I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
I move:
That the committee does not insist on its amendments to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.
These are, of course, the amendments related to grandfathered large propriety companies that don't have to make annual reports to ASIC. The amendments that I'm asking the Senate to insist upon seeking to eliminate a perverse provision in the Corporations Act which exempts 1,119 large propriety companies from having to lodge financial tax returns to ASIC.
There are two reasons why this archaic provision needs to be eliminated from the statutes. The first is that it creates an elite status for particular companies that is inconsistent with Australian values. We must eliminate a privilege to very large companies and wealthy people that is not afforded to regular Australians. That's inappropriate. The second thing that these amendments seek to do in eliminating this provision relate to the provision itself providing for or encouraging aggressive tax minimisation through a lack of transparency. It's a loophole that has been in existence since 1995. It was supposed to be a temporary measure. When I talk about aggressive tax behaviour, that's was not something that I've dreamt up. That was something that ASIC put to an economics committee back in 2015-16. I'll read from earlier comments I made on this:
The Senate Economics References Committee conducted an inquiry into multinational tax avoidance across both the 44th and 45th Parliaments. One of the submissions it received, submission No. 32, was from ASIC, who raised the concern about these exempted companies. That led the Senate economics committee to ultimately recommend:
… that the government require all companies, trusts and other financial entities with income above a certain amount to lodge general purpose financial statements with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
My amendment seeks to implement that particular recommendation.
In practical terms, my amendment removes that special status for these exempt companies. Again, we have 1,119 companies that don't have to lodge these returns, and they're owned by people who are familiar names to the Liberal Party—people like Kerry Stokes, for example, and Anthony Pratt, Lindsay Fox and so forth. They are companies owned by wealthy people. I don't mind people having wealth. That's fine. Good on 'em if they can get ahead in this world. That's what we like to see. But they shouldn't have a privileged status whereby they are exempt from doing what every other company in Australia does when they hit the threshold—that is, lodge financial returns. So that's what I'm seeking to do.
I note that this amendment has done a bit of ping-pong, as described in one of the Senate briefings, between the House and the Senate on a number of occasions. It's my understanding that Senator Hanson this time around will not support the insistence, and for that reason I won't call a division but will record my insisting upon the amendment. I'd ask that that be recorded. But I'll also just let the coalition know this: Michael West, who does a lot of journalism around tax avoidance and around companies, is running a very extensive investigation into this, so you've got a little bit of time before all of the warts come out into the open as to who you are trying to protect, who you are trying to allow this privilege to continue for. So I would ask the government, on the voices, to indicate that perhaps they've changed their mind after listening to me.
I do have a couple of questions for the minister. The first of those relates to conversations back when the amendment was dealt with last time around. The government hasn't yet responded to the 2015 Senate report into multinational tax avoidance, Corporate tax avoidance report—part III: much heat, little light so far. So I would ask the minister: can the government please advise when it will be responding to that report from two parliaments ago?
We dealt with this in part last time, but I will say that the government have taken and implemented some of the strongest multinational tax avoidance measures in the world and we stand by our record in relation to multinational tax avoidance. But, when it comes to the specifics of when that will be responded to, I'll take that on notice.
And again for the chamber, I know that Senator Whish-Wilson asked this question last time and the minister was unable to respond, but I'll give him an opportunity again to do so. What is the policy basis for permitting 1,119 large proprietary companies not to lodge their financial reports to ASIC? What's the policy basis?
Senator Patrick, I've got nothing to add to the last time we debated this. We've put forward our record on multinational tax avoidance. I've put forward the government's position in relation to considering other matters, but we don't believe that this legislation should be held up as a result of this particular point that you are trying to make. We've made our views known and, in fact, we stand by our record on multinational tax avoidance. But as to what will be coming from government, in terms of those other questions, in terms of further responses, we've put that on record, and I've got nothing to add from the last time we debated this in the Senate.
To be clear, a lot of these companies are not multinationals. They're Australian companies, but they just have a privileged, elitist status, in that they're not required to do what everybody else does, and that is to lodge company financial returns to ASIC. Again, noting that you might have been confused about the multinational aspects of this, what is the policy basis for rejecting this amendment?
Madam Chair, given it appears as if the minister is just going to sit there and not answer Senator Patrick's question, I draw to your attention that I believe that Senator Whish-Wilson would also like to make a contribution.
The CHAIR: I've been watching and no-one on the screen has indicated they are wanting the call. I think Senator McAllister wants the call.
I want to place on record Labor's position. We do believe the Senate should insist on its amendments and we do support the amendment that is the subject of discussion today. Of course these companies should observe the same level of transparency as all other companies. There is, as has been made abundantly clear by the minister responsible for this debate, absolutely no public policy reason for these companies to continue to enjoy an exemption which was established in 1995 and was only ever intended to be temporary.
I'm not at all surprised that this is the government's position. This is a government that is allergic to transparency. It's a government that won't respond properly to questions in this chamber. It's a government that won't respond properly to freedom of information requests. It's a government that drags its heels on providing documents when they are ordered to be produced in this chamber.
The government are allergic to transparency for themselves and all their friends, and there is absolutely no reason why ordinary Australians should continue to tolerate the circumstances where a small group of people are exempt from a set of rules that apply to everybody else. There is no public policy reason for it, and it is incredible to me that the government continue to insist on their position when it cannot be justified and they are unwilling to even attempt a justification in this place.
I apologise; I was clicking my raise-hand icon on the screen, but I now realise I had to do it physically as well.
I think Senator Seselja's description of the word 'debate' the last time this came before the Senate was a very liberal interpretation of what was discussed in the chamber. There was no debate about the removal of this exemption, this 25-year loophole that has protected some of the richest Australians and biggest private companies from providing any tax transparency data. There is no policy basis for this. I would like to get on record today that the Greens would have supported a vote had it gone to division. We would have supported Senator Patrick's amendment.
I'd also like to place on record that the Senate inquiry, and I'd like to use the words 'groundbreaking Senate inquiry', that was initiated in 2015 was indeed initiated by the Greens. My previous colleague Christine Milne initiated that inquiry. I participated in all those inquiries, and we have seen significant legislation before this Senate; that is true. I will acknowledge that, which Senator Seselja added in his contribution earlier. However, it is a considerable anomaly that we have actually acted on various aspects of multinational tax avoidance but not this. This stands out like a sore thumb. I think I used a different analogy last time that may have been reported in the media, but, at the end of the day, the government has not provided any explanation to this chamber—this august house of review—as to why this loophole exists to protect the richest Australians. The only conclusion we can draw from this is that many of these people are indeed donors to the Liberal Party and that there's a reason, that there's some kind of cosy arrangement in place as to why this exemption hasn't been removed.
So this is something that we have worked on for many years. Indeed, I moved very similar amendments to what we have before the Senate today on numerous occasions, including two to three years ago when we had other debates around tax transparency. I would urge the government and Senator Seselja to remove this exemption. I understand Senator Patrick won't be giving up after today's amendment. We will see future amendments tacked onto a number of Treasury bills. I would also urge the government to respond to that 2015 Senate inquiry and the very numerous recommendations that it made. We have made progress, but we've got a hell of a long way to go before we can be confident that we've done everything we possibly can, as a chamber and as a parliament, to crack down on multinational tax avoidance and improve tax transparency.
I'm just making it clear that the Jacqui Lambie Network will not be moving off this either until you remove those exemptions for your mates or your political donors. We're going to go to and from one house to the other. You're not going to go anywhere and you may as well give up on this bill, because that's where we're at. Stop wasting people's time. It's absolutely shameful where you are right now—that you have let your political donors influence you once again over what is best for this country. That is enough. So, unless you want this to go to and fro—or you want a win on the board, Minister—I suggest that there will be no exemption for your mates or your political donors. It's as simple as that. Until we get to that point, it's not going anywhere. You may as well put it back on the bench so it continues to collect the dust it's been collecting in the meantime.
I want to put on the record that Senator Whish-Wilson was correct: I do intend to continue moving this amendment on Treasury bills as we move forward.
I understand Senator Patrick, that you wish to record your disagreement?
That's correct. I think Labor did during its—
Labor did, and I'm assuming the Greens did.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.
I seek leave to make a five-minute statement relating to temporary arrangements on the general business notice of motion.
You have been given two minutes, Senator Lambie.
Can I have five minutes? Otherwise, we're just going to go to contingent notice of motion No. 2.
The agreement is two minutes. It's not within my power to change that. Are you continuing?
No. In accordance with contingent notice of motion No. 2 then, I move that so much of the standing orders be suspended as to allow me to make a short statement of five minutes on the temporary order relating to general business notices of motion.
I believe that, if you seek leave again for five minutes, that will be agreed to.
I seek leave to make a five-minute statement relating to the current arrangements on the temporary order relating to general business notices of motion.
Leave is granted for five minutes.
The government and the Labor Party have gagged the crossbench. They have finally got what they want and they’ve done it by stealth, without any warning and without any consultation. The Liberals have finally steamrolled us and the ALP have let them do it. It's the decision of the Labor Party to deny me the ability to force the government to cough up documents it doesn't want the public to see. It's the decision of the Labor Party to say that I can't bring forward issues to the Senate that matter to the people that elected me.
You guys may not realise this, but not everybody votes Labor. Those voters deserve just as much of a look-in as anybody else. You know how two weeks ago Teddy Sheean got a Victoria Cross? The review that found he deserved one came about because of the work I did as an Independent senator. The explanation from the government as to why Teddy didn't deserve one came out because of the work I did as an Independent in the Senate. It's the decision of the Labor Party to strip me of the ability to do what I did to keep the attention of the Senate on Teddy Sheean. It's Labor saying that I should not be able to do that anymore. They'd rather I sat down and shut up. They want the people who support me to wait their turn before I represent them. They want to drip-feed me the chance to do my job.
I'm just one senator asking the Labor Party if it's okay if I do my job every now and then. This is where we're at in this chamber. I don't really understand it, to be honest. I get why the government doesn't want me to be able to compel the production of documents, because that's usually embarrassing enough to them. But why is Labor working with the Liberals to weaken the Senate's ability to actually do oversight? What are you here for? You're stopping me from doing my job as a senator for the people of Tasmania. That is the situation that we are currently in. It was the coalition and the Labor Party who landed us here. It was a half-baked plan from the start. Now that we're two days into trying to live within it, it's clear how much of a mess we're already in. I'm already banging my head up against a wall. I only get one opportunity each week to move a formal motion. If I miss my turn, I'll most likely have to wait until the next sitting week to get another go.
This week I will seek formality on a motion to tidy up Liberal and Labor's dodgy new system. Ironically, I've been hamstrung by the existing temporary order. First there was confusion about the word count. I had to strip back the text of my motion significantly to get it under 200 words. It took time to do that without changing the meaning of what I wanted to propose. That meant I was a few minutes late getting it in. No worries, right? I can always ask for leave on the floor to hand it in later. Well, the ALP yesterday nearly prevented me from getting leave to put it in. Why should they be the gatekeepers? Who actually gave you the job of deciding whether I get to use my one motion this week? Now I've since found out, I actually didn't have to worry about the word limit. The whole thing is just ridiculous. That is where we are at and we are on day 2.
I understand that we've had problems with some senators abusing formal motions in the past. I want to work with the major parties to find a fair solution to that problem. That's why Senator Patrick and I have proposed a sensible compromise. But we are still waiting for someone to get back to us to tell us whether or not they agree it's a sensible compromise or to just tell us the truth and say: 'You know what? Don't bother. What's been set in cement stays that way. This is the way you are going to be treated from here on in.' That's not letting me be a fair representative as a senator for the state of Tasmania. As a matter of fact, I would call it bloody unconstitutional. You're nearly telling me what motions I can put in and when I can put them in? Is this where this chamber has got to? Are we not a democracy anymore? Are we now a dictatorship?
Quite frankly, the people of Tasmania are outraged. I may be only one but that doesn't mean they shouldn’t have a set time when their voice should be heard in this parliament. This is absolutely ridiculous. I encourage you all to come back to the table and work with all of us on the crossbench and have a good look at what we have proposed, because, if you are not going to do that, I can tell you now: we're on day two, we are going to run into problems and we haven't even got through the trial two weeks. Let's use some common sense here, let's use some democracy, and give us a fair go.
I seek leave to make a one-minute statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I rise in support of Senator Lambie and urge the government—and, indeed, the opposition—to consider certain aspects of the motion that was passed in the last sitting. It was a motion that was generated by only major parties sitting together in the room. They didn't have the right perspective across the chamber. So I would encourage, as Senator Lambie has, that there be some consideration as to the changes in the way the current motions resolution is operating.
I seek leave to make a one-minute statement in response to Senator Lambie.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I rise to observe that the collusion between the government and the opposition is in fact designed to stitch up the crossbench, and the Coles and Woolworths of Australian politics are at it again. Motions provide the capacity for all senators to bring incredibly important issues for their communities into this place to have decisions made and to require parties to put their positions in regard to those issues on the record. I urge the government and the opposition to work collaboratively with the crossbench to find a way through this issue. I want to say to Senator Lambie: we are still taking advice on the effect of the motion she has on the books at the moment, and we reserve our position on that motion.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I thank the chamber, and I note the observations made by Senator Lambie and others on the crossbench about the importance of a continuing discussion about the workability of these provisions. I understand that the operation of the current temporary order is under review by the Procedure Committee. One thing the chamber may wish to consider is referring the matters raised by Senator Lambie to that review. There is a review at the moment to look at how well this works. It seems to me this is a matter that might sensibly be considered in that process.
Thank you, Senator McAllister. I think that concludes that.
I am moving amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8971, by leave together. As previously discussed, and as people would probably be aware, this is an amendment that would remove the $450 threshold below which—
We seem to have some audio issues. Temporary Chair Brockman, I wonder if you might clarify with Senator Waters whether she is presently speaking to the Australian Greens' motion on sheet 8981, which has previously moved by Senator Whish-Wilson?
No, it's 8971. I can speak to that if people are able to hear me. I'm moving 8971. Sheet 8981 has been done and negatived.
No, we do have some amendments before the chair: amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8981, moved by Senator Whish-Wilson. They are currently before the chair, so we do need to deal with those before we move on.
The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8981, moved by Senator Whish-Wilson, be agreed to.
I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to this bill, and I seek leave to move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet UD113 together.
Leave granted.
I move government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet UD113 together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (line 2), omit "1 July 2020", substitute "1 January 2021".
(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 4), omit "1 July 2020", substitute "1 January 2021".
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8971 together:
(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 27), after item 4, insert:
4A Subsection 27(1)
Omit "(1)".
4B Subsection 27(2)
Repeal the subsection.
(2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 16), at the end of the Schedule, add:
8 Application provision
Despite the repeal made by item 4B, subsection 27(2) of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992, as in force immediately before the commencement of this Act, continues to apply at and after that time in relation to an employer for an employee if the employer is entitled to a jobkeeper payment (within the meaning of the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Rules 2020) for the employee during the calendar month.
As I was saying before, the purpose of these amendments is to remove the $450 threshold below which workers don't get paid superannuation. People might recall that back in, I think, 1992 this threshold was inserted. Essentially, if you are a worker who is earning less than that each month you don't get paid superannuation by your employer. The reason that we have long thought that this was inequitable and needs to be removed, which is what the amendment would do, is that it has a disproportionate effect on a number of workers, and in particular it has a disproportionate effect on women workers. We already know, sadly, from many Senate inquiries and many studies, that on average women retire with approximately half the superannuation of their male counterparts. One of the contributing factors to this enormous discrepancy in superannuation balance is this $450 threshold rule. There was a purpose to it originally and it was to align it with what was the then tax-free threshold but that's since increased, as is appropriate. We've also got the low income super tax offset, or LISTO, which also obviates the need for this threshold to continue.
In short, this threshold disproportionately affects women, disproportionately affects casual workers and disproportionately affects workers that have multiple jobs, because the threshold applies per employer. For example, if you are a young person who in this economy is lucky to have a job, or several, and you're earning less than $450 a month from each of those employers, none of them have to pay you superannuation. This is part of the reason why this is an inequitable rule—
Senator Waters, we might have to just ask you to pause again. Your connection to us is breaking up. I'm not sure if there is anything we can do about that. Minister, you have the call to respond to so much of Senator Waters' points as you wish to. We will try to and re-establish that connection in the meantime.
The government will be opposing this amendment that removes the $450 rule. Senator Waters is right; the $450 rule has been included in the superannuation system since compulsory superannuation began in 1992. I agree that looking at the $450 threshold rule does merit some consideration; however, now is not the time.
When it was first established it was established for two reasons: one was because there was a feeling that those who earned below the tax free threshold should not necessarily have to participate in this compulsory superannuation scheme and the other was that it was an administrative burden for businesses. Those issues have changed, but there are still many issues to consider around moving that threshold. There are implications for small businesses. Without the implementation of a policy to ensure that members are only defaulted once into superannuation products, removing the threshold may in fact result in more duplicate and low-balance accounts. The government has agreed to implement the recommendations of the financial services royal commission in that a person should only have one default superannuation account.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Minister. I will just try and go back to Senator Waters, if she can hear us.
I can now, Chair. I'm not sure at what point I cut out and what pearls of wisdom to give you all again!
The minister did respond. I'm not sure if you heard the minister's response?
No, I'm afraid I wasn't able to hear that. I've only just been able to dial back in. I suspect the minister and I don't agree on this issue. I'm just taking a wild guess!
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I suspect you're possibly right, Senator Waters. Did you wish—
Could I just get a stick from the chair as to roughly at what point I cut out? There were a couple of facts and figures that I was hoping to get on the record. This is not a test!
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Honestly, I couldn't say precisely. It faded out gradually. I would take the opportunity to get those things you want to get on the record on the record, Senator Waters.
Thank you, Chair. With your indulgence I will do that now. As I was saying, having the $450 threshold below which employers don't have to contribute to superannuation for their workers disproportionately—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I think we might go to Senator McAllister. I think we will just see if we can get those technical issues ironed out before we go back to Senator Waters. Senator McAllister, you have the call.
Labor of course is extremely concerned about the retirement income gender gap. It was Labor senators who championed the inquiry which resulted in the report 'A husband is not a retirement plan': achieving economic security for women in retirement. I think it proved to be a very important inquiry. It was conducted by senators from all parts of the chamber and resulted in a unanimous report with many recommendations to improve retirement outcomes for women.
I listened carefully to Senator Hume's response. I note Senator Hume does not intend to support this Greens motion, and Labor does not intend to support it either. We will consider a wide range of policy options before the next election to tackle the challenges faced by women in retirement to improve their economic security, but this is not the bill where we will make that decision. We will make that decision as part of our considerations in the lead-up to an election. However, I did listen carefully to Senator Hume's response, and I make this observation: the government can point to very few things that it has practically done to support women's outcomes in retirement.
The government likes to come into this chamber and say that this is a priority, to provide comforting words to women that the government is concerned about their economic security in retirement, but it is difficult to identify a single measure in the last seven years that has actually gone to the issues that were canvassed in the report and that are routinely raised by women when you speak to them. The only measure that the government ever points to that in any way goes to these issues is the capacity for people to contribute above the cap in terms of voluntary superannuation contributions.
The truth is that most women are not in a position to make contributions above the cap. Most women do not have tens of thousands of dollars lying around, and most women are not, therefore, advantaged by a system that allows large volumes of cash to be popped into a super account as a one-off. That doesn't help, but it's the only measure that Liberal senators ever point to when these concerns are raised in this place. I say to the government: it is not good enough. You have been here for a long time. You are in your eighth year of government. Government provides marvellous opportunities to actually make real change in the lives of Australian people, and in this instance you have had the opportunity to make real change in the lives of Australian women, and it is immensely disappointing there has been no progress in the seven years you've been in power.
Obviously, we're unable to hear from Senator Waters due to some unknown technical issue. My suggestion is that it is unfortunate that that's the case but I don't believe that the Senate can sit around and wait indefinitely until the technical issue is sorted; so, if I need to, I will now put Senator Waters's amendments or suggest that you put Senator Waters's amendments to the chamber.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I will if there are no further contributions. Senator Patrick?
Sorry for the late arrival. Minister, you say that the government is considering this. What's the time frame? What's the time frame in which you are going to come to this chamber with legislation that deals with this threshold?
Thank you for that question. I can't give you a time frame. What I can say is that this issue was specifically recognised as part of the terms of reference in the retirement income review. That review has reported to the Treasurer, and that report is with the Treasurer right now.
I go back to Senator McAllister's point. This has been a long time in place. It's been talked about for a long time. Indeed, we've been dealing with this piece of legislation for some period of time. Are you not in a position to make a firm commitment to the Senate as to a time frame for introducing amendments that deal with this issue?
Senator Patrick, I can't give you a time frame on dealing with that specific issue, but, as you know, this government has initiated and, indeed, implemented a series of reforms to superannuation over its last seven years in government and it will continue to do so until the system is efficient and high functioning, as it should be, to serve all Australians.
The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8971 be agreed to.
I move my amendment (1) on sheet 8926 revised:
(1) Page 2 (after line 12), after clause 3, insert:
4 Review of amendments
(1) The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) must conduct a review into the operation of the amendments made by this Act.
(2) Without limiting the matters that APRA may consider when conducting the review, the purpose of the review is to:
(a) identify any unintended consequences of the amendments made by this Act on the operation of defined benefits schemes, including the ongoing viability and profitability of defined benefits schemes; and
(b) consider whether amendments to the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 or any other Act are necessary to rectify the unintended consequences identified under paragraph (a).
(3) In conducting the review, APRA must consult industry stakeholders.
(4) The review must be completed before the end of the period of 30 months beginning on the day this Act commences.
(5) APRA must give the Minister a written report of the review.
(6) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.
(7) In this section, Minister means the Minister administering the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992.
This amendment requires the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to conduct a review into this legislation. The purpose of it, really, is to provide a safety net. It requires the review to look at any unintended consequences of this legislation and, if any unintended consequences are found—and I note that it requires consultation with stakeholders to form that particular view—to make recommendations to the minister as to how to rectify those unintended consequences. The review must be completed within 30 months of this legislation coming into effect. The report must be written and provided to the minister, and the minister must then table the report within 15 days of it being given to the minister.
Thank you, Senator Patrick. The government will support this amendment. The government notes that managing the composition of their membership is an unavoidable operational consideration for any defined benefit scheme and doesn't believe that a change to the proposed bill is required at this time. However, as identified by the Senate committee's final report on this bill, new evidence may well emerge over time, and the government will be agreeing to Senator Patrick's amendment to require APRA to review the status of defined benefit schemes within 30 months to ascertain whether there have been unintended negative consequences.
I wish to indicate that Labor also will support the amendment. The committee did hear evidence, from a range of stakeholders who were in a position to know, that the scheme proposed by the government would hurt defined benefit schemes. The small number of witnesses who were in a position to tell us about that were unequivocal in saying that was the case. We believe there will be detrimental effects to defined benefit schemes and we support a review, but the fear, of course, is that it will be too little, too late and that, in fact, the damage will have been done by this needlessly partisan intervention into a perfectly functioning super scheme. Nonetheless, we support the amendment proposed by Senator Patrick.
I rise simply to indicate the Australian Greens' support for this amendment.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1000 together:
(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 5), before the heading specifying Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992, insert:
Fair Work Act 2009
1A At the end of section 187
Add:
Requirement relating to restrictions of choice of superannuation fund
(7) If the agreement includes a restriction on the choice of superannuation fund or funds available to employees, the FWC must be satisfied that the restriction is in the interests of the employees who will be covered by the agreement.
(8) For the purposes of considering whether the restriction is in the interests of the employees, the FWC must consider:
(a) the extent to which the employers who will be covered by the agreement have complied, or are likely to comply, with the requirements of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992; and
(b) the features of the proposed default superannuation fund or funds, including matters such as insurance; and
(c) any other relevant matters.
(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (lines 3 and 4), omit the item, substitute:
6 Paragraph 32C(6 )( h)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(h) an enterprise agreement:
(i) made before 1 January 2021; or
(ii) if the agreement includes a restriction on the choice of superannuation funds—made on or after 1 January 2021.
(3) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 16), at the end of the Schedule, add:
8 Subsection 32NA(2)
After "An employer is not required under section 32N to give an employee", insert "or a person who is eligible to become an employee".
9 Paragraph 32NA(2 )( a)
After "the employer is making", insert "or will make".
10 Paragraph 32NA(2 )( b)
After "the contributions are made", insert "or will be made".
11 Subsection 32NA(9)
After "An employer is not required under section 32N to give an employee", insert "or a person who is eligible to become an employee".
12 Paragraph 32NA(9 )( a)
After "the employee is", insert "or will become".
These amendments seek to establish arrangements that will allow workers to retain the choice to bargain for a single fund or set of funds where it is determined by the Fair Work Commission that it is in their interests to do so. This is about protecting choice. This is about protecting the choices made by workers in the context of their workplace, along with their colleagues, and in the context of their union—their choice to collectively determine what is in their best interests.
The amendments we are considering will ensure that if an enterprise agreement includes a restriction on the choice of superannuation fund or funds available to employees it will go before the Fair Work Commission, and the Fair Work Commission must be satisfied that the restriction is in the interests of the employee who will be covered by the agreement. What this will allow, as was made clear by witnesses who appeared before the Senate inquiry into this legislation, is consideration of key factors that are essential to the proper functioning of our superannuation system. It will allow safeguarding against underpayment and it will allow features which are specific to certain workplaces or industries, which are attached to certain superannuation funds, to be retained. I commend the amendments to the Senate.
The government will be opposing the amendments on sheet 1000. The government can't support an amendment whereby employees' ability to choose the fund that receives their superannuation contributions will continue to be restricted. Allowing choice to be restricted in circumstances approved by the Fair Work Commission fails to acknowledge that each employee has individual financial circumstances which impact on which superannuation fund is most appropriate for them. The key is that employees should have the power to make this decision—not the employer, not the superannuation industry and not the government. Individuals should not have to bear the consequences of holding multiple accounts, including facing multiple fees and multiple insurance premiums.
We should be clear about what these amendments are actually about. In the committee and previously, the opposition have said that it is about insurance risk. But the ACTU advised my office during just the last sitting period that this reform actually makes very little difference to insurance arrangements. It's really about providing assistance to individual funds, which are, let's face it, now multibillion dollar companies that Labor sees fit to prop up and shield from competition by removing an employee's right to choose their fund. You can't imagine these circumstances in any other part of the financial services industry. Imagine if any other financial services company unaffiliated with the labour movement approached Labor and begged them to be propped up by locking in customers and denying them choice. Imagine if a telecommunications company or an energy company came begging: 'Please prevent a customer from switching to another provider.' They'd be laughed out of the room and rightly pilloried in the media for doing so. The fact that Labor thinks it's okay for superannuation funds to do so, I think, is telling indeed. It speaks volumes about what is wrong with this industry—this complacency and entitlement. Make no mistake, this amendment is all about funds and it's not all about the members.
Furthermore, the operation of this amendment is ambiguous. It's not at all clear whether the choice of fund restrictions would apply to employers with compliance concerns or employers that fail to meet their SG obligations. If they did impose restrictions in these circumstances, the result is that employees would be stripped of their right to choose because of their employer's noncompliance. In other words, Labor's amendment would be punishing employees because their employers had failed to pay their superannuation. In any case, the amendment doesn't address the SG noncompliance. The government take SG obligations very seriously and believe that noncompliance is best dealt with through our targeted reforms to improve the overall integrity of the superannuation guarantee.
The question is that opposition amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1000 be agreed to.
Senator Waters, were you seeking the call? I believe you were interrupted by technology in making a contribution previously?
Yes. With your indulgence, Chair, I seek leave of the chamber to speak for a few moments on the substance of the amendment. I acknowledge that it has already been voted on, but unfortunately the link crashed so I didn't get to give the justification for the amendment nor was I aware that it was being voted on until after the link was restored.
Leave granted.
I thank folk there in the chamber for their indulgence. As I was saying earlier, the amendment I moved would abolish the $450 superannuation threshold at which nobody gets paid super if they get paid less than $450 a month. This disproportionately affects women, who are 60 per cent of the people who earn less than $450 a month; it disproportionately affects young people, who often hold multiple jobs; and it disproportionately affects people in casual work. For all of these reasons, we think it's a very outdated and discriminatory threshold. Sadly, we know that women retire with, on average, half the superannuation of men, and this is one of the reasons for that. There are so many, but this is one of them.
This is an easily fixable situation. I acknowledge that the vote on this amendment has, sadly, already gone down, but I am informed that the government indicated that they are considering this issue as part of the Treasurer's response to the retirement income review. Certainly we would love to see some movement on this, and I'm informed that the Labor Party indicated that they would also consider this issue in the lead-up to the next election. So there's perhaps some cause for hope that the two big parties are taking this issue on. There's no longer a justification for making that superannuation retirement gap worse for low-income earners, who are disproportionately women.
On that point, in the context of the COVID crisis that has beset us all this year and the somewhat unfortunate decision by government to allow people to access their super, I've got some statistics here that I would like to put on the record, and this has a gendered element as well. I understand that, whilst more men than women have accessed their super through the early-release scheme, women are taking out a higher proportion of their savings from super, and that's probably also a result of the fact that their account balances are lower and therefore the amount they can withdraw is a larger proportion. Long story short: the existing super inequities have been exacerbated by the early-release scheme, and they have been exacerbated for the past few decades by this threshold of a $450 contribution. Women in Super estimates that 220,000 women and 145,000 men are missing out on about $125 million in superannuation each year because they're not meeting that $450 threshold.
I thank the members of the crossbench who supported us on this amendment to remove that threshold. I'm disappointed that the big parties didn't vote for it but acknowledge that they've made some statements that indicate that perhaps this issue is under review, and we really hope to see some progress on it in the coming months. Thank you very much for your indulgence, Chair.
I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1001:
(1) Page 4 (after line 16), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 2 — Superannuation contributions in National Employment Standards
Fair Work Act 2009
1 After paragraph 61(2 )( h)
Insert:
(ha) superannuation contributions (Division 10A);
2 After Division 10 of Part 2-2 of Chapter 2
Insert:
Division 10A — Superannuation contributions
116A Superannuation contributions
Obligation in relation to contributions
(1) An employer must make contributions to a superannuation fund for the benefit of an employee so as to avoid liability to pay superannuation guarantee charge under the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Act 1992 in relation to the employee.
Amount of contributions
(2) The amount of the contributions relating to the employee is to be worked out:
(a) in accordance with the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992; or
(b) if a modern award or enterprise agreement applies to the employee and provides for an amount higher than the amount applicable under paragraph (a)—in accordance with the modern award or enterprise agreement (as the case requires).
Superannuation fund
(3) The superannuation fund to which the contributions relating to the employee are made must be:
(a) if a superannuation fund is a chosen fund (within the meaning of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992) for the employee—that superannuation fund; or
(b) if there is no chosen fund (within the meaning of that Act) for the employee and a modern award or enterprise agreement applies to the employee—the superannuation fund specified in the modern award or enterprise agreement (as the case requires); or
(c) otherwise—a superannuation fund for which the choice of fund requirements in section 32C of that Act are satisfied in relation to the contributions to the fund.
Salary sacrifice arrangements
(4) A contribution made by an employer to a superannuation fund for the benefit of an employee under a salary sacrifice arrangement (within the meaning of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992) with the employee does not satisfy the employer's obligation to make contributions under subsection (1).
Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992
3 After subsection 37(1)
Insert:
(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the Commissioner may amend an assessment if a court or tribunal has ordered the payment of superannuation contributions in relation to an employee and the order has been complied with.
Underpayment of superannuation is an enormous problem. And the problem that is not being dealt with by the government is that there are basically very limited mechanisms for individuals who find themselves being underpaid. The amendment that we propose would change the law to include a right to superannuation within the National Employment Standards, and that would give every employee the right to pursue their unpaid superannuation in their own right.
The problem is this: currently unpaid or underpaid employer superannuation contributions are a debt that is owed to the Australian Taxation Office rather than to the individual worker. Unless there is a specific clause in their award or their agreement—and I observe that the government does everything in its power to make it difficult for such agreements to be formed—workers can't chase this money, because the money's not technically owed to them; it's technically owed to the ATO.
By placing superannuation within the National Employment Standards in the Fair Work Act, all employees would be empowered to recoup unpaid super from employers through the Fair Work Commission or through the Federal Court. Individuals would be empowered to chase their own unpaid super, instead of waiting for the ATO to do it for them. Again, the Senate Economics Legislation Committee has previously heard evidence about the administrative problems—the delays and difficulties encountered by people who try to get the ATO to act on their behalf in relation to these matters.
What's before the chamber now is a significantly more practical proposal than the government's pathetic response to this issue. What did the government decide to do? Their only response to this issue has been to allow an amnesty in place for employers, who can actually claim amnesty as far back as 1992. You can have been not paying super since 1992 and get a tick from the government. The amnesty is coming to an end, but it is indicative of the pathetic and inadequate attempts by the government to grapple with these problems. They come into this chamber and cry crocodile tears about various aspects of superannuation and various problems for individuals. If they had the courage of their convictions, they would support this simple amendment, because it is an amendment that would give individuals the power to chase the money that is owed to them.
The government opposes this amendment. The amendment as outlined by Senator McAllister proposes to insert the superannuation guarantee into the National Employment Standards, which would mean, yes, workers would be able to pursue their employers through the Fair Work Commission on super issues in addition to the existing regulatory oversight by the ATO. The amendment that's proposed is identical to an amendment related to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Recovering Unpaid Superannuation) Bill 2019 that was defeated in this chamber on 24 February this year. As I advised the chamber at that time, on 24 February, I have committed to the crossbenchers that Treasury will examine this proposal in good faith and will brief the crossbench on the outcomes of that examination. That work is currently underway, and I am more than happy to offer any crossbench senators a briefing if they wish. As agreed to in my discussions with Senator Patrick, and also as followed up with the shadow Assistant Treasurer, the time frame for that work has been extended by six months to February next year, 2020-21. The reason for that is that the relevant Treasury resources were redeployed to work on the coronavirus response.
The amendment, though, contains a number of very complex issues that require some quite careful examination and aren't appropriate to be debated on the floor of the chamber today. They include things like the potential duplication by the Fair Work Commission of the regulatory work that is already undertaken by the ATO. This would create considerable uncertainty both for small businesses and for individuals, with small-business owners potentially facing duplicate penalties and with the presence of multiple regulators potentially causing confusion for workers and employees. That is why a proper examination of this policy and its consequences is required, and that examination is what I have instructed Treasury to undertake.
I just rise to make a short contribution here. I actually do accept the proposals put forward by Senator McAllister, but I also accept that there are some issues that need to be resolved in relation to this, that it could create issues. So I am taking on good faith the commitment that has been made by the minister to have a review completed by February. Very shortly after, I'm anticipating that we'll have legislation before the parliament that will remedy the very things that Senator McAllister is talking about. So I won't be supporting the amendment today. But certainly if we get to a point some reasonable time after February and the government hasn't acted I will change that position.
Thanks for the update, Minister. I note the blow-out, again, of another six months in acting on this issue that is so important for so many people who are being underpaid by their employers. I asked on the last occasion whether a briefing could be provided to the opposition. It strikes me as odd that some parts of the chamber could be briefed on this question and issue but the opposition could not be. Have you given any further consideration to that request?
I think the last time this issue came up I said that, if you agreed, as Senator Patrick had, to not support your own amendment, we would be quite happy to provide you the same briefings that we would provide the crossbenchers who were supporting us in not supporting your amendment.
I will make the observation that on occasion, just every now and then, we expect the government to rise to the task of actually trying to deliver for the Australian people, instead of playing political games and trying to get petty wins in this place. Now, that may prove to be optimistic—some would say the triumph of hope over experience—but I had thought, on this occasion, the minister might be willing to engage with the chamber on a matter that appears to be of interest to the whole chamber. I have, in fact, brought this amendment forward in this debate in good faith. And I bring it forward because I know that there are many, many people out there who are looking for an answer, who are looking for a solution and who don't want to be exploited any further; they want a remedy. That's actually what acting in good faith on behalf of your community looks like. I don't understand why the people who look to be represented by the opposition can't expect some kind of dialogue with the minister responsible for this issue.
The question is that opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1001 be agreed to.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR (13:32): The question now is that the bill as amended be agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
by leave—I ask that the Greens vote of no be recorded in the Hansard.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: It will be so recorded.
by leave—I make the same request for the opposition.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The opposition wishes that its vote of no be recorded in Hansard to prevent the need for an actual division; we appreciate that.
by leave—I would like my position noted as well in the Hansard.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Lambie is opposing the adoption. The question now is that the bill be reported.
Bill reported with an amendment.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The committee has considered the Treasury Laws Amendment (Your Superannuation, Your Choice) Bill 2019 and has agreed to it with amendments.
I move:
That the report of the committee be adopted.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
The question is that the bill be read a third time.
Once again I am proud to be part of the Morrison government and am pleased to speak on more unapologetically tough legislation. This time we're tackling cheats that exploit vulnerable students while undermining the integrity of Australia's high-quality degrees. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Prohibiting Academic Cheating Services) Bill 2019 targets criminals who previously have escaped attention for crimes which target young, naive and vulnerable students. Cheating services are a blight on our education system. The individuals behind the so-called contract cheating services should never prosper from this behaviour. It now includes those who advertise via websites to complete assignments or sit exams for students willing to pay. It's just not fair to the students who put in the work and keep showing up. Under the Morrison government, if you sell a cheating service to an Australian student, you will face two years imprisonment or a fine of up to $100,000.
Importantly, this bill is aimed at commercial cheating services, not the students who use them. Students who cheat will still be subject to their institutions' own academic integrity policies and sanctions, including any consequences that flow from those, and after consulting with the sector we've clarified the legislation to ensure that parents and friends who might edit their child's or friend's essay or provide suggestions on how to improve an assignment will not be impacted. However, the national regulator will be given new powers to investigate and recommend the prosecution of cheating service providers. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency—TEQSA—will also be empowered to seek court injunctions to force internet service providers and search engines to block cheating websites.
The bill amends the TEQSA Act to make it an offence to provide, arrange or advertise academic cheating services to students studying within Australian higher education providers. It applies whether the service is provided from within Australia or overseas. Criminal and civil penalties of up to two years jail and fines of up to 500 penalty units, or around $100,000, will apply where the cheating service or advertising is for a commercial purpose.
Civil penalties of up to 500 penalty units will apply where the cheating service is provided without remuneration. Strict liability will apply to the criminal offence of providing an academic cheating service in order to undermine services of disingenuous disclaimers regarding the purpose and use of their products. TEQSA will be appointed to enforce the new law with its powers to include monitoring, intelligence gathering, investigation and prosecution of identified offenders. TEQSA will have additional power to collect and disseminate information about cheating websites and their users, to help institutions combat cheating activity on campus but with safeguards to protect the unwarranted sharing of personal information about those who purchase cheating materials.
The bill is based on the advice of the Higher Education Standards Panel that legislation was required to deter third-party academic cheating services. The panel found that the array of state, territory and Commonwealth laws relevant to cheating offences made it difficult to pursue legal cases against cheating service providers. The advice was that additional legislative backing was needed to more effectively deal with such risks. It was recommended that legislation be aimed at those who provide cheating services and not at the students who might use such services. This year the government took into account some 47 submissions regarding the legislation, which were generally supportive but pointed at ways to improve aspects of the bill. We listened and we modified the bill accordingly.
So why is the bill necessary? Australian and international university students are under more pressure than ever before to succeed. The pandemic and the fast-evolving digital business world mean that there is more competition than ever when it comes to applying for jobs. Qualifications could mean the difference between winning a role or not. Recently, our government has moved to ensure that first-year students who fail more than half their subjects could lose their taxpayer funded HECS support. This is a sensible move because it requires students to achieve goals as they progress. Ultimately, it will save the taxpayer millions and will ensure that students that drop out of courses don't incur massive debts. While it's a sensible move that protects both students and taxpayers, it does increase the pressure on students to achieve academic passes in their first year. Cheating services know this and they exploit both local and international students with this information.
This bill is more proof that the Morrison government wants higher education to be accessible and sustainable for all Australians. We continue to look for ways to protect this important sector. In 2020 our government invested $18.2 billion in higher education. Next financial year, the investment will be $18.8 billion, and by 2022 higher education will receive more than $19 billion. From 2009 to 2017, Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding increased by 71 per cent, which is significantly faster growth than the economy experienced. This year around $15.2 billion will be provided specifically for higher education teaching and learning. $64 billion will be provided over the next four years for teaching and learning, including $30 billion for the Commonwealth Grant Scheme, $29 billion for the Higher Education Loan Program and $4 billion for other teaching. In 2019-20 around $9.6 billion in Commonwealth funding is being provided for research and development across all portfolios. This $12.4 billion will be invested over the next four years through the education portfolio alone, including $8 billion through block grants, $3.3 billion in funding provided through the Australian Research Council and $1.1 billion through the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy, as part of the total NCRIS investment of $2.2 billion through to 2028-29.
Our government hasn't turned its back on higher education during the pandemic either. The Higher Education Relief Package guarantees Commonwealth Grant Scheme payments for providers. It offers regulatory relief and cost-recovery fee relief, with around $7.4 million in future and already collected TEQSA fees. The outcome of our investment means that education providers can offer discounted six-month online courses in fields of national priority. As at 10 August, there are 392 courses across 55 providers in eight fields, including health, education and IT.
The result of all of this investment in higher education is that our Australian universities are still in good shape. In 2018 universities reported total revenue of $33.7 billion with a net result after expenses of nearly $1.5 billion. They have net assets of $59.1 billion, including cash reserves of $4.4 billion and total cash and investments of $20.3 billion. In 2018, total Australian government funding amounted to $17.6 billion—or 52 per cent of total revenue. International student fees contributed a further $8.8 billion, or 26 per cent of revenue.
