I committed to take from the chamber some objections to language in part of the chamber's procedures yesterday, with respect to the national apology. I have reviewed the language that was objected to and, after detailed consideration, including consideration with Senate officials, my determination is that there was not a breach of standing orders in that language. That said, that does not in any way say that the language was appropriate, because the standing orders set the outer limits of what we are supposed to say and how we are supposed to act in this chamber. I will repeat a plea I have made on numerous other occasions: if we seek to maintain courtesies towards others and seek to avoid giving offence, then the debate in this chamber will be much more reflective of our higher aspirations and indeed the aspirations of those who send us here. The rules are the outer limit. They are not an aspiration for us to run around the edge of. So can I ask senators again that, particularly when we are dealing with matters about which there are very strong feelings held, we actually seek to avoid giving offence rather than pick at issues that we know will provoke strong feelings in others who may have very different perspectives, based on very different life experiences. I thank senators.

by leave—I wish to make a short comment on workplace safety in this chamber and the fact that I've endured racism since I started my role as a senator for Victoria. There have been numerous comments coming from numerous people, but obviously there is one who refuses to stop the racism that is entrenched in that person's being. I need to do my job as a senator for Victoria. I am a woman. I am a mother. I am a grandmother. I am a sister, aunty, cousin—you name it. A lot of people are watching this place and they are seeing their parliament divided through racism. If we are going to represent the people in this country at the highest level, then we also have to ensure that racism isn't part of this chamber's business and we all have to call that out. It is a responsibility of everybody. So, please, can we leave racism out the door? I'm happy to talk to people if they want, even—what's her name? I just can't, because racism is an illness and it makes people sick. My child just started year 7 last year and she experienced her first bit of racism. My five-year-old granddaughter is experiencing her first bit of racism. When are we going to unite this country and stamp out not just systemic racism but the racist comments that certain people are making in my workplace? This is a workplace, and I have a right to feel safe in my workplace.

by leave—First, can I thank you for the consideration you took with this matter, Mr President. I thank you for your comments, which, from memory, reprise comments you made after Senator Anning's unfortunate first speech, or something like that, where you did remind us that the standing orders set the outer limits of appropriateness. I would endorse those comments, and the Labor Party supports your comments and your ruling.

I would, however, make this point. This is a contest of ideas and at times a pretty hard political combat, but we ought, I think, to try to ensure that we remain respectful of the institution that we are part of and the positions that we occupy. As I said, I think, in Senator Cormann's valedictory, there is a no-go zone. There are rules of contained debate. There's a contained conflict. I think we should have outside of the zone of conflict personal reflections, particularly those that go to people's race. Senator Hanson yesterday did make some personal comments, including describing Senator Thorpe—I apologise that I'm going to repeat it, but I'm making a point—as a 'self-styled Aboriginal elite'. I think those sorts of comments are divisive and they are hurtful, and they really have no place in a debate which is about a very clear difference of views. I understand and respect Senator Thorpe's response to this.

I don't think anyone is suggesting in this place that I'm not prepared to have an argument and have a debate, but we all should observe some boundaries around that. We can only do that if all of us, or as many of us as possible, seek to observe those boundaries.

by leave—I would like to make a comment that our party abhors racism, and I want to put that on the record. We also believe in data and being objective, because there is another thing that is not quite as bad as racism but it is nasty, and that is to accuse someone falsely of racism. So I would suggest that anybody in this chamber, if they want to maintain the decorum and the prestige and the status of this house and the whole parliament, should put forward documented evidence of racism. That is the least we should expect from anyone who's making such an accusation.

by leave—Mr President, firstly, thank you for your ruling, the leadership that you provide in this place and, in providing that leadership, the words that you have reminded senators of again and again of in terms of, where necessary, reflecting upon their conduct and being mindful that their conduct can undermine confidence in this place and, in doing so, undermine the achievement of the very policy outcomes that people come here seeking to secure.

Ours is a robust parliamentary democracy, as Senator Wong acknowledged. We fight fiercely for our ideas, our principles, our values, our policies—as we should. We do so at some points of the chamber from greater extremes than at other points of the chamber, but those extremes should not inflame in ways that undermine the standing of this place. I urge everybody to make sure that they take up their fight for their principles, their values, their policies and their positions as passionately as they possibly can but leave reflections upon one another at the door and respect each other. All 76 of us were elected by the people of our states and territories. We were chosen by fellow Australians to serve in this place, and we need to respect that whilst seeking to persuade—because the other ongoing element of this parliamentary chamber is that nothing is achieved here without persuasion, without working with other parties to achieve a majority to get things done.

Respect and the power of persuasion from your different positions are crucial elements. There's no place for racism, there's no place for vitriol, there's no place for abuse, there's no place for sexism and there's no place for anything that undermines the position of individuals going about their work, be it here or in any other workplace. But here we are meant to set a standard and, in setting that standard, we ought to start with how we conduct debates between one another. We can argue passionately and persuasively but keep it to the issues.

The Family Court of Australia is a proud Labor legacy. It shares that in common with most of the great social reforms that have occurred in Australia, like Medicare, our world-leading superannuation system, the antidiscrimination law framework and the provision of free legal assistance services to Australians in need. These reforms have something else in common, and that is that the Liberal Party never misses an opportunity to attack or undermine them. The Liberals are always looking for ways to undermine Medicare and the principle of universal health care in Australia, even as they pretend to support it. The Liberals are always looking for opportunities to attack superannuation. Look no further than the Morrison government's policy to force Australians to raid their retirement savings, in the middle of a global pandemic, to make ends meet. One doesn't have to look far for examples of the Liberal Party attacking the legal assistance sector or seeking to water down Australia's antidiscrimination laws. The Labor Party is the party of doing. The Liberal Party is the party of wrecking. That brings me to the bills before the Senate today, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019 and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019.

