly? This is in an entirely new context in which we are considering this disallowance motion today. If they were really wanting to get all of this chamber to not support this disallowance, all of the information should have been put on the table. We should have heard an announcement from the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister standing side by side today to say how the new cost arrangements were going to occur. I'm sure Senator Patrick might have considered withdrawing his disallowance motion. But we haven't heard that, so we just have to take it on trust, on faith, that somehow the Nationals have negotiated a better deal. I want to see that better deal, otherwise these new regulations are going to put an unjustifiable, huge cost impost on regional Australia. It will undermine the wonderful regional tourism attractions, the regional economic incentives and the desire to decentralise.

That brings me to my third point. In the hearing that the RRAT committee had last week we asked (a) if they have modelled what the cost is and (b) if they have modelled what the cost is in the COVID-19 environment. But it hasn't been done. Exactly what the economic impact of these extra costs is going to be has not been modelled. It certainly hasn't been modelled looking at it in the environment we are now going to be in. We know that aviation is not going to be the same as it was before. There's not going to be a quick snap back for aviation, with everybody flying again. Travelling regionally, nationally, internationally—there is a lot of shaking down to be done. It's going to be a whole new world we're looking at. Have they done the work on what the impact of these costs in this new, post-COVID-19 environment is going to be? No, they haven't; they haven't done that work. Given that, it seems to me that the only responsible thing to do is to not impose these extra costs on regional Australia. I would be very happy to see these regulations disallowed and then for the government to realise, 'Okay, we're going to have to think through this a bit more thoroughly and work out how to get these changes—how to make air travel safer, how to make air travel more affordable for people right across our country—in a more equitable way,' and that's the work that has not been done so far. That's the work that the Greens want to see being done to actually work out what is the future for aviation in Australia in a post-COVID environment. How do we apportion the costs fairly across the whole community? In the meantime, with that work not having been done, we are very happy to support disallowing these regulations.

The government does not support this motion. The Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Security Controlled Airports) Regulations 2019 deliver on recommendations made by the Inspector of Transport Security to enhance the safety of regional aviation.

I rise in my right of reply. I thank all senators for their contribution tonight. I am pleased to hear that there's a change in mood from the government in relation to this. What I heard the Nationals senators say is that there will be no cost throughout the COVID period for security—that's actually already been announced—but that they will move to a model where there is nondifferential pricing right across Australia. If you go back to my recommendations in the original Senate inquiry that we did in the last parliament, you'll find exactly that recommendation in there, where we looked at airport security from a national perspective. I'll just make the observation, because I would like this put to a vote, that politics is about positioning. It's not about policy; it's about positioning for the right policies. I think work across the last month or so, as this motion's vote came to a final point, has forced the government to do something. I think all in the chamber can take some credit for forcing a change. I will move the disallowance and ask that it be voted upon. I accept that there is an offer of future change that appears to be on the table, but the government will have to follow through with that.

Question negatived.

by leave—Acting Deputy President, under the standing orders, I ask that the Greens be recorded as supporting the disallowance.

It is so noted.

(Quorum formed)

After two months of restrictions, which have presented the biggest challenges to our social structures and our economy since World War II, it's understandable that getting back to normal, to the way things were before COVID-19, is the immediate aim for many. However, we must acknowledge that COVID-19 will change the economy and the way we live permanently, and, as a nation, we must look for the opportunity in these changes. If we don't seize the opportunity, other nations will, and we will find ourselves less resilient and less competitive.

I am proud that our Prime Minister and our government have stood firm in the face of recent inflammatory comments from the Chinese ambassador threatening economic consequences because Australia has made the obvious and commonsense point that the origins of the coronavirus must be independently investigated. This virus has killed hundreds of thousands of people worldwide and devastated our global economy. An investigation into its origins is a necessary and sensible step to enable the world to prevent future pandemics. We should never reach the point as a nation where we're not able to speak freely about what is right and what is in the global interest, or where we give in to unreasonable demands and threats of economic payback.

In an age of globalisation, the current crisis has brought home how important it is for us to be as self-sufficient as possible in the goods and services that we need and that we produce. A nation which can supply itself with food, energy, medicine, timber, steel and manufactured goods is in a much better position to face future global crises than one which cannot. In the areas where we do not have the current capability to produce for ourselves such things as medicines or transportation fuel, the old assumption that we can rely on international imports must be challenged. Challenging these assumptions creates an opportunity for Australia to consider how we can grow these industries locally, both creating jobs here and shoring up our local and national supply chains.