Our government has worked hard to minimise university job losses. Universities are eligible for JobKeeper if they meet the required decline in revenue in line with the criteria for other businesses. However, a six-month revenue test is applied to universities to ensure a fair comparison between semester based revenue periods. The Morrison government has invested heavily in this sector, both financially and with new legislation that protects students and our universities from the scourge of cheaters. I am proud once again to be speaking on groundbreaking legislation that targets those lawbreakers, who will no longer have free rein to exploit our universities and their students.
I rise to make a few short comments—which I expect will take us up to question time—in relation to the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Prohibiting Academic Cheating Services) Bill 2019. I just want to provide in my contribution a bit more analysis with respect to the core issue which this legislation is seeking to address, and that is the corrosive nature of cheating. I want to talk about it from the perspective of five different stakeholders: firstly, the students themselves.
The provision of these contract cheating services and the temptation for these students to engage and procure contract cheating services leads them, potentially, to a slippery road which involves the corrosion of character. It is absolutely crucial that all of our institutions across all parts of our society support integrity and ensure the integrity of our processes and procedures. The student who cheats in an assignment today is potentially the professional or worker of the future who is going to cut corners and compromise on issues, to the detriment of their community.
It also actually deprives the student of that great opportunity to look at a subject which they're having trouble handling—maybe it wasn't their specialist subject—and work hard on that subject; to take the hard and more difficult road of becoming talented in that subject and being able to pass that subject with proficiency. It actually deprives the student of that opportunity. It also deprives fellow students who don't engage in cheating with respect to the opportunity to get full recognition of their achievements. It impugns the students who choose not to take advantage of contract cheating services and the integrity of their results if their fellow students engage those services. It also attacks the integrity of academia, including tutors, who invest so much substantial effort and some of whom became mentors to many of us who are serving in the Senate today. It detracts from their efforts. It undermines the reputation of the universities themselves, their standing in society and on the international stage. That is a bad thing.
But, more than anything else, cheating—be it in universities, high schools, sport or any other endeavour—is a corrosive behaviour which undermines the entirety of a society. In my earlier life I worked for a mining company which worked in South-East Asia and many other parts of the world. We had to grapple with the issue of corruption. One of the lessons we always remembered was that it didn't matter how high the stake involved was, it didn't matter whether or not it was a policeman seeking a 50-baht or something bribe to let you go through a roadblock and it didn't matter whether or not it was a senior government official; it was cheating, it was corruption and you could not tolerate it for a second, because once you compromised in any way with respect to those principles it had a corrosive impact on the organisation itself, on the institutions in the country and on the community: 'If they're doing, it why shouldn't I do it?'
The corrosive impact of cheating is addressed by this legislation. I'm happy to support this legislation and I commend it to the Senate.
Debate interrupted.
My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Colbeck. Yesterday the minister said, 'We are in a relatively good position.' What percentage of all COVID-19 deaths in Australia relate to people in residential aged care?
The proportion of deaths in aged care as a proportion of the total deaths sits at about 70 per cent in Australia. That's not the exact number, but it's about 70 per cent, and it's about 0.17 per cent of the aged-care beds in Australia. The reason I made the relativity comment in the question I answered yesterday was that in the UK that relative number of deaths in residential aged care compared to the population is 5.3 per cent, which is over 30 times as bad as in Australia. It's worse than Australia by a factor of over 30 times. I don't say that to downplay any of the deaths that have occurred in Australia in residential aged care.
Opposition senators interjecting—
In fact, the interjections are quite offensive. I'm not trying to do anything but state some actual facts with respect to this. The Labor Party might like to play politics with this. They might like to talk Australia's efforts down—that's fine—but, can I say, the public health response in Australia—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator Watt! Senator Cormann on a point of order? Senator Watt: remember my rule about counting to 10 after your name has been called.
Interjections are always disorderly, and I believe they're even more disorderly in the current environment where we are seeking to maintain a COVID-safe workplace.
On the point of order, I would respond to the Leader of the Government in the Senate by saying that this is about the minister's accountability for his incompetence in the portfolio, which has caused deaths.
That's not an appropriate way to address a point of order. I don't believe it was unparliamentary, but it was completely out of order to use a point of order for that. It is not up to me to rule which interjections are disorderly or not; they are always disorderly. Interjections are not a method for holding a minister accountable—questions and answers are. I ask senators to respect that and to hear the minister in silence.
Senator Walsh asked about the comparability. In Australia we've had outbreaks in 200 residential aged-care facilities, very unfortunately. That's 7.7 per cent of the 2,706 residential aged-care facilities in Australia. In the UK, of the 9,081 care homes, 56 per cent have had an outbreak. (Time expired)
Does the minister accept the evidence to the aged-care royal commission that the percentage of deaths in Australia that relate to people in residential aged care 'makes Australia the country with one of the highest rates in the world of residential aged-care deaths as a proportion of deaths from COVID-19'—yes or no?
What I don't do is accept it as a reasonable measure. It is a fact. As it was—
An opposition senator interjecting—
I'll take the interjection. It was actually evidence given to the royal commission; it wasn't the royal commission saying that. As I said, the fatalities as a proportion of the aged-care beds in Australia amount to about 0.1 per cent—0.17 per cent—of the aged-care beds in this country. In the UK, it's 5.3, which is over 30 times worse than Australia. While every single death in this pandemic is a tragedy, in seven out of eight states we don't have a case in residential aged care. Unfortunately, in Victoria, where we have uncontrolled community spread, the virus has inevitably got into residential aged care. That is what happens. (Time expired)
Senator Walsh, a final supplementary question?
A woman who sadly lost her father from COVID-19 at St Basil's described the moment she learned her father had died as the worst call of her life. Yesterday the minister said we had been 'in a very good position'. Does the minister expect this woman and her grieving family to agree?
Thanks, Senator Walsh, for the question. Actually, no, I don't, because this family has been tragically impacted by the deadly nature of COVID-19. I give her and her family my heartfelt condolences. I have spoken to many of these families myself. I have spent time talking to them in community meetings, but I've also spoken to a number of them individually when they've wanted to have a conversation about what's occurred. We've set up an investigation into what happened at St Basil's, appropriately I think, so that we can understand the epidemiology of that event and we can understand what happened with respect to the delays in the Commonwealth being notified of the event and what impact that delay in notification had. I understand perfectly that this family would be completely and utterly devastated by the loss of their loved one— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Border travel restrictions imposed by state and territory governments have negatively impacted the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of regional Australians who live and work in and across border communities. Can the minister please outline what steps the national cabinet is taking to secure a national approach from state and territory governments to issues of quarantine, essential movement across borders and the identification of hotspots to ensure that regional and rural Australians' access to health care, education and employment is not limited unnecessarily?
I thank Senator McKenzie for that question. The government is committed to keeping Australia as open as possible in a way that is COVID safe. In the wake of this pandemic, we must always be focused on protecting both people's lives and people's livelihoods. We are working with state and territory governments to put in place practical commonsense solutions to a whole series of problems that have arisen as a result of hard state border closures and which are affecting access to services and our economic recovery.
For example, we need to ensure that relevant exemptions are in place and applied consistently and efficiently so that disruptions to critical services for border residents are minimised as much as possible. National cabinet previously codified the freight protocol, ensuring freight can keep moving efficiently and safely during this pandemic. Last Friday, national cabinet noted some recent changes by states and territories to make it easier for people to cross borders, subject to appropriate arrangements, to access essential services and activities. Since Monday, farmers and critical agricultural workers who reside outside the border zone in Victoria now have a new pathway to enter New South Wales and move outside the border bubble for work. For people living in the border zone, a permit can be obtained for travel within the border zone for the purpose of work if they cannot work from home and to obtain medical care or access to health supplies. Victorian residents can obtain a permit to enter New South Wales for the purpose of receiving non-emergency medical or hospital services, with no permit required in emergency situations.
On Friday, national cabinet also asked the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee to develop a common understanding of 'hotspot' across jurisdictions and consider movement restrictions for affected residents in that context. This further work will provide people who are living in those areas, particularly in regional and rural border communities, with clear guidance on where and when they can access health and other services or where restrictions may need— (Time expired)
Senator McKenzie, a supplementary question?
The Victorian Labor government has imposed strict restrictions on regions not impacted by COVID-19 and just announced that these may continue for a further 12 months, whilst failing to stop Melburnians heading out to the regions. Can the minister please advise what impact pre-emptive border restrictions may have on health and education access, employment, and people in need of compassionate consideration?
We have seen widely reported examples of hardship for residents in rural and regional border communities. Such impacts should be minimised wherever possible, and they can be minimised in a way that is COVID safe. Throughout this pandemic, when it comes to restrictions on people's freedoms, we have been guided by the medical advice. Decisions on border restrictions must continue to be informed by public health advice. Ultimately, these are matters for the states and territories. However, it is up to the states and territories to set out clearly the medical advice informing their decisions and to ensure that there's a genuine public health upside in return for the restrictions and costs imposed on individual Australians and on our communities—in particular, regional and rural communities across Australia.
There is no rule book on how best to deal with this crisis, but it is critical that decisions are made on the basis of advice from the medical experts and not based on political considerations. That is why the national cabinet has asked the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee to develop a consistent approach— (Time expired)
Senator McKenzie, a final supplementary question?
Border restrictions are severely impacting our agricultural industry and food supply chains due to the creation of significant workforce limitations. Can the minister please provide an update to the Senate on how the Liberal and Nationals government is taking steps to address these concerns?
I thank the Leader of the Nationals for that question. National cabinet agreed on 21 August to the development of an agricultural workers code which would set out nationally consistent measures to support the movement of workers critical to the agricultural sector across state borders. The code would help to support individuals and occupations that help ensure the continuity of the agricultural sector. Without these workers, agriculture in Australia comes to a halt, with all of the consequences of that, including for people in the city. That is very important for all of us to remember. This includes not just on-farm workers, such as shearers, grain harvesters and fruit pickers, but also those who provide agricultural businesses with critical services, such as vets and agricultural mechanics. Sheep still need shearing, crops still need harvesting and animals still need to be attended to by vets. There have been recent encouraging changes to exemptions in Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia, but there is more work to be done with the New South Wales-Victorian border, in particular.
My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Colbeck. Yesterday the minister said, 'We have been extremely fortunate.' Does the minister really believe the 100 families who have lost loved ones in the last seven days accept that we have been extremely fortunate?
I don't think that the families who have lost loved ones would be feeling anything other than grief, and I understand that. They have suffered tragic losses—all 342 of them, now. They've all suffered a really tragic loss and, again, my condolences and the government's condolences to them. But, in a comparative sense, the Australian government's management of the COVID-19 outbreak has been relatively good. In fact, I would rather be here in Australia than anywhere else in the world right now. That is also reflected in the figures that we have with respect to the number of contractions of the virus in our residential aged-care system. While the Labor Party might like to hang on calculations that place Australia in a bad light, if you look at the aged-care stats on an international basis, we are doing relatively well.
The government takes no pleasure in the fact that these families have suffered this tragic loss. It is a tragic loss. I don't expect any of those families to feel anything but the loss that they have felt.
If you look at Australia's circumstances in a global sense and our management of COVID-19 compared to the rest of the world, I would rather be here in Australia than almost any other country in the world.
Senator Keneally, a supplementary question?
The minister just said he would rather be in Australia than any other country in the world and that the government has done reasonably well. The day before this man died at St Basil's a resident received a call telling them their father was comfortably sitting in his room isolated from a major coronavirus outbreak gripping the facility, when in reality their father was gravely unwell at the Northern Hospital Epping. Minister, why should this man and his grieving family accept that the government has done reasonably well?
Thanks, Senator Keneally, for the question. It is disappointing that the opposition seeks to reinterpret what I'm saying in one context and apply it to another context. I have done nothing but express my sympathies and the government's sympathies—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order, senators on my left! Senator Colbeck, please resume your seat. Order on my left! If I can't hear the minister, I won't be able to deal with the inevitable points of order. Senator Colbeck.
Thank you, Mr President. It is disappointing that the opposition tries to take my comments out of context and apply them in a different circumstance, because that's not what I've said on any occasion. I have done nothing but express my sympathies for every family who has suffered a loss, because they're all suffering a family tragedy. So I take offence at the fact that Senator Keneally tries to use my words in a way that I have never uttered them. It is, in fact, quite outrageous that she— (Time expired)
Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question?
A diabetic 75-year-old woman with COVID-19 was forced to go without breakfast and was left for hours in a urine-soaked bed due to a lack of staff. Does the minister really believe that the government has done reasonably well in addressing this aged-care crisis and the COVID-19 outbreak in residential aged-care homes?
Again, Senator Keneally deliberately misquotes and verbals me with respect to the words I've used and the context within which I've used them. I and the government have acknowledged that in some circumstances—and particularly at St Basil's, where we had 24 hours to restaff the entire facility, including management—things didn't go as we thought they should have done. We have acknowledged it and we've apologised for it. The families of these residents have suffered an absolute tragedy. I will not take Senator Keneally misusing what I've said and placing it completely out of context, because it's completely unreasonable for her to do that—
Order, Senator Colbeck! Senator Faruqi.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education. At least 16 members of the government, including the Prime Minister, went to uni while it was free, but your latest cruel, hypocritical plan will hurt students by hiking fees and cuts up to $900 million from teaching funding, including from STEM and nursing. The experts agree it's an unfixable mess. It won't create enough new places. It punishes struggling students. Your own department admitted it won't change student choices and it incentivises unis to enrol students in high-fee courses instead of STEM. The whole thing relies on useless job market predictions and bad data to punish students without saving uni jobs or fixing the research crisis. Youth wage growth is the flattest in history and unemployment is skyrocketing. Minister, how can you justify condemning students to decades of debt?
I thank Senator Faruqi for her question, although I disagree with much of the information that she presented as fact in that question. I do think there are a couple of granules within all of that—that there are too many graduates coming out of universities at present who are not necessarily securing a well-paying job, particularly a job in the field of their studies. The reforms we are presenting in relation to higher education seek to address some of those problems to ensure that the way in which students are encouraged into university and supported through university results in the optimal chances of their securing a job—and indeed a job in the field of their training, study and, ideally, desires.
Contrary to what Senator Faruqi says, there are no cuts in Commonwealth funding or support. Indeed, funding for the Commonwealth Grants Scheme will continue to increase by CPI, and overall university funding will increase from $18 billion in 2020 to $19 billion by 2022. That will be some 10 per cent growth relative to the 2018 position. Minister Tehan published the draft legislation of our Job-ready Graduates Package for consultation and has now worked through that consultation phase and has presented a plan that will create more places for more students to attend university: an additional 39,000 places by 2023 and an additional 100,000 places by 2030. No existing student is going to see changes in relation to their fees, but universities will see their record funding continuing to grow whilst we create the right incentives to encourage students to study in areas that optimise the chances of their securing our economic needs of the future. (Time expired)
Senator Faruqi, a supplementary question?
Minister, you're actually forcing universities to enrol more students—thousands more—while cutting funding, and that is true, for their education by an average of 15 per cent. This means fewer teachers and bigger classes, a poorer quality of education across the board and particularly in regional unis, where the cost of delivery is higher. Minister, will you acknowledge that your plan is going to hurt the quality of uni education? And if you were still education minister, would you have brought forward this cruel plan?
I do congratulate Minister Tehan on the reforms he's proposing—reforms that will see, for example, students who choose to study teaching, nursing, clinical psychology, English or languages paying some 40 per cent less for their degrees in terms of the contribution that they make. I would have thought Senator Faruqi might welcome that. I would have thought there might be some acknowledgement of that. Students who study architecture or maths will pay around 60 per cent less in terms of the student contribution for their degree. Students who study science, health, architecture, environmental science—environmental science, Senator Faruqi!—or IT or engineering will pay around 20 per cent less in terms of contribution before their degree. This is about making sure that we equip Australia and young Australians for the future with skills that will help them to get a job and our economy to grow and recover in the post-COVID era.
Senator Faruqi, a final supplementary question?
Minister, your government has stood by while thousands of university workers have lost their jobs. The likes of Crown Casino have received more than $100 million in JobKeeper, but you have changed the rules three times to maliciously lock universities out. Now you're intent on cutting funding, hiking fees and punishing struggling students. Minister, what do you have against universities?
This is the quintessential problem that exists with the Australian Greens: you can say whatever you want in terms of outlining the facts, and they are just completely ignored. I outlined the growth in funding.
Senator Cormann interjecting—
Honourable senators interjecting—
It might be a shared problem with the Labor Party. That's why they're all on that side of the chamber, Senator Cormann! I outlined the fact that funding continues to grow, right into the future, and Senator Faruqi still stands up and talks about cuts in funding to Australian universities. She tries to draw an analogy with private sector businesses, who have seen their revenue collapse in their business operations, whereas what the Australian government has done for universities is provide guaranteed ongoing funding to those universities during this COVID-19 crisis. There's guaranteed funding that the Australian government continues to provide on behalf of taxpayers and students to universities. There's growing funding in the future— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Cash. Can the minister update the Senate on the Morrison government's COVID-19 vaccine strategy?
I thank Senator Bragg for the question. We know that the search for a vaccine is one upon which the world is focused. Without a vaccine, as we know, we won't be able to return fully to the life we knew prior to COVID-19, and you only have to look at the changes that we've had to make here in the parliament as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Australian government is taking targeted action to ensure that Australians have access to safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines if and when they become available. Our strategy is fourfold. The first is in research. We've allocated over $358 million towards research in relation to vaccines, preventions, treatment and respiratory medicines. Most significantly, there's been an investment of $5 million in the University of Queensland molecular clamp. Another vaccine funding round has opened, and the government expects to receive the peer reviewed recommendations shortly. The second is in direct procurement with leading international vaccine candidates. We have already announced our agreement with AstraZeneca, and negotiations are advanced with multiple other candidates. The third is in participation in the international Covax Facility, which is an international consortium to give participant nations access to a variety of potential vaccine candidates. It acts as a common platform for investment in return for common participation in whichever vaccine is successful. And the fourth is in onshore manufacturing capacity for a vaccine in Australia either directly or under a licence, including through CSL. We're confident that these investments and actions will secure early and sufficient access to a safe and effective vaccine.
Senator Bragg, a supplementary question?
Can the minister advise the Senate how the government's agreement with AstraZeneca will ensure Australia gets access to this important vaccine if it is successful?
As the Prime Minister and the health minister stated last week, the government signed a letter of intent with a UK based drug company, AstraZeneca, which means Australians will get access to the University of Oxford COVID-19 vaccine for free should trials prove successful, safe and effective. The government and AstraZeneca have committed to working together so that all Australians will get access to such a vaccine. Of the 160 different vaccine projects in the world, the Oxford vaccine is one of the most advanced and promising. Crucially, the letter of intent between the government and AstraZeneca covers all of the steps that are needed to bring a new vaccine to market. It covers vaccine development, production and distribution. The government will continue discussions with many of these developers while at the same time backing Australian researchers. We will continue to take advice from our best medical, scientific and manufacturing experts.
Senator Bragg, a final supplementary question?
As we await the development of a vaccine, why is it important to maintain social distancing and practical health steps to minimise the risk of transmitting the virus so we can reopen and grow our COVID-safe economy?
As the entire world watches and waits for a vaccine, it has never been more important to observe appropriate health precautions. The second wave that the state of Victoria is now experiencing has made it abundantly clear how vigilant we need to be in observing practices like social distancing. In June and July of this year we saw positive signs of economic recovery in the states that have supressed the virus. As we minimise the transmission and the risk of transmission, we minimise the risk of harming the economy.
We must all exercise an abundance of caution and continue to follow the medical advice on the practical steps that will keep us all safe. Again, stay 1.5 metres away from other people, whenever and wherever we can; maintain good handwashing practices, and coughing and sneezing hygiene practices. Stay at home if you're unwell and get tested if you have respiratory symptoms or a fever. And, of course, download the COVIDSafe app so that we can find the virus more quickly. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Colbeck. When did the minister first learn he had been cut out of decision-making in the aged-care emergency response? Was the minister ever consulted on the decision to exclude him?
The reality is there has been no change in the decision-making process with respect to the establishment of an aged-care response centre in any state.
A government senator interjecting—
I think the interjection from behind me is correct: don't always believe what you read in the newspaper. The decisions around the establishment of an aged-care response centre are made through the AHPPC. That is the decision-making process under the auspices of the national cabinet. It has been discussed at national cabinet now on two occasions—last Friday and a fortnight before that. The AHPPC has and does report to the health minister. So, in the context of an organisation that reports to the health minister in implementing our national COVID-19 health response, that's the decision-making line. So nothing has changed. It is as it always was. But I and my department play an important operational role in the oversight of all of those facilities, as I do in Victoria.
Senator Watt, a supplementary question?
Has the minister been sidelined because he failed to produce a COVID-19 plan specifically for the aged-care sector, or because he failed to learn the tragic lessons of Newmarch House, or because he forgot the number of deaths in residential aged care on Friday, or because he couldn't get the number of deaths right again yesterday? Or was it because of the first, second or the 328th tragic and avoidable death of an older Australian in aged care?
I completely reject the premise of the question. Don't believe everything that you read in the newspaper. I have just explained the process for the establishment of these centres.
Senator Watt interjecting—
Senator Watt, props are not allowed.
I was consulted in the process of the formation of these centres across Australia before the documentation went to national cabinet last week, so I was well aware of all of the processes last week before any decisions were made with respect to the formation of a recovery centre in any other state. I played a part, firstly, in the formation of the Victorian aged-care response centre, and then in the process of decision-making for those that might be required subsequently.
Senator Watt, a final supplementary question?
If the minister is being cut out of decision-making in his own portfolio, can he tell Australian taxpayers exactly what he is being paid for?
Senator Watt demonstrates what happens when you just read the pre-written supplementary that you've been given before question time rather than listening to the answer that has just been given. I've just explained the process that has been involved with the design of the recovery and response centres for aged care in all of the states. I've explained my involvement in it and the process by which they are approved. I stand by my answer.
My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Senator Birmingham. How is the Morrison government growing a COVID-safe economy by supporting Australian exporters and helping to keep Australians who rely on the exporting sector in jobs through the COVID-19 pandemic?
I thank Senator Rennick for his question. He is a known champion of Australian business and Australian jobs, particularly those from Queensland. Right across the globe, far too many businesses and far too many jobs have been tragically disrupted by COVID-19. Some of those disruptions, including here in Australia, have been unavoidable as a result of necessary shutdowns and restrictions across economies. Others have been consequential disruptions. Indeed, many of our exporting businesses have been victims of the consequences of different restrictions, particularly those exporting premium produce to the world. They have been victims of the shutdown of international aviation. An estimated 80 or even 90 per cent of international air freight out of Australia is traditionally carried in the bellies of passenger aircraft, which, of course, are no longer flying. That's why our government has injected more than $350 million into the International Freight Assistance Mechanism. It's targeted, it's temporary and it's providing emergency support to make sure that exporters, while still having to pay a premium to get their goods to market, can at least still get them to market. We have sent and supported Western Australian pork getting to Singapore, Tasmanian salmon to Taiwan, Cairns coral trout to Hong Kong, New South Wales tuna to Japan, South Australian kingfish to Europe and Victorian lamb to the UAE. IFAM is also providing important support for medical imports coming into the country—critical, essential imports in our national interest. To date, IFAM has supported an estimated 4,376 flights that would otherwise probably not have occurred from nine domestic departure points to over 65 international destinations, carrying 94½ thousand tonnes representing more than $1.1 billion in export value to our nation, ensuring those exports still flow and ensuring income and jobs for Australia. (Time expired)
Senator Rennick, a supplementary question?
Can the minister advise what feedback he has received from Australian businesses and Australian exporters about the International Freight Assistance Mechanism package?
Our farmers and our exporters work incredibly hard to secure export contracts around the globe, and the last thing we want to see is them lose the reputation for reliability and lose contracts simply because they can't get their goods to market. So businesses across the country—exporters across the country—have welcomed the work of IFAM. Indeed, in Senator Rennick's home state of Queensland, the Australian Reef Fish Trading Company in Cairns said, 'Without IFAM we would be in survival mode.' Instead, in the last two months they've put on two new people and increased their administration officer from part-time to full-time. The availability and reliability of flights has allowed them to commit to buying fish from the boats. That's kept the boats in business and their crews in jobs, with flow-on impacts to fuel suppliers, mechanical workshops, bait suppliers and wholesalers. SunPork in Kingaroy says, 'The IFAM initiative was an extremely useful stimulus when transport came to an abrupt halt and our normal freight avenues were cut off.' Prime Fish from the Gold Coast acknowledges that, 'Because of IFAM, we've been able to get produce to where it needs to go.' (Time expired)
Senator Rennick, a final supplementary question?
In comparison to other countries, can the minister update the Senate on how the Australian goods export sector is faring in the COVID-19 pandemic?
Like with all aspects of the economy, there are impacts because of not just the disruptions to air freight but disruptions in a whole range of other ways. In the first six months of this year, Australian goods exports have been down 3.7 per cent on the same period in 2019, but they're still worth in excess of $183 billion. If we compare that 3.7 per cent decline for Australia with elsewhere around the world, we can see that preliminary OECD data shows an average goods export decline across OECD nations in excess of 15 per cent—that's a 3.3 per cent decline for Australia but more than 15 per cent for the OECD on average. Across the G7, it's estimated to have been a decline in excess of 17 per cent, in the US a decline in excess of 16 per cent, in Canada in excess of 18 per cent and in Japan in excess of 14 per cent. That demonstrates that Australia's exporters continue to navigate the complexities of this time, generating exporting— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister Reynolds. On 5 February 2020 the Prime Minister announced that the Australian government would establish the new National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention to inquire into suicides of serving and former ADF members. Part of this announcement was the appointment of an interim commissioner to commence a review of known current and former defence personnel suicides dating back to 2001. My question to the minister is: who is the interim commissioner?
I thank Senator Lambie for her question. I can confirm for Senator Lambie and the Senate that legislation will shortly be introduced by the Attorney-General to set up the office of the permanent commissioner. As I said, the interim commissioner will be appointed shortly to implement that work, so—
Senator Lambie interjecting—
Senator Lambie, would you like me to finish? What I can confirm is that, once appointed by the Attorney-General, the national commissioner will work to identify and undertake the factors and the systemic issues that may contribute to suicide risk amongst serving and former members. They will have all of the powers of a royal commissioner. The government has been acting on this and, as I said, the Attorney-General will be introducing legislation shortly to set up this position.
Senator Lambie, a supplementary question?
As part of the 5 February announcement, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and you all said that an interim commissioner would immediately commence a review of historical suicides and report within 12 months. Did that review commence immediately as promised?
As I've said, we got the legislation underway to set up the permanent commissioner this week. As part of that process, we will still be appointing an interim commissioner, and the Attorney-General is in the process at the moment of going through a short list for the interim commissioner to undertake the work as discussed.
Senator Lambie, a final supplementary question?
If you say something is ready to go immediately—your words, not mine—how can it possibly be delayed? Either it's ready to go or it isn't. Was it ready to go in February and, if not, why did you claim it was?
As I announced in February, we did say that we would bring forward this office of the commissioner, which would have the powers of a royal commission, and we would establish an interim commissioner. As I've said, the Attorney-General currently has a short list of applicants for that interim process. But I would also note that we did say that we would appoint a Veteran Family Advocate, and, in fact, we have done so, with an outstanding person, Ms Gwen Cherne, being appointed by the Governor-General as the Veteran Family Advocate. We have actually implemented that, and we will shortly be announcing the interim commissioner.
We are delivering on exactly what we promised to deliver. We have the legislation in train, we have in train the appointment of the interim commissioner, and we have appointed an outstanding Veteran Family Advocate. This government is delivering exactly what we said we would, Senator Lambie.
My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Colbeck. When asked on Friday whether he'd briefed the cabinet between 10 July and 5 August, the minister said:
I don't believe that I attended a cabinet meeting in that period. I'll check the record for you.
Given the minister has had four days to check the record, did he brief the cabinet on the growing crisis in aged care in that period?
I thank Senator Gallagher for the question. I didn't brief the cabinet in that period of time, but I have been participating in a daily call with the Prime Minister, senior colleagues and the health minister—effectively, a subcommittee of the cabinet—every day all through, particularly, the Victorian circumstance, and sometimes twice a day. This is not, as the Labor Party might try to play it, some sort of frivolous process. We have been working very closely on a daily basis to address the circumstances, particularly in Victoria. I've been working with the PM, the finance minister, Senator Ruston, the Treasurer, the health minister and a number of other colleagues and senior departmental officials across agencies every day to bring to bear the resources that we require to manage what has been a growing outbreak in Victoria. We needed to inject significant resources to assist both the Victorian government and the aged-care sector in Victoria to deal with what was a growing situation. And we continue to do that. We continue to meet on a regular basis. I have a separate meeting every day with the Victorian aged-care recovery centre to get a situation update on the circumstances in Victoria in particular, given the continuing situation that is there.
So the government is not—as is attempted to be portrayed by the opposition—doing anything other than putting its full attention on this. At the highest levels, on a daily, and sometimes twice-daily, basis— (Time expired)
Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question?
As minister for aged care in this government, when did you first brief the cabinet about the outbreak in residential aged care in Victoria?
I have spoken to the Prime Minister and senior cabinet colleagues on a daily basis, with—
Order! Senator Gallagher on a point of order?
Yes, Mr President, on direct relevance. It was a direct question about when he first briefed the cabinet, not when he had a chat with the Prime Minister. That's not the question I asked.
Senator Cormann?
Senator Colbeck is directly relevant to the question asked. He is explaining that he has daily conversations with the leader of the cabinet and, indeed, with all of the ministers who are part of the key cabinet subcommittee, the Expenditure Review Committee, and others as appropriate. Of course, in a moment of crisis that is what Australians would expect their Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians to do. The minister is being directly relevant to the question.
I'll take Senator Wong on a point of order and then I'll rule.
Thank you, Mr President. The point of order is direct relevance. The minister has been asked, and has answered a question about the cabinet briefing. He is now seeking to avoid answering another question about cabinet briefing in relation to an unprecedented crisis in aged care which has caused the deaths of many Australians. We would ask the minister to be directly relevant to the question, which was: when did he first brief the cabinet about this unprecedented crisis?
Firstly, I will say that the minister has been speaking for eight seconds so it is difficult to make a strict judgement on direct relevance at that point in a one-minute answer. Secondly, I'm not willing to rule that a minister who is strictly talking about his conversations or discussions with the Prime Minister is not directly relevant to a question regarding whether he briefed the cabinet, given that the Prime Minister is the head of cabinet. However, the answer to that must be narrow in its scope. It is not up to me to instruct a minister how to answer a question. It is up to others to judge or debate after question time. Senator Colbeck to continue.
As I have said: I am not going to allow the Labor Party to try to attempt any suggestion that this government has not put its full focus on the management of this entire COVID-19 outbreak. I have been present at the subcommittee of cabinet meetings since March to discuss it on each of the occasions that it has convened. Since July, that would be daily or, sometimes, twice-daily to manage the circumstances in Victoria.
The outbreak in Victoria has had the full attention of me, my fellow ministers who are involved in that subcommittee of cabinet and the Prime Minister on a daily basis since the outbreak— (Time expired)
Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question?
So I presume the answer to that question was that you never, ever have. Minister, in light of the unprecedented crisis in residential aged care in Victoria, with the loss, sadly, of more than 328 lives, how can you possibly justify not briefing the federal cabinet about this unprecedented crisis in aged care?
The Labor Party tries to make this something that it's not. As I've said, I'm focusing on my job with the ERC and with the Prime Minister on a daily basis, and with the finance minister, with the Treasurer, with the Minister for Social Security and anyone else who is seconded to the committee with the Minister for Health. That's on a daily basis. Any suggestion the Labor Party tries to make that this pandemic has not received my full attention, the Prime Minister's full attention and the government's full attention is just not so. We have been there every single day to make sure that the resources that need to be brought to bear can be brought to bear and are brought to bear.
My question is to the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Ruston. How is the Morrison government ensuring people with disability and their carers have access to appropriate and accessible information during the coronavirus pandemic?
I thank Senator Chandler for this really important question. Clearly the coronavirus is going to impact disproportionately on certain groups in our community. These groups are more likely to be at risk of contracting the virus and more likely to have poorer health outcomes—none more so than many of our people who live with disability. So making sure that people with disability, their families and their carers can access information about such issues as preventive measures, good hygiene and where to get the appropriate supports that they might need to get them through the pandemic has never been more important.
That's why the government has provided additional funding for a disability information hotline, specifically directed to providing advice around the COVID-19 pandemic. This free 1800 number is available from 8 am to 8 pm, Monday to Friday. It provides information, referrals, support, and emotional support and counselling to people who are impacted by either living with disability or supporting somebody who does live with disability. We've made sure that our staff are highly trained so that they can understand what the person needs and provide them with the information and support that they may need. We are making sure that our staff are directing people to information about where to get PPE and where to get food relief, if they need it. And we're just making sure that there's a friendly voice on the end of the phone if these people want someone to talk to. We're delighted to say that, since April, a number of people living with disability, their carers and supporters have used the services of the hotline. Over 2,700 calls have been received—many telephone based but also online. More than 1,700 of these calls have been able to be referred to appropriate services to support people in their particular areas of need. We want to make sure that, through this process, people who live with disability are able to get flexibility and choice around the services they need.
Senator Chandler, a supplementary question?
I thank the minister for her response. What is the government doing, Minister, to support the mental health and wellbeing of people, including people with disability and their carers, in response to COVID-19?
The government absolutely recognises the significant effect that this COVID pandemic is having on the mental health of all Australians. People who live with disability are also significantly impacted by this, whether it be through isolation, meaning that they are kept away from people who might be supporting them or their loved ones, through social distancing or through a number of other restrictions that have been placed on Australians. That's why we have provided additional support to all Australians. In recent times, an additional $12 million has been made available to make sure that people in Victoria have access 24 hours a day, seven days a week to health services like Lifeline, headspace or Kids Helpline. We want to make sure that services are available so that people can seek support and get the counselling they need. This is part of a $500 million mental health package that's been put in place by this government to support mental health during this pandemic.
Senator Chandler, a final supplementary question?
Minister, into the future, how will the government ensure best-practice support for people with disability who have experienced complex trauma?
Clearly, positive experiences with support workers, carers and advocates for people with disability are absolutely critical in reducing or minimising harm and trauma. It helps to foster a trauma informed recovery and healing process. We, as the government, are funding the development of a best-practice guide to make sure support for people with disability is appropriately targeted to their experiences and to make sure that it is trauma informed.
The government is providing funding to Blue Knot, a well-known supporter of counselling services, to develop this guide. Blue Knot has actually already developed similar types of guides. In fact, they published the Practice guidelines for clinical treatment of complex trauma. The guide will help to build better capacity of organisations and practitioners to help them better understand complex trauma and make sure that the response, particularly to people with disability, is informed by that information. This work is part of— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. In response to allegations aired earlier this year about branch stacking and misuse of public funds by members of the Victorian Labor Party, the Prime Minister said the issue raised many questions the Leader of the Opposition had to answer, yet when allegations of branch stacking and misuse of taxpayer funds by the Assistant Treasurer, Mr Sukkar, and a senior federal Liberal member were aired this week the Prime Minister said it was an issue for the Victorian Liberal Party and not his responsibility. Why the double standard on integrity?
I can confirm that the matters that were raised earlier this week are indeed appropriately a matter for the Victorian Liberal Party organisation, which I understand has taken appropriate steps in relation to an individual. That's unlike what was the case with the alternative. It's interesting to see how the Greens are in here pitching for the Labor Party. The Greens are in here pitching for the Labor Party. That's interesting to see.
I'm not really all that focused on internal party matters like this; I'm focused on the job that the Australian people want us to do, which is to protect people's health and people's livelihoods through this pandemic. That's what we're focused on. But I can confirm for the good senator that the issues that were raised in relation to internal party matters are indeed matters for the Liberal Party organisation. To the extent there were issues raised about the alleged misuse of taxpayer funded parliamentary resources, these are matters that the relevant federal members concerned had referred for independent inquiry by the Department of Finance, which is the usual process which is applied indiscriminately, on an entirely non-partisan basis, whenever these issues arise, as I'm sure members and senators from all around this and the other chamber would be well aware.
Senator Waters, a supplementary question?
Scandal after scandal in this term of government has shown that the Prime Minister is reluctant to enforce his own prime ministerial and ministerial standards to lift those standards of behaviour. Will the Prime Minister investigate whether Assistant Treasurer Sukkar's actions have breached the ministerial standards, and will he stand Mr Sukkar down while doing so?
No attempt by the Greens at trailing their coat for a future coalition with the Labor Party, where no doubt they will come out and try to harm the economy and jobs again, will distract us from our job, which is to support Australians, protect people's health and protect people's livelihoods through this pandemic and to ensure we put in place a plan for the strongest possible economic and jobs recovery on the other side. That is what we are focused on.
Senator McKim on a point of order?
The point of order is on relevance. We're now two-thirds of the way through the minister's provided time to answer this question. The question was very clear. It was about prime ministerial standards and ministerial standards and whether Mr Sukkar would be stood down while the Prime Minister made that assessment. Minister Cormann has gone nowhere near the question. Mr President, I ask that you remind him of the question.
Senator McKim, you've reminded the minister of the second part of the question. It did have a preamble. The minister is allowed some discretion in being directly relevant to the preamble as well, but I've let you remind him of the point of the question.
It is clearly a partisan, political question in relation to party organisational matters. It is interesting that in the middle of a pandemic a senator for Queensland is interested in internal party matters in the state of Victoria. I'll let the people of Queensland judge that at the next election. No doubt that is why the vote for the Greens is particularly weak in that particular— (Time expired)
Senator Waters, a final supplementary question?
Perhaps I'll get an answer to this one. A strong independent integrity commission is essential if we're going to stamp out the ongoing scandals that beset this place. How much longer can the government delay—
Sorry. Because we're past 3 pm it won't impact the time. I'll ask Senator Waters to start again because the volume in the chamber wasn't as loud as it could be. Senator Waters, could you speak up if you could, please?
Yes. Thank you, President. A strong, independent integrity commission is essential if we are to stamp out ongoing scandals in this place. How much longer can the government delay bringing on legislation for a federal corruption watchdog—whether that's my bill, which passed the chamber almost a year ago; or your own bill, which was described as 'imminent' 18 months ago? What more does this government have to hide?
Australia has one of the proudest and best records in the world when it comes to providing open, transparent and accountable government. I can see Senator McKim sneer at that but that is a fact. Of course, we are committed to pursue further reforms in this regard to even further strengthen an already strong position. I think the Australian people well understand why over the last six months we have prioritised our crisis response to protect people's lives, to suppress the spread of the virus, to slow down the spread of the virus to ensure that our hospitals could handle the inflow of patients into the health system, to ensure that we provided the necessary supports to Australian businesses, Australian workers and those Australians who lost their jobs. I think Australians understand that there has been a pandemic going on, and that clearly it was quite appropriate that, in this context, we prioritised the many measures that had to be taken as part of a crisis response. I thank the Senate. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Pursuant to standing order 164(3), I ask the minister representing the Minister for Education for an explanation as to why an order for the production of documents, agreed to on 16 June 2020, concerning support for international students, has not been complied with.
Mr President, on a point of order: relating to standing order 164(3), it is, of course, open to a senator to, at the conclusion of question time, ask a question in relation to non-compliance in relation to an order for the production of documents. I do note that part (3) of standing order 164 is very clear that it is:
If a minister does not comply with an order for the production of documents, directed to the minister, within 30 days after the date specified for compliance with the order…
I'd invite you, Mr President, to look at this particular matter, in that the question and the order for the production of documents that Senator Faruqi raises, indeed, has had a response provided to the Senate. It's a response that identifies that no such documents exist in relation to the order moved by Senator Faruqi and carried by the Senate. Mr President, that is compliance with the order. The standing order that Senator Faruqi raises this matter under requires non-compliance for the questioning to be valid. I'm not sure how a minister is meant to provide for compliance where no such documents exist, other than to inform the Senate of such.
Are you speaking on the point of order, Senator Faruqi?
Thank you, Mr President. I contend that the order was not complied with. The order was for any documents created, sent or received by relevant department and ministerial officers relating to a national hardship fund, or similar program, payment or initiative, to support international students during COVID-19. This does not imply that a fund had to be established or in operation. Indeed, the Senate order was intentionally drafted widely to capture any initiatives the government may have been working on but did not eventuate. I know for a fact that there are documents that relate to a national hardship fund that fall within the scope of this order, because I submitted a freedom of information request to the department of education, worded similarly to the order, relating to the exact same time period, which identified about 200 pages of material relevant to the request.
I have taken the opportunity to get some advice, and I can rule on the point of order. Standing order 164(3) provides opportunities for senators after question time to seek an explanation from a minister if a minister does not comply with an order for documents within a specified period and does not, in that time, provide to the Senate 'an explanation of why the order has not been complied with which the Senate resolves is satisfactory'. Although that provision was inserted into the standing orders in 2005, it has only been used on a handful of occasions and its interpretation has not been the subject of any previous rulings. The provisions are, however, analogous to the provisions of standing order 74(5), which allows senators to seek explanations for unanswered questions on notice and estimates questions. Early rulings on that standing order established that it ceases to be available once an answer has been provided. Standing order 164(3), in my view, operates in the same way. If a minister has complied with an order for documents, the process set out in the standing order is no longer available and a senator may not seek an explanation under the order.
As I understand it—and I appreciate Senator Faruqi's contribution here—the government's responses to the order are unequivocal in stating that no documents exist that meet the terms of the order. Absent any motion being moved in the Senate to contradict the government's response, I consider it reasonable in my position to accept the government's responses and to conclude that the order has been complied with. I'm not in a position to determine contested claims. If there is a disagreement over the interpretation of an order, as seems to be the case here from what I've just heard and from the advice I have received, the standing order does not provide a means for determining that disagreement. There are, however, other procedures in the Senate that a senator can use to further pursue the matter. I thank senators.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians (Senator Colbeck) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to COVID-19 and aged care.