The Family Court was established by the Family Law Act 1975. That act instituted two major and complementary changes: it instituted no-fault divorce and it established the Family Court of Australia, a specialist, multidisciplinary court for the resolution of family disputes. In 1974 the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, which had been tasked with reviewing the family law bill, said that the Family Court would be 'essential to give substance' to key aspects of the Family Law Act, including no-fault divorce. Shortly after the passage of the Family Law Act, the then Labor Attorney-General Kep Enderby wrote:

In public discussion of the Family Law Act, most of the attention has understandably, and quite properly, focused on the ground of divorce and, to a lesser extent, the maintenance provisions. While not underrating the magnitude of the reforms to the divorce and maintenance laws, I feel sure that, in time, the provision for the establishment of Family Courts will come to be seen as a reform of equal importance.

Kep Enderby was right: the Family Court's essential distinguishing feature is that it deals only with family law matters. This bill would rob the Family Court of it essential distinguishing feature by collapsing it into one of Australia's busiest, most poorly resourced and most overburdened courts, the Federal Circuit Court.

The reason why specialisation is so important is that family law matters are not like other matters that generalist courts tend to deal with. The parties to family law matters are not like the parties that generalist courts tend to deal with. As Gough Whitlam said in 1974:

The essence of the Family Courts is that they will be helping courts. Judges will be specially and carefully selected for their suitability for the work of the court. There will be attached to the court a specialist staff, notably marriage counsellors and welfare officers, to assist the parties at any stage—and even independently of any proceedings. These courts will therefore be very different from the courts that presently exercise family law jurisdiction. The Family Court will, of course, determine legal rights, which it is bound to do as a court, but it will do much more than that. Here will be a court, the expressly stated purpose of which is to provide help, encouragement and counselling to parties with marital problems, and to have regard to their human problems, not just their legal rights. Parties will not be driven to the court by their own despair as a last resort; they will be encouraged to come to the welfare and counselling staff of the court whenever they have a matrimonial problem, even if they are not contemplating proceedings of any kind. This help would also be available after divorce proceedings, and this would, as I have already indicated, be of great importance where there were young children.

The Whitlam government's vision of a specialist family court was of a court with interrelated co-located services and resources. It was not just about specialist judges; it was about creating an environment that would have regard to what Whitlam described as the 'human problems' of couples and families, including children, and not just their legal rights. I observe that anyone who has been near a building of the Family Court will have seen that efforts are often made, even in the design of those courts, to ensure that they have an inclusive atmosphere to address the very real emotional issues that family law matters stir up in participants of those proceedings. The realisation of that vision has never been more important, especially for vulnerable children and families who need a family court system that is not only efficient but also safe and sensitive to their needs and vulnerabilities. The bills before the Senate today are fundamentally at odds with the vision of the Whitlam government, and that is because this government's radical proposal to merge the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court is fundamentally at odds with the principle of specialisation. You don't have to take Labor's word for it; just ask the experts.

The experts say that these bills will exacerbate many of the problems in the family law system and address none of them. The very first Chief Justice of the Family Court, Elizabeth Evatt AC, has warned:

Merging the Family Court into a generalist court will undermine the integrity and the structural specialisation of the Family Court. The impact of losing this institutional specialisation is not properly understood, and has been downplayed.

The increasing number of cases in which issues of family violence and child abuse are raised has led to an even greater need today for family law jurisdiction to be vested exclusively in specialised judges who can give their full attention to the needs of family law clients without being diverted to exercise other unrelated jurisdictions. The current bill undermines this principle, is not in the public interest and should not be enacted.

Alastair Nicholson, the second Chief Justice of the Family Court, who served in that position between 1988 and 2004, has expressed disbelief about the government's proposal. It is worth quoting him in full, and I urge those opposite and, indeed, those on the crossbench, to take note of his remarks. Mr Nicholson has said:

It is unbelievable that Government would propose the dissolution of a Federal Superior Court in this fashion without the most careful and searching Public Inquiry and without carrying out significant research and without consulting the many experts in this field.

I am firmly of the view that the passage of the Family Law Act 1975 … and the setting up of the Family Court was some of the most significant social legislation ever to be passed by the Federal Parliament.

What those proposing this merger do not seem to understand is that family law is complex and nuanced, and it is not to be judged by the output by numbers of cases as if the Courts are sausage machines. Throughput is important, but so is the quality of the decisions made.

Cases can be extremely complex and require specialist knowledge of the type that has always been available in the Family Court, which has provided leadership in the proper interpretation and principles to be applied by other courts with family law jurisdiction.

Many involve the determination of important issues relating to children, including their rights and need for protection, not only from individuals, but also from government in its myriad forms. Many also involve problems of family violence and the effects of it upon the parties and their children. Others involve extremely complicated property disputes either alone or combined with the above issues and requiring other important specialist levels of legal knowledge, whilst understanding the important family issues that may be affected by the decision.

The Family Court is a Court that has been envied throughout the common law world and its judgments have often been cited with approval by the courts of many countries including New Zealand, UK, Canada, the USA and others. Its significance as the only specialist Family Court set up as a superior Court of Record and particularly that of its Appeal Division cannot be over emphasised.

It is not just former chief justices who are opposed to this proposal. Over 110 family law experts ranging from the Law Council of Australia to Women's Legal Services, Community Legal Centres, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services, child protection advocates and Disability Services from across Australia have called on the government to abandon this proposal. That is a pretty solid effort to unite that many different groups against a piece of legislation.

The President of the Law Council of Australia, Pauline Wright, has said that the proposed merger would result in the effective abolition of the Family Court of Australia, a respected, specialised and focused court dealing with family law issues. The 2019 merger bills, if passed, would also mean that Australian families and children will have to compete for the resourcing and hearing time with all federal matters—that is, other matters like migration, bankruptcy and those sorts of things that federal circuit courts and the federal courts deal with. There must be an increase, not a decrease, in specialisation in family law and violence issues. This is critical for the safety of children and victims of family violence.