In the area of food production, in an overall sense, Australia produces much more food than we consume, and this provides us with excellent opportunities to export our produce. But it does not escape attention that Australia still imports hundreds of millions of dollars worth of fruit and vegetables from other countries each year. Growing the capacity of our agricultural industries to produce that which we are currently importing is another opportunity to employ more Australians and grow our economy. The work currently being done on new irrigation schemes in Tasmania, enabled by hundreds of millions of dollars in joint investment between the coalition government and the Tasmanian Liberal government, is a great example of how we can further support growth in our agricultural sector.

Australia is, of course, a trading nation, and much of our wealth is created from selling to the world—and that won't change. But that shouldn't mean that we accept that, just because a product can be imported from overseas, we needn't produce it here. We will continue to create high-quality products and we will continue to create jobs by making these products available to the world. But we won't trade them for our right to stand up for our national interests and our national sovereignty against foreign threats.

Australia must also recalibrate its thinking on how we attract and encourage new business and industry. The effort that is put into opposing new businesses and trying to bring down industries that employ tens of thousands of Australians is frankly obscene. Of course, we're a democracy and everybody should be able to freely speak and put their views forward. But this doesn't mean that vocal minorities should be able to prevent, delay, hold up and deter businesses that have a legal right to operate. In Tasmania, we are all too familiar with the efforts of this minority to oppose any major industry or development. They oppose fish farming, forestry, tourism, mining, urban development, heavy industry, energy developments, including wind farms—the list is endless—and the message that is sent to people who want to start a business is disastrous for Tasmanians, who just want to be able to have good jobs so that they can provide for their families.

The laws and bureaucracies in this country give far too many weapons to these minorities to hold up and prevent major projects. If we are going to bounce back strongly from coronavirus, every jurisdiction should be looking at whether their laws are enabling investment or empowering minority groups to prevent major projects and job creation. If it is the latter, those laws must be changed.

I'd like to put on the Senate record that the Northern Territory government certainly took decisive action at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. That has undoubtedly saved lives and will hopefully allow for sustained economic repair. So far, in the Northern Territory we have had only 30 cases of the virus and, thankfully, no deaths. But, as we keep saying, we must remain vigilant. It is certainly an important position for the Northern Territory, in particular, as we're concerned about our vulnerable population, in terms of First Nations people and our elderly. In the Northern Territory, Aboriginal people are often overrepresented in the health system, but it's a different story for COVID-19, with official data indicating that, to date, no First Nations people in the Northern Territory have been affected by coronavirus. Naturally, like everyone, we certainly want to make sure it stays that way.

At the very beginning of the response to the pandemic, back in March the Northern Territory government put in place a funded return to country program that saw more than 1,400 people go back to country and stay on their homelands across the Northern Territory. Tangentyere Council, in Alice Springs, and the Larrakia Nation, in Darwin, put in an incredible effort over a very short space of time to get everyone back to country before community lockdowns were in place, on 26 March. It certainly hasn't been easy and there have been some bumps on the road, but the proof of the success is that we have not had one case of the virus in our communities. This is certainly down to the hard work of many, many organisations and government agencies, working together. The Northern Territory government has worked side-by-side with the federal coalition government to get this work done. Very early on in the piece, a regional and remote task force was established in the Northern Territory so that key stakeholders, including land councils, NTCOSS, NAAJA, LGANT and AMSANT, had the opportunity to directly inform policy decisions.