In question time today, the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Colbeck, admitted that the Morrison government's cabinet was not briefed about the Victorian outbreak until 5 August. That is more than six weeks after initial cases were identified, and, on that day, there were already 1,435 COVID-positive cases linked to aged-care outbreaks. There were nearly a hundred facilities impacted. Sadly, on that day, the day the cabinet was first briefed, another 10 Australians died. I extend my condolences to everyone who has been touched by this crisis in aged care through losing loved ones, to those in hospitals, to those battling the virus, and to those who have been sick with worry and haven't been able to see their loved ones.
Let's be clear: the Morrison government have responsibility for aged care in Australia, and they have failed to protect aged-care residents from this virus. This failure hasn't happened overnight. It has been years in the making. The Morrison government have failed by not having the aged-care portfolio in the cabinet. They have failed by having review after review but then doing nothing to act on them. They have failed by not dealing with the serious and escalating workforce issues, which have been known and about which reviews have gathered dust on their desks for years and years. They have failed by cutting billions of dollars in funding over several budgets and then using weasel words to pretend they never did. Well, budget papers don't lie. The Morrison government have cut money that was meant to go to the aged-care sector. The Prime Minister, as the Treasurer, was the architect of those cuts, and those cuts have taken a fragile system and broken it. There is clearly no redundancy left.
The real-life experience in Victoria, which we have seen play out in heartbreaking scenes, is that aged-care facilities have had no capacity to deal with a virus like COVID-19 when it came into their home. We've seen images of elderly Australians being evacuated from their homes malnourished, dehydrated, missing medication, soiled, distressed and alone. So don't stand here and tell us how fortunate we have been. Don't say how well we've done. Don't try and shirk responsibility and blame others. People in aged care in Australia today don't need spin and a rewriting or a convenient interpretation of what has happened in Victoria. The facts speak for themselves.
From mid-June, when positive cases in Victoria started to rise, what did this government do to protect residents of aged care? They knew they were vulnerable. They knew from what had happened in the northern hemisphere: when community transmission rates increased, the risk for people in residential aged care increases exponentially. They already knew that. From a handful of cases in early July to 1,000 cases by the end of that month, more than 125 facilities had outbreaks, and there were more than 335 deaths and more than 2,000 cases linked to aged care. No matter which way the government tries to spin the crisis in aged care, these facts tell a story of failure—failure to protect vulnerable citizens from COVID-19 getting into their homes and then failure to stop the spread. This is the result of a system that remains hidden from public view, housing vulnerable people, the quietest of all Australians, who, after doing their best for this country, have been abandoned by a Prime Minister who is quick to point the finger at others but who clearly didn't do enough quickly enough, by a minister clearly without authority or influence and by a system that has been fractured by neglect, underfunding and the indifference of this government over seven long years.
The royal commission heard compelling evidence that the system for older Australians is 'woefully inadequate'. That is a quote from a report titled Neglect, which was given to this government in November last year. The title speaks volumes. The royal commission itself has put in writing that the system is woefully inadequate. They knew this in November. The royal commissioners go on to say:
Many people receiving aged care services have their basic human rights denied. Their dignity is not respected and their identity is ignored. It most certainly is not a full life. It is a shocking tale of neglect.
We say older Australians deserve better than this.
Older Australians most certainly do deserve better than this. What we've seen here today is an absolute disgrace and outrage. The Labor Party comes in here, speaking of cases, people's lives and families that have been devastated. To come in here and make political points off the back of those very, very sad situations and stories is an absolute disgrace. I am quite set back by this, I've got to say. There have been 335 deaths in our aged-care facilities. That's a number, but it actually represents individuals. It represents communities. Importantly, it represents families—families that, over the last few months, have had a significant amount of grief. They're dealing with that. To have Labor come in here and drag out these stories and make a political point, conflating two different versions of stories together to make a political point against a minister that has actually done a significant amount to ensure that this pandemic—I mean, it is a crisis. It is a crisis that we're dealing with, and dealing with it has been the No. 1 priority of this government. In fact, the Prime Minister has said that this is his No. 1 focus right now. The focus of this government is ensuring that we can deal with this crisis and this pandemic.
Everywhere across the world when there has been an outbreak like what we've seen in Victoria, there have always been cases in aged-care facilities. It's the ability to deal with those cases and those outbreaks, and deal with them in such a way that you minimise the impact—importantly, the impact on lives. If that side were actually serious about what's going on then they'd actually be asking questions about what we're doing and how we could actually mitigate further the risk that has been caused by the outbreak that's occurred under a Labor government down there in Victoria. The Prime Minister is absolutely committed to ensuring that we are able to deal with this, that the communities are responsible and that the families that are involved are getting the best possible support. All services with an active case of COVID-19 are receiving support from the Australian government, including a single case manager and access to PPE, testing at residential aged-care facilities and access to a surge workforce and supplementation. We heard the minister explain that in one particular facility they had to replace an entire workforce in 24 hours. An outbreak occurred that of course went through the workplace.
Right now, I want to pay tribute to those who are in the healthcare sector, particularly in aged care. My sister works in an aged-care facility and I know that she turns up to work not knowing what will happen. But she bravely fronts up to work, knowing that what is protecting her is a mask or a face shield. They are brave Australians who are doing this. Support for them is absolutely critical, and we saw that in that one facility in Victoria: an entire workforce substituted within 24 hours.
We heard before from Senator Gallagher, who spoke about so-called cuts which have been made in the aged-care sector. It's only Labor that could actually call a billion dollars worth of increases a cut. Labor's claim has actually been debunked by the ABC's Fact Check. Despite Labor's plans for $387 billion in higher taxes, there was nothing in their plan leading up to the last election that showed any sort of commitment to increasing and supporting the aged-care sector like this government has done. Nothing! They have the gall to say these things when they actually have no plan. They've not put forward anything that would suggest they have a commitment like this government has. Labor's hypocrisy is evident and obvious at this time, with this sort of nonsense that we see coming into this place.
The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety's interim report said it was difficult not to be critical of successive governments' failures to fix the aged-care system. This government is committed to working with the sector— (Time expired)
Minister Colbeck has staked out today that he's simply under political attack and that the opposition's continual questioning of him is somehow unjustified. This question time we saw more and more simple facts come out that highlight the incompetence now not only of Minister Colbeck but indeed of the entire government in failing to take account of the grievous situation confronting aged care, particularly in Victoria.
We've seen more than 350 deaths and yet we have seen nothing from this government except talking up purported relativities of how well they're doing compared to the rest of the world or other parts of the globe. The simple fact is that these deaths were preventable. They were absolutely preventable. They were preventable by this government if they had put in place proper responses to what had happened at Dorothy Henderson Lodge and at Newmarch House. Indeed, the aged-care royal commission and other incidents that happened in aged care some 12 months ago and before that all highlight how ill prepared aged care is for these pandemic-type situations.
We have a government which has not put in place the measures that would have prevented this. It's all very well for the government to blame Victoria, but the simple fact is that this situation is not occurring in all aged-care settings. It is occurring in settings where it's got in and where there has been poor control of transmission of the virus. There is a lack of PPE in some of these places and there is a lack of training in some of these places. And what I think is most telling of all is the appalling rates of pay for aged-care workers who are doing intimate care support—feeding people, putting them to bed, changing their clothes—but do not have adequate personal protective equipment. They are showering them, taking them to the toilet, managing people with dementia in all their daily intimate activities, and they do not have adequate personal protective equipment.
These are things that should have been a top priority right from the outset—in response to Dorothy Henderson Lodge, in response to Newmarch House. The simple fact—and Senator O'Sullivan should know about these issues—is that the aged-care wage, which is close to the minimum wage, means that if you currently take home JobSeeker because you're not getting enough hours and you take on some part-time hours in aged care then you could lose your eligibility for JobSeeker. So there is no incentive to work. This is another driving force behind the lack of aged-care staff in some settings. The government fiddled around with settings within our social security system without actually fixing some of the problems that confront people when it comes to disincentives to work. People are expected to work for $10 an hour, after you consider those disincentives to work.
This is an appalling state of affairs that this government has failed to take accountability for. We've heard that the minister for aged care has failed to brief the cabinet. He's briefed the Prime Minister. Well, the Prime Minister needs to take responsibility for the mess in aged care. There are hundreds of grieving families around this nation, not just those grieving for those who have died from COVID but also those who've been locked out of aged-care settings and therefore unable to be with their loved ones in their dying days. This is an appalling state of affairs, and the government must show some respect and accountability.
I want to start by saying that the behaviour of the Labor Party in response to aged-care deaths has been tawdry, to say the least. Instead of taking the high ground in seeking to find a solution, Labor has taken the well-worn path it always takes by grandstanding on other people's misfortunes. Does Labor really think that if it had been in government it could have handled the pandemic any better? Of course not. They're not interested in finding solutions; they're only interested in point scoring.
Take the words of Deputy Chief Medical Officer Nick Coatsworth to the royal commission:
… the assertion that there was an attitude of futility towards deaths in residential aged care in Australia is frankly insulting to the entire Australian community who locked down to prevent deaths amongst our most vulnerable.
And:
… there were many words used in the royal commission witness statements today that perhaps don't reflect the totality of the Government's response, both at federal and state level to preventing deaths in aged care.
The fact is that coronavirus is a highly contagious retrovirus with elevated case fatality rates in the elderly and those who have comorbidities. The vast majority will get the virus mildly and get over it, and some may not even realise they had it at all. The containment measures put in place by the Morrison government have been some of the best in the world and have gone a long way to reducing the prevalence of the virus and surge impacts on our hospitals—not that you would know it if you listen to Labor. Their attacks on Senator Colbeck have been, frankly, despicable. No-one has worked harder than our Prime Minister and Senator Richard Colbeck in trying to keep Australians safe.
To quote Brendan Murphy, who was our chief medical officer:
Australia's overall COVID death rate as a proportion of cases is around 1.5% (compared to 15% in the UK and 5% in the USA). Our death rate in aged care across Australia as a proportion of total aged care residents is 0.1% (1 in 1000) compared to 5% in the UK where nearly 20,000 deaths have been seen.
He also said:
… no matter how prepared and resourced the aged care sector is, this outbreak will, unfortunately, only finally come under control with the suppression of community transmission. The best way to protect older persons is to suppress community transmission.
Labor needs to remember that no-one is doing a better job of that than the coalition's Gladys Berejiklian in New South Wales, who, despite having received over 50 per cent of cases in quarantine from international arrivals, has kept a lid on community transmission. Compare that to Labor's Daniel Andrews, whose mismanagement is the root of the community transmission in Victoria. Do we hear a word out of Labor about that? Of course not—complete and utter silence.
Did Daniel Andrews consult anyone before he pulled out over 100 staff from St Basil's before provisions were made to find replacement staff? Of course not. It was left to the federal government to come along and clean up the mess left by Daniel Andrews, and I should point out to Senator Gallagher that, while we might be responsible for aged care, we're not responsible for health. If Daniel Andrews had actually consulted the federal government, we might have been able to step in and help out the aged-care centre before leaving those people in a more vulnerable state. But that's Daniel Andrews for you. He's the Frank Sinatra of Australian politics; it's always his way or the highway. He never consults with anyone. Typical Labor—all command and control and no consultation. It's, 'I'll just do it my way.'
As a Queenslander, I want to apologise to other Australians, especially those in northern New South Wales, who have not been able to get access to proper health care because of the selfish actions of the Queensland Premier, Anna Palaszczuk, in shutting down the borders. There have been young children in northern New South Wales who have not been able to access medical resources in Brisbane. I have never felt so ashamed to be a Queenslander. What kind of a person puts her own self-interests in front of the health of young Australians? It's absolutely shameful, and it's worth pointing out that the Australian government in January— (Time expired)
Sometimes I think the Senate would serve to have a few more minutes from Senator Rennick, because the longer he goes, the worse it gets. By the end of five minutes, he's back on to blaming someone else. The Morrison government's MO is blaming somebody else for what is a Morrison government responsibility—aged care. That is what we are talking about today.
Firstly, I'll begin by doing something that Senator Rennick didn't and acknowledge how awful it must be for those families who are grieving—the 328 families who have lost loved ones—to see this debate turn into a blame game from people opposite. I also want to acknowledge the essential workers who are day in, day out working in aged care. I thank them for spending the time to speak to people like me, other senators and other members of parliament to explain to us exactly what is going on. If you didn't listen to those workers directly and if you listened to those opposite, you'd think everything is fine. But when you speak to these workers directly, they will tell you that this has been coming for a long time, that things are very desperate and that they are at their absolute wits' end, because they love the jobs they do and the residents they care for. But they are not being given the appropriate resources, and they haven't been given the appropriate resources from this government for an incredibly long time.
We know that the 328 families who are grieving deserve answers from Minister Colbeck and from the Prime Minister. So Labor's not going to apologise for asking questions about the deaths of 328 Australians. That is not disgraceful or despicable. Those questions need to be asked and they need to be answered. But, when we ask these questions, the minister isn't able to answer them. He doesn't have the figures, he doesn't have the detail or he rejects the premise of the question. That is not good enough for these families.
We know that the government didn't have a plan for aged care, yet there were many warning signs and opportunities which would have alerted this minister to the very serious consequences of his inaction. We know that Peter Rozen QC revealed in the royal commission that 'neither the Commonwealth Department of Health nor the aged-care regulator developed COVID-19 plans specifically for the aged care'. The very first case of COVID-19 at Newmarch House was reported on 11 April, and the government failed to act for weeks after more than 60 cases of COVID were reported among staff and residents and 16 lives were lost—in April. In April they had the warning sign that they needed that this would be devastating if it ever infected an aged-care facility, and yet after that they still did not develop a plan. The lack of urgency is staggering.
The Morrison government is responsible for aged care, but it failed to protect aged-care residents not only when it comes to this crisis but before this crisis started. On the minister's performance today, I just say the minister and those opposite refuse to accept the premise of questions that we're asking or even that we're asking those questions in the first place. Somehow even asking those questions is too much for this minister to take. This minister says that we are very fortunate, that we are in a much better position than other countries. The minister said, 'I'd rather be in Australia than anywhere else when it comes to aged care.' Well, ask the families of these 328 people who have died in aged care. Ask these workers if they would rather be somewhere else. That is a question that this minister needs to answer. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Defence (Senator Reynolds) to a question without notice asked by Senator Lambie today relating to the mental health of veterans.
Six months ago the Prime Minister announced he was going to give us something bigger and better than a royal commission into veteran suicides, but it wasn't ready to go yet. He said, 'While we wait, let's start with an interim commissioner instead'—someone who would start immediately, somebody who would report within 12 months. Today, 200 days later, nobody has started, there's no report six months away and there is no interim commissioner at all. Two things are possible: either the interim commissioner was ready to go immediately or they weren't.
Imagine you're running late for work. Your boss calls you, asking, 'Where are you?' You apologise: 'Sorry, mate. I'm on my way.' You say to your boss, 'I'm leaving immediately, right away.' Six months later your boss calls you, asking where you are. You say to your boss: 'Guess what. I haven't left yet, mate, but I'm getting ready to go. I'll be there soon.' You reckon you'd still have a job? You can't turn up to work 200 days late and expect there'll be a job for you when you finally arrive. Not only has our interim commissioner not turned up; we don't even know who it's supposed to be—who should have turned up and who hasn't. If a person goes missing for six months, you'd assume that they're long dead and buried. The interim commissioner has been missing for six months and nobody has noticed. You want to know why? It is because this isn't a job anybody got asked to fill in the first place. That's the reality. Instead of doing what hundreds of thousands of Australians have begged for it to do, the Morrison government has gone and done something completely different. It is not just something different; it is something worse.
Are we surprised? He leads the same Liberal Party that's been waiting over a year to respond to the Productivity Commission's scathing criticism of the Department of Veterans' Affairs because he cares so much about veterans. That's the report that said the Department of Veterans' Affairs was so unfit for purpose that we should just tear it down and start again, and I can assure you that nothing has changed. It's the same Liberal Party that, for nearly a year, sat on an independent review saying that Teddy Sheean deserved a Victoria Cross, denying a hero the honour he deserved because they didn't think it was a priority.
We've got a government that doesn't have a national commissioner, doesn't have an interim commissioner, doesn't have terms of reference, doesn't have a starting date and doesn't have a final reporting date, but what it does have is an absolute certainty that, no matter what it's going to do, it will be bigger and better than a royal commission. For six months we've been waiting for the interim commissioner to start 'immediately'. When the government claimed it was ready to go immediately, it wasn't even ready to pick someone who was ready to go. It had nobody lined up. It had no terms of reference lined up. It had absolutely nothing—no work, no substance, no nothing.
The national commissioner doesn't have the power, flexibility, independence or authority of a royal commission. They're a commissioner who's been granted the stamp of approval from the Australian Defence Force and the Department of Veterans' Affairs—the very institutions that an independent royal commission would examine. You don't give witnesses the ability to choose the questions they're asked, and you don't give the Department of Veterans' Affairs or the Australian Defence Force the ability to choose the questions they're asked, either. The fact that we've done that is reason enough to oppose it. Since February we've been waiting for the interim commissioner, but what's more disturbing is that you'll get a commission that's a hack job instead of a royal commission that's the real deal, which is what should have been given to veterans in the first place.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment (Senator Birmingham) to a question without notice asked by Senator Faruqi today relating to universities.
Guess which hypocrites got free uni education and are now trying to double the cost of degrees? At least 16 members of the government, including the Prime Minister, the foreign minister, the health minister, the skills minister and the communication minister! Every one of them was at uni while it was free, but they're planning to hike fees, condemn students to decades of debt, cut up to $900 million from teaching and learning, and punish struggling students, all while youth wage growth is the flattest in history and while unemployment is skyrocketing. The hypocrisy is gobsmacking. But the problems don't stop there. It won't create nearly enough new student places to match population growth amid new demand due to recession. The billions in student debt will disproportionately hit women. For regional universities, it's not just billions in extra debt for students; it's billions not being spent in those communities. The government's own officials admit the plan won't even encourage students to study the courses that they claim they care about, but it will encourage unis to enrol students in high-fee courses instead of STEM. Finally, it does nothing whatsoever to save uni jobs or fix the research crisis.
The good news is that the Senate can block this unfixable mess. I urge my colleagues on the crossbench to do just that. The Greens will be voting against this bill with all our might, and you can help by calling and emailing crossbench senators right now.
Question agreed to.
Pursuant to notice given at the last day of sitting, I now withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name and the names of Senator Kitching and Senator Carr.
It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 18 July 2020, of Colin Victor James Mason, a senator for the state of New South Wales from 1978 to 1987. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate records its sorrow at the death, on 18 July 2020, of Colin Victor James Mason, former senator for New South Wales, places on record its appreciation for his service to the parliament and the nation, and tenders its sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Colin Mason lived a long and remarkable life. He was a respected journalist, author, politician and family man. Colin was the ABC's first foreign correspondent to Asia and one of the first Australian Democrats elected to the Australian Senate. His life was full of accomplishments, stretching from New Zealand to Australia and South-East Asia through the halls of Parliament House and into this chamber.
Colin was born in Auckland on 28 October 1926. He studied journalism at the University of New Zealand, Victoria College, in Wellington. Upon graduating, he started his career as a journalist, where he would meet his future wife, Nancy Williamson. In 1950, like many New Zealanders who cross the Tasman each year, Colin and Nancy made the journey to Australia and settled in Brisbane. Colin worked for TheSydney Morning Herald before joining the ABC as a writer, television journalist and documentary producer. In 1956, he became the ABC's first foreign correspondent in Asia, establishing an office in Singapore and pioneering ABC radio in the region. His time in South-East Asia coincided with a period of enormous change and increasing turmoil. There was civil unrest and many countries had forced the withdrawal of European colonial rule, with communism slowly gaining a foothold in parts of Asia. Colin spoke of his time in South-East Asia as fascinating, demanding and, at times, slightly dangerous but always interesting and, because of the amount of change, always newsworthy. He was considered a significant commentator and recognised expert on Asian history and he was an early advocate for Australia's engagement in our region.
Colin published a number of novels and extensive materials on the South-East Asia region, including Hostage in 1973, which went on to sell 200,000 copies worldwide, a major accomplishment. After 14 years with the ABC, Colin moved his family to the Blue Mountains to spend more time with them and focus on his writing. However, he took a keen interest in politics and in the early 1970s he joined the Australia Party, running as a Senate candidate in the 1975 election. While he was unsuccessful in 1975, he would get another opportunity a couple of years later. Politics can be like that. In 1977, Colin ran again, this time as a Senate candidate for the newly formed Australian Democrats. As one of the founding members of the Australian Democrats and vice-president of the party, Colin was successful in securing a seat in the Australian Senate and, on 1 July 1978, Colin entered this chamber as one of the first senators to represent the Australian Democrats, alongside former Liberal senator Don Chipp. By 1981, the number of Democrats rose to five and, by 1985, it rose again to seven, giving them the balance of power in the Senate.
During his time in the Senate, Colin was very vocal on a number of issues, including the importance of participatory democracy, environmental issues and foreign affairs. He was a strong advocate for bilateral relations between Australia and China, promoting peace and prosperity even after retiring from politics. He took part in the first Australian parliamentary delegation to the People's Republic of China in 1985 and, upon his return, noted that China was full of great trade opportunities for Australia.
After leaving parliament in 1987, Colin returned to his passion for writing. He published a number of fictional and non-fictional books, taking inspiration from his experiences in South-East Asia and his time in the Australian parliament. His love of writing was something he passed on to his sons, who have also published a number of books. Colin was a family man. He greatly enjoyed spending time with his children and grandchildren, taking family vacations, exploring the bushland around his Blue Mountains property and sailing around Pittwater. Colin was also an avid bodysurfer and even in his nineties could still be spotted riding waves around the Northern Beaches area.
Colin died aged 93 on Saturday, 18 July, after battling ill health. His wife, Nancy, passed in 2001 and he leaves three children, Mark, Rosemary and Matthew, as well as five grandchildren. On behalf of the Australian government, and the Australian Senate, I extend to Colin's loved ones our sincerest condolences. May he rest in peace.
I rise on behalf of the opposition to acknowledge the passing of former New South Wales Senator Colin Victor James Mason, one of the founding members of the Australian Democrats. He passed away in July at the age of 93.
From the outset, I wish to convey the opposition's condolences to the relatives and friends of Mr Mason. He started his life across the ditch, born in Auckland, New Zealand, on 28 October 1926. Having studied journalism in Wellington he established a career as a journalist before moving to Australia in 1950. He married his wife, Nancy Williamson, in 1952, with whom he had three children.
In 1956, almost 65 years ago, the ABC set up its first foreign bureau in Singapore, to cover South-East Asia. The man responsible for the establishment of the bureau and the ABC's first permanent foreign correspondent was Colin Mason. Armed with a large 16mm, spring-wound Bell and Howell movie camera and what he described as a 'horrendously big and unreliable' tape recorder, he was the first of many ABC foreign correspondents. Mason said that the newly founded bureau, spreading from Burma to Japan, was 'always interesting and, because of the tumult of change, always newsworthy'. On a good day it would take 24 hours by air mail to return the footage captured by Mason to Australian newsrooms. Mason remarked, 'We became quite a big deal in television,' when they began syndicating vision across the globe to the ABC, the BBC and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
As the demand for news, particularly TV news, expanded, the South-East Asian bureau staff grew from just Mason to upwards of 16 people. In 2006, to mark the 50th anniversary of the ABC's first overseas bureau, Mason told Fran Kelly on ABC Radio National:
The great thing about 1956 was … it was tremendous goodwill toward Australia. Everywhere that I went, I found friends and people willing to help me and everybody was interested in Australia. And it was interesting that the biggest radio audience the ABC had at that time was actually not in Australia, but in Asia, and that would be people who listened to Radio Australia, it had tremendous influence.
Regrettably, these short-wave services have since ceased, along with Australia's reach into the region.
Mason covered the defeat of the French at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954. It was the first time that a European army had ever been defeated by a guerilla army and was the forerunner to the United States' involvement in the Vietnam War. He described his experiences in South-East Asia as 'fairly hairy from time to time, particularly during the Malayan Emergency'. He shared a story with Fran Kelly about that too. He said:
They had a situation where you drove around Malaya by car, you weren't allowed to carry food, money, even typing paper with you in case a communist terrorist got it. You weren't allowed to stop your car, except within the village perimeters which had barbed wire right around them.
So I was approaching the barbed wire one evening of a village called Sungai Siput and just in front of me was an army jeep—an open jeep with a guy driving it, an English one. And just as we started to approach, I was right behind him, his windscreen just disappeared from machine gun fire from the roadside. And I thought, 'Well, this is it.' I could see he was bleeding and the jeep slowed down. We could see the gate to the village about a hundred metres ahead and it was just a matter of pushing on … And I think he could see in his mirror that I was behind him and those seconds went very, very slowly—I can tell you—until I finally got inside that base.
Following his 14-year career at the ABC Mason moved on to politics, becoming a founding member of the Australian Democrats. He was pivotal in getting the Australia Party to ally with the newly founded Democrats, taking the lead on party structure, rules and policies behind the scenes. He was elected to parliament as a senator for New South Wales alongside the party's first leader, Don Chipp, in 1977. He was re-elected in 1983 and, just a year later, in 1984, thanks to the double dissolution in 1983. During his time in the Senate, the power of the Australian Democrats rose from two senators in 1977 to five in 1981 and then seven in 1985. Mason was there as the party gained an influence over the legislative agenda and, eventually, the balance of power in the Senate in their own right. Mason was the Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats from 1978 to 1985, before becoming their spokesperson on foreign affairs from 1985 to the end of his term. In 1982, Mason formed the parliamentary nuclear disarmament group, acknowledging the enormous difficulties in achieving this objective but that all people of good will must at least exert their efforts in that direction.
It was during the 1980s that Mason became one of the main agitators for and supporters of Lindy Chamberlain. He raised concerns about how the process had and had not been followed by the courts. He pushed to establish a commission of inquiry into the Chamberlain case, and he did this out of a sense of justice, compassion and a fair go. Of course, Chamberlain's case was ultimately reviewed.
Colin Mason will be most likely known for his efforts to fight for and protect the environment. Of the nine private senators' bills Mason introduced, a majority dealt with environmental issues. He was a staunch advocate for renewable energy industries. His private senators' bill the World Heritage Properties Protection Bill 1982 was the only one of his bills to pass the Senate, with the support of the then Labor opposition. It was easily the most influential. The bill would have prevented the Tasmanian state government from constructing the Franklin River dam but it never progressed through the then Liberal controlled House of Representatives. It did, however, pave the way for the newly elected Hawke government to pass legislation in 1983 which had the same intent as Mason's bill and ultimately prevented the construction of the dam.
Having never met Colin Mason myself, I take this opportunity to share the condolences of those he did work alongside, support and share political allegiance with. I spoke with the former Leader of the Australian Democrats, Natasha Stott Despoja, and she said: 'I won't forget his support of me and other Democrats he considered upheld the party's traditional role of listening to their membership. I remember him as a kind man, a clever and worldly man. He was a pioneering environmentalist. He is one of the reasons we have World Heritage legislation and a protected Franklin River. He was ahead of his time in his understanding of the dangers of climate change.'
I also spoke with another former leader of the Australian Democrats, now turned Greens, and former Senator, Andrew Bartlett. He said, 'Mason showed people that the Democrats were more than just Don Chipp'. According to Andrew Bartlett: 'Mason was the calm, kind and considered balance to Chipp's energy and enthusiasm. He was direction, compared to Chipp who went 10 directions at once.' Mason showed Australians that the Australian Democrats were broader than just one person in Don Chipp. Don Chipp of course was a remarkable parliamentarian. After he retired as the first Leader of the Australian Democrats, Mason could have run for leader himself. Instead, he looked for the opportunity to encourage and support Janine Haines, who then became the first female federal parliamentarian leader of an Australian political party, in 1986. Mason retired from the Senate in 1987 when yet another double dissolution election was called.
Post politics, he returned to be a full-time writer. Before and after politics, Mason wrote a total of 11 books, including A Short History of Asia, The 2030 Spike: Countdown to Global Catastrophe, and the novels Hostage, Copperhead Creek and Northern Approaches. While I'm sure Mason may have been at times surprised about the reach of his authorship, I'm certain he would have been particularly astounded to discover that his book The 2030 Spike: Countdown to Global Catastrophe was one of the 39 English language books found in the Pakistan compound where Osama bin Laden was killed in 2011.
I will finish with the words that Colin Mason himself shared in his final speech to the Senate on 28 May 1987, some 33 years ago:
I would like to begin by placing on record my sincere appreciation of the friendships and the education that the last nine years in this place have given me. Being in this place is a very educational process and I am sure that all of us here find that to be the case. I will leave this Parliament not with any spirit of cynicism but rather a feeling that the issues and the problems that this Parliament encounters are difficult. Nothing in the world is simple.
We today acknowledge the service of Colin Mason to our parliament and to our country, as well as to the Australian Democrats. As we farewell Mr Mason I again express the opposition's condolences to his family and his friends, including those at the ABC.
Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places.
It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate about the death, on 16 June 2020, of former senator John Madigan, from Victoria, a senator from 2011 to 2016. A time for that condolence motion is in discussion with his family and it will be later this year.
by leave—I move:
That Senator Canavan be granted leave of absence for today for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senator Ruston, I move:
That on Tuesday, 25 August 2020, consideration of the business before the Senate be interrupted at approximately 5 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable senators to make valedictory statements relating to Senator Di Natale.
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senators Sheldon, Ayres, Keneally, McCarthy, Dodson, McAllister and O'Neill, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) honours the life and acknowledges the death of Mr. Lyall Munro Sr, Komeroi elder, on 21 May 2020, and notes that:
(i) born in 1921 in Tingha New South Wales (NSW), Mr Munro Sr fought for rights, justice, opportunities and a voice for Aboriginal people and Indigenous people around the world,
(ii) Mr Munro Sr was at the forefront of the 1965 Freedom Ride in Moree, highlighting racist practices in NSW that excluded Aboriginal people from clubs, pools and picture theatres,
(iii) Mr Munro Sr was a descendant of the victims of the Myall Creek massacre, and was instrumental in establishing a memorial to the massacre near Bingara NSW,
(iv) Mr Munro Sr contributed to the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and was a founding member of the NSW Aboriginal Legal Service, the Aboriginal Housing Company and the Aboriginal Medical Service,
(v) Mr Munro Sr is preceded in death by his wife of 63 years, Carmine May Munro—together they had 12 children and he is survived by 9 children, 45 grandchildren, 122 great-grandchildren and 28 great-great grandchildren, and
(vi) Mr Munro Sr leaves a profound and significant legacy of achievements; and
(b) expresses its sympathy to his family, friends and community in Moree and across Australia.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001, and for related purposes. Interactive Gambling Amendment (Prohibition on Credit Card Use) Bill 2020.
Question agreed to.
I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.
Leave granted.
I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The Interactive Gambling Amendment (Prohibition on Credit Card Use) Bill 2020 aims to minimise the scope for problem gambling among Australians by amending the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 to implement a ban on the use of credit cards for online betting through certain regulated interactive gambling services.
The growth of interactive gambling in Australia has seen many consumers moving away from traditional gambling products to betting online using smartphones, tablets and other digital devices. Australia's high rate of gambling expenditure and adoption of digital technologies makes it imperative that there is strong legislation to minimise and prevent gambling harm.
The Bill prevents gambling operators from accepting payments by credit card, either directly or through other payment methods that rely on an underlying credit card. This is consistent with a similar ban in the UK that came into effect on 14 April 2020.
The Bill creates a criminal offence and corresponding civil penalty provision for a person who accepts, facilitates or promotes credit card payment in connection with an online bet. A separate contravention is committed for each day the contravention continues.
The Bill allows for a transition period of six months before the prohibition comes into effect.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) will be responsible for enforcement of the prohibition.
The ACMA will undertake a statutory review after three years from commencement of the new provisions. A report will be tabled in Parliament by the Minister and published on the ACMA website.
It is well known that Australians are by far the world's biggest losers when it comes to gambling losses per capita. Australians lost nearly $25 billion in 2017-18, a five per cent increase from the previous year.
Whilst pokies losses still outweigh the losses from sports and race betting, those sports and race betting losses have been increasing. Sports betting losses increased by 16.3 per cent and race betting losses increased by 7.1 per cent in 2017-18, fueled by heavy advertising and the ease and growth of online betting.
The pandemic crisis has only served to further exacerbate the scourge of gambling addiction at a time of heightened stress, anxiety and depression for vulnerable Australians – all stressors for people experiencing gambling harm.
Several online bookies reported large revenue increases during the three months from April to the end of June 2020 as well as an increase in share prices since the global outbreak of COVID-19.
GVC Holdings, the UK-listed parent company of Ladbrokes, announced that its Australian business had performed "exceptionally well" in growing by 76 per cent during the quarter and, at one point, had accounted for half of its global sports business revenue.
PointsBet, touting itself as Australia's fastest growing online bookmaker, which partners with Fox Sports Australia's coverage of AFL, has reported $32 million for the quarter, a 330 per cent jump in revenue on last year.
Analysts are predicting a 65 per cent turnover growth for Sportsbet, with the share price for its parent company Flutter Entertainment more than doubling since the pandemic began.
Despite the temporary suspension of major sport, corporate bookies have still lured more customers online. Online gambling like race betting and sports betting offer the opportunity to place multiple bets frequently and in high sums – heavily promoted via commercial media and through the onslaught of tailored direct marketing to account holders. It's unconscionable.
These numbers are staggering and behind these figures are vulnerable Australians who have lost their life savings, their families, their homes and their hope.
The Australian Institute of Criminology Statistical Bulletin report (No.27) published in June 2020 found the proportion of online gamblers who had increased their spending grew from March (20 per cent) to April (33 per cent).
There are also reports from the superannuation sector that savings taken out in the federal government's COVID-19 early release of superannuation program has been wasted by punters on online wagering.
Currently in Australia credit cards can be used when gambling online but credit cards cannot be used for offline gambling in a licensed gambling venue or casino. There should be no distinction.
Other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom banned the use of credit cards for online (and offline) betting on 14 April 2020. Key to the UK government's decision was the extensive use of credit cards by those experiencing harm to fund their gambling along with sizeable debts being incurred.
Research shows that people who experience severe gambling harm are far more likely to gamble more money than they can afford, use credit cards to do so and access credit card funds early. The effect is to accelerate the speed and extent to which a person gambles beyond their means.
There is evidence that being in debt compounds harms created by gambling – it often serves as a driver for people to chase their losses and gamble more, which leads to a vicious cycle of more debt and more harm.
A ban on the use of credit cards for online gambling would significantly reduce the extent of harm to people who are vulnerable to gambling harm.
The harms associated with gambling are well known – they can have an impact on social relationships, family relationships, work performance and physical and mental health. This is in addition to financial stress, loss of creditworthiness, chronic high interest debt, homelessness, crime and suicide.
People who experience gambling harm are heavy users of credit cards. The Productivity Commission's 2010 inquiry into gambling found that people who identified as problem gamblers were four times more likely to use credit cards to obtain cash to gamble than those in the still problematic category of low-risk gamblers.
At the time, online gambling was in its infancy and the Productivity Commission was cautious about banning credit cards for online gambling. The evidence linking credit with harm is now much starker and only heightened during this pandemic crisis.
The use of credit cards enables immediate and easy access to credit – allowing people to gamble with money they do not have and often cannot pay back.
A South Australian Centre for Economic Studies (SACES) 2010 study for the Commonwealth Government identified what they called the "problem gambling timeline". The researchers noted that people descending into severe gambling harm use their most liquid and invisible funds first that they have easy access to – credit cards feature early in the timeline.
Removing credit cards from an environment of constant incentives to bet will make a positive contribution to reduce gambling harm and the risk of gambling harm.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I move:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee on the Multi-Jurisdictional Management and Execution of the Murray Darling Basin Plan be extended to 30 June 2021.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges the exemplary work of all Department of Home Affairs staff who assisted the Government to overcome social isolation challenges, and continue to hold Australian citizenship ceremonies throughout the COVID-19 period;
(b) notes that Australian citizenship ceremonies have been hosted online via secure video-link since April 2020;
(c) recognises Mr Scott Osborne of the Department of Home Affairs, Perth Citizenship Section; and
(d) further recognises the following who made the pledge of commitment as a citizen of the Commonwealth of Australia before us in ceremonies held between May and June 2020: Mr Terry Dunn, Mrs Jacqueline Dunn, Mr Carter Dunn, Mr Conrad Cowan and Mrs Shradha Cowan of Tapping, Western Australia; Mr Mario Bermundo and Ms Maria Mercado of Pearsall, Western Australia; Mr Rhyno Saunderson and Mrs Krystil Saunderson of Mount Hawthorn, Western Australia; Mr Roger Miro, Mrs Gerlyn Miro, Miss Eunice Miro, Mr Roge Miro, Mr Jimmy Villanueva, Mrs Madelyn Villanueva, Miss Jemalyn Villanueva and Mr Jhay Villanueva of Hocking, Western Australia; Mr Bel Bhandari and Mrs Gita Bhandarib of Landsdale, Western Australia; and Mr Amandeep Bhullar and Mrs Gagandeep Brar of Bassendean, Western Australia.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that the Government is cutting the Coronavirus Supplement by $300 a fortnight from 25 September 2020;
(b) acknowledges that there is uncertainty around the future rate of the Coronavirus Supplement after 31 December 2020, which is causing significant distress and anxiety for Australians;
(c) recognises that it is irresponsible to cut income support payments at this time, especially as the effective unemployment rate is predicted to hit 13% by the end of the year; and
(d) calls on the Government to maintain the current rate of the Coronavirus Supplement of $550 a fortnight to ensure unemployed Australians receive adequate support.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government is providing enhanced support to the Australian community through a three-month extension of the Coronavirus Supplement to 31 December 2020. The Coronavirus Supplement is one element of the government's $314 billion economic response to the pandemic and builds on the support provided through expanded eligibility for payments, cash flow support to business, enhanced incentives to work and of course the JobKeeper program.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Similar to the comments I made yesterday, whilst there is a lot of sympathy for the motion as it is drafted, I really think it is worthy of an opportunity for longer debate. We have been on the record as being in support of a permanent increase to jobseeker, so it's not about that; it's about the opportunity to have a full debate, which this part of the program simply doesn't allow. But we do support the vibe of the motion, and the—
Senator Siewert interjecting—
Well, we have called for a permanent increase to jobseeker. We've been on the record with that for a long time. We've passed motions in this place. But I really think, going forward with the economic response to COVID-19, it is worthy, when we are considering some of these issues, of other members in this place—or all of us—being given the opportunity for a larger and longer debate.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Siewert be agreed to. I think the noes have it. Is a division required?
While I would like to call a division, I appreciate the problems we are having. I'm extremely disappointed to hear the comments from the Labor Party. But given that they've indicated that they won't support it and the government's indicated that they won't support it, I won't call a division, but I would like it recorded that we supported it, of course.
Thank you, Senator Siewert. The chamber appreciates the courtesy.
I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 728 standing in the name of Senator Farrell before asking that it be taken as a formal motion.
Leave granted.
I amend the motion to omit the word 'Summary' and, on behalf of Senator Farrell, I move the motion as amended:
That there be laid on the table, by the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management, by no later than 3 pm on Thursday 27 August 2020, the full Independent Observer report on MV Al Kuwait, Report 219.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The MV Al Kuwait that departed Fremantle in June was a horrific journey. According to the Independent Observersummary report, up to 5,000 of the sheep on board experienced severe or serious heat stress, with laboured breathing, open-mouth panting and appearances of being stressed or in extreme discomfort; 28 sheep died, and many more were hospitalised. We knew this was going to happen. We knew this was inevitable. That's why the rules prohibiting these journeys through the Middle East at this time of the year were put in place in the first instance: because the risk to the animals from travelling in those circumstances is incredibly high. The exemption should never have been allowed. There should be full transparency about this voyage, and this OPD is a good first step. At the end of the day, these trips, these voyages of misery that end up in animal cruelty, have to be stopped.
Question agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senators Canavan, Scarr, McGrath, O'Sullivan, Dean Smith and Stoker, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that, on 17 August 1971, Neville Thomas Bonner was sworn in as a senator for Queensland, in doing so becoming the first Indigenous Australian to sit in the Australian Parliament; and
(b) recognises:
(i) the significance of this moment, and commemorates the legacy of his parliamentary contribution, and
(ii) that his accomplishments for the people of Queensland were a product of his industry, intellect and concern for his constituents.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) currently the Australian Government has no quality outcome reporting for home care and reports on only three indicators for residential aged care,
(ii) research conducted for the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety shows that the Government could immediately establish independent, transparent, routine monitoring and public reporting of many aspects of aged care quality outcomes,
(iii) the research, by the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI), shows a range of quality outcome indicators can be produced from existing data without any burden to providers, and
(iv) the reporting would include indicators for medication-related quality of care, falls and fractures, hospital re-admissions, hospitalisation for dementia/delirium, pain, premature mortality, pressure injury, utilisation of care plans and medication reviews, and weight loss/malnutrition;
(b) acknowledges the opinion of the Royal Commissioners, Tony Pagone and Lynelle Briggs, that independent measurement and public reporting is essential for the good operation of the aged care system; and
(c) calls on the Government to immediately move to implement routine monitoring and public reporting of aged care quality indicators at the service provider level, as outlined in the SAHMRI report, to enhance transparency and accountability.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The National Aged Care Mandatory Quality Indicator Program, the QI program, became compulsory from 1 July 2019. The program is being developed as part of the government's response to the Carnell Paterson review. The QI program requires that all Commonwealth subsidised residential aged-care services report on quality indicators across three critical clinical areas: pressure injuries, use of physical restraint and unplanned weight loss. Further expansion of the QI program to include crucial falls and fractures and medication management measures from 1 July 2021 is on track. In addition, from 1 July 2020, more transparent information for consumers was also introduced through publicly reported provider performance and compliance ratings against the new quality standards.