Family law experts have tried to engage constructively with the Morrison government on this bill. They have even offered an alternative proposal to restructure the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court. Under that alternative proposal, which has been described by the New South Wales Bar Association as 'Family Court of Australia 2.0', firstly, a specialist and standalone family court would be retained; secondly, judicial officers who currently hear family law matters in the Federal Circuit Court would be relocated into a second lower division within the Family Court; and, thirdly, the Federal Circuit Court would continue to exist in its current form, except that it would only hear general law matters. Appeals from that court would continue to be heard by the Federal Court. In other words, unlike the government's proposed merger, the alternative proposal would mean increased specialisation in the family law system.

The Family Court of Australia 2.0 model warrants careful consideration. Instead, it has been ignored completely by the Morrison government. Given what is at stake for Australian families, including children and some of the most vulnerable adults in the country, that is nothing short of a disgrace. None of this is to say that our current family law system is perfect, but abolishing the Family Court is the wrong solution. After seven years of neglect under the Liberals, there is no doubt that the family law system is in crisis. For contested family law matters in the Family Court, it is currently taking on average 19.9 months from the date a matter is filed to the date on which the trial even commences. In the Federal Circuit Court, the average is 17.8 months and, even after trials come to an end, Australian families are having to wait many months for judgements to be delivered. These sorts of delays are not mere statistics.

In the Australian Law Reform Commission's landmark 2019 report on the family law system, which the government has so far ignored, the commission referred to a number of concerns associated with the present delays in the Family Court system, including: the potential for children and parents to spend long periods living in limbo while waiting for trial; the safety risks to parties and children arising from delayed resolution of disputes that involve protective concerns, including contributing to homelessness; the scope for delay and uncertainty to exacerbate conflict; and the potential for clients to consent to outcomes that fall short of the security and protection a court order could provide.

Having deprived the family law system of resources for seven years, the Prime Minister and his Attorney-General claim that these bills will fix the mess they have presided over. The Morrison government claims that merging the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court will reduce delays and backlogs by creating a single point of entry for federal family law matters, ensuring the development of common rules of court, forms, practices and procedures. But, like so much else with this government, this justification does not withstand even the slightest degree of scrutiny. The creation of a single point of entry and the development of common rules, forms, practices and procedures across the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court is widely supported, and all of those things can be and are being achieved without these bills. The Attorney-General knows this and the Prime Minister knows this. They do not care.

The Morrison government claims that the proposed merger has been informed by independent reviews and inquiries over a decade. The Attorney-General's Department website lists five reports under the heading 'The evidence base for the reforms'. The only problem with that is that none of the reports listed on the website recommended these radical reforms—none. The evidence base for the reforms, according to the Attorney-General's Department website, is blank. None of those reports even considered these reforms. In fact, the only one of the five reports that recommended restructuring the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court recommended the alternative proposal I referred to earlier—an entirely different model that would have maintained a standalone family law court.

The Attorney-General and the Morrison government ignore all of this. The arrogance of this government is breathtaking. Australian families deserve so much better than this. Labor will oppose this bad law. I move:

Omit all words after "that", insert:

", the bill be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for further consideration, including examination in detail of the alternative 'Family Court 2.0' model proposed by the NSW Bar Association in 2018 and also recommended by the 2008 Future Governance Options for Federal Family Law Courts in Australia Report by Mr Des Semple (the Semple Report) and endorsed by a large number of stakeholders, which would relocate judicial officers hearing family law matters and the family law jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit Court into a second division within the Family Court, with a reporting date of no earlier than 20 May 2022."

I rise to speak against the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019 and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019 and to make absolutely clear that the Greens will be voting against the proposals in these bills. What the Morrison government is trying to do by merging the Family Court with the Federal Circuit Court is outrageous. No-one asked for this merger. No-one wants this merger. This merger is almost universally opposed. Yet here we are with this absolutely brainless plan to abolish the Family Court of Australia.

It was the Whitlam government that had the visionary idea of establishing the Family Court. This was back in the day when we knew what the Labor Party actually stood for. The Family Court was established to protect the people before it, particularly children, families, and survivors of family and domestic violence. The Family Court did this by being a standalone specialist family law court working in a system of collaborative, culturally safe and co-located services. The model that the Family Court operates under is unique and has been held up as a model of best practice internationally. The radical and misconceived changes in these bills would effectively put an end to that.

The government is claiming that this merger will help reduce delays and backlogs in the Family Court, but there is very little evidence to suggest that this will actually happen. The government always trot out their completely discredited PwC report as proof that this merger will be more efficient. That PwC report is nothing more than a six-week desktop review of operational data by two accountants. Yes, the family law system needs fixing, but these bills are not a fix at all.

I know firsthand from my own personal experience that the system needs fixing. I know what it's like to rock up at the Family Court not having childcare facilities and going with your children to fight for them and for your rights and your protection. I know what it's like to stand in a queue, have your name called out over a loudspeaker and feel embarrassed about that. I know what it's like to be put in a little room because a perpetrator is in the building and so is his family. I know what it's like to feel scared. I know what it's like to be a victim of family violence and certainly a survivor of family violence. We do have a lot of work to do in the current system, but getting rid of the current system is not the answer.

We know we need to have more culturally safe support services for women and children. We know that there's not enough funding and resourcing available for good, competent, culturally safe services to get women and girls to safety as well as provide counselling, financial counselling and safe and secure public homes. What the Family Court actually needs is more resourcing, more public money, to employ more judges and to have better support services, particularly for the women and children who are appearing in these courts, many of whom are victims of family and domestic violence. This proposal won't fix the problems in the family law courts which have grown largely out of Labor and Liberal governments' neglecting of the Family Court. Better alternatives have not been considered; otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

What families need and what they look to the parliament to provide is safety, security and as much certainty as possible during the pandemic and beyond. At the core of so many of the issues confronted by the system is a chronic and sustained lack of proper funding and resources for the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court and a mismanagement of resources. This includes a failure to appoint and maintain sufficient and appropriately experienced judges and associated staff and insufficient funding to maintain the counselling and assessment services previously provided by the courts. Failing to strengthen the system has produced unacceptable delays and costs that directly impact on the accessibility and quality of justice. In my own personal situation, I waited two years for any justice and any letters back from the system that was meant to be there to protect me.