Our state and territory borders have also been locked down, with 13 biosecurity checkpoints across the Northern Territory. People coming into the Territory, whether by road or air, are required to undertake compulsory quarantine for two weeks in Northern Territory government nominated accommodation. It was certainly tough action, drastic action, but it is paying off. Nearly two weeks ago, on 1 May, we Territorians were able to enjoy our playgrounds, pools and parks and even go fishing and enjoy non-contact sports again. Outdoor religious gatherings were also permitted. All of these, of course, had strict hygiene measures and physical distancing in place. From Friday, 15 May, two days away, Territorians can once again return to restaurants and cafes, with a two-hour time limit, and they will be able to go back to the gyms. Our public libraries will be open and, yes, we will even be able to get our nails done—very important! On 5 June, all going well, all sports and competitions will return and there will be no time limits on bars or restaurants. Cinemas will reopen and most businesses that are able to will be operating again. If Minister Hunt and health advice concur, the biosecurity zones will be lifted internally. Remote community residents will be able to travel to the larger towns for shopping, family visits and appointments. Within Territory borders, we will be looking at certainly a different way of life.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented a range of challenges for the Northern Territory government, and they are certainly to be congratulated for their efforts to minimise the impact on Territorians. Vulnerable people have been kept safe and this terrible virus has hopefully been kept at bay. Once our borders open up again, we certainly welcome each and every one of you back to our wonderful part of the country. Certainly come and visit us once we do that.

What I'd like to say to the Senate, as we do on every occasion, is, whilst we put all these things on the record now, it is something that we have to remain strong about every day in terms of keeping this virus at bay, certainly not just in the Northern Territory but right across Australia. Indeed, our thoughts also go to those people around the world who are suffering terribly from this virus. I want to put on the record a very big thanks to all of those involved with keeping our country as safe as we possibly can.

In the last few weeks, there have been disturbing videos shared on social media channels showing queues of international students lining the streets of Sydney. These students are not lining up to wait for transport or go shopping. These students have been queuing to be given free food from restaurants and charities because they have no other way of eating. These are students who we welcomed into our country, many of whom are now facing nothing less than poverty, starvation and homelessness. Hundreds of international students have contacted my office over the last few weeks since they have been left destitute by the coalition government. There are over 550,000 overseas students currently studying in Australia, and every last one of them has been thoroughly let down by this government. None of them have access to the jobseeker payment, JobKeeper, youth allowance or the coronavirus supplement. Many have lost their jobs and incomes. Their families in their home countries are also suffering with the effects of the economic downturn due to COVID-19, as many countries are undergoing extensive shutdowns and lockdowns. Money that once would have been sent to Australia as family support is simply not coming.

I would like to take the opportunity tonight to share some of the stories and messages of international students and put them on record so the Senate is made fully aware of how exactly international students are hurting right now. These are direct quotes from emails sent to me. One student wrote: 'I have lost my job at a company here, where I have worked for about three months as a casual worker for 20 hours a week. With this, it was easy for me to pay my expenses here in Australia: food, rent and travel. Although our university fees come from our home country, now it has become very difficult for them to send me money for my expenses here as there is complete lockdown in India as well. This is the current situation of almost all international students.' Another wrote: 'Usually, my parents support me mentally and financially; nowadays they stop sending money because their business is totally shut down in Bangladesh due to COVID-19. As well I used to work in a restaurant to arrange my living expenses. Two weeks ago, I lost my job. I don't know how I will survive here. I thought I will get minimum support from workplace or government. Unfortunately I'm not getting any support from workplace and government.'

Another wrote: 'I have been doing face-to-face sales since August 2018, but, as of the crisis going in the world, my job has been cancelled as it falls under non-essential business. I have lost my job since two weeks and all my savings were gone a month back as I had to renew my visa and pay the university fees. I pray and hope the government will provide some kind of subsidy to the international students in this time of crisis.' Another wrote: 'With the current situation, we have to use up most to all of our savings, up to the point where some of us have started to sell our personal belongings just so that we can still have enough money to pay for all those necessities. I have seen some students actually have to come to local restaurants that provide free meals since they have been out of a job and are just barely surviving with the current savings they got.' And there is another and another and another. Hundreds of thousands of international students have been left out and left behind.

States and territories are, thankfully, now stepping up, as are universities and other education providers. But the reality is that the federal government has responsibility for higher education and has clearly dropped the ball here. The government must change its course on this, must come to the table and provide the support that international students so desperately need. It's not too late to extend much-needed financial assistance and income support. The welfare of hundreds of thousands of students is literally in their hands.