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senator Di Natale, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that, 10 years ago, the Australian people elected a Parliament where no single party had a majority;
(b) affirms that the 43rd Parliament was one of the most productive the country has seen, getting dental into Medicare for over 3 million children, making Parliament more democratic, including by creating the Parliamentary Budget Office, and being the only Parliament in recent history to meaningfully cut climate pollution; and
(c) congratulates former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, former Greens Leader Bob Brown and the independent Members of Parliament for agreeing to work together for the benefit of the Australian people.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government thanks Senator Di Natale for what may be his final formal business motion in the Senate and for his long contribution to this place, but notes the chaos and run-amok spending that were the hallmarks of the Gillard government and the 43rd Parliament. In concert with the Australian Greens, Labor in the 43rd Parliament introduced a job-destroying carbon tax and presided over a remarkably ineffective mining tax and a litany of other failures. The Gillard government saw broken promises, the only constant feature being that, while Labor were able to cling on to government, the Greens were the ones in power the whole time, and that, indeed, is a remarkable achievement.
The question is that motion No. 726 be agreed to.
Before moving general business notice of motion No. 729, I ask that the name of Senator Watt be added to the motion. At the request of Senators Ayres and Watt, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the National Farmers' Federation (NFF) is the latest significant body which has reviewed its climate change policy and committed to net zero emissions by 2050,
(ii) our agriculture sector is amongst the most adversely affected by the impacts of climate change,
(iii) climate action will provide farmers with opportunities to participate in carbon markets, reaping the benefits of carbon-generated income for efforts to further improve the productivity and efficiency of farming practices, and
(iv) in adopting net zero emissions by 2050, the NFF joins 73 nations, every state and territory, the Australian Industry Group, the Business Council of Australia, the energy industry, our biggest airline, mining company, bank and telecommunications provider, and countless experts and scientists;
(b) supports the NFF, its members, other growers and producers, all those along the food production value chain, and the research community to improve the prospects of meeting the NFF's ambition of making farming a $100 billion industry by 2030; and
(c) calls on the Morrison Government to accept net zero emissions by 2050 as Australia's long-term climate change goal, and implement policies that support the members of the NFF and others to achieve their shared goals of net zero emissions by 2050.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government notes that the NFF's target is an aspiration and not a binding target with strict caveats regarding fair implementation and economic viability. The policies the opposition took to the last election would have cost over 300,000 jobs, cut the average wage by $9,000 and delivered a $400 billion hit to the economy. The government will not adopt a target when it cannot tell the Australian people how much it will cost to achieve. Instead, the government's 'technology, not taxes' approach will reduce emissions without imposing new costs on households, businesses or the economy. We've beaten our Kyoto era targets by up to 430 million tons, around 80 per cent of a full year's emissions, and we are committed to doing the same with our 2030 target.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Greens will be supporting this motion and we congratulate the NFF on taking action to help fight global heating. But, in addition to at least net zero carbon pollution by 2050, we need strong 2030 targets to tackle our climate crisis because at current rates we risk hitting 0.5 per cent warming by 2030. Yesterday Minister Littleproud said that when it comes to climate policy, ultimately someone's got to pay. Farmers are already paying for the coalition's climate failures. Australian farmers are already feeling the brunt of devastating heat, bushfires and droughts. They will be going bankrupt across the country if we have a gas led recovery and the government keeps propping up coal. The climate crisis is already costing farmers $1 billion a year. That's who is paying for the coalition's failure on climate policy.
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senator Keneally, I move:
That—
(1) There be laid on the table by the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, by no later than 12pm on 26 August 2020, the following documents:
(a) the daily briefings prepared for the Government containing updates on COVID-19 cases in aged care, referred to by the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians in evidence to Senate Select Committee on COVID-19 on 21 August 2020 as 'Sit Rep', for each day from 1 July 2020;
(b) any communications plan prepared by the Department of Health or other agency for use by the Government relating to the handling of COVID-19 cases in aged care; and
(c) plans to develop the training modules produced by the Government for staff in aged care in the use of personal protective equipment and the plan to distribute those modules.
(2) In the event that the Minister fails to table any of the documents, the Senate requires the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians to attend the Senate at the conclusion of question time on 26 August 2020 to provide an explanation, of no more than 10 minutes, of the Minister's failure to table the documents.
(3) Any senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (2).
(4) Any motion under paragraph (3) may be debated for no longer than 60 minutes, shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes each.
I seek to have the vote split on this motion. I intend to vote differently on item (1) as to (2), (3) and (4). I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Just as a matter of good process, when we do OPDs we should allow the government to return the documents to the Senate or make a claim of public interest immunity. We should then examine that and then, if necessary, call the minister to the chamber to answer for any lack of compliance with the order. I indicate that if indeed the government doesn't return the documents properly, I would support the remainder of the motion.
The question is that part (1) of motion No. 730 be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The question is that clauses 2, 3 and 4 of motion No. 730 be agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senators Davey, Canavan, McDonald and McMahon, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that regional border communities across Australia are home to hundreds of thousands of residents;
(b) acknowledges that border travel restrictions imposed by state and territory governments have negatively impacted the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of regional Australians who live and work across border communities;
(c) expresses concern for the health and welfare of those impacted by these restrictions within our border communities, particularly where restrictions prevent travel for:
(i) medical/health purposes,
(ii) accessing education,
(iii) accessing employment, particularly in primary production, where the lack of a workforce is preventing primary producers, who feed the nation, from operating, and
(iv) compassionate grounds; and
(d) urgently calls on state and territory governments to:
(i) work together through National Cabinet to adopt a risk-based health approach based on clear definitions of COVID-19 hotspots,
(ii) agree fair and proportionate protocols for essential travel within border communities for:
(A) employment, particularly within the agricultural supply chain,
(B) education, particularly for year 12 students,
(C) health purposes, and
(D) facilitating relocations, particularly for employment,
(iii) agree and publish clear and accessible exemption regulations, which afford natural justice to applicants through an appeals process, and
(iv) adequately resource state and territory services responsible for implementing restrictions and exemptions for border communities.
I seek leave to make a very short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Labor recognises that border communities face unique challenges during COVID-19. We also recognise that state and territory governments of all stripes are doing what's needed to protect their communities, based on the independent medical advice. We've consistently supported those actions and therefore will be opposing this motion, and it's alarming that government senators continue to undermine the supposed unity of the so-called 'national cabinet' with motions like this.
The question is that motion No. 731 be agreed to.
I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, 18 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 a letter has been received from Senator Lines proposing an urgency motion, as follows:
Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The need for the Senate to:
(a) note:
(i) even before COVID-19, the Morrison Government had pushed the aged care system into crisis and older Australians were suffering,
(ii) the aged-care system has endured a revolving door of ministers - with seven in seven years,
(iii) the Morrison Government has cut funding and removed safeguards in aged care, including:
(A) abolishing the $1.2 billion aged-care workforce supplement for 350,000 front-line aged care workers within 18 days of forming Government in 2013, and
(B) Mr Morrison, as treasurer, cutting $1.7 billion from the aged care budget;
(iv) almost 150 recommendations have been made to the Morrison Government in a dozen inquiries and reviews, to protect older Australians in aged-care, but too many recommendations have been ignored, including:
(A) six years after then-Minister Fifield promised an aged-care workforce strategy, Australia still does not have one, and
(B) three years after the Australian Law Reform Commissioner recommended a Serious Incident Response Scheme to reduce the risk of abuse and neglect in aged care, Australia still does not have one;
(v) the Morrison Government's own statistics reveal that these cuts, confusion and chaos have resulted in:
(A) more than 100,000 Australians are waiting for their approved home care package,
(B) the average waiting time for older Australians going into residential aged care has blown out by more than 100 days, and
(C) Australians needing high-level home care are waiting, on average, 3 years for help;
(vi) Royal Commissioners, the Hon Tony Pagone QC and Lynelle Briggs AO, said that, "Had the Australian Government acted upon previous reviews of aged care, the persistent problems in aged care would have been known much earlier and the suffering of many people could have been avoided; and
(b) call on the Prime Minister and Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians to:
(i) recognise that Australia's aged care crisis is seven years in the making,
(ii) apologise to the many mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, grandmothers and grandfathers that would be alive today if not for these seven years of neglect, and
(iii) demonstrate leadership, stop seeking to deflect blame, and take responsibility for the crisis in our aged-care system."
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.
I move:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The need for the Senate to:
(a) note:
(i) even before COVID-19, the Morrison Government had pushed the aged care system into crisis and older Australians were suffering,
(ii) the aged-care system has endured a revolving door of ministers - with seven in seven years,
(iii) the Morrison Government has cut funding and removed safeguards in aged care, including:
(A) abolishing the $1.2 billion aged-care workforce supplement for 350,000 front-line aged care workers within 18 days of forming Government in 2013, and
(B) Mr Morrison, as treasurer, cutting $1.7 billion from the aged care budget;
(iv) almost 150 recommendations have been made to the Morrison Government in a dozen inquiries and reviews, to protect older Australians in aged-care, but too many recommendations have been ignored, including:
(A) six years after then-Minister Fifield promised an aged-care workforce strategy, Australia still does not have one, and
(B) three years after the Australian Law Reform Commissioner recommended a Serious Incident Response Scheme to reduce the risk of abuse and neglect in aged care, Australia still does not have one;
(v) the Morrison Government's own statistics reveal that these cuts, confusion and chaos have resulted in:
(A) more than 100,000 Australians are waiting for their approved home care package,
(B) the average waiting time for older Australians going into residential aged care has blown out by more than 100 days, and
(C) Australians needing high-level home care are waiting, on average, 3 years for help;
(vi) Royal Commissioners, the Hon Tony Pagone QC and Lynelle Briggs AO, said that, "Had the Australian Government acted upon previous reviews of aged care, the persistent problems in aged care would have been known much earlier and the suffering of many people could have been avoided; and
(b) call on the Prime Minister and Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians to:
(i) recognise that Australia's aged care crisis is seven years in the making,
(ii) apologise to the many mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, grandmothers and grandfathers that would be alive today if not for these seven years of neglect, and
(iii) demonstrate leadership, stop seeking to deflect blame, and take responsibility for the crisis in our aged-care system.
There's no excuse, no amount of dodging and no amount of buck passing that can help the government avoid their responsibility for the disaster that is occurring in residential aged care. Today, there are more than 1,300 active cases of COVID-19 in aged care and, tragically, 328 aged care residents have died from the disease. That is a death rate of more than 18 per cent of the 1,761 cases so far, and that rate may get worse as active cases progress. These are more than just numbers on a screen. These are some of the most vulnerable Australians, and I would like to pay my personal condolences to those who have lost loved ones during COVID. I also want to thank the workforce that has worked so tirelessly throughout, often without suitable PPE, without the appropriate equipment and with a lack of training. I want to say that my thoughts are with every single person who has lost a loved one during the pandemic, but, as I said, particularly with those families who have loved ones in aged-care facilities.
I'd say to the Australian people: it's been said not just today but previously that the Labor Party are turning this into a political game—because we dare to ask questions, because we dare to speak up, because we want to know what's gone on and what hasn't—but the Labor Party are not turning this into a game. There are questions that need to be asked for these families. These families have questions. They want to know why their loved ones have died. It's up to us to ask those questions, and we will continue to do so.
The Morrison government and the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Colbeck, I'm sad to say, have failed in their duty to protect our most vulnerable Australians during the pandemic, but they also failed in the lead-up to the pandemic. As if the present failure of those opposite were not bad enough, the crisis in aged care before the COVID-19 outbreak has most certainly contributed. Mr Morrison and Senator Colbeck have serious questions to answer about this growing list of failures. Australians are demanding answers, especially those aged-care residents and their families, as I've said, who have been directly impacted by this tragedy. We've heard shocking evidence about these failures through both the COVID-19 Senate inquiry and the aged-care royal commission.
Instead of preparing residential aged care for a possible COVID-19 outbreak, the Morrison government failed even to develop a COVID-19 plan specifically for the aged-care system. In fact, when they did come up with an alleged plan they just renamed the CDNA's. It speaks volumes about the spin that the government go to and the announcements that they make. They're constantly spinning, making announcements, but they don't really do anything. I suppose that's part of the problem. When your leader has had a bit of experience in the marketing area—he's had to leave some of it for reasons we've never quite got to the bottom of—and it's all spin and no substance then you've got a problem.
The aged-care royal commission confirmed that the government wasn't prepared. They went so far as to say the government had engaged in self-congratulation and hubris. There was a four-day delay in the government acting on the St Basil's outbreak, despite the many warnings it had received about the need to improve communication between the regulator and the department. It was revealed to the COVID-19 Senate inquiry that only one in five aged-care workers had completed the government's training in infection control and personal protective equipment use—one in five; four out of five had not completed it. That was just before the explosion of cases in Victorian aged-care facilities. Earlier this month there were still over 200,000 workers—200,000 workers!—yet to complete the training. The government has spent only half the money allocated to funding a surge workforce to assist aged-care facilities impacted by the pandemic, even though its workforce has been insufficient to deal with the staffing shortfall. I hear you ask yourself: 'Did I hear the senator correctly? Has the government spent only half the money allocated to funding a surge workforce to assist aged-care facilities impacted by the pandemic?' Sadly, the answer is yes, you did hear correctly. And that is completely unacceptable.
These failings shouldn't be happening, and they wouldn't be happening had the Australian government been properly prepared. It's no wonder that the aged-care regulator has had a surge in complaints—a 50 per cent increase—between February and April this year. After all, the government have had the benefit of the independent reviews of the handling of the Newmarch House and Dorothy Henderson Lodge outbreaks for some time now. It's not good enough that they keep trying to pass the buck to Daniel Andrews and Gladys Berejiklian. The buck-passing was continuing as late as last Wednesday. In a press conference, the Prime Minister said, 'We regulate aged care, but when there is a public health pandemic then they are things that are managed from Victoria.' That is contrary to the Australian health sector emergency response plan for novel coronavirus (COVID-19), which states:
The Australian Government will also be responsible for residential aged care facilities; working with other healthcare providers to set standards to promote the safety and security of people in aged care and other institutional settings; and establishing and maintaining infection control guidelines, healthcare safety and quality standards.
It is pretty ironic that, in passing the buck to Victoria, Mr Morrison contradicted his government's own plan, given he was waving it around back in February when it was released. It would help if Mr Morrison had read the document rather than just use it as a prop. The fact is it is the Morrison government that funds and regulates aged care. It is in charge of the system and the buck stops with it.
The revelations today that Minister Colbeck has been cut out of decisions to activate emergency measures during a COVID-19 outbreak in aged care demonstrates that Mr Morrison has clearly lost confidence in his minister. To be honest, it's no surprise, with the difficulty the minister has in answering basic questions, such as how many COVID-19 deaths there have been in aged care or whether he briefed cabinet on the interim report of the royal commission. Ministerial Training 101 surely should be that you have those notes in front of you. If it wasn't the minister's fault, was it someone in the department that failed to prepare properly for the minister? Truly, it is disheartening. It is so sad for people who have lost family members to feel as though they haven't been taken seriously and that the issue is not being taken seriously.
But it is not just the government's mishandling of aged care during the pandemic that has led to the current crisis. It is a crisis that has been brought about by $1.7 billion in budget cuts which Mr Morrison oversaw as Treasurer, by the abolition of aged-care workforce supplement for 350,000 aged-care workers and by the revolving door for ministers in the aged-care portfolio. There have been seven ministers in seven years. Need I mention— (Time expired)
Labor's Senator Sue Lines has chosen this moment to attack the Morrison government over aged-care management. I suppose it's easy for Labor members to sit comfortably in their chairs and throw stones, when they themselves have failed miserably to demonstrate the mettle and leadership skills required to lead us through a crisis of this magnitude. Feigning outrage, stomping feet and gesturing wildly won't solve the tough problems the Morrison government is facing right now. It takes commitment, persistence and strength.
Senator Pratt interjecting—
Senator Hughes, resume your seat. It's very disorderly to continue to interject. I remind senators that everyone has the right to be heard in silence.
Thank you. Labor's theatre on the floor of this chamber isn't helpful. It's not problem solving. It's just insulting to everyone trying to fight their way through this devastating crisis. After failing to land any blows against the government over its handling of the crisis in aged-care facilities, they now reach into the past to try and make their desperate, unfounded case.
What has happened in Australian nursing homes has happened around the world. We are making sure and steady progress in fighting this insidious virus as we seek to stabilise the situation. Still, we are not so confident that we are ready to declare victory or to rest. Our strategy and our efforts change daily, as they're based on the very best advice of our very dedicated health professionals.
To suggest that the Morrison government doesn't care about our elderly is nonsensical and childish. We too have parents and loved ones in nursing homes around the country. I'm sick of hearing that everyone involved is not doing their utmost to save lives. We've staff who have lost parents who have been farewelled without fanfare because of the tough quarantine restrictions on nursing homes. And they have been back at work 24 hours later. I haven't seen my own elderly mother, who lives in a nursing home, for close to six months. The suggestion that our government leaders don't care is simply irresponsible—
Senator Pratt interjecting—
especially as we engage in this war where Australians are dying, Senator Pratt. Tragically, this is Australia right now and we must be strong. We're getting on with the job of fighting COVID in aged-care homes around the country and we won't give up.
It's in this environment that we address Labor's illogical accusations that we've cut spending on the aged-care sector. Total aged-care spending under Labor was $13.3 billion when they left office, compared to $22.6 billion this year under the coalition, rising to more than $25 billion in 2022-23. Only Labor—or perhaps the Greens as well—could call billions of dollars of investment a cut. Those claims have also been disproven by the ABC's Fact Check. At a time when Australia is faced with unprecedented and heartbreaking challenges, the best that Labor's wet-lettuce brigade can do is to undermine.
Perhaps we should revisit Labor's record during the heady days of Rudd's and Gillard's leadership, when confusion and ineptitude were the order of the day. Let me take you back: Justine Elliot was the lacklustre Minister for Ageing, and Labor promised to improve the transition between hospital and aged care. They failed. It was a time when Labor cynically shunted aged care to the Productivity Commission so it didn't report on Labor's other aged-care failures until well after the election. Labor overpromised and underdelivered on transitional housing, zero-interest loans and nurse numbers. In fact, the commitment to deliver more nurses fell so short that a mere 13 per cent of the promised extra thousand workers ever materialised. Labor failed the aged-care sector. Labor have never provided the funds and support that the Morrison government have provided to elderly Australians.
In contrast to Labor's abysmal record of failing to deliver and hurling insults and manufactured allegations, the Morrison-led government is working vigorously and sensibly to fight COVID-19. Recently, we offered to step in to help Victorian Labor Premier Daniel Andrews fight COVID-19 in aged-care facilities in Victoria. That's because we need to work together, for the sake of all Australians, like grown-ups—grown-ups with metal. In Victoria we've now taken further measures, with another $9 million provided to coordinate a response between the Commonwealth and the Victorian Labor government. We're working to assist a Labor Premier who has been overwhelmed due to COVID-19 deaths in aged-care facilities.
There are other tragedies occurring. Families are cut off from their loved ones. My heart aches for those families desperate to see their loved ones as time runs out. It's simply not the time for childish finger-pointing and cheap political pointscoring, especially given Labor's own obvious failures in this sector. Our commitment has been sincere. How can you suggest that $1.2 billion of extra support for older Australians over the forward estimates is a cut? On other fronts, new home-care packages have increased from around 60,000 under Labor in 2012-13 to 164,000 under the Morrison government in the 2022-23 period. That's an increase of 170 per cent. As at 31 March 2020, 151,000 people had access to a home-care package, compared to 111,000 at the same time last year. That's an increase of 36 per cent in just 12 months. As at 31 March this year, 98½ per cent of senior Australians who were waiting for a package at their assessed level had been offered support by the government.
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, we've provided $1 billion to support seniors in aged care. Of that money, a quarter of a billion dollars has been provided to residential aged-care providers for costs associated with COVID-19. We and our public health officials have provided our best advice; sadly, that advice hasn't always been a success. It's at this time that we should remember the work of our aged-care workers, who've battled on the front lines and ensured that 92 per cent of our aged-care homes remain COVID-free. Of course we're not infallible, but we continue to make the best decisions made on the best advice daily.
Our investment continues—an additional $12½ million has been provided for grief and trauma support services to assist aged-care residents, their families and loved ones who've experienced a COVID-19 outbreak. That increase means the government has provided more than $100 million for these services. There is $9 million for the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission to continue its vital work in supporting aged-care providers across the country to prepare and respond to COVID-19 outbreaks.
Then there is the funding to help aged-care workers in hotspots. Whether they be aged-care or residential care workers, there is funding to support their needs for self isolation and, where necessary, alternative accommodation. The federal government has responded with additional funding for extra PPE from the National Medical Stockpile, providing Victorian aged-care providers with five million more facemasks and half a million face shields. As part of the strategy, the commission will commence unannounced visits to monitor infection control and protection equipment protocols.
Our government has made some very tough decisions, decisions that have impacted so many. We've instituted strong and often painful restrictions on visitation at aged-care homes. We've provided emergency leave for aged-care residents whose loving families want to look after them. We've temporarily removed restrictions on international students working in aged care and we've provided additional flexibility to home-care providers for personal monitoring services. These measures all complement the $1.1 billion we've spent on facemasks and other protective measures Australia wide. We're tackling isolation and loneliness in older Australians, with close to $5 million for FriendLine, a national telephone support for older Australians, to expand the phone support services until 2024. There is $1 million dollars for digital devices, such as mobile phones and laptops, for at-risk seniors and there has also been the establishment of the Older Persons COVID-19 Support Line.
Our Prime Minister has tasked the royal commission into aged care to examine our response, even as we act. That takes real leadership. Just think about that for a moment and remember that Labor's performance in the aged-care sector was so bad that the then minister, Justine Elliot, deferred the review of the aged-care planning ratio. At the last election, Labor provided no additional funding in their costings for home-care places or any additional funding for aged-care quality or workforce, or for mainstream residential aged care. Labor has remained silent on any commitment to aged-care since the election; it's a demonstration of their hypocrisy. The Morrison government continues to exemplify leadership and cooperation, even as we reach out to Labor in Victoria to help them solve their aged-care crisis.
I agree with this motion. This aged-care crisis has been a long time in the making—35 reports over 40 years, and yet we end up here in this crisis!
I have lost track, actually, of the number of committee inquiries on aged care I have chaired, and I don't want to have to continue doing it—reporting on the failures of the system and the need to increase the workforce. Just yesterday, Professor Pollaers again outlined the need for a significant investment, but we have government senators in here defending the government's investment. On Friday there was another in the piecemeal approaches trying to fill this gap and this gap and this gap; this time it was $171 million. What is recommended is $3.5 billion. We don't have the workforce that is necessary to provide the level of care that is necessary—four hours and 18 minutes. We haven't used the surge workforce. We did self-assessment of aged-care facilities, to see if they were pandemic-ready and COVID-ready. And most of them said yes! They clearly were not.
The Australian community has lost confidence in this government's, this Prime Minister's and this minister's ability to handle this crisis. And please don't lecture us about what's going on in other countries and use that as some sort of excuse as to why some level of death is acceptable! No level of death is acceptable! There could and should have been more effort made to stop what we knew was likely to happen if COVID got into an aged-care facility. We knew it would spread, because these are the most vulnerable people.
I'm also deeply concerned that, in this country, we have not been tackling the elephant in the room, which is putting profit before care, given the number of providers that are profit driven. We need to be looking at care, not profit. We found out on Friday from evidence before the COVID committee that 37 of the 60 facilities that the government was prepared to name that have had more than five deaths are for-profit providers. We need to be doing better in this country. We have lost confidence in this government's ability to handle this crisis.
I too rise to make a contribution to the debate on this matter of urgency. It is urgent that we respond to the crisis that has gripped some of the most vulnerable members of our community. It's been often said that we struggle with acknowledging death in our community. In visiting some of the amazing aged-care centres on the Central Coast, I have seen that there have been struggles there with cultural practices around the passing of people who are part of the community. We struggle to acknowledge death, especially of the aged, but Australians are facing the shame of incredible and preventable loss of life that has occurred on this government's watch in the midst of a crisis on a scale that we've not seen before. But there were some hints that they should have paid attention to.
COVID-19 has absolutely ravaged many aged-care communities in my state of New South Wales. In Victoria, in particular, the seeds of this disaster—the tragic loss of 328 irreplaceable lives, as of today—were sewn in the seven years of Liberal Party and National Party neglect of the very essential and critical aged-care sector. Real Australians whose families are mourning their loss are affected by this government's inaction. Real Australians are losing their lives. Real Australians are watching their friends pass away before their very eyes. I offer my sincere condolences to each and every family member and friend of those who have lost somebody in the aged-care sector.
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, Labor pushed this government to instigate a royal commission into the aged-care sector, but what we've seen from this government is that issues in the aged-care sector have been kicked down the road so many times that that's simply how they respond. Participants in the debate before me, including Senator Siewert, have indicated how many inquiries there have been and how many reports have been tabled but ignored. Our aged-care residents have suffered for a very long time, but the scale of their suffering and the scale of challenge that awaits Australians who are willing to open their eyes and see the level of despair, the failures of care and the deaths that are occurring in aged-care settings is something we cannot turn away from anymore. This government must own this matter. The government must respond.
There are, in fact, now 1,300 active cases of COVID-19 in care facilities in Victoria, and what we see from this Prime Minister is again the same pattern: it's anybody's problem, but it's not his. Twenty-three tragic deaths occurred in Newmarch House and Dorothy Henderson Lodge, and the residents' experiences there should have been a wake-up call to Mr Morrison and his government. The warnings from the reports that emerged and from the countless testimonials of underfunding and poor regulation should have set alarm bells ringing in the cabinet, yet the Morrison government delayed the reports when they could have been crucial in helping the Victorian government tackle their own emerging COVID aged-care crisis.
For seven long years, this Liberal-National government meant cuts, buck-passing and a revolving door of ministers, leaving care of our vulnerable aged-care residents at the bottom of this government's list of priorities. They've been willing to privatise home-care packages and been enabling of the privatisation of home-care packages as a way to cut the backlog of over 100,000 cases, and we see that the aged-care sector is almost completely incapable of serving the twin masters of care and profit.
The only reform that Mr Morrison is proposing is to strip from embattled aged-care minister Richard Colbeck full control over his portfolio and hand responsibility to the already flat-out health department in the middle of a pandemic. That's not leadership. That's changing deck seats on the Titanic. Minister Colbeck cannot answer the most basic of questions about his brief. He can't tell us clearly whether he did or did not brief the cabinet on the interim report of the aged-care commission or, crucially, how many Australians have actually died of the coronavirus in aged care. We did get out of him today in question time, though, that he is speaking to Mr Morrison about this matter daily. If that is the case, Mr Morrison might try to run but he cannot hide from the fact that he has known, on the testimony of Minister Colbeck in here today, on a daily basis what is going on in aged care. What's clear to us is that Minister Colbeck is not across his brief and, with Mr Morrison refusing to acknowledge the failures of his own government, someone needs to stand up and take leadership before this already parlous situation worsens.
The royal commission thus far has confirmed that the Morrison government in fact has no plan for aged care. The royal commission has heard that the Morrison government is still not prepared at this stage to deal with this crisis. Aged-care homes sent hundreds of requests, day after day, to this government, begging them, pleading with them, to provide them with appropriate levels of PPE to protect their workers, asking for that to be sent to them at the front line from the national stockpile. But just like it has failed to respond to aged-care residents, the government has failed to respond to the workforce. The complaints of staff have been ignored, and the consequences are the levels of COVID activity amongst that workforce.
The government also cut out thousands of support staff in aged-care facilities from the retention payment that was gifted to nurses. Minister Colbeck is so unfamiliar with his portfolio that he forgets that, to make these facilities run, they need a range of people. They need cooks, cleaners and other staff that make up 40 per cent of the entire workforce. Instead, the government locked these hardworking and caring staff out of the bonus payments, despite them running the same risk of infection.
The government has no plan for the workforce in aged care. It has spent a mere half of the money allocated for the surge workforce which will be critical for dealing with the outbreaks in nursing homes. I quote the royal commissioner, Hon. Tony Pagone QC, and Lynelle Briggs AO, who said damningly:
Had the Australian Government acted upon previous reviews of aged care, the persistent problems in aged care would have been known much earlier and the suffering of many people could have been avoided.
Mr Morrison, to this day, continues to claim to the Australian people that he had no forewarning of the impending crisis. On 29 July, that's what he said. But the facts reveal the truth. The truth is that Mr Morrison has been lying to the Australian public. We know what he knew. We know when he knew it. He knew it in plenty of time; he just chose not to act.
Scott Morrison knows what he needs to do. He needs to cut through the bureaucracy right now. He needs to establish clear lines of responsibility for this vital portfolio and ensure that there is an aged-care workforce strategy. For six years we've been waiting for him to deliver that. That's when it was promised—six years ago—and, to this day, it is still not in place. Just like during our summer of bushfires, when the Prime Minister skipped off to Hawaii and said, 'I'm not the man holding the hose,' once again, this time in aged care, he is not the man helping people. 'It's not my responsibility,' he says, trying to convince the Australian people that aged care is not the responsibility of the federal government and that he is not the one who owes an apology to the families of people who have died in aged care because of the failures on his watch.
I thank Senator O'Sullivan for his understanding, but Senator Di Natale has indicated that he is ready to proceed and the technology has worked. So, pursuant to order, the Senate will move to valedictory statements.
Let me begin by acknowledging the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nation from whose land I am speaking today, the Ngunawal and Ngambri people on whose land our national parliament meets and the traditional owners of the lands from right across the country.
Mr President, I hope you don't mind me saying that, after announcing my resignation—I'm going to share this with the rest of the world—you sent me a cheeky text message saying that you wouldn't kick me out of the Senate during my final speech. Now I'm not sure how you're going to do that from Melbourne, but I'm going to do my best to behave.
I didn't expect that my final speech would take place in a virtual parliament from a locked down city amid a global pandemic. It's a pandemic that's causing untold suffering and hardship across the world. It's a pandemic that follows a devastating summer of bushfires. And it's a pandemic that concludes my decade in this parliament. Over that decade, six different prime ministers have come and gone, climate change remains a festering sore on our body politic, economic inequality has been entrenched, race politics has reared its ugly head again and the gap with our First Nations peoples has grown. If ever there was a time for deep reflection and for a reset of our national politics, this is it.
Like many people right across the country, I've had plenty of time to reflect these past few months, and I leave the Australian parliament knowing that, despite the turmoil of the past decade, our nation is a better place because of what we Greens have achieved.
One of the first votes that I cast in this place is one of my proudest, as we delivered the world's best climate laws. The Clean Energy Act was a result of the power-sharing arrangement between the Labor Party, the Greens and Independents, and it showed what could be achieved when politicians ditched the partisanship and cooperated in the national interest. Not long after that, I was fortunate to be able to negotiate a $4 billion dental package to provide millions of children with free Medicare funded dental care. 'How good's this?' I thought. Thanks to the Greens, we had a price on carbon, we had billions of dollars flowing into renewable energy projects and we had the first stage of our Denticare plan to roll out Medicare funded dental care to Australians across the country. In politics, just as in life, sometimes you don't know how good things are until they're gone. That power-sharing arrangement may have been tarnished by former prime ministers' quests for vengeance, but it was one of the most productive periods in the nation's history.
The Abbott government that followed is infamous for many reasons, but the jaw-dropping 2014 budget, with its full-frontal assault on Medicare and on schools, is seared in my memory. It was like a horror story. Each election, millions of people vote for the Greens because they share our values. But they also vote for us to hold bad governments to account, and that was never more important than during those Abbott years.
But the great privilege was taking on the leadership of the Australian Greens just as that government ended, and I like to think that those two things may have been connected. Leadership was a responsibility that weighed very heavily on me. As leader, I confronted successive conservative governments and spent much of my time fighting their attacks on the environment and on people doing it tough. But I'm also proud that, along the way, we achieved some real wins for people. Securing $100 million in funding for Landcare as part of our solution to the backpacker tax stand-off was a good day.
Before I was elected to parliament, I often thought these things were the product of careful deliberation and a thorough policy process. But it was a tense meeting with the leader of the Senate in the corridor that allowed us to achieve a great outcome for farmers and for the environment. It took a 28-hour sitting to democratise voting in the Senate after the Labor Party reversed its position and threw everything at us. The Greens policy was based on the very novel idea that, in a democracy, the outcome of an election should reflect how people vote, not backroom deals between political parties. There were lots of wonderful offerings during that long and ugly debate that night, but listening to a senator compare the bill to his colonoscopy had me questioning my life choices.
After years of campaigning against multinational tax-dodging, we negotiated important laws that increased penalties on corporations for tax avoidance and profit-shifting. Labor attacked us because the laws didn't go far enough, but when will Labor learn that you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good? Sam Dastyari, of course, led the attack with memes and posters and even a billboard decrying 'Di Natale's dirty deals'. Sam, of course, was an expert on the subject of dirty deals.
Working across the political divide carries real risk for a party like ours. We didn't benefit electorally from the power-sharing arrangement with the then Gillard government, but we got some really important policy wins. Getting good policy outcomes on the rare occasions we negotiated with the Liberals also gave our rivals plenty of ammunition, and it did cut across our own message. But I firmly believe that we owe it to the millions of people who vote for us to roll up our sleeves and deliver Greens policy for them.
Leading our team in walking out of parliament during Senator Hanson's first speech, rather than sitting in quiet acceptance of her racist views or, worse still, shaking her hand afterwards is another proud moment. Within hours of doing that, our office was flooded with calls, mostly from people from the Australian Muslim community, many in tears, just thankful that they were not alone. Often, during my time in parliament, I felt like I was shouting in the wind. But, in that moment, I knew that our message of solidarity was being heard where it mattered most.
I'm proud to have led the party that supported marriage equality long before it was a popular cause and worked tirelessly with campaigners from across the community for decades until it became law. Our work behind the scenes in exposing the corporate greed in our banking and financial sector was critical in helping secure a banking royal commission. When we first advocated for a levy on the big banks, the Liberals slammed us for our economy-wrecking socialist policies. A decade later, they introduced one. It gave me great satisfaction to be upstairs in the ABC's studios at Parliament House doing a radio interview with Senator Paterson, freshly out of the Institute of Public Affairs and now defending another sensible Greens idea.
Greens legislation for a national integrity commission to root out corruption was rejected outright by both sides for almost a decade, but we finally won. Now it's time to make sure that an anticorruption watchdog is up to the job of fighting corruption and is not just window dressing. Medicinal cannabis would still be illegal in Australia if it weren't for the Greens. It took our bill to gain cross-party support and joint press conferences with people like renowned Greens hater and LNP senator Ian Macdonald for the government to finally start listening. We've been a lone voice in this place on sensible drug policy, with reforms like pill testing, supervised injecting facilities and adult-use cannabis. And I know there are MPs in this place who agree with us; I just wish they wouldn't find their voice only once they've left parliament.
The citizenship scandal that saw us lose two fine senators was one of my toughest times in that place. The first phone call, from Senator Ludlam, came out of the blue, and it triggered a series of events that cast a shadow over the 45th Parliament. A Perth lawyer had been digging around and he discovered that Scott had left New Zealand as a three-year-old and had not renounced his citizenship. I initially thought that the second call, just days later, from Senator Waters was a joke. She told me that she was still waiting for legal confirmation but she believed that she had unknowingly held Canadian citizenship. The legal advice was clear: they were both ineligible to sit in parliament. It's an archaic section of our Constitution and it needs to be changed, but there was no question about what to do next. In the space of a week they had both resigned and I had lost my two deputy leaders. We had let down our members and supporters, the Prime Minister called us sloppy and extraordinarily negligent and the right-wing media went into overdrive, as they do. Of course, we all know what happened in the weeks and months that followed: politicians from all sides were outed, except this time there were delays, denials, blame and expensive High Court challenges at the taxpayers' expense. It's one thing to talk about personal responsibility in this place; it's another thing to demonstrate it.
So I leave here feeling incredibly proud of our team, who have behaved with integrity and achieved so much. I leave with a deep sense of personal fulfilment that comes from fighting for a cause bigger than yourself. But, if I'm being really honest, I also leave knowing that successive parliaments in which I've served have failed to achieve lasting reforms on the things that matter: climate change, homelessness, job insecurity, mental illness and protection of our environment.
It's easy to put these flaws down to the personal failings of individual prime ministers, but the failings of the past decade are much bigger than that. The very structures that underpin our democracy—many of them established a century ago, have been incapable of responding to the challenges before us. We are currently living through a pandemic of which we were warned but unprepared for. Our National Medical Stockpile was inadequate. Health workers were unable to get masks and we lacked the basic capacity to make our own. Victorians are now locked up in their houses because of the failure of a quarantine system, which failed due to a culture of outsourcing and privatisation. Ongoing outbreaks in aged-care facilities have revealed the ugly truth of how we care, or don't care, for the elderly.
We were warned about the threat of a global pandemic, and we've been warned time and again about the threat of catastrophic climate change. And yet the coalition, the Labor Party, the business community and even sections of the union movement are divided over this issue. Despite having the technological tools to address it, despite significant public support and despite a litany of climate fuelled disasters, they remain incapable of reaching internal agreement. The Liberal Party once believed in protecting the environment—in the notion of conservation. Today they're dominated by a reactionary rump that represents corporate rent-seekers who want protection from technological change, like renewable energy. Today, with the climate crisis spiralling out of control, Labor's climate policy is weaker than it was a decade ago. The Labor Party lost me many, many years ago, but they're going to lose a lot more people if they don't muster up a bit of courage and take a stand on climate change. The Business Council worked hand-in-glove with the Abbott government to tear down our climate laws, only to leave their members hopelessly exposed to the risks posed by climate change. All they offer now is lip-service in support of climate action but criticism of anyone with a meaningful plan to do something about it. And during last year's election campaign we had a powerful mining union in Queensland forcing candidates to sign a pledge in support of coalmining and denying them a chance of a long-term future.
Not so long ago, our major newspapers would hold these institutions and our political parties to account. Today they host fundraisers for them. The dominant Murdoch media continues to shamelessly promote climate denialism and the ABC has been worn down by relentless attacks and ongoing budget cuts. Social media, which was getting started a decade ago, promised to take power away from media moguls and to democratise debate by giving citizens a voice. Instead, it has become a platform for extremes, where conspiracy theories flourish and where anonymity plays to the worst of human instincts. Our institutions no longer reflect who we are or who we want to become. We urgently need a new era of sweeping political and economic reform, and it has to start by making our democracy work for people and not for corporations.
The first political fight I saw up close in this place was when I watched a cashed-up gambling lobby descend on Parliament House like a pack of vultures and shamelessly sink popular pokies reform. Since that time, I've seen the same story play out over and over and over again, whether it's the mining tax, alcohol regulation or action on climate change. The formula they use is always the same: keep the donations flowing; deploy an army of lobbyists, preferably politicians, so they can exploit their connections; host fundraisers; run big campaigns against anyone who threatens your bottom line; pay thousands to get a seat at the minister's table, and the bigger the cheque, the better the seat. That awful new fence that surrounds Parliament House now is symbolic of this rotten culture. We've closed off the building to the community but we've thrown the gates wide open to vested interests with deep pockets. A representative democracy should represent the full diversity of its citizens. Instead, ours represents a political class who tread the well-worn path of student politics to political staffer to parliamentary politics. Our parliament and the Australian nation are two different countries. We need more women, more people from different cultural and economic backgrounds, more young people in our parliament. It shouldn't take a pandemic to force the introduction of technologies like the one we're using right now, which is going to make it easier for parents and carers and people with disabilities—those from rural backgrounds—to engage in our democracy.
Our parliament is not representative of how people vote, either. The National Party, with about four per cent of the national vote, returns 16 lower house MPs. The Greens, with almost three times that vote, returns one MP. Yet for nearly two decades a tiny, overrepresented, anticlimate party has been crucial in blocking action on climate change. If we had proportional representation so that our national parliament fairly represented the wishes of voters, the climate change debate would be largely over.
This pandemic has demonstrated the critical role of looking after people. We've got to get our democracy working for people. The pandemic has also exposed the lie that government can't support those in need. For years, the low rate of Newstart condemned people to a life of poverty, and that has only changed because millions more Australians have been forced to live that reality. We now effectively have a universal income, and it should stay. We've been gradually heading towards a two-tier, privatised, American style health system, but we know the best insurance against any pandemic is Medicare and our precious public health system. The crisis has again exposed a tough reality for people in insecure and inadequate housing. We need a massive new build of public housing, which would create jobs and investment.
Online communication has been critical for people during this period of isolation, keeping people connected and allowing businesses to continue functioning. It's now an essential service. Free access to high-quality internet would give many more people opportunity to flourish.
And real action on climate change is nation building. Phasing out dirty, expensive, coal-fired power and gas and replacing it with renewable energy means thousands of new jobs. There are jobs, too, in building network infrastructure and new storage systems and in the electrification of our transport system. Investment in revegetation and—
Senator Di Natale—if you can hear me—we are having trouble hearing you.
To assist the chamber, I move that we have a brief suspension until we can resolve the technical issues.
Question agreed to.
Sitting suspended from 17:25 to 17:29
Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a functioning NBN right now!
Perhaps I'll just reflect upon the disappointments of the past few decades. I do leave parliament hopeful that things will change; I do. Unlike the response to climate change, state and federal governments have ditched the partisanship and have been guided by evidence in responding to this pandemic. It's absolutely true, some terrible mistakes have been made, and they deserve scrutiny. But I also want to acknowledge the many sensible, life-saving decisions, too. There's also a strong sense of solidarity in the community. It's been a really, really tough year for many people. Many people are struggling. But the vast majority of people understand that this shared sacrifice is required in order to get us through this together. It's also a moment when people have been given space to think deeply about what's important in life. We're social creatures. We rely on human contact. We rely on each other. It's a moment like this that puts a lie to the dog-eat-dog, rampant individualism that has formed the basis of our politics for far too long.