Unlike the flawed merger proposal in this bill, the government should have properly considered the much better Family Court 2.0 model, the model that is actually favoured by key stakeholders, the people who actually work this every day. This is what they're saying:

This model proposes a straight-forward "lift and shift" of the Federal Circuit Court's family law jurisdiction and judges into a new lower division within the stand-alone, specialist Family Court.

This would mean that the Family Court judges would be in division 1 of the Family Court of Australia and Federal Circuit Court judges who are hearing family law matters would move across to division 2 of the Family Court of Australia. This model has been in force for many years in the Attorney-General's own state of Western Australia. It was good enough for him when he was the Attorney-General of Western Australia, but somehow it isn't now? Go figure. This Family Court 2.0 model was also recommended by the 2008 Semple report and has been endorsed by key stakeholders—again, people who know their job better than the people in this place—including the Law Council of Australia, Women's Legal Services Australia and former Chief Justice of the Family Court Elizabeth Evatt AC.

Unlike the government's merger proposal, the Family Court 2.0 model would have the significant advantage of promoting safety for children and adults by preserving access to the services of a specialist family court. It is particularly important that we build the safest, strongest, most caring system for the groups of people that are disproportionately impacted in the family law and family violence systems, like Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and children.

The need for increased and culturally safe specialisation of courts to improve decisions and outcomes for families is supported by the evidence of the many inquiries into the family law system. The Family Court 2.0 proposal would instead produce what people clearly expect of their legal system: a single specialist family court to address the needs of families within an integrated system of collaborative, culturally safe and responsive support services. The alarming prevalence of family violence in the system makes specialisation critical to promote safe engagement for survivors with the courts and our justice system from the time a matter is filed, through appropriate triage, active case management and quick resolutions, all while providing excellent, culturally safe wraparound services. A specialist family court must not be destroyed on a mirage that this will fix problems which, in reality, require more resources and holistic reform.

The merger proposals in these bills are nonsense, and you cannot make sense out of nonsense. If the government were serious about fixing the issues in the family law court system, then they would be properly considering the alternative of Family Court 2.0, which is supported and preferred by stakeholders. They would be giving an additional $310 million a year in funding for legal assistance providers as identified by the Law Council—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services, community legal centres, women's legal services—to make up the shortfall of successive cuts.

I will read out a statement that was put out 35 minutes ago by the legal fraternity, which has come together to protest against the merger of the Family Court with the Federal Circuit Court:

More than 155 stakeholders in Australia's family law system have now signed an Open Letter to the Attorney-General opposing the Government's flawed bill to abolish the specialist, stand-alone Family Court.

These signatories represent a range of professions and community organisations who work with Australian families and include 11 retired Family Court and Federal Circuit Court (FCC) judges, in addition to former Chief Justices the Hon Elizabeth Evatt AC and the Hon Alastair Nicholson AO RFD QC.

The merger bill would collapse the Family Court into the generalist, chronically under-resourced and over-burdened FCC. The bill was listed without warning overnight as the first item of Government business on Tuesday, despite not being included on the Government's draft legislative program for the Senate this week.

Stakeholders have called for three years for the merger not to be passed out of concern it would have devastating impacts on families, result in a loss of structural, systemic specialisation and dismantle the appeal division.

My final word is: who are the experts in this space? Why aren't we listening to them? The Australian Greens will not be supporting the bills.

I rise today to speak on the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019 and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019. These bills bring together the Federal Circuit Court and the Family Court into a new court, which will be known as the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. This is a change which has been called for by many parts of the family law sector and which cannot be achieved without legislation. Unlike what previous contributors to this debate have falsely asserted, this change cannot be achieved without this legislation. In just one example of support for this change, the New South Wales Bar Association has stated:

… the experiment of sharing jurisdiction between two federal courts and running family law matters in separate courts with separate rules and procedures has failed.

As a senator for Western Australia, I welcome the government's commitment to this change. The consequential amendments bill will facilitate the transition for court users from the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia to the new FCFC as soon as the provisions commence.

The bills do not abolish the Family Court, as some are falsely claiming. Nor do they reduce the specialisations of the courts. The Family Court will continue to exist as Division 1, and the government has committed to a minimum of 25 Division 1 judges, consistent with the recommendation of the Semple review. The FCFC will be an improved and streamlined process for those who need to access it and will provide the significant benefit of creating a single point of entry into the federal family law courts. This structural reform has the potential to allow for up to 8,000 cases to be resolved each year, and it will significantly reduce the delays currently experienced by families, which, of course, burden families with so much frustration. That's more than 8,000 families each year who will be able to readily access the dispute resolution provided by this court, thanks to the administrative and structural changes that this legislation provides for. So this is a big change for those that need to access justice. This will make an enormous difference to Australian families, and it will be a far more accessible court for Australian families to resolve their matters with as little complexity as possible. It will be simpler, more efficient and more effective.

Most importantly, I should note standing here today that I've been involved in the review undertaken by the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System. In the 18 months or so that I've been here, I've seen the work that this very diligent committee does. It comprises members and senators from all sides of politics, and they have applied themselves to this process. It has been one of the most confronting aspects of my role since coming here, because you hear the stories and you hear about the trauma and the difficulty that so many families have faced in dealing with separation. The vast majority of separations, as difficult and tragic as they are, are dealt with privately and without needing the court system. But for those that do find themselves needing to go through the system, it's an incredibly frustrating, incredibly time-consuming and very, very costly process. These amendments won't solve all of the issues that have been identified. I look forward to the tabling, soon, of the report at the culmination of the work of the committee. The report will outline a whole range of recommendations that will go to improving the system more generally. But this change will go a long way to providing some of the relief that is necessary, particularly around streamlining and ensuring that there are efficient processes for families to avail themselves of.