I would like to make a few remarks about the current situation in Australia. I've heard many of the contributions throughout the week, and I concur almost entirely with all of them. We are really lucky to be living in Australia. Through the enforced isolation and the many briefings we get at 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock every day, it's occurred to me that that we've been able to show a great deal of unanimity among our states and territories. Whilst there have clearly been diverging views about the way forward, the way the national cabinet has worked has been very comforting to the entire population. It makes you realise that what makes Australia so strong—apart from its great health system, its rule of law and its freedom of speech—is that the population get it when there is an emergency like this. They've accepted isolation. They've accepted the closure of schools, the closure of hotels and the loss of jobs. With very few exceptions, there has been no aberrant behaviour. Mystifyingly, people decided to overstock on toilet paper. But it didn't affect my household because we have a very efficient quartermaster who saw no need to restock the pantry—or we didn't run out! But it really does make you proud to be an Australian and live in this country.

Our first responders have been absolutely excellent. I have had some experience with the health system for the first time in my life recently, and I have never met more dedicated, professional and committed people than I met at every level in that system. We have true exemplars of decency and bravery and courage in that area. And that's backed up by the cleaners, the childcare workers, the teachers, the police, the firefighters and the transport workers—people who are very close to me—a lot of whom have not lost a day of work. A lot of them have been working harder than normal keeping the arterial roads of this country operating and moving vital cargo around the place. It does make you exceedingly proud to be an Australian. It shows that we are capable of getting together in times of need and working collectively.

The real challenge in this space is that we don't lose that ability in the next six months—because there is going to be a political contest. I will grudgingly give credit to all those Liberal leaders in the states and territories—it is probably only the states. They have done good work, along with Labor leaders. And the national cabinet has done good work. But this is now becoming more of an economic issue than a health issue—and, quite clearly, that is when we are going to start to fragment. But we shouldn't lose sight of what we achieved during the health crisis—and I dare say that we are over the curve of that. When we go on to deal with the economic crisis, we should capture the same spirit of genuine unity and a way forward that we've had in the health crisis. If we can distil that into some sort of spirit, Australia will be a much better place.

Our leader, Mr Albanese, is proposing a better, fairer and less fragmented workforce, a place where people don't do seven years as a part-timer or a casual; they may do a year as a part-timer or casual, but they aspire to a permanent job. That's the land I grew up in: you may have been a casual for six or 12 months but if you worked hard, attended work, took up the training and were loyal to your employer and your job, you eventually got permanent work. That's almost disappeared. Mother's Day lunch in my house—a 22-year-old; six years as a part-time casual at Coles. Six years! It's almost onto long-service leave, and still in part-time casual work. That's not the Australia we want to see for our children and grandchildren. I think we have to distil and capture the special spirit in this moment of time where we did work together to get a better outcome. It's going to be an economic argument, so it's going to be vigorous. It's going to be debated. We'll throw things at each other. But let's try to get unity about proper jobs for our children, grandchildren and people in the workforce and less insecure employment.

I thought I had seen everything, when it comes to the way this government treats our veterans, but today they have sunk to a whole new low. Teddy Sheean is an Australian hero. He deserves a Victoria Cross for his acts of bravery in World War II. I know it, his family knows it and the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal knows it.

Last year, the awards tribunal reviewed the recommendation in the 2013 Defence paper that Teddy Sheean should not be awarded a Victoria Cross. After days of public hearings, in Hobart, the tribunal found, 'Ordinary Seaman Edward Sheean meets the eligible criteria for the Victoria Cross for Australia.' Not only that, 'The tribunal finds that Sheean's acts surpass comparable acts that resulted in the award of the Imperial Victoria Cross.' They concluded that the Minister for Defence should 'recommend to the sovereign that Ordinary Seaman Edward Sheean be posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross for Australia'. That's what the independent tribunal thinks. They say that Teddy Sheean meets and exceeds the standard to receive a VC; he's deserving of this recognition. There is not one other VC holder out there that has done what Teddy Sheean has done. Not one. I will show the utmost respect to every VC holder, but they have not done what Sheean has done.

What does the government do? They ignore that recommendation. They decide to overrule it, because the Liberals know best, apparently. This afternoon, the Minister for Defence told this chamber:

… the government's view is that the 2019 review by the tribunal did not present any compelling new evidence that might support reconsideration of the valour inquiry's recommendation.

I am totally floored today. I'm in shock, like every other Tasmanian out there. That's just calling it for what it is. It's absolute cowardice. They cannot admit they overlooked Sheehan all this time. They can't show up here, hand on heart, and say in front of everyone, 'We messed this up, but we're going to fix it up.' No, they don't have the guts. They don't have the spine to do that. They just don't. They'd rather be stubborn, dig in their heels and deny the overdue recognition to a true bloody Australian hero—a true Australian hero.

