I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
The committee is considering the Native Title Legislation Amendment Bill 2020. The question is that the bill stand as printed.
I have a few more follow-up questions for the minister. Minister, the National Native Title Council noted in their submission to the committee inquiry into this bill that they do not—I repeat, do not—support Commonwealth intervention in native title proceedings as set out in schedule 5, because the bill seeks to clarify the role of the Commonwealth minister in native title proceedings. Under this bill, would the Commonwealth be a party to any agreement if it has intervened?
The clarification that's made in the bill for the Commonwealth minister to have a role in agreeing to consent determinations is necessary because there's currently an inconsistency about whether or not the Commonwealth minister is or isn't a relevant party to consent determinations over the whole of an area or part of an area, and their consent is required to determinations under both circumstances. So there is currently an inconsistency relating to the role of the Commonwealth minister as intervener in the provisions giving the Federal Court the power to make the orders in relation to the whole of the claimed area, compared to orders in relation to part of a claimed area. This is appropriate, as the Commonwealth minister will only intervene—I think this is getting to the crux of your question—in a native title proceeding where there is a significant matter of law to be determined and there is a need for the Commonwealth, as administrators of the Native Title Act, to assist the court. It's not anticipated that the Commonwealth will be participating as a matter of course, but, where there is a novel question of law that needs to be resolved so that all people who are participants in the system have clarity about how it operates, then that avenue is available.
Minister, can you outline how and why the Commonwealth might oppose an agreement even when all the other parties are in agreement?
It's the position of the Commonwealth to support decisions by parties to resolve matters by consent. So, that's not anticipated.
Minister, can you outline to me, in detail, how this bill will support the clans and nations that are excluded because they are in a minority on decision-making processes?
The answer really was given yesterday. The decision about how to go about decision-making processes and whether or not there's going to be the acceptance by a native title group of a particular decision is in their hands. If a particular group wants to make it so that more than majority is required—whether that's special majority or whether that's unanimity—that's a decision for the people who are affected by the decision; that's not a matter for the Commonwealth.
The bill we have been asked to consider today may appear at first to be relatively simple. Altering decision-making from requiring a unanimous vote to requiring a majority vote does make sense and is in line with the accepted practice in most modern democracies. But my problem with this bill isn't so much what it contains as what it doesn't contain. We were asked by Senator Thorpe and the Greens to tick off on proposed amendments which she well knows contain no mention of accountability of full funds, outcome evaluations of the expended moneys, the effectiveness of the management of funds, and every other audit or performance related process that normally applies to the use of taxpayer funds.
It's almost as if Senator Thorpe is saying to the Australian people that Indigenous communities and authorities should be held to a lower standard than the rest of Australia in their use of taxpayer funds. It's almost as if the senator doesn't understand that an open and transparent review of the use of funds is a prime driver towards improving performance and processes going forward in future projects and grants. Perhaps Senator Thorpe doesn't understand that empowering performance and holding people to a higher standard in any area is a highly empowering process. But I'm sure Senator Thorpe and every one of her fellow Greens knows that the continuing empowerment of Indigenous groups and communities across the nation—something every right-thinking Australian supports—spells oblivion and total irrelevance for the posturing Greens and their mates in the Indigenous activist industry.
Senator Thorpe relishes her moment in the spotlight when she has an opportunity to harp on the theme of perceived Indigenous oppression and constantly labels Indigenous Australians as oppressed victims. There is never a mention from Senator Thorpe of Indigenous successes. That would seriously get in the way of her narrative of centuries of continuing oppression and enslavement. Preach only the negatives and do it relentlessly, and some of it might even stick in uninformed minds as fact. That's a classic tactic of the Left that we see every day in this place and across the media. Senator Thorpe and Senator Dodson would have us believe that any legislation to do with Indigenous issues is introduced to benefit mining companies. Senator Thorpe calls the $33 billion that went to all Australians, including Indigenous Australians, and a further $6 billion for Indigenous-only issues last year 'scraps'. Really? Scraps? Was $39 billion 'scraps'?
Senator Thorpe also hides an inconvenient truth when she fails to disclose that as far back as 2015 native title has been recognised over approximately 2,469,647 square kilometres—that's around 32 per cent of the Australian landmass—for less than three per cent of the population. That's a statistic that we will never hear from the Greens truth deniers, so I will repeat it for their benefit: there's around 32 per cent of the Australian land mass for around 750,000 people who identify as Indigenous—not necessarily Indigenous but identify. A third of Australia under native title and $39 billion are scraps according to Senator Thorpe and her truth-denying colleagues. If almost $40 billion and around a third of Australia are scraps, we can only thank our lucky stars the Greens don't have the keys to the Treasury.
Senator Thorpe failed to point out that, as Tom Connell told us on Sky News recently, the dollar spend equates to $22,000 for every non-Indigenous Australian and $45,000 for every Indigenous Australian. And more scraps, for Senator Thorpe's information, come from a look at the mining industry, which she and her follow truth denies love to vilify. There are around 6,599 Indigenous jobs in the mining industry. That's around 3.9 per cent of the total mining workforce. Over 6,000 jobs in any industry is anything but scraps, and I'm sure those Indigenous employees who take home their pay to their families each week see it that way too. If Senator Thorpe really wants to empower any group of Australians, she might consider calling on the government to ensure there are strong accountability and audit measures incorporated in any advance of federal funds irrespective of background, race, religion or gender. If you want to be seen as empowering the group you represent, irrespective of background, race, religion or gender, if you want to escape the need for federal funding and if you want to create for yourselves a sustainable economic future, you may want to consider including in your amendments performance reviews that closely examine how effectively the funds were used and include how the funds can be better used next time to deliver better outcomes all around. It's called gradual improvement.
Any bill that comes before us here that goes to perpetuate the victimhood status of any group of Australians has no place, whether that bill includes such mechanisms or, as the case is here, omits processes that will enhance the lives and futures of that group. We should give it no credibility. Senator Thorpe apparently doesn't even mind misleading the Senate, and I quote her words from Hansard when she told the Senate yesterday:
A nuclear waste dump in South Australia: traditional owners do not consent.
Senator Thorpe well knows there's no proposal to locate a nuclear waste dump on native title land in South Australia. But when we let fact and truth get in the way of a rolling agenda aimed at painting a falsehood of permanent oppression—the Greens and Senator Thorpe are a one-act pony when it comes to Indigenous affairs. They seek to label and to perpetuate the myth of permanent victimhood over our Indigenous Australians for their own scurrilous political ends. Unlike Senator Thorpe and the Greens, I have faith in our Indigenous Australians.
I have faith in all Australians. I was raised to think of myself as a proud Australian woman. I also know that by recognising and applauding success, by providing checks and balances, by reviewing and carefully auditing performance and by always seeking to empower and improve we will prosper as a people and as a nation. Australia is a country of equal opportunity. It's not a country that should ever regard one group more or less equal than another and it should never be a country that perpetuates victimhood against any group. Notwithstanding my comments, we will support the bill.
In relation to the matter of transparency and accountability for funds raised by Senator Hanson, I can indicate that schedule 8 includes measures to improve the transparency, accountability and governance around native title corporation decision-making. But the particular focus in this bill is on membership, as Senator Hanson's identified. The amendments will do important things, though, that indirectly affect accountability for funds by removing the discretion of directors to refuse membership to a native title corporation where an applicant meets the eligibility requirements and has applied for membership in the required manner. They will require corporations to align the membership criteria with native title determination and also limit the grounds for cancelling membership to those provided for under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act—the C(ATSI) Act. As Senator Hanson knows, that's the one that deals primarily with financial accountability matters.
May I provide some answers to matters I took on notice yesterday. The first was in relation to a question asked by Senator Thorpe:
Minister, can you also inform me which mining companies asked the government to fix this problem for them?
I would like to address that question now so that it can be taken into account in dealing with the bill but also because the premise of the question isn't accurate. It assumes this bill came forward only because mining companies asked for it, and that is, in fact, false. In the wake of the 2017 McGlade decision, the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 was brought before the parliament. During the Senate inquiry for that bill, a number of stakeholders, including the National Native Title Council, raised concerns that McGlade may also have ramifications for section 31 agreements. Due to the urgent need to address the issues raised by McGlade that couldn't be properly considered at the time—and it deserved a proper consultation process that meaningfully involved everybody who has an interest in the sector, so a proper and extensive consultation process was undertaken.
The measures in schedule 9 of the bill to confirm the validity of these agreements are supported by a broad range of stakeholders in the native title sector. That includes the National Native Title Council, quite importantly, and its members, but it also includes peak mining groups such as the Minerals Council of Australia and the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies as well as state and territory governments. It is very important to note that this bill was not triggered by some request from mining companies; it was triggered by genuine concern raised in the Senate inquiry process from many stakeholders, including the National Native Title Council.
Finally, there was a question yesterday about who constituted the membership of the expert technical advisory group. I set out everyone that I understood was in the group, and I concluded by saying, 'As I understand it, industry wasn't a part of the expert technical advisory group.' I wasn't actually correct about that. If I can clarify: peak industry bodies were members of the expert technical advisory group, including the Minerals Council of Australia, the National Farmers Federation and the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia. The states and territories have also been closely engaged in the development of the bill, and they participated in the expert technical advisory group process, along with, as I mentioned yesterday, the National Native Title Council so that the design has a balanced process.
I've only been here four months, so I will learn people's names whilst I'm here: the senator over here brought up some interesting points which I actually agree with, surprisingly. I agree that there need to be accountability processes, absolutely. Minister, your party has received millions in donations from mining companies. The question is: have the mining companies bought your support for this bill?
Senator Thorpe, I'm not going to indulge this juvenile, unfounded narrative. I have made it very clear that the impetus for this bill was the Senate committee process that commenced in 2017. It was a product of the McGlade decision. You can speak to your base all you like, but it doesn't make it the truth.
Just a follow-up: Minister, have any of those companies donated to the Liberal Party because of this bill?
Senator Thorpe, you clearly didn't listen to my answer. The answer makes it very clear that this bill was not prompted by mining companies. This bill was prompted by the 2017 Senate inquiry process.
Minister, you claim it was a juvenile question. Why do these corporations donate to the Liberal Party? Do they not expect something in return?
Madam Chair, this is not a matter that is relevant to the bill. I'm happy to take questions directed to the bill. If Senator Whish-Wilson wants to make points about matters of electoral funding then he can do so in a manner that is appropriate.
I will take the opportunity to respond to that. Just yesterday we received the latest update on political donations in this country—$168 million to the Labor and Liberal parties in the last 12 months, mostly to the Liberal Party. Five per cent of donors contributed more than 50 per cent of those donations. It is the problem with our democracy and it is the problem with this place. For you to come in here and say that somehow that has nothing to do with this bill, this legislation before us—
The CHAIR: Senator Whish-Wilson, please resume your seat. Minister.
I have a point of order, Madam Chair. This is not relevant to the committee stage, so my point of order is relevance, and I would ask that we bring the matter back to the issues of the bill.
The CHAIR: I just remind the minister that Senator Thorpe, in her question, did relate it to native title, and Senator Whish-Wilson is doing a follow-up. It is a broad-ranging debate. Minister, you can choose whether to answer the question or not. Please continue, Senator Whish-Wilson, and then I'll go to Senator Dodson.
Had you been here a little bit longer, Minister, you would probably know that we do tend to have a wide-ranging debate, but actually this is directly relevant to what we are discussing here. I know you've been elevated recently and you're enjoying this debate, but how can you say that big mining companies donating to your political party don't want something in return? I'm not finished yet, Senator. You, of course, have the right to take a point of order, but I'd ask that you pay me the respect of hearing me out, even though you may not want to and you may not like what I'm saying. How can you say that these mining companies that give millions of dollars to your political party don't want something in return? It is legalised bribery, what happens through political donations. It is pay for play. You can say that perhaps it's not this exact issue, but how would you know, if you're not the person who's working the relationships with these large corporations, with these industries? We need to cap political donations in this country for this exact reason, because this is a democracy, and the public interest matters. While I accept that these big corporations and these industries do some public good—there's no doubt about that: they employ people and they contribute to our economies and our communities—what they want is not always in the public interest. There should be a fair, level playing field in terms of influence in this place. That was Senator Thorpe's question. It was about political influence. What kind of influence do these companies have? It is directly relevant to this debate. I'm just taking my own longwinded point of order on your saying that this was a juvenile question. It goes to the heart of the problems in this place and in our democracy and with this bill.
The CHAIR: Senator Thorpe, I indicated I was giving the call to Senator Dodson. Sorry, Minister; did you wish to respond?
If that was meant to be a question, I think I should answer it, and the answer is: I gave a full answer to Senator Thorpe's question. It was that this is not prompted by any kind of donation process. This is prompted by the 2017 inquiry process. All of the evidence shows it, and no amount of condescension from Senator Whish-Wilson changes the fact that that is the genesis of this bill, and the consultation process that has emerged shows that it is one that is supported by all of the stakeholders relevant to it, including the National Native Title Council. Thank you for the indulgence, Senator Dodson.
Minister, I want to thank you for your commitment to the review of the act by the social justice commissioner. For clarity, are you able to say whether the review will be in accordance with section 209 of the Native Title Act?
I'm instructed that the answer is yes.
Minister, given that any comprehensive review of the Native Title Act will require significant resources—we are speaking about resources, for example, to engage with traditional owners in remote locations—can you provide the parliament information about what additional resources will be provided to the commissioner and to the native title rep bodies and PBCs to enable this review to be effective?
At this stage, the intention is for the review to be done within the existing resources of the social justice commissioner.
Minister, can you tell me what your understanding is of cultural practices around decision-making for clans and nations around what they allow or do not allow to happen on country?
The relevant point, I think, Senator Thorpe—I'm not going to speak to you chapter and verse, because you know this very well; as you have said frequently, you're an Indigenous native title holder yourself—what's important about this bill is that it allows native title holders to, in a sense, choose their own adventure, because they can do things in a way that is relevant to their group's customs and practices. Through the mechanism for imposing conditions on the exercise of authority there is the ability to use a decision-making process that works for them so that it can truly reflect the diversity of the ways in which decision-making can occur across different communities.
Minister, if you don't understand how clans and nations make decision-making processes, then why is this bill being introduced? What's happening on the ground out there is that traditional owners in their thousands are being excluded from decision-making that ultimately destroys country or gives country away. If you don't have an understanding of cultural practice in terms of decision-making, then how is this bill relevant? How can you put this bill forward?
Senator Thorpe, I don't accept the premise of your question. I didn't say that at all, so I have nothing further to add.
Minister, why are you trying to impose a majority decision-making process on clans and nations that have been acting by consensus for over 80, 90, 100,000 years?
To be very clear, the majority rule is a default one. Any clan that wishes to adopt a decision-making model that requires consensus or unanimity is a matter entirely for them; they can impose conditions to that effect. I think we have made it very clear in this debate that the ability to impose a process that suits the practices of a particular group is remaining entirely in their hands.
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (13) on sheet 1185 together:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 2 to 4), omit the table items.
(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 5 to 7), omit the table items, substitute:
(3) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 8 to 11), omit the table items.
(4) Schedules 1 and 2, page 4 (line 1) to page 24 (line 5), to be opposed.
(5) Schedule 3, heading to Part 1, page 25 (line 2), omit the heading, substitute:
Part 1—Crown land areas (including park areas)
(6) Schedule 3, heading to Division 1, page 25 (line 3), omit the heading.
(7) Schedule 3, item 1, page 25 (line 11), omit "such as national parks etc.", substitute "of Crown land, including national parks etc.,"
(8) Schedule 3, item 2, page 25 (line 15), omit the heading to section 47C, substitute:
47C Agreed Crown land (including national parks etc.) covered by native title applications
(9) Schedule 3, item 2, page 25 (line 16) to page 26 (line 7), omit subsection 47C(1), substitute:
When section applies
(1) This section applies if:
(a) a claimant application or a revised native title determination application is made in relation to an area that is, or is part of, an area that is:
(i) Crown land (see subsection (11)); or
(ii) covered by a freehold estate held by the Crown, or a statutory authority of the Crown, in any of its capacities; and
(b) the operation of this section in relation to an area (the agreement area) that is in an onshore place and comprises the whole or a part of the area referred to in paragraph (a), has been agreed to in writing by:
(i) any registered native title body corporate concerned or the applicant for any native title claim group concerned; and
(ii) in the case of an area that is a park area—whichever of the Commonwealth, the State or the Territory by or under whose law the park area was set aside, or the interest over the park area was granted or vested, as mentioned in subsection (3); and
(iii) in the case of an area other than a park area—whichever of the Commonwealth, the State or the Territory is the Crown in respect of the area; and
(c) none of sections 47, 47A and 47B applies in relation to the agreement area.
(10) Schedule 3, item 2, page 26 (line 8), omit "paragraph (1) (c)", substitute "paragraph (1) (a)".
(11) Schedule 3, item 5, page 29 (line13), omit "national parks etc.", substitute "agreed crown land (including national parks etc.)".
(12) Schedule 3, Division 2, page 31 (lines 8 to 19), to be opposed.
(13) Schedules 4 to 9, page 33 (line 1) to page 60 (line 14), to be opposed.
The CHAIR: Senator Thorpe, even though you have moved the amendments together, the two questions will be put separately.
The question is that schedules 1 and 2 and 4 to 9 and division 2 of schedule 3 stand as printed.
The question now is that amendments (1) to (3) and (5) to (11) on sheet 1185 be agreed to.
I move:
That the bill be read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Economic Disruption) Bill 2020. I will say from the outset that Labor supports these reforms. Labor has consistently argued that Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing framework must continue to evolve to counter attempts by actors to thwart it. Now, more than ever, the risk of money laundering and terrorism financing remains significant as criminals and terrorists seek to stay one step in front of the law. It's a race we cannot afford to lose. Money laundering and terrorism financing are issues not just here in Australia; they are global problems facing many countries. They threaten to undermine Australia's national security and destroy the integrity of our financial system if left unchecked. So Labor welcomes efforts by the Morrison government to improve our anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing framework. Australia cannot afford to be a weak link in the global financial chain, nor can it be a soft touch for organised criminals around the world seeking to launder the proceeds of their crime.
It is unfortunate, however, that Australia still lags significantly behind our international counterparts in this field. It's appropriate that a government led by Scott Morrison, a former advertising man, has made Australia such an attractive destination for a very niche audience. As a nation our laws have lagged behind, so we have become a target for nefarious actors wishing to exploit our soft defences.
The Morrison government has repeatedly missed deadlines in its own anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing reform timetable. This latest legislation comes more than four years after the then Minister for Justice tabled the Report on the Statutory Review of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 and Associated Rules and Regulations which first called for these changes in March 2016. Nearly five years later, this legislation fails to implement many of these 2016 recommendations. While other countries have strengthened their defences against the proceeds of criminal and corrupt business practices, the Morrison government has left the door open for illicit capital to flood into Australia.
The world's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing watchdog, the Financial Action Task Force, has expressed serious concerns about Australia's regulatory framework in regard to these issues and this government's failure to implement reforms according to its own timetable. These concerns are why the FATF placed Australia on an enhanced follow-up remediation program in 2015 following a major evaluation of Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing framework which found major noncompliance with international best practice in several areas. The FATF's 2015 mutual evaluation report made clear that Australia is 'an attractive destination for foreign proceeds of crime, particularly corruption related proceeds flowing into real estate'. Serious and sustained breaches of FATF standards and obligations can result in jurisdictions being greylisted or blacklisted, increasing the cost of doing international business and restricting access to international finance.
There are growing risks to Australia from the failure of this government to fully implement either the FATF or the statutory review's recommendations. Other jurisdictions have been able to race ahead of Australia with much stronger protections. This year, Australian banks reportedly unknowingly washed over $500 million for violent South American cocaine cartels with the proceeds of crime moving through multiple countries before they were finally disrupted by Australian law enforcement. This is clear proof that while Prime Minister Scott Morrison has underperformed in his position, his failure to implement basic anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing measures has made Australia an attractive destination for criminals and terrorists to launder money. We can't afford to be a soft touch for these criminals. Australia needs to ensure its anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing laws are compliant with international best practice. It is unacceptable that Australia remains behind its international counterparts in this crucial area, but the government has been slow to even make a start on bringing on Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing laws and making them up to scratch. The FATF's 2015 report noted that Australia lacked focus on 'addressing risk from abuse of complex corporate structures' and that authorities were challenged to present convincing evidence about what outcomes their efforts were achieving. This, as well as the government's failure to properly enforce existing laws, meant that no action was taken against Westpac until it had breached AML/CTF laws 23 million times. This is obviously unacceptable.
Indeed, an ongoing New South Wales Independent Liquor & Gaming Authority inquiry into Crown casino has revealed shocking noncompliance with money-laundering laws by Australian casinos and junket operators, even going as far as being accused of turning a blind eye or being recklessly indifferent to money laundering. But AUSTRAC, the government's own regulator, gave these risky casino junket operations its tick of approval only three years ago. Since then, tens of billions of dollars have poured into Australia through these channels. Labor had to fight to get AUSTRAC to release its full 2017 report into casino junkets. Initially, AUSTRAC would only release a heavily redacted report. It was when Labor senators moved an order for the production of documents, which forced the government to release the document, that we found out that AUSTRAC had warned the government, back in 2017, that there were major gaps in the regulation of junkets in 2017. AUSTRAC went on to say that compliance by casinos appeared to be generally more with the letter than the spirit of the law. Casinos use these technicalities to absolve themselves of conducting robust due diligence in relation to the source of the funds presented to them.' AUSTRAC was concerned that casinos appeared to underestimate money-laundering risks involved in the provision of junket services. While there was a theoretical acceptance that junkets may be exploited, it was AUSTRAC's view that this possibility was not taken seriously. These are all quotes from that report.
So we asked: did the government proactively release this information in 2017? No, it did not. We asked: did the government work to close these regulatory gaps in 2017? No, they did not. And what was the result? It was through the work of Nick McKenzie from Nine News and later the New South Wales casino inquiry that it became obvious that there was widespread money laundering and terrorism financing. That's how it was exposed. This was happening under the noses of this government. The government had this information in 2021 and yet did nothing. It's worrying that we've needed a New South Wales casino inquiry to bring systemic breaches of money-laundering laws to light, given the profound responsibility of the government to protect all Australians from money launderers and the funders of terrorism.
We need to get Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing laws right. It's too important to get it wrong. Labor will not oppose this much delayed legislation, but we do call on the Morrison government to take anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing laws seriously. If nobody follows up on this, we are going to be left susceptible in the battle that we must engage in against money launderers and terrorism financing.
The coalition government firmly believe in enforcing the rule of law and holding law-breakers to account. The introduction of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Economic Disruption) Bill 2020 demonstrates our commitment. This bill is a significant step forward in the Morrison government's fight against transnational, serious and organised crime groups.
As a government we are committed to ensuring that Australians are protected from all crimes, but transnational, serious and organised crime—or TSOC, as it's known—has significant impacts on our communities, our economy and our national security. TSOC groups are systematically affecting the health, wealth and safety of Australian citizens through abhorrent conduct such as illicit drug trafficking, mass fraud and child exploitation. Corruption and money laundering do real harm to people, hold back development and undermine confidence in government and public institutions.
The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Economic Disruption) Bill 2020 deals with the fact that money laundering is an important aspect of serious crime. Money laundering is an important aspect of fraud, terrorism, human trafficking and supporting totalitarian regimes. We must deal with these issues properly. By introducing the new measures in this legislation to tackle money laundering, we are helping to ensure that Australian dollars are not being used to support these criminal organisations.
According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, each year TSOC organisations cost Australia up to $47.4 billion. But when indirect social impacts are considered the true cost is immeasurable. It is estimated that money laundering alone now costs more than US $1 trillion globally. TSOC groups have evolved into sophisticated, multinational businesses that are primarily driven by a profit motive, with no care or concern for the people who their actions are affecting. TSOC groups operate as sophisticated and compartmentalised businesses, generating huge profits from their criminal pursuits.
In order to clean their proceeds of crime and realise these profits, the TSOC business model relies on money laundering. This allows profits to be concealed and reinvested in further criminal activity used to fund lavish lifestyles or to funnel money to terrorism and other nefarious activities. These groups are so sophisticated that they are deliberately structuring their operations to avoid prosecution. They are well financed and are intent on retaining their profits through any means necessary. The Morrison government do not accept that this is good enough. We believe Australia needs a tough regime and that destroying their business model through this bill will create just that.
Under the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Economic Disruption) Bill 2020 we are enhancing key laws to take the profit out of crime, striking at the heart of criminal business models and reducing its impact on everyday Australians. This bill seeks to attack transnational, serious and organised crime groups by targeting the illicit wealth that sustains them. This bill is designed to remove TSOC from our country and our economy, giving honest Australians a fair go. This bill includes an overhaul of the Commonwealth's money-laundering offences in the Criminal Code to address the increasingly complex methods employed by TSOC actors. It will strengthen money-laundering offences by targeting money-laundering networks that deal with illicit property at arm's length, those that remain wilfully blind to its criminal origins and those who actively seek to conceal these origins.
TSOC networks are typically led by controllers who issue directions to others to launder criminal profits while keeping themselves at arm's length to avoid criminal liability. The person who physically deals with the money or property is intentionally kept ignorant of its criminal origins. This bill says, 'Enough is enough.' We are changing the current legislation so that our law enforcement officers can effectively target the controllers at the heart of the operation by treating them as though they deal with the criminal money or property themselves, and they are punished accordingly.
The bill also strengthens criminal asset confiscation laws by enhancing information-gathering powers, preventing criminals from buying back property, improving powers to preserve the value of seized property and clarifying key provisions to ensure that illicit overseas property and benefits obtained through the criminal avoidance, deferral or reduction of a loss, duty or liability can be confiscated. This bill also strengthens undercover operations by clarifying that undercover operatives are not bound by the same obligations as identifiable law enforcement officers. This includes the obligations to caution a person who is under arrest or a protected suspect before starting questioning.
Operational experience has demonstrated a willingness by suspects to obstruct the information-gathering process. This means that the offences for noncompliance are currently impractical to enforce. This bill also seeks to enhance the ability of law enforcement to enforce compliance with the information-gathering powers in the Proceeds of Crime Act. These powers provide law enforcement with valuable information about an individual's property and its potential links to crime.
Make no mistake: if you are engaged in transnational, serious or organised crime, the Morrison government is coming for you. We will catch you. We will arrest you and try you in court. We will disrupt your network and we will confiscate your property. The Australian public are sick and tired of organised crime gangs thinking they can come into our country and run amok. Every TSOC organisation working in Australia is having a negative effect on the health, wealth and safety of Australian citizens. With this bill, the Morrison government says, 'Enough is enough.' I'll say it again: enough is enough. As a government we are proud of our tough stance on crime, and these amendments to the crime legislation will make it harder for offenders to evade the reach of our law enforcement.
I want to conclude by saying that I'm grateful for the work of all members of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, chaired by my good friend and colleague Senator Stoker, for their work in reviewing this legislation. It is a very technical piece of legislation, but it is vitally important for protecting Australians. Finally, I say thank you very much to the wonderful men and women who work in law enforcement. Their contribution to our national security does not go unnoticed by those of us in this place.
I rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Economic Disruption) Bill 2020. This bill introduces amendments to adapt and update money-laundering offences in an attempt to combat modern money-laundering networks, which have become increasingly sophisticated, and to enhance asset confiscation laws and strengthen undercover operations.
Together, these proposed amendments would increase the pressure on the growing strengths of transnational, serious and organised crime groups by targeting the financial benefits they gain from their illegal activities. As a result of a lack of action by the coalition government over the past seven years, Australia has slipped in its defence against criminal practices and allowed criminal enterprises to flood illegal assets and money into Australia. That's happened under this government's watch. The Australian Institute of Criminology estimated that transnational, serious and organised crime groups—TSOC—cost Australia up to $47.4 billion per year. Money laundering remains a fundamental enabler of almost all TSOC activities, and it's grown in scope and complexity as once-localised activity now has a global reach and there is a wide range of products and channels available to them for transferring money around the world.
We must acknowledge that Australia is home to stolen assets that have been shifted across borders. The Australian Federal Police have reported they restrained more than $250 million in criminal assets in courts across Australia and overseas last financial year—and I acknowledge the work that the AFP does in this country and beyond. Criminal organisations operate as sophisticated and compartmentalised businesses, generating huge profits from their criminal pursuits. In order to clean their proceeds of crime and realise profits, the TSOC business model relies on money laundering. This allows profits to be concealed and reinvested in further criminal activities or used to fund extravagant lifestyles.
These criminal organisations always aim to be one step ahead of the law. That's why it is so important for the government to be extremely agile in responding to constantly evolving threats and challenges. Our world is highly globalised and we face threats that aren't and are never going to be constrained by borders. In order to keep in step, the bill has seven schedules and will propose to amend the Crimes Act 1914, the Criminal Code Act 1995, the COAG Reform Act 2008 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to do the following: it will update Commonwealth money-laundering offences to address the behaviour of modern money-laundering networks, it will remove unnecessary obstacles to securing convictions and it will introduce new sentencing thresholds.
It clarifies that the obligations imposed on investigating officials under part 9 of the criminal act do not apply to undercover operations. It will ensure that buyback orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act cannot be used by criminal suspects and their associates to buy back property forfeited to the Commonwealth or to delay Proceeds of Crime Act proceedings. It will also clarify that the POC Act permits courts to make orders confiscating the value of a debt, loss or liability that has been avoided, deferred or reduced through criminal offences.
It clarifies the operation of the Proceeds of Crime Act in relation to restraint and confiscation of property located overseas. It will strengthen information-gathering powers under the POC Act by increasing penalties for noncompliance and clarifying the circumstances in which information gathered under these powers can be disclosed and used. Finally, it will expand the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy's powers to deal with property, to gather information and to recover costs under the Proceeds of Crime Act to allow the official trustee to discharge its functions in a more cost-effective manner.
Labor welcomes efforts by the government to improve our anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financial framework, and we support this legislation. But we must note that this bill comes almost five years after the then Minister for Justice tabled the report on the Report on the statutory review of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 and associated rules and regulations, which first called for these changes to be made back in March 2016. Five years later, this legislation fails to implement many of those recommendations.
The world's watchdog, the Financial Action Task Force, has expressed serious concerns about Australia's regulatory framework and this government's failure to implement reforms according to its own timetable. So, while government senators come in here and pat themselves on the back, this should have happened at the very least in 2016. While other countries have strengthened their defences against the proceeds of crime and corruption business practices, this government has sat back and allowed illegal capital to stream into this country. It was again recommended in 2017 when an ongoing New South Wales Independent Liquor & Gaming Authority inquiry into Crown casino revealed shocking noncompliance with money-laundering laws by Australian casinos and junket operators. Despite these findings, AUSTRAC—this government's own regulator—gave these risky casino junket operations its tick of approval only three years ago. Since then, tens of billions of dollars have poured into Australia through these channels.
To get even this information, Labor had to fight to get AUSTRAC to release in full its 2017 report. Only after Labor senators moved an order for the production of documents, which forced the government to release the document, did we find out that AUSTRAC warned the government, back in 2017, that there were major gaps in the regulation of junkets in 2017. AUSTRAC then conceded that casinos were using technicalities to pardon themselves of conducting robust due diligence in relation to sources of funds presented to them. AUSTRAC was concerned that casinos appeared to underestimate the risks of money laundering involved in the provision of junket services. Did the government proactively release this information in 2017? No. Did the government work to close these regulatory gaps in 2017? No. What was the result? Only because of the work of Nick McKenzie from the Nine papers and later the New South Wales casino inquiry was widespread money laundering and terrorism financing exposed. Right under the noses of this government, right under the nose of Mr Morrison, money laundering and terrorism financing has been occurring. The government had this information in 2017, and they did nothing. It's concerning that we've needed a New South Wales casino inquiry to bring systemic breaches of money-laundering laws to light. Getting Australia's anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing laws right is too important to get wrong.
Labor will not oppose this much-needed delayed legislation, but we do call on the Morrison government to take anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing laws seriously. A report undertaken by The Australian Financial Review last week found that Australian banks washed $500 million for violent South American drug cartels in a sophisticated money-laundering scheme. Between 2014 and 2017, more than $100 million in drug money was funnelled through Australian banks each year before it was routed to other destinations throughout South-East Asia and the Middle East. Once the money was in Australia, illegal profits were used to buy high-end electronics that were shipped overseas in order to move the funds, avoiding detection. What really shows here is that, in this area, as in so many other parts of this government's agenda, there is a vast gap between the rhetoric and the follow-through that undermines it. It's not good enough in any respect but particularly when we consider the risk of money laundering and terrorism financing. Money laundering is a real and pervasive threat to Australia, and it's about time that the Morrison government enacted some legislation that attempts to keep in line with the strength and the stealth of international criminal organisations. If the law does not continue to evolve in Australia, it will be more desirable to the international criminal organisations. That's not the sort of reputation Australia wants.
We must remember that it is about money laundering as an integral aspect of fraud, terrorism, human trafficking and transporting the illegal assets of violent criminal enterprises. The last thing Australians want is to become easy pickings for the money-laundering and terrorism financiers. Our framework must continue to evolve. We must continue to strengthen our laws and the Morrison government must do more to stay ahead of the curve and maintain our domestic security and integrity.
We know that our men and women who work in this area do a fantastic job, but they need to be supported by good, strong legislation, which this government was elected to provide. We on this side of the chamber will continue to hold this government to account and to do all that we can to disrupt the workings of serious organised criminal enterprises. The way to do that is to have strong legislation to ensure the AFP has agility and powers, and that the government stays ahead of the curve when it comes to these criminal organisations.
I thank all senators for their contributions to this debate. I also thank the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for its recommendation that the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Economic Disruption) Bill 2020 be passed without amendments. I note that the addendum to the bill's explanatory memorandum was tabled in the House of Representatives on 10 December last year, which responds to specific concerns raised by both the Senate Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. During debate on the bill, the opposition recommended that the government regulate lawyers, accountants and real estate agents under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006. The Australian government is absolutely committed to continually improving Australia's AML and CTF regime and is working with businesses to ensure that Australia's financial system is hardened against criminals and terrorists without placing an undue regulatory burden on industry.
The government is taking a phased approach to reforming this regime. This phased approach allows for effective consultation with stakeholders and staggers the regulatory impact, which will ultimately result in a higher level of compliance by businesses regulated under the regime. Expanding the existing regime to lawyers, accountants and real estate agents would capture as many as 100,000 additional businesses, the majority of which are small businesses, sole traders or practitioners. It would also have a significant resourcing impact on the regulator AUSTRAC, which would need to oversee compliance by all of these businesses. Such an extension must be consulted on in a careful and considered way, with affected industries being fully consulted.
This bill is a significant next step forward in the Morrison government's fight against transnational serious and organised criminal groups. These groups harm our communities, our economy and our nation's security. That is why combating transnational serious and organised crime groups is a key priority for this government. These groups eat away at the heart of our society, mercilessly pursuing profits at the expense of the health, the prosperity and the safety of ordinary Australians. This bill takes the profit out of crime by strengthening money-laundering offences, criminal asset confiscation and controlled operations, ensuring that law enforcement has appropriate powers to cut off the lifeblood of organised crime. I commend this bill to the chamber.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak on the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Mandatory Credit Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2019. At the outset, I can confirm that Labor will be supporting the bill alongside the constructive amendments being proposed by the government to improve the bill. This bill legislates the requirement for major banks and credit providers to make available detailed credit information to credit-reporting bodies, with the aim of supporting credit providers to better meet responsible lending obligations. It also provides protections for consumers to ensure that the supply of credit information isn't abused by unscrupulous operators within the sector.
Schedule 1 will require the major banks to supply detailed credit information to credit-reporting agencies, and it's worth noting that this element of the bill will have no immediate effect, because all eligible major banks already supply detailed credit information to the agencies. Schedule 2, however, sets out new standards for how people in financial hardship should be treated by the credit-reporting agencies. The new standard will create two categories of hardship flags that may be placed into the credit reports of individuals. The distinction between these two categories is that the hardship flags will set out whether the individual has a permanent variation or a temporary variation to their credit obligations. As I will talk about later in my remarks, this distinction is important for the protection of consumers.
Broadly, credit reporting matters. It's a procompetitive measure, and it supports competition in the financial industry. In particular, it allows smaller banks and lenders who do not have access to significant amounts of financial data to make better lending decisions. The credit-reporting system must be, however, as transparent as possible so that consumers can access, understand and seek corrections of their credit-reporting history. The current framework in the Privacy Act does not adequately support transparency of credit-reporting information. Individuals are only allowed to access a free copy of their credit information once every year or in other very specific circumstances. Credit-reporting agencies have also used loopholes in the Privacy Act to refrain from disclosing credit scores. As a result, these agencies have developed a very profitable side business in selling individuals access to their own data, their own personal credit history. Labor believes that individuals should have access to their individual information and that that access should be timely.
I mentioned earlier that this bill establishes flags for people who are experiencing financial hardship, and they will be placed into the credit reports of individuals. These hardship indicators are important. They will better distinguish between customers who are experiencing long-term hardship and require a permanent variation to their credit obligations and customers who experience a temporary variation to their credit obligations. This will be an incredibly important consumer protection. It will allow customers the space to access hardship provisions without undue fear that their credit rating will be negatively affected into the future. By allowing customers access to these more nuanced provisions, the bill seeks to ensure the continued flow of credit in the community and in the economy and to allow customers to access legitimate hardship provisions before their financial situation deteriorates beyond repair.
The real thing is this: many people do experience hardship, but, if they are given temporary support by their lender, they are able to work their way through situations in life where they experience such hardship. But, once they are out of that situation, the hardship classification should not last forever on their credit file. Addressing this requirement will remove barriers that inhibit customers from accessing hardship provisions. It'll be better for credit providers and for customers. It will allow credit providers to receive the money they are rightfully owed and will ensure that customers continue to make repayments within their means.
We can consider an example of this kind: if a person with a credit arrangement with their bank loses their property and their business as a result of a bushfire—and I've met a person in exactly this circumstance—this person will experience a period of immense and, frankly, tragic hardship. They will experience a period of time out of work or with disrupted income flows. The lender is aware of the circumstances that've caused this situation. They understand that the person has been affected by circumstances well beyond their control. The person goes to the bank and says, 'I need a holiday on my repayments because of this hardship.' The bank agrees and puts in place an informal suspension of repayment requirements. For the most part that suspension will not constitute a variation to the credit contract so the credit contract with the bank remains in place, but there is an informal agreement between the bank and the creditor. At the moment, the hardship's flagged within the bank system but it's not passed on to the credit reporting agency. What is passed on is the repayment history and what the repayment history shows without the additional piece of information is that the repayment history has been interrupted. The problem is this: that informal arrangement creates a situation where information is passed on to the national reporting agency that affects the customer's credit score but doesn't really reflect their actual financial circumstances. It's inaccurate, it's unfair and it's something we need to deal with.
It's disappointing, given the disruptions caused to so many people's lives as a result of the 2019-20 summer bushfires, that it's taken this long for the legislation to come before the Senate. It's high time that the parliament ensures that an initial hardship, visited on somebody as a result of an occurrence like a natural disaster well beyond their control, isn't compounded by the fact that they have a hard to repair interruption to their repayment history information. Labor wants that fixed.
As I mentioned earlier, access to information is also critical. Labor believes there is a need to ensure that the current credit reporting arrangements allow more frequent and more detailed access to information for consumers. We want to ensure that consumers have access to the information that relates to them. There are two reasons. Firstly, it's their information. There might be errors in that information or the need for them to repair some of that credit history information. Secondly, it's an information asymmetry. Quite often, if someone is going to take out a new loan or apply for the refinancing of a loan, the bank has access to the information but the individual consumer may not. We want to ensure that in those circumstances they have access.
Under current arrangements, the current framework within the Privacy Act, individuals are only allowed to access a free copy of their credit information once every year. In addition, under the current arrangements, reporting agencies have used loopholes within the Privacy Act to refrain from disclosing what is known as credit scores. As a result, credit reporting agencies have developed quite a profitable side business charging customers to access their own personal credit history.
We support amendments that will allow individuals to access a copy of their credit information held by a credit reporting agency. These changes will require derived or generated credit scores to be disclosed to individuals as part of their right to access their own credit information. They will require the individuals to receive a statement, summarising the key determinates of their credit score, as part of their right of access to credit information. These propositions are strongly supported by consumer advocates.
It's worth pointing out that similar provisions currently exist in New Zealand and have done nothing to undermine the capacity of credit providers to offer services. We don't believe, on the information that's available to us, that the provisions will impose any significant new cost on the credit reporting industry. However, they will provide additional rights to consumers and additional competition benefits to the sector as a whole.
Labor proposed amendments to the bill to improve transparency of the credit reporting system. We've had a constructive dialogue with the government and we welcome their willingness to bring forward these amendments in the Senate and thank them for their accommodation of these sensible proposals. As I have already alluded to, these amendments strengthen this legislation by allowing individuals to access a copy of their credit information, held by a credit reporting agency, for free every three months and requiring the derived or generated credit scores to be disclosed to individuals as part of their right to access credit information. We also require a statement to be provided to individuals that summarises the key determinates of their credit score, as part of their right to access credit information. Consumer advocates are strongly in support.
I do want to make a comment in relation to the second reading amendment that I believe will be moved by Senator McKim. It goes to another piece of legislation and makes reference to the government's baffling decision to remove incredibly important lending protections for consumers. The Liberal Party have never been in favour of a financial system that serves Australia. Their highest priority, as evidenced over years and years and years of public statements and policy decisions, has been in favour of a financial system which serves the interests of their mates in the big banks. It's the only way to explain voting 26 times against establishing a royal commission. They have never had a vision beyond what their mates in the banking sector tell them over a very nice lunch. The National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill—an Orwellian title if there ever was one—will strip back responsible lending obligations from almost all consumer credit contracts. It is quite unbelievable that they would have the audacity to bring forward legislation of this kind after the information that was made public, the scandals that were made public through the banking royal commission.
Indeed, the legislation goes directly against the first recommendation of the royal commission, which explicitly told the government not to fiddle with the responsible lending obligations. These obligations were put in place by Labor in 2009 to ensure that banks and lenders made sure their credit products were suitable for their customers. They were designed precisely to prevent the sort of behaviour that we saw in the global financial crisis. And this bill is nothing less than a free kick for the big banks, stripping away necessary protective legislation just to save a few bucks on paperwork. It will also undermine the credit reporting system we're talking about today, a system which we support and which is intended to help banks lend responsibly. And in supporting the amendment that will be moved by Senator McKim, we want the government to know that the Australian people don't want them to give the banks another free kick.
As I said, we're in support of the legislation before us today. It was first proposed in the last parliament. It has been sitting in the current parliament for over a year. Like most things this government is seeking to do, it progresses with no real urgency. But Australians experiencing financial hardship will benefit from these reforms, which allow them more access to their own information and ensure that they're not tied to periods of financial hardship in credit reporting systems for any period longer than is absolutely necessary. I commend this bill and the amendments that will be proposed by the government to the Senate.
As we've heard, the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Mandatory Credit Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2019 will require banks to provide more information about the credit history of their customers to credit bureaus. The theory is that credit bureaus will be able to better inform banks about a potential new customer's creditworthiness. Therefore, banks are more likely to provide loans or to not provide loans appropriate to a customer's circumstance. Currently banks are required to report negative data about customers to credit bureaus—that is, payment defaults, bankruptcies and court judgements for example. This bill would require banks, starting with the major banks, to report positive credit data—that is, loan details and repayment history for example.
This bill implements the recommendation of the 2014 Murray financial system inquiry that positive credit reporting should be mandated, if banks don't do it voluntarily. And, completely unsurprisingly, banks haven't done it voluntarily. The Murray inquiry stated that comprehensive credit reporting would reduce information imbalances between lenders and borrowers; facilitate borrowers switching between lenders and greater competition; likely improve credit conditions for borrowers, including small and medium-size businesses; and reduce the likelihood loans will default.