The Morrison government is committed to ending the unnecessary costs and delays for thousands of Australian families that arise from a split Federal Court system. The structural reforms of the federal Family Court that are outlined in this legislation will ensure that families are able to have their matters dealt with as efficiently as possible. The reforms enabled by these bills will improve user experience for those Australian families that unfortunately need the assistance of the courts to resolve their disputes and will promote improved practices by both courts and legal practitioners.

By way of history, neither the Commonwealth nor the states or territories have exclusive jurisdiction over family law matters. The Australian Constitution gives the Commonwealth the power to make laws with respect to marriage, divorce, matrimonial cases, and in relation to parental rights and the custody and guardianship of infants. The states have referred their state powers to the Commonwealth, with the exception of Western Australia, my home state. This has had the effect of the federal parliament having jurisdiction over marriage, divorce, parenting and family property upon separation, while the state and territory governments have retained jurisdiction over adoption, child welfare and same-sex couples.

Two federal courts currently deal with matters under the Family Law Act: the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. As I said, Western Australia established a state family court, the Family Court of Western Australia, which exercises both federal and state jurisdiction. The structure that exists introduces unnecessary duplication and complication for families. The merging and streamlining of these courts will make a significant contribution to reducing the burden that families face when needing the support of the courts to adjudicate their separation matters. The government does not pretend that these changes, to be enacted by the passage of these bills, will be a silver bullet, nor does it suggest that this will magically fix the issues that are present within the family law system—as I've already said, issues which necessitated, and that we're dealing with through, the family law inquiry. But it is an important step forward.

The structural failings of the current split family law system are widely agreed upon. Continuing to do nothing to fix this problem is not the solution, is not an option. Reform for any longstanding structural problem is challenging; there's no doubt about that. Whether it be laws relating to taxation or family law, big reform is never easy. This is, perhaps, the most sensitive area of all reform. There is no doubt that families dealing with separation experience some of the most traumatic moments of their life. The stress that it imposes upon families and their children, where children are involved, is immense. Having sat on the family law committee, which is looking at the system, we heard a number of testimonies. I recall that we had over 1,500 submissions—it's one of the most subscribed committee submissions processes, as I understand, that this parliament has seen in a long time. And every single one of those cases is, of course, very challenging.

While very streamlined, the proposed reforms are the least radical path to end the unnecessary confusion, additional costs and unnecessary delay that have arisen for thousands of Australian families by virtue of this split system. It's necessary for these bills to pass to help streamline the court system. There are some bigger issues that must be dealt with, but this is just one thing that can be done to alleviate some of the pain and frustration, and, of course, the cost and the delays that are preventing people from ultimately moving on with their lives.

We heard the previous speaker called for more funding, resources and public money. The government has actually been delivering that. The government has funded the establishment of the family advocacy and support services. Since 2016, we've committed over $48.9 billion in funding for the family advocacy and support services. Those services operate in Family Court registries across Australia to offer integrated duty lawyer and social support services to persons affected by family violence who have had cases in the family law courts. This includes, in the 2019-20 budget, the $7.8 million that was committed over three years for dedicated men's support to be engaged in all FASS locations. It is, of course, very critical that everyone, including men, is supported when dealing with the challenge and the stress of separation. I'm an advocate for even more support for men, for women and, of course, for children. For all parties involved, support needs to be there. This government stands proud of providing that support.

As part of the 2018 Women's Economic Security Package, the government provided funding for family law services and initiatives, including funding to 65 family relationship centres across Australia—on an ongoing basis, to help families reach agreement about splitting their property after separation—and to legal aid commissions in each state and territory for a two-year trial of law-assisted mediation for property matters with asset pools up to $500,000, excluding the debt.

As I've stated already in this speech here today, this is by no means a silver bullet. No-one in the government, from the minister down, is calling this the panacea to the challenges that are faced, but it certainly will make a significant difference. It certainly will make a significant difference in streamlining the process for families that need to deal with the multiplicity of challenges and issues in a separation, enabling them to deal with it in a more efficient way; in a less complicated way; importantly, in a more cost-efficient way; and, ultimately, in a way that enables them to process the challenge that they're facing—a very private matter—in relation to their family, their living situations and their children. Being able to do that through a streamlined court process—an amalgamation; a centralisation of that—will go parts of the way and in many respects a long way to helping families deal with it and be able to move forward in their lives without that unnecessary burden of a very complicated system.

I rise to speak on the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019 and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019.

The government should really own up to what they are seeking to do with these bills. They are seeking to abolish the Family Court as a specialist and standalone superior court. The Family Court of Australia was established by the Whitlam government in 1975 to serve as a specialist court to resolve complex legal disputes relating to family law or for families in crisis. The Family Law Act, which established this court, also instituted no-fault divorce. This system is one of Australia's most important pieces of social infrastructure and plays a vital role in resolving the legal aspects of family separations and other disputes and in protecting children and victims of domestic violence. Like most of the great social reforms that have occurred in Australia—from Medicare to our world-leading superannuation system to free legal assistance services for Australians in need—the Family Court of Australia is an institution that has served our nation and its people very well.

The Morrison government is not proposing to reinstitute fault-based divorce. But what it is proposing to do is undo the second of the major changes introduced by the Family Law Act, which was to establish the Family Court of Australia as a specialist superior court. The government's bill would combine the Federal Circuit Court and Family Court into one court with two divisions. That court would be called the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, or FCFC. The current Family Court of Australia will become the FCFC (Division 1), while the current Federal Circuit Court of Australia would become the FCFC (Division 2). Like the courts that they would be replacing, the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 1) would deal exclusively with family law matters, including complex matters, while the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 2) would deal with family law and other federal law matters. The FCFC divisions 1 and 2 would operate under the leadership of a single chief justice and deputy chief justice, with a single set of rules and a single point of entry. The Appeal Division of the Family Court would be abolished. Instead, all Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 1) judges would be able to hear appeals either as a single judge or as part of the Full Court.