If you haven't heard the story yet, let me tell you about Teddy. This is the person being denied full honours by the Australian government. Teddy was 18 years of age when he signed up to serve the Royal Australian Navy in World War II. Just a year later, in 1942, he was wounded during an attack from Japanese aircraft on HMAS Armidale. Rather than flee, he strapped himself in to his anti-aircraft canon and opened fire. I'd love to see the PM doing that one: 'Let's go!' That decision, to tie his fate to a gun sinking to the bottom of the ocean, brought down two planes and helped save the lives of 49 crew. Like I said, I have not seen one other VC winner in history do what this man has done.

He's left behind family and friends. According to the awards tribunal, 'His pre-eminent act of valour and most conspicuous gallantry saved lives. His heroism became the standard to which the men and women of the modern Navy aspire to.' It was an act of extraordinary courage, and it amazes me that this 18-year-old kid could show more bravery than the entire Australian government today. That is absolutely shameful. Let's be very clear about this. What more could Teddy have possibly done to take this award home? What more? He gave everything he had for his country and his fellow crew members. There is nothing more he could possibly have done. He did it all. But this government has always been so afraid of revisiting Sheean's case; they don't want to admit they've got it wrong in the past. They're scared they might open up a can of worms. They're scared they might set a precedent for some others that think they might deserve a VC!

Well, you show me someone else who saved over 40 lives and brought down two aircraft and tied themselves to a goddamn gun on a ship and went down with the ship. Find me somebody else who has that in their resume. Oh, please do. I'll tell you what: I'm not going away, and you are. I'll tell the defence minister now: she's going to own up to her mistakes. She has a lot of explaining to do, and there's still work to be done in this house. What I don't want to do in this house is another deal over a veteran, because deals shouldn't be done. That is just disrespectful.

Before I finish, I want to say this: thank you so much, Minister Guy Barnett, for all your effort. And to you, Gary Ivy: stay there; I haven't finished yet! (Time expired.)

The first step on the road to establishing the nation of Israel truly began at a meeting of the post-World War I Allied Supreme Council in San Remo, Italy, from 19 to 26 April 1920. During the First World War, the British government had committed to create a Jewish national home. The outcomes of the San Remo conference would enable this commitment to be met. The San Remo resolution passed on 25 April 1920, just over a hundred years ago. It's a significant date in the history of Israel: the founding of a homeland for the Jewish people. The outcomes of the San Remo conference were that: the northern half of what was called Syria, modern day Iran and Lebanon, was mandated to France; the southern half was mandated to Great Britain; and the province of Mesopotamia, modern day Iraq, was mandated to Great Britain. This complex arrangement was the first step that eventually led to the foundation of Israel. Subsequent to the San Remo conference in 1922, the League of Nations confirmed the mandate for British rule of Palestinian order to facilitate the creation of Israel, which came into effect in 1923.

Sadly, the intervening decades saw unfathomable harm and injustice brought upon the Jewish people. The crimes and atrocities of the Holocaust will forever be remembered to make sure they are not repeated. In the shadows of the Holocaust, the British government continued relentlessly on their path to establish a homeland for the Jewish people, a journey that formally had commenced in San Remo 2½ decades earlier. On 14 May 1948, the anniversary of which is tomorrow, the British withdrew from Haifa. Jewish Agency chairman David Ben-Gurion proclaimed at the Tel Aviv museum the establishment of the State of Israel and became its first premier. All of these milestones are based on the consensus reached by Western and Arab leaders during the San Remo conference. Both the US and the then USSR recognised the new State of Israel.

Since that time, we have seen this beacon of democracy flourish in the Middle East. It is a bastion for democracy and human rights, where freedom of speech, liberty and intellectual freedom has been abundant and revered. Israel is an important ally to Australia in many ways, and our bilateral cooperation, especially in innovation, security and defence, is of benefit to both of our nations. Australian defence officials began annual strategic talks with Israel in 2018, and in early 2019 Australia appointed a resident defence attache to the embassy in Tel Aviv. In 2018, Israel was Australia's 41st largest merchandise trading partner and the 50th largest export market. It's an important business and technological partner of Australia.