In Australia the promise of comprehensive credit reporting fits within the framework established by the National Consumer Credit Protection Act. By giving banks access to more complete information about a potential customer, comprehensive credit reporting should better enable banks to meet the requirements of the act—namely, that they assess whether a loan would be unsuitable for a customer before providing it. However—and there is so often a 'however' with this government—the trouble is that this government is systematically trying to dismantle the very framework of consumer credit protection that this bill is built onto. At the very same time that the Senate is being asked to mandate the sharing of customer information so that banks can better assess the suitability of a loan, this government is seeking to abolish the requirement that banks must assess the suitability of a loan.
Here's the Treasurer, Mr Frydenberg, on introducing this bill:
Credit providers will have a more complete picture of a consumer's financial situation. This will help them to better price credit and meet their responsible lending obligations.
That's the Treasurer explaining in the other place how this bill will help banks meet their responsible lending obligations.
Those are the very same responsible lending obligations that the Treasurer is now trying to abolish. Those are the responsible lending obligations that the then assistant minister to the Treasurer, Mr Sukkar, when introducing the original version of this bill into the 45th Parliament, said 'are an important part of consumer protection arrangements'. These are the responsible lending obligations that Commissioner Hayne said should not be amended, in recommendation 1.1 of the banking royal commission that the government under former Prime Minister Turnbull was dragged kicking and screaming into proposing and supporting because former Prime Minister Turnbull had lost the numbers on the floor of the House and could not guarantee that the House would not impose that banking royal commission, against the wishes of the Prime Minister and the government.
I can tell you now exactly what the government's going to get up and say. They're going to try and spin recommendation 1.1 to mean something that Commissioner Hayne did not mean it to mean. That's what they're going to do; I've heard it before, and we're all about to hear it again. I counsel people who are listening to this to understand that Commissioner Hayne's primary recommendation out of the banking royal commission that exposed systemic criminal conduct by our banks—a culture of greed, a culture of profit over everything—said, 'Do not change responsible lending obligations.' The ordinary English language meaning of those words is now being ignored by the government, and they are doing exactly what Commissioner Hayne recommended they not do. They couldn't make the banks abide by the law, so they're changing the law to abide by the banks—their corporate mates.
This is a government of shields for big corporate donors. The dirty, corrupting influence of political donations is writ large in so much of what this government does. Those responsible lending obligations that the government is trying to abolish, if they are properly enforced, are what stand between the banks being held to the service of their customers and the broader public, and they are what prevent the banks from basically becoming loan sharks. But this government wants to enable the banks to become loan sharks, because that will increase the profits of the big corporate banking sector in this country. Whatever value there is in introducing comprehensive credit reporting, it is being completely undermined by this government's attempts to repeal responsible lending laws.
This might look like completely incoherent policy making. I'm sure that's how it looks to a lot of people, but it's actually far more cynical than simple incoherence and incompetence. When you understand that this is a government of its mates, by its mates, for its mates, then this apparent incoherence actually makes perfect sense. It makes perfect sense when you see it through the prism of the latest donations data that's just been released this week. It shows that all the major banks are now back in the game. NAB and ANZ both took a hiatus in recent years under the pall of the royal commission and a momentary need to not look like the puppet masters that they are. But they're now back in the game; that facade is gone. In 2019-20, all big four banks donated. In fact, in total they donated $280,000 to the LNP and $260,000 to the ALP. Over half a million dollars was donated by the major banks to the major parties, basically with a fifty-fifty split—that is the very definition of hedging by the big banks. And it's working for them. Whatever needs to be done to keep the banks happy, this government will do. Political donations in this country are nothing more than legalised bribery. For this government to deliver for their corporate puppet masters, their corporate donors, if it means abandoning the first and primary recommendation of the royal commission under the cover of a pandemic, then that's exactly what they're going to do and, in fact, that is exactly what they are doing.
Beyond the interaction with responsible lending obligations, the Greens have concerns with some of the functioning of this bill, namely how information is being portrayed and consumer access to the information. To that end, we'll be supporting the government's amendment that places conditions on the provision of information related to hardship conditions entered into between a customer and their bank and requires credit bureaus to provide customers with their credit rating.
In respect of credit reports, the government's amendment is a watered-down version of an amendment circulated by Senator Whish-Wilson to the original version of this bill. The Greens would have preferred the use of the term 'credit derived information' to be clear that credit bureaus should give customers any and all interpretations of their credit data. It's unclear whether the government's amendment as worded will ensure customers see exactly what the banks see. The importance of providing customers with access to their credit scores was highlighted in 2018 when Equifax was handed a $3.5 million fine by the Federal Court for misleading, deceptive and unconscionable conduct. Equifax told consumers that the credit score that customers paid for was the same credit score used by banks, but that was not always the case. Equifax was not giving the same information to consumers about themselves that they were giving to the banks.
This gets us to a broader issue that the Australian Greens have, which is who this information being given to and who it's not being given to. This bill will require the data on tens of millions of Australians to be given to three multinational credit bureaus—Equifax, Experian and illion—whose business models are to derive credit scores for sale to banks. As was demonstrated by the Federal Court finding against Equifax, these multinationals are not particularly interested in helping consumers; they're simply interested in making obscene profits. Neither have they shown any particular interest in protecting consumers' privacy. In 2017, Equifax suffered a security breach in which the data of up to 143 million US citizens was compromised. In some ways, both of Equifax's transgressions are what you might expect when multinational private entities have a regulated oligopoly from which to profit. They've got the market sewn up around the world, so why would they care about their consumers and the public good?
There is an alternative, of course. A number of European countries have a public credit register. France, Italy, Belgium, Spain, Portugal and Slovenia have public credit registries that play a major role in collecting and collating credit information. These public credit registers are subject to parliamentary oversight and are a source of de-identified data for governments and financial regulators to help inform their understanding of financial markets and of the broader economy.
It's no surprise that the government are advocating a market based solution to a market based problem. That's what they always do and it's what they tell us they stand for. But when considering how to provide a universal system for collecting, storing and sharing consumer banking data we will be much better served by a public provider whose role is to clearly act in the interest of consumers and the wider public.
Faced with a choice between the status quo or this bill the Australian Greens will support this bill, assuming that the government's amendment succeeds. But this support is based on the assumption that this bill will improve the functioning of the existing consumer credit protection framework.
On that basis, I move the Greens second reading amendment on sheet 1190:
At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) when introducing this bill on 5 December 2019, the Treasurer, the Hon Josh Frydenberg MP, said in his second reading speech that with this legislation "credit providers will have a more complete picture of a consumer's financial situation [which] will help them to better price credit and meet their responsible lending obligations",
(ii) with its National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, the Government is seeking to repeal legislated responsible lending obligations from the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (the NCCP Act), and
(iii) in the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry report, which was released on 1 February 2019, Recommendation 1 stated that "the NCCP Act should not be amended to alter the obligation to assess unsuitability", which was accepted by the Government; and
(b) calls on the Government to honour its acceptance of Recommendation 1 of the Royal Commission and withdraw its National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020".
I thank Senator McAllister for indicating that the Labor Party will be supporting that amendment. That amendment, in brief, highlights the Treasurer's statement that this bill will make it easier for banks to meet their responsible lending obligations and ensure that loans are not unsuitable for customers. It also highlights recommendation 1.1 of the Hayne royal commission into banks that those responsible lending obligations should 'be enforced as they stand'. It highlights the rampant hypocrisy of this government and its flagrant rejection of the primary recommendation of the Hayne royal commission.
I make the point that the government was dragged kicking and screaming into that banking royal commission. I want to acknowledge the work that my friend and colleague Senator Whish-Wilson did on that campaign. If there is one person in this place that the Australian people should be thanking for the banking royal commission that exposed such criminal conduct, rampant greed and toxic culture in the banking sector in this country, it is actually Senator Whish-Wilson. I urge the Senate to support the second reading amendment to highlight to the government that the passage of this bill makes the case for abolition of responsible lending obligations all the more ridiculous.
Firstly I would like to thank those senators that have contributed to this debate. The National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Mandatory Credit Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2019 will implement the government's mandatory and comprehensive credit reporting regime, delivering benefits to lenders and borrowers alike. This important reform will require our largest banks to participate fully in the credit reporting system and provide clarity on the treatment of financial hardship information. The mandatory credit reporting regime will provide more Australians with better access to credit, will enable credit providers to make better informed lending decisions and will drive more competition in the lending market. The bill will deliver these benefits while also maintaining and strengthening important security and consumer protection.
Schedule 1 of this bill requires the largest banks to provide comprehensive credit information on all accounts to credit reporting bodies by September 2022. It includes provisions to ensure the security of consumer credit information and obliges credit reporting bodies to share credit score ranges and methodologies when requested by consumers, who will now also be able to seek this information more frequently.
Schedule 2 addresses concerns raised regarding the treatment of financial hardship information. It provides the legal certainty for credit providers to disclose this information and ensures that consumers will not be unfairly disadvantaged by this change by placing restrictions on the use of hardship information. With the implementation of this regime, customers with a good credit history will be better placed to shop around and to be able to obtain lower rates because their credit history will be available to all credit providers. Consumers who may have poor credit ratings will get a better chance to demonstrate their creditworthiness through their future reliability. Credit providers will also see benefits, having access to a more complete picture of a consumer's financial situation, and this will help them to better price credit for the consumer. The regime will drive competition in the lending market. With access to this data, smaller providers, including new entrants and innovative fintech firms, will be much better able to access creditworthiness and compete for customers.
Just on the second reading amendment moved by the Greens, from a government perspective, this second reading amendment is little more than a pious amendment. It would have no practical effect on the legislation if passed. In fact, the amendment that has been moved is criticising a completely unrelated piece of government legislation, which is the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, which will simplify Australia's credit framework and support the flow of credit to the Australian economy. So the amendment doesn't go to the substance of the bill; rather it goes to a bill that is currently before the Senate economics legislation committee.
Despite the rather noisy assertions of Senator McKim, the government has certainly not reneged on its acceptance of the recommendation of the financial services royal commission. Recommendation 1.1, Senator McKim, states that the NCCP Act should not be amended to alter the obligation to assess unsuitability. This relates specifically to representations that were put to Commissioner Hayne that the relevant test under responsible lending laws should be amended so that it requires lenders to determine that a loan is suitable, as opposed to the current test, which requires lenders to determine that a loan is not suitable. With respect to the recommendation, Commissioner Hayne noted:
Consumer advocacy groups urged me to recommend that the NCCP Act be amended to require lenders to determine whether a loan contract (or credit limit increase) was 'suitable' for the consumer (as distinct from 'not unsuitable'). I do not favour that proposal.
That was said in the Final report of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry on page 59. You have cherrypicked your information. The government remains wholly committed to implementing all of the financial services royal commission's recommendations. The National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020 will simplify Australia's credit framework and support the flow of credit to the Australian economy, and that bill will appropriately be considered by this chamber at the appropriate time when the committee has reported. This bill before us today is about mandatory credit reporting, not the framework and the flow of credit. I commend the bill to the Senate.
The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.
I table a supplementary memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Mandatory Credit Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2019.
By leave—I move the amendments on sheet PM114 together:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit "1 April 2021", substitute "1 July 2022".
(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (line 6), omit " 1 April 2020 ", substitute "1 July 2021".
(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (line 18), omit " 1 April 2020 ", substitute "1 July 2021".
(4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (line 20), omit " 1 April ", substitute "1 July".
(5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (line 26), omit " 1 April ", substitute "1 July".
(6) Schedule 1, item 4, page 7 (line 28), omit " 1 April ", substitute "1 July".
(7) Schedule 1, item 4, page 8 (line 7), omit " 1 April ", substitute "1 July".
(8) Schedule 1, item 4, page 8 (line 18), omit " 1 April ", substitute "1 July".
(9) Schedule 1, item 4, page 8 (line 33), omit " 1 April ", substitute "1 July".
(10) Schedule 1, item 4, page 9 (line 10), omit " 1 April ", substitute "1 July".
(11) Schedule 1, item 4, page 9 (line 15), omit " 1 April ", substitute "1 July".
(12) Schedule 1, item 4, page 9 (line 26), omit " 1 April ", substitute "1 July".
(13) Schedule 1, item 4, page 9 (line 28), omit " 1 April ", substitute "1 July".
(14) Schedule 1, item 4, page 9 (line 33), omit " 1 April ", substitute "1 July".
(15) Schedule 1, item 4, page 10 (line 10), omit " 1 April ", substitute "1 July".
(16) Schedule 1, item 4, page 10 (line 15), omit " 1 April ", substitute "1 July".
(17) Schedule 1, item 4, page 10 (line 18), omit " 1 April ", substitute "1 July".
(18) Schedule 1, item 4, page 10 (line 36), omit " 1 April ", substitute "1 July".
(19) Schedule 1, item 4, page 11 (line 5), omit " 1 April ", substitute "1 July".
(20) Schedule 1, item 4, page 11 (line 7), omit " 1 April ", substitute "1 July".
(21) Schedule 1, item 4, page 13 (table item 3), omit "1 April", substitute "1 July".
(22) Schedule 1, item 4, page 19 (line 17), omit " 1 April ", substitute "1 July".
(23) Schedule 1, item 4, page 19 (line 32), omit " 1 April ", substitute "1 July".
(24) Schedule 1, item 4, page 24 (line 13), omit "1 October 2023", substitute "1 October 2024".
(25) Schedule 2, page 31 (after line 6), after item 7, insert:
7A After subsection 20E(4)
Insert:
(4A) Despite subsection (3), if the credit reporting information is, or was derived from, financial hardship information about the individual, the credit reporting body must not disclose the information under paragraph (3) (a) or (f) to a credit provider or mortgage insurer if the provider or insurer requested the information for the purpose of:
(a) in the case of a credit provider:
(i) collecting payments that are overdue in relation to consumer credit provided by the provider to the individual; or
(ii) collecting payments that are overdue in relation to commercial credit provided by the provider to a person; or
(iii) assessing whether to accept the individual as a guarantor in relation to credit for which an application has been made to the provider by a person other than the individual; or
(b) in the case of a mortgage insurer—assessing the risk of the individual defaulting on mortgage credit in relation to which the insurer has provided insurance to a credit provider.
Civil penalty: 2,000 penalty units.
(26) Schedule 2, item 17, page 33 (line 14), omit "1 April 2021", substitute "1 July 2022".
(27) Schedule 2, item 17, page 33 (line 15), omit "1 April", substitute "1 July".
(28) Schedule 2, item 17, page 33 (lines 19 and 20), omit "1 April is in 2022", substitute "1 July is in 2023".
(29) Schedule 2, item 18, page 33 (table item 4), omit "1 April 2021", substitute "1 July 2022".
(30) Schedule 2, page 36 (after line 20), after item 25, insert:
25A Subsection 20R(1)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
Access
(1) If a credit reporting body holds credit reporting information about an individual, the body must, on request by an access seeker in relation to the information, give the access seeker access to:
(a) the information; and
(b) if the body is a corporation to which paragraph 51(xx) of the Constitution applies, and the credit reporting business of the body involves deriving CRB derived information about individuals in the form of a rating (a credit rating ) of the individuals on a credit score scale or range—the information referred to in subsection (1A).
(1A) The information is:
(a) the credit rating of the individual, as derived by the body after the request is made; and
(b) information that identifies the particular credit information that is held by the body and from which the credit rating was derived; and
(c) information about the relative weighting of the credit information described in paragraph (b) in deriving the credit rating; and
(d) information about what the other ratings on the scale or range are, and how the individual's credit rating relates to those other ratings.
25B At the end of subsection 20R(2)
Add:
; or (d) for information referred to in subsection (1A)—the credit information about the individual that is held by the body is insufficient for the body to be able to derive the credit rating of the individual in the ordinary course of its credit reporting business within the period referred to in subsection (3).
25C Subsection 20R(5)
Omit "12 months", substitute "3 months".
(31) Schedule 2, item 34, page 37 (line 22), omit "1 October 2023", substitute "1 October 2024".
(32) Schedule 2, item 35, page 38 (line 2), before "The", insert "(1)".
(33) Schedule 2, item 35, page 38 (line 2), omit "item 34", substitute "items 25A, 25B, 25C and 34".
(34) Schedule 2, item 35, page 38 (after line 4), at the end of the item, add:
(2) The amendments made by items 25A, 25B and 25C apply to requests made under subsection 20R(1) of the Privacy Act 1988 on or after the commencement of this Part.
I indicated in my second reading remarks that Labor would be supporting these amendments. We previously proposed amendments to this effect and we're very pleased with the constructive engagement from the government. We consider that this will further support consumers in financial hardship.
Question agreed to.
I have a question for the minister, if she is able either to respond now or potentially take the question on notice. Can the government provide an update on the timing of the implementation of the recommendations of the Hayne royal commission and whether government can commit that legislation giving effect to those recommendations will actually be tabled in such a way that it can progress through this parliament before the Australian people next go to the polls?
Two bills were passed through the Senate last year. There is another one that is sitting in the House of Representatives as we speak. The intention is to pass that by the middle of this year—sorry, as soon as possible.
Just to be clear, Minister: that's five bills from the royal commission? Are there any others? There were over 70 recommendations, so I'm just interested if you could break it down into regulation versus legislation.
Two have passed and one is in the House. Each of those bills contained a number of recommendations.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2019. Labor has consistently argued that free trade should be fair trade. At a time when the government should be doing everything to build the public's confidence in free trade, they're exempting a key part of Australia's free trade framework from this parliament's scrutiny with this bill. This runs a real risk of damaging the public's trust in the issue. Whilst this bill has some merit, the government's attempt at its implementation is dangerous.
The bill proposes what's described as a streamlined implementation of product-specific rules of origin, otherwise known as PSRs. The bill applies to six of Australia's 11 free trade agreements: those with Chile, New Zealand, the United States, Korea, Malaysia and Thailand. PSRs are an essential component of free trade agreements. Each trade agreement has a PSR annex, implemented domestically. If goods meet the requirements, they are essentially deemed to have originated in the agreement party country and are entitled to the preferential treatment on customs duty imports into Australia. Five-year revisions on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, an international naming system for the classification of traded products, usually requires FTA parties to update their PSRs. This bill purports to streamline that process but, in doing so, has the potential for decreased parliamentary scrutiny. It's all too easy to get caught up in the technicality and legalism of PSRs and forget the importance of this very complex web of free trade principles. The parliament should be very cautious in treating complexity as a licence to pass the buck and have a public servant as the sole handler of these matters.
Labor has worked hard to maintain a healthy and productive bipartisan approach to international trade. While that approach has been further justified by economic headwinds during and after COVID-19, the parliament must be disciplined in our scrutiny of the executive power, now more than ever. The trouble with this bill as it stands is that, under it, PSRs and future changes in the regulations would not be tabled in black and white in the parliament. By amending the Customs Tariff Act to directly reference the agreements themselves, the bill denies senators oversight and scrutiny of the important legislation.
With that in mind, my colleague Madeleine King, Labor's shadow minister for trade, wrote to the former trade minister Senator Birmingham last year. In that letter, the shadow minister said: 'In a democracy like Australia, all parliamentarians should always be sceptical about any attempt to reduce parliamentary. More broadly, Labor is committed to practical rules in international trade that will free up our businesses to contribute to our economy.' Regrettably, though, the then minister's response was unsatisfactory and did not meet the outcomes and requirements outlined by Labor. We did our job. We sought assurances, and the government failed to provide them.
Our concerns remain this year as much as they did last year, when this legislation was introduced. The parliament has a duty to provide scrutiny of our free trade deals and arrangements. As the Labor senators' minority report in the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee stated:
Poorly drafted or ambiguous Rules of Origin, for example, can be an opportunity for firms in third (non-party) countries to gain unfair benefits through an FTA. Any such activities by third parties are likely to undermine the community's confidence in free trade agreements.
PSRs belong in the public debate because they're an important part of Australia's international trade story. While efforts to simplify arrangements are generally welcomed, there is no strong demand for these significant changes, and I'll expand on those matters shortly. If product-specific rule changes are in our national interest, all the better. But without a guarantee of parliamentary scrutiny it's just another issue open to potential blunders and secret failures somewhere in a department or office. It's far more important that we assure our community that anti-dumping rules are in play, that our pandemic recovery in trade is robust and that Australians aren't getting ripped off. These are failures that all Australians would have to pay for, and if they occurred we would need an accountability mechanism.
The most efficient way to assure the Australian public that they are consistently getting a good deal is by running PSRs through regulations under the Customs Act. A disallowable instrument currently comes before the Senate every time the government implements a PSR change. Labor's amendment seeks to protect parliamentary oversight through retention of a process that includes a disallowable instrument. You would think that this government wouldn't—or shouldn't—try to pull one over Australians and escape further scrutiny. This government avoids answering questions on notice. They say that important matters are 'in the bubble' and they shrug off scrutiny at every turn. But they can't pass the buck when it comes to Australia's trade system. By leaving the Senate, including government senators, out of the process, especially on Australia's main window into the global economy, they would intentionally leave in the shadows the specifics of Australia's place relative to that of our trade partners. Labor's amendment seeks to provide certainty to small and medium-size businesses that their interests are front of mind for the parliament.
The alternative put by the government is twofold. First, they have pointed to amendments to the Customs Tariff Act that the parliament can seek every five years. Second, they have suggested that individual members of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties could seek to form an inquiry PSR. Further, they have suggested that PSRs can be open to scrutiny in the joint standing committee's inquiry into treaty making processes. But our founding assumption should be that Australians want us protecting their interests. There's a meaningful difference between the right to have an inquiry, or putting amendments twice a decade, and the ongoing scrutiny of decisions that must be tabled in the parliament for all to see.
As Australia prepares itself to ensure that global trade works in our national interest when this pandemic is over, Australians deserve assurances that they are not getting short-changed. It shouldn't take an inquiry to make that happen, and people shouldn't have to rely on amendments that may or may not pass every five years. As the shadow minister for trade pointed out in her second reading speech, Australians expect assurances that where Australia signs up to a free trade agreement it is fair and in the interests of working families. We want our free trade agreements to be on the side of working families.
There are times when the parliament can be all too keen to keep important but tough decisions out of the parliament, behind closed doors. The government is now asking that we leave key decisions about Australia's preferential treatment of goods at the border and outside of the parliament. This is part of the complex story of modern trade. But surely that's reason enough to keep this issue in the public eye and in the public's parliament. We can make international trade even easier for local business without excluding the parliament. The curious part of this debate is that the Senate inquiry received only three submissions on this bill: one each from the Australian Border Force and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, in favour of the bill, and one from the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union, against the bill. No industry groups or companies volunteered their support for excluding the parliament from the conversation.
Government submissions to the Senate inquiry identified two reasons for the changes: (1) workload issues and (2) the fact that domestic implementation of PSRs in the latest Harmonized System nomenclature can be several years behind Australia's domestic terror updates. Given the limited public awareness of these highly complex but important arrangements, parliamentary scrutiny is more important than ever. These are commonsense objectives, but they are no reason to exclude future parliaments from the oversight of our trade relationships, especially when it would not slow down positive changes.
Efficiency in the legislation around trade doesn't have to come at the price of scrutiny, and it's unfortunate that our amendment is required at all. I remind the government that Labor's amendments are another opportunity for this parliament to demonstrate the bipartisanship that is expected of us during this recovery. Any senator who dismisses these valid criticisms is failing the constituents they represent, their place and their role in the Senate and in Australia. As Labor has done during the COVID-19 pandemic, a time when this parliament's decisions are more important than ever, we will fight for constructive amendments that will serve the national interests of Australia and be on the side of working families in Australia. Labor's amendments fulfil our commitment to the public. We will support free trade when it is fair trade.
I would like to thank Senator Keneally for her contribution. I think the Australian Greens are more or less totally in line with your observations as to the problems represented with this legislation currently put before us, the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Mandatory Credit Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2019, and we'll be supporting the amendments you just outlined to the chamber. We've been reflecting on this piece of legislation for a while now, since it has risen and fallen and risen and fallen again with the government's thoughts about whether or not they have the numbers in the place for it to pass.
For me, it says two things. One is that the government is fundamentally out of step with community expectations when it comes to our trading relationships with our regional and global neighbours. We know that Australians, our community, want to see us work with our friends and neighbours in the region and around the world. We know that there is support for the exchange of goods and services and trade of all kinds as long as they meet the basic standards: human rights, environmental protections, labour protections, transparency and public accountability. These are the mechanisms by which parliament and the people retain an ultimate position of authority over approval of these processes.
In Australia we are in a situation—due to the, I believe, corruptive influence of corporate money on this place—where we do not have a process by which free trade agreements, whole bar, are scrutinised and agreed to by the parliament. My colleague Senator Whish-Wilson, in his previous role as our trade spokesperson, has spoken at length on the issue and the challenges that are presented by mechanisms such as ISDS within our free trade agreement frameworks. What we currently have is a system by which a government-to-government process ticks the thing off and we are given the opportunity here, as a chamber, to have a look into it through a JSCOT process without teeth and then decide whether or not to implement the relevant sections that pertain to our legislative requirements here in Australia. It is not good enough. It is not a process that the Greens support. It is something that we have continually opposed.
What this legislation seeks to do is take one of the few scraps of parliamentary oversight that still exist in our process and turn it back over to the government, to make an already non-transparent process worse. You have to almost suppress a dark laugh when you read the justification for this legislation as proposed by the government. The justification is that it will make the administrative process for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade simpler. They seek to come before us today and propose a piece of legislation that would remove parliamentary oversight so that the people of DFAT don't have to work so hard. It really is a bit of dark comedy in and of itself. We have hardly any oversight at all, as my colleague rightly mentions, and we are to give back one of the only functions of oversight because having that function of oversight is causing the department to have to work too hard. It is not good enough.
Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—
It is not good enough at all, particularly when the department, as my colleague points out—a very helpful interjection, Senator Whish-Wilson; thank you very much—often operates as a black box. It is very hard to get information out of DFAT. Even during my time on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties we found that to be challenging.
That's the first thing I would say, observing this legislation. The other bit would be this, and it's a funny old thing. There are many people on the conservative side of the chamber who I expect have spent a lot of time in their lives seeking to be in federal government—to hold the reins of executive office, to have a majority in this place and to be in government—and it defies belief to see so much of the parliament's time spent on legislation like this: tiny, piddly, fiddly stuff that just burns up the time where an actual agenda should be. This has been on the books for—I'm trying to think back to when we first heard of it—probably the best part of a year now.
An honourable senator interjecting—
November 2019. If you have an evil agenda, could we not fight about the evil agenda? Well, you have an evil agenda, but let's see a legislative evil agenda. Let's engage with some stuff, have a contest of ideas. This is a contest of bureaucratic process. Maybe I shouldn't complain about it, because, if you had more terrible ideas, you might get them through, but it's very odd. It's just like sitting in the lane, letting the engine tick over, collecting your salaries and not really doing much. But there you go. We will be, as I flagged, supporting the Labor amendments as put. We will not be supporting the bill as it is currently written, because it reduces parliamentary oversight in a process that is almost free of parliamentary oversight as it is.
I am very pleased to rise today in support of the Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2019. Australia is a proud trading nation. What we make, grow, produce and mine here is sought all around the world, and, because of that, we are able to enjoy a much higher standard of living than we ever could if we shut ourselves off from trading with other nations. Our success in negotiating mutually beneficial free trade agreements with nations all around the world has brought further opportunities for Australian businesses and Australian producers to sell their products overseas. As I say, free trade agreements are a key way that we facilitate this, but these agreements commonly take years to negotiate. They're very complex and very technical documents, and it's important that we monitor them on an ongoing basis to ensure that they are operating effectively and efficiently.
That's what this bill that we are debating here today does. It seeks to greatly reduce the administrative burden of updating product specific rules for six of Australia's 11 free trade agreements, being the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement, the Thailand-Australia Free Trade Agreement, the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement, the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement, the Malaysia-Australia Free Trade Agreement and the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The changes that will be processed as part of this bill will simplify the administration of these free trade agreements, without changing their operation or requiring significant changes in practice by traders seeking to claim preferential tariff treatment for goods imported under the free trade agreements. I must disagree with some of the contribution from Senator Steele-John regarding how insignificant this piece of legislation apparently is. I absolutely disagree with that assessment. These changes are incredibly important as part of our broader approach to dealing with free trade agreements, and ensuring that they are simplified and easy to operate and understand.
It is now more important than ever that we seek to maximise the efficiency of our free trade agreements with valued trading partners around the world. Recent events, particularly in the last 12 months, have demonstrated very clearly that we can't take for granted the fact that just because we have a free trade agreement and history of trading ties with a nation that they will treat our producers and businesses fairly. For example, despite our free trade agreement with China, they have been openly treating our fishers, fruitgrowers, wine producers, barley growers, miners and other businesses unfairly by levying additional tariffs and stopping Australian products getting to Chinese customers. This is being done in breach of World Trade Organization rules, and is a blatant attempt to try and force Australia to change our foreign policies and the way in which we stand up for our democracy and human rights in our region. As Prime Minister Scott Morrison has made clear, Australia will never trade away our values or our right to stand up for our interests, and I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. Indeed, I have regularly spoken in this place in agreement with that sentiment.
Because of these breaches of our free trade agreement by the Chinese communist government, many Australian businesses and industries are working hard to now diversify their customer base, to expand their reach into markets like those covered by the free trade agreements affected by this bill: the USA, Thailand, Chile, Malaysia and Korea, as well as other large markets such as India. It's completely understandable, given the impacts of COVID and the behaviour of the Chinese communist government, that Australians want our nation to be more self-reliant, and so we should be. But we also have to remember that the reason we are a trading nation is because in many of our key areas of strength, we are not just self-reliant; we are so much more than self-reliant. For example, our Australian farmers produce 70 per cent more food than our population needs. That's why we need our farmers to be able to get those surplus products to international markets, to ensure their farming operations remain profitable and viable. And that's why free trade agreements with key strategic partners are so important, and why I look forward to seeing our government do even more to strengthen Australian trading partnerships into the future as we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.
I'm very pleased to speak in support of this bill today because, like I said, Australia is a proud trading nation, and our free trade agreements form a really important, integral part of what makes us such a successful trading nation. We need those free trade agreements to operate efficiently and effectively, and that is what the changes that we are debating here today in the Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2019 will do. They will reduce the administrative burden of updating product-specific rules for six of our 11 free trade agreements. And I pay credit to the former trade minister Senator Birmingham and the new trade minister Dan Tehan, who is in the other place, for their hard work and focus on ensuring Australian businesses and farmers benefit from trade, and from our free trade agreements with our partners. I'm very confident that, going forward, as we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, international trade is going to form an absolutely vital part of that recovery. Australia will need to focus more on what we can do on island, and I think this government has an incredibly promising agenda, particularly in the manufacturing space, to ensure that occurs. But we need to be looking more broadly across the world to identify new trading partners so that we can trade our way out of this economic crisis we have regrettably found ourselves in due to COVID-19. With that said, I commend this bill to the Senate.
This debate on the Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2019 is timely. It's extraordinary that, in my time here, we've seen growth in the number of bills carried by this parliament that contain an effective dereliction of duty from this chamber to the Public Service. We have a situation now where the number of bills containing legislation by regulation is growing at an extraordinary rate. The number of bills that can obtain instruments where there is no capacity for the parliament to disallow those regulations is equally growing at an extraordinary rate. The fact remains that, as legislators, we are negligent in not doing something about that. We are failing in our responsibilities as members of parliament by not insisting on the capacity of this parliament to properly supervise the work of the executive and the Public Service.
This debate is timely because it focuses on the importance of government transparency and the ability of this parliament to ensure proper oversight. It's timely because it involves our trading arrangements at a time of global economic disruption, at a time when there are trade wars going on between major trading partners, and at a time when one of our trading partners is imposing tariffs and other sanctions on this country involving some 46 per cent of our exports and our other major trading partner, the United States, is engaging in preferential trading arrangements with that country to our disadvantage. So it is no good trying to cloak this in some sort of mantra of anti-communist hysteria. This is a more fundamental issue about the role of this parliament in the protection of the Australian people and the capacity of members of parliament to do their jobs. To suggest that somehow or another this is all legitimised, because we are reducing the administrative burden, suggests to me that we could take that much, much further—couldn't we? Why do we need to meet at all? We can simply pass a series of omnibus bills giving the executive and the Public Service the power to do whatever they like. That's the logic of the argument.
This is a bill that attempts to reduce the transparency of government as well as the government's accountability to parliament. On the positive side, the bill highlights the role of the Senate committee system. I'm the deputy chair of the legislative committee that brought forward the report which led to these amendments being taken up by the Labor caucus—despite the fact that there were very few submissions, because very few people have actually read the legislation. I'm also a member of the Scrutiny of Bills and the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation committees, and I must remind you, given the years of service that I have put in here, of the splendid work undertaken by the secretariats of those committees; at least we know there is someone here in this building that actually reads all the legislation and points out the consequences of not paying proper attention to the detail.
When I raised the issue that regulatory measures were being taken in such a manner as to take away from the parliament, people first said to me, 'That can't possibly be right.' In fact, it was. In democracies like this country claims to be we should be sceptical about attempts to reduce parliamentary scrutiny in the name of administrative efficiency and reducing administrative burden. We should be sceptical about the failure of our political system to actually keep an eye on our administrators. The minority report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee makes that point, and the amendments we've moved today have come about as a result of that report. If they're not carried by the chamber, the Labor Party won't be supporting this legislation. I trust the majority of the Senate won't support this legislation, because it is time to make a stand on the question of delegated legislation and the capacity of this parliament to actually stand up when it comes to proper scrutiny.
This is a bill that relates to product-specific rules, which are important elements of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. I've been involved in industry policy for a very long time. I have seen how these rules-of-origin arrangements are exploited and abused and how unscrupulous individuals and unscrupulous firms take advantage of them. There is a constant threat of transhipment, where firms in third countries try to export goods to Australia under favourable terms by transhipping them via one of our trade agreements to other partner countries. The consequences of that seriously damage the economic interests of this country and the revenue of this country. They undermine the political interests of this country.
Australia's antidumping commissioner for the time being—he's being given the heave-ho by this government—Mr Dale Seymour, discussed at Senate estimates the transhipment challenges faced by Australia over many, many years, including the question specifically around the matter of unfair competition to Australian firms and to Australian workers who obey Australian laws when they are faced with companies that don't have to. These are the actions that threaten Australian industry and threaten Australian jobs. We have an obligation to stand up and defend those jobs and defend those industries and not abrogate that responsibility to some faceless, unelected bureaucrat.
Australia must maintain strong antidumping measures in a time of uncertainty given the trading system as it is globally. We shouldn't let complaints about China or the many other countries—I want to emphasise that—that take advantage of our lax attitude on these trade issues, or the rabid, fact-lite commentary from the Australian media, particularly TheAustralian Financial Review, divert us from defending our national interests. We've got to make sure that we actually stand up for the Australian people, because the opportunities for circumvention and the misuse of product-specific rules make it more difficult for the Anti-Dumping Commission to ensure compliance with Australian law and with Australia's trading agreements.
The commission has reported that there were 80 measures in force as of 20 June of last year. They involve 22 countries. It's not just China; there are 22 countries. They comprise 69 dumping measures and 11 countervailing measures. Nearly two-thirds of those measures involve the steel industry. During the past five years the commission heard 273 cases, 60 per cent of them related, of course, to China. So we don't have to question the product-specific rules. What we need to ensure is that there's proper accountability in the way in which they're administered and to make sure they are updated accurately and regularly and that robust rules of origin and product-specific rules are, in fact, administered properly.
The framework, which was established in 2013 and expanded in 2015, nominates a series of activities that are likely to constitute transhipment to avoid antidumping penalties. Australia's got to remain alert to those threats, and that's why we believe changes to these regulations should be done by a disallowable instrument.
The PSRs define goods that are eligible for preferable trade treatment if they have been substantially transformed in Australia or an FTA partner country. Product-specific rules define what is sufficiently transformed. Now, based on this so-called harmonisation system, the classification of goods is based on internationally agreed descriptors for goods, and it's updated every five years. The current arrangements provide for a parliamentary role, but the bill's aim is to streamline the way in which the product-specific rules and the origins of these various agreements can be changed in regard to six of the 11 free trade agreements. The proposal is to remove these from the normal regulations. It's said, 'Well, we'll move this off to JSCOT.' JSCOT is not an effective parliamentary committee when it comes to the question of proper scrutiny. It is very low-level scrutiny. Its recommendations cannot be disallowed.
Border Force bell the cat when they make it clear,
… the domestic [Australian] process includes referring FTA amendments to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT) as a Category 3 (minor) treaty action. JSCOT has agreed to treat all Harmonized System transpositions as minor treaty actions.
These JSCOT-recommended arrangements have not prompted a public inquiry or calls for public submissions, and, of course, any active JSCOT measure is dependent upon an individual member with the resources to take on the bureaucracy and the capacity to alert the rest of the parliament to failures. So the government's reason for not having these matters as disallowable instruments is hollow.
Complexity demands greater parliamentary scrutiny, not less parliamentary scrutiny. The definitions of goods and their origin are complex and technical—that is for sure. There are enormous disputes within industry as to what is a reinterpretation or a subversion. The rules of origin are complex and are critical to Australian industry and Australian workers, and there is an expectation that this parliament will take an interest in guarding the interests of Australian industry and Australian workers. This is not something that should be delegated to somebody else. Transparency and the rules of parliamentary scrutiny are therefore essential.
The Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has identified concerns with this bill as well. Scrutiny Digest No. 9 of 2019 comments:
… at a general level, the committee will have scrutiny concerns where provisions in a bill allow the incorporation of legislative provisions by reference to other documents …
Three risks are identified. It:
The same committee recently considered the implication of the growth in the number of bills, which I've already referred to. The number of bills involving such dereliction of duty has doubled in recent years, and that has important implications in a whole range of industries: civil aviation, farm household support, the NDIS, vehicle standards and building standards. These are all matters that have been referred to other committees. This is the latest move in an attempt to reduce parliamentary oversight by the Morrison government when it dodges its accountability responsibilities, and it ought to be rejected by this chamber. (Time expired)
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I say that One Nation continues to oppose so-called free trade agreements. Instead, what we support and what we want is fair trade. This bill, the Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2019, does not expand free trade agreements; it simplifies their administration. As such, One Nation will be supporting this bill, which is essentially housekeeping for existing free trade agreements.
Australia's free trade agreements supposedly allow our producers to receive preferential tariff treatment in the countries that our free trade agreements cover. Each agreement specifies what must happen to a product in order for that product to qualify as Australian made. These are called product-specific rules. These rules have been written separately for each free trade agreement and are included in the schedule to each agreement. Each time a rule change was agreed, the free trade agreement had to be updated. This is cumbersome and costly. So what this bill does is that it replaces the individual schedule with the World Customs Organization's common set of definitions and standards. One hundred and eighty-three countries worldwide, accounting for 98 per cent of word trade, use these harmonised systems classifications. People know that One Nation are the last people to support an expanded role for unelected, unaccountable foreign bureaucrats. This bill, though, simplifies free trade agreements and does not expand free trade agreements. In this case, adopting these harmonised definitions helps everyone, including Australian producers.
This does not change One Nation's opposition to free trade agreements. Despite their name, so-called free trade agreements are never free. These agreements always come at a cost to someone, and that cost is usually to everyday Australians. Underdeveloped countries do not sign free trade agreements with industrialised nations in order to give away what they have. It is the industrialised nation that gives wealth away, and that is the history of free trade agreements.
For example, the Indonesian free trade agreement calls on Australia to send educators to Indonesia to train their skilled workers so they can then come to Australia and take jobs from Australians. In return, Australia gets to sell agricultural produce to Indonesia. There is one catch with that: Indonesia is not issuing import licences. Indonesia remains wedded to its policy of self-sufficiency in agriculture. When Australian grape growers tried to use our newly signed free trade agreement just a few months ago to sell this year's crop of table grapes, the Indonesian government refused import licences. Our farmers were left to find other markets for grapes. Indonesia wins and we lose. Australian workers lose. Australians lose. Australia loses. Our table grapes industry is not able to add extra workers, because the increased sales failed to appear. Yet, in other areas of our economy, Indonesian workers that we trained are displacing our workers. Where is the benefit of this to Australians? There is no benefit to our people.
Why does Labor blindly and automatically support free trade agreements that benefit globalists and hurt Australian workers? One Nation do not support free trade agreements; we support fair trade. I'll say it again: One Nation do not support free trade agreements; we support fair trade. The government needs to work harder and honestly to make these so-called agreements fair, or we should just walk away from the table.
As on so many other occasions, One Nation says one thing and does another. Senator Roberts claims that the One Nation party are out there campaigning against free trade agreements, but in this chamber they've just indicated that in this chamber they'll be supporting this legislation, the Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2019. Senator Roberts indicates that he's opposed to unelected bureaucrats dealing with issues like product-specific rules, but this legislation deletes parliamentary scrutiny for product-specific rules. Like so much of One Nation's activity it's saying one thing to its constituency, particularly in Queensland, and doing another. That's why they were voting with the government this morning to support the big banks, against some sensible amendments that would have made for better financial governance and protected ordinary consumers, particularly low-income consumers in country towns, from predatory practices of the big banks. Yet Senators Hanson and Roberts, as they are so many times, were on the government's side of the chamber supporting the Morrison government's agenda.
Senator Carr's contribution, as it has been on so many occasions on questions of trade and industry policy and protecting the interests of Australian industry, was exactly right. The principles that this bill touches on go to parliamentary scrutiny and to enforcement of product-specific rules. I think that Senator Carr's contribution went to some detail about the importance of product-specific rules—in particular for protecting Australian manufacturers—and the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. This bill means less scrutiny, and less scrutiny inevitably means less enforcement. It is so consistent with this government's approach to all of its responsibilities, not least its approach to trade questions. It's all talk and no delivery.
It is absolutely vital, in the agreements that Australia signs off on and the trade that is conducted, that unscrupulous firms are not allowed to breach these provisions. What stands against unscrupulous firms breaching these provisions, which costs workers jobs—particularly in the suburbs and in our regions—are three things: a good legislative framework, strong parliamentary scrutiny and strong enforcement, and resources behind strong enforcement. We have none of those things in the Australian framework. We have a weak framework of protection against dumping and a low level of commitment from the government to that framework. We are deleting parliamentary scrutiny in this bill. We have a government that is not committed to strong enforcement action, to working with Australian industry and to protecting Australian industry against dumping and against unscrupulous firms who manipulate the complex array of product-specific rules.
Senators Carr and Fierravanti-Wells have been very strong on the issues of parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary accountability and on this parliament not delegating its authority and its proper role. More attention should be paid to the work that they have done in these areas. I'm sure that the parliament and the Senate are going to hear a lot more about it.
If we want to enforce preferential trade agreements for Australian goods, we have to be capable of monitoring whether, in fact, a good is manufactured in Australia or not. This does become more complex as supply chains become longer. The process of regulation becomes increasingly complex and product specific. Take, for example, a radiator. If an Australian company wants to avoid export duties in Indonesia under the Australia-Indonesia FT, it has to prove that its radiators are Australian made. If the radiator is made from imported parts—cooling fans, pipes et cetera—at least 40 per cent of the final product's value must be from the Australian manufacturing process. Salmon exported to Indonesia must be fished in Australia to avoid tariffs, but smoked salmon made from imported fish and smoked in Australia will also avoid tariffs. Those regulations and complex product-specific rules are included in the free trade agreement. Each agreement has a separate PSR system based on the harmonised commodity description and coding system which is used by more than 200 countries.
Labor's amendment to this bill is simple. We would give the Senate more power to scrutinise the way in which those PSRs are updated. There is a balance between efficiency and scrutiny in the way that our legislation oversees trade agreements, and this bill goes too far in delegating authority and in the parliament abrogating its responsibility to effectively monitor what is absolutely in the interests of Australian firms and Australian workers, particularly in the regions. Like in so many other areas on trade, the government has given the game away.
While the bill relates to a technical matter within trade, it reflects a larger problem with the Morrison government's trade agenda. Put simply: it is all announcement and no delivery. The government loves announcing big trade deals, loves cutting the ribbon on a trade agreement and likes a signing ceremony, but they are never there for the hard work of compliance and delivery and supporting Australian exporters.
We've heard the government talk about trade diversification recently as if it's a new conversion and a new problem that nobody had ever thought about before, but what we see is a paltry commitment—a too-little-too-late commitment—to trade diversification. And, of course, in the Morrison government's mind supporting our exporters is all about free trade agreements and nothing else. When it comes to supporting Australian exporters, to backing them and to shifting Australian exports up the value chain to where the good and real jobs are, the Morrison government is nowhere to be found.