Attorney-General Christian Porter has previously expressed an intention to not appoint new judges to the FCFC Division 1 as they retire. That would amount to the gradual abolition of a specialist family court over time and that work being absorbed by the FCFC Division 2. The Attorney-General has now backed away from the position and promised to keep appointing judges to Division 1, but nothing in this bill would guarantee the continuation and existence of Division 1. The Attorney-General made his intentions for this merger very clear in the last parliament. Yet now he's saying, 'Trust me.' Well, I'm sorry, Mr Porter, but, unfortunately, we can't trust you as the Attorney-General of this country.

In my home state of Tasmania, the Morrison government has failed to appoint another judge to hear family law cases. This is causing delays across the whole state, exacerbating the anguish for families who are already going through a difficult time. Now we have the situation where one judge is doing the work of two, and this just isn't acceptable.

The proposal to merge the Family Court with the Federal Circuit Court is not based on any consultation with Australian families or family law experts. It is principally based on a six-week desktop review by two accountants from PwC. Not even this report endorses the government's proposal. As the authors of that report informed the committee inquiry into this legislation, they were not even asked to consider detailed reform opportunities as part of that review.

As I know from my work on the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System, the committee has received over 1,700 submissions, and the overwhelming majority have expressed the harm that is proposed by this merger and the additional hardship and harm that could be and will be afforded to vulnerable children and their families. In the committee's interim report, which was released last year, we found there is no persuasive evidence that these bills and the proposed merger would address any of the many problems plaguing the family law system. Since 1995, there have been 11 investigations carried out into the family law system—11 reports obviously still gathering dust in the minister's office. These inquiries have returned recommendations with similar themes regarding the need for improved resourcing, the need to reduce the time it takes to resolve disputes and the importance of having a specialist jurisdiction to deal with family law matters and family violence.

Further, in late 2018, the Australian Law Reform Commission completed the most comprehensive review of Australia's family law system that has ever been conducted. The Australian Law Reform Commission did not recommend the proposed merger of the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court, but it did make 60 recommendations for improvements to the family law system. I wonder how many of those 60 recommendations have actually been implemented. I would suggest—in fact, I know—zero, none of them. The government has yet to respond to, let alone implement, the Australian Law Reform Commission's recommendations. In direct opposition to these recommendations, the coalition is pushing for the merger of the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court. Overwhelmingly, the advice states that a loss of the specialist Family Court would increase the risk of harm to children and victims of domestic violence. Witness after witness—experts and former Family Court judges—has given that evidence to the inquiry.

We need to question the Morrison government's emphasis on increasing efficiencies as well as their claim that their proposed court merger will achieve this. Reform should strengthen the system and not be there to undermine the quality of services being provided to families in crises. If anything, the need for a specialist court has only become more pronounced over time. What has become increasingly obvious is that the key issues associated with the family law system are: cost, delays, the adversarial nature of family courts, how family violence is considered, the role of independent children's lawyers and the overall appropriateness of the legal framework.

There is a need for an increase in specialisation in family law and family violence to facilitate an increase in safety, especially for those who are disproportionately impacted. This is supported by the evidence on many government commission inquiries. The process should be streamlined so that there is a single point of contact for families, but this shouldn't be at the loss of a specialist court. That's not the way to do it. There are many benefits associated with having a specialist court system, which is widely regarded as delivering better results for families having to use it. The benefits include higher quality decisions and legal consistency and efficiencies. The specialisation enables members of this court to be appropriately qualified and trained to do better and to understand the nature of and the features and dynamics associated with family law and family violence. This acknowledges and allows those individuals to be better assisted and to not become even more damaged victims of the system itself. Since 2012, the number of Family Court cases has grown by 34 per cent, and Federal Circuit Court cases have increased by 63 per cent.

There is a real concern that the proposed merger will compound current issues associated with a lack of funding. We need to question the emphasis of this move increasing efficiencies, where, realistically, it will be taking funding out of an already chronically underfunded system. Instead, we need to focus on the reforms that can be better delivered safely for children and adult victims of family violence. The proposed merger fails to address the systematic issues entrenched within this system. Everyone accepts that there are serious problems in the Family Court presently. The main cause of those problems is not a mystery. As the Australian Law Reform Commission found, the family law system has been deprived of resources to such an extent that it cannot deliver the quality of justice expected in a country like Australia. Other countries once looked to and tried to emulate Australia's system. Family Court and Federal Circuit Court judges have not been replaced in a timely manner. Funding has not increased in response to increasing demand. Review after review—including many dozens of sensible, measured recommendations—have been ignored. But, instead of working to fix the family law system, the government remains determined to restructure the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court in a way that will make a bad situation worse for Australian families, including vulnerable children.

Australia has developed a world-leading family law system. However, chronic underresourcing by successive Liberal governments has resulted in long delays and increasing costs for families in crisis. This has resulted in harm for those who are already some of the most vulnerable members of our community. The government have a wealth of recommendations and resources to enact meaningful change and prevent victims from falling through the cracks. Why won't they?

These bills will do nothing to help Australian families, and the fact that the government are trying to rush through this legislation before the family law committee releases its final report is very telling. They know that the report will not recommend a merger of the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court, but they want this legislation to go through regardless.

There's nothing in these bills that will increase the number of judges, registrars and other court staff. There is nothing in these bills that will force the Attorney-General to do his job, even something as basic as appointing new judges as vacancies are created. The former speaker spoke about his work on the committee. I agree that all members of that joint committee have been working diligently and taking evidence, but you cannot have sat through any of those public hearings and not felt deep sadness for what is happening in this country when families go through a breakdown of their relationship. The impacts on those families, and particularly those children, are just devastating. You cannot put a price on the cost to their mental health. So these continual delays are doing more and more harm to those children who have already been greatly affected by separations of their parents.

Therefore rushing these bills through without waiting until that final report has been handed down—they've had plenty of evidence from the interim report already—is irresponsible. There are 11 reports and 60 recommendations all gathering dust at the Australian Law Reform Commission, and not one of them has been acted upon.