I'm optimistic because social movements are building around the world, too, and throughout history it's these movements that have driven change. Right now collective action on climate change, racism, sexism and inequality is gathering steam. I remember leaving parliament once, feeling especially demoralised after a particularly brutal sitting week, and it was the tens of thousands of passionate, engaged young people at the climate strike the following day that gave me the strength and energy to keep fighting. I want to thank them.
I leave politics feeling confident about the Greens, too. I joined the Victorian Greens two decades ago. We had no state or federal representation, and over what is a short period of time we've elected dozens of state and federal MPs and local government councils right across the country. Our party is strong and resilient. We have the support of millions of Australians, and we're the only party with genuine solutions to today's problems. That doesn't mean we can't do better. We need to continue building a culture of accountability and respect. It's easy to focus on yourself or perform for a small and noisy crowd, but success lies in reaching outwards and engaging meaningfully with people from right across the community, and that's what our members, supporters and volunteers do every day. None of us would be here without their commitment, their passion—working tirelessly, giving their time, sharing their ideas and talking to real people to get more Greens elected.
To everyone who's knocked on doors, made calls, stood at polling booths in the middle of winter, demanded change at rallies, shown solidarity at vigils and done so much more to make this country better, I want to thank each and every one of you. To all of my staff, who have worked so hard for so long this past decade, thanks so much for the long hours, the weekends, the travel away from home, the pep talks and the wise counsel—and just for listening to me whinge. I'm not going to name anyone today, but you know who you are, and I will be forever grateful.
To my team of wonderful Greens MPs: thank you for your unwavering support. You are all incredible human beings, and it has been a privilege to lead this incredible team. To Adam: you're going to do us proud. To other MPs across the political divide: I know that most of you are here because you believe in making Australia a better place, and I genuinely wish all of you every success in making the next decade better than the last.
To all the people who keep our parliament functioning—the clerks, the Senate attendants, the cleaners and the gardeners—thank you so much. To the COMCAR drivers with whom I've spent many a long drive: just thanks for your company. It's been a privilege.
And to my family: Lucy, thank you for your incredible support these past 10 years. I could not have done this without you, and I hope I can support you in your career, just as you have done in mine, as we raise two fine young boys. To my boys: time to get the footy boots out, because your old man's back in town. To my mum and dad, who have ridden every bump along the way in support of their little boy: thank you for all of your love—and thanks, Mum, for all those packages of lasagne that I managed to sneak into Parliament House.
In my first speech almost a decade ago, fresh faced and optimistic, I quoted Martin Luther King, who said: 'The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.' Now older and greyer after a tough decade in parliament, my faith in that idea is a little shaken, but not broken. Sure, there've been setbacks this past decade, but it will bend towards justice again. It will bend because we will bend it together. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Senator Di Natale. I thank you for your understanding.
I seek leave to have so much of Senator Di Natale's speech as was inaudible incorporated in the Hansard.
Leave is granted.
The speech read as follows—
The document was unavailable at the time of publishing—
I rise to acknowledge and to congratulate Senator Richard Di Natale on his service to the Senate and to the nation as a Greens senator for Victoria for 10 years and as the Leader of the Greens for five years. We would often disagree during debates in this chamber and, indeed, during debates in the lead-up to various elections in which we were both candidates. In fact, I disagree with much of what Senator Di Natale had to say in his speech just now—in particular, about the performance of our government.
But outside the battles in this chamber I have always found Senator Di Natale to be an unfailingly courteous, professional and trustworthy partner to engage with. There is much which can be achieved on a foundation of trust—even, and in particular, across party lines—including sitting down in the government's senators lobby to what Senator Di Natale apparently thinks was an impromptu catch-up, but was, of course, absolutely organised. And, I have to say, Senator Di Natale, and Senator Whish-Wilson at the time, did approach the issue that we were dealing with at that particular point in time, the backpacker tax arrangements, with a very constructive, positive attitude, seeking to find a sensible resolution—perhaps not perfectly what the Greens would have been looking for, but nevertheless a more sensible landing ground. And, of course, in that context we also reached agreement in relation to $100 million in additional funding for Landcare, which was secured by the Australian Greens as part of that discussion at the time.
Another issue which I personally was very closely engaged with Senator Di Natale on, and with Senator Lee Rhiannon at the time too, who was the Greens spokesperson on electoral matters, is the whole issue of Senate voting reforms. I think we ended up with just short of 40 hours of debate, including more than 20 hours straight. I think at 4.30 pm on a Thursday afternoon we resumed debate on the Senate voting reforms and we finished somewhere around one or two on the Friday afternoon. I would have much rather, after an appropriate time, brought the debate to a close with the traditional time management motion. But, as we were going through quorum call after quorum call at one, two, three and four o'clock in the morning, Senator Di Natale was holding firm to the principles of democracy and that this issue had to be debated out properly.
It was an important reform because, up until that time, until the Senate agreed to endorse that particular reform to Senate voting arrangements, it was so-called preference whisperers that were dealing and trading the second and subsequent voting preferences of Australian voters behind closed doors in so-called group voting tickets. The reforms that the Greens and the government together put in place through that particular piece of legislation put the power, not just over the first voting preference but over any subsequent voting preference when voting for the Senate, where it belongs: in the hands of every individual Australian voter. That is a reform that Senator Di Natale and the Greens, together with the government, can continue to look back on with great pride.
I did a bit of research in preparation for this, looking at Senator Di Natale's background. I see that he, like me, was born in 1970; he has turned 50, and I'm turning 50 in a couple of months time. Fifty is clearly the new age at which to retire from the Senate—interesting! The other thing that Senator Di Natale, Senator Wong and I have in common, as leaders of parties in the Senate, is that all three of us are from migrant backgrounds. It is a great demonstration of the wonderful, migrant, multicultural society that Australia has become, that the leaders of three parties making contributions through this place have migrant backgrounds. In Senator Wong's case and my case, we are first generation, and in Senator Di Natale's case, second generation.
I absolutely wish Richard and his wife Lucy and their two boys a happy, healthy, satisfying future. On behalf of the government and Liberal senators in this chamber, congratulations, Richard, on your contributions to our vibrant democracy over the 10 years that you have served with distinction in this chamber and best wishes for your future.
I rise on behalf of the Labor Party to acknowledge the valedictory remarks of Senator Di Natale and to reflect on his contribution to the Senate. He has served just over nine years in this place—elected as a senator for Victoria in 2010 and taking his seat in 2011. Richard has made a particular impact in health policy, multiculturalism and, of course, for five years, as Leader of the Australian Greens.
When Richard entered the parliament, he was one of a new wave of Greens senators. The 2010 election was a high point for the Greens electorally. The party increased its representation from three to nine after returning a senator from each of the six states, including Senator Di Natale, and that gave them the balance of power. It placed Senator Di Natale in the national parliament at a significant time for his party in his home state and in Canberra. I think he was the first Greens senator elected by Victoria.
Senator Richard Di Natale has been the Greens representative or spokesperson on health policy throughout his time as a senator. I recall sitting here for his first speech, when he spoke of his experiences in medicine, including working in community health as a general practitioner, in Aboriginal health in the Northern Territory and with the Nossal Institute for Global Health. This knowledge and understanding of how health policy affects people at a practical level, and in significantly disadvantaged communities in particular, has been evident in his approach as a parliamentarian and in the way he sought to advance policies with a focus on prevention was in recognition of the fact that so many of the illnesses he had been called upon to treat were entirely preventable. He also recognised that many of the factors that influence health and wellbeing lie outside our health system and that improvement in areas such as housing, water, sanitation and involvement in community are critical indicators. Individual health is inextricably linked to the health of our society. This is something that Senator Di Natale brought to his work and it's something that is worth all of us reflecting upon—and it is something illustrated by the current pandemic.
One aspect of Senator Di Natale's political leadership I wish to reflect on is his support and advocacy for a multicultural Australia. This is at the core of his own identity. In his first speech he reflected on the journey his parents had taken from Italy to settle in Australia: his mother as a young girl with her parents and his father as a 29-year-old man. Their migrant story is one echoed by so many Australians of multiple generations; people who combined hope for a new future with hard work to build their lives in a new country. He reflected that from these beginnings his family has contributed teachers, doctors, factory workers, builders, lawyers and a senator. He was right to say that multiculturalism is one of Australia's enduring successes and is an opportunity to focus on those things which unite us. He named respect for our democratic institutions, for universal human rights and for equality of opportunity. Its intrinsic value, he noted, comes through the relationships formed with people from different cultures, offering as they do important insights into our own. Throughout his parliamentary career, he has emphasised the importance of multiculturalism, including in his leadership of the Senate Select Committee on Strengthening Multiculturalism.
As Labor senators stated in their additional comments to the report of that committee, leadership from the parliament is an important factor in multiculturalism and its success, because we all have a role to play, collectively and as an institution. We have the opportunity in this place to shape community norms and we all have a responsibility to encourage cohesion in the Australian community. Regrettably, there are some in this place who seek to use race as a political weapon, despite everything history has taught us about where that leads and despite the pain and trauma that inevitably brings to fellow Australians. Richard Di Natale has always resisted these forces. He has been a consistent opponent of political efforts to sow division on the basis of race. He has been a voice for an inclusive Senate and an inclusive Australia, and I thank him for this.
Senator Richard Di Natale served as the Greens leader from May 2015 to February of this year. He knows any leader of a parliamentary party bears a significant responsibility. Some of the things we deal with are clear, but most are nuanced. The simplicity of the stories politicians tell can often conceal wicked complexity, because most of our decisions ultimately involve trade-offs. It was to the Greens' credit that they finally embraced those trade-offs in engaging with former Prime Minister Julia Gillard to put a price on carbon. The full extent of Senator Di Natale's influence on this is something we may never know. I do note that the climate package the Greens supported under Prime Minister Gillard was one that gave more concessions to carbon-intensive industry—a browner package than the CPRS that I had put before the Senate a couple of years before and that the Greens voted with the Liberal Party to defeat. The fact that the Greens voted with the Liberals against a less brown package before Senator Di Natale arrived and then voted for a browner package after he arrived suggests he might have helped them come to see the need for a more collaborative approach if they wanted to get something done. The stakes were too high for squabbling, and they still are. The climate emergency was barrelling towards us, and only action could avert the coming crisis.
I would never want to say our words do not matter—they do; especially as senators we need to choose them carefully—but, ultimately, science doesn't care about how fine our words are. It only responds to actions. Doctors know that when faced with a critical patient they need to act, not wait for the perfect and miraculous solution. In parliament, as in life, we rarely get to choose between something we think is perfect and something we think is irredeemable. As recently as this week, the new leadership of the Greens, and Senator Di Natale himself today, pointed to the Gillard years as a template. I would encourage them to recall that that period involved considerable compromise on their part, including supporting a browner climate policy than the one they had said was too brown. I urge recognition that change only comes through finding common cause with people who are different, and persuading those who do not agree with us. Anything less and we are part of the problem we claim needs to be solved. I would hope this is a perspective that Senator Di Natale shares, because politics should not just be performative; it ultimately must be substantive.
Finally, I want to observe that Richard has chosen the timing of his departure from this place. It is not a choice all of us have the luxury of making. I hope he does so happy with what he has contributed and with energy and enthusiasm for what lies next. Hopefully, it will involve much more time with his family, Lucy and his two sons and, of course, some time on the farm as he desires. Recalling a story he once told about his activities on the farm, I will just say to him: if you ever need someone to sample the next batch of salami or capicola, remember there are fewer vegetarians in the Labor Party!
Can I say on a personal level that I have enjoyed working with Senator Richard Di Natale. We have disagreed on much. Has always been decent and trustworthy in my private dealings with him. I wish him all the very best in his future endeavours.
I rise with some short remarks from the National Party on the retirement of Senator Di Natale. We associate ourselves, obviously, with the comments from the government leader, Senator Cormann. It might seem a little odd, Senator Di Natale, that The Nationals wish you all the very best in your retirement, but we really do.
Senator Di Natale and I arrived here in the same batch of senators representing the same fabulous state and sharing a passion for the great code, AFL. I know he's looking forward to getting the boots on with the boys after today. It's a great privilege to serve the great state of Victoria. To be fair, other than probably two instances in our entire careers, we've been at polar opposites politically. But I think it's a great testament to this institution, to the people who are called to serve here, irrespective of their political persuasion, that at a time of a new senator's arrival and a senator's deciding to retire we come together as an institution and respect their contribution because we recognise a cohort of Australian people sent them to this place to represent that set of values.
And as violently opposed to most of your values, Richard, the Nationals have been—and I know Senator Canavan recalls a time he offered his 'Start Adani' T-shirt as a jersey swap with your 'Stop Adani' T-shirt after a Q+A appearance—there has been some friendly banter. But we are here to do serious things and to stand up for our values. But we are able to do that respectfully and to acknowledge that we each bring a sense of purpose and a sense of drivenness, knowing that we're representing the needs and interests of people who have sent us here. We disagreed on the role of coal and the mining industry in the Australian economy. We've disagreed on firearm regulation. So, yes, we have disagreed on whether a sugar tax is the best way to combat the obesity epidemic. But we have agreed that a pluralist democracy is the best place to raise our children and to do our very, very best in seeing out our service to our state.
I would like to thank the former leader of the Greens, Senator Di Natale, for sensibly assisting Australian agriculture to get the workforce it needed and also to get a cool $100 million out of Senator Cormann for a great program, Landcare, which is a great, pragmatic way to support conservation programs in rural and regional communities, with community partnering with farmers to get great environmental outcomes. I recall that Senator Di Natale said on seasonal workforce in that debate at the time that if we do not remain competitive in this area then Australian agricultural business are going to lose out. Thank you, because that was a real point of crisis for rural and regional communities. I wish he'd supported other regional job-providing industries in the regions—mining obviously is a key part of that and is something we as a party pursue ad nauseam and with good cause.
Senator Di Natale is also a great advocate of the role of sport in the broader Australian community as an integral part of the national character. I loved his quote:
In my own state of Victoria, for example, the AFL occupies a space somewhere between sport and religion.
He's right. I hope he gets to enjoy a lot more of that in his time off.
Thank you for your service, Senator Di Natale. I hope you enjoy some time with your family out in rural and regional Victoria, the great south-west. I'll send you a membership form. After a bit of time on the land out in the community, you might appreciate the National Party's contribution here. Thank you for your service. The battle of ideas is so important, and we on our side and in our party absolutely value diversity of ideas, of which you've been a key contributor. Thank you.
I rise on behalf of the Australian Greens with a real sadness to farewell a dear friend of ours, Senator Richard Di Natale. We're sad to lose him from our party room, but we are so happy to see the spring in his step and the ease with which a smile comes to his face these days. After 10 years in this place and five as the leader of a political party it's no mean feat to retain your humanity, your sense of humour, your sense of perspective and your compassion for the world and for others. Richard is a truly remarkable human being. I think I speak for many people—certainly I speak for everyone in our party room—in saying that we're going to miss him dearly. He's a dear friend to all of us, and I think he has made an enormous improvement to the culture of the parliament and to this chamber.
I was really honoured to serve him as a deputy leader. I'm sorry about the section 44 thing, Richard, for all of the stress that caused you in what was a torrid time! But it was another situation that you handled with grace and an impeccable calmness and kindness. Richard's gone through some of the amazing achievements that he has been proud to deliver in his time as Leader of the Greens. I'm conscious that Richard has to leave in about 15 minutes, so I'm going to keep my remarks fairly brief, because I know many others on our Greens team want to say their farewells as well, but indulge me.
The first time I met Richard was in 2007 when we were both candidates to become senators. We both missed out that time around, but we bonded over some terrible media that we'd both had at the time on a dodgy website. Perhaps I don't need to go into the detail of that! But we then entered the Senate together in the class of 2010, and I've continued to make wonderful memories of my parliamentary work with Richard, including eating Italian in Paris when we went to the climate conference in 2015. Of course we were eating Italian in Paris—it was Richard! On that same visit we both met David Attenborough, and we both became completely starstruck and were tripping over our tongues. I remember getting to see his farm and watching the ease and the loveliness of him and his family together. I remember getting to see a terribly bleached Great Barrier Reef on a trip that we both took after, I think, the first bleaching event. There was then a subsequent one the following season. Just sharing the grief of the starkness of that completely destroyed coral reef is another experience that I won't forget.
Richard's just an all-round decent bloke. I couldn't make a final contribution without acknowledging that I think everybody's mum is in love with him. I'm pretty sure it's not just my mum, Richard! The Hansard has to reflect that. He really has warmth and good sense, which I think encouraged people to really consider what the Greens stand for, to give us a chance and to trust us with their vote. His achievements have been impressive. He's listed many of them: championing marriage equality, working for medevac legislation, fighting for an independent federal anticorruption watchdog, that money for Landcare, leading our party to our second-highest vote at an election in our history—the list could go on, but, fundamentally Richard is an incredibly decent human being. He is a really good person and we will miss his contribution and his considered wisdom in our party room.
I do also have a message from our new leader, the wonderful Adam Bandt, to convey to you, Richard, and to put on the Hansard. Adam says, 'Thanks for your amazing service to our movement over so many years. We're so lucky to have had you as a Greens warrior. You leave a great legacy behind, and I'm sure there's much more to come. We can't wait to see what you do next, but hopefully it involves a bit more surfing, a bit more time with the family and a lot fewer late night phone hook-ups! We will miss you.' Indeed, we will miss you, but we look forward to a lot more catch-ups outside this crazy life, lots more pizza and probably some beer, but I'm bidding for nonna's arancini balls because they're delicious!
I sign off by saying thank you so, so much to Lucy, Luca and Ben—your family—for sharing you with the nation for the last 10 years. We know what a sacrifice that is, and we're deeply grateful for it. We're sorry to miss you and lose you, Richard, but we're so happy that your family's got you back. Thanks so much.
Richard, a cracking speech, mate—right up there with some of your best work. And there have been some absolute beauties. My favourite was the 'hang your heads in shame' speech, otherwise known as the 'you should all be ashamed of yourselves' speech, otherwise known as 'you're all a disgrace' speech. Richard is far too modest to quote his own speeches, so I'm going to quickly regale the Senate with a snippet of probably his most famous speech in this place. The context was that the Liberals were embroiled in a leadership challenge, which ultimately saw the demise of former Prime Minister Turnbull. This is what Richard had to say at that time:
It's a disgrace. It's utterly shameful.
We haven't had a stable government in this country for a decade now. I've got a 10-year-old boy, and he's seen half a dozen different prime ministers. We have politicians in this joint who are far more concerned about themselves and their own self-interest than about governing the country. While the Liberal Party have been tearing themselves apart, 100 per cent of New South Wales is in drought; the Great Barrier Reef is on the brink of collapse; there are floods in India; we've got a 12-year-old girl setting herself alight in Nauru; and we've got kids who are in a catatonic state because they've given up hope, locked away in those offshore hellholes. And what's the Liberal Party doing? They're focusing on vengeance and on payback. They're focusing on themselves.
We've got people who can't afford to pay their medical bills right now. We've got young people who are being priced out of an education. There are 100,000 people in this country who are homeless. There are women who fear going home tonight because one woman a week is killed at the hands of a violent partner. And what have we got? We've got this spectacle, this disgrace! You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Boy, you did tee off there, Richard, and you really spoke on behalf of the millions of Australians who supported all of those things that you mentioned and were ashamed at the spectacle that was going on in this place.
Richard would never forgive me if I didn't rebut Senator Wong's political comments in her response to Richard's speech and, in fact, her revisionist history. Let's face it, the CPRS—the 'continue polluting regardless' scheme—was not a better scheme than the clean energy package. It was a much, much worse and browner scheme. If the clean energy package were still in place, Australia would be emitting far, far less than we currently are, whereas if the 'continue polluting regardless' scheme were still in place, Australia would be emitting far, far more than we are now, having not had a price on carbon for so many years thanks to the Liberal and National parties.
Richard, you have been an awesome senator and a fantastic and inspirational leader. You always did what was in the best interests of the Greens and the millions of people who voted for us during your time in this place, and you did so even at significant personal cost. But more important than that is your legacy as a truly beautiful human being who has never lost his humanity. You never lost your humility, you didn't fall for the ego traps that get so many in this place and you always displayed loyalty and consideration for others. Above all else, you are truly an honourable person.
Mate, it's time for you to get a few more waves down around the Bells region—your dodgy knee permitting, and I hope it's continuing to heal up. But, more importantly—I'm sure you'll agree—it's time for you to spend much more time with your beautiful family whom you love so much. So go well and all the best, and I'll see you for a few beers soon.
Richard, over the last few weeks I've seen you on Zoom and I've seen a few videos of yours on Facebook. I must say that you look happier, more relaxed and carefree than I have seen you look in the last few years. It's made it very clear to me that the decision you made to step out of parliamentary politics was absolutely the right one at this time. And you deserve to be relaxed and carefree after dedicating a decade of your life to our party and the broader progressive movement as a Greens senator—not to mention years of service before that to the party. You have my utmost respect for your passion and your humanity.
I will never forget the very warm welcome that you and your team gave me when I joined the Senate two years ago. It was your encouragement and your warmth that made me very quickly a part of our team. I've always found it very easy, and very easy to be open with you as well. That's such an important quality in the high-pressure, high-stress environment that we all work in. We've had many agreements and we've also had our disagreements. But do you know what? We've never swept issues under the carpet and we've always come out stronger at the other end. I thank you for always listening to the other's point of view.
I must say that the 2019 election was a highlight for me—the campaign. The hard work of campaigning was done with real collaboration, with real friendship and with a lot of fun along the way as well. I'm so proud that, together, we really pushed the boundaries on social justice and on environmental justice. And you should be very proud of your leadership during that campaign, which won us so many hearts and minds. And all our senators were back here.
But one of the things that I will always remember you for and thank you for, from the bottom of my heart, is speaking so unashamedly about tackling racism. You would never shy from calling out xenophobia, Islamophobia and racism. As a Muslim, migrant woman of colour, who regularly experiences the searing heat of open racism, the dog whistling against migrants and the damaging impacts of hate speech, I know that speaking out is never easy, but you have done it with gusto. Knowing you always had my back and the back of other communities of colour was both reassuring and very encouraging. Our party is now well set to continue and to unapologetically demand racial justice.
I'm sure that once you've had a break, Richard, we'll see some more wild and wonderful things from you, and I look forward to it. In the meantime, enjoy some very well-deserved down-time with your family. Thank you, Richard, and khuda hafiz until I see you again.
I would like to associate myself with the comments made by my colleagues in relation to Richard's departure today. I'm sad that Richard is not here to experience it in person and to give his valedictory in this place. Having said that, of course, Richard has always been somebody who hasn't let his technophobia get in the way of being able to do his job. I think that this particular contribution and his valedictory are testimony to that.
Richard, I first met you of course in the 2007 election campaign. We don't have to go into all the gory details, but I was a brand-new mum with a baby in my arms who was five weeks old. We were in Tasmania at a crash course on Senate election campaigning and you were very helpful. It was one of those things where travelling around this country with kids is really difficult, and that was my first experience—having to manage that five weeks on as a new mum. But you were right there, helping all the way. I think that is testimony to how you have approached all of your time in this place, serving not just your community but serving us as a party. And I know the contribution that you made to the Australian Greens beyond the official leadership requirements has been enormous and very, very longstanding.
Of course, Richard first ran for the seat of Melbourne long before he ran for the Senate. He ran in election after election until he got here. He was determined to get to this place. He missed out in the Senate race in 2007 by a whisker. He knows what it's like to get very close, to work very hard and to not get the prize at the end of it. But once he was here, in 2010, one of his proudest moments, I know, was experiencing the passage of that clean energy legislation. I remember how ecstatic Richard was—we all were—that we were finally getting climate action delivered in this place. It's a testament to the fact that we did very well in that election campaign that we were in that position to share in some of those decisions of the Gillard government and that we were actually able to make those changes. Richard has always remained committed to that—that if you come to this place, if you work really hard as part of a political party to get yourself elected, you've got to be able to be practical and you've got to be able to look for the right outcomes. The balance with all of that, of course, is maintaining your principles and maintaining your commitment to the people who put you here. I think Richard has always spoken very well about the need to be pragmatic and the need to get outcomes but also not forgetting why you're here and the real core reason for the change that you want to make.
Richard, thank you for your service. Thank you for your leadership. It's been an absolute hoot at times; it's been intense at others. But your ability to go with it and keep going until the job is done is, I think, a testament to your character and the type of man that you are. Just briefly, before you go, I've got to say sorry that the AFL grand final won't be held in Melbourne this year! Let's bring it to Adelaide and the Adelaide Oval. I'm happy for you to sleep in the spare room at the house if you are so desperate to watch you'll go into quarantine! It's been a wonderful journey working alongside you, with your leadership, and I'm sorry you're not here now for us to celebrate with a couple of drinks.
I'll keep my words short because I know there are a number of people who want to speak and I have already expressed to Richard my deep respect and appreciation for the leadership that he has shown over the years. One of the areas that I haven't mentioned previously and that hasn't really been mentioned here—although people have articulated that you, Richard, worked in Aboriginal health for a long time—is that one of our shared passions is ensuring that we are addressing Aboriginal health in this country. I know that you spent a lot of your early years in medicine working in Aboriginal communities, and I've had the pleasure of visiting some of those communities with you. I saw the way that people responded to your deep commitment, passion and care for the issue and for people, and it has been a pleasure to work with you on those issues.
There are so many issues that you have covered and worked on. I really appreciate the privilege of having worked with you and the leadership that you have shown. You are unfailingly supportive. You always responded in a calm manner whenever any crisis was running—other than in football! Watching the football with Richard is an experience! Richard is absolutely passionate about Richmond. I'm a Dockers supporter, so there's at least one thing that we have never seen eye to eye on! Richard, you will now be able to watch a lot more football, because I know that you will have missed a lot. I've actually never seen you happier, really, than when you are with your family, watching football and shouting at the screen. It reminds me very much of my father-in-law's response when he's watching the Eagles not do very well!
Thank you for all the work that you have done. I've also got a very personal thank you. I'm trying to say this without tearing up. You'll know what I'm talking about. When I got some very terrible news, you walked up to me and you just hugged me, and it helped me so much. But, also, when I was sitting here thinking about that, it reminded me of the fact that we can't hug our loved ones as much as we want to at the moment. The power of that is actually really important, and I'd like us all to remember that in terms of what that means in these circumstances. It also means that I can't hug you now, as I would do if we were all together and celebrating the amazing, amazing work that you have done in this place, which so many people have already articulated.
So thank you for your years of commitment. Thank you for the decade of commitment you have made. I've watched you go greyer! I can hide mine, but I've watched you go greyer. I've witnessed your love and support for your family, and I'm so glad you'll be able to spend more time with them. I also thank them for the sacrifice they made in letting us have you here in this place.
I'm going to take the rare opportunity to make a brief observation myself, if I may, from the chair. When any senator is here for a time, they make their mark, but party leaders make more of a mark because of the consent of their colleagues who elect them and the role that they play in this place.
I must confess that I first met Richard a long time ago. I had the privilege of having him run in the seat I was a voter in many, many times—the state seat of Melbourne. I must confess that I didn't vote for Richard, but that won't surprise him. When Senator Hanson-Young mentioned that he missed out by a whisper in 2007, indeed he did; there was 0.78 per cent separating myself, David Feeney and Richard Di Natale, and he just missed out on that last spot. Living in that area at that time, I noticed that I didn't have to share someone's political views to admire the fact that, in my view as an outsider, Richard Di Natale played a strong role in building the Greens as a political movement, as they were growing in the inner suburbs of Melbourne. He was there in the early days. I remember when they won their first mayoralty in, I think, the City of Yarra. He was one of the people involved in building a political party. Civic involvement is something that I think we can all say is something we wish more people would undertake. That, in itself—building a political movement—is something that strengthens our body politic and it strengthens democracy in this country.
I don't mean to sound trite, but I want to be brief. In this place, we all share a similar aspiration in so many ways. We want to see a society that provides opportunity. We want to see a society that allows people to be healthy in a better lived environment. We disagree very strongly on the means and we disagree sometimes on the priorities, but, importantly, Richard has represented a shared commitment to this place as the way to resolve those—this place as a parliament and as a national parliament. As I've said before, this place—the Senate—represents a much more diverse set of views than the other place, and it plays a unique legislative role in that important aspect of compromise on which all democracy has to be based. We don't have to share views and we don't have to share a starting point, but sharing a process and a commitment to civic involvement, citizen engagement and this parliament is very, very important.
I might also say that I can't really apologise, but, if I had had to pick someone I was going to have to ask to leave the chamber, it wouldn't have been Senator Di Natale at any point! He was very good-natured about a very difficult time. I know that that was a moment of very strong feelings in the Senate, and I do know he genuinely meant the views that he expressed, and I understand why he did. Sometimes being in the chair is not easy.
I'll conclude by saying that, when I had an illness, Richard contacted me a few times. I have always found him a profoundly decent person who cares for his colleagues, as those closest to him have said. I'm not quite 50, but I've obviously made the same decision, and I would just say to him: very best wishes to you, Lucy and your boys. After your leading a political party in our national parliament, which is an extraordinary commitment, with the kilometres travelled and the time away from home, I hope that you and they have so much more opportunity to share the time that your colleagues have benefited from over the last decade.
I will also be brief, but I really do want to take the opportunity to thank Richard as a friend, as a colleague, as a leader, and not just over his decade in this place, but for the decade in the party beforehand. As a fellow Victorian senator, and a fellow Victorian longstanding member of the Greens, to have worked side by side with Richard for all that time has been really special because of Richard's collaborative approach. Richard, your integrity, your respect, your humanity, your love for people and the planet and your willingness to work together with people—and to have retained all of this through a decade in this place—are massive achievements. Senator Siewert talking about Richard's hugs made me remember when I got my tragic news last September and within minutes Richard was in my office enveloping me in a massive bear hug.
I want to thank you, Richard, for all of your achievements in this place, which you have talked through and other people have talked through. One that hasn't been mentioned is your love for our forests and your love and your passion for the future of the critically endangered Leadbeater's possum. I've had the great privilege of being the forest spokesperson for the Greens in my time in this place, but I knew Richard was just as much with me there in the forests making sure that actions were happening to protect our precious wildlife.
I want to finish by thanking you for all of your unseen work. Having been side by side with you I saw it, to some extent, going on. Our party went through some tough times in your years as leader—things like our troubles in Victoria. Being there I saw the massive work that you did and how you handled those crises with your trademark fairness and respect—bringing people together. The Greens, this parliament, our country, our planet is in better shape because of your contribution bringing all of those wonderful characteristics to this place. I really want to thank you for it. It's going to be terrific for you, for Lucy, for Ben and for Luca to be able to spend more time together. Good luck with everything that you do from here on.
The first time I went surfing with Richard at Bells Beach he lent me a surfboard. I remember we paddled out and it was actually a pretty big day. Bells is a bit like a giant football field. You've got to paddle out about 100 meters to get out to where you catch a wave. I remember we were about three-quarters of the way out and this giant set of waves started appearing on the horizon. I didn't known if Richard could surf. I remember seeing him scrape over this giant wave, trying to get over it as quickly as possible. I thought, 'Right oh, I'm in the right spot here,' so I turned my board around and I paddled really hard. I remember dropping down the face of this giant wave and just out of the corner of my eye I spotted this blurred motion. I thought, 'Crikey, here goes. I'm going to kill someone,' because I just dropped in on someone else's wave. As it turned out, I didn't hit this person, but I don't know how I didn't. When I popped up I got thrown around for a couple of minutes and paddled out the back and it was Richard. He wasn't scraping over the wave. He had turned around in a better spot than me and had taken off, and I'd nearly committed a homicide of my fellow party room member.
That is quite symbolic for me because the day Richard started as leader I gave him my favourite picture of a surfer on a wave and it was Bells Beach. I think it was one of the biggest waves ever recorded at Bells Beach. I said, 'Here, mate, you keep this. Stick it on your desk and every time you feel like this job is overwhelming you just have a look at that wave and have a think about what's going through that surfer's mind.' I know there are lot of parallels: just stay in front of that white water, stay on the face, go really fast and make sure it doesn't catch up to you.
Mate, I know it's been a really tough few years. I would say this has probably been the most turbulent period in our nation's parliament, and you've had your hand on the rudder for our party in some really, really big storms, and you got us through those rough years. Thank you for talking about some of the things in the Senate today, mate. It's been a pleasure working with you. We've achieved a lot. I think Sarah's point is a really important one. Sometimes we do have to focus on that mixture between pragmatism and politics and get outcomes. I'm looking forward to surfing a lot more with you at Bells Beach and spending more time with you on the farm. I hope you bring your kids and Lucy down to Tassie. I'm sure our friendship is going to endure for some time to come. All the best, mate.
I would like to say something very, very briefly. Richard was a good bloke—is a good bloke.
An honourable senator: He's not dead!
No, but he is leaving this place. I didn't always like some of Richard's ideas, but I did really like the precision and the passion with which he delivered those ideas in this chamber. Life in here is a blur. It's hard to remember all the things that go on. People talked about the Senate sleepover. I was in the back rooms. People in this place may well remember Nick Xenophon wearing his pyjamas into the chamber; that might strike as one of those things that you remember. I wasn't here, but I was the person who did the very, very late-night run to Kmart to get the pyjamas from Belconnen at about two o'clock in the morning. So there are things that you remember in this place. One of the things I'm going to remember is the day that Richard was asked to leave the chamber—I say that, noting that it has been mentioned by a few other people. I say that very respectfully. I like a bit of public interest trouble being caused, and I will remember that. Good luck, and I wish you the best.
That concludes the valedictory. Thank you, everyone, for your contribution.
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy President. I, too, rise to speak on this matter of public urgency brought before the chamber by Senator Lines—yourself. Frankly, all this motion does is play politics with the issue. There is absolutely no substance behind it—none whatsoever. What we saw in this chamber today in question time, and also yesterday, was nothing but a disgrace by those opposite. That same attitude is reflected in the wording of this motion. You're playing politics with people's lives. There is nothing that you will not seek to gain mileage out of.
So let's look at the facts. When Labor left office, total aged-care spending was $13.3 billion. This year, it's $22.6 billion, increasing to $25.4 billion by 2022-23. This is an increase of $1 billion a year. I repeat: an increase of $1 billion a year. Even your mates over at the ABC have fact-checked these claims and have in fact disproven them. In addition to this, there is something quite amazing about your claims. When we went to the election last year, you took a suite of measures to the Australian people which would have resulted in $387 billion in new taxes. Yet even though you had a plan to increase taxes, you had no plan for aged care—plans for $387 billion in new taxes, yet nothing for the aged-care system in this nation, which you continue to deride. You had no plan for home care places, no plan for the aged-care workforce, no plan for residential aged care, yet you come into this chamber and pretend to claim the high ground. You have suddenly realised that we have an aged-care system in this country. And what have you done since the election? You have kept quiet on aged care, and you still have no plan and you still have no commitment.
It is this government who have increased funding for aged care, it is this government who have come to the table with a plan for aged care and it is this government who have admitted that we can and should do better. That is why this government, the Morrison government, have initiated the royal commission into aged care, and that is why we have responded to the findings as soon as issues have been identified. We haven't waited; we've responded as soon as those issues have been identified. And each and every year under this government home care packages have increased and residential care places have increased; the total funding is up. When you left office there were 60,308 home care packages, but this will increase by 170 per cent, to 164,135 places by 2022-23. Corresponding funding will also increase, by 258 per cent, over the same period. The number of people in the National Prioritisation System for Home Care Packages has also decreased, by 20 per cent, over the previous 12-month reporting period.
You also speak about the aged-care workforce. Well, our commitment to this area has been clear. Work continues to progress through the Aged Care Workforce Industry Council, and we'll continue to progress reforms and invest in the critical skills that our aged-care sector needs. Where is the commitment of those opposite? In every area, in every portfolio, you have dithered, you have failed. Your record is equally dismal across each and every area. The interim report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety was highly critical of the inaction of successive governments towards the aged-care industry. We acknowledge that, and we are actioning as quickly as we can the recommendations that have been made already. Labor has remained silent on any commitment to aged care since the election, providing no additional funding and showing that it's a total hypocrisy. Our commitment is unwavering, and it's time you actually came to the table with a plan. It's time you actually worked with us for the benefit of all older Australians.
I also rise today to speak on the urgency motion moved by yourself, Madam Deputy President Lines, regarding the Morrison government's failure to protect older Australians in residential aged care from COVID-19, from this pandemic. But before I do so I want to do something that has been a bit missed already by some senators in this debate, and that's to acknowledge the more than 300 Australians living in residential aged care who have lost their lives, because ultimately it is them we are talking about here today—more than 300 Australians who've passed away. Our thoughts are with them and with their families, because it never should have been this way. Many of these Australians have died alone, unable to say goodbye in the dignified manner they had the right to expect.
Just imagine not being able to say goodbye to your spouse, to your parent, to your child, to your friend or to whoever it is in there—not being able to say goodbye, not being able to hold their hand, not being able to look them in the eye, not being able to comfort them in those last moments of grief. It's devastating; it's devastating to even think about. These are some of our most vulnerable Australians, and this government failed in delivering a plan to keep them safe during this pandemic. And it's not just a failure of these times. It's a failure built on years and years of successive failures—reports sitting on shelves gathering dust year after year; cuts after cuts in federal budgets, packaged up and designed to look like something else, but the budget papers do not lie. Australia's aged-care system was in crisis under this government long before the pandemic. And let's be clear: this is their responsibility. It is the Prime Minister's responsibility. The government regulates the aged-care sector and it funds that aged-care sector. Whilst the government is not responsible for the pandemic, and it's not responsible for a global economic downturn—sure—but it is responsible for our aged-care system and it is responsible for the failure to prepare that sector for what we've just seen.
This Prime Minister has not genuinely taken responsibility. We have passing of the buck, which we see with him all the time. But his hands are all over these failures as well. He was the Treasurer who cut $1.7 million from the aged-care budget. He has been there as funding has been slashed and safeguards have been removed. He has been there with changes to the workforce. The fact is that he can't spin his way out of this one. He can't spin his way out of the things we've heard at the royal commission.
The recent three-day hearing in August revealed some terrible truths that the Morrison government and the Prime Minister need to own up to. These are truths that show they weren't prepared to handle the pandemic, truths that show they did not have a plan—the plan they needed. These are the truths that show that face masks should have been made compulsory earlier and that basic issues around PPE should have been addressed. These are the facts outlined, but we don't see responsibility from our Prime Minister. We see him stepping away from that responsibility and seeking to blame anyone but himself. It's not enough for those families. It shouldn't be enough for any of us. The Prime Minister needs to take responsibility for the failings of his government, for the failings of the sector he funds and regulates and for the failure to protect older Australians during this pandemic.
The saddest thing about these tragedies is that perhaps with better planning they could have been avoided. We saw what happened at Newmarch House. We saw what happened at the Dorothy Henderson Lodge. Yet the Prime Minister has told us that the outbreak in Victoria could not have been anticipated or foreshadowed. But it was. It was foreshadowed for the government and it was foreshadowed for the Prime Minister. There was an opportunity at that point to step in with a better plan. They should have been better prepared in an area that is their responsibility, but they weren't.
We've heard today, during this debate and others, members from the government side saying that Labor, by asking questions about these successive tragedies, are politicising the issue. What kind of joke is that? What kind of an accusation is that? What is the point of this place and this chamber if not to scrutinise the government for the things they are responsible for? What is the point of this place if we are not here to ask questions of the executive, if we are not here to get to the bottom of government failings? Do government senators honestly believe it is not our place to hold the government to account, to ask questions about failures for our most vulnerable Australians? How dare these senators say that we can't ask these questions. That is disrespectful of the role of this chamber and the role of senators.
I've also heard senators on the other side look back further into the past, but the reality is that you guys got the keys to the Lodge—you've had them for seven years—this is your responsibility. These seven years of failures are your responsibility. You're on that side of the chamber so step up to it. When you can't step up to it, take responsibility for it. Australians are scared. They are terrified that what they are seeing, even if they don't live in Victoria, is coming to their homes and to their loved ones in aged care. You have an opportunity now to fix it for them. But you also have to take responsibility, stop deflecting and just fix it. (Time expired)
I rise to speak in support of this motion; however, the point needs to be made that the aged-care crisis we're facing hasn't just been seven years in the making. Whilst the systemic issues facing the aged-care sector have been compounded under the coalition government, the well-known issues plaguing the sector find their genesis in the Aged Care Act itself, which was enacted 23 years ago under the Howard government. The alarm bells, raised particularly by the nursing community, were ringing loudly even then but were ignored by the government of the day. The chronic underfunding, underskilling and underpayment of staff, with no mandatory minimum staffing requirements, no minimum training qualifications and no financial transparency as to how $21 billion paid to the sector has been spent, has been allowed to occur under successive Liberal and Labor governments. For example, the incentive to deskill the staffing mix in residential aged care was identified way back in 2011 by the Productivity Commission in its report Caring for older Australians. This was whilst Labor was in government. The Productivity Commission reported then:
… under current arrangements, providers in seeking to minimise costs have an incentive … to employ a high proportion of lower qualified (and therefore less expensive) care workers. A high proportion of lower qualified workers means that nurses working in aged care facilities can experience excessive workloads where they spend a large proportion of their time on administrative tasks (as they are effectively managers) rather than on caring. This, in turn, can drive nurses away from aged care …
Nothing has changed since 2011. There have been successive reports, reviews and inquiries into the broken aged-care sector, and still nothing substantive has changed. Vague terms in the act around residential aged care maintaining an 'adequate number of appropriately skilled staff' to ensure the needs of care recipients are met have resulted in nursing staff numbers, skills and the level of experience and expertise being systematically reduced. Personal care workers are run off their feet carrying on the role of nurses, and the care for residents has suffered very much. The Aged Care Act, as it currently sits, is not fit for purpose. It never was, and urgent amendments need to be legislated.