Australia has continued to retreat and has continued to decline global value chains. Our exports have become less and less complex. We've become more of a farm and more of a quarry and less of a manufacturer and less of a sophisticated goods and services exporter. The Morrison government's only response is a free trade agreement fetish. The law of diminishing returns in this area has left us desperately trying to draw up agreements with countries as small as Uruguay. Now, I love Uruguay, and people in this parliament would have a great regard for Uruguay—we've got a great history—but why was so much emphasis put into a free trade agreement with Uruguay? Our highest trade volumes with Uruguay over the course of the last decade has been about $24 million, with saddle soap and plastic plates. Why has so much emphasis been put on ribbon cutting for the free trade agreement with Uruguay? It's because it's all about announcement and not about real delivery. The people who understand this best are located in the regions and in the suburbs.
I read, with interest, the National Party's contribution. Remember that the National Party's history in this area has been about being the big supporters of free trade for Australian agricultural exports. They were there when the Cairns agreement was signed. National Party MPs were lining up to support free trade agreements. But we've seen a change of heart from what remains of the bunyip aristocracy that runs the National Party in Australia. They released, to no acclaim and no applause, by way of a brief little skirmish in The Australian newspaper, their manufacturing 2035 plan this week. It's not a surprise that it sunk without trace. If ever the National Party was put in charge of a response to Australian manufacturing, that would be the end of Australian manufacturing. Their approach to manufacturing, their slogans, their bright ideas—to the extent that there's anything good in this document—have been pinched off the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union. To the extent that there's anything good in it, they are ideas that have been taken from others. The National Party pretend they haven't been around for the last seven years of government.
It's been obvious, hasn't it, that the manufacturing industry hasn't benefited from the National Party's role in government. The National Party are in a sort of dreamland, as if they haven't been around not just for the last seven years but for the Howard years. And what have we seen over the course of that period? We've seen a shallow and weak commitment from the Howard government, and then the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, to supporting Australian exporters, an approach that's all about free trade agreements that have prioritised the interests of farmers and miners over the interests of manufacturers. They've put commodities first and dragged us back down the global value chain. We've seen governments that have presided over the closing of the Australian car industry—but there's a lot about cars in the National Party's publication, as if they had nothing to do with the closure of the Australian car industry! There's a lot in the National Party's document about fabrics and textiles. Every wool scouring plant in Australia has closed. Every single one is on the way out. In Wagga, not too far away from where Senator Davey lives, Riverina Wool Combing closed many years ago under the Howard government. The Australian textiles industry is almost gone, and the National Party never raised a finger as Australian wool processing was sent offshore, mostly to China, with some going to Italy. There was never a peep from the National Party over the course of the last two decades, but suddenly now they're interested.
I think that a feigned interest from the National Party in the interests of regional manufacturing is a bit like Idi Amin expressing an interest in human rights or Margaret Thatcher suddenly being excited about the rights and welfare of coalmining workers. Maybe that's a little bit closer to where the National Party are today. Extraordinarily, in this document, which probably won't see the light of day for most Australians, it says, 'Adding to these pressures, Australian manufacturers are paying 91 per cent more for electricity and 48 per cent more for gas over the last decade.' Well, that's right. That's absolutely right. But where have the National Party been on these questions? They couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. What they have been doing is focusing upon one job—not on the jobs of rural Australians, not on the future of regional industries, but on one job: who is going to be the leader of the National Party in the House of Representatives. They've been squabbling over the spoils in Canberra but they're in a dreamland when it comes to the future of regional industry and regional jobs. Not only do they forget their own role in sending all these jobs overseas; the only plan they've really got is to make electricity more expensive for Australian manufacturers—to throw more public resources behind making energy more expensive and consigning more of Australian manufacturing to the dustbin. (Time expired)
I rise today to add my voice in opposition to the Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2019. The bill removes critically important parliamentary oversight of our laws which prevent the dumping of goods in Australia. We hear a lot about companies that deliberately move their profits around globally to avoid paying tax. Well, there are also organisations that move goods around the world under so-called transshipment arrangements to avoid antidumping or countervailing duties on their products. They do this by abusing the rules-of-origin regime, which is part of a robust, rules-abiding international trade system. Payment of these antidumping and countervailing duties based on rules of origin is what protects Australian companies and Australian workers who are producing goods here. These rules also allow us to give preferential treatment to goods coming from specific countries—for example, our Pacific neighbours.
These are important rules for our trading system. We should be strengthening these rules and should not permit them to be watered down or easily avoided. This customs bill, if passed, would actually dilute the oversight and policing of dodgy operators, who often use highly sophisticated schemes to get around these laws. If passed, this bill will undermine Australian jobs and Australian businesses during a global pandemic, a time when we should be building our sovereign capacity and growing our jobs at home. Let's be clear about what we're dealing with here. These schemes include moving goods through one or more third countries to disguise their origin. These operators undermine Australian companies and the working conditions of Australian workers, who are forced to compete with goods that bear unfair and artificially lowered price tags.
Since 2013 Australia has had an anti-circumvention framework designed to prevent this kind of law-breaking. In 2015 it was expanded, and for good reason. I think the Australian people would be genuinely shocked to know what lengths some unscrupulous companies are going to in order to avoid Australian antidumping laws. The law is complex, but it has to be, to catch up with all the tricks companies use. Just some of the schemes that are used by exporting companies bringing goods into Australia are: avoiding duties by importing parts into Australia, which are then passed off as Australian made; not paying duties by assembling parts in a third country and shipping it via a country that has preferential arrangements with Australia; avoiding the higher rate of duty by making an arrangement with another exporter that has more favourable rates in order to bring those goods in; not increasing the price of the goods with the duties payable by law, so as to undercut local competitors; and avoiding paying duties by slightly modifying goods in an attempt to classify them as outside the antidumping rules.
This bill is also an example of a more general trend that we're seeing from the government. I am talking about the volume of laws that did not get adequate scrutiny by parliament. There is no reason that our product-specific rules-of-origin annexures in trade agreements cannot be updated when the international rules change. Our laws may of course need to reflect those changes in order for the law to be fit for purpose for protecting Australian companies and workers from unfair competition from imports. But this bill also allows for new, updated annexures to our trade agreements to be automatically recognised. These changes will be brought into effect without allowing the parliament to scrutinise them and have the option to vote against them. That's because this bill would drastically diminish the current level of parliamentary scrutiny. It will reduce the scrutiny from a disallowable regulation to the mere requirement that the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties hold an inquiry. The JSCOT has government, opposition and crossbench members, of course, but it's dominated by the government, so its inquiries are unlikely to contradict either the minister or the government. Last year JSCOT held an inquiry into the contents of this bill, and Labor produced a minority report laying out our concerns.
In its submission to that inquiry the Australian Border Force suggested that Australia's existing domestic treaty-making process already allows for parliamentary scrutiny by JSCOT. However, we should be clear that this scrutiny does not mean there will be a vote in parliament. In fact, even if the government's own committee members had a serious reservations about a treaty, an inquiry report that challenged the government's view is advisory only and has no legislative power.
This is highly problematic because Australia's negotiations in trade agreements are largely in secret. There is very little opportunity for stakeholders to be part of the process. That means that workers, unions defending the rights of workers, NGOs defending the state of the environment and those speaking up for health, government procurement and use of local content laws of a sovereign nation are already largely shut out of discussions when the terms of these deals are being thrashed out. In fact, stakeholders in Europe and in the US have more access to trade negotiations and the process of decision-making than we do. In the United States, of course, the congress has to vote to pass trade deals.
In my view, we need more, not less, ability for the Australian parliament to weigh in on the deals we sign with other countries. Of course, this bill goes in the opposite direction. So if our government, behind closed doors, develops an annexure to a trade agreement and the changes are deemed to be technical in nature and don't alter the commitments made in the treaty itself then parliament will have zero ability to disallow these new rules. It's important to understand that this inability to disallow new trade deal rules will apply even if these new laws create the risk that Australian jobs and Australian companies will be undermined by the abuse of the rules-of-origin framework.
We know that abuse of the rules of origin is a growing problem. The latest evidence we have from the Australian Border Force is from a report in April 2019, and it does not make for reassuring reading. In the antidumping countervailing part of this compliance report, Australian Border Force revealed that in the year to March 2019 more than 34 per cent of shipments they inspected that were subject to antidumping duties were found not to be compliant. These goods were misclassified, but the report does not reveal what the reasons for misclassification were. They could have been using dumping duty exemptions illegally, or there could have been a misdeclaration of country of origin or illegal transhipment.
Meanwhile, Border Force busted a large shipment of aluminium from China in 2019. The importers had attempted to tranship the aluminium to Australia via third countries such as Indonesia and Singapore to avoid the significant duties that would have applied. In addition, Capital Aluminium ran an anticircumvention inquiry into extrusions transhipped from China to avoid duties. The Anti-Dumping Commissioner made findings in relation to aluminium extrusion exported by Zinaco Industrial and Hardware Industries Ltd from Thailand and Yun Sin Enterprise Co. Ltd from Taiwan, and, by following the exporters from Thailand, Bay Enterprise Co. Ltd, Siam Industrial Supplies Ltd and V-Power Biotech Limited Partnership.
Last year, Australia's Anti-Dumping Commissioner also found that aluminium extrusion which originated in China and which was manufactured by Foshan ZP Aluminium Co. of China were exporters to Australia, except that it was deliberately shipped via Malaysia and Thailand. The commission concluded that this constituted circumvention activities.
Also last year, in a Senate estimates hearing, My colleague Senator Carr questioned the Anti-Dumping Commissioner, Dale Seymour, on efforts to try to catch companies avoiding antidumping duties. Mr Seymour said:
The problem with anti-circumvention is that once the tax has been imposed it's almost guaranteed that businesses will try and limit their exposure to those obligations. You'd like to think they'd do that legally and, obviously, many of them might think they're doing it legally but they're actually in breach of Australian customs law.
He went on to say:
What's really interesting is the emergence of what I call 'intermediaries' who are neither technically the importer nor the exporter but seek to be a mid-point trader who speculates—takes a certain level of risk in buying and selling in the international market, clips the ticket, if you like, and takes the cut on the way through—and who openly advertise circumvention services on the internet—
not the dark web, the internet—
and specifically say that they will ensure that the Australian duties on this product will not need to be paid through their actions to circumvent and tranship those products.
When asked if this was legal, Mr Seymour said:
No, I don't believe it's legal. It's contrary to an obligation that an importer would have to pay a duty on a product that is subject to a measure. So, in that sense, it's in contravention of the Customs Act. We have the ability now—the legislation was amended a couple of years ago—to run our own investigations on those transhipped products. We did so with aluminium, and the minister agreed with my recommendation, and we altered the notice and we named a number of foreign actors in the space who were clearly circumventing. The ones that we weren't able to capture, however, were these intermediaries who, under the current law, I'm unable to name on the notice. I think, going forward, I would be talking to my colleagues on the policy side about how we might be able to provide some disincentives to stop that practice occurring, but it is extremely challenging and difficult.
What's quite clear with this legislation is that we have to have a robust system for oversighting circumvention and the actions by various corporations around the world, such as those companies that I have named within this speech. They are just a few of the examples of the challenges that we have.
What is also critical is that there isn't a simple decision made by departmental advice from the minister and the government on matters of grave economic importance to this country. It's critical these matters aren't simply handed over to a well-meaning bureaucrat who can't be oversighted appropriately and properly by parliament and by an area of trade, an area of responsibility that's important for this particular parliament and this Senate.
It's incredibly important that we have a robust system that makes sure that those avoiding duties by importing parts into Australia and then assembling them here and passing them off as Australian made are held to account. We have to make sure that we don't just simply leave someone to come up with a view about what should be changed, or set a ministerial precedent that can't be overturned, even under necessity and with the will of parliament. Not paying duties by assembling parts in a third country is a critical issue that we need to concentrate our efforts on. We need to be aware of those who are avoiding the higher rate of duty by making an arrangement with another exporter with more favourable rates to bring those goods in, the issues that come up with not increasing the price of goods commensurate with duties payable by law so as to undercut local competitors, and, of course, those who are avoiding paying duties by slightly modifying goods in an attempt to classify them as outside the antidumping rules. Mr Seymour went through a long list of the challenges that are within his purview. He's done an exceptionally sterling job in taking up those challenges.
So there you have it: what we need in Australia, according to our own expert officials, is a more robust antidumping regime, not the weakened one the government is proposing. (Time expired)
I rise to speak this afternoon on this important bill, the Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2019. This bill will allow for the removal of almost 3,000 pages of regulation. It will enable exporters, those involved in trade across the world, to streamline their processes. These changes will make it simpler for Australian businesses to identify the tariff benefits that they can access under the free trade agreements as they look for opportunities especially—
Debate interrupted.
The need to reinvigorate and bolster Australia's manufacturing capability to protect our supply chains in essential products has never been more important. Indeed, its fragility and our overexposure to certain markets has been exposed through the COVID-19 pandemic. The Nationals' ambitious Manufacturing 2035 plan to modernise and rejuvenate Australian manufacturing will do just that. Manufacturing 2035 will get production lines humming and reboot our sovereign manufacturing capability. The Nationals' plan will make Australia make again.
But there are challenges. Our plan is a solid road map to address these challenges because Australians need to be able to buy Australian made products. Over the past decade there have been trade protection measures reduced, with some manufacturing industries all but disappearing from Australian shores. Record demand for Australian resource exports has maintained a relatively high Australian dollar, making it tough for manufacturers to compete against cheaper, mass produced imports often from countries where the tough environmental standards that our own Australian manufacturers operate under do not exist. Our manufacturers have paid 91 per cent more for electricity and 48 per cent more for gas over the past decade. All of these challenges have resulted in our manufacturing decline in real terms, with a five per cent reduction in domestic manufacturing over the past decade. This has had a flow-on impact on Australian jobs, with a new record low of fewer than 850,000 people employed in manufacturing by the end of last year.
But the Nationals are here and we have a plan. Regional Australia is the engine room of the Australian economy and we will continue to lead the way. It is through the can-do attitude of hardworking, visionary Australians that regional Australia accounts for more than 60 per cent of Australia's existing exports. Our plan, released during January, will protect strategic industries;, will increase trade promotion efforts and grow exports; will provide accessible access to finance and capital for those wanting to enter and grow manufacturing efforts, supported by Australian policy; will get people into trades and harmonise qualifications and employment conditions; and will invest in reliable, affordable energy and the strategic infrastructure that supports Australian manufacturing.
Over the last 12 months, I have met with manufacturers right across Australia—via Zoom, obviously, last year, and recently with onsite visits to the Hunter and the Northern Rivers in New South Wales. I've heard what they have had to say. I've heard how we can actually support these brilliant local businesses to grow their potential, reach new heights and employ more people locally. Whilst there are particular issues specific to each region, some of the messages have been clear and consistent. They are ready to expand. They want to help more Australians buy Australian products. They are very passionate about having Australian made products online and on the shelves ready for Australians to buy. They want to employ Australians—very much so—and support the growth and development of their communities. They also need strong government, state and federal, to help them—a government that backs them and their vision for their local business and their industry.
How many pairs of iconic RM William boots do we see walking the halls of parliament? I had the opportunity to bump into the former shadow minister for agriculture, Ed Husic, who hadn't quite around to buying his pair of RMs before he was moved on. But another great champion in the Labor Party of regional Australia—a man that I often find myself agreeing with: Joel Fitzgibbon—does own a few pairs of the iconic RM Williams brand. The Australian bootmaker is expanding. Obviously, it's National Party uniform for us to have multiple pairs!
But how many pairs of iconic RM Williams boots do we see here in parliament and right across Australia, particularly out in the regions? It's great to see they are expanding their factory and bringing manufacturing of that iconic product back home.
Other manufacturing businesses want to do the same. They want to expand and grow. Recently the Business Council of Co-operatives and Mutuals and the HunterNet Co-operative invited myself and Senator Perin Davey to the Hunter Valley in New South Wales so we could better understand the opportunities and challenges they face. I was also able to visit cooperative food manufacturers in the beautiful Northern Rivers region with BCCM to learn about their business ambitions and how government policies can support them in everything from cooperative macadamia processing and blueberry farming to milk and beef processing operating within cooperative structures—all high-tech, advanced food processing manufacturers that want to grow and succeed.
Last week in Sawtell, on the New South Wales North Coast, I was able to meet with foresters in Coffs Harbour with the National Party member for Cowper, Pat Conaghan. They are all great small and medium enterprises, all family businesses. In the Australian Forest Products Association we have some of the most amazing advanced technology being used by these businesses to make sure our sustainably harvested and produced, environmentally sound and principled Australian timber can be turned into beautiful products we can all be very proud of. We can also be very proud that it's produced under high environmental standards. If we import those timber products from other countries, we cannot be as confident in the environmental impact.
I'm very excited about the work we're going to be doing as a party and as a Senate team in supporting food and fibre manufacturers going forward this year. We're also going to be focusing as a group on the EPBC Act review, which severely impacts our foresters and, also, agricultural and development opportunities out in rural and regional Australia. In my home state of Victoria we've got a wonderfully strong timber and forestry sector, particularly down in Gippsland but also through the north-east and over in western Victoria—a sector under attack, I might say, from our state Labor government. It is very disheartening, I think, to see a once-proud party that supported hardworking timber workers turning its back on those regional communities and on that industry itself to chase green votes in Brunswick. I know that's not a view shared by all Labor Party colleagues in this chamber, but, unfortunately, the Labor Party premier of my home state of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, really wants to see the forestry industry cease in our home state. It is very sad to see, and it is something we will be fighting at the state and federal level.
In Kyabram we have Wayne, Peter and David Mulcahy's Kyvalley Dairy Group—the largest and leading bulk fresh milk supplier into South-East Asia, which includes Malaysia and Singapore. Tatura is the home of the largest Australian owned producer of cream cheese and infant formula. We've got some great food and fibre processing happening out in the regions, employing thousands of Australians. We want to see that grow and prosper.
The Nationals want to build our sovereign manufacturing by turning our already abundant primary products into manufactured goods and complex products. Our energy, mineral and agricultural resources are all located out in the regions. We want those high-tech, sustainable careers in the processing side also located out in the regions, which is why our Manufacturing 2035 plan backs the setting up of regional hubs. I know that the Hunter is very excited about being identified in our policy as one of the key areas, along with Gladstone, where we can set up a regional hub, where we can really focus on the already existing capacity in regions like the Hunter and Gladstone for advanced manufacturing of primary products. Whether it is our mineral resources, food or fibre, that capacity, that skill set, that passion, that know-how already exists in those regions, and we want to build on that going forward.
We want to do it for two reasons. We believe that we should have a sovereign capacity here, located onshore, that we as Australians control and that is less subject to the vagaries and challenging of overseas trading partners and global unforeseeable circumstances, such as COVID-19. But we also want to see those jobs here at home. We want to reboot Aussie manufacturing. We have a nine-point plan to do that. We're delivering, and we look forward to getting production lines humming right across Australia.
I rise today to speak on a matter of national importance. As the COVID-19 pandemic buffeted the world and severed supply chains across the world, our nation began to realise that years of Liberal economic policies and speeches of the kind that we have just heard have done nothing to correct the whittling down of our sovereign capability. In fact, they have left our nation with a depleted manufacturing base. Australians who trusted the three versions of this Liberal-National government since 2013 have been lied to, ripped off and let down.
For eight years, this Liberal-National government has been pushing out blue pamphlets claiming it's the party of jobs and growth. But there's been a steady decline in the number of manufacturing jobs. That hurts. It hurts workers who've lost their jobs, it hurts local economies where they used to spend their hard-earned cash and it hurts entire industries, like car manufacturing. But loss of manufacturing also hurts every Australian. It makes us less safe and less able to look after ourselves. COVID has shown that we cannot take international trade and movement for granted anymore. Those days are gone. We need to manufacture by ourselves, for ourselves. But this government doesn't care for you or your needs as Australians.
In my home region of the Central Coast, manufacturing is a vital, important industry, supporting thousands of jobs and helping our region weather the storm of COVID-19. Commonsense government policy should be to support manufacturers like those on the coast and, indeed, in communities right across the country. Any industry minister worth their salt would use their ministerial powers to support domestic industries over foreign competitors. But Minister Andrews is not a commonsense minister.
In 2015, then Parliamentary Secretary Karen Andrews signed several ministerial exemption instruments that removed antidumping duties on steel from the People's Republic of China. Given the choice of protecting Australians or letting China dump steel, Karen Andrews chose China over Australia. This was despite near-universal reporting that China was, in fact, dumping steel on the market. In April 2016 Arrium, the major steel producer that ran the Whyalla steelworks in South Australia, went into administration. The Whyalla steelworks was only saved—not by this government, not by industrial policy, not by Mr Morrison and not by anybody in the Liberal-National government—by workers at the Whyalla steelworks, who agreed to large cuts in conditions and pay just to keep it functioning.
A subsequent Senate Economics References Committee inquiry into Australia's steel industry and the Arrium collapse cited in its Australia's steel industry: forging ahead report:
The pressures caused by the influx of dumped and subsidised steel … are considerably greater than the normal pressures expected in naturally competitive markets, creating additional pressures on the Australian steel industry.
That very well-researched report, tabled in this very parliament, also noted that the industry:
… will continue to decline without urgent action by the Australian government to address the issues of … unfair import competition.
Yet, despite 28 recommendations which would have saved jobs and protected Australian sovereignty, the Liberal governments—all flavours of the three ones that we have already had in the last eight years—did nothing. Karen Andrews did absolutely nothing.
By 2017 the Australian Workers Union was reporting that local companies appeared to have lost $200 million in work due to dumping in the previous 12 to 18 months following Minister Andrews's decision and action to roll back antidumping protections. Even today, industry minister Karen Andrews has implemented precisely zero of that report's recommendations.
Not only have the government failed to respond to the recommendations of the steel industry report; they've lied to Australians about protecting and growing Australian jobs. Both Morrison and Karen Andrews have vacated the space and let the antidumping reform process stall over and over. The effect has been the frustration of the Australian industry. Antidumping has been described as a regulatory arms race. In a race, you cannot step off the track. Refinements to laws and methods need to be updated regularly to react to adaptive predatory behaviour by unscrupulous exporters targeting the Australian industry. However, the last substantive antidumping reform package that this government brought to the parliament was way back in 2015.
Parliamentary Secretary Andrews, as she was in November 2015, put out a media release. This is what she said back then:
While Australia's current anti-dumping system is strong it must keep pace with industry trends. The Government is committed to working with stakeholders over the coming months to identify future reform opportunities to further strengthen our anti-dumping and countervailing system.
Her commitment was a declaration of a decision to do nothing. What she says and what she's done are completely at odds. Her word means nothing. Yet we have the continued charade of consultation. The industry has spent thousands of hours consulting with the department on reform options and has waited years and years for these much-needed reforms. Despite a package being finalised by the department for the minister and cabinet's consideration on multiple occasions, under Minister Andrews and her predecessors, reform has gone nowhere.
Recent Senate estimates reveal how careless the government is on antidumping, with Minister Andrews slashing funding for the Anti-Dumping Commission by five per cent for this financial year and by 13 per cent compared to the funding of 2016. She has also engaged in a process which has led to the currently highly respected commissioner, Mr Dale Seymour—a man unrivalled in his knowledge of the antidumping system in Australia since becoming the inaugural commissioner in 2013—effectively being forced out of office from the end of this month.
Despite the US slapping tariffs on steel imports and the EU enacting emergency safeguards on steel imports, the Australian government has done nothing. Minister Andrews and the MIA Mr Morrison, our Prime Minister, will not even contemplate transferring responsibility for safeguard investigations from the Productivity Commission to the Anti-Dumping Commission, which is best international practice. There's not one Australian minister standing up. This government has vacated the field. There's not one frontbencher on so-called Team Australia taking up the industry ball for us. Mr Morrison's Cronulla Sharks jersey and his cap might create the impression that he understands teamwork, but whenever he's been needed to put on the jersey for Team Australia, for the Australian industry sector, he hasn't even shown up for the training session, let alone made it onto the field. His industry minister—well, she's a 'Karen'.
This is all occurring at a time when Australian industry faces unprecedented threats from dumping. As state and federal governments spend billions in infrastructure and housing projects to help the economy recover from the biggest shock since the Great Depression, our domestic demands for steel have become even more vulnerable to cheap, dumped foreign steel. At this critical moment when Australian industry requires a responsive trade remedy system and a dedicated minister willing to do everything in the government's power to defend Australian jobs against unfair trade, we are struck with an industry minister and a Prime Minister who are paralysed. They have an appalling record. They're asleep at the wheel, leaving manufacturing jobs as a sitting duck to predatory behaviour.
Australia needs a local steel industry. It supports regional jobs. It protects our national sovereignty and defence procurement in a time of war. As the pandemic has shown us, local manufacturing is crucial when supply lines are disrupted. Australians understand today, in February 2021, what was less obvious to us in February 2020, pre-pandemic. We need to build our own. Australians want to build our own. If you believe in Australian industry and manufacturing jobs, it's only Labor that's going to do the work. Three LNP governments have failed to address this critical problem and have failed to save jobs for hardworking Australians. It's a fact that, since Karen Andrews became the industry minister, the playing field for Australian industry has become far less level, and the results have been dire.
According to the latest quarterly figures from the ABS, which came out in November, there were 128,400 fewer jobs in the manufacturing industry. That's a 13.5 per cent decrease. Let's put it another way: a manufacturing job has been lost every four minutes since Karen Andrews became minister. That's the loss of two manufacturing jobs since I started speaking, and that's because of the government's failure to act in this critical area. It doesn't need to be like this. I thank the Australian Workers Union and the CFMMEU for their advocacy on behalf of their workers, because the government has abandoned the field. (Time expired)
I rise today to talk about the power of big tech and the influence that big tech has on our lives. My teenage daughter is a digital native. She's got a smartphone, a laptop and social media. She streams what she wants to watch when she wants to watch it. She can search for the answers on almost every question ever asked. She speaks with friends from the other side of the world whom she's never met before, on a variety of different platforms. She shops, plays and learns online. But almost everything she does is traced, is under surveillance and is watched very carefully in order to influence the decisions that she will make next. The data of her footprint online is captured for corporate profit.
This influence of big tech companies needs to be taken on. I know it's radical to suggest that these big tech companies who are so powerful now need to be reined in, but it is exactly what we need to do, not just to protect the safety of our children online but to protect democracy itself. Tech giants aren't working in the public interest anymore. The internet isn't open and free, as perhaps it once was. It is now manipulated and controlled by a small handful of big corporations. They watch what we do, they follow what we do and then they sell what they think we're going to do next. The internet has become an essential part of our lives. We use it for shopping, health care, accessing information and keeping in touch with friends and family. But it is people who are the product of the big tech platforms, and, as users, we have no idea just what information they have on us. We need better regulation, we need openness and transparency, and we need a genuine conversation about creating an open, transparent and public space for what is online.
Corporations should never have been allowed to become this powerful. We're in the middle of a debate here in Australia right now about the influence of two big companies, Google and Facebook, because there is a suggestion that one part of what they do might be regulated because of the huge market share they have. Instead of participating in that conversation in a genuine, balanced way, those two big corporations, Google and Facebook, have said they'll pull the plug. They'll withdraw their services. How did it get to a point where corporations this big, who have so much influence and control over our lives, can just say that they'll take their bat and ball and go home? If we needed an example of why we need proper and better regulation in the tech space online and of these big tech giants, this is it. We need scrutiny of the algorithms that run these services, and we need more rights for users concerning what data is gathered and how it is used. We need regulation of hate speech and misinformation. We need proper taxation of companies that are making billions and billions of dollars from the users who are simply accessing this service as an essential part of their daily lives, while these companies are collecting this data and selling it to advertisers.
Platforms would have you believe that they're simply an independent third party. They're the road that you take to get from A to B. But, of course, everything along that road is collected, is sold, and you don't even know which parts of your journey are being traced and who that information is going to. It is your data and it should be your choice. It should be up to the Australian people, the individual users, to decide what is traced, what is sold, who should profit from it and for what purpose.
It is time that we actually had a genuine, open conversation about how big and powerful these companies have got. Technology is an important element of how we have developed and how we are going to deal with the challenges of the future, particularly in a time of global change, dealing with climate change and environmental destruction and trying to bring the world together rather than divide it. But, if we're to do that, democracies need to be protected and technology needs to be set amongst rules that are fit for the community and not just for corporations. We need oversight of social media and mechanisms in place to ensure that they are responsible for the information that is promoted and used. It is unthinkable that, in the time of a global pandemic, we have some companies making money off the promotion of misinformation that could put people's health at risk. It is unthinkable that some people in positions of power and responsibility can post misinformation about health advice and not have to be held accountable for it. We need to prevent the spread of misinformation and hate speech online. Facebook has become a platform where people get more likes, more friends and more shares the more outrageous they are, the more hateful they are. Is that good for the rest of democracy? Is that good for social cohesion? Is that good for community? What rules and practices do we need to put in place to make sure that these spaces that have become quasi-public—the new town square—are regulated in the same way they would be if they were offline? These conversations are happening not just here in Australia but around the world, but the big underlying element of all of this is what we do as users, how that information is collected, who owns it and where it goes.
Big tech companies have been able to make huge profits and become incredibly powerful. It's time to regulate them in the public interest so that everyday people can take back control over the decisions they make, where their information goes and who they share it with. There are a lot of impressive people working in this space. It's time for us as politicians, as thought leaders, as government members, to not be afraid of these big companies, not be afraid of taking on these monopolies, but instead look at what the solutions are. It may be that some of these companies are way too big and need to be broken up. They have such a monopoly that they are distorting the market. It may be that government needs to invest in genuine services for the public good: social media platforms that are run independently and for the public, for the community; search engines that are there to give people information, not to sell data to advertisers. But whatever the solution is, it must involve proper rules and regulations that are fit for the world that we live in today and fit for ensuring that the online space is safe, open, transparent and accessible to all people. If it's good enough in the local park, it should be good enough online. If it's good enough for the town square to have rules and social norms, then it shouldn't be so hard to expect corporations and businesses to behave appropriately and to be honest and open with the community online too.
I really appreciate the opportunity to be able to take this time in the Senate today to address an issue that is going on in my home state, in my home city of Perth right now. What we're seeing in the eastern suburbs of Perth is a very, very serious fire that is ravaging quite large stretches of land and, sadly, properties as well. We've seen reported that 71 properties have been destroyed so far as a result of this terrible fire that's been burning for about three days now. The disappointing news is that the weather conditions are expected to be catastrophic and to continue for a further three days. This is, of course, a very alarming and concerning incident that is occurring in Perth right now, as we speak. So I just wanted to take this time to bring a few messages but also to thank those that are involved in dealing with this very serious emergency.
This fire is occurring in the eastern suburbs of Perth. It started up in the hills and it moved westwards, with a very strong easterly behind it, down into the foothills. It's in the shires of Mundaring and Northam and the City of Swan. For those that are not familiar with Perth and have not seen where these areas are, some of them are heavily wooded areas and heavily forested areas. Then there are peri-urban areas where beautiful homes have been built in these idyllic locations. But the fire is actually moving into the suburbs of Perth; it's not just in these peri-urban or rural areas. So it's a very serious incident that our emergency services in Western Australia are dealing with right now.
Residents of Perth are dealing with not only the impact of this fire but also with lockdown as a result of the COVID pandemic and a case that has occurred in Western Australia. I must stress for anyone who may actually be listening that if you're in these areas and you've been asked to isolate and quarantine at home, it certainly does not mean that you can't leave your home if you've been directed to do so, if you're in the face of this emergency. We simply ask that people continue to wear their masks as they relocate somewhere safe. So you don't need to stay in your home; if you've been directed to leave, you should leave and you should go and isolate somewhere safe.
I'm saddened to hear that the conditions are going to worsen over the day as 70 kilometres per hour winds are now flanking this fire and pushing the fire towards the housing estates right on the edge of Perth. Seventy-one homes have been lost, and I can't imagine what sort of impact that must be for those families. I read on the front page of The West Australian newspaper today of a mother and her daughter who had to protect themselves by going into their swimming pool as they watched their home burn. That must have been an absolutely horrific scene—a home that they'd built about 20 years earlier now destroyed in front of them. There are no words that could be offered to provide the kind of support that is needed, but I—and I'm sure I'm joined by Senator Brockman, as he joins me here in the chamber—express my sincerest condolences and support to those who have lost their home and property.
The Australian government are doing all that we can to support the Western Australian government and the services that are operating there to protect these homes and to deal with this fire. The Minister for Defence organised for a large air tanker to be sent over, filled with fire retardant that can then be used to supply the smaller planes that are actually involved in the extinguishing of this fire. That was initiated very, very quickly at the request of the state government, and we gave them absolutely everything that was required.
The other thing that has happened today is Minister Littleproud has announced that residents that have been impacted by this fire are able to access a disaster recovery payment of $1,000 per adult and $400 per child. This money will be available from 8 am tomorrow through Services Australia through Centrelink. I really want to stress these are very proud people that live in Western Australia and certainly in these areas, and I know many of them would feel that they may not necessarily need or want any kind of handout like this. But let me say there, of course, are some immediate issues that need to be dealt with, like supplies that you might need. There is no shame in accessing this payment at all. Australians stand with you. This government stands with you. If you've been affected, we encourage you to make use of this disaster recovery payment that is available. It'll be in your bank account straightaway and it will be there to help tide you over with a few of the immediate necessary things required to help you deal with this present situation. So the government are doing what we can and responding to those requests that come from the Western Australian government. Of course, if there are more requests that come through, I've got no doubt that the relevant ministers and, indeed, our Prime Minister will do everything within our power to support these communities.
This is a very challenging time for Western Australia, whether you're caught up in lockdown due to COVID or you're dealing with these bushfires. These are very serious incidents that are occurring. I'd encourage everyone to do what you can to stay safe, even if you're a long way from the fires and dealing with the COVID situation and doing what you've been asked to do, which is to stay home if you can, and, if you need to go out to get groceries and such things, to wear your mask. It's great to see the reports that are coming through where people are doing everything they can. The compliance with these requests is, from what we're hearing—obviously, we're over here in Canberra and not there present with the community. It is, as I think Senator Brockman would agree, a strange feeling not being able to be there right now with our community, but we're doing everything we can from here to support our communities.
It's really good to see the way Western Australians are rising to the challenge. No doubt the generosity of Western Australians will come through over the next few days, and I'd encourage every Australian to consider, as the calls get put out, to donate to help people dealing with the impact of this fire. I've got no doubt that Western Australians and, indeed, all Australians will rise to the challenge in the way that Western Australians rose to the challenge when helping to raise funds and support the communities that were impacted by last summer's bushfires. As a Western Australian, I was very proud to see that support by Western Australians that went into the eastern states as we looked on the challenges that were going on in the eastern states and while we went through a relatively trouble-free bushfire season in Western Australia last year.
I had a fire just down the road from my house. There were two of them that occurred over a week. Thankfully no serious amount of property was damaged. Literally 500 metres or so from my house, where we live, I got to see firsthand the tremendous effort that is put in not only by career firefighters—and of course police and other emergency services—but, indeed, by all of the volunteers who step up at times like this. I want to say thank you very much. You are heroes. You are incredibly brave. We appreciate all that you do, particularly when you're putting your lives in danger.
Last week Uber Eats made an announcement that they'll be making significant changes to their business model. Those of us concerned with the impacts of the growing gig and on-demand economies on the Australian workforce were curious to hear what those changes would be. We've seen the deaths of five delivery workers in the past few months. I was thinking: maybe the company has decided to step up and take responsibility for providing occupational health and safety training, ensuring the safety of its workforce. Maybe after the election of an American President, who is actively promoting the empowering of workers as a pathway to economic justice, this US-based company was going to begin working with workers' representatives and give them a seat at the table. I thought maybe after the years of complaints from restaurants and delivery workers the company was going to turn over a new leaf and begin a process of ending the exploitation of both. Did any of this happen? Of course, fat chance. Instead Uber Eats has made it abundantly clear that it has no intention of improving the lot of riders and drivers. They were up-ending their business model, no longer carrying on with the false pretence that they are some sort of matchmaker between restaurants and delivery workers.
From the first of next month Uber Eats will now be directly engaging delivery workers as contractors—issuing new contracts. The intention of these contracts is to absolve Uber Eats of any responsibility for riders or drivers for death or injury while working for the company and to continue to pay them any sum that that company sees and deems fit at any given moment of the day by simply a change to the algorithm. In black and white, it sets out that Uber Eats can unilaterally terminate or deactivate—lovely language isn't it? 'Deactivate'. We're talking about human beings that're trying to make sure they can put food on their tables. They're low paid. They're paid below the minimum wage. When the algorithm says they've stepped out of line, they were five minutes late, or there was a complaint that was never double-checked—certainly not checked by a human being—they get deactivated. Your income is taken off you. You're thrown on the scrap heap. You have nowhere to go.
These contracts included clauses spelling out a treaty against any worker who engages in conduct that has the potential to cause regulatory scrutiny. After strong opposition from groups like the Transport Workers Union, and many riders, Uber has dropped this shameful clause. However, Uber has made it clear that if you work for them you must remain silent. This is a company that wants to gag its workforce. It's terrified of having to treat its workers with the rights to collectively bargain, or to have minimum rates of pay, or to have adequate standards of safety, or to have a voice at work.
Yet I do not hear a single defence for freedom of speech from the other side. Where are the Liberals and Nats who fight for the rights of right-wing columnists to spread misinformation but refuse to stand up for the rights of workers at Uber Eats to use their freedom of speech? Where are senators like Senator Bragg, who championed the supposed Liberal value of freedom only to remain silent while Uber Eats is attempting to bully its workforce into silence? I think Senator Bragg's catch-call is more like 'freedom to be ripped off'.
That these contracts come after the tragic string of deaths last year is a kick in the teeth to delivery workers and to their friends, their colleagues, their families and our community. It is in the midst of their grief that they took the courageous action to step up and make their voices heard. And how did Uber Eats respond? They made it abundantly clear, 'We are not responsible for you, and if you speak out your account will be deactivated.' This is the desperate action of a company which is afraid that its paper-thin argument that its workers are not employee-like will soon be subject either to judicial decision or regulatory response.
Last year, a case that it was 'merely connecting people' was torn apart by the justices presiding over the legal case. One of the justices presiding made a number of telling comments in cross-examining and commenting on Uber Eats' evidence:
Everybody knows what function Uber plays. The restaurant's function is to prepare the food. Uber's function is to deliver the food; isn't that right?
In response to the legal arguments prepared by Uber to that kind of question, another justice said further:
Well, we actually operate in the real world here. Judgements are practical things, especially in this context. This is not a debating club.
Of course, afraid of the implications of losing, Uber was left with no choice but to settle the case. They chose to settle the case and now are redoing their business model in an attempt to avoid any future judicial decision that might see workers treated with employee-like rights. Heaven forbid—paid the minimum wage, the right to collective bargaining for their labour and freedom to speak out on issues that matter to them and to the workforce.
But who could be surprised by Uber's actions? This is a company that has been caught in the past spying on its clients—often on politicians or activist journalists—and which has been subject to lawsuits for lying to its drivers about rates of pay or for underpaying them entirely. It is one in which its corporate offices have been revealed as hotbeds of sexual harassment and discrimination.
Uber's decision comes at a time of great change for this industry. Australia's largest states are moving towards regulation. This week we heard that while the federal government defers it, the federal Labor Party is committed to regulating this Wild West industry. I want the workers in the gig economy to know that they have a friend in federal Labor. These workers are making ends meet while at the mercy of uncountable algorithms driven by reckless greed, and they deserve better from the federal government. Why don't they deserve better safety at work? Why don't they deserve the dignity in retirement afforded them through superannuation? Why don't they deserve the ability to bargain collectively and organise for their rights and their conditions? What is so special about being employed by an app that you are denied the basic rights of any worker? What is so special about the gig economy—so innovative—that this government thinks that these workers deserve nothing?
The future of work is here right now. What is happening in food delivery and transport is already happening in aged care and in the NDIS—at times aided, abetted and funded by the government departments overseeing these industries. There is not a corner of the Australian or global workforce that cannot be disrupted by models like those pushed by Uber Eats. If we do not begin to regulate now and establish fair and safe rates of pay, conditions that afford dignity and rights to organise collectively then the present and future of work will remain bleak.
Just on a year ago I embarked on a series of speeches in the Senate that aimed to put the spotlight on Australian businesspeople who, in various ways, have had an impact on Australian society, economics and politics. The person I wish to speak about today has had a prominent career; however, outside Australia's political, business and academic elites, he is little known to most people. Dr Geoff Raby is an Australian economist, former diplomat and business adviser. He has been seen as one of Australia's best and brightest, and has enjoyed a stellar career.
Dr Raby is a graduate of La Trobe University, with bachelor's and master's degrees and a PhD in economics. He joined the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in the 1980s. He rose rapidly through the ranks: he worked at Australia's embassy in Beijing, served as head of DFAT's North-East Asia analytical unit and led the trade negotiation division, before becoming our ambassador to the World Trade Organization. Dr Raby then headed up DFAT's international organisations division and served as ambassador to the APEC forum, before being a DFAT deputy secretary from 2002 to 2006. This impressive diplomatic career was capped when Dr Raby served as Australia's ambassador to China from 2007 to 2011. At that time, as Raby has described it:
We enjoyed almost unrivalled access to the top Chinese leadership. High-level visits were frequent, and engagement was expanding exponentially on every front.
Dr Raby was tipped as a future DFAT secretary, but those ambitions were not fulfilled. Instead, on completion of his ambassadorial term, he abruptly resigned from the diplomatic service and established Geoff Raby & Associates, a Beijing-based business advisory firm. There were some who questioned the propriety of an ambassador walking out of his office and immediately setting up a lobby shop in the capital where he had just represented this country. Undoubtedly the lure of the lucrative Chinese market was very strong. Geoff Raby & Associates appear to have enjoyed some success in the boom times of the Australia-China relationship.
In the 2019 Queen's Birthday Honours, Dr Raby was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia:
For distinguished service to Australia-China relations through senior diplomatic roles, and to multilateral trade policy development.
Dr Raby has been a frequent contributor to public debate on foreign policy, especially Australia-China relations. He has long been a leading advocate for deeper economic ties between Australia and China, and for Australia to accommodate and adapt to China's rising power and influence. As tension between Beijing and Canberra has grown, he has been increasingly critical of Australian government policy and those who are concerned about China's regional ambitions, Chinese espionage, and Chinese political interference and human rights abuses. As early as May 2018, Raby penned an opinion piece claiming that Australia's relations with China could improve only through the sacking of then then foreign minister, Julie Bishop.
In October 2019 Dr Raby delivered the annual La Trobe University China Oration. In speaking of what he called 'the China threat', he asserted:
The China Threat is much exaggerated, both as a military adversary and as a challenge to Australia’s domestic institutions.
Dr Raby has elaborated his views in a book in which he makes a sharp critique of Australian policy towards China and offers what he claims to be a realistic but relatively benign view of China's ambitions and capabilities. Dr Raby believes that Australia won't be taken seriously if we can't manage relations with Beijing, that we're too close to the US, and that we should avoid too sharp a criticism of the Chinese Communist regime and its human rights abuses.
Dr Raby is free to express his views. We need open and diverse debate on our relations with China, something that will be our most difficult international challenge for years to come. That said, it should be noted that Dr Raby's views have often been quoted by the ultranationalistic propaganda mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist regime, with the likes of the Global Times welcoming his critiques of Australian policy. Albeit selectively, they like what he has to say.
Moreover, it's worth highlighting the business context of Dr Raby's contribution to foreign policy debate. Geoff Raby & Associates was deregistered in 2016. Much of his business activity now appears to be focused on directorships in enterprises that include Legend Media Group, a Chinese focused entertainment and media company, and OceanaGold, a multinational goldmining company. Most significantly, since June 2012 Raby has served as a director of Yancoal, the big Chinese owned coal producer that operates mines across Australia. Yancoal Australia is indeed Australia's largest pure coal producer. It's a highly profitable company that operates and manages mines across New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia.