I rise in support of the government's legislation, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019 and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019, which will merge the Family Court into the Federal Circuit Court to create what will be known as the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. In doing so, I think it is worthwhile going back through the history of this legislation. When this legislation was first introduced in to the last parliament, it was actually a proposition that involved the abolishing of the Family Court. It involved putting family law responsibilities within the Federal Circuit Court, and appeals from matters in the Federal Circuit Court would go to the Federal Court, where, indeed, there were no specialist judges in family law. It also had some other characteristics, such as a passing of responsibility for the making of rules to the Chief Justice.

In late 2018 there was a Senate inquiry examining that legislation. That Senate inquiry travelled across five days to Perth, Adelaide, Sydney, Brisbane and Townsville, examining those changes. I'll provide a little bit of background history. That was close to Christmas. I spent some of my pre-Christmas period sitting in my office writing a scathing draft dissenting report, which was going to go into the committee report. Out of courtesy I sent it to the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General considered it and actually came back to the parliament with a substantially altered bill. This bill actually almost gained the support of the parliament. I seem to recall Senator Hinch being the last person on the crossbench to resist the bill; otherwise support was there for the government to pass the bill.

So I think it is very important when we listen to contributions, and I have listened to the contributions made by Labor senators, that we are not talking about the bill that came to the 45th Parliament; we are talking about a substantially modified bill. When Labor senators stand and say that this bill involves abolishing a superior court, it does not. The provisions of this bill are very clear: it retains a superior court of family law justices, specialist justices. It also retains a specialist appeals division. So to stand up and suggest that this bill in any way is abolishing or breaking up a superior court is just simply wrong; that is not what the provisions say.

I will now come back to some other things that have been said that are, in my view, misleading or ill-informed. Let's talk about what this bill does do. Currently, we have a situation where family law matters are dealt with in two jurisdictions. One of them is a specialist division of the Federal Circuit Court; it is the family law section of the Federal Circuit Court. That generally deals with relatively simple matters. I am not suggesting anything about family law is simple but, in the spectrum, the more simpler matters are dealt with by the Federal Circuit Court in its family law division. The more complex cases are sent to the Family Court, where superior court justices deal with the matter. And appeals from both of those original jurisdiction courts do go to the appeals division of the Family Court. That is the way it currently exists. So just to make it simple, there are three jurisdictions: the FCC jurisdiction, the Family Court original jurisdiction and an appeals body.

What this bill does is simply take those three jurisdictions and puts them under a common roof. So there will remain a Federal Circuit Court that has a specialist family law division and has requirements for the types of judges that are appointed to that division. They must still have experience and be appropriate appointments by way of their background knowledge. The current bill also has a superior court Division 1, which is effectively the transfer of the Family Court into the new court. They are all the same justices, and there will be an appeals division of family law justices, superior court justices, who will hear matters on appeal.

There is a subtle difference in that right now in the Family Court there are specified appeal justices, people who sit only on appeals matters. That will now change under the new arrangements. The new arrangements will have appeals from either Division 1—the superior court division—or from Division 2, which is the old FCC family law division. They will go to a bench that is drawn from justices in Division 1. So no longer would justices get to sit only on the appeals bench; they would have to come down and do original jurisdictional matters, but any justice may find themselves now on appeals. You know what? That's exactly how the Federal Court works. So in some sense it harmonises the way in which appeals are dealt with across the two federal superior courts. We need to recognise that that is what this bill is doing.

It also permits common entry points so that, when you have a family law matter, you can simply make application to the one court and then, based on the arguments that might be presented by people who are represented or by lawyers representing people, or indeed, if people are self-represented litigants, based on the nature of the application and the data associated with that application, and, again, depending on complexity, that will either go to Division 2, which is the judges of a court of record, or, alternatively, be referred to Division 1, which is the superior court. So we'll have a streamlined entry port. Now, there are those who are saying, 'That's happening anyway.' And that is true; that is happening. But, at the moment, if I wish to lodge a matter in the Family Court, I can do that. Even though the court might suggest I should do it in the FCC, the Federal Circuit Court, I have a lawful right to make an application to the Family Court. This bill changes that so everyone is funnelled through the same system. That creates some efficiencies.

There are also rule changes to harmonise the rules between what was the Federal Circuit Court and what was the Family Court. Having been involved in matters in both of those courts, I can tell you that there are two volumes to the Family Law Rules and there is a different set of rules in the Federal Circuit Court, so if someone is a self-represented litigant, they have to switch to a different context as they go from court to court. The arrangements will now be harmonised; there will be a single set of rules. The original bill sought to grant the power to the Chief Justice to change those rules unilaterally. That has now changed. So that the new common rules can be established, I understand the government will move amendments that restrict the time period in which the Chief Justice can make the rules to only the transition period; changing the rules will then go back to the manner in which the courts do so presently.

In respect of this bill, there is a necessity in relation to both harmonising the rules of the court and also streamlining through a single point of entry. So that's what the bill does, and I am in support of the efficiencies that flow from that because we do need to have a court system that removes some of the inefficiencies that are there at present. I will go to some of the claims that have been made in the contributions thus far. Senate Watt stood up and said that we're now seeing matters shared—that immigration matters and family law matters will be mixed. That's simply not the case. Right now there are two divisions of the Federal Circuit Court: the family law division and the general division. That's exactly what is there now, and this bill does nothing at all to change that. It's status quo in that regard.

Other contributions have suggested that this is the erosion of specialisation. No. The same judges that are in the Family Court right now will sit in the new court. The same judges that are conducting appeals will sit in the court. They are specialist judges. Indeed, the legislation, if people bother to read it, does state a requirement in respect of the expertise that must be present before someone is appointed to those courts. But, even further—and I understand amendments to this effect will be circulated shortly—the government has agreed to put in the primary legislation a minimum number of Division 1 justices. Understand that the Attorney-General right now, or a future Attorney-General, if he or she were to choose to do so, could simply not appoint judges to that court, and eventually it would disappear. The changes we'll see today by way of an amendment that I understand the government will circulate will introduce a minimum number of Division 1 justices, which means only the parliament can rid us of that specialist knowledge. That's a strong commitment and, in fact, a strong change where we're actually doing the reverse of what is being suggested, which is the erosion of the specialist court, and embedding it in law so only the parliament can ever change that. That's another aspect of this bill. So, when people talk about an erosion of specialisation, actually this strengthens that. It ensures that we never lose a core of superior court justices dealing with family law unless the parliament permits it, going out into the future.