I thank the Labor Party for moving this urgency motion today and allowing me to present a few facts rather than headlines and shallow speculation. It is a fact that spending in aged care, under the coalition government, has increased since Labor left government, and it will have almost doubled by the financial year 2022-23. Even the ABC's Fact Check has recognised that there has been an increase in spending. It is a fact that Labor took no policy to the last election to provide additional funding for home-care places, for aged-care quality or for workforces in mainstream residential aged care. It is a fact that, under our coalition government, home-care packages, residential-care places and funding have gone up. Home-care packages are up from just over 60,000 when Labor was in government in 2012-13 to over 164,000 by 2022-23. At the same time, funding will have gone up 258 per cent due to the growth in high-level packages. As at the end of March this year, 98.5 per cent of Australians waiting for a home-care package at their assessed level had been offered support. There has been a significant reduction in waiting times for people in urgent need of care.
It is a fact that our government recognises that packages for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and those living in regional, rural and remote communities need targeted and unique care. We targeted $10 million for the Aged Care Regional, Rural and Remote Infrastructure Grant. We've committed to the forward estimates to 2022-23 funding of over $238 million for the Rural, Regional and Other Special Needs Building Fund. We've provided $258 million specifically for the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program.
It is a fact that the industry-led Aged Care Workforce Industry Council was formed under our watch in May last year, and we are working to develop and support career pathways for aged care. It's a fact that our government is investing an initial $23 million to introduce a serious incident response scheme for residential care, and this will commence from July next year. It is also a fact that, on the back of multiple reports into aged care under successive governments, we established the royal commission into aged care. The interim report that Labor is so keen to focus on criticises successive governments of all persuasions over many years. At least our government is taking action. I didn't see Labor set up a serious incident response scheme and I haven't seen Labor increase home care packages. In fact, until the devastating COVID crisis, Labor had been silent on the issue altogether.
It is a fact that now our immediate focus must be on assisting those in aged-care facilities that have been struck with COVID. This is our priority in the immediate stage. We have made an unlimited surge workforce available to affected facilities. Commonwealth-funded surge staff have been deployed to all infected Victorian facilities, and ADF personnel are assisting our response. It is a fact that we have community transmission. You're highly likely to see COVID in aged care. We saw that at Newmarch House, we saw it in Tasmania and now we see that, where you have widespread community transmission that has been caused by poor quarantine management, you tragically have large numbers in the facilities in Victoria—largely Melbourne and surrounds. In regional areas and in states where community transmission is low, outbreaks in facilities are being contained and managed if they are there at all. In states where we have no community transmissions, there are no outbreaks at all. So it is a fact that our government will continue to work with our aged-care industry to improve services and outcomes and to provide the best care for senior Australians, who deserve respect, dignity and compassion, not politics.
There have been 328 deaths from COVID in aged care, and the vast majority are from my home state of Victoria. Every one of those people was someone who was loved: a parent, a grandparent a friend, a neighbour. This is a tragedy. I help care for my elderly mother, who lives alone, so I can just imagine the worry of having loved ones so vulnerable in aged-care homes, and my heart just breaks for all those who have lost loved ones in this crisis. My mother struggles living alone, especially during the lockdown that we're currently in, but she's so glad at this time that she's not in an aged-care home and she worries so much about her friends who are. It's such an awful situation for our elderly, their families and our society to be in.
So many of the people who have died should not have died. They have died because of mismanagement. It is an absolute scandal that private aged-care providers are making megaprofits while failing to protect their residents. Privatisation has failed. It's created a casualised workforce, it's put workers at risk and it's put residents at risk, all for corporate profits. The Greens are calling for an urgent $3 billion injection into aged care for a human rights approach to aged care, with increased hours of care, increased staff, a minimum of one registered nurse rostered on 24/7 in each facility and additional home care packages so people can stay in their own homes for longer. The government must acknowledge that it has failed when it comes to aged care and take the action that is required now so that our precious older Australians can feel loved and supported and safe.
I too rise to make a contribution to this debate. This pandemic is a tragedy. It has visited tragedy upon hundreds of Australians. There have been 525 deaths in Australia from the COVID pandemic and over 300 deaths in aged care. This is an absolute tragedy, and the minister has been very eloquent in expressing the sympathy of all those on this side of the chamber for every one of those deaths, be it within an aged-care facility or within a hospital environment. It is an absolute tragedy, and we understand that. That is why the response to the pandemic, and, particularly, the response to the current issues in Victorian aged care are our absolute priority. In fact, the Prime Minister has said, 'This is my No. 1 focus.'
All services with an active case of COVID-19 are receiving support from the Australian government, including a single case manager, access to PPE, special residential aged-care testing facilities, and access to surge workforce and supplementation. We are extraordinarily grateful, as a government, to our surge workforce partners and other agencies who are supporting aged-care services impacted by this dreadful pandemic. These workers are providing essential support in these facilities under extraordinarily difficult and challenging circumstances. It is expected that all services accessing these support services will continue to provide the essential care that residents need. In particular, I wish to call out to the around 50 volunteer nurses and other healthcare workers from Western Australia who volunteered to fly to Victoria to act as part of that surge workforce in aged-care facilities and within other healthcare facilities. That is an extraordinary self-sacrifice and goes to the heart of what it means to be an Australian in such times of difficulty, where we support one another and help one another. We provide the assistance we need across borders to provide the services that those elderly Australians, particularly in care facilities within Victoria, need at the moment. In fact, over 450 Commonwealth funded surge staff have been deployed to Victorian aged-care services to date. ADF personnel—and I pay tribute to my colleague from Western Australia Minister Reynolds—are onsite in residential service facilities, and additional ADF clinical reserve staff are available for deployment.
The federal and Victorian governments have worked together to establish a dedicated Victorian Aged Care Response Centre in Melbourne to coordinate support for each aged-care provider experiencing a COVID outbreak in Victoria. A number of staff have been embedded in Victoria to provide assistance. This includes the Australian government Chief Nursing and Midwifery Officer , who is providing infection control expertise and emergency management support. The Victorian Aged Care Response Centre has now stood up family engagement capability, including support services with inbound calls, outbound calls and messages via Services Australia, OPAN services and Zoom meetings. The Commonwealth has deployed AUSMAT to Victoria, which will act under the direction of the Victorian Aged Care Response Centre to assist with the management of COVID-19. AUSMAT provides leadership in nursing, clinical care, infection prevention and control and the use of PPE for impacted aged-care facilities. On 20 July the Australian and Victorian governments, in collaboration with representatives from the aged-care sector, announced additional measures to ensure aged-care providers are equipped to minimise the spread of COVID-19 and continue to provide quality care.
Once again, my thoughts prayers go to those families who suffered a loss in this dreadful pandemic.
I rise to make a contribution to this debate today because it is vitally important. Let me say first up that my heart, my thoughts and my prayers go out to those who have lost loved ones in the midst of this pandemic, particularly those who have lost grandparents and dear friends in what has been a tragedy in the aged-care system in Victoria.
The privatisation of aged care has been proven in this pandemic to be an absolute failure, and it has been a long time coming. Those who work in this sector have been warning for years that there were problems. For years those workers—often some of the lowest-paid workers in the health profession and in the service delivery sectors—had been warning that the privatisation and the desperation for profit over care was making aged-care homes right across the country more and more dangerous.
Why haven't we been able to get this system right? For too long, older Australians have not been given the care, support and health care that they deserve. And one of the key problems we have had in the midst of this pandemic is that those working in the sector, who are trying their best, themselves have not been able to access the appropriate supports, whether that's appropriate PPE, or paid leave if they too are sick. We need a clean-up in the aged-care system and we need to fix our leave system, so anybody who is sick doesn't have to go to work. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
Pursuant to order and at the request of the chair of the Economics Legislation Committee, I present a report on the examination of annual reports tabled by 30 April 2020.
Pursuant to order and at the request of the chair of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, I present the committee's report on the future of Australia Post's service delivery, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
Question agreed to.
I present the advisory report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020.
At the request of Senator Lines, I move:
That the recommendation in paragraph 1.1 of the Procedure Committee's first report of 2020 be adopted.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the reports.
I'm pleased to speak to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' eighth and ninth scrutiny reports of 2020, which were presented out of session on 1 July and 18 August 2020. These reports contain a technical examination of the compatibility of legislation with Australia's obligations under international human rights law. The committee considered 18 new bills and 99 instruments during this period and reported on 12 bills and instruments, including legislation previously commented on, in these two scrutiny reports.
During this COVID pandemic, the committee has continued to meet regularly via teleconference so that it can fulfil its important role in scrutinising legislation. These reports include the committee's consideration of several COVID-19 related bills and instruments. For example, the committee corresponded with the Minister for Health in relation to the Privacy Amendment (Public Health Contact Information) Bill 2020. In report 8, the committee concluded that the bill, which established privacy protection for users of the COVIDSafe app, constituted a proportionate limit on the right to privacy, noting in particular the number of useful safeguards to protect data associated with app users. The committee also recommended a small number of targeted amendments to further improve these privacy protections, including recommending that state and territory health authorities which have received COVIDSafe app data must delete it as soon as they can and as soon as it's no longer required for contact tracing.
These reports also continue the committee's important scrutiny function in relation to non-COVID-19 related legislation. For example, the committee's report No. 9 of 2020 sets out the committee's extensive consideration of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020. This bill seeks to amend ASIO's compulsory-questioning powers. Currently, ASIO is only able to use questioning and detention powers to investigate terrorism offences, which has limited ASIO's capacity to investigate a range of steadily worsening security challenges, such as in relation to espionage and foreign interference. The bill also repeals ASIO's current detention powers and retains a broader compulsory-questioning power. The report notes that these proposed amendments, which are directed towards protecting Australia's national security, raise some complex human rights law issues.
The committee sought a considerable amount of information from the minister in order to inform its consideration and thanks the minister for the detailed response he provided. The committee considers that these powers seek to achieve the vitally legitimate objective of ensuring ASIO can gather information in relation to national security to keep Australia and Australians safe. The committee notes the minister's extensive advice as to the safeguards present, in relation to a number of these measures, which help to protect human rights. However, in some instances the committee considers that, as drafted, there are questions as to whether such safeguards are sufficient such that the measure would in all instances constitute a proportionate limit on rights. The committee's report includes a number of recommendations for potential amendments to the bill which would assist the proportionality of specific measures with respect to human rights.
In addition, report 9 of 2020 sets out the committee's consideration of the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2020. This bill will amend the Migration Act to allow the minister to determine that a thing is a 'prohibited thing' in immigration detention and amend search and seizure powers in those facilities. As the report sets out, these proposed amendments are designed to ensure that the Department of Home Affairs can provide a safe and secure environment for staff, detainees and visitors in immigration detention facilities which likely promotes the right to security of the person.
The proposed measures also appear to engage other human rights, but any limitation on rights may be permissible if demonstrated to be reasonable, necessary and proportionate. In this respect, the committee noted that the bill is intended to address the concerning issue of mobile phones and other internet-capable devices being used to coordinate and facilitate escape efforts, organise criminal activities and facilitate the movement of drugs and other contraband within detention facilities.
In reference to Border Force officers not having appropriate powers, the committee noted the submission of the Department of Home Affairs to the Senate inquiry into the bill, which stated in part:
A convicted child sex offender who is looking at child abuse material on his phone in plain sight cannot have his phone removed.
As evidenced by Senator Keneally's social media posts on 11 August on this issue, this is clearly not a point that is properly understood by some members of the Labor Party.
The committee found that measures in the bill which remedy this current position are vital to the safety and lawful operation of detention centres. The committee thanks the minister for his detailed response, which greatly assisted in the committee's consideration of these measures. The committee has suggested some targeted recommendations to assist in the proportionality of the search and seizure measures with respect to human rights.
In closing, I do wish to respond to the criticisms of Senator McKim, who has criticised coalition members of the committee for handing down reports which don't always in every respect follow the legal advice. We very much value the legal advice, but in our parliamentary democracy committee members are required to independently consider the human rights implications of bills and instruments, and the role of committee members is not simply to rubber-stamp that advice, as Senator McKim appeared to be suggesting in his contribution yesterday in this place.
Under my chairmanship, the committee now transparently reports on the legal advice it receives and distinguishes the legal advice in each report from the considerations of committee members. In determining whether a measure in a bill or instrument constitutes a permissible limitation on a specific human right, committee members are required to weigh up the minister's response, the legal advice and other relevant information which may be available to the committee. Any committee member may dissent on a report, and there were a number of dissenting reports before I was appointed chair, and I think that's an important point to make.
I just want to draw on one example, as it's clear, on the face of our scrutiny of the ASIO bill, that coalition committee members rejected the legal advice in a number of respects, including in relation to the power to prohibit a person from using a specific legal representative, and that the advice was that this constituted a breach of the right to a fair trial. The committee—I'm talking about the majority of the committee—considered the minister's advice and the argument that ASIO or, more correctly, the prescribed authority should be able to have the power to exclude a legal practitioner who may, for instance, be under investigation for serious criminal offences and whose presence may otherwise compromise the integrity of ASIO's questioning process, and it was the view of the majority that the option for the person being questioned to select another lawyer did not, of itself, breach a right to a fair trial. That's just one of the examples that I've given in relation to the basis on which the committee doesn't always follow to the letter the legal advice.
I do encourage all parliamentarians to carefully consider the committee's analysis and, with these comments, I commend these reports to the chamber.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the interim report.
This is of course an interim report because the work of the committee has been disrupted by the pandemic, as have so many other things. But, tragically, as we are mourning the lives that have been lost to COVID-19, there are also lives which have been lost simply by travelling on our roads: people going to and from work, visiting family or coming home from a sporting event.
Even in these pandemic times, there have been times as a bike rider when I have had cars and trucks come scarily too close to me and driving past way too fast. I know how dangerous and scary that can be. So, sadly, even as the pandemic slows down so much of our daily lives we're still seeing cycling deaths. And in the context of road safety I want to acknowledge here the death of cyclist Carolyn Lister and offer my condolences to her family and friends. She was a nurse and a cyclist who lived in Brisbane. Her life was cut tragically short in June of this year. She was a strong rider and had recently taken up racing with the Hamilton Wheelers Cycling Club. She was excited to win her first race last year.
Senator Rice, could you just give us a moment while we get some technical assistance? You've dropped out. I think that Senator Rice may need to request leave to continue her remarks on Thursday.
Leave granted.
I note the report that Senator Rice was speaking about and seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted, debate adjourned.
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 table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Improving Assistance for Vulnerable and Disadvantaged Families) Bill 2020
The Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Improving Assistance for Vulnerable and Disadvantaged Families) Bill 2020 makes a number of improvements to the operation of the Additional Child Care Subsidy (child wellbeing) and some other technical drafting improvements.
The Australian Government's primary aim has been and continues to be to support families and the child care sector during the COVID-19 crisis to ensure that quality early childhood education and care is available to vulnerable and disadvantaged children and families.
Through the ECEC Relief Package, over 98 per cent of child care providers have kept their door open and provided free child care to the children of essential workers, vulnerable children and children whose families have an existing relationship with the service.
When the ECEC Relief Package comes to end, the Government is committed to continuing to improve access to child care for vulnerable and disadvantaged children and families. The changes in this Bill will streamline access to the Additional Child Care Subsidy (child wellbeing), by cutting red tape for families and child care providers. The changes will also further support vulnerable and disadvantaged families to access quality and affordable early learning and child care by enhancing child care providers' ability to provide early access to the additional subsidy to vulnerable and disadvantaged families where appropriate. Notably, the amendments continue to maintain appropriate safeguards to support the integrity of the payment.
Since the implementation of the Child Care Package, it is clear that the Government is delivering on its goal to create a more affordable, accessible and flexible child care system.
We have been listening to stakeholders regarding areas of improvement and the key measures contained in this Bill are in direct response to feedback received from the child care sector on the operation of the Additional Child Care Subsidy (child wellbeing) payment.
This Bill makes amendments to the A New Tax System (FamilyAssistance) Act 1999 by extending the backdating of Additional Child Care Subsidy (child wellbeing) certificates and determinations from 28 days to up to 13 weeks in defined exceptional circumstances. This will mean gaps in subsidy entitlement will be avoided where a child has been identified as 'at risk' and it takes longer than 28 days to be able to provide a certificate or apply for a determination, due to circumstances outside the provider's control.
The Bill also extends the period from 13 weeks to up to 12 months that Additional Child Care Subsidy (child wellbeing) determinations can be made for certain defined classes of children, such as children on a long term child protection order, including those in foster care. This will reduce unnecessary red tape for providers, families and state and territory governments by no longer requiring them to re-apply for a subsequent determinations with supporting evidence every 13 weeks, for such children whose circumstances mean they will continue to be 'at risk' for longer periods of time.
A further amendment will clarify that a provider is eligible for Additional Child Care Subsidy (child wellbeing) in respect of certain defined classes of children, such as foster children. This will mean that providers can receive the additional subsidy in respect of a foster child, who is at risk of serious abuse or neglect (for a maximum of 13 weeks) while the foster family confirms its Child Care Subsidy eligibility. This will ensure these children have immediate and streamlined access to child care.
The measures in this Bill will enhance the Australian Government's commitment to provide additional support to children at risk of serious abuse and neglect by streamlining access to ACCS (child wellbeing). In particular the Bill will enhance child care providers' ability to provide early access to the additional subsidy to vulnerable and disadvantaged families.
The Bill also makes two minor technical amendments to address previous drafting issues: These will:
In conclusion, this Bill demonstrates that the Government remains committed to making life easier for providers and vulnerable and disadvantaged families and continues to make improvements based on feedback on how the Child Care Package is operating.
The changes in this Bill will reduce regulatory and administrative burden on families and child care providers, support vulnerable and disadvantaged families to access quality early learning and child care, and help parents to access financial assistance.
I commend the Bill.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That the resumption of the debate be an order of the day for a later hour.
Question agreed to.
These bill are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I shall move a motion to have the bills listed separately. I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
NORFOLK ISLAND AMENDMENT (SUPREME COURT) BILL 2020
SECOND READING SPEECH
The Norfolk Island Amendment (Supreme Court) Bill 2020 makes technical amendments to provisions of the Norfolk Island Act 1979 dealing with the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island.
Amendments made to the Act in 2018 authorised the Supreme Court to sit on the Australian mainland in the exercise of its civil and criminal jurisdiction. These amendments allowed for a matter to be heard and a jury to be empanelled in another state or territory. The measures were modelled on similar amendments made for Christmas Island in 1987 and were intended to ensure trials can be conducted fairly, improving community confidence in the Norfolk Island justice system.
The amendments in the bill address some technical issues with respect to these provisions regulating off-island sittings of the Supreme Court and also clarify the basis under which travelling allowances are determined for its judges.
These amendments will enhance the effective administration of the Norfolk Island justice system.
I commend the bill.
PRIMARY INDUSTRIES (CUSTOMS) CHARGES AMENDMENT (DAIRY CATTLE EXPORT CHARGE) BILL 2020
SECOND READING SPEECH
The Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment (Dairy Cattle Export Charge) Bill 2020 provides for export charges to be imposed on dairy cattle and sets the rate of provision on a per head basis on the export of dairy cattle.
A range of statutory agricultural levies and charges are currently collected and disbursed on behalf of Australia's primary industries. These levies and charges are imposed at the request of relevant industries to enable the funding of essential services including research and development (R&D) and marketing through the 15 research and development corporations.
The livestock export industry has requested government to impose this statutory charge on dairy cattle exports of $6 per head of dairy cattle exported. This will replace the current voluntary $6 per head charge on exported dairy cattle which industry has identified is under-collected and is not sufficient to meet the needs of the sector.
The Australian Livestock Export Corporation (LiveCorp), as the research and development corporation which receives livestock export industry charges, will use the funds to meet the marketing and research and development needs of the dairy cattle export sector. This includes the funding of the Dairy Cattle Export Program, which aims to improve research and development specific to dairy cattle exports, focusing on animal health and welfare, supply chain efficiency and regulatory performance and market access for dairy cattle exports.
Australia is a supplier of quality dairy cattle to the world, with Australian dairy cattle held in high regard due to their ability to consistently produce high quality fresh milk. Through the export of Australian dairy cattle to other markets, Australian farmers and exporters are helping to develop dairy herds while establishing strong relationships with key trading partners and our regional neighbours.
Australia is a world leader in animal welfare practices and our involvement in the livestock export trade provides us with the opportunity to influence animal welfare conditions in importing countries.
The Australian livestock export industry is a valuable industry that supports the livelihoods of our rural and regional communities across Australia. The Australian livestock export industry contributes over $1.8 billion annually to the Australian economy and provides employment for many Australians either directly or in associated industries. Export of dairy cattle is an important alternate source of income for many dairy farmers, particularly those affected by drought and the current global pandemic. The dairy cattle export industry is valued at over $200 million, with over 100,000 cattle exported in 2019 to a number of markets, including China, Indonesia, Pakistan and Japan.
This government is committed to supporting the goal of agriculture being a $100 billion industry by 2030. Getting the most from our investment in research and development and marketing is an important component to seeing this goal succeed.
This Bill introduces amendments to the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Act 1999 to provide for export charges to be imposed on dairy cattle and set the rate of provision on a per head basis on the export of dairy cattle. The current export charge on beef and breeder cattle remains unchanged.
These measures will enable appropriate funding to be made available for marketing and R&D activities for the dairy cattle export sector, to ensure a competitive, sustainable industry for the future.
SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT (PSSAP MEMBERSHIP) BILL 2020
SECOND READING SPEECH
The Superannuation Amendment (PSSAP Membership) Bill 2020 extends membership of the Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan to certain current and former Commonwealth employees who are not otherwise eligible to continue making contributions to a fund run by the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation.
The PSSap, which was established on 1 July 2005, is the current default fund for new Commonwealth employees and employees of prescribed Commonwealth entities. As a fully funded accumulation scheme, the PSSap provides more modern, flexible superannuation arrangements than the older Commonwealth defined-benefit superannuation schemes, all of which are now closed to new members.
This bill ensures that the 'choice of fund' principle extends appropriately to Commonwealth public sector schemes. It allows current and former PSSap members to avoid paying multiple fees to maintain separate funds under different trustees. This bill will support them in saving for their retirement.
In 2017, changes to the PSSap were made to allow former PSSap members to use their existing PSSap account for future contributions if they are no longer in Commonwealth employment and are undertaking employment in which they receive superannuation guarantee contributions.
The bill will further expand the circumstances in which a former PSSap contributory member can use their existing PSSap account in respect of any employment, not just employment that attracts a superannuation guarantee obligation, and to make other contributions, such as non-concessional contributions. PSSap contributory members will also be able to make contributions to their account in respect of any non-Commonwealth employment that they undertake concurrently to their Commonwealth employment.
The bill will also allow certain members of the main Australian government defined benefit civilian superannuation schemes, the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme and the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme who are currently contributing or preserved benefit members to establish a PSSap account where they choose to also have future superannuation contributions held by the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation.
The reforms contained in this bill are consistent with the government's broader superannuation objectives to lower the costs that members incur for the administration and management of their superannuation accounts.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP (OIL) AMENDMENT BILL 2020
SECOND READING SPEECH
The Product Stewardship (Oil) Act 2000 establishes the Product Stewardship for Oil Scheme to encourage the environmentally sustainable management, recycling and re-use of used oil in Australia.
The scheme offers a benefit payment to oil recyclers as an incentive to increase the volume of used oil collected and recycled in Australia.
The Product Stewardship for Oil Scheme was intended to be self-funding by offsetting the benefit payments using revenue collected through the Excise Tariff Act 1921 and Customs Tariff Act 1995 from refineries and oil importers.
The Federal Court's decision in Caltex Petroleum Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2019] FCA 1849 gave a broad interpretation of the definition of oils in the Product Stewardship (Oil) Act that included diesel.
This decision allowed for the payment of benefits for re-refined diesel for which no excise or excise-equivalent duty had been imposed. Another potential consequence of the Caltex case is that duty collected under the Excise Tariff Act to fund the scheme could apply to diesel.
The Product Stewardship (Oil) Amendment Bill 2020 will clarify the kinds of oils eligible for benefits under the Product Stewardship for Oil Scheme. It will amend the definition to cover lubricant oils, fluid oils and other oils and grease manufactured from base oils only and will explicitly exclude fuels such as diesel. This is consistent with how the scheme has been administered since it was established. For flexibility, it will also provide a power to prescribe other exclusions by regulations.
Amendments will also be made to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 to exclude diesel and other goods ordinarily used as fuels from the excise tariff item that applies to oil and grease. This will ensure consistency between the Product Stewardship (Oil) Act and the Excise Tariff Act in relation to the oils that are levied for the purposes of the scheme and, once recycled, can receive benefit payments under the scheme.
EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL 2020
SECOND READING SPEECH
This bill, together with the Product Stewardship (Oil) Amendment Bill 2020, will ensure the Product Stewardship for Oil Scheme operates as originally intended.
This bill will amend the Excise Tariff Act 1921 to exclude diesel and other goods ordinarily used as fuels from the excise tariff item that applies to oils and grease. For flexibility, it will also provide power to prescribe other exclusions by regulations.
These changes align with amendments to the definition of 'oils' proposed in the Product Stewardship (Oil) Amendment Bill 2020, which will clarify the kinds of oils eligible for benefits under the scheme.
Debate adjourned.
I rise to speak on the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency Amendment (Prohibiting Academic Cheating Services) Bill 2019. We all know university can be a stressful time. There can be pressures both internal and external to do well. Expectations of parents, the high cost of courses and a highly competitive job market weigh on the minds of most students. In particular, there can be additional pressures on international students whose parents and extended family may have expended significant resources to get them here. However, cheating is never justified.
Businesses that seek to leverage the stress and anxiety of students to provide cheating services are not just acting dishonestly; they are also doing enormous damage to our university sector as a whole. University students, both domestic and international, need to know that when they make the largest investment of their young lives they are investing in a quality product which is untainted by scandal and deliberate attempts to deceive, because every time a student gets away with cheating, they devalue the qualifications of all those who have graduated from that institute of higher learning. They in fact devalue the institution itself and they devalue Australia's higher education sector more broadly. In my home state of Tasmania the University of Tasmania have leveraged their quality education with the liveability of the cities of Hobart, Launceston and Burnie to bring income into our state. Education has become a real export industry in the same way that exporting our raw products and manufactured goods is. Nationally in 2014-15 the Australian Bureau of Statistics valued exports from international education at—
Thank you, Senator Bilyk. You'll be in continuance.
When you talk to Tasmanians and Australians about what our economy should look like as we look forward to defeating COVID-19 and getting our businesses back up and running at full speed, there is one theme that is raised more than any other: we need to get back to manufacturing things in this country. We all acknowledge that gone are the days when every part, every component and every specialist product will be Australian built, but it is clear that the pendulum has tipped too far in recent decades. Instead of thinking about how we can build something in Australia, the easy option of buying something built overseas has become the default. In the wake of COVID-19 we need to think differently.
It's great to see that in Tasmania the Liberal government, under Premier Peter Gutwein, has put local jobs at the forefront of decision-making about how to build the next generation of Bass Strait sea transport. The government-owned TT-Line, operator of the two Spirit of Tasmania vessels, has identified that they need to increase the capacity for passengers and freight across Bass Strait in the years ahead. The plan was originally to sell the two existing ferries and commission two new larger ships to be built in Finland at an estimated cost of up to $850 million.
With the COVID-19 economic crisis hitting the economy, Premier Gutwein and infrastructure minister Michael Ferguson have quite rightly made the call to look closely at whether it is necessary to spend $850 million of public money in Europe, and have instead put together a task force to assess what opportunity there is for Tasmanian and Australian boatbuilders to get involved. We've already seen that the new approach taken by the Tasmanian Liberal government can deliver thousands of Tasmanian jobs.
Tasmania is home to one of the world's most innovative boatbuilders: Incat. When the Tasmanian government announced that they were looking to get local companies involved, I spoke to people in the ferry industry, and I went and met with Incat to see if there was an opportunity for them to build a vessel in Tasmania which could fix the capacity issues on Bass Strait, and the great news is they can. To have thousands of Tasmanians working for the next two years on a new vessel built on the River Derwent, with components manufactured across the strait, is exactly the type of local manufacturing outcome we need right now.
One option available, which I wrote about in The Mercury newspaper soon after the announcement by the Tasmanian government, is to keep the two existing 'spirits', which are still perfectly functional, and will be until at least 2028, and add a Tasmanian-built Incat catamaran to the route. Thousands of Tasmanian jobs in the next 24 months when we need them most? Tick. Increased choice for passengers crossing the Bass Strait? Tick. More capacity for both passengers and vessels? Tick. What's the better plan for local jobs? Spend $850 million in Finland or spend a fifth of that in Tasmania and directly create work for thousands of Tasmanians? Yet, bizarrely, Tasmanian Labor is out in the media trashing the plan to involve Australian boatbuilders. Both Incat and West Australian based Austal have expressed interest in being part of the build, but the headline on the front page of Tasmanian newspapers on Monday was, 'Labor backs Finnish builder.' Labor says the Spirit of Tasmania replacement vessels should be built by Finnish shipyard Rauma Marine Constructions. What an extraordinary position for the Labor Party to take, saying to Tasmanian and Australian businesses who have put their hands up that they're not up to the job. What is the motivation for Labor MPs to cheerlead for a Finnish boatbuilder? I would be fascinated to hear a Tasmanian Labor senator justify that position.
This is a great case study of the new approach to local manufacturing which is needed post-COVID demonstrated by a Liberal government. The old approach of, 'It's easier to buy from overseas,' is being spruiked by the Labor Party. I look forward with hope to the new approach winning out and in the months ahead being able to go and see new Bass Strait vessels being built in Tasmania by Tasmanians.
I would like to share with the Senate an incredible weekend in the Northern Territory with the Northern Territory election and commend Chief Minister Michael Gunner on being able to take a second term for himself and his team. I want to commend all the candidates of the Australian Labor Party who stood in the seats across the Northern Territory—such a vast territory that it is—and put in the Hansard the hard work that the Labor Party has been doing, in particular through the COVID crisis.
I do think that we need to put on the record that this was the first election during the COVID pandemic, and I know that it was important for every single candidate to feel safe and to know that they were able to speak to the people across the Territory. I want to acknowledge the frontline workers, our health practitioners and the Northern Territory Police—certainly on our borders and not just on the roads but also in our airports—along with the AFP and the Australian Army.
I would like to acknowledge those candidates who stood for Labor: for Arafura, Lawrence Costa; Araluen, Jackson Ankers; Arnhem, Selena Uibo; Barkly, Sid Vashist; Blain, Mark Turner; Braitling, Dale Wakefield; Casuarina, Lauren Moss; Daly, Anthony Venes; Drysdale, Eva Lawler; Fong Lim, Mark Monaghan; Goyder, Mick Taylor; Gwoja, Chansey Paech; Johnston, Joel Bowden; Karama, Ngaree Ah Kit; Katherine, Kate Ganley; Mulka, Lynne Walker; Namatjira, Sheralee Taylor; Nelson, Steve Asher; Nightcliff, Natasha Fyles; Port Darwin, Paul Kirby; Sanderson, Kate Worden; Spillett, Tristan Sloan; and Wanguri, Nicole Manison. I would also like to thank our Labor members and volunteers across the Northern Territory, in particular the First Nations Workers Alliance. Unions NT were out supporting our candidates. To the CPSU, United Workers Union, CFMEU, MUA, ETU, ASU, SDA, AMWU, TWU and AWU, thank you so much to each and every one of you who supported our candidates across the Northern Territory.
It is important to acknowledge the supporters and volunteers who come together at election time—the supporters who are in the background but who are very much at the forefront of driving hundreds, if not thousands, of kilometres across the Territory to follow the Northern Territory Electoral Commission and their teams. It was a significant task even for the Northern Territory Electoral Commission to have the staff that they had and to conduct polls at all the booths that they had in some of the remotest regions of the Northern Territory. I commend you for your efforts in those areas.
As difficult and as challenging as it is physically and geographically, we still have a lot of work to do in understanding why it is that First Nations voters are being disengaged in most of our remote regions of northern Australia—not just in the Northern Territory; it will also occur in Queensland, WA and also South Australia. So it's important that the Senate and the parliament make sure they resource the Australian Electoral Commission.
We've seen a reduction in the workforce, especially with the AEC and other federal agencies—in particular in the Northern Territory—like the Bureau of Meteorology, just to name the two of those. If we had further, appropriate resourcing, we know we could have the educational and information programs out there across the regions as to why voting is significant, and to make sure it is in the languages. There are over 100 Aboriginal languages in the Northern Territory, so, whether they're local elections, state or territory elections or federal elections, we must make sure all are enrolled. I think ensuring that we are getting people on the roll so that they have their say when it comes to elections is a real challenge for every single senator and every single member of federal parliament.
I rise to speak on the impact COVID has had on young people and the future they face. It's hard to overstate how rapidly and dramatically COVID-19 has changed the world for young people. But we must acknowledge that neither they nor the pandemic are the cause of the greatest challenges they face. Those have been created for them by older generations. A recent Betoota Advocate headline attributes a fake quote to the Prime Minister: 'The sooner young people understand they're effed, the sooner they'll be happy.' It's hard to argue with. Young people's sense of resignation to a system stacked against them is palpable. On the facts, they could be right to feel that whatever they do won't make much difference anyway.
While millennials are the first generation of people who will be worse off than their parents, they see billionaires, like Elon Musk and Steve Ballmer, who have made tens of billions during the pandemic. Jeff Bezos, the Amazon oligarch, added $13 billion to his net worth on just one Monday in July. Meanwhile, wage growth for young people is non-existent. It has actually never been lower. The Productivity Commission reports a lost decade of income.
To make matters worse for young people, youth unemployment is at a 23-year high of 16 per cent. Young people are finding themselves amongst hundreds of applicants for jobs, competing with people with years of experience for entry-level positions. Right now, there's one job vacancy for every 13 people looking for a job. These problems aren't new, and they stand to get worse as the recession bites.
I worry in particular at the early reports of mental health statistics. Eighty per cent of young people in the UK said coronavirus had made their mental health worse. Victorian hospitals have seen admissions arising from self-harm rise by 33 per cent compared to last year. While they're being battered economically, young people confront the ravages of climate change and resurgent fascism, and threats to democracy are front of mind for many young people. Young people I speak with have little to no faith that our institutions are able to deal with the crises of health, climate and inequality that are playing out.
On all the issues, our government is absent. Ours is a Prime Minister who would embody the image of a suburban dad in every way except wanting to see kids thrive. From him all the way down to the major party backbenchers there's still a disturbing willingness to side with big corporate donors and the interests of fossil fuel lobbyists ahead of the needs of the community and our future.
Young people can only survive in the decades beyond this pandemic by taking radical direct action to secure their future and dismantle the structures that seek to destroy the planet, rig the economy and deny them a future. Around the world they are showing us how to survive through that action, and they are brilliant at it. Look at the young American who linked up with a whole bunch of TikTok based K-pop bands and completely and hilariously ruined a Trump rally by faking hundreds of RSVPs. Online it's on Instagram, Twitter and TikTok where the Black Lives Matter movement was best reflected and where it remains, long after the media stopped reporting on the rallies and protests that continue to this day. In Australia, think of the School Strike 4 Climate, led by young people. It was the largest protest in a generation. I was so proud that so many of them were young women of colour. They sure did get it done the right way, with the voices of First Nations and an opposition to extractive capitalism at their movement's very heart. Look at the Australian Unemployed Workers Union mutual obligations strike that's right now challenging the generational corruption of Australia's income support system.
In that spirit of survival, young people have stepped up for each other and our communities, leading from the front through mutual support. We owe these young people nothing short of a revolution on their terms with nothing short of our full-throated support.
Politics is not for the faint of heart. We in this chamber are no strangers to criticism, be it criticism from the public or criticism from the media. There's nothing wrong with the eye of constructive scrutiny descending upon any one of us, though, I should say.
The member for Boothby in the other place is an incredibly hardworking member of parliament and a passionate advocate for her local community. She's strong willed and not someone who shies away from constructive criticism. During last year's federal election campaign she showed that she was strong. She was subjected to sexual harassment and stalked, and her electorate and campaign offices were vandalised with vicious slurs. She received little protection, but she forged on. When she appeared on the ABC's Q&A program post-election, former journalist Mike Carlton live-tweeted that another guest, singer Jimmy Barnes, showed 'great restraint by not leaping from his seat and strangling' her.
Sadly, the personal attacks didn't end there. Peter Goers, for those who haven't heard of him—which is likely to be everyone—is the host of an ABC radio show in Adelaide in the evenings. He also works as a columnist in the Sunday Mail in South Australia. Like many South Australians, I don't tune into his show, because I find it to be the entertainment equivalent of waiting in a transit lounge at a major airport with nothing more to do than watch the arrivals board tick over. I also rarely read his columns. However, on 26 June Mr Goers wrote an appalling article in the Sunday Mail critiquing the way the member for Boothby looks. He wrote:
Nicolle wears pearl earrings and a pearly smile. She favours a vast wardrobe of blazers, coats and tight, black, ankle-freezing trousers and stiletto heels. She presents herself in her own newsletter, 23 times as a fashion plate. She has blazers and coats in black, blue, pink, red, beige, green, white, cream, floral and two in grey.
His weekly column has proven to be largely a rehash of things that irritate him, a bit like Peter Griffin in Family Guy when he started a TV show called 'What really grinds my gears'.
While Mr Goers's comments were published in a News Ltd newspaper and didn't feature in an ABC publication, one would expect that the ABC, as his employer, would be extremely uncomfortable with those comments and how they reflect upon the taxpayer funded national broadcaster. After all, the ABC touts their editorial guidelines, in the form of their policy on external work and editorial conflicts, which states at clause 1.4:
External activities of individuals undertaking work for the ABC must not undermine the independence and integrity of the ABC’s editorial content.
Further, the ABC editorial style guide warns employees not to 'make gratuitous references to a woman's physical appearance if you wouldn't do the same for a man'. Furthermore, the comments offend the spirit of the ABC's Code of Practice, which highlights that the content should be 'respectful towards audiences' and 'mindful of community standards in areas like harm and offence'.
I wonder whether or not the ABC considers that these comments were in keeping with community standards. After all, the ABC board is well stocked with women. Chair Ita Buttrose is a founding member and former president of Chief Executive Women. The deputy chair, Dr Kirstin Ferguson, is the ex-director of SheStarts and Women's Agenda Leadership Awards. And board member Donny Walford is a member of the International Women's Forum Australia. So where was the fierce defence from the broader sisterhood of a fellow female under attack? Once again, there was none—nothing but crickets, nothing but a figurative tumbleweed rolling down the airwaves, nothing more than a metaphoric wolf howling in the distance. But who's surprised? As we know, there is one set of rules for conservatives and another set of rules for the Left.
On 31 July I wrote to Ita Buttrose, the chair of the ABC, to express my disappointment regarding Mr Goers's article and to ask her what action she was planning to take. I await a response. The standard you walk past is the standard you accept, and surely our national broadcaster wouldn't ignore this behaviour. Surely this is not the standard our national broadcaster is willing to accept. All I can say is: over to you, Ita.
The pandemic has emphasised the importance of home. As opportunities to be out and in the company of others have been lost or restricted, we've retreated to our houses. We've video-called our friends, we've homeschooled our children and we've exercised, fed and entertained ourselves. For millions of Australians, home has been a sanctuary from the fear and the threats of the outside world. But that has not been the experience of all. For too many women, the fear and the threats have come from inside the home.
Family violence was a national crisis before the pandemic. Lockdowns and self-isolation have only exacerbated it. Women and children have found themselves stuck at home with their abuser. The results have been unsurprising. Kim Sattler, a domestic violence worker in my home state of New South Wales, told ABC News:
We are seeing older women like we have never seen before trying to flee domestic violence and the level of violence the women are experiencing is more extreme than we have seen before.
The Australian Institute of Criminology surveyed 15,000 women, and two-thirds of those who reported violence over the last three months said it had either started or intensified during the lockdown. A survey of frontline domestic violence workers supports that assessment. Workers across the country reported that incidents have spiked since the start of the pandemic. Violence is more frequent and severe, with a disturbing increase in reports of first-time family violence.
Providers report that the pandemic has been used to justify financial control, such as limiting access to money or making threats about a family's economic stability. When women are economically dependent, they are at greater risk of being trapped in a violent home. As Professor Cathy Humphreys wrote in an op-ed today, research shows that women are at a greater risk of domestic violence in times of disaster, and the most significant protective factor for women was employment. The cost of child care and unequal pay and discrimination mean the odds are stacked against women at the best of times. The economic consequences of COVID-19 have only made things worse. We know that women are bearing the brunt of job losses. Women are less likely to be able to keep their jobs and they are less likely to find the financial independence to leave their violent partners.
One in four women have experienced abuse at the hands of a current or former partner. Many Australians will know these women. They are our mothers, grandmothers, sisters, nieces, daughters, friends, neighbours and colleagues. They all have a right to be safe in their homes. Last year the government announced funding for the construction of much-needed housing for women and children fleeing violence. They've yet to confirm where the $60 million in funding will go. Family violence services and workers continue to call for more funding, support and communication from the federal government.
The United Nations describe domestic violence as the shadow pandemic. COVID-19 has shown us that as a society we are truly capable when faced with adversity. We can make sacrifices, adapt, care for one another and advocate for workers and the elderly. We are facing down the pandemic. What would it look like for us to mobilise and face down the shadow pandemic of domestic violence as well? Thirty-four Australian women have been killed in a family violence incident this year. We have attended too many vigils. It is time to act.
Everybody talks about going back to normal after this crisis. But I don't want to go back to normal on some things; I think we can do better than that. We have the opportunity to reset and transition our economy to a renewable energy one that creates thousands of jobs as we deal with a global recession, a pandemic and the climate crisis. Apparently the government doesn't see it that way. The make-up and focus of the COVID commission that is meant to be leading our economy is a dead giveaway on exactly what the government is focusing on coming out of the crisis—what is essential and what the government wants 'recovered'. Unsurprisingly, it turns out that the commission is focused not on the real future but on going back to the future. The head of our COVID-19 recovery commission is deeply embedded in the gas industry, and his commission is stacked with big business and the oil and gas industry.