The largest shareholders in Yancoal are Shandong based Yanzhou Coal, with a 62 per cent holding, and Cinda International, a Hong Kong based investment company, with 16 per cent. Yanzhou Coal is now owned by the Yankuang Group, the fourth largest coalmining state owned enterprise in China. Yancoal is thus majority owned by the Chinese state. Yancoal's board includes five Chinese directors, including chairman Baocai Zhang, who also represents the Yankuang Group, and one other Chinese director who represents Cinda International. There are three Australian directors, Greg Fletcher, a former senior partner with Deloitte, Helen Gillies, a legal and risk management expert, and Dr Raby.
In March 2019, Dr Raby appropriately registered with the Australian government's foreign influence transparency register regarding his position as director of Yancoal. Dr Raby worked with Yancoal for nearly nine years. That's significant because in that time Yancoal emerged as one of Australia's top corporate income tax dodgers. The extent of Yancoal's aggressive tax minimisation is made clear by the Australian tax office's corporate income tax transparency reports. Between 2013-14 and 2018-19 Yancoal generated $16.6 billion in revenue. Remarkably, they declared just $26 million in income tax. That's on taxable income. Over those six years of activity, as the coal price skyrocketed, Yancoal paid no corporate income tax at all—not a cent.
Just how Yancoal manages this is a complex story, but, as investigative journalist Michael West has shown, it's in line with the aggressive tax minimisation practices employed by many foreign mining and energy companies operating across Australia. There's the so-called Singapore hub corporate structure, with hundreds of millions of dollars of payments to related parties. As of 2017-18, there's been $1.5 billion in loans from associated companies at rates of up to seven per cent and some $200 million in other corporate costs paid to associates. Yancoal has had $1.3 billion banked in tax losses to offset against future profits. It is also noteworthy that, as the recent reports by the Centre for Public Integrity showed, over the past 20 years Yancoal has shelled out over $2 million in political donation in spite of a published code that says it's against company policy to use corporate funds for political purposes. That's right: no corporate income tax is paid, but there are plenty of dollars to buy political influence. This is essentially a colonial-style mining operation, a foreign owned and controlled enterprise stripping out wealth while paying back an absolute minimum, if anything, to the community.
Geoff Raby knows quite a bit about this sort of operation. He once wrote a book on Australia's colonial economic history. In the latter part of his career, he's embraced a new colonial relationship, where a Chinese owned state enterprise makes handsome profits and feeds China's industrial expansion while paying not a cent in corporate income tax in Australia. Dr Raby has properly registered as a foreign agent, but in doing so he should have described himself as what he is—just a frontman, a paid operative selling his influence and credibility to foreign corporate tax dodgers. It's a sad postscript to a distinguished career and it's the context in which Dr Raby's commentary on our relationship with China should be viewed. Perhaps the next time an Australian university or think tank contemplates inviting Dr Raby to give an address, rather than asking for his views on high diplomacy they might ask him to justify his involvement in one of Australia's biggest corporate tax dodges.
The last 12 months has illustrated the importance of self-reliance. When a country cannot rely on itself then its sovereignty is jeopardised. In his political masterpiece The Prince Niccolo Machiavelli wrote:
Wise princes … have always shunned axillaries and made use of their own forces … in the belief that no true victory is possible with alien arms.
… … …
Mercenaries and auxiliaries are … useless and dangerous.
… … …
If a prince bases the defence of his state on mercenaries, he will never achieve stability and security.
At the time of writing, Machiavelli was lamenting the downfall of the Italian state, which in his opinion had been caused by the reliance placed on mercenary troops for so many years. Australia today in many ways resembles Machiavelli's Italy. We rely on foreign auxiliaries for so many of our core responsibilities: defence, capital, labour and manufacturing. The fake meme of an Australian soldier on Twitter last year showed why we can never trust foreign companies to defend our national interests if it is against their vested interest. Self-reliance is the bedrock of sovereign independence.
It is my view that there is too much focus on trade and not enough focus on production. While trade is obviously important for a country like Australia, it is no substitute for the ability to control our means of production. In the same way the horse comes before the cart, production must always come before trade. What is the point of generating wealth if it is to end up in an offshore bank account? There is no future for our children if they cannot control the means by which wealth is generated and, more importantly, do not know how to generate the wealth in the first place. True liberty is the ability to stand on your own two feet and not have to depend on others. If Australia is to remain a truly sovereign nation and not become a vassal state of multinational corporations, we must ensure control of our wealth and be responsible for the tasks that underpin any nation's sovereignty, in particular our infrastructure that provides essential services to Australians. I've spoken about this many times before; infrastructure built and paid for by Australian taxes should be controlled by Australians. To those that say Australia has always relied on foreign capital, I say think again. As the words of our national anthem state, it is 'wealth for toil', not 'wealth for foreign debt'. Using foreign debt to fund our way of life only begets more debt and, with it, the loss of control over our nation's wealth and the high standard of living that comes with it. Ultimately, debt becomes slavery, and we owe it to our children not to enslave them with the burden of debt.
Few people seem to understand that borrowing from offshore drives up the Australian dollar as foreigners swap their currencies into Australian dollars before lending those very dollars back to us. This is counterproductive for Australian industry as the higher dollar makes it harder to export goods and easier to import goods. As a sovereign nation, Australia has the sovereign right to issue its own credit against our untapped wealth. It does not need to outsource this responsibility to foreign central banks by taking on foreign debt. Australia has the sovereign rights to the rainfall, to the sunlight, to the materials and to the toil that are needed to produce its own goods and services. From an accounting perspective, those sovereign rights are already equity. So why give up title over that wealth in exchange for a mortgage that enslaves our children? The quantitative easing being pursued by the RBA should focus on building infrastructure to increase production, rather than consuming foreign goods. It is time that the RBA and the Foreign Investment Review Board put an end to foreign companies turning up with a truck full of free cash supplied by foreign central banks to steal our infrastructure.
The same goes for foreign labour. The skills shortage in Australia is yet another threat to our sovereignty, and it's not just fruit picking. Boilermakers, diesel mechanics and various other trades are in short supply. It is a sad indictment of our overreliance on foreign labour that Australia, a First World country, has to rely on skilled labour, especially doctors, from developing countries.
As the saying goes: give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. There is no better way to learn than being in an actual job. Yet today Australians are determined to send all of our children off to university when, in fact, many of them would be better off doing a trade. Too many young people are graduating from university with massive debts but no employment prospects in their studied profession, while businesses have to import labour to fill skills shortages. While education is important, we should remember the saying: those who can, do; those who can't, teach. In recent decades, higher education has become driven by profit and ideology rather than skills and productivity, and it is our children who have suffered for it.
Our skills base is further eroded when corporations offshore jobs, further jeopardising our sovereignty. Australia has seen too many of its corporations move their head offices offshore. BHP and Rio are just two of the many that have moved offshore despite the fact that most of their wealth is generated here in Australia. In the main, this is driven by our tax act, which encourages the offshoring of both labour and profits. This has had a devastating impact on our industries, especially manufacturing.
Multinational corporations are the mercenaries of the 21st century. The threat by Google over the Australian government's desire to tax news content is just one of the many examples of how these corporations act with undemocratic belligerence to undermine our sovereign rights. Our tax treaties work against the national interest. Allowing foreign entities to transfer their profits offshore at a lower rate than the onshore tax rate has gifted them a competitive advantage, to the detriment of Australian industries and jobs. Withholding taxes on profits need to be lifted in order to reduce the arbitrage between profits retained in Australia and profits sent offshore. Too much of our wealth is being transferred offshore.
Finally, any discussion about sovereignty shouldn't ignore the High Court case of Commonwealth v Tasmania, which put the rights of international treaties above those of state governments. The Constitution says that the federal government has the power to make laws with respect to external affairs. Can somebody please explain to me how dam building is an external affair? It isn't. It is a domestic affair. You can't tell me that protectionists like Deakin and Barton had dams in mind when they inserted the external affairs powers into the Constitution. This decision needs to be overturned.
Australia, as a small, isolated country in the South Pacific, must put national self-interest in front of vested interests driven by false ideologies. We should not be a servant to trade but rather a master of production, or, like so many states before, we will fall to mercenaries who are loyal only to their vested interests. To achieve this, we must rewrite our international treaties, especially our tax treaties; control the flow of capital that crosses our borders; and teach our children trades rather than just ideologies. Australia should heed the words of Lord Palmerston, who said:
We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.
Before I start my contribution here today, I would like to just take up one point in Senator Rennick's contribution, and that is about teachers. We have a former teacher right here in Senator O'Neill, who is a very good teacher. I also would like to say on behalf of all teachers out there: I'm sure they can, Senator Rennick.
I want to draw the Senate's attention to the plight of Tasmania when it comes to the attention of this government, the Morrison government, because it has become sadly clear that Tasmanians are being overlooked and left behind by Mr Morrison. There is a litany of broken promises, job opportunities missed and people and businesses doing it tough who have been abandoned and left behind by this Prime Minister. It's become a story of a flood of dollars for mates on the mainland compared with a trickle of cents for those in need in Tasmania. When it came to his own backyard, the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, had no difficulty in finding the funds needed to build the second airport in Sydney, off the back, mind you—and I know Madam Acting Deputy President Faruqi will know this, as she is from New South Wales—of a dodgy land deal. Mr Morrison has no trouble splashing cash on his mates, but when it comes to investing in or supporting jobs in Tasmania all we get is spin and reannouncements with no substance. In fact, the Liberals have repeatedly dangled projects, like the new bridge across the Tamar River, in front of Tasmanians. Yet time and again, budget after budget, they have failed to stump up any substantial investment to actually deliver on their promises. It is all smoke and mirrors.
I'm glad Senator Duniam is in the chamber, because I know that he knows only too well how this is spot on. It is all about stunts, re-announcements and spin. Promises are left unfilled and opportunities are missed because this government repeatedly leaves Tasmania off the map. It's a speech you should be giving, because you know it's correct, Senator Duniam.
Order! I ask senators to direct their comments to me and not talk across the chamber.
My apologies, Madam Acting Deputy President. Tasmania is well behind the eight ball in the development of a clean energy hydrogen production and export industry at Bell Bay, because this government and this Prime Minister are long on rhetoric and short on actual delivery. They failed to make a commitment towards this important new industry for Northern Tasmania at the last election, and, whilst they like to make supportive noises—as they have done in the past on many projects, they make the noises and talk about support—they have continued to fail when it comes to stumping up any actual investment. This failure has real-world, tangible impacts.
We have the potential, with the right investment from the federal government, to create well-paid, secure and decent manufacturing jobs in Northern Tasmania, but this government and this Prime Minister simply aren't interested. When it comes to rorting taxpayers' money and securing dodgy land deals for mates in his own backyard, this Prime Minister can't sign up quickly enough, but, when it comes to actually investing in creating jobs in places like Tasmania, he's nowhere to be seen. Tasmania desperately needs more good and secure jobs and jobs with higher wages. With higher unemployment and lower wages, a greater proportion of people and businesses in Tasmania are reliant on JobKeeper and JobSeeker than the nation as a whole. Yet next month Mr Morrison and this government are proposing to abandon these people and businesses by ending JobKeeper and axing the coronavirus supplement.
The government claims it will have something to announce. We've heard that before. This is what the government is saying: the government claims it will have something to announce regarding JobSeeker prior to the end of the supplement. Sadly, the many thousands of Tasmanians who rely on this payment to make ends meet and put food on the table are now used to this government stringing them along until the last possible minute. This is no way to give people the certainty they need to help them secure a job. This is no way to treat people who, through no fault of their own, have found themselves without a job or without enough hours of work because of the impacts of this pandemic. We also know that many tourism, travel, creative and event businesses and workers in these industries are continuing to struggle with international borders set to remain closed for some time and the continuing impact of capacity restrictions.
Just this week, the Tourism Export Council released figures showing that domestic travel has replaced less than 20 per cent of the revenue received from international visitors. In fact, 55 per cent of tourism businesses exposed to the international market will not survive until September without some kind of government support. Yet, as it has done to unemployed Australians, the government has failed to communicate with businesses in the tourism industry about any plan.
Order! It being 2 pm we will go to questions without notice.
by leave—I advise the Senate that Senator Payne will be absent from question time today, Wednesday 3 February 2021, due to ministerial business. In Senator Payne's absence I will represent the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Investment; Senator Ruston will represent the Minister for Women; and Senator Cash will represent the Attorney-General and the Minister for Industrial Relations.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. Yesterday in question time the minister said:
The confidence that Australians have in the vaccines that we have available is going to be absolutely crucial to the take-up of vaccines across the country and to the protection of Australians, particularly those who are most vulnerable.
Are the comments from Mr Craig Kelly assisting or hindering confidence in the vaccines?
I thank the senator for the question. At the outset I confirm the statement that I made yesterday. I stand by that wholeheartedly. It is an extremely important thing that Australians have confidence in our national vaccine strategy. I repeat and reaffirm those statements.
The medical and health advice that we have received from those who are guiding our response to COVID-19 is extremely important. I can confirm to the chamber that the Prime Minister has met with Mr Kelly today; that Mr Kelly has, in a statement, confirmed that he met with the Prime Minister this morning; and that the Prime Minister has reinforced to Mr Kelly the importance of enduring public confidence in the government's vaccine strategy, confirming my statement of yesterday.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Well, I think it's reasonable that the Prime Minister has conversations with his colleagues in this place and reinforces his point of view. As part of that process, in his statement today Mr Kelly said:
I agreed to support the government's vaccine rollout which has been endorsed by medical experts.
I have always sought to support the success of our nation's public health response during the pandemic.
I believe that the spread of misinformation can damage the success of our public health response during the pandemic.
So I reinforce the statement that I made yesterday, particularly in the context of the vaccine rollout for senior Australians—who, we all understand, are the most vulnerable. (Time expired)
Senator Watt, a supplementary question?
Yesterday the minister said he was disappointed in 'completely reckless commentary with respect to the vaccine'. Does the minister agree that Craig Kelly continually undermining public confidence in Australia's medical experts and the COVID-19 vaccine is 'completely reckless commentary'?
Before I call Senator Colbeck, I urge senators to use formal titles. If I misheard that, my apologies. Please use formal titles for members of the other place.
Yesterday I did condemn the Labor Party's reckless strategy of undermining our vaccine rollout—
Order! Senator Watt, he's been speaking for six seconds but I will allow you to raise a point of order.
On relevance: the question was clearly about Mr Kelly's comments, not the Labor Party's comments. The minister should stick to Mr Kelly's comments.
On the point of order, Senator Colbeck?
Mr President, Senator Watt was clearly misquoting what I said yesterday and partially quoting my statements. So, if he wants to fully—
Senator Wong interjecting—
Sorry, Senator Colbeck—
Senator Wong interjecting—
Senator Wong, with respect, I do grant people some latitude to introduce their point of order before I call them. I was going to ask the minister to come to a point of order. The minute you started saying it was a selective quote, Minister—that is not a point of order. But if you wish to raise a point of order on direct relevance, I'm happy to hear it. Or, there's a time to debate or answer the question. On the point of order, Senator Watt, I'm not going to rule halfway through the first sentence that a minister is not being directly relevant to an answer. The question did contain an extensive quote from the minister. He is allowed to put that quote in context and address the substance of that quotation as well. Senator Colbeck.
Again, I repeat that yesterday I condemned the Labor Party's reckless approach to undermining our vaccine strategy. Their commentary is not useful. And I repeat the statement that Senator Watt has also repeated today—that the strength of our vaccine strategy and public confidence in our vaccine strategy is absolutely vital to the take-up of vaccine in this country. That's why the Prime Minister has called Mr Kelly in this morning to have the conversation that he has had, and I think that's appropriate. I don't support anybody who's providing information that undermines the national vaccine strategy that we have. And I have to say, Mr Kelly's getting more airtime from the publicity given to him by the Labor Party than he is by his own means. It's the Labor Party who is elevating this issue beyond what I believe it should be.
Senator Watt is on his feet for a final supplementary question.
Mr Kelly has been spreading reckless and dangerous misinformation for months. Why has it taken so long for the Morrison government to tell him to stop? Is keeping Mr Kelly happy more important than the health and safety of Australians?
The most important thing, from this government's perspective, is the health and safety of Australians and the confidence that Australians have in the vaccine rollout that we will commence very soon. That is the most important thing to this government. So we will continue, on the advice of the medical experts, to do everything we possibly can to ensure that there is a strong level of public confidence in the vaccination program that we are about to roll out and that Australians can, with confidence, take up the vaccine that's going to be provided as part of that rollout process. That is the most important thing to this government and to me in my ministerial duties. That's what we will continue to reinforce: that we have strong, health based evidence, supported by experts and the great work of our world-class TGA advice, to provide confidence in the vaccination rollout. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Reynolds. Can the minister update the Senate on the devastating situation occurring in Perth right now, with the Wooroloo bushfire that's burning out of control in Perth's eastern suburbs?
I thank Senator O'Sullivan for the question. A bushfire is burning at the emergency warning level in the shires of Mundaring, Chittering and Northam and the City of Swan, 27 kilometres north-east of Perth. It is an area I know well and love, as I know all Western Australian senators do. The bushfire remains uncontained and out of control. The Western Australian Department of Fire and Emergency Services has confirmed that at least 71 properties have been destroyed and the bushfire has so far burned over 9,000 hectares. I'm advised that no lives have been lost and no-one is yet unaccounted for. However, there remains the potential for wind changes, maintaining very unfavourable conditions. We urge everyone to stay aware of their surroundings and follow the advice from local emergency management authorities.
While weather conditions have been hampering firefighting efforts, our emergency services personnel are once again showing their professionalism, their dedication and their heroism in the face of these extreme conditions. On behalf of Minister Littleproud, on behalf of the federal government and I know on behalf of all senators in this place I thank everyone who is contributing and working so hard in the firefighting effort to protect these communities and to ensure that there is no loss of life. Our thoughts and our prayers are with the people of Western Australia and with all of our emergency services, and, most importantly and most sincerely, with all of those impacted by these horrific fires.
Can the minister outline what federal support, including ADF assistance, has been made available to support WA authorities in relation to this threat?
The Australian government has acted swiftly in support of the Western Australian government's response. The Australian Government Disaster Response Plan has been activated by Minister Littleproud. He's also activating Australian government disaster payments for those most affected in the Mundaring and Swan local government areas. Today, defence is supporting water-bombing operations from RAAF Base Pearce, which yesterday was in extreme danger, and they're assisting firefighters to move to the fire front. Defence will also fly additional fire retardant from RAAF Base Richmond to Western Australia.
Last year, defence completed a strategic review of Operation Bushfire Assist to ensure that our support to natural disaster was optimised. Consequential changes are now making it easier for defence to assist states and territories. I thank all senators who supported that—
Order, Senator Reynolds! Senator O'Sullivan, a final supplementary question?
Can the minister update the Senate on defence's assistance to WA authorities and their COVID-19 response as well?
As we are all aware, the Western Australia government is fighting not only a COVID-19 outbreak in Western Australia but also these fires. Yesterday, defence accepted a request for additional assistance to the WA government's COVID-19 response. This support is in addition to the 1,500 ADF personnel still deployed across the country supporting COVID-19 actions in all states and territories. This includes 150 who are currently working in Western Australia, so 50 additional staff will be based in Perth supporting the Western Australian police to conduct vehicle checkpoints in Perth, Peel and the South West region. Vehicle checkpoints are police led, with ADF providing marshalling and initial assessment of vehicles. This takes the total number of ADF members on task in Western Australia to 200, which includes 93 personnel who are still supporting quarantine compliance measures in seven hotels—
Order, Senator Reynolds! Senator Lines.
I seek leave to associate myself and, indeed, all of my Labor colleagues, particularly my Western Australian Labor colleagues, with the comments that were just made by the minister, and to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Obviously we concur with the thanks to the emergency service workers. Like Senator Reynolds, I have many friends who live in the area. It's an area of Perth where you have acreage that meets the outer suburban areas. In fact, a former staff member of mine, Rhys, was evacuated two nights ago at 2 am.
I want to acknowledge the huge kindness and generosity of the Perth community. There are all sorts of offers of help, as you can imagine. Being an area of acreage, there are prized horses and other livestock, which people all over the metro area are offering to agist. There are free meals being delivered. Just as we saw the Sikh community in the eastern states respond to the fire emergency, the Sikh community in Bennett Springs, a suburb that's likely to be threatened, are also out there working. That generosity, I'm sure, makes all of us as Western Australians very proud. I thank the minister for the response that the federal government has given.
I seek leave to associate the Greens with the minister's comments and to make some very brief comments as well.
Leave granted.
I thank the minister and the government for the response. Every Western Australian member in the other place has friends and family that live in the hills area and the fire affected area, as do senators. I myself certainly do. The Greens are very thankful for the response from the federal government. We wish well all the emergency personnel and those people that are currently fighting the fire and defending people's homes and lives. Our hearts go out to everyone that is affected by this current disaster, given the particular circumstances that Western Australia and the Perth metropolitan area are facing at the moment with the double impact of the COVID lockdown. It is a very stressful time at home in Western Australia, and I thank the government for the response that they are making.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Can the minister confirm that the Prime Minister has now met face to face with Mr Kelly? Did the meeting occur today? What did Mr Morrison say to Mr Kelly? What commitments did the Prime Minister get from Mr Kelly?
Obviously the Prime Minister meets with and speaks with his colleagues on a frequent basis, but I can confirm, as Senator Colbeck has already told the chamber, that the Prime Minister met with Mr Kelly, the member for Hughes, this morning. The Prime Minister made clear that the Prime Minister and the government do not support any views that undermine the vaccine strategy, whether made by Mr Kelly or by anyone else. Mr Kelly has subsequently issued a statement referred to by Senator Colbeck in which Mr Kelly has made clear that he had a meeting with the Prime Minister and that the Prime Minister reinforced the importance of ensuring public confidence in the government's vaccine strategy. Mr Kelly has stated that he has agreed to support the government's vaccine rollout, as endorsed by medical experts. Indeed, it is the government's expectation—and we will continue to advocate strongly for this—that the vaccination rollout will be supported and backed across the Australian community and that Australians will be encouraged to embrace it and to receive those vaccines, as and when they are made available according to the targeted strategy that we have developed alongside experts.
Senator Keneally, a supplementary question?
This morning, when asked by Ms Plibersek whether Mr Morrison agrees with his views, Mr Kelly said: 'You have to ask the Prime Minister. I don't know.' What did the Prime Minister say to Mr Kelly that he's unwilling to say publicly?
I've just outlined what the Prime Minister said to Mr Kelly and what Mr Kelly has put on the public record subsequent to his meeting with the Prime Minister, and I have no doubt that, as the Prime Minister has done time and time again, he would reinforce in the other place and in any meeting the importance of the vaccination strategy and, indeed, the evidence upon which our vaccination strategy is built. It's a $6.2 billion vaccination strategy—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order on my right and on my left!
that entails four separate purchasing arrangements for 140 million doses—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order, Senators Rennick and Wong!
to be made available to the Australian people—
Order, Senator Birmingham! Senator Wong, on a point of order?
I repeat: I'll give Senator Rennick leave to make statements if he wants to have them.
That's not a point of order. Senator Wong, please resume your seat.
Tell us what you think—
Senator Wong, please resume your seat. I was calling both of you to order. Interjections are disorderly, as is responding to them across the table and the chamber.
Senator Rennick interjecting—
Order! Senator Rennick, that's not helpful, as I'm calling Senator Wong to order. Senator Watt, you've been particularly voluble in the first 20 minutes. I'm going to ask you to take a breath for a while. Senator Birmingham, please continue.
The government's position is crystal clear. We have worked alongside our health experts, as we have at every stage of the pandemic, in terms of the procurement strategy and the distribution strategy, and our focus, with absolute resolve, on seeing that strategy implemented.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! I'm having trouble hearing Senator Birmingham. It's not usually a problem Senator Birmingham has. It means there's way too much noise coming from the chamber. Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question?
Does Mr Kelly's public statement acknowledging the damage of disinformation extend to Mr Kelly removing all content peddling disinformation from his Facebook, Parler and Telegram accounts or any other social media account? Has Mr Morrison asked Mr Kelly to post his statement on his social media to warn his followers of the damage of disinformation?
Mr Kelly's statement, as I've referenced, is publicly available. It's publicly available on social media platforms as well, and we expect that Mr Kelly will work within the terms and content of that statement.
Senator Keneally, on a point of order?
I did directly ask if Mr Kelly would remove the content he has already posted. The minister provided an answer that he would in future not post any new content. I asked the minister if he could answer that question.
That was the conclusion of your question. If I had a better chance of hearing Senator Birmingham, I'd have a better chance to rule on points of order, so, on both sides of the chamber, I ask people to not interject and to not take the bait and respond to interjections.
My question is to the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Can people at least pretend and hold their breath for 10 seconds after I call people to order? There were not even three words out of Senator Hughes's mouth there before the interjections started. It's going to be a long year, if that's the case. Senator Hughes, start again, please. Reset the clock.
My question is to the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator Cash. Can the minister please update the Senate on how the Morrison government is continuing to build a stronger Australia by supporting Australians to undertake an apprenticeship and developing Australia's skilled workforce through its $74 billion JobMaker plan?
I thank Senator Hughes for her question. As we know, the Morrison government is investing in ensuring that Australia has the skilled workforce that Australia needs. Without a doubt, looking at the Morrison government's investments, we have made skills development the absolute heart of our economic recovery from COVID-19. In fact, as we now emerge in 2021 from the impacts of COVID-19, we will continue to build on our record of skills reform, to support, in particular, new apprentices into training. Two of the signature policies of the coalition government are the JobTrainer policy, signed with all states and territories, a joint commitment to releasing almost 320,000 new low-cost or free training places into the training space—the key is, in areas of labour market demand—and Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements.
It's been a tough year for employers, and the Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements wage subsidy is all about assisting employers to bring a new apprentice or trainee into their workplace. The Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements subsidy supports employers of any size, in any geographic location, in any industry, to sign up a new apprentice with a 50 per cent wage subsidy, up to $7,000 a quarter, running through until 30 September 2021. There are still nine months of the program to run. What we've seen to date is over 29,000 employers—and I'm very pleased to say this includes 21,000 small businesses—register over 73,760 new trainees or apprentices for the program. This includes 5,600 bricklayers, carpenters and joiners, 4,700 electricians, 4,600 sales assistants, 4,000 automotive electricians and over 3,800 hospitality workers.
Senator Hughes, a supplementary question?
Can the minister outline to the Senate how the government's early action through the supporting apprentices and trainees wage subsidy supported small businesses to keep apprentices on the tools and supported small businesses with their cash flow through the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic?
As I just said, we put in place the supporting apprentices and trainees wage subsidy to bring into the system 100,000 new apprentices and trainees. But, of course, when COVID-19 hit, we understood as a government that we needed to provide critical support to, in particular, small businesses, for them to keep the apprentices or trainees they already had in training on the job. That was one of the first economic responses that the Morrison government put in place in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. The supporting apprentices and trainees wage subsidy has now supported more than 58,500 small and medium businesses to keep 117,000 apprentices and trainees in work today, because that's where we need them—on the job. Over 17,000 electricians, 22,000 carpenters, joiners and bricklayers and 5,500 hairdressers have all been kept on the job because of the policy that the coalition government, the Morrison government, put in place.
Senator Hughes, a final supplementary question?
Minister Cash, how will the government's record skills investment support labour market recovery and help Australians find secure work as we emerge from COVID-19?
The skills investment that the Morrison government is putting in place is all about generational change and it will support Australians to get the qualifications and skills they need, importantly, to secure jobs after the pandemic. We want them to train up in areas where we know there is labour market demand. This is, of course, crucial, in particular to supporting job security, economic productivity and quality of life for all Australians.
In relation to the labour market, over the last seven months Australians have now seen 784,500 jobs return to the economy as COVID-19 restrictions have eased. Hours of work have now increased 165 million. Full-time employment was a majority of employment in terms of jobs growth in both November and December of last year. We know there is a long way to go, but the policies that the Morrison government is putting in place are seeing jobs return to the economy.
My question is to Senator Birmingham, representing the Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer. Minister, as you would be aware there are now over 56,000 registered charities collecting well over $10 billion in donations. However, the secrecy provisions of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act mean that if someone has a complaint against a charity the complainant isn't permitted to know the outcome, and if the charity is subsequently deregistered the public has no way of finding out why it was deregistered. Minister, can you advise whether the secrecy restrictions will be lifted in the legislation government is drafting in response to the 2018 legislative review? When you will introduce this legislation?
I thank Senator Griff for his question. Indeed I do understand that the review of the ACNC legislation concluded that the secrecy provisions of the act are overly restrictive and should be amended to allow the commissioner to disclose information in a wider range of circumstances, including to protect public trust and confidence in the sector. The review went on to state that the ACNC's inability to make any comment, in respect of whether it is or is not undertaking an investigation in respect of a complaint against a registered entity, is harmful to the perception of the ACNC as an effective regulator.
The government released its response to the ACNC legislation review on 6 March 2020, I understand, and has agreed to recommendation 17 of the review, which will provide the commission with the discretion to disclose information about regulatory activities, including investigations, when it is necessary to protect public trust and confidence in the sector. The Treasury is currently engaging with the ACNC and will prepare advice for the minister on how to progress the necessary legislative changes to give effect to that government agreement to the recommendation.
Senator Griff, supplementary question?
Minister, there's a difference between giving someone discretion and actually publishing issues for complainants. I think it's very important that there is a discretion and it's actually made mandatory. The 2018 review also flagged raising the revenue threshold for a small charity from $250,000 to $1 million, which will give thousands of charities much lower reporting requirements. Do you consider it is appropriate that a charity that receives $1 million in funding should not be required to provide an annual financial report?
(—) (): In relation to the first part of Senator Griff's supplementary question there, obviously discretion, particularly in relation to public information about investigations that are underway, is an important factor to strike an appropriate balance, to be exercised by the ACNC, between maintaining public confidence through the release of information but also through not eroding public confidence through, potentially, the release of information prior to investigations reaching a certain point of findings or transparency that would be helpful to the maintenance of public trust. As I indicated, the government has agreed to recommendation 17 of the ACNC review. In relation to threshold limits, I will have to double-check the response that has been provided by the government in that regard, Senator Griff, and come back to you. (Time expired)
Senator Griff, a final supplementary question?
Minister, just back on discretion: should there be discretion for a member of the public not to find out why a charity has been deregistered?
In the main, I would anticipate that where a charity has been deregistered under the reforms that are being proposed it should be made public. There may be elements of such grounds that discretion may be applicable for, but I'm certain the government would be happy to consult with you, Senator Griff, as we are drafting the necessary legislative changes—happy to reach out and work in that regard with you.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Colbeck. Can the minister update the Senate on the Morrison government's comprehensive plan to roll out the COVID-19 vaccine to all Australians?
I thank Senator Brockman for his question. On indulgence, Mr President, I acknowledge the bushfire emergency in the Perth Hills in Senator Brockman's home state of Western Australia. I advise the Senate that there are two aged-care facilities in the area that have activated their emergency management plans and are on standby to evacuate as a last resort, should that need eventuate, and there are a couple of others that are preparing. I acknowledge the staff, who have been working around the clock to make sure that the residents of those facilities are kept safe and comfortable.
The vaccination of Australians against COVID-19 will commence later this month. We are working to ensure an orderly rollout to priority groups which is safe, effective and well explained. Our rollout strategy will be one of the largest logistics exercises ever seen in Australia. Our government is investing $6.3 billion, with almost $1.9 billion for medical bodies, logistics companies, general practices and community pharmacies to roll out and administer the vaccine. We expect there will be thousands of sites that will support the rollout, ensuring that Australians can access a vaccine regardless of where they live.
Australia's world-class primary health workforce will be the cornerstone of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout across the nation. The health workforce, including doctors, nurses, midwives, pharmacists and many other allied health professionals, has continually risen to the challenges of COVID-19 over the past year. It will play a pivotal role in supporting the rollout of a vaccine to all Australians.
Senator Brockman, a supplementary question?
Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Can the minister outline to the Senate when aged-care and disability care staff, and residents, will be given priority access to the vaccine?
Australia has developed a road map based on a phased approach. The purpose of phasing is to identify and make the vaccine available to high-risk Australians first. Our priority—phase 1A—is being given to aged-care and disability residents and frontline staff, healthcare workers and quarantine and border workers.
Phase 1B, where up to 14.8 million doses will be made available, includes those aged over 70 years. Phase 1B also includes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people over 55, younger adults with an underlying medical condition or disability and critical and high-risk workers, including defence, police, fire and emergency services. Phase 2A includes adults aged over 50, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people over 18 and other critical and high-risk workers.
Senator Brockman, a final supplementary question?
Thank you, Minister. Can you further explain the phased rollout strategy as part of Australia's COVID-19 vaccine road map?
Thanks, Senator Brockman. Phase 2B covers the balance of Australia's adult population and phase 3 is for those aged under 16, if recommended.
The Therapeutic Goods Administration has provisionally approved the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for use in Australia. Rollout of the AstraZeneca international dose is being considered by the TGA today and is on track for an early March rollout, subject to TGA approval and final shipping confirmation. That's for the AstraZeneca vaccine. Our comprehensive public information campaign will keep Australians fully informed and up to date about the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines as they become available, including when, how and where to get vaccinated.
My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, representing the Prime Minister. On 30 October last year the government was handed the final report from Professor Graeme Samuel which reviewed the adequacy of Australia's environment laws. It was a damning assessment. That was more than three months ago. When will your government respond and implement laws that actually protect our environment and implement an independent watchdog to hold those who trash our environment and endanger our wildlife to account? When will your government act?
I thank Senator Hanson-Young for her question. Indeed, it was our government that commissioned Graeme Samuel's review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, just as it was a coalition government that initially passed the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act back in the Howard government era. So this side of politics has a strong track record on the passage and delivery of legislation that provides nation-leading protection in relation to nationally significant areas of environmental protection.
We will respond in an appropriate way to the review by Graeme Samuel. We will do so in a timely manner. As you know, it was late last year that that report was handed to the government. We will do so in a manner where we are conscious of all of the recommendations and findings of Graeme Samuel in that review. Those recommendations found some areas for strengthening of environmental standards. They also found evidence that there is excessive bureaucracy or delays that occur in some areas that can be alleviated as well. So our government is determined to make sure that our environmental laws in Australia operate for the protection of our environment, but they should not unnecessarily act as a handbrake in relation to economic progress and development, particularly at this time of economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.
It is essential that those laws, where possible, also facilitate growth of job opportunities and employment opportunities and avoid, wherever possible, duplication between Commonwealth laws and state and territory laws or Commonwealth approvals processes and state and territory approvals processes. So we will respond to that report and, as appropriate, bring different packages of legislation to the parliament.
Senator Hanson-Young, a supplementary question?
The independent reviewer, Graeme Samuel, said in his report that the government should remove the exemption of regional forestry agreements from the EPBC Act and require logging in native forests to be assessed against national environmental standards. Does the government commit to doing this, and when will you do it?
We will respond to the report in a comprehensive way, as the government always do. Professor Samuel made many findings in his report, including in relation to forestry. He also made findings in relation to the way in which the EPBC Act operates for the environment but also for business. We will work alongside stakeholders as we finalise our formal response to the recommendations. In fact, I understand that Minister Ley met with a stakeholder group last week to discuss the process and the work around responding to those recommendations. Professor Samuel's work was comprehensive. He engaged across Australia, and so we will make sure we apply a comprehensive approach to responding to that report too.
Senator Hanson-Young, a final supplementary question?
Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke saved the Franklin from damming. Malcolm Fraser saved the whales from whaling. Is this Prime Minister a leader that will save our native forests?
We will work hard indeed to ensure, in responding to this report, we do so in ways that save native forests whilst also saving forestry jobs. We will also work hard, as our government is doing across the board, in terms of other aspects of environmental leadership.
This is a government that has banned the export of plastic waste from Australia. This is a government that is investing significantly in the recycling and re-use capabilities of Australia and showing environmental leadership with the reforms that are there and the actions being taken, by Prime Minister Morrison in particular, to provide for better management of plastics in Australia and environmental leadership in that space. It will continue to do so in that space, and others, around the protection of Australia's unique nationally significant environmental assets. Indeed, that is what the EPBC Act, implemented by a coalition government, is designed to do. This government will make sure its response to this review delivers upon that. (Time expired)
My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, Senator Seselja. The federal government promised to release the electric vehicle strategy in 2019. It didn't come. Neither did it come in 2020. We now find ourselves in 2021, still waiting. The vacuum in federal leadership on electric vehicles is now being filled by state and territory and even local governments going ahead with their own disjointed plans. This is somewhat reminiscent of Australia's rail track fiasco, which resulted in the country having a mismatch of narrow-, standard- and broad-gauged rail scattered across the nation. Just how long will it take for the Morrison government to come up with a national strategy for electric vehicles? What is the delay to this important strategy?
Thank you, Senator Patrick, for the question. The Morrison government is committed to enabling consumer choice when it comes to new vehicle and fuel technologies. This follows its 'technology not taxes' approach to reducing emissions.
To directly answer your question, we are developing a future fuels strategy that considers all new technologies. This is not only for EVs. This includes hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, hybrids and biofuels. We've been working to ensure that the strategy is well-informed. To ensure industry has been widely consulted, we will release a discussion paper in the very near future that will help inform the strategy.
And we've already put our money where our mouth is with our $74.5 million Future Fuels Package as part of the budget. This backs funding already committed through ARENA and CEFC, including $21 million for two EV-charging networks and $11.7 million for focusing on smart charging and tools to make it easier for motorists and businesses to purchase new technology vehicles. This includes projects like $838,000 for Origin Energy to install 150 smart chargers at homes and workplaces across the National Electricity Market. And $3.5 million has gone to JET Charge to develop smart-charging technology that will help make charging more user-friendly, and will better integrate EVs into the electricity grid.
An opposition senator interjecting—
I'm always amused when I get Seth Rogen over there interjecting, but I will keep going. We are serious about accelerating the uptake of new technologies and ensuring consumer choice is supported.
Sorry, I was taken back, listening about Senator Seselja's new fondness for electric vehicles!
Order! Come to your question, Senator Gallagher.
Senator Seselja interjecting—
Your choices are better than ours, are they?
Order.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. On 7 January, Mr Morrison promised that the government would deliver four million vaccine doses by the end of March. Will the Morrison government deliver on this promise?
Thanks for the question. The thing that we've always promised to the Australian people and indicated to the Australian people is that our vaccine rollout would be based on vaccine approval and then the delivery processes that followed along behind that. The Prime Minister said just recently at a press conference, with respect to the vaccine rollout, that the 'four million position will be something that is going to be achieved in early April as opposed to late March'. That's what the Prime Minister said just recently at a press conference, acknowledging the fact that, with some of the conditions that are occurring in Europe and the scaling up of the manufacturing of the vaccine here in Australia, that was the process and that was the expectation. They are the Prime Minister's words from a press conference just recently. We continue to work with the TGA on the approval process. We continue to work with the vaccine companies on supply to ensure that we have an available supply to roll out effectively to Australians across the country.
The thing that we have the benefit of is that we are providing to Australians fully approved vaccines. We don't have to have the circumstances that many other countries have been forced into, which is having emergency approvals for their vaccines. Australians will benefit from the fact that the data that comes from the application of vaccines in other countries becomes available to the vaccine companies and then to our TGA for the formal approval of the vaccines.
Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question?
) ( ): The Department of Health has said that the Prime Minister's target of four million doses by the end of March 'didn't seem to be possible'. When did the department first become aware it was not possible to deliver on the Prime Minister's promise made to the Australian people?
I've just indicated exactly the Prime Minister's position and the way that we are rolling out the vaccine. It would have been useful, Senator Seselja, if the senator had listened to the answer that I have just given. We have always said to the Australian people that the supply of the vaccine and the rollout process would be dependent on approval and on supply issues from manufacturers. We have been very frank with the Australian people; we have been very open with the Australian people. As issues have arisen, we have told the Australian people what is occurring. I have just given you the quote from the Prime Minister where he said it was more likely to be early April than late March for the four million vaccines. That is a statement of the Prime Minister.
Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question?
By what date in April will the Morrison government deliver on the Prime Minister's target of four million doses and will Mr Morrison accept responsibility if he fails to deliver on this promise?
It is really disappointing that the Labor Party continue to not listen to the answers that are quite genuinely provided to them and continue their reckless campaign to undermine the rollout strategy that we are running. The recklessness of the Labor Party in trying to undermine the confidence of Australians in our vaccine strategy really should be condemned. We have said consistently that the rollout and availability of vaccine would be dependent on approval by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. We now fortunately have the Pfizer vaccine approved. Once it's approved it can then be shipped; it can be tested by the TGA to ensure that it will do what it said it would do and that it is safe to provide to Australians. We're now going through the process of the approval of the AstraZeneca vaccine, and we will continue to work with the companies and the TGA on a safe rollout of our— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia, Senator Ruston. Can the minister please update the Senate on the Morrison-McCormack government's plan for a gas-fired recovery, including the recent heads of agreement reached with the east coast LNG exporters?
I thank Senator McMahon for her question and her deep interest in all things resources, particularly in her home territory of the Northern Territory.
Everybody understands that cheaper and more reliable energy is going to be absolutely fundamental to the economic recovery of Australia as we recover from the COVID pandemic. It's going to be particularly important for our JobMaker plan, as we get Australians back into work and fuelling our economy. Our gas-fired recovery is absolutely essential, and we'll be supported by the reset of the east coast gas market. We'll do this by unblocking gas supply, delivering efficient transportation and empowering customers to make sure that we are providing the best possible energy source for Australia.
Last month the coalition announced a new heads of agreement with the three East Coast LNG exporters operating out of Gladstone. This means all uncontracted gas produced by the LNG projects will now be offered to the domestic market at internationally competitive prices before it is offered into the international market. This agreement, alongside the Australian Domestic Gas Supply Security Mechanism, will continue to put downward pressure on the price of gas to ensure more gas is offered in the domestic market at a more affordable and competitive rate.
Simply put: what we've done will push down the prices as a result of increasing supply. That means Australian businesses and Australian families will have the affordable and reliable gas that they need. It's about making sure that Australian gas works for Australians whilst supporting economic growth and backing the very, very important regional jobs that are on the back of this very important sector.
More supply has brought more competition and lower prices, and it will support our manufacturing sector. At the same time we will support Australia's pursuit of reducing emissions. Gas is absolutely critical for manufacture—
Order, Senator Ruston. Senator McMahon, a supplementary question?
Can the minister please outline how our government is ensuring sufficient gas supplies for Australia?
The Morrison-McCormack government is delivering five strategic basin plans to unlock new gas potential across Australia. We're starting with the Beetaloo basin, which is in Senator McMahon's home territory, the Northern Territory, as well as the Northern Bowen and Galilee basins in Queensland.
The government has announced a commitment to provide up to $50 million for exploration of the Beetaloo basin, plus $173 million to upgrade the roads to make sure of that essential access. The Beetaloo basin will bring jobs—Senator McMahon, I know that's something that is very, very important in your home territory—as well as much-needed investment into northern Australia. But, most importantly, it will bring affordable gas prices. Affordable gas is absolutely essential. No-one could question that the economic prosperity of this country and our manufacturing strategies will be enhanced by affordable and accessible gas supply. The government is absolutely committed to giving companies confidence, to make sure that we can build on our economic recovery.
Order, Senator Ruston. Senator McMahon, final supplementary question?
Can the minister advise why it is so important to ensure affordable and reliable gas supplies, and of any risks to affordability and reliability for Australian industry and consumers?
The government's position is absolutely clear in this regard. Unlocking gas reserves is a key to Australia's economic prosperity and our continued recovery from COVID.
Part of that is making sure that we provide certainty and the confidence to make sure that we have the essential investment in these critical resource projects to open up our economy. The Labor Environmental Action Network, championed by some senators in this place, would seek to stop new gas projects and would actively behave to ban gas. Basically, this network is responding to inner-city greenies at the expense of everyday Australians and the regional economies that so many on this side believe are so important for our Australian economy.