The opening in 2019 of an Australian trade and defence office in West Jerusalem was designed to facilitate trade investment and defence industry partnerships. Israel's economy has been growing continuously for the past 16 years, averaging 3.8 per cent GDP growth annually. It makes sense to have good trade and economic relationships with innovative and industrious nations like Israel. But, as we celebrate the modern-day achievements of our friend and ally and the many Australians who hold deep connections to Israel, it behoves us to understand their history and contemplate the adversity through which they have come, so that we can better support each other for a prosperous future.

Recognising the significance of the San Remo conference and 14 May 1948, the date the State of Israel was formed—an important world event that changed the course of human history forever—is my mission today. I want to acknowledge and recognise the significant contributions of the many Jewish people in Australia who hold in high regard the role of Israel as a force for good in the world.

I want to make a few comments about regional newspapers and the National Party. Over the course of the COVID-19 crisis 152 regional newspapers stopped printing. That's a third of Australia's regional newspapers gone. Many will never reopen. Antony Catalano from ACM said it would be pointless to reopen a newspaper if it weren't viable. These newspapers are the lifeblood of country towns. They have articles about sport and junior sport, achievements of kids at school, the work of the CWA, local theatres, local businesses, local government. They support the local community with local and national news. What is the National Party for if it's not there for rescuing local regional papers? Where is the package that secures the future of any of these local papers?

The Leader of the National Party in the House of Representatives, Mr McCormack, who couldn't fight his way out of a wet paper bag, so dry and monochromatic that he makes Warren Truss look like Liberace, has delivered nothing. He is a former newspaper editor—nothing. He did give Senator Canavan and Mr Barilaro and Mr Joyce a complete flogging last week over the Eden-Monaro preselection. It is a symbol of the decline of what passes for the modern National Party. We saw the spectacle of the National and Liberal parties disappearing up their own fundament last week over the course of the catastrophic, self-interested, venal activity around only one thing—whether John Barilaro or Andrew Constance could step up one more rung in their career ladders. The Liberal and National Party chaos on one side underlines that there's only one candidate focused on the needs of the people of Eden-Monaro—that's Kristy McBain. She was there in the bushfires, she's been there through the COVID-19 crisis, she's there as the mayor of Bega and she remains focused on the people of Eden-Monaro.

The National Party at the moment is really quite a show. Over the weekend Senator Canavan posted a photo of himself with his wife celebrating Mother's Day. His gift? He installed a clothesline. It's a risky choice—it's an even risker tweet—but I'm sure he had a good Mother's Day, and I wish him and his family all the best. What was interesting about the tweet—and Senator Canavan's tweets are always interesting, in the same way that falling down the stairs is always interesting—is that he pops on the high-vis to dig the hole in the backyard and he endorses his Australian-made clothesline. Well, Senator Canavan's high-vises are exclusively for media appearances. It's probably the first time he ever worked up a sweat in it. He has got the softest hands in Australian politics.

Of course, today Senator Canavan is passionate about Australian manufacturing. He's debated several hours of his podcast with Barnaby Joyce to the topic. Senator Canavan has recorded 13 of these podcasts with Mr Joyce, most of them with guests. He's had Senator Paterson and Senator Seselja. He's had the member for Dawson—Lord knows why!—twice. It is absolutely riveting listening. I can't listen to it. It's really too much for me. I make one of my staff endure it. It's called Weatherboard and Iron. I'm not sure which one of these jokers is Weatherboard and which one is Iron, but it puts the 'bored' into weatherboard. I'll have to adjust the pay of the young man who I force to listen to it. Senator Canavan is, however, yet to have a woman appear on the podcast. Women aren't part of the picture of regional Australia for these two galas. There are 13 episodes. It is very long. Unbearably, the minutes and seconds drag on. Like Kaftka, it is surreal, other-worldly. Like Chekhov, it's a story without an end. It's postmodern; it's post-fact; it's, frankly, weird. He is a recent convert, a former teenage Troskyite. He used to work at the Productivity Commission. Before that, he was the great friend of Australian workers. Before that he was at KPMG. He would only have worn a high-vis to visit a factory because he was part of closing the operation. Matt Canavan being for manufacturing is like the Hells Angels being for women's rights. We've got to get serious about manufacturing on this side. (Time expired)

Senate adjourned at 19:55