The climate crisis is still with us and will continue to be with us. We need a real plan—a plan for a future based not on the past, not on old fossil fuels, but on renewable energy. Gas is a fossil fuel. Burning and producing gas drives climate change and is not a transition fuel to a cleaner economy. Emissions from the extraction, processing and export of gas have been a key driver behind Australia's emissions staying so high. Just today a group of leading Australian scientists have written to the Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel, saying that his support for gas as an energy source is not consistent with a safe climate.
In 2018, the WA government lifted the moratorium on one of the most invasive and destructive ways to get gas out of the ground: fracking. Whilst the WA government was making claims of protecting 98 per cent of WA, it has left vast areas of the Kimberley exposed to this controversial practice of fracking. This beautiful region that has long been in the sights of petroleum exploration companies who want to push the exploration of Canning Basin is at deep risk. Oil and gas fracking companies have compared parts of the Kimberley's Canning Basin to places in the US and Canada which have more than 30,000 oil and gas wells. The plan by Texan company Bennett Resources, owned by Black Mountain Metals, is to drill and frack wells in the Fitzroy River catchment. This would be just the beginning. They are pushing for a west-east gas pipeline that would open up the Kimberley to fracking, and the COVID-19 Commission has been talking to them about it. The Fitzroy River catchment, Roebuck Plains, Lagrange Bay and the Great Sandy Desert are in the fracking firing line.
There are lots of companies sniffing around the Kimberley. As I said, there is Black Mountain Metals, as well as Theia Energy, Buru Energy, Goshawk Energy and Squadron Energy. These companies see the Kimberley not for what it is—they just see fracking wells all over the place. Black Mountain Metals has plans for seismic surveys in 2021. They have had discussions, as I articulated, with the head of the COVID-19 Commission and are pushing the west-east gas pipeline. Theia are also exploring their options. Conceptual drawings show Broome to be the oil port, and gas would be piped south. Oil ports exporting this scale of resources usually have one tanker per day loading while two more are at anchor. This poses a great risk of Broome, its tourist economy and the fragile marine environment of Roebuck Bay. There are plans for a new proposed floating jetty, which also includes oil and gas and can be accessed 24/7, which current facilities up there don't allow. This has already been approved, conceptually, by the WA government. Onshore storage of hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil would be required to achieve this sort output, again posing a significant risk.
We envisage a much different future for this country, one based on renewable energies that do not destroy our environment, that do not destroy this planet and that will actually contribute to addressing the climate crisis that we are also facing at this time.
I rise as a senator for Victoria, a state that I love and that is sadly now in a state of disaster—I don't mean just those who have lost lives in COVID-19. I give my condolences to the 438 families who have needlessly lost loved ones, and I pray the 3,600 active cases get well soon, like the 14,000-plus cases who have already recovered. I also pray for those people needlessly having their lives destroyed through the mishandling of the pandemic in my home state.
Every day I receive dozens of calls from small-business people. These people operate businesses in Victoria. These businesspeople are men and women, mothers and fathers, trying to make ends meet to feed and clothe their families. More often than not when I'm speaking to them, they're crying. They are desperate. Their businesses are about to go under. They have, to their credit, got through nearly six months of some of the strictest restrictions in the country, but now they are at the end of their tether. Their businesses survived stage 3, but they don't believe they will survive stage 4 restrictions.
Businesses and families have been failed by their state government—the Andrews Labor state government. There is clear evidence that there has been a failure of governance in hotel quarantine in Victoria. There was insufficient governance, regardless of who was hired to do the job, and governance is government's No. 1 task. It has been established beyond doubt that the ADF were offered, but were turned down. If you can't quarantine the virus away, you need very good contact tracing to contain it. Victoria's contact tracing has been described to me by one senior health official as 'catastrophic'. If we look at how New South Wales have handled the pandemic, it's clear to see that they are the gold standard and they have shown Victoria how to do it. But I'm yet to be convinced that the Andrews government has learnt this lesson.
If you can't contain COVID in quarantine or by using testing and tracing, you can only resort to draconian measures, and that is exactly what Andrews is doing. We've had three weeks of stage 4 so far, four weeks of wearing masks, six weeks of stage 3, and there are those hotspot suburbs which have been in lockdown now for over 10 weeks. While the drop in numbers this week is very, very welcome, Victorians have the right to ask: 'Is this working as it should?' Throughout all this, Dan Andrews has blamed Victorians, and he and his ministers have sought to avoid all accountability. He didn't even know which of his ministers was in charge of quarantine, but he sure knew who to blame. Shame, Premier, shame! His followers in the media were only too happy to jump on that bandwagon. However, even last week, his deputy commissioner of police said that, with 30,000 people required to isolate, only 42 fines have been issued. That is 0.14 per cent—hardly what anyone could call mass civil disobedience. Premier Andrews can't trust his health minister or her department to contain, trace and test, or quarantine. He turned to the department of jobs, of all things, to run quarantine. While he doesn't seem to acknowledge this, I'm sure this fact will be established very soon.
Andrews's response to this pandemic is just: 'Let's lock it down.' He's a one-trick pony. As he has no proper process to contain COVID, he continues to strongarm Victorian businesses to death. Premier Andrews, who hasn't let parliament sit for six months, now wants parliament to sit to hand him greater emergency powers. I'm not arguing that the powers might not be needed, but there doesn't need to be 12 months worth of powers. As opposition leader Michael O'Brien said today, 'Victorians elect a parliament, not a premier.' So we look to parliament in Victoria to make sure that those extraordinary powers—those unnecessary powers—are not given to Dan Andrews.
I rise to speak on a topic which some in this chamber will understand is quite a difficult topic to talk about at the moment: lung cancer. I do so because there has never been a more important time to talk about it. We need to talk about it, and we especially need to talk about the stigma associated with it.
Lung cancer is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers in Australia. According to the Lung Foundation Australia, approximately 12,000 Australian men and women were diagnosed with lung cancer in 2019—that's approximately 35 people each day. Lung cancer is also Australia's biggest killer from cancer. Sadly, it takes the lives of more Australians than breast, prostate and ovarian cancers combined. We lose 25 lung cancer patients each day. There are many more statistics that I could list about lung cancer, but those touched by this horrible disease know them all too well, and I don't need to repeat them here. Instead, I'll talk about the statistics related to the stigma that surrounds lung cancer because the lack of empathy that we see for people with this disease is confronting and is standing in the way of a better approach to this disease.
We know that over one-third of Australians consider those with lung cancer to be their own worst enemy. One in 10 Australians will say, 'They got what they deserved.' This lack of empathy towards people with lung cancer is said to be associated with a view held by the public that lung cancer equates to tobacco smoking. Ninety per cent of Australians believe that smoking is the only cause of lung cancer, which is just untrue. One in three women and one in 10 men diagnosed with lung cancer have no history of smoking. That means that on average one in five people living with lung cancer are lifelong non-smokers. It's actually occupational exposure that creates a lot of lung cancer and there are other proven factors, including genetics and pollution.
Notwithstanding any of this, we cannot judge smokers or former smokers of the past on the standards we have today, because it was only in 2006 that graphic health warnings became required on the packaging of most tobacco products and only in 2011 that the first complete state or territory ban on point-of-sale tobacco product displays was implemented. Some Australians smoked, but that doesn't mean their suffering is deserved or justified. Many of us in this place have been touched by lung cancer in some way, and have experienced the stigma firsthand. I lost both my Nanna Jean and my Uncle Ian to lung cancer, and the first question asked of our family was, 'Did either of them smoke?' They didn't, but it should never have mattered. They were both taken from us in their 60s: two wonderful people, their lives cut way too short by this horrific disease.
But not every lung cancer story ends this way. I recently had pleasure of meeting two survivors, my constituents Lorraine and Sandy from South Australia. They're both survivors and some of the strongest people I've ever had the opportunity to meet in this job. Their experiences, especially of stigma, were heartbreaking. Lorraine, in particular, shared her story and experience as a double cancer survivor. She had breast cancer, and when she had breast cancer she felt this warm embrace from the community of medical and social support around her. She felt as if she had an army of support behind her. But when she was diagnosed with lung cancer she couldn't even access a lung cancer nurse to answer her most basic questions. She described the journey of being diagnosed with lung cancer as an incredibly lonely one.
No patient, no cancer sufferer, should ever have to feel that way. One of the major repercussions of this stigma is the lack of resourcing, the lack of concern and the lack of government support. This impacts in terms of research, treatment and healthcare shortages. We see an abundance of support and funding for breast cancer—and I'm not saying that that shouldn't be there—but lung cancer is lacking and lung cancer is a terrible and large killer in Australia. Despite its impact, it receives very little research funding and surely now, during this pandemic, when the spotlight is on respiratory disease, is the time that we can look at lung cancer. We can do what we can as a community to address the stigma which surrounds the disease, because no-one deserves it and no-one deserves the suffering. No family deserves to witness that suffering and no-one deserves to feel like they go through a disease like that on their own. So I call on the government tonight to do more to address the shortfalls we know exist in lung cancer funding to help stop this suffering and to stop the stigma associated with this terrible disease.
I rise to lend my support to the Derby community in Western Australia's Kimberley region as it campaigns for urgent upgrades to Derby District High School.
In early July, at the invitation of local community leaders, I visited the school to inspect the facilities available to staff and students. As I arrived, I had the pleasure of meeting the junior school student leadership group, including Harvey Elford, who presented me with a letter regarding the poor state of the buildings there—particularly about the proposed upgrades to toilets. Harvey's letter to me said: 'Dear Senator Smith, I'm writing to you about our upper lower primary boys' and school's toilets and the fact that they need to be completely redone. If you come to inspect, you will see this. This is an extremely unsanitary environment—very concerning in times like these. The floor is not level, a trip hazard, the toilets were built on a very low budget, our cubicles are atrocious, some of the wall is missing near the urinal and even the roof is disgusting. The fact that these toilets are decades-old and absolutely nothing has been done about it means that you might as well flush the money down the toilet if you're going to just upgrade. We hope you change the government's mind and do a complete rebuild of the toilets.'
While the teachers and parents at the school have created a nurturing, student focused environment, the built form of the school is in an unacceptable state of disrepair. There has been a failure by successive governments to provide funding for building upgrades, which is now having a detrimental impact on student outcomes. An audit of hygiene arrangements at Derby District High School demonstrates it is failing to provide adequate bathroom facilities for both students and teachers. For the 93 enrolled senior students there is only one male and one female toilet cubicle, which were built to 1965 standards. This is unacceptable by any measure, and it has particular negative impact for the young women of the school, with parents indicating that many refuse to attend classes during their menstruation cycle due to the lack of privacy and the poor facilities available. Across the whole school the only showers available for students are within special needs facilities. The other showers are cold water only, with minimal privacy separation, which limits the variety of physical education options and prevents the school from hosting interschool events. For a school in the remote north of Western Australian with a hot, humid climate, this limitation is unworkable and disrespectful to students and teachers alike.
The ordinary provision of adequate hygiene facilities is vital to providing dignity, but, given the risk of COVID-19, there is a clear need to address the insufficient facilities at Derby District High School immediately. It's disappointing that, despite knowing about the issue, the WA government overlooked the school in a recent announcement of infrastructure upgrades for 63 other schools. The Derby community deserves a straightforward commitment now to a holistic plan that will address the shocking state of the school's asbestos-ridden buildings within a well-defined time frame. In recent media reports on the issue, the WA Labor minister for education advised that the department was producing a feasibility report to provide a secondary hygiene facility including toilets, showers and a laundry at the school. This response does not inspire the confidence of the Derby community. The isolation and seasonal weather of the Kimberley means that construction work is difficult to schedule. This should be recognised by ensuring that decisions to upgrade are made clearly and are made early. Any delay to a decision now would have a far more pronounced impact on delivery time frames in Derby than would a delay in the Perth metropolitan area or even other parts of Western Australia.
It is also important to note that Derby District High School has an enrolment of approximately 80 per cent Aboriginal students and services a number of remote Indigenous communities around WA's far north. The lack of any urgent action leads one to assume that the WA Labor government finds it acceptable that nearly 50 female students, 80 per cent of whom are Aboriginal, must share one toilet cubicle at a very critical, potentially sensitive time in their lives. Labor's Mark McGowan may be the Premier, but local Labor is not listening to local Kimberley people.
Tonight I want to draw to the Senate's attention the state of the aviation industry, an industry that has been decimated by the global health pandemic only to be kicked in the guts by the absolute failure of the government to provide a national aviation plan. The grounding of flights was the right call, but it was not a market failure; it was a government decision. When they made that decision, they appear to have made one other: to abandon the industry.
Virgin, a full-service airline, was forced to practically bleed out while the government refused to take an equity stake—a financially viable and sensible decision that would have given certainty to thousands of Australian workers and would have provided a return to the taxpayer—only for the government to turn around and play favourites with the Deputy Prime Minister's mates at the majority foreign-owned Rex airlines, a company, disproportionately pumped up with untied government grants and relief money, turning around and buying Virgin planes on the cheap. All the while, the missing minister, Michael McCormack, has been using the excuse that Virgin is majority foreign-owned to deny it funding support.
Then there is the story of the 6,000 workers at dnata, a company that the government retrospectively excluded from the JobKeeper support program. Workers—many of whom worked for Qantas—who never chose who ultimately owned their company and who have paid a lifetime of tax, were cruelly abandoned by a government that could have supported them with the stroke of a pen.
And now there's Qantas. Alan Joyce has taken Scott Morrison and the Australian taxpayers for fools. The whole point of the government's taxpayer funded JobKeeper program was to preserve links between employers and employees. The community's expectation is clear: the funding from JobKeeper should be used to keep jobs; to preserve, as far as possible, the status quo. Letting Qantas take millions, and hundreds of millions, of dollars in taxpayers' money without any obligation to its workforce, or to the country, is an act of sabotage of the national interest. Today's announcement—the pending outsourcing, sacking and replacement of 2,400 ground, baggage and cleaning jobs—is an evil act of corporate bastardry.
I heard today the words of Jim Metropolis, a leading hand on the international ramp at Sydney Airport. He has worked for Qantas for 34 years and amongst his family they have 100 years of service. He said: 'We are gobsmacked. My phone has not stopped ringing since about 12 o'clock. People are ringing—worries about mortgages, kids, bills. I put in 34 years and now it's gone. It's like a piece has gone from all of us.'
Alan Joyce and the board are using COVID as an excuse, not just to sack these workers but to replace them with outsourcing companies like Swissport. Swissport is a company that treats its staff so poorly they were discovered to be sleeping under baggage carousels because they could not afford the fuel for a round trip home between shifts. Is this the future the shareholders and taxpayers of Australia want for the workers and families of Qantas? Well, it is not one that I want. I join the Transport Workers' Union today in calling for Alan Joyce to resign as CEO. And if that fails then the board should be replaced, because, let's be clear, today's decision is not getting Qantas through the crisis. The work still has to be done. It's just going to be done by companies who pay starvation wages and structure their rosters in a way that forces aviation workers to sleep in terminals and in their cars. The government shut down the skies. It has the responsibility to work with all the shareholders and all the stakeholders in aviation to build a national plan for all Australians, not just a privileged few.
An unfortunate truth from COVID-19 is that generous government payments like JobKeeper and JobSeeker will need to be reduced in order to increase incentive, kickstart job growth and restore the economy. These initiatives are playing a crucial role in the national recovery. However, as things improve in Victoria it's time that all levels of government start initiating the recovery by implementing the policies that will drive jobs and economic growth.
Earlier this year, I spoke in the Senate and proposed that if we were to learn anything from COVID-19 it is that our nation needs to get very serious about balancing the budget and paying down debt. In light of that, I called for the government, and all governments, to focus our regulatory reform agenda and to focus on cutting the red and green tape that burdens so many of these hardworking mum-and-dad businesses.
In August 2020, getting small business back into business is one of the most crucial components of our recovery. It is immensely clear that the private sector has borne the brunt of the economic shortfall arising from COVID-19. The ABS reports that over 230,000 small businesses are expected to close, which will result in approximately half a million permanent jobs removed from the economy. Pulling out of the storm that is COVID-19 will be difficult but not impossible. There is no reason why our economy cannot recover to where we were before through targeted and responsible measures to grow the economy—none more so than in cutting the inefficient, ineffective and burdensome red and green tape that is holding back thousands of Australian businesses.
The first step to cutting red tape is to audit every department at state, local or whatever levels to identify the number of regulatory burdens and, most importantly, the extent of their effect on Australian businesses. From here, all governments must adopt a stewardship approach to deregulation, where every minister and their departmental heads are tasked with reducing the number of regulatory impacts. The success of this plan relies on putting the responsibility on the top of the departments. By doing so, governments can begin to remove the deepest-rooted and re-emerging regulation and not just the low-hanging, easy-to-cut fruit.
Not only will ministers be responsible for their departments cutting red tape; their responsibility should extend to routinely updating the parliament, assembly or council on their progress. This will ensure that the deregulation agenda becomes the new business as usual by ensuring the focus on cutting red tape will not only reduce inefficient and ineffective regulation; it will ensure that government gets out of the way of Australian business.
I've been contacted by the Hydrocephalus Support Association and the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia about the future of the Australasian Shunt Registry. The registry was established in 2013 and received funding from the Department of Health and Ageing, and up until now the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia has fully funded the ongoing operation of the registry. Now the NSA is unable to afford these ongoing recurrent costs, and without public funding this valuable service faces imminent suspension or closure.
The cost of maintaining the registry is around $100,000 a year. While this is a lot of money for a small organisation like the NSA, for the federal budget it is basically spare change. For this relatively small amount of funding, there is an enormous potential for the registry to improve the quality of life for hydrocephalus patients and possibly even save lives.
For those not familiar with the device, a shunt is used to treat hydrocephalus, a condition in which cerebrospinal fluid accumulates and puts pressure on the brain. Hydrocephalus can be congenital—that is, present at birth—or acquired through causes like infections, head trauma, meningitis and brain tumours, to name a few. The symptoms of the condition can be quite debilitating and include headaches, vomiting, drowsiness and even seizures. As someone who has experienced hydrocephalus because of my brain tumours in 2008, I can tell you it's not a very pleasant experience.
A shunt creates a passage through which cerebrospinal fluid can be drained to another cavity in the body. While the device itself is inexpensive, inserting a shunt requires expensive surgery, and what is particularly expensive is when the shunt fails. One hospital, the Children's Hospital at Westmead, studied the costs of shunt infection, one of the most common forms of shunt failure, and found that it cost the hospital $1.5 million annually. That's a cost of a little over $80,000 per treatment. The benefit of the registry is that it collects data on shunt procedures and shunt failures. With this data the registry can identify the factors that lead to high rates of shunt failure. For example, by recording the time between shunt insertion and failure, it can provide measurements of shunt longevity. The register can help identify which shunt components are associated with high failure rates and also whether there are issues with particular products. It can also look at the failure rates associated with particular hospitals and provide feedback on the quality of care provided.
This registry is a valuable tool for informing clinical practice and decision-making when it comes to improving the outcomes of hydrocephalus patients, and it's been highly successful in terms of participation. Ninety-nine per cent of public and private hospitals performing shunt procedures are participating in the registry, and only six per cent of patients have opted out of having their procedure listed on the registry. As a result, over 2,100 procedures have been entered into the registry. As I mentioned earlier, infections at Westmead children's hospital were found in 2013 to cost over $80,000 each to correct. If these costs are typical for shunt failure then the registry could almost pay for itself by preventing just one failure per year.
Preventing shunt failure is not only important because of the substantial costs of correcting it. As I'm sure you can imagine, any form of shunt failure can result in devastating outcomes for the patient. In some cases, it can lead to permanent disability or even death. The rate of failure for shunts listed on the registry is currently around 37 per cent. These failures don't just put a strain on our hospital resources; they have devastating health consequences for patients and their families. Given the valuable input the registry is providing on the factors leading to shunt failure, $100,000 a year is a very small price to pay to keep the registry going.
When the Hydrocephalus Support Association wrote to the Minister for Health about this issue, his department sent a response suggesting the neurological society apply for funding under the Research Data Infrastructure Initiative. This initiative was due to have projects underway in July this year, yet the first round of funding hasn't even opened for applications. So this is of little use to the Australasian Shunt Registry, which needs funding now. In their July budget update, the government announced $5.7 million funding for medical registries. I'm curious to know why these four registries were considered worthy of funding—and I don't doubt that they are—but not the shunt registry. The Australasian Shunt Registry and the hydrocephalus patients who rely on it need a funding solution and they need it now. (Time expired)
Tonight I rise to speak about how the Tasmanian government has navigated the coronavirus pandemic firmly and compassionately over the past six months. This steady leadership has ensured my home state and its residents have remained safe. Tasmania is an island state, which has afforded us a level of protection not enjoyed by our mainland cousins. However, this protection has not been taken for granted. Premier Peter Gutwein has put the health of the state's residents first throughout this pandemic, while also being mindful of the huge impact the pandemic has had at an economic and social level.
Tasmania was the first to ban cruise ships and enforce strict borders controls to protect the state. At the time, Premier Gutwein said if we went hard and went early we stood a better chance of getting on top of coronavirus and returning to our way of life sooner. During the COVID-19 outbreak in the state's north-west, which has been traced back to the Ruby Princess cruise ship, Tasmania was quick to ask for federal assistance. The Australian Defence Force team arrived swiftly and, within a short time, the outbreak was under control. Since that point, our COVID-19 cases have been low and we have no active cases at the moment.
In addition to the extensive supports provided by the Australian government during this pandemic, the Tasmanian government has also committed significantly, with a package worth more than $1 billion. Tasmanians have been buoyed by this. At more than three per cent of our gross state product, it is the largest state or territory support or stimulus package in the country in proportion to the size of our economy. These measures have included: freezing, waiving or capping fees and charges for businesses, like water and electricity bills; payroll tax waivers for the hospitality and tourism industries; $80 million in business grants; and targeted loans. Key sectors like construction and tourism have been and will continue to be stimulated, because these industries hold the key to the state's economic recovery.
Then there was the state's vital support for temporary visa holders and those who are homeless, plus extra funding for community organisations helping vulnerable Tasmanians. This funding has helped those organisations to address important social issues like child safety and wellbeing and addressing family violence. Millions of dollars have been allocated to mental health support services and continuing the state's health preparedness and response. The local government sector has also been supported, with up to $200 million in interest-free loans so that our councils, in turn, can help their communities rebuild and recover. And it's working.
While the state has been hit significantly in economic terms, the impact has not been as severe as first forecast. The most recent CommSec report found Tasmania had the strongest economy in the country and the census report showed our businesses are still the most confident in the nation. ABS labour force data shows job growth has returned, with more than 7,000 Tasmanians returning to work in July. And, at six per cent, the state's unemployment rate is much lower than anticipated at the beginning of this crisis.
Tasmanians have a very strong community spirit. We are unashamedly Tasmanian first. We have pride in our state, and that attitude has stood us in good stead as we navigate this pandemic. When Tasmania was locked down, we shared resources with our neighbours and reaffirmed our commitment to community. We did all we could to support locals. Instead of going out to our favourite restaurants, we started buying takeaway meals from those restaurants instead. Our grocers and butchers saw an uptick in trade as local produce became even more important. Once we could travel outside our immediate regions, we started moving around the state, supporting local traders, tourism operators and accommodation providers along the way, and we will continue to do this.
The combination of coordinated health and economic stimulus has supported Tasmania to stay safe in its bid to suppress COVID-19 and weather this storm so far. However, there are still more hurdles to jump. The threat of community transmission of this deadly virus is never far away. We are now approaching spring and summer, which are traditionally busy times in Tasmania, especially for our agriculture, tourism and hospitality industries. These industries are learning to operate in a new normal, as are their customers. This is when we will rally to stay safe.
We are, by no means, at the end of this chapter in our state's history, but we are working hard to make the best of what is an extremely difficult situation. Strong leadership by our state government, in support of our Health and Treasury departments, has put us in a good position to continue through this pandemic. I would particularly like to acknowledge Tasmanian Premier Peter Gutwein and the health, small business and hospitality minister, the Hon. Sarah Courtney, and thank them for their outstanding leadership.
I rise tonight to speak about those in our country who have gone before us—generations gone by who laid down their lives and made the ultimate sacrifice for the generations to come. In this instance, I'm talking about the late, and recently recognised, Ordinary Seaman Teddy Sheean, who, on 12 August, was finally recognised—and appropriately so—with the Victoria Cross for his acts of bravery. This has been the subject of a great deal of debate in Tasmania and of very, very long and energetic campaigns by a great many Tasmanians, including members of the public and members of both the Tasmanian and Commonwealth parliaments.
I want to reflect tonight on what a wonderful outcome it is for the late Ordinary Seaman Teddy Sheean and his family that his bravery and gallantry have finally been recognised. The coverage that has been given to the case being made for Teddy Sheean to be awarded a VC has outlined quite extensively his acts of bravery in the last moments of his life. When the order was given for the crew of the HMAS Armidale to evacuate the ship as it was going down, Teddy Sheean strapped himself to the gun at the stern of the ship and started firing at the Japanese aircraft that were strafing the sinking HMAS Armidaleall to protect his fellow crew members, who were seeking to make their way to safety, having disembarked the sinking ship. He sacrificed his life for them, in an ultimate act of bravery.
Teddy Sheean's bravery has never been in question. However, after 17 years of campaign to have Teddy Sheean recognised with the highest of military honours, he has finally received that recognition. The process was extensive and, sadly, became a matter of public debate, certainly in the Tasmanian media. But the one thing that we all had to remember on the way through was that this was not a political debate. The awarding of the VC is not in the domain of politicians to grant. The granting of this award to those who have made sacrifices is not something that can be done with a stroke of a pen by anyone in this building—indeed, by anyone in this country. It's an award given by Her Majesty the Queen or the Governor-General on her behalf, which is what happened on 12 August. But the review that was undertaken, headed by the Hon. Dr Brendan Nelson, the former director of the War Memorial, found the right outcome and that was that it was right to recognise Ordinary Seaman Teddy Sheean for the acts of bravery he committed that I outlined earlier on.
I do want to pay tribute to the Tasmanians who have contributed to this outcome—those who have tirelessly campaigned for this outcome over a long period of time and more recently. I do want to start by paying tribute to a former member of this place and a good friend and colleague of mine in the Tasmanian parliament, Guy Barnett, for his tireless advocacy for the outcome that has been achieved today. I think it is important to put that on the record. But I also want to thank my colleagues Gavin Pearce, Bridget Archer and Senator Askew, who has just concluded her adjournment contribution tonight. All the members of the Tasmanian federal Liberal team have advocated behind the scenes for this outcome. It is the right outcome. It is a 'Team Tassie' approach. As I said, this is not a political outcome. This is not a political issue. It was not a political decision. So I have to also acknowledge Jacquie Lambie for her work in advocating for this outcome as well. As a strong representative of the north-west coast of Tasmania she made her views clear.
All Tasmanians wanted to recognise this proud Tasmanian son, someone who has done so much for our country and made the ultimate sacrifice. So all of us in Tasmania are pleased with this outcome. We wish Teddy's family well and we hope that his descendants cherish and relish the honour that has been bestowed upon him and his family for the sacrifice that has been made.
I want to begin my contribution tonight by acknowledging the very real economic impact that COVID-19 has had on regional Queensland, particularly on Far North Queensland, where tourism is a major direct and indirect employer. A crisis of this sort isn't actually new for Cairns but it will certainly be the worst. That's what I said in February when I stood up in Cairns and called for support from the Morrison government. I said that this crisis would hit Cairns first and it would hit Cairns worst.
Many locals share stories about the pilots' strike in 1989 and the impact that had on the economy. After the GFC, Cairns was one of the last places to recover. Today we have learned that Qantas will cut jobs in Cairns, deciding to outsource baggage handlers at Jetstar and possibly Qantas as well. Luckily, because we have kept Queensland safe and open, we do have tourists coming from all over Queensland, and the flights between Brisbane and Cairns remain one of the busiest routes. The impact of this outbreak, though, has been devastating. The crisis has renewed calls for Far North Queensland to diversify its economy by building on our inherent strengths. It also raises questions about the lack of federal leadership over the last seven years to implement a plan to do just this—to crisis-proof Far North Queensland.
COVID has also taught Queenslanders the very hard lesson that we need to build and make more things at home. We can't rely on traditional supply chains anymore, and products that are built cheaply overseas become even more costly during a crisis because they don’t support local jobs. I know that manufacturing matters to regional Queensland and that's why I launched a campaign to bring manufacturing back home and to call on the Morrison government to invest in manufacturing and deliver a local jobs plan. I thank each and every single Queenslander who has supported this campaign so far. This is what our regions are crying out for right now.
We already build trains and maintain ships in Queensland. We are uniquely geographically placed to do this and even more. We make pallets and fabricate steel and we can even turn our world-class famous gin into hand sanitiser or produce PPE. We can manufacture more advanced technologies as well and meet our medical needs of the future in regional Queensland. Throughout this campaign I have been speaking to manufacturing businesses across North Queensland. They say to me: 'We can do this. We can manufacture what we need right here. But we haven't had the support. We haven't had the investment in skills. We need certainty from this government about energy policy so we can plan for the future and bring energy costs down.'
For seven years this Liberal-National government has turned its back on regional manufacturers. On Scott Morrison's watch, Australia ranks last in the manufacturing self-sufficiency ratings compared to developed economies.
For the LNP, manufacturing is just a buzzword. They talk about it but they never support it. They challenged Australia's car manufacturers to leave Australia and they let the industry die on their watch. The LNP cut $3 billion from TAFE and haven't invested in the skills that manufacturers need to survive. Recent reports show the Prime Minister himself had to tell his own MPs to get out of their comfort zone to support manufacturing. We know that they can't and we know that they won't, because the Liberal-National coalition slash and cut and wreck. They spend more time fighting for their own jobs than fighting for yours.
This week, when jobs are being lost in regional Queensland, our so-called regional representatives in the National Party are fighting each other again. They're jockeying for leadership positions again when people are losing their jobs in regional Queensland. Labor builds and Labor fights for jobs. Queenslanders will never forget that it was the LNP that sent trains to be built in India and it was Annastacia Palaszczuk and the Queensland Labor government that brought them back to Maryborough. We need to bring manufacturing back home.
I rise tonight to talk about an issue that's very close to my heart. As many in this place would know, I'm a passionate advocate for agriculture, particularly agriculture in my home state of Western Australia and particularly due to my personal experiences, on a family farm, with the livestock industry and the live export trade, a trade that is vitally important to communities across regional WA.
As those interested in this issue would know, a number of months ago there was a COVID outbreak amongst the crew members of a sheep carrier, the Al Kuwait. It was meant to depart ahead of the northern export moratorium but unfortunately, due to the outbreak of COVID, the ship was delayed. The exporter, to its credit, understood the importance of continuing the trade and worked very hard to ensure that the voyage could be completed safely. It was granted, eventually, an exemption that allowed the vessel to depart Fremantle on 19 June.
Tonight I am absolutely pleased to report to the Senate that, despite the voyage taking place during the Northern Hemisphere summer moratorium period, the animal welfare outcomes reported from this journey were exceptional, and that is contrary to some of the nonsense we have heard from activists about this particular voyage. In fact, I have the independent observer's summary report in front of me and I will, if I have time, read a small part of that later. To give you the details of the journey: out of the 33,341 sheep aboard there were just 28 mortalities recorded on the voyage, a rate of 0.08 per cent. It was a 99.9 per cent delivery success rate. Importantly—and I think this is the key point—none of those 28 mortalities were attributable to heat stress.
While some have campaigned relentlessly against this industry important to regional Western Australia, this voyage is evidence that the trade can continue to be carried out humanely and in accordance with our world-leading animal welfare standards. I've said it in this place many times and I'm going to say it again: we do not just export livestock; we export animal welfare standards. This government understands that this trade is the lifeblood of regional families, particularly in my home state of Western Australia. Across the chamber we must always remember that this trade is absolutely vital to the food security of many of our friends and trading partners, particularly in the Middle East but elsewhere as well.
Last week I was lucky enough to join my good friends Rick Wilson, the member for O'Connor, and Steve Martin, who is a Liberal candidate for the Agriculture Region in the upcoming state election, on a live export roadshow across the Western Australian Wheatbelt, visiting such places as Darkan, Kojonup and Katanning, to update local farmers. We were joined on that by Holly Ludeman, a young vet who has been an absolute champion for the industry. She has been instrumental in forming what was called The Sheep Collective and has broadened out to be called The Livestock Collective.
One of the things that Holly showed us on that roadshow was a time lapse video aboard the actual ship involved. During that period the heat on board the ship did rise above a wet-bulb of 28—in fact, I think it got to 32 at one point during the voyage. I would encourage everyone out there who is listening to this and who is interested in this trade—whether you are for this trade or if you are against it—to go and have a look at that video. That video very clearly demonstrates the humane way in which those animals were transported, even during this summer moratorium period.
I rise tonight to speak about the COVID-19 pandemic and its effect on our way of life across the country and in my home state of Tasmania. Specifically, I want to reflect on the last four months, which have changed my perspective on our country and my home state.
This pandemic has changed our country and the world more than we currently know. Its effects will last not for days, weeks or months but for years and possibly decades. Our way of life has been shaken and the lives of Tasmanians have been changed dramatically, with 230 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Tasmania and, sadly, 13 Tasmanians have lost their lives to this virus. Over the last few months, these families have had to mourn their loved ones in solitary confinement and without being able to say a proper goodbye. It's tragic and extremely sad for our community and for the Australian community more broadly.
Senators in this place come from their respective states and territories across the country to meet here, and we all have a certain respect for one another because of our belief in our communities and our belief in representative democracy. We are all linked by this bond and know that we're extremely privileged that we're able to come into this place and contribute to the national debate. We know that we're lucky, as a country, that we have been able to navigate this pandemic in a way that has made me proud to be an Australian. Were there mistakes made? Yes. Should we learn from these mistakes? Of course we must, but we pull together as a nation in the most trying of circumstances. This is what we do.
Firstly, I'd like to acknowledge all the Tasmanians who have worked tirelessly on the front line in health care: our ambos, those in aged care and their workforces—whether they're in a caring role, or cleaners, or in admin, or doctors, or nurses or grounds staff. I would like to express my personal gratitude for your tireless work in protecting our fellow Tasmanians. Despite the uncertainties present, these workers have risked their lives and their bravery and should be commended, as this has been instrumental in keeping our society functioning.
To the Tasmanian nurses who have willingly travelled to Victoria to support aged-care facilities, working under immense pressure and having to undergo hotel quarantine upon return, I say thank you. To all our supermarket and essential retail workers, I acknowledge your contribution and say thank you. Despite the panic buying that ensued, there was always faith that shops would be restocked and that we could rely on them to access essential goods and services. To all our truckies, who kept Tasmania moving and transported medical supplies and food to Tasmanians who needed them in the most desperate of times, I say thank you. To all our teachers who quickly had to evolve and adapt to provide online learning for their students, and to those who risked their health to make sure that children had a safe place to go and study throughout the peak of the COVID restrictions, I say thank you. To Australia Post workers who had to deal with increased workloads and pressure, I say thank you. I feel particularly fortunate to represent the people of Tasmania—I always have, but this pandemic has provided a unique perspective.
Many view Bass Strait as something of a disadvantage, but the 500-kilometre stretch of beautiful but treacherous water separating Tasmania from mainland Australia has been the rock that Tasmania needed in this crisis. Many people have expressed its likeness to a moat protecting us from mainland counterparts which experience COVID-19 infections in far greater numbers. I am Tasmanian, and I know I'm lucky. I believe many Tasmanians feel the same way and a true sense of admiration and love for their state post COVID-19.
The health and economic circumstances of this pandemic will be felt for years in my home state, and it has already experienced economic effects. We are a small island of 500,000 people and a destination that the world loves and wants to visit. They have not been able to visit, and they will not be able to visit for some time. Our industries have been decimated by the effects of social isolation. In particular, retail, restaurants, cafes, pubs, clubs and small businesses across many industries are still hurting.
Small businesses in Tasmania are a backbone of the Tasmanian economy. There are over 40,000 businesses in our community, and 95 per cent of those are small businesses employing on average one to 19 employees. These businesses are made up of local people who deserve our support, because we are a close-knit community who support one another. As we emerge from this crisis, it is crucial that we support local small businesses in our cities, suburbs and regions. I ask you to do your bit wherever you can. There are many ways we can support local businesses, including: buying goods in person or online; liking, sharing or commenting on a business's social media; and not forgetting to tell your friends about a small business. Lastly, if you can buy from a local small business, do just that—no excuses. Be vocal and shop local.
We must also provide further support for the nearly 30,000 Tasmanians who have now lost jobs or are underemployed as a result of this pandemic. Now is the time to invest in our people by providing free TAFE so that when we emerge from this pandemic we have a skilled workforce who are equipped to face challenges and have the skills to help build our economy.
We must not forget our agriculture industry in this pandemic. As we have become increasingly reliant on China as a destination for our exports and amidst the uncertainty of their punitive trade punishments, we need to diversify our export markets to help protect our world-class produce. We also need to reskill local Tasmanians to set them up for a career in agriculture, as, without domestic and international travel, they are currently facing severe labour shortages. We certainly have the supply of labour; however, there are barriers that need to be removed in order to encourage Tasmanians to work throughout the harvest.
Australia has outperformed most countries in response to COVID-19, and it is truly indicative of our robust society. However, as we emerge in a different world—a COVID-19 world—the government must adapt its policy approach and institute significant structural change that will serve the interests of all Australians. As we spoke about in this chamber yesterday and today, there is no greater tragedy of COVID-19 than the effect on small business and our economy, but we also must ensure the health and welfare of all Australians.
We have seen this government let down some of the most vulnerable members of our community—that is, those who are in residential aged care and those that receive home-care help. This government has failed older Australians and their families. We have acknowledged the tragedy of the now in excess of 335 older Australians who have died from COVID-19. We have spoken about the heartache of their families not being able to be there, to hold their hands, as they passed from this world. That is something those families will never, ever forget, and our hearts go out to them.
But we can do better. This government must do better. It is unacceptable to say that we are doing better than other countries. One more death that could be avoided in residential aged care due to COVID-19, the lack of preparedness, the lack of a plan, the lack of resources and the lack of training are not going to be acceptable to the Australian people. This is a wake-up call to this government. They called a royal commission into their own failings. Every bit of evidence justifies our concerns—the concerns that have been expressed by senator after senator after senator on this side. We are the ones who are out in the community. We're getting the calls from desperate families who just want to know that their loved ones are going to be supported, cared for and given the best possible care they can have in residential aged care. Nothing is going to be acceptable other than a 100 per cent improvement by this government.
These are really tough times. This extraordinary health crisis has created an extraordinary jobs crisis, with our first recession in almost 30 years. People are doing it tough. People are losing their jobs and businesses, and what they need from the Morrison government is a plan—a plan to protect jobs and a plan to rebuild jobs in our country.
These are times that call for strong leadership. People need their government to step up and take action. They need substance, not spin; delivery, not door stops; and details, not photo-ops. Australians need to know—they deserve to know—exactly how Scott Morrison and his government will rebuild jobs in this country. Today over one million Australians are unemployed for the first time in history, and 1½ million Australians can't find enough work, and the government expects another 400,000 Australians to lose their jobs before Christmas. But all we're getting right now is slogans that grab a headline for a day, followed by weeks of waiting for details that never come.
For those almost three million Australians who could be unemployed or underemployed by the end of the year, this is just not good enough. Take HomeBuilder. This was a scheme to help keep tradies in jobs, but, since it was announced, there have been zero approvals and zero payments made. Take JobKeeper, a plan that specifically excluded the very workers whose jobs were shut down by COVID—casuals in hospitality, contractors in the arts and entertainment, and anyone working in a university. Take JobTrainer, a scheme apparently designed to boost vocational training. But, with the $3 billion in cuts that the government has made to our TAFEs over the past seven years, the government needs more than a slogan to get people trained up and back to work. And then there is JobMaker—great name but still no detail. I understand that the government wants to sell their policies to the public, but that can't be all there is. There needs to be detail, and these policies need to give hope to Australians who are doing it really tough, because when there isn't detail there isn't a plan. Workers lose their jobs and businesses go under, and that is happening right now.
What is the plan for the early-childhood educators who were kicked off JobKeeper and are now being stood down across Victoria? What is the plan for hospitality workers and small businesses who are struggling to survive in our major cities? What is the plan for the rural tourism industry with our international borders closed? What is the plan for our universities who are laying off staff right now? What is the plan for our manufacturing sector, which has been decimated under this government and needs to rebuild? What is the plan for the arts, where support was announced in June and not a single dollar has been spent?
What is the government's plan to rebuild jobs in this country? There are a million people who are unemployed, 1½ million people who don't have enough work and 400,000 people who the government expects will lose jobs in coming months. All these people need a plan. They don't need slogans; they don't need spin; they don't need photo ops; they don't need doorstops. They need a plan with details—a plan to rebuild jobs, rebuild industries and rebuild lives. It's time the Morrison government delivered it.
Well, here we go again. Once again we have shocking evidence of the corruption that goes to heart of both the major parties. Now, we know that both of them have been engaging in industrial-scale branch stacking. More shocking—although, I'll be honest, it no longer shocks me what goes on up here—is the allegation that electoral staff were being used to recruit more members and that senior Liberals knew all about it. It is absolutely shocking behaviour but, once again, it doesn't shock me. I'm just no longer shocked with behaviour that happens in politics. It's beyond disgusting, but it's not surprising, because, let's face it, it happens; it continues to happen. And, once again, there's no ICAC. I wonder why?