The member for Hunter has labelled them 'fundamentalists' who have no idea about supporting real workers and real jobs. It's pretty hard to disagree with the member for Hunter when he makes those sorts of comments. We will support regional Australia and we will support a gas-led recovery.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Last night the member for Dawson took to Facebook in defence of the member for Hughes, accusing others and the 'fake news media' of trying to censor Mr Kelly. Does the Prime Minister agree?
I haven't seen Mr Christensen's remarks, but I would make a couple of observations.
Firstly, I would observe that, as is often the case when these sorts of highly-charged political debates occur, there are some who take an approach which seems to suggest that everything that's ever been uttered needs to be retracted or withdrawn. So let's be very clear that our government stands firmly by our vaccine strategy. Our government wants to make sure that that is the No. 1 focus of government policy delivery and of public dialogue in relation to building confidence around the vaccine strategy.
As I have already told the chamber, and as Senator Colbeck has told the chamber, the Prime Minister met with Mr Kelly this morning. The Prime Minister made clear that neither he nor the government support any views that undermine the vaccine strategy, whether made by Mr Kelly or by anyone else in that regard. We want to make sure the overwhelming focus is on building public confidence to receive the vaccines that we are investing in and that we have secured for the Australian people. This strategy is crucial and a crucial part of the nation's health and economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Australia is incredibly well prepared because of the good work done last year to make sure we have a successful delivery of vaccines across the country.
Senator Wong, on a point of order.
The point of order is direct relevance. I have been mindful of your previous rulings about glancing references, but we're at 23 seconds to go and nobody who is answering questions has addressed the question, which is whether or not the Prime Minister agrees with Mr Christensen saying that Mr Kelly is being censored.
I'm listening carefully to the minister's answer and I think he is directly addressing the subject matter. I can't instruct him how to answer a question. As long as he's addressing the matter of information with respect to this vaccine, I think that's directly relevant to the question. Senator Birmingham to continue.
I made clear right at the outset that I haven't seen Mr Christensen's particular comments, but the government makes no apology for encouraging everybody to speak the truth when it comes to vaccinations, to apply the evidence as prepared by the Chief Medical Officer, as presented by the head of the Therapeutic Goods Administration, as backed by our government through our health advisors. (Time expired)
Senator Wong, a supplementary question?
Just whilst question time was proceeding, Senator Canavan tweeted in defence of Mr Kelly, saying:
I think we need more Craig Kelly's willing to say unpopular things because it is only by challenging ideas that we get better ideas.
Does Prime Minister Morrison agree with Senator Canavan's comments in relation to Mr Kelly, and, if he does not, will he make clear that Senator Canavan's comments do not represent the position of the Morrison government?
It's always important to have people who will test and challenge views and opinions. However, it is equally important in relation to dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic that government and those speaking with the public advocate for the facts of the matter and follow the factual advice that is presented. Our government has been consistent from this time last year—indeed, slightly before it—in acting and following on the health advice provided to us. We have acted on the health advice at each step of the way. That health advice has served the nation well. We have acted on the health advice in relation to the vaccination strategy that has been developed and we will continue to follow that health advice in delivering upon that vaccination strategy.
Senator Wong, a final supplementary question?
Can the Minister representing the Prime Minister please explain why the Prime Minister refuses to publicly repudiate his own MPs? Is it because he doesn't want to upset the backbench, or does he believe there is political benefit for him in their spreading of misinformation?
I've stated time and time and time again during this question time now the fact that the Prime Minister has made clear that he and the government do not support any views that undermine the vaccination strategy no matter who makes them.
Senator Keneally interjecting—
Order, Senator Keneally!
My advice to everyone in this place, to everyone across this parliament and, indeed, to all Australians, whether you are a member of the public or a member of the parliament—
Senator McAllister interjecting—
Senator McAllister!
or a member of the media, is to listen to the advice of the health experts.
Senator O'Neill interjecting—
Senator O'Neill!
We employ a chief medical officer of Australia for good reason.
Senator Watt interjecting—
Senator O'Neill interjecting—
Senator Watt! Senator O'Neill!
We employ a head of the Therapeutic Goods Administration for good reason. We've acted on their advice. In doing so we have provided 140 million doses—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat. Senators, question time is a time of interaction, despite all interjections being disorderly; I accept that. But when I call a senator by name it is usually because they have been constantly interjecting, and I do expect them to not continue unabated. Senator Birmingham, please continue.
We've procured 140 million doses of a variety of vaccines to be spread across this country and distributed according to a detailed strategy. That's the government's priority. That's what we will deliver to keep Australians safe and secure. (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services (Senator Colbeck) and the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Birmingham) to questions without notice asked by Senators Wong, Keneally, Gallagher and Watt.
Doesn't this Craig Kelly problem just become worse and worse for the government? Mr Kelly, over the last few months, has engaged in a deliberate campaign of misinformation to the Australian public about the most serious health challenge our country has faced in decades. For months now, Mr Kelly has used his own social media channels to communicate misinformation and falsehoods about vaccines and about what he refers to as 'treatments' which have no basis in reality whatsoever. Mr Kelly, backed up by Mr Christensen and a number of other government members, has completely undermined the government's vaccine strategy by encouraging the Australian public to ignore real health advice from real experts and instead rely on conspiracy theorists and nutjobs circulating in cyberspace.
I hear Senator Abetz laughing along as we debate this very important issue. In doing so, Senator Abetz betrays his support for the actions of Mr Hughes and all of the other right-wing nutjobs in this government who continue to propagate conspiracy theories and undermine public confidence in the health response of their own government.
We've seen for months that, as Mr Kelly and others have done this, the Prime Minister has let them off the leash. He's happy to let them get out there and communicate their falsehoods and misinformation to the Australian public because Mr Morrison knows that he draws the political gain from allowing them off the leash. You won't hear Mr Morrison or Senator Birmingham or any other leader of this government say the same things as Mr Kelly and Mr Christensen, but they're very happy for it to go on because they know that there is a constituency for these kinds of views out there, and they're happy for Mr Christensen, Mr Hughes and others to get those votes to help this government stay in power. What a dishonest approach, so lacking in integrity, for this Prime Minister and this government to adopt: to allow members of their own government to get out and spread conspiracy theories and frankly dangerous messages to the Australian population at the very time that we need the Australian population accepting proper health advice and taking proper precautions here.
So the Prime Minister and his colleagues are playing a double game here. On the one hand, the leaders of this government get out there and surround themselves with public health experts and encourage people to do the right thing and listen to real experts. At the same time, they're playing footsie with the far Right of the Australian community and the conspiracy theorists who follow Pete Evans and other people in order to show that they are actually supporting them as well. You'll never get Mr Morrison, the Prime Minister, supporting what Craig Kelly is doing, but he's been more than happy to let it go on for months. It was only after weeks of pressure from the opposition that he was finally dragged, kicking and screaming, into some meeting with Mr Kelly yesterday.
Mr Kelly of course issued a backdown of sorts only a couple of hours ago. He said that from now on he'd be a good boy, listen to what the Prime Minister was saying and get behind the government's approach. I was sitting there and thinking, 'How long is it going to be before Craig Kelly is back out there on Facebook, reverting to type and spreading more conspiracy theories?'
But Senator Canavan has actually beaten Mr Kelly to the punch. Senator Canavan couldn't even wait until question time was over before he had his own tweet out there, circulating in the right-wing nutjob cyberspace, supporting these conspiracy theories and backing in Craig Kelly. This has now become a test of the Prime Minister's authority over his government. He finally was able to exert some level of control over Craig Kelly in spreading misinformation, but now it's the Nationals. Now the Nationals are off and racing, because the Prime Minister can't control the Nationals in the same way that he can control his own backbench. So, what we're going to see now, in coming days, is Mr Christensen, Senator Canavan and other members of the National Party engaging in exactly the same conspiracy theories and misinformation that we've seen from Mr Kelly over recent weeks. And now the question for Mr Morrison is, will he exert the same control over the National Party and rein them in from spreading misinformation, as he has attempted to do with his own party?
The Labor senator who has just spoken has introduced the issue of prime ministerial leadership. Well, on this side we have a leader, behind whom we are all united—unlike the Australian Labor Party, who has the hapless leader known as Mr Albanese, down whose neck Ms Plibersek, Mr Chalmers, Mr Marles and, Mr Shorten are all breathing. The simple fact is that the Australian people know where the government stands on this important issue of seeking to get a vaccine out as quickly and as effectively as possible, for the protection of the Australian community—a very coherent, well-thought-out policy. That is what actually interests the people of Australia.
Every political party has—thank goodness—people who will speak out on issues and provide an alternative point of view. Mr Kelly is doing that in relation to this issue. Do I necessarily agree with him? No. But do you know what? The Australian Labor Party has one Mr Joel Fitzgibbon, who has a very strong alternative point of view in relation to certain Labor Party policies. And, as a result of his agitation, one Mr Butler met his demise from a certain position in the shadow cabinet. I turn to the Australian Greens, and I recall the internal brawls they suffered when they rejoiced with people such as Senator Nettle and Senator Rhiannon in their midst.
That is part and parcel of the dynamics of democracy—that you will have men and women in political parties offering an alternative point of view. We in the Liberal Party are more than willing to accommodate and accept that there are people with alternative points of view who should be given, in the public space, the opportunity to give expression to those views, even if you vehemently disagree with them, whereas we are seeing more and more that within the Labor Party you have to adopt a groupthink. Nobody is allowed to have an alternative point of view or consider a different approach. We on this side are more representative of the Australian people, and I suggest that is why we sit on this side—because we are willing to accommodate and accept that different people have differing views.
If the Australian Labor Party were genuinely serious about their concern about the COVID response, then where was the good senator and the Australian Labor Party when the ABC had Dr Norman Swan, night after night, contradicting the Chief Medical Officer at the height of the pandemic? There was not a whisper out of them, with Dr Swan making these outrageous predictions of thousands of deaths. These predictions never came to pass—but oh, Dr Swan happens to be potentially of the Left, and with the ABC, so his criticism of these matters and of the government approach is to be accepted, not to be criticised! But Mr Kelly is someone we might be able to describe as being somewhat from the conservative side, and therefore he must be condemned.
It is the double standard that the Left always bring to these debates that exposes their shallowness and hollowness. If the Labor Party were consistent and would condemn Dr Norman Swan as much as they are seeking to condemn Mr Kelly, then I would say there is some integrity and consistency in their approach to this. But, no, this is pure political pointscoring—or an attempt to do so, but in doing so I daresay all they're doing is elevating Mr Kelly's profile as the member for Hughes. He is working very hard and diligently in the service of the people of Hughes, and giving expression to a point of view that, in a free democracy, people ought be allowed to give expression to.
That said, the government's policy is very clear. Later this month, or very shortly, we hope to be rolling out vaccines when and as they become available. We as a government are working hard, and the Prime Minister's leadership has been in absolute contrast to the shambles of the Australian Labor Party under the leadership of Mr Albanese.
The senator opposite doesn't really seem to grasp the seriousness of the situation or the seriousness of members of the government going out and peddling not something that is unpopular but something that is wrong. It's dangerous. This is something that members of the government have failed to grasp, and that is why it was always important that they reined in Mr Kelly as quickly as possible and went public to say: 'What Mr Kelly is saying is wrong. You shouldn't be listening to him, and we will be speaking to him.' That's what the Prime Minister should have done, and that would have been strong leadership. But we haven't seen it. We haven't even seen it in this chamber. Yesterday's answers in question time rambled—they were all over the garden path—and today wasn't much better. We are talking about something of an extremely serious nature, and the Australian people deserve full and comprehensive answers.
We know how essential it is that the vaccine rollout is taken up within the community. We know how important that is to the success of this nation in 2021 and beyond. Not only will a successful vaccine rollout keep the Australian people safe and healthy; it's also essential to our economic recovery. A successful vaccine rollout will be critical to underpinning a national recovery built on the back of more jobs and higher wages. Indeed, a successful vaccine rollout is critical to national economic confidence. That is why it is important that the public have confidence in the nation's vaccine distribution. The very last thing we need is for the government's own members to undermine and attack national health efforts and advice.
We heard today that Mr Kelly has put out a statement. But we also heard that we had a breakout from Mr Christensen on Facebook last night. And while we were in question time today, after the Leader of the Government in the Senate had given a response on Mr Kelly's actions, Senator Canavan—I know probably most people would say, 'Well, if it was going to be anybody, it was going to be Senator Canavan'—tweeted that this is just about people wanting to shut down unpopular debate. It's not unpopular debate; it's dangerous language and dangerous misinformation that Mr Kelly is putting out there. This is why it is important, and this is why the Labor Party has raised it.
We've all seen Mr Kelly's exchange with Ms Plibersek. He is all over the shop. In my view he will continue to peddle misinformation and put it out into the public arena, which we cannot afford to have. We need a vaccine rollout to be successful and taken up broadly within the community. Australia's prosperity and health depend on it.
The mind boggles over the member for Hughes hawking pseudoscience and peddling snake-oil cures. Members of the government's own team are directly and deliberately undermining the government's message and official public health advice, and the government does nothing to discipline them. They haven't disciplined Mr Kelly; they've done nothing, really, to bring him to heel. Why? Why indeed. This is the question that people are asking. Members of parliament are asking why. Members of the community are asking why—why they don't bring him to heel? We know that the Prime Minister actually went out of his way to directly intervene to protect the member for Hughes before the last election. Something has to be done about members of government who continue to peddle misinformation— (Time expired)
The irresponsibility that we are currently seeing from the Labor Party is just the latest example of their politicisation of the COVID-19 pandemic. We saw it when they couldn't get any traction when they were being supportive of the fantastic efforts made by the Morrison government to keep Australia as one of the safest countries in the world, with the most minimal of economic impacts felt. We have weathered this storm better than most other countries. But when that bipartisan support wasn't quite working out anymore, we've seen overt politicisation in every single way they could possibly come up with. This is just another example of that. So rather than working to support everyday Australians and demonstrating some restraint, they're continuing to draw focus away from the health advice that this government looks to. The Morrison government is focused on a safe and effective vaccine rollout—and, just to confirm, it will be a free and voluntary vaccine rollout. But I do welcome today that the Prime Minister has spoken to Mr Kelly, and I look forward to everyone in this place getting behind the vaccine rollout in a positive way so that Australians will have confidence in the vaccine solution.
I have a particular interest in this debate. As most of you know, I have an absolutely gorgeous son who has autism. His autism was caused in utero, genetically, not because of any actions of the parents, and certainly not because of vaccines. So much time, effort and money have been wasted on autism because of a fraudulent belief in the work of a discredited doctor, Andrew Wakefield. He is a fraud who has been struck off and who has absolutely destroyed many parents' confidence in a vaccine for their children under the belief that somehow autism is a fate worse than death—even if it were true, which we know it is not.
The tinfoil hat brigade who love to grasp to vaccines causing autism—and I can assure you they don't; none of them do—are continuing to cling to some form of conspiracy theory. We remember that it was 5G that caused COVID. It was probably a few other things that I've forgotten—it's been quite the year—but the 5G stands out particularly. We remember that Bill Gates was looking to microchip us all. I can tell you that when you've got a kid with autism who runs away, the microchip is not a bad idea at times—but I digress. The conspiracy theorists who are continually trying to undermine COVID efforts by saying that the virus isn't real, that it is some form of conspiracy, are fundamentally buying into the anti-vaccine message.
We need to work not as a government, purely and solely, but as a parliament, as leaders of this country, to ensure that all Australians have confidence in the vaccine so that they will go out—even though it is free and voluntary—and receive the vaccine as soon as they are eligible. The health minister, along with the Prime Minister, has worked incredibly hard to ensure that Australians will be protected by enough vaccines; that the TGA approval has been done to give Australians confidence in the safety and the security of the vaccines; and that the rollout of them occurs in a way that adheres to the best possible health and medical advice.
So fearmongering about vaccines, whoever it's by, is wrong, but giving it additional airtime is worse. These notions, which we all know are incorrect, should be ignored. Highlighting them to Australians is undermining confidence, which is the last thing we should be doing. The rollout is the only way we will get our lives back to normal, start to see travel and the country open up, see international borders open up, and start to reduce the kneejerk overreactions of premiers desperate to lock their states down just before each election that they face. We need to ensure that Australians have confidence and feel safe and secure to receive the vaccine and be part of the program, to allow all Australians to return to the life they had pre 2020.
The Prime Minister of this country, Scott Morrison, could have shut Craig Kelly down weeks or months ago, but he chose not to, because he's a weak leader. He's a weak prime minister who knew what Mr Kelly was advocating through social media for month after month: sharing misinformation and undermining the health experts of this country at a time when Australia was facing the worst health challenge and pandemic in a hundred years. A prime minister at this time needs to step up and show leadership. That's what the Australian community expect and need. But what did we see? No action whatsoever.
In this place this week, we've had the Leader of the Government in the Senate dancing around the issue instead of standing up and calling out Craig Kelly for what he is: a loose cannon who plays up these theories in relation to vaccines. All it does is feed into the right-wing nuts of this country. There is no leadership by the leader in this Senate chamber. Social media, as we all know, is a powerful tool, so the misinformation that Craig Kelly has been disseminating is out there and will continue to be out there.
As if that weren't bad enough, in question time today, what did we see but Senator Matt Canavan encouraging people who want to share the ideas of Craig Kelly to continue to do it because, he claims, if you have those sorts of debates you're going to end up with better outcomes? Well, that is clearly nonsense. How many of the backbench in this government are part of that chorus line? I believe there will be more.
If anyone in this chamber thinks for one minute that the little conversation that the Prime Minister had with Craig Kelly today after the altercation with Tanya Plibersek today in Parliament House is going to stop him, they are sadly mistaken. I have no confidence whatsoever that this will do anything to give Mr Kelly the message that his nonsense is not needed and is harmful to the Australian community. Quite frankly, the Prime Minister was more concerned about keeping Craig Kelly happy than about the health of the Australian people.
Let's get on to the Prime Minister. As we all know, he's always there for the photo opportunity at any time but he never follows through. He's failed again when it comes to the rollout of vaccines for COVID-19. He promised there would be a rollout in March, but already he's dancing and spinning his way out of that and saying, 'No, it's going to be April now, but we are at the front of the queue.' Let's just put on the public record some facts in relation to where Australia really is when it comes to delivering the vaccines. In other countries, once a vaccine has been approved for use, people have been jabbed with it within days, and in those countries people are already getting their second dose. The US, the EU, Canada and the UK all administered their first doses within a week of approval. Now in the UK more than 9.2 million people have been vaccinated. How many in Australia have been vaccinated? None. The TGA approved Pfizer's vaccine well over a week ago, and there is still no time frame for when the vaccines will arrive in Australia or when they are going to be rolled out. The clock is ticking on you, Mr Morrison. The Australian people deserve so much more. We know that the government have used COVID-19 as the excuse for their failings economically. They are using it as an excuse for the attack on Australian workers. This government cannot even be trusted to deliver a vaccine in a timely manner to all Australians. It's alright for Senator Duniam there to smile at my comments, but Tasmanians deserve so much better. We have the oldest population in this country, and to have that—
Senator Polley, please resume your seat. Senator Duniam.
If I could just make a point of order: I wasn't smiling at anything Senator Polley was saying. There's nothing to smile about. What a ridiculous thing to say.
Senator Duniam, that's not a point of order. Please resume your seat. Senator Polley, your time has expired.
Senator Polley interjecting—
Senator Polley, I've asked you to resume your seat. I was going to remind you as well: when you refer to people in the other place, please use their correct title. I generally remind all senators of that, because I'm having to pull people up more and more. It is respectful. Thank you, Senator Polley. It's not a debating point. I'm just outlining to you what the requirements are.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Birmingham) today to a question without notice to asked by Senator Hanson-Young relating to the environment.
I asked the government today when they will respond in full to the recommendations in the alarming report of the review of Australia's environment laws conducted by Professor Graeme Samuel. This was a review that was done under law. It was required because, every 10 years, we review the adequacy of our environment laws. This report shows that the adequacy of our environment laws is woeful. They are not protecting our forests. They are not protecting our animals. They not protecting our precious places, our beaches and our coastlines. They are not protecting them, and, instead, they are allowing precious parts of this country, our wilderness, our bushland and many of our native animals to be trashed and endangered by mining, by forestry, by big developers. It's time that we had laws in this country that actually protect our environment and don't offer an incentive for those who do the wrong thing to keep getting away with it.
One of the key recommendations in this report, recommendation 15, is that the regional forest agreements that are currently in place that allow logging in Australia's native forests should not be exempt from our environment laws. That is a fundamental point being made here in this report that has been handed to the government and is waiting for a response. Just today the Federal Court has handed down a decision in relation to logging in native forests and the validity of these regional forest agreements. It has said that, under the law as it is, this logging is able to continue. Many, many Australians will be shocked to hear that it is perfectly legal in this country to log in our native forests, to endanger our native animals in these native forests, and that there is no environmental law in this country that protects these forests and these animals from these logging companies and logging projects. Isn't it unthinkable that, despite how precious our environment is, despite what little native forest we have left in this country, it is perfectly legal under current law to trash and burn? It is quite clear in the review and the report put forward— (Time expired)
Order, Senator Hanson-Young. The time for contribution has expired. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Senators Dean Smith, McGrath, Chandler, McLachlan, Abetz, Davey, O'Sullivan, Scarr, Askew and McDonald to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that 6 February 2021 marks the 69th anniversary of the accession of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia and Head of the Commonwealth;
(b) extends to Her Majesty its appreciation for the sense of duty and extraordinary grace in which she fulfils her duties as Queen of Australia and Head of the Commonwealth; and
(c) recognises the enduring role that Her Majesty has played as a symbol of peace and stability across the Commonwealth.
Senator Griff to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges 27 January 2021 marked the 76th anniversary since the liberation of Auschwitz and is recognised as the International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust;
(b) pays its respects to the 11 million people killed during the Holocaust, including six million people of Jewish faith;
(c) further acknowledges the Holocaust serves as a reminder not to be indifferent to hate and hate speech, and to show compassion for others;
(d) notes that:
(i) the Director-General of ASIO warned Australians that the extreme right wing threat is growing in Australia with small cells regularly meeting to salute Nazi flags, inspect weapons, train in combat and share their hateful ideology, and
(ii) Australia is the only country inside the Five Eyes Intelligence Network not to proscribe any right-wing extremist group as a terrorist organisation;
(e) further notes that attacks on democracy, such as the insurrection on the United States Capitol Building which featured the presence of anti-Semitic symbols and sentiment, represents an existential threat to our collective safety;
(f) recognises the right to free speech comes with responsibilities; it does not give anyone entitlement to sow division and hate; and
(g) condemns the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Australia and around the globe.
Senator Polley to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges and congratulates the 2021 Australian of the year, Grace Tame, a proud Tasmanian who showed unbelievable strength and courage to overcome her own trauma and fight for survivors of child sexual abuse; and
(b) further acknowledges and congratulates the worthy Tasmanians who were recipients of the 2021 Australia Day Honours on 26 January 2021 for their outstanding achievement and services to Tasmania and Australia more broadly, including:
(i) Member of the Order of Australia (AM) recipients: Gregory Raymond Hall, Bernadette Black, Gerald Loughran, Sarah Briana Parry, Christopher Paul Webster and Ross James Burridge,
(ii) Order of Australia Medal (OAM) recipients: the late Margaret Annette Bartkevicius-James, Rosemary Joan Bennett, Terrence Michael Bennett, Maxwell Arthur Burr, John Thomas Burton, Peter Aubrey Cosier, Bruce Englefield, Katherine Cameron Macarthur, John Robert McDonald and Sally-Anne Wise,
(iii) Australian Fire Service Medal Recipients: Shane Ian Batt, Robert Bruce Dawes and David Thomas Oakley ESM,
(iv) Ambulance Service Medal Recipient: Matthew James Eastham and Pamela Anne Heiermann, and
(v) Emergency Services Medal Recipients: Cheryl Louise Ames, Jason Alec Lawrence and Jason Kenneth Robins.
Senator Keneally to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) there has been a significant increase in far-right extremism in Australia,
(ii) far-right extremism is often cultivated through its overlap with various conspiracy theories, which have become a common tool to radicalise individuals through misinformation on social media, and
(iii) far-right extremism tears apart the social fabric of Australia's multicultural community;
(b) condemns:
(i) the Members for Hughes and Dawson for promoting a range of conspiracy theories and misinformation campaigns relating to COVID-19, climate change, voter fraud and 'false flag' operations in the United States,
(ii) the National Socialist Network, an Australian neo-Nazi organisation which caused fear amongst communities in the Grampians on both Australia Day and International Holocaust Remembrance Day, and
(iii) other far-right extremist groups which seek to promote fascism and bigotry in our community;
(c) expresses its support for the many multicultural and First Nations Australians who are vilified by far-right extremists; and
(d) calls on the Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs to take action to combat the spread of far-right extremism within their party and in the broader community.
Senator Roberts to move on the next day of sitting—
(1) That a select committee to be known as the Select Committee on the Use of Commonwealth Grant Money in Queensland Local Government be established to inquire into and report on the alleged misuse of Commonwealth Disaster Recovery Funding and associated conduct in Queensland local government, with reference to:
(a) the alleged fraudulent misuse of Commonwealth and state disaster recovery funds and other grants;
(b) the role of the Local Government Association of Queensland in enabling corruption and misuse of Commonwealth grant monies;
(c) the stripping of reportedly up to 50% out of Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements and Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements project funding as private profits; and
(d) any other related matter as determined by the committee.
(2) That the committee present its final report on or before 14 October 2021.
(3) That the committee consist of six senators, three nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and one to be nominated by the Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation.
(4) That the committee may appoint a sub-committee for the purpose of taking evidence. A sub-committee will consist of any 3 members, chaired by a government or Pauline Hanson's One Nation member, with 1 member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
(5) That:
(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minor party or independent senator;
(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee; and
(c) that the presence of a quorum for the committee be determined in accordance with the provisions of standing order 29.
(6) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.
(7) That the committee elect as chair the member nominated by the Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation and as deputy chair a member nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
(8) That the deputy chair act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.
(9) That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, may appoint another member of the committee to act as chair during the temporary absence of both the chair and deputy chair at a meeting of the committee.
(10) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.
(11) That the committee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings, the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.
(12) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.
(13) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such documents and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.
Senator Gallagher to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) under the Morrison Government the Australian economy entered the coronavirus pandemic from a position of weakness not strength,
(ii) Australia has experienced the deepest recession in almost a century and the decisions the Morrison Government is taking are making things worse for hardworking Australians,
(iii) the Morrison Government intends to terminate JobKeeper at the end of March despite having no jobs plan to replace it and with 1.6 million Australians continuing to rely on the payment,
(iv) 2 million more Australians remain out of work or are working less hours than they need to support their families,
(v) unemployment is forecast to remain above pre-pandemic levels over the next three years,
(vi) wages growth, already at records lows under the Morrison Government, is expected to remain stagnant, and
(vii) Prime Minister Morrison deliberately excluded 928,000 people aged 35 and over from hiring subsidies; and
(b) expresses its disappointment that after racking up more than $1 trillion in debt and with no plan for jobs, the Morrison Government plans to cut wages, cut super and wind back consumer protections in the banking system that risks weakening the recovery and will leave too many Australians behind.
Senators McKenzie, Canavan, Davey, McDonald and McMahon to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes The Nationals' Manufacturing 2035 plan to generate 800,000 jobs by:
(i) leveraging the regions' comparative advantage across strategic industries and their access to natural resources,
(ii) adding further value to regional exports by turning primary products into manufactured goods and complex products,
(iii) ensuring fibre processing is explicitly included as a manufacturing priority,
(iv) increasing trade efforts and growing exports,
(v) providing access to low-cost, long-term finance and tax incentives,
(vi) strengthening Australian Government procurement policies,
(vii) facilitating early exposure to trades and harmonisation of trade qualifications and employment conditions,
(viii) supporting Anti-Dumping Commission investigations and taking countervailing action against overseas subsidies,
(ix) investing in reliable, affordable energy and strategic infrastructure that supports manufacturing, and
(x) investing in oil and gas development including finding new sources of oil supplies; and
(b) supports:
(i) the generation of manufacturing jobs in regional Australia,
(ii) regional development, including decentralisation,
(iii) strategic regionalisation through partnerships with our state, territory, and local government counterparts,
(iv) securing our national sovereignty by reversing the trend of the decline of Australian manufacturing,
(v) development of regional hubs to connect manufacturers with local businesses, education providers, research and development organisations, and governments, and
(vi) investment in reliable and affordable energy and in strategic infrastructure that can support manufacturing.
Senator Gallagher to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that on:
(i) 7 September 2020 Minister Hunt said 'Australians would be among the first in the world to receive a COVID-19 vaccine', and
(ii) 5 November 2020 Prime Minister Morrison assured Australians they would be 'at the front of the queue';
(b) further notes that contrary to these assurances by the Prime Minister and Minister for Health to the Australian people:
(i) more than 100 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine have already been administered across at least 60 countries, and
(ii) the Department of Health provided evidence to the Select Committee on COVID-19 that Prime Minister Morrison's public target of 4 million doses by the end of March 'seems impossible now', and
(iii) the Morrison Government only secured access to 10 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine after 34 other countries had secured 1 billion doses;
(c) calls on Prime Minister Morrison to abandon his spin and be honest and transparent with the Australian people with respect to the COVID-19 vaccination programme; and
(d) expresses its disappointment in Prime Minister Morrison's refusal to condemn Mr Craig Kelly MP's ongoing misinformation and fearmongering, including in relation to the work of the Therapeutic Goods Administration and its oversight of the COVID-19 vaccination programme.
Senators Rice and Steele-John to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) studies suggest that at least one in ten LGBTQA+ Australians are vulnerable to religion-based pressures and attempts to change or suppress their sexuality and/or gender identity,
(ii) many people who experience attempts to change or suppress the LGBTQA + elements of their selves are severely harmed by those attempts,
(iii) today the Victorian Parliament is voting on the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Prohibition Bill, a world class bill that would outlaw sexuality and gender identity conversion practices across the state, and
(iv) a national approach to banning conversion practices is required to ensure the rights, wellbeing and protection of every LGBTQA+ Australian; and
(b) calls on the Government to establish a national inquiry into the prevalence and impact of formal and informal conversion practices in Australia, inclusive of educational, pastoral care and community settings.
Senator Wong to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that Friday, 12 February 2021 is the Lunar New Year and that 2021 is the year of the Ox, which represents hard work, honesty and positivity;
(b) wishes Happy Lunar New Year and a positive and prosperous year ahead to all Australians and in particular those celebrating Lunar New Year; and
(c) celebrates Australia's diversity, one of our nation's great strengths.
Senator Waters to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that the total amount of money donated to political parties, as disclosed to the Australian Electoral Commission, tripled between the 2016 election and the 2019 election; and
(b) supports:
(i) lowering the disclosure threshold for donations to political parties,
(ii) requiring more timely disclosure of donations to political parties, and
(iii) imposing caps on the amount that donors can donate to political parties.
Senators Duniam, Abetz, Askew, Chandler and Colbeck to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that yesterday's decision of the Full Federal Court of Australia has now provided a clear determination on the validity of the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement (RFA);
(b) further notes the judgement was a big win for Australia's forest industry and supports the long-held position of this Government, the state of Tasmania and industry that RFAs remain the best way of balancing environmental, economic and social demands for our native forests;
(c) acknowledges that the Australian forest industry uses world-class sustainable forest management practices and supports the employment of more than 52,000 hardworking Australians making it an industry that deserves to be celebrated;
(d) condemns the Bob Brown Foundation for their consistent use of the Australian courts as a form of lawfare to try to decimate the livelihoods of working Australians; and
(e) calls on the Bob Brown Foundation and the Australian Greens to accept the decision of the court in what they branded 'the Great Forest Case' and heed Mr Brown's own advice: 'It is time we moved on'.
Senators O'Sullivan, Brockman, Cash, Dodson, Lines, Pratt, Reynolds, Siewert, Small, Dean Smith, Steele-John and Sterle to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges:
(i) the ongoing bushfire emergency in Western Australia, which continues to destroy homes and businesses in the Shires of Northam, Chittering, Mundaring and the City of Swan,
(ii) the work of hundreds of Western Australian volunteer and career firefighters who are continuing to work in extremely challenging conditions to save lives and property,
(iii) the support provided to Western Australia by other states, including a New South Wales Rural Fire Service Aerial Tanker,
(iv) the efforts of communities in the region who are coming together to support each other, particularly in the operation of evacuation centres, helping the most vulnerable in their community and those who have lost homes and property,
(v) the huge community effort to relocate and find new homes for animals, particularly horses, for the duration of this emergency, and
(vi) that this bushfire emergency is not over, with challenging conditions and heavy winds forecast to continue impacting the bushfire area; and
(b) extends its support to these communities, residents, and emergency services personnel as they continue to confront this bushfire.
Senator Wong to move (contingent on any senator being refused leave to move a motion related to the suspension or adjournment of the Senate):
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the senator moving a motion related to the suspension or adjournment of the Senate.
Senators, it is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 20 December 2020 of the Rt Hon. John Douglas Anthony AC CH, a former Deputy Prime Minister and member of the House of Representatives for the division of Richmond from 1957 to 1984.
I move:
That the Senate expresses its sadness at the death, on 20 December 2020, of the Rt Hon. John Douglas 'Doug' Anthony AC CH, former Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for the Interior, Minister for Primary Industry and Minister for Trade and Resources, and former member for Richmond, places on record its admiration and appreciation for his service to the Parliament and the nation, and tenders its deep sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
The Rt Hon. John Douglas 'Doug' Anthony was an Australian icon who humbly served our nation in a life of public service. Doug Anthony was born in Murwillumbah, New South Wales on 31 December 1929. Tales abound of Doug's early exposure to federal politics and the federal parliament as a young lad, foretelling his own path of a prominent political career. His father, Hubert Lawrence Anthony, had been elected to the parliament in 1937. From the age of seven, Doug would join his father in Canberra, often staying in the Kurrajong hotel, where he got to know many members of parliament and ministers of the era on a personal level. Rumour even has it that much of young Doug's time spent at the Old Parliament House saw him utilise the lower floor of the building for rollerskating.
Doug was at King's School in Sydney and Gatton College in Queensland before going on to become a dairy farmer until 1957, when his father, a then minister in the Menzies government, passed away. At the age of 27 Doug left farming to contest and win his late father's seat of Richmond. The electorate of Richmond would reward the hard work and dedication shown by Doug Anthony by returning him as their local MP for a further 11 elections.
Doug's parliamentary career stretched more than 26 years, 16 of them spent as a minister of the Crown. He held responsibility for a variety of portfolios, serving as minister for the interior, primary industry, trade and industry, overseas trade, minerals and energy, national resources, and trade and resources. When the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, first promoted Doug Anthony in 1964 to become Minister for the Interior, the youngest member at the time to be made a minister, he said, 'That'll keep you out of mischief!'
Doug Anthony assumed much responsibility for the advancement and establishment of this nation's capital, the seat of government here in Canberra. As Minister for the Interior, he played a role in the development of the Anzac Parade and the construction of the National Library and National Carillon as well as the opening of Lake Burley Griffin as we know it today. Later in life Doug reflected on how happy and proud he was of his connection to the city of Canberra, to which he believed no other capital in the world would compare. Today those of us who serve in this place and the many who live in Canberra enjoy the fruits of his leadership and those who worked alongside him.
On 2 February 1971, almost 50 years ago to this day, Doug Anthony, at the age of 41, became the youngest leader of the then Country Party. As leader, Doug took steps to modernise the party, recognising that the party had to broaden its base. This included a change of name to the National Party in 1982. In testament to Doug's leadership style, throughout his tenure the National Party was able to enjoy strong unity and, of course, build its reputation across many parts of Australia.
Doug Anthony served the country as Deputy Prime Minister for nearly 10 years, marking the longest such tenure of anyone in the role. He was deputy to Prime Ministers John Gorton, Billy McMahon and Malcolm Fraser, serving under Malcolm Fraser for the full period of the coalition government from 1975 to 1983. This tenure is a demonstration of Doug Anthony's commitment as a great coalitionist, setting the standards of engagement between the great National Party of Australia and the great Liberal of Australia that have served very many coalition governments thereafter.
As Minister for Primary Industry, Doug regarded those years as some of his hardest. Yet through that period he was a fierce advocate for Australian farmers in regional Australia, particularly in tough meetings, for example, over European farming policies. Among his achievements in the role were upgrades to export abattoirs to maintain the beef trade, the introduction of the wool reserve price scheme and the reconstruction of the dairy industry. Doug served as Australia's 33rd minister responsible for the trade portfolio. I'm proud to have shared a passion for trade with Doug, having until recently served in the role myself as Australia's 53rd trade minister. As we reflect on Doug Anthony's achievements in the trade portfolio, it's important to note the role he played in expanding particularly our strong trading relationship with Japan. These were leading pioneers of the era in establishing and deepening those relations with nations like Japan, especially in the export of major commodities such as iron ore and coal.
Doug Anthony also showed enormous leadership and insight in focusing on creating opportunities across the ASEAN countries and in the Middle East. He was the first senior Australian minister to visit the Middle East, where several important trade related agreements followed with countries across the region. Perhaps most notably Doug Anthony made history as the minister responsible for negotiating the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement. In 2003 Australia and New Zealand commemorated the 20th anniversary of the signing of the 1983 agreement. In a joint publication marking the occasion, former Prime Minister John Howard described the success of the CER, saying:
It is powerful testimony to the vision of both governments, and of their negotiators, that the CER remains one of the widest ranging and successful free trade agreements in the world even today. That enduring success, from which every Australian and New Zealander now directly benefits, reminds us in tum how important it is to continue pursuing the goal of further liberalisation of world trade.
Eighteen years on from former Prime Minister Howard's remarks about the CER and the bonds that it has established between Australia and New Zealand, it remains our most important trade agreement and the most significant pillar in terms of an example of true openness and cooperation.
The beginnings of the CER can be traced to an informal discussion with New Zealand ministers in 1979, where Doug Anthony brought to the attention of the room the limited prospects for trade growth for either nation under their then existing multilateral trade negotiations or strategies. Doug went on to speak of the success achieved by other nations which cooperated economically to take advantage of the trading potential within their region. He suggested that it was time for Australia and New Zealand to take advantage of the new global circumstances and, in doing so, to form a closer union of economic cooperation. The positive reception by New Zealand ministers of Doug Anthony's proposal at this meeting marked the beginnings of the formal process of the closer economic relations trade agreement. Although the agreement was finally signed off just a few weeks into the life of the Hawke government, Doug Anthony was acknowledged as the engineer of the agreement and, indeed, was conferred an honorary doctorate from New Zealand's University of Canterbury. Since then, the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement has become a model for trade agreements across the globe—a fact I can attest to in my own undertakings of similar negotiations.
Doug Anthony was Australian through and through. Perhaps few stories better illustrate this than when then Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser would take his annual summer holidays, leaving Doug in charge of the nation. Doug Anthony's choice of office was a caravan by his cottage at New Brighton on the New South Wales North Coast, which caught the attention of the media. In his own words Doug said:
I'll probably be remembered for the caravan more than anything else in my political career. When the nation heard I was running the show from my caravan it sent a message that it was Christmas, time to relax, everything was on hold, but also everything was being looked after.
Doug retired from the federal parliament of January in 1984. He left on his own terms, as Father of the House, with a record of accomplishments that few could match, and returned to his dairy farm. He remained active in public life, including campaigning for an Australian republic at the 1999 constitutional referendum. Echoing the words of our current Prime Minister, the right honourable John Douglas Anthony was a quiet giant of Australian political life, a man who left an indelible and positive mark on our nation, our coalition of Liberal and National Parties and particularly upon his beloved National Party. Doug Anthony led a long and meritorious life of public service. We express our deepest thanks and profound sympathy to his wife, Margot, his three children, Dugald, Jane and Larry, and his nine grandchildren. I thank the Senate.
I thank the minister for his reflection on the life of the former Deputy Prime Minister John Douglas 'Doug' Anthony. I rise to contribute to this condolence motion, and I do so both in honour of Mr Anthony's service and as a proud resident of New South Wales, his home state. It is clear from the tributes that flowed following his death that Mr Anthony was held in high regard as a thoroughly decent man who exemplified what it means to serve your community and your country.
Mr Anthony demonstrated a deep commitment to public service. He was elected to the federal seat of Richmond in 1957 in a by-election after his father, who had held the seat, died sudden. In his first speech to the parliament Doug Anthony warned that while members of parliament should express the views upon which they were elected to office, he noted that a member should, 'set his target at national development and security rather than personal achievement'. He spent a career pursuing the former and he certainly achieved the latter.
Mr Anthony's parliamentary career spanned nearly three decades, more than half of which involved service as a minister in government. The commitment he brought to the broader goals of the office was evident in the way he discussed his career, humbly remarking in his later years:
I'm very fortunate to be where I am. I think I was making a useful contribution and that's the satisfaction I get out of the job.
Mr Anthony appeared to have an admirable humility about his work and his role. He often performed his role as Acting Prime Minister during the summer, as Minister Birmingham noted, in a caravan by his cottage in New Brighton on the New South Wales North Coast wearing little more than shorts and thongs. During the lockdown year many members of parliament were able to have their own experience of working from the New South Wales coast or wherever their lounge rooms happen to be. If Zoom is any indicator most did wear more than shorts and thongs! It is appropriate that the linchpin of Australia's government would temporarily find itself in the bush by the sea on those summers.
Mr Anthony was a passionate advocate for regional Australia. He worked with the Country Party to represent the diversity of people living in regional Australia and bring their voice to Canberra. He made it clear that his responsibility was to the agriculture producers of this country. Doug Anthony was Minister for Primary Industry during an incredibly difficult period for Australian farmers, but he showed a tenacity in his work and his negotiating style that would come to define his career.
He helped establish the Australian Wool Commission, which administered reserve price schemes and provided funds for marketing and research. When the price of grain crashed in 1969 he introduced wheat quotas to limit overproduction and encouraged the Australian Wheat Board to open flour mills overseas. It was during this period that Mr Anthony—like me and many other members of this place—became an advocate for an Australian republic. During particularly tense negotiations with the British agriculture minister, Geoffrey Rippon, over European farm policies, Mr Anthony said:
It was the contempt that I couldn't put up with. It's always been the attitude of the colonial powers. After the loyalty that we'd shown, the wars that we'd fought—I thought it was a pretty shabby way to treat us.
That led him to become a campaigner, alongside my uncle Tom Kenneally, for the 1999 republican campaign. He believed in giving Australians the recognition and the respect they deserved, particularly rural Australians.
As his family noted upon his passing, he was very much a man of the Tweed region, and it is fitting that he should depart this life from within the community he loved so much. Despite being at home in the country, Mr Anthony was one of the architects of the modern and vibrant Canberra that we know today. As Minister for the Interior he helped finish the transition of government department head offices from Melbourne to Canberra—thank goodness!—overseeing the construction across the city and interjecting character into the national capital. It was Mr Anthony who was responsible for the construction of the National Library and the opening of Lake Burley Griffin. Mr Anthony and his wife, Margot, were well known in Canberra for providing emotional support to members of the local community who had disabilities.
As devoted as he was to his community, Doug Anthony was evidently a dedicated husband, father and family man. He married Margot in 1957. They had three children: Dugald, Jane and Larry and, eventually—and I'm sure he was very delighted—nine grandchildren. I was struck by the description of Margot and Doug's marriage as a 'romance that never died'. He was loved fiercely in return by his family, who were never lost in the shadows of the enormity of his public service.
Many in the community will also remember Mr Anthony for being the only Australian member of parliament—at least, that I'm aware of—to have a band named after him. When Paul McDermott, Tim Ferguson and Richard Fidler decided to form a musical comedy band called the Doug Anthony All Stars, Mr Anthony took it in the good humour in which it was meant. My friend Tim Ferguson told me, 'He was always a true gentleman who tolerated our antics with great patience and, hopefully, forgiveness.' While I didn't know Doug Anthony personally, when I read that his most famous saying was, 'If you see a head, kick it,' I thought the two of us might have gotten along!
My condolences are with Margot, his children, his grandchildren and his community on the New South Wales North Coast. May we look to his legacy as that of an honourable man and a true Australian statesman.
I rise as Leader of the Nationals in the Senate to contribute to the condolence debate on the passing of the Rt Hon. Doug Anthony. I want to thank Senator Kenneally and Senator Birmingham for their heartfelt words and what I think were some colourful turns of phrase that really did capture Doug, his love of his country, his love of his nation and his love of his family. Our thoughts and condolences go to Margot, Dugald, Jane, Larry and their families. It's obviously a sad occasion for the National Party family, as it is for many people across Australia.
He was a giant of our party. He wasn't just the Deputy Prime Minister or the member for Richmond. He very much was the Leader of the Country Party and then the National Party. He was part of an iconic era, really, for our party, post John McEwen. The fab four—Doug Anthony, Peter Nixon, Ian Sinclair and Ralph Hunt—were a force to be reckoned with on behalf of regional Australia but also within the coalition.
It's fitting to repeat the words of Doug himself when he spoke at the passing of another giant of the then Country Party, John McEwen, in November 1980. Doug Anthony said:
McEwen was a strong man. He was, at times, a hard, tough, demanding man. … He was a man of integrity—a man of honour. He was a powerful negotiator. He was a persuasive advocate.
I believe Doug Anthony may well have been describing himself, as he was all that.
In recent weeks, Doug has been described in many ways: a true statesman, a man of honour and integrity, a humble man, ever positive and ever connected to the Tweed region around Murwillumbah in the Northern Rivers region. The man from Murwillumbah did not set out to become a household name, and it very nearly didn't happen. But Doug Anthony is a household name, and John McEwen played a significant role. He picked him out early from this group of new young men who arrived in Parliament House as a restless young backbencher, promising him a ministry. And I think it would have been a great loss to the nation had Doug left early. When I was chatting to his son, Larry Anthony, who is also the current National Party federal president, about Doug's experience with John McEwen, he recalled that there was a time when Menzies considered promoting a very young Doug Anthony to Minister for the Navy before McEwen intervened. He believed Doug was too young and would not be respected in the portfolio by the chiefs of defence, and that he needed time to grow into the role to become everything that McEwen knew this young man would be as a leader. So McEwen pushed for a portfolio he thought he could thrive in as Minister of the Interior, and that's what happened. As it goes, at that time, Doug was actually looking for opportunities beyond politics because he had been catapulted, if you like, so early into parliament following the death of his father. So we can be very, very thankful for Black Jack's mentorship.
Doug Anthony was born on New Year's Eve in 1929, and, after his schooling at the local secondary college, The King's School in Parramatta, and Gatton College in Queensland, he became a dairy farmer. It was his deep and abiding passion. All he wanted to do was be on the farm and produce milk at that time. That changed in 1957, when his own father, Larry Anthony Sr, a minister in the Menzies government, died and Doug was elected at the by-election to the federal seat of Richmond at just 27. His parliamentary career spanned more than 26 years, 16 of which involved service as a government minister. Doug held a variety of portfolios, serving as Minister for the Interior, and as minister for primary industry, trade and industry, overseas trade, minerals and energy, national resources and trade and resources—all very hearty National Party or Country Party portfolios! He was made deputy leader of the Country Party in 1966 and, at age 41, became our party's youngest leader following the retirement of John McEwen in 1971, a record that is yet to be broken. He was Deputy Prime Minister to three Liberal Prime Ministers: John Gorton, Billy McMahon and Malcolm Fraser.
During his time as the minister for primary industries and then trade, he drove significant reform, opening up new trade opportunities for agriculture and mining. Just as our current government leadership sets out to expand trade markets amid growing Chinese tensions, it was Doug Anthony's trade ministership and that of his predecessor John McEwen that laid the foundations to help make this happen. Along with fellow National Ian Sinclair, Doug Anthony was one of the two last survivors of Sir Robert Menzies's last ministry. Ian Sinclair, Minister for Social Services in the 10th Menzies ministry, who replaced Doug Anthony as National Party leader upon his retirement, said of his predecessor:
As members of The National Party, we were proud of his leadership of the party. Peter Nixon, Ralph Hunt, and all those of us who were members of the party remember him kindly for the way in which he led, and kept the party together.
There's no doubt that as we look back on him, those times were different but looking at modern Australia so much of it began in the days when Doug Anthony was deputy prime minister. And so much of all those things that we cherish today Doug had a hand in.
Australia has vibrant trade orientated farm and mining industries today, delivering huge improvements to living standards for all Australians because Doug Anthony saw the opportunities in the 1970s and the 1980s. In The Spectator, Terry Barnes wrote, 'It is a cliche to say we will never see his like again, but it certainly is so.'
Backed by his loyal deputy, Sinclair, Doug Anthony oversaw the transformation of the Country Party to the National Party. He said the name change reflected Australia's changing political scene. Announcing it, he acknowledged the importance of farming to rural Australia, saying farmers' prosperity was the basis of prosperity of many rural towns and of industries and employment outside the cities, but he stressed that the party works for all people outside the major capital cities. The former federal director of the Liberal Party, Brian Loughnane, described Doug Anthony as a 'committed coalitionist'. That was in evidence at his state memorial last week in the Tweed, where we saw icons of the National Party and Country Party gather. There were former state premiers, ministers and the former Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss, alongside our current Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister John Howard, who spoke so eloquently of the time he served with Doug in parliament.
It was the likes of Doug Anthony and his colleagues, Peter Nixon and Ian Sinclair, who demonstrated to both parties what would be achieved through the partnership of two very proud and independent political movements. It has been noted amongst my National colleagues that while Doug Anthony was a committed coalitionist in front of the opposition, he was fiercely committed to the National's cause in joint party room and cabinets.
Former Prime Minister John Howard was a minister with Doug under Malcolm Fraser. He said Doug Anthony's contributions in cabinet discussions were always direct, understandable, informed and unshakeable. He recalled a particular situation—and he assured me that it had been more than 30 years so he could talk about it—at the memorial service last week. Whilst Fraser had been overseas, he'd left Doug in charge. Doug had made a decision around parliamentary salaries and remuneration which then the opposition seized on, and it was overturned by the PM when he got back. It was a very furious and forthright Doug that made it very clear to the then PM that if he were left in charge, he expected to be able to exercise that with full authority. So no-one was ever in any doubt about what he thought.
But he was very generous and likeable. One of the stories I've read was that he was a very, very handsome man. He was on the TV campaigning and women were kissing the TV when he actually came on for his campaign messages. This was a great thing for his son, who was doorknocking the seat of Richmond at the time, to hear that—he was Doug's son and that's what women thought of his dad! His affable style endeared him to his colleagues and, most importantly, to the farmers and other constituents he represented.
Former leader of the Nationals in the Senate, Senator Ron Boswell, described Doug Anthony as:
… a strong, popular and decisive Leader who understood the power he had within a Coalition, to be wielded only when necessary.
Senator Boswell recounted being summonsed to Doug Anthony's office immediately after delivering his own first speech in this chamber. Doug told him:
Ron, you got into the Senate on Flo's petticoat tails by being the gopher boy for the Queensland National Party, but that won't cut anything down here. You will be a one termer unless you understand Canberra and how the system works to assist rural and regional constituents.
Clearly from his long and very, very successful career on delivering, Senator Boswell paid attention to his leader's words. He represented the Nationals and Queensland for over 30 years.
My deputy in the Senate, Senator Canavan, tells a story of Doug Anthony reading through his papers on a flight to New Zealand and asking his advisers: 'Why am I going over here? I'm checking this agenda and there's nothing on it to discuss'. By the time they landed, Doug had made an addition to the agenda and the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relationship was born. Never one to waste an opportunity—typical of a farmer and a great leader—he regarded the economic relationship as a major achievement. It became a blueprint for future trade agreements. He negotiated with China and he was the first senior Australian minister to negotiate the live sheep trade with the Middle East. Doug built a strong import and export relationship with the emerging industry powerhouse of Japan, building on the strong work of his former mentor, John McEwen.
He understood the need for strong rural and regional representation at the highest level of government and was a fierce advocate for the opening of new trade opportunities. Whether it was in defence of the wool floor price, opposition to increasing the value of the dollar or his defence—which I think is the only thing he and John Howard ever disagreed on—of single-desk selling, Doug Anthony stuck to his intent to deliver for rural Australia. He was also heavily involved in the development of Canberra.
The Anthony family is synonymous with the Country and National parties. Doug; his father, Hubert Lawrence Anthony; and current Nationals federal president Larry Anthony all represented the federal division of Richmond, for a combined 67 years. Doug retired from federal parliament in January 1984, returning to the farm, Sunnymeadows, which had expanded beyond the dairy to include a piggery and cotton and cereal operations. He held several corporate positions in retirement.
It was around this time of his retirement that a trio of buskers on the streets of Canberra actually adopted his name. Upon meeting Doug via the TV show Video Hook-Up, Doug Anthony All Stars member Paul McDermott said he found Doug generous, kindly and accepting. Doug, with his trademark country smile and tongue firmly in cheek, said of this particular meeting: 'An auspicious occasion; it's the first time I've met these plagiarists who've made my life miserable ever since I retired. I hope to keep out of the public limelight. What happens? I walk down the street and people say, "That's a great band of yours!"'
Was it was those iconic pictures of the Acting Prime Minister running the country over the summer holidays from a caravan at New Brighton up the New South Wales coast that made him a household name? He did say:
When the nation heard I was running the show from my caravan it sent a message that it was Christmas, time to relax, everything was on hold, but also everything was being looked after.
I think it was also a demonstration to all of us of his commitment to his family in what was an incredible public life. Larry also told a great story that Prime Minister Fraser was very keen to keep in touch with his deputy quite regularly, but the only way to do that was the public phone down the road. So, armed with a stack of 20c pieces, Larry would be sent to wait in the line with the locals until it actually got far enough up to get Dad up from the caravan to take the Prime Minister's call until the 20c pieces ran out. It got very, very frustrating, shall we say, for Prime Minister Fraser, who then ended up giving the caravan a fantastic upgrade so that it could have a direct line. I think that said that Doug was not for moving in January, and the Prime Minister paid attention. He got the best of both worlds, a great example for us all.
In 2014 he said, 'I don't see the purpose in people remembering me much,' but I don't think he got his wish, because he's very much well remembered by all of us. He was a statesman of the highest degree. He was a giant of our party. He's left a lasting positive impact on modern Australia and, in particular, regional Australia. Our sympathies to his family and to the wider Country Party. Decency, intelligence, humility, generosity. He and Margot, the love of his life, retired to the Tweed, where he enjoyed listening to her play the piano on the farm; fishing, often with Peter Nixon; spending time with family; and supporting the arts and the wider community. He was a very proud country man and someone we are also very, very proud of. Vale, Doug Anthony.
I too would like to echo the celebration of a great Australian leader in this chamber this afternoon. Doug Anthony was a leader that I don't think any other country in the world could have produced. He was quintessentially Australian, identifiably Australian. Perhaps he might not be the type of leader we ever see again in Australia. I hope not; I hope we haven't lost his down-to-earth nature, his country charm and, of course, his larrikin spirit. Doug was our longest-serving Deputy Prime Minister. He led our country through great change and transition—changes and transitions that impacted the then Country Party, now the National Party, greatly—and he did so extremely successfully. As I said, he was a real Australian larrikin as a leader. That comes through in the stories that have been told here this afternoon—the beachside caravan, the calls from the Prime Minister on the payphone that his kids were operating.
There's another story I'd like to tell as well, which I learnt through Senator Davey's father's history of the National Party. As a young MP, Doug Anthony at Old Parliament House was getting a little bit bored. Sometimes we're here for long periods of time; sometimes we're here late at night. He and some other members of parliament decided to engage in some late-night kicking of the football, although it just so happened that they'd be doing that kicking in King's Hall at the front of Old Parliament House there, which you can still go and visit. It's a big expanse, but I've never really thought of kicking a football in there; I thought that might be a bit disrespectful. But Doug, as a real larrikin, was kicking the football around. Unfortunately this stray football hit one of the large portrait frames, of a kind that still appears in our equivalent of King's Hall here. This frame fell to the ground and the glass smashed all over the floor. Doug and his partners in crime quickly swept all the glass up and hung the frame back up as best they could, and apparently the broken frame went years without being detected until, finally, someone realised that the glass needed to be replaced. I'm sure they said, 'It was like that when we got here.'
He was a great, great leader. As I said, Doug became Leader of the Country Party in 1971. He followed in the huge shoes of John 'Black Jack' McEwen. Prior to his time as leader, the three previous leaders—there was, I think, a transitional leader, but these were the three previous major leaders—were Earle Page, Arthur Fadden and John McEwen, absolute giants of Australian politics who all became Prime Minister at some time in their careers. So Doug had a real tough act to follow.
At the same time the Country Party was facing enormous challenges, with farming employment declining as part of the Australian economy, a broader shift in Australian society on a number of issues, and the trading relationship pressures that my colleague Senator McKenzie mentioned. He tackled this issue front on, which was always going to be the only successful way to tackle it. At Doug's first press conference as Leader of the Country Party, he summed up quite nicely what I think became the manifesto of the National Party in his term. He said, 'I think we service that responsibility well'—to look after people outside capital cities, not just farmers. Indeed, his definition lasts on in the logo of the National Party: 'For Regional Australia'.
Perhaps there is a dividing line in our party's history between pre Doug Anthony and post Doug Anthony. Pre Doug Anthony, the party probably was primarily focused on farming issues. It started as a farmer's party and retained that focus through its first 50-odd years of life. But perhaps in the second half, the second 50 years, of the National Party's history—the party celebrated 100 years last year—there has been a broader focus on people who live in regional Australia, including, of course, farmers, who by definition do live outside capital cities, but also a broader focus on those who face challenges living away from our major centres, who don't have access to the same services as those in capital cities and who are desperate to see our country grow and develop. He also oversaw the broadening of the base of the National Party to those who work in mines, to small-business people and to families in country towns. The way he did that was through making good leadership decisions, especially in his role in different portfolios.
As I mentioned, when you think about when he became Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Country party it was at a time when the UK had just joined the European Commission. At the time, in the late 1960s, the UK imported 80 per cent of Australia's butter. Eighty per cent of our butter went to the UK—imagine that. Our dairy herd, after the UK joined the EC, fell from four million to 2.4 million head in the space of just a few years. Fruit exports crashed and millions of trees had to be pulled up because we lost markets for tinned fruit and vegetables. It was a major challenge in rural Australia. The groundwork had been laid in agreements that John McEwen had signed—with Japan especially—but it was really Doug who took those agreements and made them into the full opportunity that was there for Australia. He pushed the development of extra exports to the Japanese market. He also opened up and looked at new markets, signing what really was the first modern free trade agreement, not just for Australia but for the world.
Bridget mentioned the story of Doug being frustrated with boring departmental written agenda items, and I share some sympathy, as a former minister, with his frustration—perhaps 'Why am I going to this meeting? There doesn't seem to be much that we're saying to each other'—but Doug took action. He decided, 'Well, why don't we add some things to the agenda and actually make some decisions.'
What came out of those discussions was not just the first free trade agreement of that nature for Australia but really the first in the world. When you look, there's a massive difference between that, which kicked off our modern trade environment, and the agreement we signed with Japan in 1957, signed by John McEwen. That one was a letter—it was an exchange of letters, just 10 or so pages—whereas the New Zealand comprehensive economic relationship, as it was called, covered a vast swathe of different areas and sectors, which serve as a template for the multiple free trade agreements that we have today. It has been replicated by many countries, by NAFTA and in other trade agreements around the world. He also established new trading links with the Middle East. He pioneered the development of that.
Doug was the, I think, first, and certainly the last resources minister before I was the resources minister, from the National Party. That's something that goes uncommented a little bit, the role he played in developing our nation's resources. He oversaw the development of our uranium exports for the first time—a controversial issue that he championed. He also negotiated very toughly, very strongly with Japanese steel mills who were buying our iron ore, and pushed them for higher prices. Indeed, there's a great story where, he as acting PM, just made a decision to refuse to put export controls on iron ore. The then Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser was not too happy about that, but Doug stuck to his guns and did get better prices for our iron ore because of his action.
He did work productively with Liberal leaders. He was a coalitionist, as Senator McKenzie said, but we shouldn't forget that he stood up very strongly for his own party's interests in discussions with the Liberal Party. At one point he led, with his cabinet colleagues, three walkouts in three days from cabinet over a discussion on the exchange rate.
I think Doug's action in moving the National Party to a broader base but doing so consistent with a strong leadership that has always existed within the National Party helped ensure that the second half-century of the National Party continued to be a successful one. We have been rewarded politically because we have fought for regional areas by supporting the development of dams, the development of new mines, the protection of industries like live cattle exports. We've opposed taxes and regulations that would inhibit job growth and production in regional areas. We've taken up the fight, just like Doug did in his time. We've done so with no airs or graces; happily living in caravans or going back to our own families and communities and just being, as much as we can, close to the people and defending their rights and interests, regardless of what people might say about us down here.
He was a great lesson to our party. He was a great leader for our country. His passing is a great loss for Australia, but especially for his family, and I want to pass on my deepest condolences to his broader family and to Margot, the love of his life. Vale Doug Anthony.
I would like to add some short comments in this tribute to Doug Anthony. Much has already been said about Mr Anthony's career and his achievements, both in this chamber and at his state memorial service at Tweed Heads lasts Thursday.
I first met Mr Anthony, or Doug, when I was young, a teenager whose main understanding of politics was that it was just something my dad and his friends talked about. At the time I had little concept of the import of the Deputy Prime Minister or the role that Doug had played in shaping our nation, particularly in the regions. And, testament to the kind of man he was, Doug did not stand on ceremony with me. He did not speak down to me or make me feel inferior. He spoke to me like he spoke to everyone: as an equal. His genuine easygoing manner, his warm broad smile and his quick sense of humour were endearing. It was only in subsequent years, as I got to know both him and his wife, Margot, as well as their son Larry, that I got to understand that the kind, warm man I knew had actually been one of our longest-serving deputy prime ministers, a champion for rural industries and a man who had done so much to shape our modern nation.
Indeed, Doug was an original futurist. He was a man who really saw potential and saw what the future might bring. He made much of recognising the future mechanisation of agriculture. As the Minister for the Interior, which was his first portfolio, he helped shape the national capital that we all stand in today. It was not long after being elected, in political terms—only six years after being elected—that he took on the role of Minister for the Interior, and he took it on with the same level of commitment with which he did everything. He was therefore instrumental in shaping Canberra. He was involved in developments such as the Canberra Theatre, Anzac Parade and the Mint, as well as choosing the site for the Carillon. He lobbied for the Captain Cook jet fountain, which ultimately was switched on by his successor in the portfolio but of which he was very proud.
He was also fundamental in starting the work in establishing the new town centres of Woden and Belconnen—which are now part of inner-city Canberra, as the success of the national capital has seen the city expand. He was also a futurist in other areas, as mentioned by Senator Canavan. He identified the trade opportunities in uranium, which is now a zero-emissions product. So he was on the money. He was one of the first to identify the opportunities of working from home, as has been mentioned. He would have done very well in the COVID lockdown, as he was fully prepared for that sort of lifestyle and that sort of working environment.
But you should ask: why was Doug so adept, at such a young age, politically speaking, at both representing his rural constituency and taking on ministerial responsibilities such as negotiating bilateral trade agreements? To understand that, you need to understand a bit about Doug's background. The Anthony family are the only political dynasty in Australia—and there are a few—to have seen three consecutive generations in the same House of Representatives electorate. There was Doug's father, Hubert, who was also known in Canberra as Larry; there was Doug; and there was his second son, Larry. Hubert was a soldier turned farmer turned local MP and then finally a minister, and he taught his son much. Doug's upbringing was split between visits to Canberra and the family home at Murwillumbah on the north coast. But Doug was always encouraged to be his own man and to determine his own destiny.
Doug was not initially drawn into politics. As mentioned by Senator Birmingham, he first turned his attention to farming. He established his dairy and he set about, with full gusto, learning about primary production practices both here and abroad. He travelled extensively and learned a lot. Indeed, in the book mentioned by Senator Canavan, Politics in the Blood, it is revealed that after one international visit Doug returned to be greeted at the airport by his ministerial father, with media in train. His father told him to take the hat off, claiming he looked ridiculous, but Doug left his straw stetson on his head as he regaled the surrounding newsmen about the streamlined production methods, the extensive use of modern machinery and the efficient distribution facilities in the US. He confidently predicted that Australian farmers would have to adapt in order to be able to continue to compete.
Settling back into Australia, Doug found continuing interest in what he'd learnt and he sought to share his experiences, talking at Rotary, business chambers and farming organisations. He spoke eloquently about not only primary production but also mechanisation, technological advances and innovation. His easygoing approach, clear delivery and amicable nature saw him in high demand, which in turn saw him further fine-tune his public-speaking skills and ability to adopt and adapt new ideas.
I believe it was that early career and experience that was fundamental to building the successful politician and leader that we remember here today—and he was successful by any measure. He was a minister in all coalition governments from March 1964 onwards. He was a cabinet minister from October 1967 and Deputy Prime Minister, and frequently Acting Prime Minister, from February 1971 to December 1972 and then again from December 1975 to March 1983. It was towards the end of that time when I first met him. He requested that my father take over the directorship of the National Party, promising Dad that they would make a great team. He wanted to work with my dad, but, shortly after my dad took the role, Doug promptly resigned.
His elevation to the leadership did mark a generational exchange in the party's evolution, as Senator Canavan discussed. He broadened the party's platform and widened its electoral appeal, and that has helped to cement our party's ongoing relevance in Australian politics, and that is why our party has now spanned 100 years. We are all very proud of that. When Doug was leader of the party during the Fraser-Anthony years, it was often said that the Nationals wielded more influence than their parliamentary numbers deserved. That assertion ignores the fact that the success was because the Nationals brought forward good policies and that Doug could champion those policies such that they became government policy. That is the power of a cooperative coalition.
In his retirement, Doug returned to his farm, Sunnymeadows and worked just as hard for his passion projects. Together with his wife, Margot, they donated some of their land for the development of the new premises of the Tweed River art gallery, known today as the Tweed Regional Gallery. It is now recognised as the leading regional art gallery in Australia.
Turning full circle, in 1999 he again took a role that saw him help shape our national capital. He was appointed chairman of the Old Parliament House Advisory Council. The role took him back to his childhood and reminded him of the days when he used to visit his father. In those days, Old Parliament House was a relatively new parliament house, at 11 years old. Being there on that board, helping supervise refurbishments and determine the future for that grand old building, was a job he absolutely loved. And he was fundamental to the building becoming what it is now: a permanent museum of political history here in Canberra. He retired from the role in November 2008 and spent the remainder of his time with his family, surrounded by loved ones, on the North Coast. This was the kind man that I knew.
While many in Doug's position could have easily forgotten that awkward teen, he did not. He always greeted me warmly and remembered my name, which, for some old politicians that I knew, was quite remarkable. He greeted me warmly and always took an interest in what I was up to through all stages of my life, no matter where our paths crossed or when. I held Doug and his family in enormous regard, and I still do. My thoughts and prayers are with Margot, Dugald, Larry and Jane. Doug was a great MP, a great minister and a great party leader, but, most importantly, he was a genuine person and a great man. Vale.
So much has already been said of the late, great Doug Anthony. The Anthony family has given so much to Australia. Through politics they have entrenched themselves into the fabric of the nation and, particularly, rural Australia. My home state of Queensland particularly owes Doug a great debt.
Doug was married to Margot. His father, Hubert Lawrence—Larry—was a Country Party minister in the Fadden and Menzies governments. His son Larry continued the tradition of public service as an elected National Party member for Richmond, in New South Wales, from 1996 to 2004, and Larry's contribution to the party continues right to this day in his role as president of the party.
Doug was a formidable ally for people outside the capital cities, and there's no doubt regional Australia would be worse off without his fierce advocacy on their behalf. He was instrumental in securing closer trade ties with New Zealand, the Middle East, Japan and China. But what I want to touch on is the extraordinary impact that he had through just one decision for my home state of Queensland. Tourism guru Sir Frank Moore was spearheading a charge to have Queensland bid to host the 1988 World Expo. World Expos had to that date been very onerous financially on the host countries; they had not always been financially successful. Sometimes the land around them was left in very poor condition and undeveloped. But Queensland, riding on the back of 30 years of successful management and administration by the National Party government, were confident they'd turn the state from an agrarian economy into a powerhouse in mining, industrial development, cheap electricity, cheap land and cheap water. It had developed extraordinary tourism assets. In the early 1980s we knew we were ready to host a world-leading exposition.
However, regional is in the eye of the beholder, and the Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, believed that Sydney or Melbourne should host such an event. But both Sydney and Melbourne didn't believe that they would be able to successfully hold such an event, and they didn't want the financial and other burdens. So the Prime Minister refused Queensland's request to go to Paris to lodge a request to bid to hold this event. Unfortunately for the Prime Minister he had had an accident on his farm and hurt his back, and Doug Anthony, sworn in as the Acting Prime Minister, was in the top job. Sir Frank Moore, ever the opportunist, having heard the news on the radio that morning, quickly rang the Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, and said to him that he must immediately ring the Acting Prime Minister and put to him the idea that Brisbane should be the host of this exposition. Sir Joh did exactly that. Doug Anthony, acting with the decisive and future-looking vision that we have heard so much of this afternoon, immediately granted the request, and Brisbane won the bid to host the expo, which went down to be one of the most successful expos ever held and was one of the very few to turn a profit.
I worked at that expo, and I'm proud to say that it was a turning point for Queensland. We were like a very sleepy country town that closed at lunchtime on Saturdays. There was no outdoor eating. We didn't have the international quality hotels and events that we now have so many of. We had international acts that were hosted by Riverstage, and there are many extraordinary stories of good times at the expo. It changed the future of Brisbane and Queensland. It turned Brisbane into a confident city capable of hosting international events and capable of developing further along the lines it already had. The bustling dining, entertainment and recreation precinct of South Brisbane is a jewel in Brisbane's crown and will forever be the legacy of Doug Anthony's brave and timely decision to back Queensland and back regional Australia.
Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places.
It is also with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 17 January 2021 of Jon Harold Sullivan, a former member of the House of Representatives for the division of Longman, Queensland, from 2007 to 2010.
I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Marielle Smith for Tuesday 2 February 2021 to Tuesday 11 May 2021 for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of all Labor senators and also Senators Hughes, Henderson, Askew, Davey, Brockman, Griff, Patrick and all Green senators, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) ovarian cancer is the eighth most common cancer in Australia,
(ii) every year around 1,580 Australian women are diagnosed, with the five-year survival rate being just 46%,
(iii) over the past 30 years the statistics around the survival rate of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer has not changed significantly,
(iv) despite common misconceptions, there is no early detection or screening test for ovarian cancer,
(v) therefore, it is imperative to be aware of the symptoms of ovarian cancer as early detection and treatment dramatically increases a person's chance of survival,
(vi) unfortunately, the symptoms of ovarian cancer are all too often overlooked, assumed to be part of the female experience or often diagnosed as symptoms of other more prevalent conditions, for example Irritable Bowel Syndrome, and
(vii) February is Ovarian Cancer Awareness month and is a time where we recognise and support women diagnosed with ovarian cancer and their families; and
(b) urges the Federal Government to invest more resources to help educate and find a cure for ovarian cancer so we can give hope to women and reduce the number of women who die from this disease.
Question agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senator Gallacher, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Australia's Collins Class submarines are a vital capability of the Australian Defence Force,
(ii) in June 2011 the Navy could not put one of our six Collin Class submarines to sea,
(iii) it took more than half a decade and a significant amount of taxpayer's money to restore submarine seagoing availability,
(iv) the current Collins Class submarine maintenance arrangements, with short term maintenance activities in Western Australia and deep maintenance, embodied in the full cycle dockings, in South Australia, are achieving world benchmarks,
(v) the Minister for Defence stated that the decision on the future location of full cycle dockings would be made by the end of 2019, and
(vi) we are now into 2021, with workers, defence industry and the public still waiting for the decision to be announced; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to put an end to the uncertainty and announce the decision regarding the location for all Collins Class Submarine full cycle docking activities going forward.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
South Australia is at the forefront of the government's plan and $75 billion investment to ensure Australia has the maritime capabilities needed to defend Australia. The Osborne naval shipbuilding hub grew by 300 jobs in 2020 to 2,800 jobs today and will continue to grow to 5,000 jobs by 2025. Likewise, at Henderson there are more than 1,300 jobs, with more growth to occur with future build programs. This is giving Australian industry confidence and certainty in our shipbuilding plans. As part of our investment, government is carefully considering the needs of our submarine capability, including the future location of the full-cycle docking activities for the Collins Class submarine. As we have made clear, a decision on this will be made after careful consideration of all the relevant information and on the basis of what is in the national interest.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges that the global carbon budget has been updated since the Climate Change Authority's targets and progress report of February 2014 so that according to the independent Climate Targets Panel, Australia's new science based targets require greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced to:
(i) at least 50% below 2005 levels by 2030 and net-zero by 2045 in order to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees: and
(ii) at least 74% below 2005 levels by 2030 and net-zero by 2035 in order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees; and
(b) respects the science of climate change and will act according to the best available scientific advice.
I seek leave move to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Australia has a track record of meeting and beating our international commitments. We have beaten our 2020 target by 459 million tonnes. We're on track to meet and beat our 2030 target. Australians are also deploying renewable energy at 10 times the global per person average. These are achievements Australians can and should be proud of, but climate change is a global problem requiring global action. That's why Australia has committed to the Paris Agreement and to investing in the new and emerging technologies that will make net zero emissions achievable.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
One Nation opposes this motion. Once again the Greens are pretending Australia has a carbon budget when it does not. Not content with pretending that Climate Change Authority thought bubbles are actual legislation, now Senator Whish-Wilson is giving the Senate the benefit of his advice on reducing a trace gas that is necessary for all life on earth. Carbon budgets are scientific nonsense. Let me give you an example. The Drax power station in the UK was recently converted from burning coal to burning trees. One would think that the Greens would be horrified at this destruction of forests, but no. This was a green energy initiative. Apparently, in carbon budgets, carbon dioxide from coal is bad but carbon dioxide from chopping down and burning trees is good. What? I agree with Senator Whish-Wilson that government policy should be underpinned by verified science. That's why an office of scientific integrity and quality assurance would help the government shape policy based on science, not the Greens' parallel universe.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Labor won't be supporting this motion. We do support strong action on climate change to create jobs, reduce emissions and improve affordability and reliability. As the Greens know, science based targets should be determined by a transparent, government led process that respects the views of experts and the community. The Morrison government has refused to initiate such a process because it is hostage to the climate deniers in its ranks. Labor is the only party of government that will take the science of climate change seriously.
The question is that motion No. 961 be agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senator Waters, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Counting Dead Women Australia reports that:
(A) 55 women were killed by violence in 2020, and
(B) 4 women have been killed by violence so far in 2021,
(ii) there is no national government toll reporting women killed by violence in real time,
(iii) 1 in 3 women have experienced physical violence and, on average, one woman is murdered every week by her current or former partner,
(iv) women are nearly 3 times more likely than men to experience intimate partner violence and 2.5 times more likely to be hospitalised from family and domestic violence,
(v) young women, women with disabilities, and First Nations women are more likely to experience violence,
(vi) demand for domestic and family violence services continues to increase, and
(vii) COVID-19 has put more women and children at risk and increased the demands on frontline domestic and family violence services; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) recognise violence against women and children as a national security crisis,
(ii) fully fund frontline family domestic violence services to ensure all those seeking safety can get the help they need, and
(iii) coordinate a national discussion regarding regulation of coercive control.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government's first priority is to keep Australians safe. Violence against women and children can never be excused or justified. For those who need help, it is available. Since 2013 the government has invested over $1 billion to prevent and respond to violence against women and their children. This includes the $150 million the Commonwealth government committed for the COVID-19 domestic and family violence support package and the $340 million for the fourth action plan. The decision to legislate coercive control sits with the states and territories, and we welcome the work being undertaken by the New South Wales Attorney-General to investigate the options for legislative reform on behalf of his state and territory colleagues.
Question agreed to.
I inform the chamber that Senator Keneally will also sponsor the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senator Keneally, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Australia is a hugely diverse country of First Nations people and migrants from every corner of the world,
(ii) far-right political activity is on the rise in western democracies and, last month, far-right extremists stormed the United States Capitol building in a deadly attack,
(iii) the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Michael McCormack, drew a false equivalence between the Capitol attack and the 'Black Lives Matter' movement for racial justice,
(iv) late last month, far-right extremists and open neo-Nazis gathered at Gariwerd on Gunditjmara country, in Victoria, in a revolting gathering of extremist hatred, and
(v) the growth of far-right, white supremacist and neo-Nazi movements poses an existential threat to our diverse community; and
(b) condemns far-right extremism and white supremacy.
The government would like to split how this question is going to be put, and would seek that subparagraphs (i), (ii), (iv) and (v) of part (a), along with part (b), be put separately to subparagraph (iii) of part (a). In doing so, I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government strongly condemns all forms of extremism and white supremacy. There is no place in our community for any individual or group who seeks to promote disharmony. Australia is one of the most successful multicultural nations in the world. We're proud to welcome people from all backgrounds, and we give everyone a fair go, regardless of where they come from. It's disappointing that the Greens are seeking to misrepresent the Deputy Prime Minister, who has made it clear that he condemns all forms of violent protests. The government supports the right of any Australian to protest; however, these protests must be peaceful and must be lawful. When protests involve the loss of life or damage to property, this is to be condemned no matter the circumstances. As such, the government requests, as I've already outlined, that the question be split.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator Faruqi's motion describes Australia as being made up of First Nations people and migrants. Senator, I am not a migrant. I was born in Australia. Countless millions of Australians were born in Australia. They're not migrants either. Their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents were born in Australia. They're not migrants. Here is yet another deliberate example of the truth being denied by a Greens member. Senator Faruqi demonstrates how out of touch she and her party are with reality and with real Australia as she attempts to divide our people on racial lines. I'm opposed to all extremism. Senator Faruqi had a great opportunity to receive cross-party support had she simply condemned all extremism, both Left and Right. We will not be supporting the motion.
The question is that all parts of this motion other than clause (a)(iii)—
Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—
Order, Senator Hanson-Young! If people are respected when they move and speak to motions, this chambers works a lot more easily.
Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—
You don't need to mutter as I'm making a ruling. The question is that all parts of this motion other than clause (a)(iii) be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The question is that subparagraph (iii) of part (a) of motion 962 be agreed to.
At the request of Senator Watt, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the Member for Hughes', Mr Craig Kelly's, repeated use of social media to spread damaging mistruths about COVID-19,
(ii) comments made by Mr Kelly regarding COVID-19 vaccinations which have the potential to undermine public confidence in the upcoming rollout,
(iii) Mr Kelly's claims have repeatedly been refuted by health experts,
(iv) last week, Mr Kelly told the Special Broadcasting Service that he is in 'regular contact with the Health Minister and the Prime Minister's office', and
(v) on Monday at the National Press Club, the Prime Minister again refused to condemn Mr Kelly's irresponsible and dangerous comments during a pandemic;
(b) condemns the spreading of mistruths and misinformation which undermines public health and Australia's economic recovery; and
(c) calls on all parliamentarians to rely on and promote the advice of medical experts.
I ask that the question be split, putting part (a) separate from parts (b) and (c). I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
We strongly support the sentiments in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this motion. Australia's priority is to suppress the virus and deliver the vaccine. As the member for Hughes said in a statement today:
This morning I had a meeting with the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister reinforced the importance of ensuring public confidence in the Government's vaccine strategy. I agreed to support the Government's vaccine rollout which has been endorsed by medical experts.
I have always sought to support the success of the nation's public health response during the pandemic.
I believe that the spread of misinformation can damage the success of our public health response during the pandemic.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
One Nation opposes this motion. Senator Watt is on thin ice talking about mistruths. Only yesterday, Senator Watt said on Twitter that resource workers could rely on Labor. Just two hours later in the Senate he voted against a new coal-fired power station in the Hunter. Senator Watt might be happy to throw beleaguered MP Joel Fitzgibbon under a bus in New South Wales, yet the senator threw resource workers in our own state under a bus when he and Labor voted against a coal plant for Collinsville in north Queensland. The truth is that resource workers cannot rely on Labor. That's why Labor is now misdirecting to deflect attention away from selling out the old Labor Party's heartland, the real Labor Party's former base.
Before I put the motion, I'm going to remind all senators that the privilege of making a one-minute statement on behalf of one's party colleagues is a privilege granted by the unanimous consent of the entire Senate. It is a courtesy that is granted to explain a party's position on a motion that is being put without debate. It is not considered to be an opportunity to debate other matters or indeed to substantially debate the issue itself. Any single senator can deny leave, and I'm not obliged to name the senator that denies leave. I remind senators that this section is one based on courtesy rather than the standing orders.
I will now put the motion as requested. I've been asked to put clause (a) separately, so I will put that first. The question now is that clause (a) of the motion standing in the name of Senator Watt be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The question now is that parts (b) and (c) of the motion standing in the name of Senator Watt be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Pursuant to order, I now call Senator Small to make his first speech. I ask that the usual courtesies be extended to him.
More than 10 years ago, I was on shift as a volunteer ambulance officer in a suburb of Bunbury when my partner and I were dispatched to transfer a palliative cancer patient from home to the hospital. It wasn't tasked as a medical emergency, but little did I know that one of the more profound experiences of my life was about to unfold.
Arriving at the house, we discovered that the patient was from a large Italian migrant family. We'll call him Giuseppe. He was in a bedroom by himself. After lumbering down a corridor with heavy bags of medical equipment, I was shocked to enter the darkened room and discover a mere shadow of a man lying on the bed. It always pays to stay quite chipper as an ambo, no matter how confronting the scene, so I breezily introduced myself and informed Giuseppe that we were going to whiz him across the bed onto our stretcher and pop him up to the hospital, at which point this emaciated figure in front of me simply said, 'No, you won't.' Trying to hide my surprise, I inquired as to how Giuseppe fancied getting to the hospital if it wasn't with our help. 'Son,' he said, 'I came to this country before you were born. I built this house myself and spent 25 years raising my family here, so I will walk out of here one more time.' All of the relatives in earshot burst into tears, my partner started misting up and I have to confess that I struggled not to start the waterworks myself as this incredibly frail figure slowly hauled himself out of bed and dragged himself down the corridor using only the wall for support over what seemed an agonising eternity. Giuseppe collapsed on the front porch, having walked out of his house for the last time.
I relay this story to the Senate for a simple reason, and that is that this story in aggregate has made our nation what it is. We're here today standing on the shoulders of those who have gone before us, those who weren't afraid to work hard, take risks, care for their families and embrace their communities and who were resilient in the face of adversities that my generation can barely comprehend. We're all shaped by our experiences, and each of us has a story. We bring only our perspectives and values to this place, all with a desire to do right by the Australian people we represent. I come to this chamber acutely aware that behind the simple slogans of modern politics is the lived experience of many, including many migrants who collectively have made us the most successful multiracial migrant nation on earth.
I am, of course, standing here tonight in the place of a migrant, the incomparable Mathias Cormann. Mathias came to the Senate remarking:
… this is a country where, if you put your shoulder to the wheel, work hard, embrace the people and values and become an integral part of the community—in short, if you have a go—there is no limit to what you can achieve …
Matthias, in taking the baton, I hope to make these big shoes you've left go a long way yet.
It isn't possible to rise in the Senate tonight without mention of the incredible people who have shared the journey of my life so far, each of them contributing in part to making me the person that I am. It would be an impossible task to do these amazing humans justice by simply listing them out, and indeed we'd be here all night. Suffice it to say, then: you all know who you are, and I hope that you know how deeply I value you.
The Australia that I see is an ever stronger, prouder and more prosperous nation, and I will strive for that through an unwavering commitment to allowing ordinary Australians to be rewarded for their efforts, face lower taxes and experience the benefits of free trade, a healthy federation and the personal freedoms and responsibilities that we hold dear. In realising such a vision, I hold one thing to be self-evident: that, to change the Australia of tomorrow, we must first understand the Australia of today and accept the Australia of yesterday as it is, as it was and not as we might have wanted it.
To illustrate this necessity, consider a tale of two towns in Western Australia's Goldfields: the towns of Leinster and Leonora. Some four hours drive north of Kalgoorlie is the town of Leinster, where I spent time growing up as a child. It has a permanent population of approximately 700 people, who call an ambulance 35 times a year, mainly for medical emergencies. Leonora is just over an hour's drive from Leinster and also has a population of 700, but with a high proportion of Aboriginal Australians. They call an ambulance more than 300 times a year, with two-thirds of trauma calls relating to assault and domestic violence. This tale of two towns is all the more tragic because pushing tokenistic policies does nothing to alter the lived experience in disadvantaged communities.
This is the gap to close: the soft bigotry of low expectations writ large in the human misery that unfolds every day in our nation. The more that we obsess over symbolism as a way to alter the past, the less that is said about changing lives in Australia today and the more deafening the silence about affording all Australians greater opportunity tomorrow. Reconciliation must afford opportunity but not special privilege. It must afford equality but not preference. This objectivity is confronting and yet essential if we are to make progress as a nation, affording reward for effort and a genuine safety net for those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves on hard times.
One of the greatest opportunities for my home state and, indeed, our nation lies in challenging longstanding norms around unemployment and the participation rate. These aren't just statistics, no matter how good the trend over time, because in reality the numbers represent an aggregated deprivation of self-worth, happiness and health. It is something that I commit to pursuing with vigour, as every job is life changing for the incumbent. Matters of employment are of great personal interest to me, not only as a compassionate person who believes in the dignity of meaningful work but also as a small business owner who has direct experience of hiring hardworking Australians and seeing firsthand the social and economic benefits that work can provide. The false caricature of an aristocratic employer rapaciously exploiting the downtrodden, the vulnerable and the weak in a relentless pursuit of ill-gotten gains is, frankly, centuries out of date. Such a view denies a fundamental premise of modern Australia in that most Aussies are fair-minded and hardworking, whether they be employees or employers.
Like millions of other Australians I had a dream of building my own small business, and it has grown to employ more than 30 people, including a number who were registered with a disability services agency. So I know what it is when we speak of the best form of welfare being a job. I'm particularly proud that each of the individuals who joined us wanted a go, got a go and stayed the course. One of my former employees has even gone on to start his own small business. What great Australian stories these are!
Indeed, almost one in two employees in Australia work in a small business of less than 20, meaning that most employers are tradies, restaurateurs, retailers or farmers working cheek by jowl, day after day—starting early and staying late, sacrificing and investing. These are the employment relationships that have built modern Australia. Employers in the modern economy have their interests best served by engaged, agile, freethinking and committed employees. Those same employees, in turn, benefit from the superior business performance of an organisation that has the flexibility to change, adapt, trade and prosper. The idea that we need more government red tape between an employer and employee too often stops employers hiring at all. Simplicity, certainty and flexibility are the watchwords of a reformed industrial and employment relations framework that creates opportunity for all Australians.
Every dollar that we take off a person or a business reduces the incentive to strive for all, and we must remember that the taxpayer is not an imaginary money tree. Taxpayers are real people that have gone by different names over time—'forgotten people', 'Howard's battlers', 'quiet Australians' or even 'Bob and Nancy Stringbag'. Whenever we speak of subsidy, commission, plan or initiative in this place we must have the courage to look them in the eye and explain that we are taking more of their money that they've earned for themselves and their families. These hardworking Australians don't live on Twitter, don't always read the paper, almost certainly aren't members of a political party and would never march through the streets of a city with superglue or snorkels, but they do value honesty in political leadership and will quietly nod their heads in the lounge room when a politician actually talks some sense. From this day forth, I will strive to be that sort of representative for the people of Western Australia.
In this new age of social media, cancel culture, woke revolution and whatever else is trending this minute, nobody seems inclined to remind Australians that, as our forebears learned, we simply cannot turn to government to solve all of our problems. Government shouldn't compete with an efficient and wealth creating private sector, because it isn't fair that a business should have to compete against a government entity that faces no pressure to be profitable and no risk of bankruptcy whilst backed by your tax dollar. Government must enable private enterprise, not shackle it, for it is business, small and large, that pays wages and generates wealth in this country. Fundamentally, that's why it's imperative that the government creates the right conditions for businesses to grow, employ and prosper, while we must enhance personal responsibility, reward for effort and the incentive to strive in the Australian economy. Through having travelled extensively and worked in and with many countries around the world, I've seen the full political spectrum of public economic control and its impacts on the lived experience under those regimes. This has given me a deep appreciation of why the Australian economy is as successful as it is.