The latest scandal has had its fair share of faceless men too. This one was just like the other ones: a young guy comes in who is focused on factual fights instead of achieving anything in the public interest. It's probably because his mother didn't put her boot far enough up his clacker. I tell you, he's lucky he's not my son, because that's exactly what he would have got. He was not putting the country first, or its people. It was all about self. He spent every waking minute trying to roll the moderate members of his own Liberal Party. He targeted religious people and others who had little or no interest in joining the Liberal Party, and once he had all of these signatures, it looked like he had lots of members and lots of power. Well, didn't you come unstuck, little boy!
I tell you, that's how branch stacking works. It's that easy, and it will continue because we do absolutely nothing about it. That's what I refer to as 'branch stacking 101'. These faceless men do it because they want to overrule genuine members of their party. They do it to suit their own political purposes, and all they care about is their own self-interest. It has really passed the point of being absolutely disgusting. I wish you people here would finally wake up to the fact that we need an ICAC, because this will continue until people start going to jail for this sort of thing. You can start leading by example.
Genuine recruiters are necessary in any party, but signing people up so that it looks like you have lots of members is not democracy; it's rigging the system. Actually, it's absolute political corruption at its very best. Yet it seems to be the norm up here. That's how bad it's got. 'That's alright. It's just the norm. It'll be right.' The ministers right at the top of this government have benefited from it. The Minister for Housing benefited from it and the former Minister for Defence benefited from it—which doesn't surprise me with him—and nothing will be done about it. The Liberal Party will not discipline their own, just like the Labor Party won't do much with theirs either. This behaviour will continue because there's very little disciplinary action when you misbehave. And this is called leadership? People are supposed to look up to us in this house. You call this leadership? I don't know what planet you're on, but it's not leadership; I can tell you that right now.
What's even worse is that these schemes are reported to have been operating out of the electoral offices—once again, that doesn't surprise me—of senior members of the Liberal government. Electoral staffers and their offices are paid for by the Australian taxpayer. That's alright, taxpayers out there, they're paying to win their seats, to branch stack, on your cash. Isn't it great? Then there is the taking of those dirty, filthy political donations on top. That's where we're at. They are there to assist the public and give them help and guidance where they can. That's what they're supposed to do; that is the purpose of the electoral office. I can tell you, in my electoral office it's too busy to be playing up because we're on call 24/7; that's what we're supposed to be doing. My staff field calls not just from Tasmania but from all over the country, and then we have what you could say is an overkill of veterans and defence personnel on top of that, because nobody else seems to understand the system, and there is certainly nobody who can help them.
Last month, for example, we had a blind 90-year-old pensioner, God bless him. He lives alone and had his funeral cash stashed under his bed. I do love some of these stories, because you can't help but see at least a bit of the funny side. He'd recently been robbed.
He was afraid the thieves were coming back. He was so terrified that they would steal the $9,000 he had saved to bury himself that at one stage he had buried it under his bed and forgot where he put it, so that was our first dilemma. After several calls over a couple of days my staff finally found out who his carers were, because we couldn't work that out either, to the point where we were about to go out and see him and go through his house. His funeral money was found safe and sound. His carers finally helped him get the money into the bank. That's what we're there for. We're there to help. That's a lovely story. We have plenty of them. Like I said, you have to see the funny side with some of them. The whole thing is we're there to help.
Then we have the veterans. They call us from all over the country and some from outside. I can't count the number of times they've called my office talking about taking their lives. I've lost count. I can't tell you the amount of times I've been up at 2 o'clock in the morning trying to talk them down from a ledge or from trying to put a rope around their necks. I don't get extra staffing. The girl that is employed does this 24/7 as well, one of the electoral staff. That's what we do. She's so appreciated that in the last two weeks she had three lots of flowers, because she's got these claims through. She's fabulous. God love you, Karen. One of these guys had been waiting 18 months just to get one part of his claim assessed. He came in for help and two weeks later he was receiving the help he needed. We're getting him back on his feet. I tell you what, you'll feel a lot more proud knowing you're doing that stuff than branch stacking. It's a lot more heartfelt in here than what those political donations or branch stacking will ever give you. I'll tell you that now.
My staff are amazing. They are always happy to help. That is what the Australian public pays for and it's what they expect, and from my office that's what they get. My staff are not there to spruik Jacqui Lambie. We have to raise our money for that. That's the way it is and that's the way it should be. During elections we have to stand at traffic lights with signs. I doubt you will see any other senator in Australia doing that. You won't see another senator borrowing someone else's van and putting 'Jacqui Lambie' all over it, or having little grannies come up and give her $2 or $3 so she can get a coffee. That's what it's all about. We earn it. We don't buy it and we don't branch stack. That's the way it is.
Yet senior members of the Liberal Party think it's fine to use their electorate staff for their party political purposes. They'd rather buy or branch stack than earn. These people don't get into politics to make people's lives better. They get into politics to make their own lives better, for their own egos and their own self-indulgence. Apparently anything goes, right?
The worst thing about the latest branch-stacking scandal is that almost exactly the same story came out a few months ago, except this time the party behaving badly was the Labor Party. Once again it was branch stacking on an industrial scale. In this case it was a senior Labor Victorian government minister using taxpayers' money and his own cash. He was creating fake branch members to build his own profile in the Labor Party. He resigned from the Victorian government the next day. I have to say that the Labor Party moved on that fairly quickly. At least they showed some leadership. I'm still waiting for you guys over there. Any time you switch on to what's going on, get up with the program, that would be great. Show some leadership, maybe.
I will tell you what, a minister resigning or a branch stacker being fired is not going to fix the corruption in our political parties. We had the usual finger pointing from both sides of politics. The truth is that most of the time you're as bad as each other, whether it's branch stacking, Aldi bags full of cash, or helicopters being used as a glorified a taxi service. It is not acceptable. It is totally unacceptable. Australians have had a gutful of the corrupt behaviour of the major parties. Politicians are elected and funded by the people of Australia to make the best decisions for our country, not themselves. They don't seem to care about the Australian people these days. It's all about furthering their own careers, building their own power networks and getting themselves re-elected.
While these stories pop up all the time, the politicians bicker between themselves. The public rolls their eyes. Australian's faith in our political system has hit rock bottom. The good news is that, unlike coronavirus, there is a cure for political corruption and it is called a federal anticorruption commission. We need one now. We needed one yesterday. We're going to need it tomorrow, because there's always another faceless man waiting to break the rules for his own political benefit. There's one thing the major parties have no shortage of and it's ambitious, young pups with no idea of how to help the country and plenty of ideas of how to rip the taxpayer off and help themselves and their mates. It's why I've called for an ICAC with sharp teeth—bigger teeth than Jaws, because it's got to have a bite, and by hell or Christ it's got to have one hell of a bite. We need to see who is putting the cash in the brown bags and who is being promised a golden job opportunity, because the faceless men must be unmasked. There must be real consequences for bad behaviour and an anticorruption commission can do that.
We need to do serious donation reform while we're at it. Let's just hit it all. Just a few months ago the Labor and Liberal parties tried to push a bill through this place that would have overridden state donation laws. If we don't get the money out of politics, nothing will change; it will just get worse. Both parties say they have the bills ready to go on a national ICAC, but where are they? Come on! What are you scared of? Not good enough? Not strong enough? Bring it on. I think it's about time the major parties woke up for the sake of a society that's done with this crap. There's nothing else to say.
Tonight I want to put on the record the experience of a heroic young Australian, a young woman who deserves a medal for bravery and resilience. AMP tried to silence her. Tonight I use my platform as a female Labor senator to give her words a public voice: 'I am a former employee of AMP and I'm a sexual harassment survivor. Through the last eight weeks I have relived my experience and it is with utter dismay that I see the AMP system remains as it ever was. As a junior female employee, I endured consistent and systematic harassment at AMP from men at the peer level to executive level. After speaking up, I was bullied, victimised and ultimately silenced.
My time at AMP has destroyed my life and it's taken everything that I have to rebuild parts of it, yet my life will never be the same again. The perpetrators, including those who swept me under the rug, have gone on to thrive. During my tenure, I raised formal complaints with the company, including via external legal representatives, but none of these were resolved safely let alone satisfactorily. Two of these cases were escalated. But in one instance the perpetrator was given a warning and allowed to remain. He also harassed another colleague, who left the industry as a result of this and sustained sexual harassment by two managers. The other, my manager, was repeatedly promoted.
The harassment I suffered ranged from receiving sexually explicit photos and emails expressing a desire to have sex with me, constant and public propositioning, including in front of some of the company's largest clients, physical harassment, including being touched repeatedly by a leadership team member at the office, a senior colleague groping me off site and another forcing himself on me by rubbing his genitals against me at a work function. Finally and, in my experience, most egregiously, my direct manager threatened to end my career if I did not follow his sexual wishes while alone with him on a work trip. In this last experience, I felt in fear of my physical safety. I knew, as a woman does by a certain age, that I was at his physical mercy. My saving grace was that he was blind drunk and, as he went to pour himself another drink, I ran. I immediately called a friend. Distraught and terrified, I could not stop shaking.
I had been down the path previously of raising a harassment complaint, so I knew I needed help to be taken seriously. I engaged legal representatives, who helped me draft a letter. They told me these cases were very difficult as they required me to lodge in court in order for organisations to take them seriously, which would mean public disclosure of my name and likely difficulty in future career endeavours. They told me that organisations often take their chances, knowing that women will be unwilling to risk ruining their lives and unable to afford hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal fees. I therefore felt I had no choice but to seek internal resolution, cautiously. I requested an apology and removal from his area, coverage of my legal and medical costs and sexual harassment training for the organisation. I did not ask for more, as I was petrified, inexperienced and in a financially perilous position as a young employee. Like Julia Szlakowski, my experience warranted an independent investigation, except that in my case an internal lawyer undertook this so-called independent work.
Over the next several months I was placed on medical leave and was directly discouraged from lodging a worker's compensation request by a member of the executive leadership team. I was ultimately bewildered and suffered from trauma induced anxiety, depression and insomnia. I did not understand what was happening. I was explicitly and repeatedly told that I was not allowed to speak to anyone about the matter. The friend and colleague that I asked to accompany me to the first meeting was told they would be terminated if they spoke a word about the matter and that they were not allowed to accompany me again. The man on the leadership team who was well known for his uninvited caressing of younger female employees suddenly stepped in to manage the investigation and subsequent communication with me. I was treated like a criminal. I was called in for cross-examination, where I was asked accusing questions as though I was making it up or taking it too seriously. I was asked whether I truly believed the act actually entailed sexual harassment. Throughout this process I was systematically broken down, isolated and bullied.
After two months of dragged-out proceedings I was a shadow of my former self. I was given an unsigned report that declared my manager had made a serious transgression against me. Despite the report finding that I was the victim and not the guilty party that I had been made to feel like, I was then told I would be given a role in the same division as my manager—reporting to that same handsy leader who had run the investigation—and that no other reparations would be made. I was given five days to sign an NDA or lose my job. I am almost certain that this was illegal. I had run out of funds to pay my lawyers and I was physically and psychologically destroyed, so I signed.
It's difficult to explain how vulnerable I felt during this period. I have never felt more powerless and worthless. I was actively put under extreme pressure to make a decision while completely alone. I felt desperate and cornered. Prior to this I was forthright, outgoing and well spoken, but now I was at the mercy of higher-ups and I knew I was just one small person who would be crushed by the force of one of Australia's largest companies. Nonetheless, I thought it was obvious that they would do the right thing because my harassment was unequivocal. I hoped that by agreeing I would salvage my career, retain my unblemished reputation and keep my livelihood. I was wrong.
My new job was a clear demotion: I was photocopying documents after having had a significant and technical client-facing role. I was also told by my new manager that he wasn't interested in what happened to me and that I was required to attend meetings with my harasser. I discovered that my harasser had told others I was dismissed from his area due to performance issues, which was untrue. My mental health deteriorated further. Instead of having a new beginning, I paid penance for speaking up. In the meetings with my former manager I would physically cower. I stopped speaking almost altogether to anyone at or outside work. This became untenable, but I could not afford to leave. I did not have the capacity to find another job; I was too broken.
On my final day at AMP, my former manager entered the elevator in which I was standing alone. He came up to me, stood inches away and then growled at me, bursting into laughter as he did. By the time the lift doors opened on the ground floor I was on the floor, sobbing. My time at AMP changed me from an optimistic, ambitious professional to a shadow. It ended my career in finance and resulted in irrevocable long-term damage to me that I carry every day. I was a promising and highly-skilled individual with tenacity and self assuredness. I had been earmarked by the firm as high potential and was on a peer level with men who were a decade ahead of me in their careers. I worked my heart out to get where I was and I carried the men I worked for. My experience of being harassed and the subsequent victimisation I suffered has deeply wounded me and has resulted in several false starts in finding a new career. In pure financial terms it has reduced my earnings so far by many hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more.
I have also invested tens of thousands of dollars to re-skill and continue receiving psychological support. This is a hidden cost. When this happens to women in the period of prime potential in their careers it snatches away a lifetime. I was driven out of my career, in which I'd invested over a decade of study and experience. I was thrown out of the industry and hung out to dry while the perpetrators not only remained but thrived. The cost was immeasurable to me and yet they were rewarded. The message was clear to victims: you will lose everything if you speak up.
There are many good people at AMP, including some of my closest friends. Some are wonderful leaders who are focused on a strong and inclusive culture. This was certainly the case in one part of the business, where such behaviour had been systematically eradicated over recent years. However, it only takes a handful of rotten apples to spoil the barrel and, in this case, it's obvious who those rotten apples are. Not only are they the direct perpetrators but they are the people who enable them. They are equally, if not more, culpable. They are the ones who hold the power to change but they do not. They only see what matters to themselves, and that is too often their power, their money and their public reputations—for which they are willing to risk everything but themselves. They are inherently self-serving and, in being so, are unable to govern an organisation with the responsibility that leadership brings. Leadership, in its truest form, requires doing that which is difficult. Leadership is not self-service and cronyism, nor the perpetuation of a corrupt system that crushes the vulnerable. At AMP, the gatekeepers have until now continued to enable a system where women and the most vulnerable, as I once was, are abused. This sends a clear message not only to the good people at AMP but to our broader communities about what is acceptable. For past, present and future victims, what hope do we have?'
This particular story is like so many stories. That is the end of her testimony, but this particular story is like so many stories shared with me by men and women who are in the financial services sector. It has to stop. Boe Pahari was fined half a million dollars for doing something a lot like what I have just recorded—for Australians to understand what's happening in the biggest companies in this country. Mr Pahari still got promoted. Well, yes, he then got demoted, but he still has a job with AMP. The woman subjected to his harassment lost her job and her career. This cannot continue. Australia is better than this. Come on, corporate Australia, surely you can destroy this cultural stain on our nation. (Time expired)
I rise to speak on the issue of urgent aged-care reform. Last week the Prime Minister said in response to questions asked on ABC's News Breakfast that the Commonwealth regulates aged care, but when there is a public health pandemic, then public health is a state matter. These comments are akin to those he made during the bushfire crisis when he told a radio broadcaster, 'I don't hold a hose, mate.' The vulnerability in aged care should have been obvious following the devastating outbreak at Newmarch House. Instead, devastating mistakes were repeated, this time on a massive scale.
The government's handling of the pandemic crisis in aged care has been atrocious. To describe the government's regulation of the aged-care sector as lax is very much an understatement. It has been neglectful. I'm deeply concerned that the government's rejection of Commissioner Tony Pagone's recommendation to establish an aged-care specific national coordinating body may set a precedent for other recommendations that the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety will make when it reports next February. Worse yet, I'm worried the government's defensive attitude means we won't even see legislation in response to recommendations before the next election.
Prime Minister Morrison has also said that, on the days the system falls short, he is sorry. The reality is the aged-care system is persistently falling short. It's falling short because of the systemic issues which have beset the sector since the inception of the Aged Care Act 23 years ago. The system was already broken before the pandemic crisis made aged-care failures front-page news. It is why we have a royal commission into the problems plaguing the sector, including chronic underfunding, underskilling and underpayment of staff; the lack of mandatory minimum staffing requirements; no minimum training qualifications; and no transparency over how the over $20 billion of taxpayer money is paid to the sector every year.
The word 'decanting' has also entered our lexicon over the past week. 'Decanting' is a dehumanising term used to describe the transfer of residents to hospital. It is symptomatic of a system that increasingly treats our senior Australians living in aged-care homes as commodities. It is not a system that treats them with the dignity and respect they deserve.
This is not a blanket criticism of aged-care workers. I know many of them wish they could do more for the people in their care, but they are hamstrung by their working conditions and a lack of support or training. Staff in our aged-care homes do incredible work in challenging circumstances, in a system that very much works against them and against those they care for. We owe staff a debt of gratitude. We owe it to them, and especially our senior Australians in aged care, to make these things right. Staff in our aged-care homes aren't paid well, and there aren't enough of them to provide the care that is needed. They're run off their feet because staffing levels are so low that they struggle to perform basic duties, let alone have the time to sit and have a meaningful conversation with a resident to show that they matter and that they are valued.
If we are to deliver excellent relationship-centred care, aged-care workers need to be supported. Quality of care is lacking in Australia's aged-care sector, and it has been lacking for decades. The evidence before the royal commission is clear that there is a link between substandard care and staffing levels. People are coming into residential aged care older and sicker. They are frail and have comorbidities, requiring more care, not less care—and certainly not cut-price care. The type of care required has changed markedly, but unfortunately that has coincided with lower staffing levels and the de-skilling of the aged-care workforce. The result is that the care for our elderly in residential aged care that was once being performed by qualified nurses and physiotherapists is now often being performed by unqualified, unregistered and in a lot of cases untrained personal care workers.
The damning evidence of geriatric medicine expert Professor Kathy Eagar at the royal commission is that some aged-care providers have deliberately reduced their ability to cater for the clinical and health needs of residents in their care by replacing qualified nurses with minimally qualified personal care workers at the very time that the clinical and health needs of residents are increasing. The evidence before the royal commission is that the reduction in the number of healthcare professionals within the residential aged-care area is largely an economic one. The government has allowed this to happen to the detriment of our senior Australians in care. The vital role of nurses, especially registered nurses, has been downplayed and diminished for too long, and this gross error must be corrected. The lack of regulatory control over staffing and training, for which responsibility falls exclusively with the federal government, coupled with a profit model for many operators, has failed elderly Australians and very much needs urgent fixing.
Here is what needs to change, and I quote from Peter Rozen QC:
The government needs to listen. It needs to act on this advice and not continue to kick the can down the road. Peter Rozen QC also said:
… the time for real action on staffing numbers and mix, skill levels, remuneration, conditions of work, and registration of the unregulated portion of the aged care workforce is now.
The time is well and truly now, and this government needs to act effectively.
I rise this evening to reflect on recent developments in the case of James Cook University and Professor Peter Ridd. It gives me no pleasure to do so, especially because James Cook University is an extremely important institution in my home state of Queensland. As my friend Senator James McGrath will be well aware, over many years JCU has educated thousands of students and has been a focal point for research connected with the tropics, including tropical diseases in the Great Barrier Reef. Professor Peter Ridd was employed by JCU for 27 years. From 2009 to 2016 Professor Ridd was head of physics. He also managed JCU's marine geophysical laboratory for 15 years. Professor Ridd has an interest in claims relating to the health of the Great Barrier Reef and, more generally, the quality of scientific research. These are matters of great concern to many Australians.
Professor Ridd's employment with JCU was terminated on 2 May 2018 for alleged serious misconduct. The university found that Professor Ridd had expressed a professional opinion in a manner inconsistent with the obligations contained in JCU's code of conduct. This included failing to act in a 'collegial and academic spirit'. JCU also claimed that Professor Ridd had denigrated the university in a manner inconsistent with his obligations under the code of conduct.
These findings arose out of an email Professor Ridd sent to a journalist in relation to reports produced by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. Professor Ridd suggested a line of questioning for the journalist to use with the authors of the reports. Unfortunately for Professor Ridd, the journalist simply forwarded Professor Ridd's email to the relevant authors of the reports. This was extremely unfortunate. Subsequently, Professor Ridd did an interview on Sky with Mr Alan Jones and Ms Peta Credlin in relation to an article he wrote on the Great Barrier Reef.
Professor Ridd brought a claim that actions taken by JCU were unlawful because they were in breach of a clause in the enterprise agreement which provided that JCU is committed to act in a manner consistent with the protection and promotion of intellectual freedom. Professor Ridd was successful at trial. JCU appealed, and then on 22 July 2020, barely a month ago, the Federal Court, by a majority of two to one, upheld the appeal and found in favour of James Cook University. It appears that there may now be an appeal by Professor Ridd to the High Court.
Prior to making my comments, I would like to make a number of preliminary notes. First, I respect the judgements of both levels of the Federal Court. The judgements are limited to the interpretation of the enterprise agreement and the code of conduct. They should not be interpreted more widely. My concern does not lie with the legal interpretation but with the culture of our universities. Second, I do not wish my comments to be a general reflection on JCU, its staff, its history, its heritage or much of the great work it does. The great irony of this case, in my view, is that JCU accused Professor Peter Ridd of denigrating the university but JCU's management of this specific case has caused great damage to the university's own reputation.
Not to understate the matter, I was quite shocked when I read sections of the appeal judgement. Let me give you three examples. What are we to make of a university which prohibits an employee from telling his wife that he is the subject of disciplinary proceedings? It prohibits him from telling his wife that the university has brought disciplinary proceedings against him. Can you believe such a thing occurred? That is what JCU did in an email to Peter Ridd on 27 August 2017. Subsequently, he was given permission to do so on 19 September 2017. How gracious of JCU that their employee of 27 years standing should have the right to tell his own wife that disciplinary proceedings had been brought against him!
What are we to make of a university which trawls through an employee's emails looking for material to bring further claims against the employee and uses against the employee private emails where the employee is communicating with those sympathetic to his cause? Let me give you an example. A student, a fan of Professor Peter Ridd, said: 'Hi Peter, hope this isn't too personal, but there are more than a few of us seriously upset about this.' The email goes on: 'Are they really going to fire you for this? It's absolutely outrageous.' Dr Peter Ridd responds to the student: 'I greatly appreciate your concern. Needless to say, I have certainly offended some sensitive but powerful and ruthless egos.' The student responds: 'We are angered because (1) we are always told to always think critically, but when a professor does it, all hell breaks loose.' And so the email goes on. This email was actually used by JCU in its disciplinary proceedings against Professor Ridd. This was a private email between the professor and one of his students, who was seeking to give him comfort with respect to the disciplinary proceedings. It is an absolute outrage.
Perhaps the best example of all is the direction which the university gave with respect to how Professor Ridd should characterise the proceedings. What are we to make of a university that issues a direction to an employee subject to disciplinary proceedings that the employee is not to do anything that parodies the university taking action against him? This is referred to by the judges as the no-satire direction. When Professor Ridd forwarded to a student an article in The Australian newspaper simply titled 'For amusement'—again, a private email—the university raised this against him as a breach of the so-called no-satire direction. You could not make this stuff up. It is the perfect satire. Not even my great hero, the great French satirist Voltaire, could come up with a better parody, and JCU brought this claim to avoid its reputation being damaged? The irony! It is little wonder that, in their judgement on appeal, the majority said:
Its—
JCU's—
maintenance of disciplinary action in several instances of what can only be regarded as trivial breaches of the Code of Conduct did not reflect the highest standards of ethical conduct. Nor did JCU's conduct in searching Professor Ridd's email account … The unethical approach to the matter was compounded by the direction to Professor Ridd that he was not to speak to his wife about the disciplinary matter, albeit that the direction was revoked … JCU did not exhibit contrition. … its attitude, and that of senior management, was quite to the contrary.
I say to the leadership of JCU involved in these matters: is your code of conduct so draconian that a distinguished academic of the university cannot express his views when he sees something that he honestly believes is wrong? Are your disciplinary standards so weak that they cannot withstand public scrutiny or satire? Do you not recognise how outrageous it is to prohibit an employee from speaking to their spouse about disciplinary proceedings being brought against them? Was there no way you could have dealt with this situation, other than terminating the employment of an employee of 27 years standing at a cost of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees? Do you not realise it was wrong to trawl through an employee's private emails on a fishing expedition to find ways to buttress your case and then to use the content of private emails between the employee and his supporters against him? Do you, the senior leadership of JCU, not see how, through your own actions in relation to this case involving Professor Ridd, you have denigrated the reputation of JCU to a far greater extent than Professor Ridd ever could have? And that is the great irony of this case.
Tonight I rise to speak about an issue at the very centre of the governance of our country: Prime Minister Morrison's so-called national cabinet. National cabinet has been widely regarded as a success in bringing together Commonwealth, state and territory governments in a national response to COVID-19. Some of the gloss of that success may have come off with differences over state border closures and blame games over quarantine breakdowns and the mismanagement of the COVID-19 outbreaks in aged-care facilities. The cohesion of national cabinet is likely to be further tested in the months to come as the discussion increasingly focuses on very challenging financial problems.
However, the issue I want to address tonight is not the performance of the national cabinet but rather its corruption of a well-established cabinet convention, its lack of legal foundation and its threat to transparency and accountability. National cabinet is indeed a legal sham. It rides roughshod over long-established cabinet practices and conventions and potentially creates a precedent for future governments to subvert the foundations of responsible government. For those reasons, I have initiated what is a first-of-its-kind legal challenge to the PM's authority to unilaterally determine cabinet practice and processes as he wishes.
This is not the first time a crisis has generated changes in federal state relationships and interaction. The national cabinet's innovation is not in bringing together the Prime Minister and premiers and chief ministers in streamlined meetings free from the bureaucracy that had built up round the COAG processes; that could have been achieved simply by removing the crowds of bureaucrats cluttering COAG meetings. Rather, the novelty of the national cabinet is the PM's deeming that this new body is part of the federal cabinet, protected by absolute cabinet confidentiality and Commonwealth secrecy laws.
That secrecy has been extended to other bodies and organisations that are reportedly directed by and report to national cabinet, including the AHPPC, or Australian Health Protection Principal Committee, the National COVID Advisory Commission and, following the abolition of COAG, a host of old and new intergovernmental bodies, ministerial councils and other advisory bodies. At the stroke of the PM's pen, and with the complicity of state and territory leaders, federal cabinet secrecy has been massively expanded within the Commonwealth government and across the great expanse of intergovernmental activity. This has serious consequences for accountable ministerial government at all levels of the federation. This new structure is already being used to obstruct examination of the federal government's COVID response by parliamentary committees and through freedom of information. It is likely to be used by state governments to avoid accountability as well.
This is a serious threat to responsible government and it will not go unchallenged. As I mentioned, I commenced a legal test case to expose the arbitrary nature of national cabinet and its lack of sound foundations. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has rejected my FOI application for the minutes of the national cabinet's first meeting and other information relating to procedures. The department claimed that the records of national cabinet are exempt from FOI because they are 'official records of cabinet'. I've appealed that decision to the Information Commissioner. Cabinet is not mentioned in the Constitution. Its legislative recognition is limited to the FOI Act and the National Archives act. Cabinet exists and operates in accordance with political precedent and practice.
Some of that precedent and practice is laid out in the Cabinet Handbook, a book that came into existence in 1926 and was held as secret. It was declassified in 1982 and published by the government in 1984. However, while cabinet practices have evolved over decades, some things are clear. This goes to the heart of my legal challenge. The national cabinet is constituted as a cabinet office policy committee of the Commonwealth cabinet, of which the PM is the only permanent member. A cabinet or even a subcommittee of cabinet is, properly, a single cabinet of ministers—ministers plural—exercising collective responsibility, not a single minister and not even a prime minister. The PM alone is not a cabinet. Federal cabinet is a collective gathering of ministers of state who, according to our Constitution, must be members of the federal parliament. If it were accepted that the national cabinet is part of the federal cabinet, then any meeting between the PM and other persons, including his gardener, could be designated as a cabinet meeting and be subject to cabinet secrecy. The national cabinet is also not a cabinet because it is not constituted by members of government responsible to one parliament. Rather, it is better characterised as an intergovernmental body. Cabinet is not a meeting of prime ministers and premiers, and cabinet is certainly not a meeting of doctors. A meeting of the AHPPC is not a meeting of cabinet, as has been claimed in answers to questions on notice.
Furthermore, the decisions by the executive to establish a national cabinet which will ultimately replace COAG creates a confidentiality span so broad that it intrudes on the rights created by statute, including in the FOI Act, and additionally interferes with the accountability of government that is the very essence of responsible government. Commands by the executive cannot interfere with commands of this parliament, and that will be tested.
One might ask why the Prime Minister has established a national cabinet as he has. After all, COAG discussions have long been conducted on the basis of intergovernmental confidentiality that is effectively recognised in FOI at the federal, state and territory levels. The answer lies in the fact that the federal FOI allows for the application of what's called a public interest test to claims of exemptions on grounds of potential damage to Commonwealth-state relations. So you can overcome exemptions by arguing public interest, but no such public interest test applies to cabinet-in-confidence secrecy claims.
The core purpose of the way in which the PM constructed national cabinet was to extend cabinet secrecy. It is a wholly artificial construct—a most serious corruption of cabinet government designed with the intention of reducing transparency and accountability across a huge swathe of public policy and administration. We'll have to see where my legal challenge goes. Meanwhile, it would be timely for the parliament to consider whether it's necessary to enact legislation to define the basic elements of cabinet structures and processes. This is, after all, the central part of responsible government in Australia, and yet for 120 years it has had no statutory foundation.
The PM is now effectively is claiming cabinet is whatever he wants it to be. We, the parliament, need to ask ourselves whether that is a credible or responsible claim. To that end, I will shortly introduce a private senator's bill—a ministers of state cabinet membership and other arrangements bill—that will seek for the first time to establish a statutory basis for cabinet, the Prime Minister's role as the chairperson of the body, its membership, its subcommittees and other matters, including the basis and the extent of cabinet confidentiality. This is really important.
We cannot have a Prime Minister expanding the conventions of cabinet to interfere with the commands of parliament and with the rights given to citizens by the parliament. That is not acceptable. So I invite senators to carefully watch this space.
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I wonder whether people know that Liberal, Labor, Nationals and Greens climate policies and renewables subsidies are costing households $13 billion per year—that's $1,300 per household every year. Thirty-nine per cent of household electricity bills are due to climate policies that have driven $8 billion in private sector malinvestment that is now destroying and destabilising base load power. These costs are the work of respected economist Dr Alan Moran, who used the government's data and thus cannot be sensibly refuted.
Energy intensive industries and value-adding food processing and minerals processing are moving to countries with cheap energy. China, India, and Asia use our high-quality clean coal to generate cheap power, while the same power from our clean coal under Australian climate policies has a price three times as high. In China and India, it's 8c per kilowatt hour. In Australia, it's 25c per kilowatt hour. Australia once had the world's cheapest electricity, yet now prices are among the world's highest. As a result, manufacturing dropped from 17 per cent of the national economy in the 1980s to now be just six per cent, and many hundreds of thousands of blue-collar jobs have been packed off overseas.
As a kid, I went to school in Kurri Kurri High School. I lived in the bush and cycled to school every day. Every morning and every afternoon we rode past the Kurri Kurri aluminium smelter. That was built because of cheap, reliable, stable, secure and environmentally responsible coal-fired power in the Hunter Valley. It's now shut due to climate policies driving power prices to double what they were just 10 years ago. Kaput! Gone! And, with it, hundreds—thousands—of jobs in the community.
Climate policies are ravaging agriculture after stealing farmers' rights to use their own land in compliance with the Kyoto protocol. This is destroying food security and increasing food prices for every Australian. High electricity prices are gutting manufacturing, gutting agriculture and gutting small and large businesses. Our nation's productive capacity, economic sovereignty and economic resilience are being decimated, turning our country from being independent to dependent on other nations. Climate alarmists are pushing policies aimed at fundamentally decarbonising the economy from 2050 onwards. Such a radical change, with its severe consequences for lifestyle, livelihoods and lives, should be based on extraordinary evidence. Empirical data from solid measurement and with specified, quantified impacts must first justify such fundamental change. High-cost policies, such as climate policies and renewable subsidies, need solid scientific evidence as justification for the policies, whose impacts must be specified before implementation and measured during implementation.
I'll discuss this next week, but for now I'll discuss the Moran report's insights into electricity prices. As I said, climate policies and renewable subsidies cost Australian households, via their electricity bills, $13 billion every year—that's $1,300 per household. The government claims it's just $90 per year. Dr Moran, using the government's own data, calculates that the direct costs are $536 per household per year. The total cost is $1,300 per year per household. The additional cost of climate policies on our power bills is a staggering 39 per cent, not the 6½ per cent which the government claims. The 6½ per cent covers the cost of federal and state mandatory requirements, such as the Renewable Energy Target, and excludes the cost of additional transmission lines—Snowy 2.0, which is going to be about $14 billion now—direct support from federal and state budgets and the cost of climate policies on the coal generation price. The true cost of electricity would be $13 billion per year less if cheap, affordable, reliable coal production were not lumbered with policies that distort the market towards expensive and unreliable wind and solar. Wind and solar power destroys jobs, kills productive capacity and wastes investment, as I will show in a minute.
I commissioned this report from the respected economist Dr Alan Moran. His is the first comprehensive and independent analysis of the full costs of climate policies on energy. It's difficult for the layman to find the costs because the government no longer puts this data out in a consolidated form. But Moran used the government's own data, and thus his report cannot be sensibly refuted. He has also been conservative, to ensure credibility. The government has stopped releasing data in a comprehensive form because it is hiding what the policy is doing to everyday Australians and our nation—high costs and future unreliability. Incrementally and deceitfully it is deliberately hiding these rising costs.
Artificially high electricity and energy prices savage our living standards and undermine our economic resilience and competitiveness. This is particularly important now with COVID recovery. Humans in the civilised world—the Western world, the developed world—have become independent of climate; independent of wind and independent of the sun. We now don't have the famines we used to have, but all of a sudden now we're going back to being dependent on climate—dependent on weather and dependent on wind and solar—at a cost to taxpayers of $8 billion per year in private investment. And that's still going on; after two decades they're still continuing to receive subsidies. These parasitic infants will never develop—it's impossible—and I will explain why in a minute. But renewables distort low-cost coal based power; they more than double the wholesale electricity price from $45.50 to $92.50 and we're all paying for it. After 20 years, renewables remain unviable without subsidies and are a parasitic investment, a 'malinvestment', in our energy systems.
For every subsidised so-called green energy job there are 2.2 to three jobs that could have been created elsewhere in the economy with the same subsidy or investment, and they're lost to the economy. Intermittent energies like wind and solar are parasitic and they're killing their host, just like parasites do. Their host is the people of Australia and Australia itself. The issue beyond that, though, is the lack of integrity, and government that has stopped serving the people and is milking the people for its mates investing in so-called renewable energy.
There's been a study in Australia called the Fisher study. It estimated the costs and impacts of Labor's 50 per cent renewable energy target policy. It estimated that it would lose Australian income of $1.2 trillion in the 10 years to 2030. That's more than half this year's gross domestic product! We're working for half the year to blow it all in the next 10 years. Labor's policy will drive and require an electricity price of $157 per megawatt hour. That's more than double what it was in 2016, before COVID hit and reduced prices. COVID reduced the price; this will double what it was before COVID. Plus—and this is something very important for Labor to understand—its policies will cut wages to 23 per cent below what they would have been, and there will be 568,000 fewer jobs. The biggest falls in employment will be in coal, oil and gas, and energy-intensive industries. As for the Liberals, they would increase intermittence 40 per cent above the current intermittent level, to about 48 per cent. That would be devastating. One Nation alone says: zero intermittence, no subsidies, get back to basics.
Green energy is no more likely to create additional employment and income than if workers with shovels and wheelbarrows replaced workers with heavy machinery in trucks and road building. Productivity is what enables higher wages and more jobs. It's easy to understand. In the United States it takes 39 solar workers to produce the same electricity as one natural gas worker. Choosing to employ 39 people to do what one person can do means 38 people cannot help elsewhere in the economy in providing care for the elderly, education, better infrastructure or thousands of other jobs and services. Solar and wind cut investment in the real economy because investments in wind and solar are wasted in tax and reduced spending. They destroy our competitiveness in the future. It's not happening in China, India, Indonesia and growing economies, which account for the vast majority of carbon dioxide production.
What we need to do is end all regulations and policies, including subsidies, that uniquely reward renewable energy. We need to remove weather dependency. Removing it is a key achievement of the last 170 years that's now being reversed. We need to get back to being independent of wind and solar—of weather. Above all, we need to be honest, to make policies based on facts and to share the data.
I rise in this adjournment debate to raise concerns about the scope of the restrictions being imposed on Victorians under the state of emergency declared in March.
Victorians understand that we need to be in this together, that to get through this pandemic we need to work together and care for each other and do everything possible to combat this second wave and suppress the alarmingly high rates of community transmission we have seen in recent weeks. We have seen the daily number of new active cases drop, and that is encouraging, but I think it's well understood that the Victorian government's management of hotel quarantine has been nothing short of a disaster. The evidence is that almost every active case in this second wave has emanated from the breakdown in hotel quarantine.
I remain bitterly disappointed that Premier Daniel Andrews told a parliamentary inquiry that the ADF never offered to support Victoria with hotel quarantine, which of course we learned was simply not true. There's never been an adequate explanation as to why Victoria accepted, and then rejected, help from the ADF, which could have made the difference in stopping the second wave.
But just as big an issue and perhaps even more serious is the failure of contact tracing. Unlike in New South Wales, where the contacts of every active case are vigorously pursued and required to self-isolate so as to suppress community transmission, in Victoria we seen have thousands of mystery cases with no known source, which means the source of the virus can't be identified and isolated to stop further spread. People who should have self-isolated were told they could go into the community. There's been no publication of COVID-19 hotspots. That has now just been remedied. People in isolation, including those who were positive, were told for many weeks they could leave home to exercise. That, too, has been remedied. I spent 27 days in quarantine all up as a result of coming into close contact with a positive case and then needing to quarantine to come to Canberra. I saw firsthand the confusing messaging, the muck-up with the IT systems and the failure to alert a local community when a person who was positive had visited.
Our government have proudly demonstrated we have your back, the backs of Australians, with our unprecedented health response and the more than $300 billion we have delivered in economic support. The states and territories have also pulled their weight but, as the Governor of the Reserve Bank said last week, states and territories need to invest at least another $40 billion in infrastructure in order to reinvigorate their economies.
I'm deeply saddened by the loss of life in aged care in Victoria. Despite the Labor Party's best efforts to improperly attribute blame to our government, these are deaths of the most vulnerable in our community which have been principally caused because of the very high rates of community transmission, mainly across metropolitan Melbourne.
Today I've spoken out about another issue that is causing deep concern: the Victorian government's use of emergency powers and whether they have been exercised properly in every respect. We have seen the outrage which has erupted in Victoria over plans to extend the state-of-emergency powers by another 12 months. The Victorian Public Health and Wellbeing Act provides that the maximum period for which a state of emergency can be declared is six months. The Victorian Premier is now proposing to extend that period, which runs out on 13 September, for another 12 months. The notion that the Premier can place the state in a state of emergency for a total of 18 months, during which time he can essentially impose any restrictions, is extremely concerning, particularly when you consider the draconian nature of some of the directions—the 8 pm curfew, the prohibition on travelling more than five kilometres from home and the shutdown of businesses and worksites, which in this second wave will cost the Australian economy another $10 to $12 billion and up to another 400 lost jobs. I am deeply concerned many Victorian residents and businesses have suffered loss as a result of unreasonable restrictions—that is, the improper exercise of emergency powers.
Section 204 of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act provides that any person who suffers loss as a result of a decision by the Chief Health Officer under his emergency powers can apply for compensation if that person considers there were insufficient grounds for a particular decision. Restrictions should only be imposed insofar as they are absolutely necessary. It is so important to open up the economy in Victoria as much as is possible. Many important questions remain unanswered. Why is a private contractor prohibited from mowing lawns but such work is permitted by a council worker? Why can building and construction workers move freely between places of work but not people working in other occupations? What is the public health rationale for imposing an 8 pm curfew across Melbourne or harsh restrictions in regional communities where no active cases exist?
Section 204 provides an incredibly powerful remedy. It gives every Victorian who has suffered loss the right to hold the Chief Health Officer to account. All that is required is an application to the secretary of the department of health, not court action. If the secretary agrees there are insufficient grounds for a particular restriction, she must pay just and reasonable compensation and has 28 days to reach a decision. Importantly, her decision can be appealed in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which is a relatively inexpensive legal avenue of redress. As broadcast on the Nine Network earlier tonight, Jim's Mowing has vowed to rely on this section of the act to seek compensation not just for Jim's Mowing franchisees but for other contractors. That's because his private gardeners in Melbourne are prohibited from working, yet council gardeners are permitted to work. The question the secretary of the health department needs to consider is whether there are insufficient grounds for this decision. Jim Penman, who owns Jim's Mowing, says these laws are arbitrary and have no legitimacy. This provision of the act is, I understand, yet to be tested, and this is a very important test of the accountability of this government.
Just hours after I raised my concerns on Channel Nine news, I received messages from a number of business owners who are suffering badly despite the economic support our government is providing, including this message from Georgie. She writes: 'It has been extraordinarily difficult to have our arboriculture business closed by the Victorian Premier whilst we have many of our clients in four councils calling us and stating that council contractors are happily pruning and maintaining council parks, trees and gardens whilst ratepayers suffer and their trees are desperately requiring routine pruning, which can only be done at this time of year and, of course, cannot be done. We just hope and pray we can reopen our doors and stay in business after this catastrophe is finally over. Thank you again for being our voice.'
For people living in regional Victoria, including those in border communities who have been hit hard, for families who can't cross the border and get their children to school, for people with cancer who can't travel to medical appointments, for farmers who can't travel freely, including to move machinery or feed their stock—despite the work we have done to introduce a code of practice for the agriculture sector—this provision of the Victorian Public Health and Wellbeing Act may provide additional support. It may also provide a much-needed fetter on the exercise of arbitrary powers by reinforcing the requirement on the Victorian Chief Health Officer that he must properly impose restrictions and impose only those which are necessary to combat this pandemic and nothing more.
Senate adjourned at 21:57