My professional career was devoted to the energy industry, and from that I am very cognisant of the fact that energy affects all aspects of life. Households know too well the apprehension of opening a power bill after a hot summer, but less widely understood is the impact of energy prices on businesses—businesses that exist today and businesses that can exist tomorrow. Australia is blessed both with abundant reserves of cheap, efficient, low-emissions energy from conventional sources and the opportunity to diversify our economy to export new energies to the world. The economic imperative for cheap reliable energy to households and industry is timeless, but the way in which we meet that imperative is a live discussion. Governments of all stripes face the temptation to pick winners in this high-stakes game, but we must be strident in avoiding the distortion of direct interference in energy markets. In setting policy frameworks that allow supply competition, consumer choice and employment flexibility, I see private capital efficiently solving the continuing needs for energy at home and creating whole new industries to export to the world. In learning from the way my home state has fostered both the resources and energy sectors, and combining it with appropriate policy leadership focused on Australia's national interest, government can create the foundation from which our success as a nation will reach new heights with unprecedented value creation and employment.
The answer to these problems is not more government but less. The answer is not more bureaucracy but less. The answer is not more taxation but less. We will be successful in delivering good government only if we appeal to the pride of Australians, not their wallets. We should promise only the dignity of hard work, not the spoils of hard work done by others. Every time the bells ring in this place there lies the possibility that opportunity and incentive can be extinguished by weight of regulation, restriction or red and green tape, and we are the only guardians against that. Having bold policy ambition is easy, but delivering meaningful change is a different matter altogether.
Elected representatives often speak of the honour and privilege that comes with doing the people's work. I believe that, just as any freedom is accompanied with responsibility in equal measure, the privilege of representation comes with a duty to deliver outcomes. I will strive never to mistake activity for progress and never to conflate well-intentioned words in here with the grim reality after dark in Leonora. In standing ready to push my boat away from the shore and set sail into the uncharted waters of my parliamentary journey, I am very mindful of the oft quoted reflection: 'In my dying embers I shall forever regret, when I am right nobody remembers, and when I'm wrong nobody forgets.'
To represent Western Australia in this place is a deep honour. I hope always to do so in a way that embodies those characteristics for which Western Australians are best known: tenacity, practicality, ingenuity and, dare I say it, a slight irreverence. This chamber is a deliberative body, one charged with important work. Yet even in this era I think there is still room for a bit of the humour that has long characterised the Australian temperament and is still the quality for which our best remembered parliamentarians on all sides are most often recalled. So, like Giuseppe, when I walk out of this place for the last time I want to be standing tall with a deep sense of pride and a satisfaction that, in some way, our nation is all the better for my contribution here. I thank the Senate.
Congratulations, Senator Small. I appreciate the restraint of senators not exercising the normal custom of congratulating Senator Small individually, given the restrictions in place.
I inform the Senate that at 8.30 today 25 proposals were received. In accordance with standing order 75, the question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter, dated 3 February, has been received from Senator Lines:
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:
(1) Expressing support for the many multicultural and First Nations Australians who are vilified and threatened by far-right extremists, and who deserve to feel safe in their communities, and;
(2) The Prime Minister, Mr. Morrison, and Minister for Home Affairs, Mr. Dutton, taking action to combat the spread of far-right extremism and destructive conspiracy theories, both within their own party and in the broader community.
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:
(1) Expressing support for the many multicultural and First Nations Australians who are vilified and threatened by far-right extremists, and who deserve to feel safe in their communities, and;
(2) The Prime Minister, Mr. Morrison, and Minister for Home Affairs, Mr. Dutton, taking action to combat the spread of far-right extremism and destructive conspiracy theories, both within their own party and in the broader community.
It has been said that generals too often prepare to fight the last war, instead of the next one. Now, that might be unfair to generals, but it is certainly a fair comment on the attitude of the Morrison government in regard to protecting Australia's national security, maintaining public safety and sustaining Australia's multicultural, pluralist democracy.
As we know from the evidence given at Senate estimates by the ASIO Director-General, Mr Mike Burgess, the activities of far Right white supremacist movements is increasing in this country. The agency now spends up to 40 per cent of its time keeping far Right groups under surveillance. Mr Burgess told the hearing at some length:
… right-wing extremists are more organised, sophisticated, ideological and active than previous years. While we have been actively monitoring the threat for some time, we are reprioritising … to focus additional resources on the evolving threat. … Many of these groups and individuals have seized upon COVID-19, believing it reinforces the narrative and conspiracies at the core of the ideologies. They see the pandemic as proof of the failure of globalisation, multiculturalism and democracy, and confirmation that societal collapse and a race war are inevitable.
That was presented at estimates to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on 20 October last year. The Director-General's comments should be added to the observations made during the hearing by the AFP Deputy Commissioner, Ian McCartney, who noted that right-wing extremists had been more widespread in Australia than Islamic inspired extremism. Mr McCartney said:
… Islamic-inspired extremism is … predominantly, and historically, … centred in Sydney and Melbourne and to a lesser extent in Brisbane. What we see with right-wing extremism, particularly the effect and power of the internet in terms of those sites, is that it's apparent that it's more spread throughout Australia.
These comments are to be considered the assessments of two of our most senior public servants who are directly concerned with Australia's internal security. They acknowledge that far Right extremism is growing and has spread virulently through the internet.
Now that should not be surprising. It's consistent with what we know about the growth of Neo-Fascist and white supremacist movements in other liberal democracies. But the response of the Morrison government to all of this has mostly been a deafening silence. I don't expect this government should comment directly on specific intelligence investigations, but surely the government should insist publicly, clearly and emphatically that it is committed to upholding the values of Australia's pluralist democracy. It should reassert to ethnic and religious minorities who are threatened by far Right extremists that their safety will be protected in this country and that they share the rights and liberties that are available to all Australians, irrespective of their background, irrespective of their religious beliefs. How different to the past decades. The fears of jihadist terrorism have sparked a legislative frenzy. From 2014 to 2020, some 31 items of national security legislation were passed by this parliament. Powers of the security agencies have increased, including powers of detention and surveillance. There have been opportunities to actually deprive people of their citizenship.
Don't misunderstand me. The Labor Party have backed those measures, and we have accepted the necessity to improve some of those measures with amendments. But what I'm drawing attention to is that the zeal with which successive coalition governments have pursued these threats is in stark contrast to the stony silence that largely continues to be the government's response to the warnings of our security agencies about the far Right. It took media reports of a neo-Nazi training camp in the Grampians in Victoria, during the Australia Day weekend, to get any acknowledgement by the government of what actually was happening there. The Treasurer, Mr Frydenberg, condemned what could no longer be ignored. But what has the Prime Minister said about the matter?
It's not only the warnings of the security agencies that the government should have heeded; the growth of the far Right has been evident throughout the West, internationally. We saw the situation with the Christchurch mosque massacre in March last year, in which the perpetrator was an Australian who might well have committed those same atrocities here. Look at what happened in Norway in 2011, when 69 young political activists from the Norwegian Labour Party were gunned down—69 young people at a summer camp. Look at the events in Washington just this January, inspired by the most senior members of that administration, who had been led by far Right people driven by the sorts of internet-propagated fantasies that Deputy Commissioner McCartney drew attention to that operate in this country.
These events, and those behind them, have a disturbing history. They date back to the end of the Cold War. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was the presentation of a triumph of liberal democracy. That triumph was short lived, because reactionary nationalism, incited by far Right populists, has proved to be far more potent than liberalism. Look at the situation in Russia. Look at the situation in Hungary, where liberal democracy has been all but extinguished. The Orban government in Hungary has undermined the country's independent judiciary and free media. It's been whipped up by a xenophobia about immigrants and ancient hatreds of minorities. We're seeing similar trends in Poland. We're seeing the re-emergence of SS remembrance and glorification in eastern Europe. But far Right extremism is not confined to eastern Europe. We see it in France, Germany and Italy. We see it in the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom. We see it in Donald Trump's presentation and mobilisation in the United States. These are dark times, far from the expectations of the neoliberal triumphalism of the early 1990s.
I urge my colleagues, particularly those conservative colleagues, to look at the historic lessons that can be drawn from this. Recent works such as the book The Light that Failed: a Reckoning by Ivan Krastev and Stephen Holmes are object lessons in the dangers of ignoring this. The Morrison government should have learned from this historic experience and from contemporary examples, because all too often members of this government have been playing with the far Right in this country. I'll leave the details to my colleague Senator Ayres of what happens when ideologues exploit the fears of people in a manner that undermines the legitimacy and the authority of democratic institutions.
Is there any wonder that there has been a reduction in trust in political institutions in this country? People have been encouraged to blame minorities for their exclusion from the opportunities that a fair society can offer them. It's only a short step to blaming the system itself. This is how fascism starts. The Morrison government needs to acknowledge what is happening. It needs to ignore the cranks and conspiracy theorists on its own back bench and it needs to ensure that Australia remains a free, fair and democratic society and that we defend those principles of democracy that are so important to the future prosperity of this nation.
Quite often I rise in this place and the person sitting in your spot, Madam Acting Deputy President, mistakenly refers to me as Senator Carr. Typically in response to that I say, 'I'm not insulted by that because I do have a high regard for Senator Carr and I've learned a lot from Senator Carr from serving with him on a number of committees established in this place.' However, today, I must say I'm completely at odds with his characterisation of my party.
I think the most disappointing thing about this resolution—and I note that it is not Senator Carr's resolution; it comes from Senator Lines—is in part 2 where it refers to:
… the spread of far-right extremism and destructive conspiracy theories both within their own party and in the broader community.
Those are the words that really disappoint me. I believe, if we are to be successful in defeating extremism in this country, those of us who consider anti-Semitism, fascism and extremism of all types to be vile and unacceptable in our society need to come together. We should seek in our rhetoric in this place to bring each other together rather than to throw stones at each other.
I am going to talk about anti-Semitism in this context. I know Senator Carr is a passionate opponent of anti-Semitism in all of its forms in our community. I want to use that particular vile type of extremism as an example to demonstrate that extremism is not wholly the domain of the far Right. It occurs in the Left as well. If people coming into this place want to be sanctimonious and throw stones at this side of the chamber, they better be prepared to hear the sound of shattering glass.
Let me quote to you from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry's 2018 report on anti-Semitism in Australia. I am not going to specifically name the members of the Left who are referred to in this report. I am not going to refer to the members of the Left. I am not going to make it personal. I am just going to quote from a number of case studies. The first one was a New South Wales Labor upper house MP and opposition whip at the time of this report. He refused entry to a leader of the New South Wales Jewish community at the launch of the Labor Union Multicultural Action Committee on 13 August 2013. The Labor Union Multicultural Action Committee itself did not invite any representatives of the Jewish community to the launch, but representatives from other ethnic communities and organisations were invited. More than 10 other ethnic community organisations expressed outrage at the discrimination and exclusion of the Jewish leadership and community. That is example No. 1 from the Left, Senator Carr.
I now refer to example No. 2—again, from the Left. This was a Labor member of parliament between the years 2007 and 2016. Senator Carr may well be able to identify them, I suspect, as may Senator Sterle. This person was the Labor candidate for the WA seat of Curtin in the 2019 federal election, before they had to withdraw their candidacy. Let me quote to you the vile statement, the vile misinformation, expressed by this person—a candidate for the federal Labor Party:
One case I remember vividly, a pregnant refugee woman was ordered at a checkpoint in Gaza to drink a bottle of bleach.
It burnt out all her throat and insides. Fortunately her baby was saved.
Another refugee was forced to put her baby through the X-ray machine.
It's a vile lie and it's misrepresentation and misinformation from an endorsed Labor candidate who, thankfully, did not pursue her nomination and did not stand for election. In response to this misinformation, this vile information from the Left, a journalist by the name of James Campbell responded:
Considering the long history of slanders of the Jewish people, it's really quite an achievement to be an innovator.
After all, this is a people that has been accused over the centuries of sacrificing Christian children to obtain blood for Passover bread and nursing a plan for global domination.
Let's go to example No. 3: a Labor candidate in the Northern Territory at the last election, who put up on Facebook something entitled 'Rothschild Zionism'. The Labor Senate candidate for the Northern Territory posted anti-Semitic conspiracy theories on Facebook. These came to light during the election campaign. He posted an image in October 2016 of Jacob Rothschild. Both items were in support of David Icke—an absolutely vile human being—and his conspiracy theory that the Rothschild family secretly run the world by controlling the media, governments and global finance. Icke is also known for his anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that the world is run by a secret society of Jewish shape-shifting lizards. This was an endorsed Labor candidate at the last federal election, who was forced to resign as a Labor candidate in April 2019. And, before Senator Faruqi contributes to this debate, let me say that I've got examples of Greens candidates and Greens members of parliament who also appear in these reports.
A person I greatly admire in relation to combating anti-Semitism is a lady by the name of Deborah Lipstadt. She was the person who took that vile Holocaust denier David Irving to court and won. She won, when he brought a defamation case. Let me quote from her great book, which I recommend to all those people in this chamber. It's called Antisemitism: Here and Now. On page 67, she says:
I'll close by referring to a comment I made at the outset of this exchange, when I expressed the hope that my answers would leave both those on the right and the left—
on the Right and the Left—
discomforted. That discomfort should be caused by an acknowledgment on everyone's part that extremism and antisemitism are found not only among people on the other side of the political spectrum. As long as we are blind to it in our midst, our fight against it will be futile.
That is the great Deborah Lipstadt, from her book Antisemitism: Here and Now.
Finally, I quote from the 2020 report of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. Page 101 of their report says:
There is a distinct overlap between sections of the far Right and far Left when it comes to Jews and/or Israel. Nazi-style Jew-hating comments have frequently been posted on anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian social media pages of ostensibly left-wing organisations, and elicit supportive posted comments.
So it greatly concerns me that in this place there are those who seek to make short-term political issues out of these matters. We must unite as a community, as a country, against vile extremism, whether it's from the Left or the Right. This should not be a political matter in this chamber. We should unite as a country and provide a united front and support for all groups in our society, whether they're Indigenous Australians, people who are multigeneration Australians, or our newest migrants. Certainly my community in Queensland expects me to do that, and I request them to judge my performance in this regard on what I say in this place every single day I have the honour of serving here.
As our Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, said at his National Press Club address on Monday, I know Australia is the most successful multicultural country in the world. One of the reasons for that is people like Senator Carr, who will get up and speak passionately against anti-Semitism. One of the reasons for that is people like Ron Boswell, from my own state of Queensland, who for many years spoke out against the far Right. We need to be united against extremism in our country.
I rise to speak on the matter of urgency before the chamber. As senators would know, this is an issue that is front of my mind as the Greens spokesperson for antiracism and as the only Muslim senator in this place.
First, I think the most critical aspect of this urgency motion, which I thank Senator Lines for bringing on, relates to the Prime Minister and Mr Dutton taking action to combat far Right extremism within their own party. In my first speech to the Senate, back in August 2018, I said:
The existence of racism, sexism and other discrimination is not new, but what has changed is its legitimisation, normalisation and encouragement in the media and in politics. Political leaders, in addition to their old habit of racist dog-whistling, are now comfortable outright fanning the flames of racial conflict.
Reflecting on those words 2½ years later, it deeply disturbs me how this process of normalisation I spoke about has not reversed or corrected itself but has in fact worsened. Far Right politics are more mainstream than ever. The government has shown zero interest in dealing with this existential threat to our diverse community. It was good to see significant pressure placed on the Prime Minister over the last couple of days to condemn and distance himself from the dangerous COVID conspiracy theorising of the member for Hughes, Craig Kelly, but similar pressure should also be put on him to condemn the numerous government MPs who have made a habit of peddling far Right hate politics. There is no excuse for the toxic hate that is being spread. It is dangerous. It kills people. It harms communities.
Just before parliament rose last year, I asked questions and spoke in this chamber about the Christchurch mosque attacks royal commission report, which had just been released in Aotearoa New Zealand. During my contributions, in which I spoke specifically about how the terrorist who killed 51 Muslims was found to have held an extreme right-wing Islamophobic ideology, I said, 'Any denial or obfuscation of this simple fact is an insult to the targets.' During my remarks, multiple government senators shouted back at me, including—I remember this very distinctly—'He was a Communist,' someone said. This really rattled me. If your response to the devastating murder of 51 innocent people is to default to a conspiratorial deflection about the terrorist being anything but a fascist, then we may as well pack up, give up and head home. This isn't theoretical for us. This isn't a meaningless political game. These are our lives. When you don't take this seriously, when you dismiss it with nonsensical, offensive deflections, the message it sends to me and other Muslims is this: 'We don't care about you. We don't care about your community. We choose to either stay in twisted denial or are actively sympathetic to far Right politics.'
When I called out the Deputy Prime Minister last month for, shamefully, comparing the white supremacist uprising at the US capitol with the Black Lives Matter protests and his use of the far-Right slogan 'All lives matter', my office was again bombarded with messages of hate, including over social media and email and via multiple very toxic and vile phone calls. We know why Mr McCormack used the slogan and made that comparison. He reckons there's a constituency out there for him. He thinks he can use it to electoral advantage. This is a sign of complete moral bankruptcy. You lot over there, together with your Prime Minister, won't say a word to condemn him or to pull him up because you are salivating after those voters that the far-Right Pauline Hanson's One Nation party has taken away from you. Shame on you!
There can be no doubt that, in our country, far-Right extremism is a real and growing problem. There are some out there who want to pretend that this is just an irrelevancy, that it's really not an issue and that people are silly to be getting upset about it, but it is a real and growing problem. As Senator Faruqi said, an Australian was, unfortunately, the perpetrator of the Christchurch massacre in New Zealand, not too long ago. We see Neo-Nazi rallies and gatherings in our own country all too often and with growing crowds, increasingly organised over social media. As Senator Carr stated, ASIO, in evidence to Senate estimates committees, has advised that about 40 per cent of their work now is involved in dealing with far-Right extremism, and that rate is growing.
This growth of far-Right extremism, very sadly, is heavily targeted at some of the most vulnerable communities in our country: our First Nations people, migrants, Muslims—anyone who doesn't fit a certain stereotype propagated by these far-Right groups. And, of course, while those vulnerable groups bear the brunt of this far-Right extremism, in a way that I think many people can't possibly understand if they haven't experienced it themselves, this real and growing form of extremism in our country is a risk to all of us. It is a genuine risk to lives and it is a risk to Australia's values, our support for democracy, our support for a fair go for everyone in our country and our support for making sure that everyone is looked after in our country. That's why we need to take this seriously. That's why all of us in this parliament, regardless of our party and regardless of where we come from, need to treat this seriously and tackle it. It is extremely disappointing that we see over and over again this government not taking this risk seriously.
For some time now, we've seen what I've described as 'rogue' backbenchers of this government—in particular, people like Mr Kelly and Mr Christensen—flirting day and night with extreme Right groups and pushing their views, usually sourced from the United States right-wing groups, into the Australian population through their heavily subscribed social media channels. And, over and over again, we have seen the Prime Minister and other senior ministers of this government fail to take action and rein them in. It's even worse when it reaches the level of the Deputy Prime Minister of this country, who recently used—not just echoed, but used—an infamous far-Right slogan from the United States: 'All lives matter'. He tried to treat it as a joke. He tried to say it wasn't serious. He tried to say it was just a statement of the obvious. But he very well knows that, as does every member of this government, that's a far Right slogan used for a reason: to enrage and stir up that form of extremism that we are seeing increasingly in the US and in our own country. It is a problem that, from backbenchers to the second highest office in the land, we are seeing members of this government propagate these views and support them, or, at the very least, fail to rein them in.
The response that is usually given, and probably will be given in this debate, when members of the opposition and others point out the seriousness of this is that everyone has got a right to an opinion and to free speech and we should defend it. Well, the members opposite need to remember that there has never, in this country, been an unrestricted right to free speech. With speech, comes responsibility. We have always had limitations on free speech, whether it be defamation laws, whether it be about restricting people from spreading terrorist ideology or whether it be about companies not being able to mislead consumers. With speech comes responsibility, and it's about time this government took that seriously and took the growing risk of far Right extremism seriously too.
Let me be incredibly clear here: all forms of hatred and division are unacceptable whatever the ideology. We all should be proud that Australia is one of the, if not the most, successful multicultural countries in the world. We're proud to welcome people from all backgrounds. We give everyone a fair go, regardless of where they're from. As Australians, and as a government, when racism does occur, we call it out. We condemn it. The Morrison government is absolutely committed to protecting our nation from all threats, whether they be from the extreme Right or the extreme Left. We make no distinction where there are threats to the Australian community. Keeping Australians safe is our government's highest priority, be it through COVID or terrorist threats.
Our laws and arrangements are agnostic. We focus on the threat and criminality, not the motivation or ideology. In fact, just last December the Minister for Home Affairs referred an inquiry to the PJCIS into extremist movements and radicalism in Australia. In doing so, the minister has asked the committee to give particular consideration to the motivations and capacity for violence of extremist groups, including far Right extremist groups, and to consider changes that could assist the Commonwealth's terrorist organisation listing laws to ensure that they provide a barrier to those who may seek to promote an ideological extreme in Australia. But the committee will look further than that. They've also been tasked with inquiring into the influence of extremist groups that fall short of the legislative thresholds for proscription terrorist organisations and any steps that can be taken to address hate speech. The previous speaker, Senator Watt, might want to stay for this, because I agree that free speech does not mean speech is free from consequence. I don't think anyone denies that. The committee will inquire into thresholds to regulate the use of symbols and insignia associated with terrorism and extremism. The committee is due to report by 30 April this year. Our commitment to properly fund the fight against extremism is further proof of our total lack of tolerance for any and all forms of extremism. This budget includes: $63 million of social cohesion measures to bring Australians together; $37.3 million to promote Australian values, identity and social cohesion and counter malign information online; $17.7 million to enhance engagement with multicultural communities; and $7.9 million to establish a research program to inform initiatives to strengthen social cohesion.
In the last budget, the government provided an additional $571.4 million over five years to security agencies to keep Australians safe. ASIO's funding is at the highest level it's ever been in its more than 70 years of history, and the AFP has received an additional $300 million over four years to enhance its ability to respond to emerging threats. The Department of Home Affairs has had more than 10,000 engagements with key multicultural groups, which is a 51.9 per cent increase nationally.
Throughout this pandemic the Morrison government has ensured that ads have been placed in selected media outlets—online, in print and on radio—reinforcing our clear position that racism is unacceptable. We've translated those into 16 languages, with support online in 63 languages other than English. We know our values. I think all of us in this place try to espouse those values, values that respect freedom and dignity of the individual; freedom of religion; commitment to the rule of law, which means that all people are subject to the law and should obey it; and our parliamentary democracy, whereby our laws are determined by parliaments elected by the people—those laws being paramount and overriding any other inconsistent religious or secular laws. Australia is truly the greatest multicultural country in the world.
In February last year the director-general of ASIO did not mince his words. He said that in Australia the extreme right-wing threat is real and it is growing. He said:
In suburbs around Australia, small cells regularly meet to salute Nazi flags, inspect weapons, train in combat and share their hateful ideology.
He said that 'these groups are more organised and security conscious than in previous years'. What will it take for the government to take the threat as seriously as the director-general of ASIO does?
Many Australians have responded to the stress and anxiety of the global pandemic by trying to find an explanation other than science. Rich veins of misinformation have powered transnational conspiracy theories such as QAnon, the antivaccination movement, 5G protesters and the antilockdown movement. These movements are a vector of radicalisation. They share a direct, deliberate connection with the world view of the far Right—racism, anti-Semitism and white supremacy. Umberto Echo said, 'At the root of fascist psychology lies an obsession with conspiracies'. This has always been the history of fascism. It is a political movement that takes vulnerable people and makes them capable of violence.
In recent days attention has been paid to Mr Kelly and his role in promoting exactly these kinds of conspiracies. In addition, the member for Dawson has a number of deliberate and non-accidental links to far-Right extremism. Famously he spoke at a Reclaim Australia rally in Mackay in 2015. In 2017 Mr Christensen appeared on a podcast called The Convict Report produced by a white nationalist group called The Dingoes. Mr Christensen wasn't concerned about the podcast's history of extraordinarily anti-Semitic and racist propaganda. At the time he told BuzzFeed: 'I know these Dingo guys are a bit wild, so I have to say I don't agree with all their views.' Yet he endorsed their anti-Semitism by saying:
That GetUp!, we all know it's George Soros-funded. It's in the whole big worldwide movement of leftist organisations.
Anti-Semitism deserves special condemnation. Invoking Soros, like the Rocthchilds, is an old tactic of fascists and anti-Semites—a code for blaming Jews for the problems of ordinary people. We've seen the historical consequences of these beliefs. They must be condemned. They must be stamped out.
In December of that year one of the hosts of that podcast, Clifford Jennings, joined the New South Wales National Party. He would go on to lead the efforts by white supremacist groups to infiltrate the National Party, recruiting from an explicitly fascist Facebook group called The New Guard. Mr Jennings attempted to seek senior positions in the New South Wales branch of the Young Nationals.
Within a year of Christensen appearing on a far-Right podcast, the same far-Right figures were active members of his political party. Mr Christensen has maintained connections to extreme right-wing media. In September of this year, he appeared on a 90-minute stream with far-Right YouTuber Dia Beltran, a prominent QAnon conspiracy theorist who also interviews Blair Cottrell and Neil Erikson and—how could we forget?—Fraser 'It's alright to be white' Anning. He said on that show, 'I know someone who was very unfairly maligned in the Young Nationals when all of that happened, and that person was in no way, shape or form a Nazi.' Then he went on to say, 'There was a claim that these people were Neo-Nazis, and I can tell you it was a lot of rubbish.' He also told Beltran: 'You'd make a great member of parliament. You might just have to scrub some of the YouTube interviews that you've done.' In December, Christensen appeared on another alt-Right podcast, the WilmsFront podcast, on The Unshackled network. The guy who hosts that also hosts other absolutely anti-Semitic, racist shows.
So, now that Mr Christensen is campaigning for free speech to be protected on social media platforms, it's worth asking whose speech he actually wants to protect. Is it Avi Yemini, who once described himself as 'the world's proudest Jewish Nazi', is it the New Guard Facebook group, or is it the number of alt-Right meme pages that Mr Christensen himself follows on his personal Facebook page? Last year, Gizmodo published a full list of Facebook pages followed by Mr Christensen. These include pages entitled Reject Degeneracy, Embrace Tradition and Many Enemies, Much Honour—which is a Mussolini quote. He also follows Art Of The True Right, The Occidental Sentinel and The New Nationalist. These pages publish anti-Semitic and fascist propaganda, and it appears that they are supported by Mr Christensen. They deserve, and he deserves, the condemnation of this parliament.
The National Party has a particular responsibility in this area. Radicalisation can occur anywhere, but the man who committed the Christchurch massacre grew up in Grafton in northern New South Wales and he was radicalised in Grafton, reading the same fascist social media pages as Mr Christensen. New Zealand's royal commission into the Christchurch massacre noted that he would likely have performed this attack in Australia if not for our stringent gun laws. In March last year, a 23-year-old man was arrested in Nowra and charged with preparing or planning terrorist attacks. He was attempting to build an IED. In December, an 18-year-old man was arrested in Albury on terrorism related charges. He had expressed Neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic beliefs on social media and wanted to be involved in a mass-casualty event. In January this year, about 30 Neo-Nazis celebrated Australia Day in Victoria's Grampian mountains. They terrorised decent Australians in a country town, sang white power chants, posted stickers around town and even burned a cross. The people who claim to represent regional Australia have a responsibility to act and be clear, not to play footsies with fascists or minimise the danger. The far Right is a threat to Australian democracy, just as it is to American democracy.
I know that there are members and senators on the other side who take these threats and these issues just as seriously. They deserve leadership that takes them seriously as well. The Liberal Party must act on Mr Kelly. The National Party must act on Mr Christensen. The Prime Minister must act on both. Mr Christensen was always a disgrace. His association with far Right figures is a threat to public safety, promotes radicalisation, damages our social fabric and damages our global reputation. The Prime Minister must unequivocally condemn Mr Kelly for his advocacy of far Right conspiracy theories which make Australia less safe and undermine the campaign to protect us from COVID-19. He must condemn Mr Christensen for his support for fascist, racist and anti-Semitic ideas. He must remove Mr Christensen from his leadership role as chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth. He is a disgrace—a figure of fun for some—but his decline from disgrace to dangerous means he should be condemned by the parliament. He should be disavowed by the Prime Minister and disendorsed by the Queensland LNP.
I have listened carefully to the responses of people on the other side, in the government. We should not make the mistake of false equivalences. We should not make the mistake of equivocating the Right of Australian politics with the far Right. That is an incorrect thing to do and I will never do it. But what that requires on their side is leadership. It requires acting on extremists. It requires dealing with them. It requires providing leadership to young people and vulnerable people, that the claptrap and the dangerous conspiracy theories that are propagated by these people, including Mr Christensen and Mr Kelly, should be condemned loudly and everywhere by everybody in the government, including the Prime Minister, in order to stop radicalisation and to stop the rise of the far Right.
I just wish that those opposite would pay as much attention to the writing of their motions, in their grammar and how they're constructed, as the attention they pay to those in the other place. I would draw the chamber's attention to the nonsensical nature of this motion from Senator Lines. In reading it when I was asked to speak on it, I was shaking my head—in particular, about part B, which just doesn't seem to make any sense. Is Senator Lines meaning that the Morrison government is taking action? Does she mean we are not? I am completely unsure from her motion.
But here we are and we'll talk on it anyway. It's far too often that the Labor Party come into this chamber with nonsensical motions. Each time they do it it just highlights the issues the Labor Party have faced since the Hawke and Keating governments. Clearly, they cannot clarify their own position. What do those opposite stand for? I really struggle to know. There is a reason that the Labor Party is stuck in opposition, and this motion is a clear example of that problem. They can't articulate a message and they can't get the basics right. Once you start getting the basics right then maybe you can start thinking about the bigger picture, like who your leader is. But until then I suggest they stop thinking and talking about themselves and who is going to be the next Leader of the Opposition. And they should focus on reading their motions before they table them for debate.
For those Australians listening and watching today's debate, unsure of what that motion is trying to say, I'll try to clarify that for you. The fact is that the Morrison government is taking action to combat the spread of far-Right extremism and destructive conspiracy theories. I do think it is fair and right that I speak on this motion today as multiculturalism is an area that I'm deeply involved with and passionate about. Over the past 18 months, since I've been in this place, I've sought to create closer ties across all communities in Australia, and in particular with many multicultural communities. I've done this through hosting a quarterly roundtable with the Consular Court in Victoria to hear of the problems the diaspora is facing and the challenges that they've had, especially during COVID, and what we as a government can do to assist.
At the start of the COVID pandemic there were experiences of racism in my home state, and I used this place to call out that racism and to encourage greater dialogue. During a speech I gave in here, I said:
It troubles me that I could spend this entire time listing instances of racism that have occurred in my home state over the past month. My heart breaks when I put myself in the shoes of those facing these attacks, to imagine what they would be feeling and what they are going through. It is just unfathomable to me, yet it has become the reality for some.
On the back of that speech, I wrote, and had published, opinion pieces in major newspapers in Singapore and Malaysia. I worked closely with some of the consuls general in Victoria, particularly those of China, Malaysia and Indonesia, about the racism that was experienced.
But we see extremism in many, many forms. And I hope it is accepted by this place that over the past 18 month or so that I've been in the Senate I've shown my commitment to calling out bigotry, vilification and extremism wherever I see it. But extremism isn't just an issue when it comes to the right wing of politics and it isn't just an issue when it comes to the left wing. Extremism is dangerous in all its forms. In one of the committees I was on, we were calling out the danger of the extremism of the animal welfare sector. So, it has many, many forms.
More troublingly, extremism erodes our public social cohesion. In November last year the secretary of the Department of Home Affairs—that's the portfolio that Minister Dutton, named in the motion, is the minister for—Michael Pezzullo, gave a speech to the Institute of Public Administration Australia titled 'On unity: the elements of social cohesion'. I would recommend to all my colleagues in this place that they take the time to read, watch or listen to that speech. It is incredibly powerful stuff. In the speech the secretary outlines how much Australia is actually a socially cohesive nation and community. He argues that throughout 2020 as a nation we showed this cohesion through our actions, through the bushfires and through the pandemic. I think everyone in here would agree with me that that's actually what happened.
Unfortunately, there are people who want to divide us, separate us and tell us that extremism, whether from the Right or from the Left, is growing substantively, that as a community we are less cohesive and more divided than ever before. And I couldn't disagree more with this. As Mr Pezzullo said in his speech,
Today, societies generally are more socially cohesive and economically stable as compared with Europe in the 1920s and 1930s. Then we saw fracturing at the heart of European civilisation, and the rise of Fascism and Nazism. The latter was the most monstrous tyranny that has ever darkened this world. It abused the notion of a ‘united’ Germany, and twisted it into an evil dictatorship which generated its malign power from oppression at large, and the specific, targeted brutalisation of fellow Germans and others who in the most horrendous case of 'the Final Solution' were deemed not to be human – and fit only for the unspeakable horror of the gas chambers. We must never forget. We are not today remotely close to that state of affairs.
And as the partner of a Jewish woman, I know and live with the history of what extremism can do to a society—that is, real division, real breakdown of social cohesiveness.
This does not mean that we don't take increases in extremism seriously. We do. Just this week Mr Pezzullo, if I can quote him again, warned that the threat posed by violent right-wing extremists is no different to that posed by Islamic terrorists. Those opposite have correctly said that right-wing extremism is on the rise. There is no doubt. But we do have to remember that this is starting from a very, very low base. That does not mean, however, that we do not investigate, track and try to break up any extremist groups before they do harm. We should also not overexaggerate the risks it would cause unneeded harm to ourselves. The Morrison government is absolutely committed to protecting our nation from all threats, and over the years we've shown our commitment to doing just that. As a government we make no distinction in targeting threats to the Australian community. Our laws are agnostic. They focus on threat and criminality irrespective of motivation or ideology. Australians from all walks of life should have confidence that Australia's counterterrorism arrangements are working well to protect the community from all violent extremism.
To ensure this, the Morrison government in the 2019-20 budget provided an additional $571 million over five years to our security agencies to keep Australians safe. Funding for ASIO is the highest it's been in its more than 70-year history, and the AFP has received an additional $300 million over four years to enhance its ability to respond to emerging threats. These are not just words; instead this is real action and real support from the Morrison government enabling our security agencies to continue to do the fantastic job they're doing in protecting us. I just want to take a moment to thank all the hardworking and dedicated members of our national security agencies. You all do exceptional work.
There is no doubt we are a lucky country, but that doesn't just come by chance. It comes from our continued hard work, our shared values and our democratic stability. We are the greatest multicultural society in the world and we should be proud of that. All people in Australia, whether you arrived here recently or your family have walked these lands since time immemorial, should never have to accept aggressive acts towards them, and I utterly condemn all forms of extremism and racism behaviours against people in Australia. All Australians are currently facing the common challenge of COVID-19 and only together can we get through that.
I rise to speak on this motion, and I thank Senator Lines for putting it before this chamber. It's very disturbing to hear the comments that people are making in this chamber. This is absolutely critical right now in this country because it is getting worse, and there is deep division in this country where we are meant to be uniting—as people who represent our constituents and the people of Australia. It's deeply saddening that we have a government who is so connected to the far Right, to the fascists, to the Nazis. It's deeply disturbing.
I have been on the receiving end of these racists, these violent perpetrators that don't like anybody else but themselves and the whiteness that they bring. When I was 14 and I started my first job, I rocked up to work one day and there was 'coon' written across the window, in Gertrude Street, Fitzroy. When I had my first child, in Lakes Entrance, the skate park had a sign with graffiti across it saying 'all coons must die'. We had the KKK in Paynesville, in Victoria. The far Right are a threat to everybody in this country. They represent hate, they represent violence and they don't want to unite this country. They're not part of this country's identity, nor should they be. I'm just so surprised that so many people on the other side—and we're going to have the other senator come up after me and blurt out the racist rhetoric that they always do, but it's got to stop. We have children watching. Our children have to be safe. There are children being beaten up in the schoolyards because of racism. Children are not born racist; they learn it. They're learning it in their homes and they're learning it from their government. When are we going to truly mature as a nation? When? Stop racism because racism kills people in this country.
This is an urgency motion by Senator Lines. I'm proud to be speaking for the overwhelming majority of Australians who know that being an Australian means being part of probably the greatest democracy of the world. But one of the ugliest challenges that's raised its head in recent years is the hypocrisy, lies and rewriting of reality by extremists from the Left—extremists who seek to rewrite our history, lie about our present, deceive our youth and go to any length, it seems, to shame our great democracy.
I've said many times in this place that I am against all extremism. I oppose right-wing extremists and I oppose left-wing extremists. This motion before us reflects some of the worst thinking of left-wing extremism. Senator Lines ignores 200 years of nation building and ignores the spirit that bonds us and instead recreates reality to drive a stake of division into the heart of our nation and our people by preaching white privilege. Like so many left-wing extremists, she denies truth for political gain and notoriety.
There can be a few more stunning examples of hypocrisy than the bitter, vitriolic attack by the senator against Australia Day in an ad she paid for on social media recently. Senator Lines calls for Australia Day to be a day of mourning. She could not possibly be more out of step with the overwhelming majority of Australians. If Senator Lines really believes in white privilege, she'll obviously be happy to immediately hand over her position as Deputy President to Senator Dodson or Senator McCarthy. Senator Lines's vitriol does Indigenous Australians no service at all. She hides behind a shameful cloak of shallowness, hypocrisy and lies that typifies the worst elements of extremism on both sides. It ignores any truth, tolerates no discussion or debate, is dismissive of reason and deserves the widest condemnation from all sides. I will not be supporting this motion.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Lines be agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Payne for today, on account of ministerial business.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of Senator Polley, I present Scrutiny Digest No. 2 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, dated 2021.
On behalf of the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present Human rights scrutiny report 1 of 2021, together with the minutes of proceedings of the committee and the transcript of evidence. I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I am very pleased to table the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' first scrutiny report of 2021. As usual, this report contains a technical examination of legislation with Australia's obligations under international human rights law. In this report the committee considered 19 new bills and 191 new legislative instruments. The committee is seeking further information in relation to three new bills and has concluded its examination of three bills and six legislative instruments.
For example, the committee is seeking further information in relation to the Australian Immunisation Register Amendment (Reporting) Bill 2020. This bill seeks to introduce a requirement for vaccination providers to report information to the Australian Immunisation Register relating to vaccinations administered both inside and outside Australia. The committee notes that this is a very important measure to enable the government to track and trace every COVID-19 vaccine administered. By enhancing the government's ability to monitor COVID-19 and other vaccine-preventable diseases, the committee considers that this measure promotes the right to health.
The committee also notes that requiring vaccination providers to provide personal information about individuals who receive vaccinations would appear to limit the right to privacy. It is important to note that this right may be permissibly limited where it is shown to be reasonable, necessary and proportionate. In order to form a concluded view, the committee is seeking further information regarding the proportionality of this measure.
The committee is also seeking further information in relation to the Migration and Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Information Provisions) Bill 2020. This bill seeks to introduce a framework to protect the disclosure of confidential information provided by intelligence and law enforcement agencies where the information is used for certain migration or citizenship decisions. By restricting a person's access to information relevant to the decision which affects them, the bill engages and limits the right to a fair hearing and the prohibition against expulsion of aliens without due process. The committee considers that the bill pursues the legitimate objective of upholding law enforcement and intelligence capabilities, but in order to form a concluded view is seeking further information about the proportionality of this measure.
Finally, I am pleased to highlight that this committee's analysis continues to have a demonstrable and positive impact in the use of the committee's reports in parliamentary debates, in other committee inquiries and in legislative development. This has recently been apparent with the passage of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020, which proposed a range of amendments to ASIO's compulsory questioning powers. The committee undertook a comprehensive analysis of the proposed measure in its scrutiny reports 7 and 9 of 2020. While noting the powers sought to achieve the legitimate objective of protecting national security, the committee also made several recommendations that the bill be amended to assist the proportionality of specific measures with respect to human rights. I'm pleased to note that many of those recommendations are now reflected in the act and the revised statement of compatibility. For example, the bill sought to extend the compulsory questioning regime to children aged 14 years and over. The committee recommended that safeguards with respect to the conduct of any such questioning be strengthened, noting the special rights which apply to children under international human rights law. In particular, the committee recommended that in deciding whether to issue a questioning warrant in relation to a child the Attorney-General must consider their best interests as a primary consideration. I am therefore pleased to note that the bill was amended to this effect and that the statement of compatibility accompanying the bill was revised in line with the committee's comments.
This is a very good example of the work that this technical scrutiny committee can do in assessing legislation for compatibility with human rights. I encourage all parliamentarians to carefully consider the committee's analysis. With these comments, I commend the report to the chamber.
Question agreed to.
I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 820 standing in my name for 16 March 2021.
I have received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees.
by leave—I move:
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Finance and Public Administration Legislation and References Committees—
Discharged—Senator Scarr
Appointed—
Senator Chandler
Participating member: Senator Scarr
Intelligence and Security—Joint Statutory Committee—
Appointed—Senator Paterson, pursuant to the Intelligence Services Act 2001
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—
Discharged—Senators Chandler and Stoker
Appointed—
Senators Scarr and Van
Participating member: Senator Chandler
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee—
Discharged—Senators Chandler and Stoker
Appointed—
Senators Henderson and Scarr
Participating member: Senator Chandler
Question agreed to.
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—
AGED CARE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (SERIOUS INCIDENT RESPONSE SCHEME AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2020
This Bill introduces a Serious Incident Response Scheme that will respond to, and take steps to prevent, the incidence of abuse and neglect of older Australians in residential aged care. This includes those receiving flexible care delivered in a residential aged care setting.
Consistent with the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission's report on elder abuse, this Bill will introduce a scheme that replaces existing arrangements in relation to reportable assaults.
The scheme will provide greater protections for older Australians by taking into account broader instances of abuse and neglect, by introducing more robust requirements for residential aged care providers to respond and report, and by providing the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission with more functions and powers.
The Bill introduces legislative requirements that will build provider capacity to identify risk and respond to incidents if and when they occur. By imposing these requirements, the scheme is expected to drive learning and improvements that will reduce the number of preventable serious incidents in future.
From 1 April 2021, residential aged care providers will gain additional responsibilities to identify, record, manage and resolve all incidents that occur.
The focus will be on a provider's response to an incident—the supports they put in place for the impacted aged care consumer/s; the actions they take to continuously improve and reduce the likelihood of incidents reoccurring; and the way in which they use information about incidents to inform risk management, feedback and education to staff and to improve the service's capability to prevent, manage and resolve incidents. Through the scheme, providers will also be required to report serious incidents to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission.
The Bill defines reportable incidents to include a number of categories of abuse and neglect. This includes: unreasonable use of force, unlawful sexual contact or inappropriate sexual conduct, psychological or emotional abuse, stealing or financial coercion by a staff member, inappropriate use of physical or chemical restraint, unexplained absences from care, neglect and unexpected death. Importantly, unlike the previous aged care reporting scheme, there is no exemption on the reporting of resident on resident incidents, where the resident has an assessed cognitive impairment.
Whether it be alleged, suspected or a known occurrence, residential aged care providers will be required to report serious incidents to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. Reporting to the Commission will be implemented in two phases.
From April 2021, a two stage reporting process will be required for all critical reportable incidents—which are those that result in physical or psychological injury or illness requiring onsite medical or psychological treatment or more significant treatment.
Within 24 hours of becoming aware of the reportable incident, the residential aged care provider must notify the Commission. If the incident is also criminal in nature, the provider must also make a report to police. Following the initial report, the second stage of the reporting process involves an incident status report that must be provided to the Commission within five business days, or by a date specified by the Commission. The status report will include any outstanding or relevant information that was not provided in the first notification, for example remedial action taken or supports put in place to minimise harm to the victim.
The residential aged care provider may also be required to submit a final report within two months of the incident. The Commission will determine, on a case by case basis, if a final report is required and if so, the parameters of the report. It will likely include matters relating to investigation of the incident, and corrective actions being taken.
From later in 2021 providers will be required to report all other serious incidents within 30 days. These incidents are categorised as incidents where there is low or no impact on the victim. Until these reporting requirements commence, providers must still keep records of these incidents.
Existing record keeping requirements will be expanded to cover the broader incident management obligations. These require records of each incident to be kept by the provider, as well as the need to make records available to the Commission. This enables the Commission to fulfil its assessment, monitoring, compliance and complaints handling functions.
The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission will be responsible for administering the scheme, using its existing monitoring and regulatory powers. Once the Commission receives reports about serious incidents, it will apply risk-based monitoring of how aged care providers investigate and respond to serious incidents. In instances where the responses are inadequate, the Commission may require further action, such as an independent investigation.
The Bill will also provide the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner with additional functions and powers dedicated to dealing with the scheme. These are intended to ensure the Commission is able to respond proportionately to all levels of risk, to safeguard consumers. This will include powers to respond to serious incidents and provide compliance notices and directions to take action, and will also include imposing civil penalties, infringement notices, enforceable undertakings, and injunctions to ensure compliance with the new obligations under the scheme.
To ensure consistency in regulation, the Bill will enable these powers to be used more broadly, to enforce the aged care responsibilities of approved providers and related offences. These are standard regulatory powers available under the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014, to provide the Commission with a more graduated suite of powers for responding to and preventing non-compliance. These powers will also enable the Commission to take more effective action to protect consumers.
The Bill also provides additional powers to enable the Commission to obtain information or documents directly from its source. This will ensure the Commission is equipped to obtain the information the Commission requires to effectively carry out its reportable incident functions under the scheme, while enhancing the Commission's broader regulatory framework.
The Bill will also strengthen protections for people who report abuse or neglect in a residential aged care facility to cover both existing and former staff members as well as current and past residential care recipients, their families and others supporting them. These changes are necessary to ensure those who witness or suspect that a serious incident has occurred do not face repercussions, such as civil or criminal liability, for making such reports.
Following passage of the Bill, subordinate legislation will specify additional details, including incident management system requirements and the reporting timeframes mentioned.
The scheme complements and supports existing regulatory settings including the integrated expectations of the Aged Care Quality Standards, the Charter of Aged Care Rights and open disclosure requirements. Together these will support residential aged care providers to engage in risk management and continuous improvement to deliver safe and quality care to older Australians.
The health, safety and wellbeing of older Australians is of utmost importance to the Australian Government. Any abuse of a person in residential aged care is unacceptable and it is important that these incidents are reported, managed and prevented from occurring in future.
EXPORT CONTROL AMENDMENT (MISCELLANEOUS MEASURES) BILL 2020
Australia is one of the top ten agricultural exporting countries in the world, exporting around two-thirds of our agricultural production each year.
Strengthening the competitiveness and productivity of Australia's agriculture sector is a key commitment of this Government.
We want our agricultural industries to be able to capitalise on the opportunities that flow from growth in our region and globally, and we want to support the National Farmers' Federation goal to grow Australian agriculture to $100 billion by 2030.
To help us achieve this, we need to ensure we have appropriate regulatory settings to enable exports to grow and in turn to help drive productivity and increase returns at the farm gate.
This Bill will build upon the reforms introduced by the Export Control Act 2020 (the Act), that streamline and consolidate existing export controls and commence on 28 March 2021.
This Bill provides for several minor amendments to the Act to ensure a smooth transition and implementation of the new export control framework for exporters. These amendments will enable appropriate rules to be made to support the Act.
The Bill will clarify the application of the fit and proper person test to alterations or variations requested by occupiers of registered establishments, and enable the rules to prescribe circumstances where the Secretary may approve or refuse to approve a notice of intention to export a consignment of prescribed goods.
The Bill will provide the Secretary with the power to prescribe requirements in the rules for deciding whether to issue an export permit.
The Bill will enable the rules to modify how certain provisions apply to reviewable decisions for tariff rate quotas. It will enable the rules to apply matters contained in instruments to assist in calculating tariff rate quotas.
While these amendments may appear to be relatively minor in nature, they will enable the Government to ensure the necessary regulatory settings are in place to support Australian farmers gain and maintain reliable access to overseas markets. This means increased profitability and certainty to enable further investment in their properties and people.
For the Australian economy, it means more jobs, more exports, and higher incomes in a competitive and profitable agricultural sector.
For Australians, it means stronger regional communities and a more prosperous and productive Australia.
The Bill is just one of the initiatives that the Government is progressing to modernise the systems that underpin our very valuable agricultural exports. This is a crucial step that supports the Australian agricultural sector as it continues to grow and respond to the coronavirus pandemic.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.
Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
I am pleased to introduce the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill 2020.
This Bill amends the Therapeutic Goods Act to remove a potential impediment to the Australian Government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, in relation to the importation and supply of COVID-19 vaccines in Australia, and to support continued access to prescription medicines during a serious scarcity of such medicines in Australia, improve access to therapeutic goods for Australians and enhance patient safety.
In particular, the Bill allows pharmacists to substitute a medicine for which there is a serious scarcity with a suitable alternative medicine—to avoid the risk of disruption to treatment for Australians that may be caused by a medicine shortage and the major impact that can have on patient health. Pharmacists will be able to substitute medicines without prior authority from a prescriber, but only where it is safe and appropriate to do so.
The Bill supports patient safety by allowing regulations to establish a Unique Device Identification database for medical devices in Australia. This will improve monitoring and traceability of devices supplied in Australia and enable quicker responses to safety issues and device defects.
The Bill strengthens the capacity to scrutinise emerging trends in the supply of dangerous and counterfeit therapeutic goods by allowing Departmental officers to obtain and possess goods to find out if the Therapeutic Goods Act is being complied with, without contravening State or Territory laws that prohibit such obtaining and possession except in specified circumstances.
The Bill supports human health and Australia's compliance with international agreements relating to therapeutic goods. The Bill has the effect of enabling regulations to prohibit the import, export, manufacture and supply of products that are prohibited under international agreements to which the Australian Government is a Party.
It may not be possible for some COVID-19 vaccines to comply with the obligation in the Act to not import or supply registered therapeutic goods without the registration number on the label, for example if they need to be stored at particularly low temperatures. The Bill allows the Secretary to consent to the importation and supply of such goods that do not comply with this requirement, to ensure the risk of civil penalties do not impede the timely availability of such vaccines in Australia. The TGA will ensure that the registration number of a vaccine is published for the benefit of health practitioners and consumers.
The Bill also makes some minor amendments to improve the clarity and consistency of regulation.
Debate adjourned.
Here we have the coalition essentially handing the pen over to intergovernmental organisations and telling them, 'Write our laws.' That's what we're voting on today. Those rules get updated by the World Customs Organization every five years. We can't even predict what is going to happen tomorrow—we couldn't predict COVID coming on—and yet we're letting somebody else, an organisation outside this country, update our customs every five years.
What we are debating right now is whether our Aussie laws should be written for us every five years. The minister likes to say that the changes in the Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2019 are just technical. They're just administrative, apparently. But don't worry because they're not our technical or administrative problem anymore, they're somebody else's now. They're the World Customs Organization's problem. It's their problem now, it has been taken out of our hands; let's not worry about that. I'll be honest: I have to ask what you're paying me for up here.
Let me tell you, whenever a minister says they're only making technical amendments, you had better sit up and start paying attention. I tell you what, if a red alert isn't going off above your head then you are not paying attention. A lot of the time those changes aren't small at all, and a lot of the time they come back to bite us. We think: 'It's okay. She'll be right, mate.' The fact is, what the government really wants is not to have to worry about the Senate anymore. Maybe they'd prefer it if we weren't here at all. And if any of us in the Senate have a problem with any of the changes that are being made, you know what? That's too bad. Don't worry about it because apparently the World Customs Organization have got it all under control. They've got the technical stuff, they obviously know it better than we senators do here in Australia, and they're better at administrative stuff than what we are. That's great. Once again, what are we getting paid for?
What is this bill about?
I'll tell you what it is, Australians: we're being asked to take on trust that there'll be no changes that affect the operation, size or scope of these free trade agreements. I've seen these free trade agreements in and out of here for eight years. I've seen the ChAFTA. That's not doing us real well, is it? I don't know if these free trade agreements stand for much these days. But don't worry, though! It doesn't matter, because we're passing everything over to the World Customs Organization, so don't worry about it! We're good!
We're being told the only thing that automatically updating these regulations does is to save public servants from having to get through more paperwork. Oh, dear! God help those public servants! God help them if they were to put in a day's work! Wouldn't that be a shocker? This is my question. What if that's not right? Who's going to fix that five years down the track? What if something slips up? What do you think is going to happen then if it's taken out of our control? The Senate has no control. Australia's lost control of the situation. There is no control here. But don't worry! There's nothing to see, because apparently they're only small technical or administrative moves! It's scary.
The bill would mean there's nothing for us to do—nothing at all. Our free trade rules would change without any debate and without our parliamentary consent. Once again, now we're not making these decisions on our own home soil; we are letting somebody else do that for us. Why don't you just pass it in parliament and get it over and done with? The government is asking us to exchange proper parliamentary scrutiny for a basic committee review. That's what we're up to now. I'm not comfortable with that, and any Australian out there should not be comfortable with that either. We all know that government-stacked committees come out with government-friendly results. That's how this stuff happens up here. That's how it goes down up here. God forbid the unintended consequences that it has! We've seen that going on for years. What's even worse, though, is this: don't worry about what's going on up here, because we're not controlling this now. She's all gone. She's over. World Customs Organization, come on in! Either way, a committee can't vote down regulatory changes that shouldn't be made. That's not what a committee's for. A committee is for writing reports. It can't replace a proper debate on the Senate floor.
I can tell you right now that to allow this bill to take away the Senate's rights and responsibilities is extremely concerning. It is extremely concerning that we have got to this. I don't know if this is just lazy, but, God forbid, there'll be many of you who probably won't be around when this happens in five years time. I only hope that you can sleep at night and that this doesn't come back to bite this country. But I suppose it won't matter, because you'll be sitting there on your pensions and your nice super. That's fabulous.
I just don't understand why you would do that—why you would take even the slightest risk. Why would you take the slightest risk by passing some sort of administrative and technical changes over to somebody else who is outside of this country? What is the purpose? Did someone give you a donation or something? Did I miss something? I'm just a little confused. Why would you even think about doing that? Aren't there much bigger things on the agenda? We've just gone through COVID, and we're sitting here worrying about some administrative and technical moves that need to be made, passing it over to some World Customs Organization. Who does that? Is there nothing else more important to worry about? That's why it bothers me. I just don't understand this. I'm missing something, which is a real shame, because no doubt it'll come out and I'll find out what it is, and then I'll be bringing this down in the next few months to say, 'I'll tell you why they did this.' It's just a shame I haven't been able to do that today.
Anyway, I can tell you now: there is absolutely no way I trust any move that has been made, let alone trust any technical or administrative movement or anything else over to the World Customs Organization and leaving that outside of Australia to do that. There is just no way. I'll worry about the nation first and put that first, and I'll tell you what: this will come back to bite. So I can tell you now: I will never, ever vote to hand over parliament's power to the World Customs Organization—not ever.
I would like to thank all honourable members for their contributions to this debate on the Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2019. The bill will amend the Customs Act to simplify the way in which the product specific rules of origin annexes six of Australia's free trade agreements implemented domestically. The Customs Act will refer directly to the annexes, enabling future changes to the annexes to be recognised in the Customs Act. This will remove the need to proscribe the product-specific rules of origin in regulations and to amend them where annexes are updated. It's my understanding that these regulations have never been disallowed. In fact, this chamber, this parliament, has already passed into law, over the past two years, four bills containing the same automatic incorporation mechanism for PSRs.
The changes to the Customs Act proposed by the bill are technical in nature. They do not change the benefits available under any of the FTAs. However, these amendments will streamline the implementation of updates to FTAs that relate to goods; help facilitate smoother trade between Australia and our FTA partners; and reduce the administrative burden on importers. Further, and I think very significantly, it's expected that the size of the regulations for the six affected FTAs will be significantly reduced from over 3,000 pages to about 90 pages, lowering the cost of administering the FTAs and removing unnecessary red tape.
In the debate on this bill here today in the chamber we've had many red herrings and a lot of shadowboxing going on from those opposite about what is and isn't included in this bill. We've heard about this being unprecedented, how we haven't done this before and how it's about foreign workers or antidumping, but I can confirm for this chamber and for you, Senator Lambie, that this is about none of that. In fact, this bill streamlines the technical processes of updating product specific rules of origin for six of Australia's current 15 FTA agreements—that is, Thailand, Malaysia, the United States, Korea, Chile and New Zealand. This aligns these six FTAs with the practice that has already been adopted for all nine of Australia's other FTAs. This chamber and, in fact, the opposition and those opposite have previously voted for exactly the same bill for these other free trade agreements as we are considering here today. The first bill of this kind in 2018 passed with the support of the opposition. It applied to FTAs for China, Japan, ASEAN, New Zealand and Singapore. Again, I reiterate, this bill only affects the final technical step in this process.
A question that comes from some of the debate from those on opposite is: has this parliament, this chamber, passed other FTAs with the same modernised, updated practice? Yes, we have. The parliament has adopted the modernisation approach that is exactly identical to that contained in this bill for the FTAs for Peru, Hong Kong, Indonesia plus the Pacific Island countries and for the CPTPP. This parliament and those opposite passed this already. They're talking about consistency and a fair go for workers, but where is the fairness or the consistency in their position that they've taken here today? Despite what those opposite have said, this bill does not introduce a new process for amending Australia's FTAs. This bill is the second of its kind to be considered by this chamber. Therefore, that is not the case. For all of those reasons, I very strongly commend this bill to the chamber.
The question is that the bill be read a second time.
There are amendments that have been circulated in my name to the Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2019. I will be brief in speaking to these amendments. I did ventilate Labor's reason for moving these amendments in my second reading speech. As several speakers have noted in this debate, the effect of this legislation would be to take what is currently a disallowable instrument by the parliament and make that decision about rules of origin and product specific rules a decision of some bureaucrat. It would take away the oversight of this parliament.
We are talking about free trade. It must be fair trade. The community must have confidence that its parliament and its representatives have the opportunity to ensure it is fair trade. Not maybe once every five years and not possibly through an inquiry that you might get up through a committee; in fact, we must have the ongoing right to ensure that the free trade agreements and the rules that govern them remain the province of this chamber, this parliament, to disallow if necessary.
The effect of Labor's amendment today is to reinsert the parliament's right to disallow certain rules under this legislation. As Senator Lambie just said in her speech, any time the government—this government in particular—says it is just making some technical changes, we really shouldn't worry ourselves about it, it'll be streamlined and all so much better, we need to be alert to the fact that they are taking away the oversight of this parliament. The effect of the amendment that has been circulated is to reinsert that oversight by members of this parliament. So I ask members—particularly those who have expressed a view that the parliament should retain that oversight function—to support the amendment.
By leave—I move the amendments circulated in my name together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (line 18) to page 4 (line 7), to be opposed.
(2) Schedule 1, items 9 to 13, page 4 (line 28) to page 8 (line 23), to be opposed.
(3) Schedule 1, items 19 to 21, page 10 (line 23) to page 13 (line 18), to be opposed.
(4) Schedule 1, items 27 and 28, page 15 (line 23) to page 17 (line 32), to be opposed.
(5) Schedule 1, items 34 and 35, page 19 (line 23) to page 22 (line 26), to be opposed.
(6) Schedule 1, items 41 and 42, page 24 (line 23) to page 27 (line 16), to be opposed.
(7) Schedule 1, items 47 and 48, page 29 (line 18) to page 32 (line 2), to be opposed.
My questions are brief and there are a number of them. Minister, is it true that in 2018 nine of Australia's 15 free trade agreements were amended by the Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Act 2018 and that this bill simply modifies the remaining six free trade agreements?
Yes, I can confirm that that is the case.
Minister, based upon the comments of Senator Carr and Senator Ayres—because we listened to them and we went back and did some more research—did the 2018 bill pass with the support of the opposition?
Yes, I can confirm that the identical bill passed with the support of Labor. In fact, Senator Carr himself spoke in support of this same legislation two years ago for other free trade agreements. In fact, I think his words were that it was a 'simple administrative process'.
Did the 2018 bill even go to a division in the Senate?
My understanding is, no, it did not.
Minister, was this same harmonisation system incorporated directly into our free trade agreements with Indonesia, Peru and Hong Kong? Were those also passed by the opposition?
Yes, I can confirm that Labor did support these exact same amendments in those bills that you've just listed.
Is this same provision in the upcoming TPP-11 now called the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership?
Yes, I believe it is.
Have the ALP and the Greens given any indication of whether this same harmonisation should be removed from that agreement?
Can I get some clarification of the question again and I will confirm with the officials here.
Senator Roberts, could you please repeat your question?
Sure. Is this same provision in the upcoming TPP-11 now called the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership?
Sorry, I misheard you. They're actually separate agreements.
Minister, if a change to a harmonised item has a detrimental economic outcome for Australia does that change or is there parliamentary scrutiny of that change?
There are a couple of questions resident in that. Despite the assertions of those opposite here in the chamber today, there, of course, still is parliamentary scrutiny of this bill through JSCOT—that has not changed. Again, this bill is exactly the same as the bill that this chamber passed in 2018.
Is it possible in any way for a change to the harmonised register to allow for a product to be dumped in Australia or in any way cost Australian jobs?
No. I can say unequivocally the answer is no. This has no impact on antidumping. This is not an antidumping piece of legislation.
Is there any point to Labor's amendment?
I'm not quite sure a personal opinion is appropriate for me to answer. However, what I can say is that two years ago, the Labor Party, including Senator Carr, strongly supported these exact same measures for these FTAs subject to this bill, as they did two years ago for those other countries FTAs. So it is hard to see that there is anything else but playing some very base politics in this today, because they were supported two years ago.
This is my final question. In 2018 apparently Senator Carr spoke on the first bill. In his comments he said that it should be non-controversial, according to Hansard. I want to make my earlier comments clear. Despite Senator Ayres and Senator Carr's comments, we went back and did our research and this is what we have come up and—
An honourable senator interjecting—
We have done our research. We asked a number of people—crossbenchers and the government. We have done our research. I want to make it very clear that One Nation opposes free trade agreements, because we don't believe they're fair trade. I'm pleased to see Senator Keneally now using our label. We want fair trade. Having said that, and having made that very clear this morning, I again say that we will support this, because it doesn't have any material impact. All it does is reduce the burden to companies, employers and jobs in this country, and it reduces the bureaucracy and the cost to the taxpayers. That is why we are supporting this. We will continue to oppose free trade agreements, but we will make whatever we have better in any way we can.
In fact I've got the comments from Senator Carr—again, completely contradictory to what he said two years ago. This is what Senator Carr said two years ago about the identical bill for the other set of free trade agreements. In the Senate debate on the 2018 bill, Senator Carr argued that the bill should have been introduced as non-controversial legislation, given its minor administrative effect. In fact, he said this: 'These are minor amendments ensuring consistency between our legislation and the various texts of the agreements.' I will leave it to other members of this chamber to make their conclusions about his position now.
When you come up with these great ideas that you're going to do this and pass the powers over to someone else—it blows me away that One Nation's got stuck into it! It absolutely blows me away that they're falling for this crap. Who would have guessed? What unintended consequences were on your whiteboards when you did this?
I'm not really sure of the nature of your question. Can you just clarify exactly what you're asking?
Are you telling me that when you decided to do this everything was all positive and you didn't have one thing where you thought, 'Ooh, maybe that could happen'—unintended consequences? I just want to know this, because there'll be unintended consequences, so I just want you to put this down on paper so I've got it.
The answer is very clear: this is not a new measure. We did this two years ago with the support of the opposition, who said it was uncontroversial. It was a simple administrative matter. And this bill here today is doing the exact same thing for another tranche of Australia's free trade agreements, to bring them into alignment with the ones that we, again, in this chamber agreed to in 2018.
What power does the Australian Senate have to overrule changes to the harmonised commodity description and coding system?
Thank you for that question. There are two parts to my answer. The first is that my advice is that these regulations have never been disallowed in this chamber, which I understand is why those opposite and the governments two years ago agreed that this was an administrative process. But in terms of the parliament's ability to scrutinise future changes to FTAs, does this make any change? No, it does not. The bill removes the need to replicate technical changes to the PSR schedule of an FTA in a separate regulation establishing the rules of origin for that FTA—that is, the step that creates a disallowable instrument would no longer occur. JSCOT will continue to provide parliamentary scrutiny of future technical changes to the PSR of a relevant FTA through its standard treaty review processes.
Since my name's been brought into this in such a manner tonight by the obviously Dorothy Dix questions that have been provided by the government to One Nation, I think it's appropriate that I should respond. As to the claims that they've researched, the idea of One Nation doing research I think is all part of the humour—the comedy routine that is undertaken from time to time by the senators claiming to represent the more reactionary elements of the nationalist movement in this country. I'd like to deal specifically with the claims that are being made. This is an amendment. This is—
Senator Carr, Senator Roberts is on his feet with a point of order.
Senator Carr has made an improper statement. We did, as I said, research with crossbench senators, and we did not write Dorothy Dixers.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I'm not sure that's a point of order. I'll give the call back to Senator Carr.
The situation here is very simple. It's a lesson that all senators should take note of. If the facts change, what do you do? You change your mind. That's been the custom and practise of good political operators for time immemorial. It's all very well for you to quote from the Hansard. I'm quite capable of changing my mind if I have the facts. The facts are these: We now have a situation in this parliament where we pass something like 2,000 bills a year; 50 per cent of them are carried with measures that contain instruments for delegated legislation. Of those in recent times, 20 per cent of all the legislation we've been carrying has a non-disallowable instrument built into it. We ourselves are taking away our rights to examine legislation.
I've been on the front bench of this parliament for some 23 years. In this parliament, I've had the privilege of serving on other committees. As a consequence of that, I've had the opportunity to look at the detail in which this legislative practice has grown, instrumentally, under governments of all descriptions, where we've turned over our responsibilities to the Public Service, and we should not allow that to continue. That's the fundamental principle that this amendment proposes: that we address our responsibilities. If there's a problem, we have the chance to fix it. It is no more complicated than that, Senator Roberts, you great expert on international trade. It's no more complicated than our capacity to say, 'Sorry, Mr Bureaucrat, you've got it wrong.'
What I can also tell you is that, in those 23 years of service on the front bench, repeatedly I understood how free trade agreements could be abused—particularly the rules of origin and the capacity of various companies and various countries to shift goods around the globe. We should not allow these measures to be shifted off to some minor consideration by a parliamentary committee without the resources, by members of parliament without the resources, to deal with these questions properly. JSCOT is not an appropriate vehicle for parliamentary scrutiny. It is a joke. It is a joke to suggest that anything other than a rubber stamp measure is going to be applied.
Our job as members of parliament is to ensure the protection of the interests of the Australian people. We have been abrogating that responsibility by allowing so much of the legislation that goes through this parliament—and I'll hazard a guess, Senator Roberts—unread. We find the circumstances when we examine the facts: 50 per cent of it is allowing delegated legislation to be sent off by unelected, faceless bureaucrats, and to 20 per cent of that we have denied ourselves the chance to say, 'No, that's not right.'
This amendment simply says that the proposal this government is trying to impose on us now—to take away the right that is there now—should not be taken away. You say, 'Oh, it's never been used.' Well, that's no excuse to take it away. How ridiculous! That's the sort of mentality that One Nation comes up with, isn't it—like your 'detailed research'. You've got to get it from a ministerial office. You've got to get approval from a ministerial office before you'll come to some consensus with the government. And you call yourselves senators. What a joke.
Can I just say in relation to what can only be called a rhetorical flourish from Senator Carr that that is a spectacular backflip—
Debate interrupted.
It is well known that his in his farewell speech the great American president Dwight Eisenhower warned about the military industrial complex. Today, of course, it is not just the military industrial complex that we need to be wary of but also many other industrial complexes, whether it be superannuation, universities, renewables or the bureaucracy itself. But what is often overlooked is his warning about a scientific-technological elite. He said:
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by … scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.
… … …
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present—and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system—ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
The key words here are 'within the principles of our democratic system'.
Our democratic systems depend on accountability and transparency. It is my view that these elements have been severely undermined by unelected bureaucrats, many of whom could be considered as belonging to a scientific-technological elite and who are neither accountable nor transparent. This erosion of democracy has been justified on the grounds of independence, that somehow bureaucrats are independent as opposed to politicians, who are not. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ultimately bureaucrats will be the servant of whatever system hires them and they will perpetrate it in order to protect their own self-interest or perpetrate their ideologies rather than serve the interests of the people.
In many ways this is to be expected. It is not inhuman to put self-interest first. For governments to be effective, the decision-making process must be transparent and a decision-maker must be held to account. This is not the case with independent statutory authorities. These bodies have become a law unto themselves. They are not accountable to the people, and their decision-making process is not transparent. The bureaucracy is the government. Politicians turn up and debate ideological points before going back to liaise with the community. But we are here only 19 weeks a year, of which only four weeks are given to estimates. Ministers will spend more time in Canberra with their departments, but it is extremely difficult to drill into the detail when there are so many demands placed upon them. However, it is imperative that the minister, as part of an elected government, has the final say in the running of the government and not the bureaucrat.
There are too many examples of the bureaucracy being in charge of the decision-making process or setting a narrative that is completely false. There is the RBA controlling interest rates. Could you imagine if the ATO set the tax rates or the CSIRO released a GenCost report, as it did just recently, without oversight of the assumptions from the minister's office? It is elected representatives and ministers who must be responsible for the decision-making process and not those who hide behind the curtain of anonymity.
Politicians have a responsibility to scrutinise bureaucrats. It is their job. At senator school, we were taught that our role was to inquire, debate and legislate. Yet there is a movement being peddled among those opposite us and the media that you are not allowed to question the experts. In the late John Le Carre's novel The Russia House, the dissident Russian scientist codenamed 'Goethe' sums up experts thus: 'I do not like experts. They are our jailers. I despise experts more than anyone on earth. Experts are addicts. They solve nothing! They are servants of whatever system hires them. They perpetuate it. When we are tortured, we shall be tortured by experts. When we are hanged, experts will hang us. … When the world is destroyed, it will be destroyed not by its madmen but by the sanity of its experts and the superior ignorance of its bureaucrats.'
We live in extraordinary times—a time when the world is crying out for leadership over politics and leadership over fear. Good economic policy will deliver us out of this pandemic and out of these difficult economic times. We will only get good economic policy out of first-rate leadership at all levels of government.
The Liberals have spent the last decade painting Labor's approach in the recovery from the GFC as wasteful spending. Ironically, the last seven years of a federal Liberal government have settled Australia with an astronomical debt. Our national debt is galloping like the Melbourne Cup thoroughbreds towards $1 trillion. Former Treasurer Peter Costello argues that the government isn't operating at sustainable levels and that future generations are doomed under this government because they have placed debt that will never be paid down on their shoulders. Treasury is forecasting that Australia's net debt position will be $703.2 billion for 2020-21, meaning a net debt to GDP ratio of 36.1 per cent, increasing to $966.2 billion by 2023-24—to a net debt to GDP ratio of 43.8 per cent. The economic outlook appears grim under this directionless government. The Morrison government needs a real plan to stimulate demand and to increase domestic employment. This government cannot keep deferring responsibility to the Reserve Bank of Australia.
During the GFC, Labor employed this mechanism responsibly through increasing public spending via direct investment in public infrastructure to increase the supply of jobs. Regardless of Labor's critics, this worked. School halls and classrooms were built; teachers, students and parents were thankful for it and it led to a boom in construction jobs; we got the balance right. But balance is not something that this government employs, let alone understands. In contrast, the Morrison government has pushed hard on tax cuts, arguing that if business and individuals keep more of the money that they earn then more money will be spent. However, tax cuts only work if money is spent within the community and is not saved or invested.
What more can be done then? This is a watershed moment in our history where we can engage in structural reform and ensure a better future for Australia. Let's bring back manufacturing to our great country. The solutions the Liberals have proposed so far are deeply flawed and fail the rules of basic economics 101. Scott Morrison has deliberately excluded 928,000 people aged 35 and over from hiring subsidies. And then there is the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, which aims to casualise our workforce and to cut workers' pay. This doesn't treat a large working cohort with any respect, let alone basic economic intelligence.
Furthermore, the Morrison government has also not considered investing in public housing, unlike the Andrews Labor government in Victoria. Public housing more than pays for itself. Every $1 million of residential building construction output has a multiplying effect of $2.9 million throughout the industry and broader economy. This stimulus would also boost the post-crisis economic recovery and reduce homelessness.
Scott Morrison needs to commit to creating incentives to bring manufacturing back to Australia by including all Australian workers, regardless of their age. The year 2020 highlighted the importance of having supply chain resilience. Reshoring manufacturing would mean that highly skilled manufacturing jobs would be created within Australia to boost our economy and strengthen our resilience amidst the international crisis. The Morrison government is spending big but relying too heavily on the RBA and failing to recalibrate the investment in reskilling the nation. No adoption of an energy policy means that there is no guarantee that this spending will result in good economic outcomes. A responsible government needs to employ a targeted approach to spending which collectively lifts Australia out of recession and guarantees prosperity into the future.
February is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. Ovarian cancer is the eighth most common cancer in Australia, and there is no detection test for it. Tragically, almost half of the 1,560 Australians diagnosed with ovarian cancer each year die within five years. Ovarian cancer predominantly affects women. However, it also affects non-binary people, trans men and some people with variations of sex characteristics. In its 2011 report, Addressing sexual orientation and sex and/or gender identity discrimination, the Australian Human Rights Commission noted concerns about medical professionals overlooking trans and intersex people for conditions that are generally understood to affect either men or women exclusively, such as ovarian cancer and prostate cancer. So, in this Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, I want to advocate on behalf of all people with ovaries for more education and resources to find a cure for this awful disease.
A group of white men are gathered around a burning cross. They can be heard chanting 'white power'. Some raise their hands in a Nazi salute. This isn't a chilling relic of the past, nor is it a scene from a video posted on a dark corner of the internet. This is a real-life gathering of about 40 Neo-Nazi extremists in broad daylight in our own backyard just weeks ago. The gathering of these Neo-Nazi extremists in the Grampians on Gunditjmara country over Invasion Day weekend on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day should be a wake-up call to us all.
Last year, ASIO advised the parliament that right-wing violent extremism occupies around 30 to 40 per cent of ASIO's current caseload in counterterrorism work. And, while it's good that security services are investigating these threats, there appears to be zero political appetite to invest in new initiatives to address the growth of right-wing extremism. The Prime Minister is nowhere to be seen when it comes to calling out white supremacy and anti-Semitism. Where are the press conferences, the scare campaigns and the damning words for these extremist groups, Mr Morrison? Is being white a 'get out of jail free' card to avoid being labelled a terrorist? You should be outraged. You should be scared of not only what these people are capable of but what their actions and opinions say about the state of our country. Ironically, just days after this group of Neo-Nazis gathered in regional Victoria, the Prime Minister claimed at an event on 26 January that Australia is the most successful multicultural nation on earth. Being a successful multicultural nation takes more than multicultural parades and festivities, more than platitudes, more than words, Prime Minister. It requires action.
The emerging Neo-Nazi movement that's taking a foothold right around the world, encouraged by leaders like Donald Trump, is very present right here in Australia, and this hateful tide has been growing as it has been encouraged, inflamed, fed and nurtured through the politics of hate. Politicians in this place have said that settling Muslims was a mistake. They have said that people can't go out into the streets at night for fear of African gang violence. The leader of a political party wore a burka into the Senate to mock a community of faith. And, when ASIO warned us last year of the increasing threat from right-wing extremist groups, Peter Dutton responded with the need to deal with left-wing loonies. We need only look at the attempted insurrection at the US capitol on 6 January to know what happens when a country's leaders outright or tacitly endorse far Right fringe groups and when these abhorrent ideas are given the oxygen and the sunlight needed for them to grow and spread. All of us, in this case, need to heed the calls of what ASIO and groups like YARD, or Yelling At Racist Dogs, and Jews Against Fascism have been telling us for years: Nazis are not a thing of the past. They are here in this country, and it's up to our leaders to call them out. Anti-fascist protesters and activists are campaigning in the streets and shining a light on those that seek to do us all harm. Now it's time for our leaders to step up. It's up to our leaders, like you, Prime Minister, to stamp out these threats before it's too late—noting that for those who lost their lives in Christchurch, it already is.
I want to put some remarks on the table about the Australia Day honours list in which 844 Australians were recognised. In announcing the list, the Governor-General said:
On behalf of all Australians, I congratulate everyone recognised in the Australia Day Honours list.
The individuals we celebrate today come from all parts of our great nation and have served the community in almost every way conceivable. They're diverse and unique but there are some common characteristics, including selflessness, commitment and dedication.
Recipients have not put their hand up to be recognised. Most would consider the achievements that they are being recognised for to be 'ordinary' or just what they do. Therein is the great strength of our system—recipients in the Order of Australia have been nominated by their peers, considered by an independent process and, today, recognised by the nation.
The sum of these contributions speaks to our nation's greatest strength—its people.
I want to put that on the record. I know there's been a lot of debate about the day, and I don't want go anywhere near that, but I do want to single out one recipient of an Australia Day award: Mr Kym Leslie Callaghan. He has been awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia. It's for service to local government and the community of Elliston.
Mr Callaghan was chairman of the District Council of Elliston from 2014 to 2018 and was involved in the establishment of the Wirangu Reconciliation Monument in 2018. He was deputy chairman in 2014 and an elected member since 2010. He served on the Mid West Health Advisory Council for five years. He established the Elliston Men's Shed, among many, many other achievements. These are people who work selflessly in far corners of Australia and dedicate their entire activities to community health, wellbeing and involvement.
One of the great achievements of Mr Callaghan was the Elliston Coastal Trail. The walking trail goes for 14 kilometres along a stunning coastline—a tourist icon, if you like. Getting that project to finality was not without some difficulties. Along the way, and despite much discussion and disconcertment, he managed to establish a reconciliation monument which actually recognised an awful massacre in 1849, where a group of what were considered 'natives' in those days were driven off the cliff. I attended the opening of that monument with Senator Pat Dodson, and I'm sure that he will concur that that was one of the most memorable occasions in my time as a senator. It's a really remarkable, stunning monument which changes with the light, as it would; it's a marble statue. The council workers look after it in a most diligent way. It's revered and respected.
Coincidentally, I had known Kym in a previous incarnation of work. He was a TWU delegate at Armaguard and a self-funded retiree who went to the Elliston area. He lives at Sheringa, not far from Elliston. He found himself with a bit of time on his hands and put it to very, very good use. He is an enormous contributor to that area. I think that is the real key to the Australia Day awards. These are people who don't seek recognition. Kym doesn't know I'm speaking about him today. He will know tomorrow, but he doesn't know today, and I'm sure he'd enjoy a quiet beer after the contribution tonight. But I just want it on the record here, these people are what makes the fabric of Australia tick: selfless people who do more than they need to do, who reach out to people, who look for opportunities to heal, who look for opportunities to build recognition and build reconciliation. None of that work was easy on Mr Callaghan. None of that work was easy on him. Senator Dodson and I were there to witness that glorious weekend where the community came together and celebrated the memorial. The Dusty Feet Mob from Port Augusta came down and sang and danced in that area, and brought a tear to most people's eyes. Well done, Kim. Keep up the good work!
I rise tonight to speak about the global shark fin trade and inhumane practise of shark finning. For some years I have spoken out about shark finning, its inherent cruelty and the need for Australia to reject this terrible practice in every way we can. Shark finning involves cutting off a shark's fins, often while it is still alive, then throwing it back into the sea, where it is left to die painfully. This is a horrendous and a barbaric practice. The shark suffers hugely, usually dying from blood loss, suffocation or targeted by another predator.
Between 70 and 100 million sharks are killed every year for their fins. Many of these sharks represent species that are already endangered, and this needless cruelty is putting the animals at risk of extinction. The trade has terrible impacts on shark populations globally. Just last week a study published in Nature found not only that the global population of shark and rays has crashed by more than 70 per cent in the last 50 years, but pointed specifically to overfishing as the driving cause. In countries where shark fin soup is popular, governments, as well as businesses such as hotels and restaurants, have in recent years decided to restrict the sale of certain types of shark fin. Others have taken shark fin off the menu. People's traditions and expectations are changing.
Shark finning is banned in Australian government-managed fisheries, and there are a plethora of state and territory laws that have the effect of banning shark finning, usually by requiring all sharks to be landed with their fins still intact. WA is the hold out on this front, where a loophole is effectively allowing shark finning to continue in all its fisheries. However, shark fin remains on the menu across the country and continues to be consumed in many restaurants. There are reports from time to time that that includes illegal finning, which goes on.
In 2015, while I was a state MP in the New South Wales parliament, I introduced a bill to ban the commercial preparation or sale of shark fin for the purposes of consumption. The 'let's take shark fin off the menu' campaign, in support of my bill, raised the profile of this matter in New South Wales, and has led more and more people to take action and recognise the need for Australia to say no to shark finning once and for all. On this point, I particularly want to acknowledge the conservationists and activists who have been so vocal on this issue and want to see some real change, and it is my pleasure to advise the Senate tonight that I am working on a bill that would ban the import and export of shark fin to and from Australia. I'm doing this work with my colleague Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, who is a passionate advocate for our oceans and marine environments.
Perhaps to the surprise of many, the Australian shark fin trade is alive and well. According to the data made available to my office, over the period of 2012 to 2019 at least 240,000 kilograms of shark fin was imported into Australia. Notably, over the same period at least 30,000 kilograms of shark fin was exported from Australia. Collectively these numbers represent millions of sharks that have been killed for this cruel trade, and their fins either leave Australia or enter Australia. Perhaps just as horrific as the cruelty is the fact that if you asked a person on the street, they would probably have no idea that Australia is a partner in such animal brutality. There is no good reason for Australia to continue to participate in this cruel and inhumane trade. Around the world, countries are rejecting the shark fin trade and saying no to this animal cruelty. In 2019, Canada made international headlines when it became the first G20 country to ban the import and export of shark fin. There are also trade bans in place in numerous American states.
I look forward to bringing this debate to the Senate through a private member's bill later this year. We have a real opportunity here to reject animal cruelty, reject the needless slaughter of our precious marine life and affirm our commitment to biodiversity and a healthy planet.
The last 12 months, since the COVID-19 pandemic arrived on our shores, have thrown into sharp relief what is necessary to Australia and Australians: a hardworking, efficient transport industry and supply chains and well-stocked shelves with food grown by our Australian farmers. So it is shocking that last month Coles Supermarkets used its significant market position and its monthly magazine to encourage people to eat less meat, allegedly on dietary and environmental grounds. While it is truly astounding that Coles would ignore solid science around meat's place in a balanced diet, it is even more concerning that the advice was offered in part on sustainability grounds. After an outcry from meat industry groups, Coles has removed the advice from its website, the least it could do after misrepresenting the reality of sustainable Australian farming practices and the work of Australian farming families.
The Australian Dietary Guidelines are titled Eat for healthAustralian Dietary Guidelines: Providing the Scientific Evidence for Healthier Australian Diets. It is a fact that many Australians are not eating enough red meat. Too often these days, ideology and wokeness override facts. As recently as 22 January, Beef Central journalist James Nason wrote:
… 2021 is shaping as another "severe beef bashing year" from many quarters, despite the significant body of evidence debunking the case against beef on climate and health grounds.
For Coles to cast aspersions on the sustainability of Australia's meat industry is a prime example of virtue signalling that has no place in advice on a healthy diet. Any dietary advice must be made on the basis of benefits to human health, not the antifarming propaganda that vegans, eco warriors and animal activists flood social media with every day.
Only recently, we've seen supermarkets try to encourage more meat sales by promoting RSPCA approved chicken, hormone-free beef, dolphin-free tuna and free-range pork and eggs, so this recent about-face is baffling. Why send contradictory and, frankly, misleading messages to consumers? Why would such an influential voice as Coles cast doubt on Australian produce when there is so much evidence to counter the shrill untruths peddled by activists? Australia has among the toughest animal welfare standards in the world. Our meat growers are conscientious, efficient and, yes, sustainable. For them to be anything but that would be unacceptable. These people have listened to community sentiment around raising animals, and they have responded. Any farmer who fails to meet community and industry expectations just won't cut it. Coles and other big supermarkets and restaurants must recognise this and defend the very people who are proud to put the word 'Australian' on what they send to market.
As the convener of the Parliamentary Friends of Australian Red Meat group, I stand with those Australians who work tirelessly to grow the food that ends up in our restaurants, our butcheries, our barbecues and, of course, supermarkets like Coles. But I cannot stand by silent while I see such terrible mistruths peddled against an industry that is the world's best, world-leading in the product that we grow and in the way that we grow it. It is deemed a necessary part of a beneficial human diet by the guidelines. The foods in that group have traditionally been seen as protein rich. They provide a wide variety of other nutrients that may be more important in the typical high-protein Australian diet. Important nutrients include iodine, iron, zinc, other minerals, vitamins—especially B12—and essential fatty acids, including omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid. All indigenous Australian fish contain omega-3. Grass-fed meats, poultry and some eggs are also sources of these essential fatty acids. Evidence of the health benefits of lean meat and alternatives is consistently recognised in international dietary guidelines.
Last Thursday I attended the opening of the Duck River Meadows dairy and cheese factory in Smithton in the far north-west of Tasmania. Back in 2012 an announcement by the then Labor regional development minister, Simon Crean, and the then Tasmanian Premier, Lara Giddings, started the journey of future of investments in the dairy industry in this region of Tasmania. They paved the way for the opportunity for the new dairy and cheese factory by funding the trade college to the tune of $4.25 million and a further $1.5 million to extend power along Harcus River Road, allowing beef farms to convert to dairy farms. Today on this site stands a new robotic dairy and cheese factory—a dream of Genaro and Rosselyn.
Along the walls of the cheese factory's public viewing area there are a number of information posters telling visitors the stories of dairy, cheese and butter making from around the Circular Head region from the 1840s to today. It highlights the vision of Milan Vyhnalek, who, in 1955, set up the Lactos Cheese Factory in Burnie and who is now the owner of the famous King Island brand of cheese. One of these posters introduces the cheesemakers at La Cantara. I'd like to read their stories outlined in the poster. It says: 'Their journey in Australia started in November 2009 when they arrived in Brisbane to study English as a second language. In 2010, their lives took an unexpected turn due to the political situation back in the Venezuela. A protection visa was granted in October 2011. Genaro and Rosselyn have both trained as veterinarians in their home country, and this facilitated the process of finding their first job in country Queensland as farmhands on a beef cattle property.
Their passion for dairy started with their next position in northern New South Wales in 2012. After gaining dairy experience over the next few years, they then moved to the beautiful north-west of Tasmania in July 2016. After two years at Arthur River Park dairy, they settled in Edith Creek as share farmers. They put a great effort into farming and took pride for what they were able to achieve. In April 2020, they were awarded the prestigious 2020 Fonterra Share Dairy Farmer of the Year Award.
Over the years they have been making some Venezuelan-style cheeses at home, all considerably basic and without much technical knowledge. They had identified several incredible opportunities in the industry, and one was that they were in the prime dairying area of Tasmania. What better way to celebrate this than turning that milk into beautiful local cheese. Genaro enrolled in a formal course at the New Zealand Cheese School, where the Australian cheesemaker Neil Willman taught him the fundamentals of cheesemaking. Later in 2019 they founded La Cantara Cheeses. Its name translates to a stainless steel milk can in Spanish, and it essentially represents their origins and the traditional aspects of the dairy industry.' That's what was written on the poster.
We had a look at some displays of cheese. A couple of them were new ones that they were trying. Some were rolled in coffee and a couple of others had been injected with whisky. I'm very keen to try that when it's ready. They're certainly bringing some entrepreneurial initiatives into the cheesemaking industry in this small corner of the north-west of Tassie. I sincerely wish Genaro and Rosselyn the very best in their exciting new venture.
Senate adjourned at 19:53