I just ask people when they're listening to the debate to focus on the provisions of the bill, to focus on what the bill is trying to do, which is to streamline matters as they pass through the court to make sure that we have common rules but also to make sure that we have the right and appropriate levels of skills of judges and justices dealing with these matters. There are still specialist justices. There are still appeals to specialist justices. That does not change as a result of this bill. This bill is about making efficiencies.

I'll concede that I think more resources are required. I am hoping the government will, over time, expand the resources, because that's absolutely necessary. But this is a change that seeks to gather efficiencies, and it is for that reason that I am supporting it.

Senator Patrick says that Labor senators have been misrepresenting this bill and have no understanding of the detail of the bill. I would just say to him that I am currently the Deputy Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which was tasked with reviewing these particular bills and I think therefore is able to deal with the evidence that's presented to this committee in regard to these specific measures.

I might say that, if you think the Labor Party is having trouble understanding these bills, you'll find that just about every legal organisation in the country is supporting the contentions that are being put forward by the Labor senators about the actual intent of this bill. Given the history of this legislation, it's not surprising that people would be so suspicious and so doubtful of the minister's alleged conversion to the need for a specialist court system for family law. It's not surprising, just given the maladministration of family law in this country under this Attorney-General, that people would be concerned that the minister has to now come forward with amendments to actually specify that there will be judges of a particular type in this court. Why wasn't that in the original bill if the government was so committed to it? It's one measure after another, one backstop after another, one backflip after another by this government in regard to this legislation. Remember the original intention of the government was not to appoint judges to this category of jurisprudence, to let it wither on the vine. That was the whole point of this political exercise. But, Senator Patrick, you've had this conversion on the road to Damascus, and you'll be able to persuade the minister because of your brilliantly worded minority report! And he's suddenly found that there is the need for change to his bill. You should be congratulated, but if you think that's actually how this government functions—you've been here long enough to know that's simply not true.

Now, simple facts here on the current arrangements: as of 21 January this year, there is one Federal Circuit Court judge in Brisbane who has over 600 cases on their docket; there are 18 judges across the country with between 400 and 500 cases, and that's including in Adelaide, in Sydney and in Rockhampton; and, on 21 January this year, the average number of cases across all of Federal Circuit Court judges was 330. That's an average of 330 cases per judge. These are the people you think we should be trusting, we should be relying upon, in terms of the administration of family law in this country? We should just take their suddenly discovered conviction that they are going to be committed to the proper administration of family law in this country given the gross underfunding of family law in this country?

Now, the government senators on this inquiry—and we know the job of the government senators in these types of inquiries is, of course, to find the defence of the government no matter how indefensible the government's position is. We all understand the nature of their task. The senators themselves indicated on pages 33 and 34 of their report that there were weaknesses in the government's approach and there had to be amendments to it. Now, we had the support of over 110 organisations at the time that we actually produced the minority report. Just today, there are many more organisations on top of that calling for this bill to be rejected because there are fundamental flaws in the approach that's been taken by the government in terms of this legislation.

We've got a problem here where the government simply has been negligent and negligent for some time when it comes to family law, so it does actually pay for us to go back to talk about the fundamental principles here. I think one of the great achievements in terms of the family law goes back to with the Whitlam period. Two great major and complementary changes from the Family Law Act 1975 were the institution of the no-fault divorce principle and, of course, the establishment of a specialist family law court in this country. That was a multidisciplinary court for the resolution of family disputes.

I think it is generally understood that family law matters are one of the most stressful points in people's lives. They do require us to pay particular attention to just how serious these questions are. With delays in the processing of family law cases at the moment, with many months taken just to get a consultant organised, let alone to get a judgement, you can understand just how deeply distressing the consequences of the maladministration in this area are for people directly concerned. But it's nowhere as bad as it was when the original divorce meetings were on prior to the Family Law Act in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1959, which set out that there were 14 grounds for divorce, I remind senators who might be looking at these issues. Those grounds included adultery, desertion, habitual drunkenness, imprisonment and insanity. To get a divorce, a spouse had to prove that the other party was, of course, at fault.

Private investigators did extremely well out of the divorce law as it existed prior to Family Law Act. Australian men and especially Australian women did not. So it helps to remind ourselves of what Whitlam actually said back in 1975. He said:

Let us keep in mind that marriage is essentially a human relationship between 2 people. It takes 2 people to make a marriage but it takes only one to break it. Idealists might wish that it were otherwise, but it is not. It is time society acknowledged that simple fact. We have no right to condemn 2 people to live together in misery and suffering for a moment longer than necessary. Ultimately the only test of a marriage is whether both parties agree to maintain it. If one party is unwilling to maintain it the marriage has broken down.

So, since the commencement of the Family Law Act in January 1976, the only grounds needed for divorce, appropriately, are irretrievable breakdown. That's why the supporting jurisprudence around that issue was so important. Spouses no longer have to go through the pain and the expense and the humiliation of trying to prove that the other person was at fault. I presume the government's not planning to go back there, but you never know with a government like this; I presume that's not the case. What we ought to have, though, is an understanding that the government will ensure that the Family Law Act is administered properly and that the government lives up to what its stated position is, about efficiency.

One would expect that, if the government's going to introduce substantive changes, as contained in a bill like this, there is sound evidence to support the claims that are being made by the government. I think anyone that does actually look at the evidence, to quote Senator Patrick, should be prepared to be disappointed. Evidence was the basis on which I looked at the inquiry. As you know, I go into these inquiries with an open mind, but guess what. There was no evidence to support this bill—a lot of hollow rhetoric but no evidence.

The Attorney-General's Department's website listed five reports under the heading 'The evidence base to support the reforms'. When we looked at those reports, what did we find? None of the reports had even considered these changes, and only one of the five reports recommended structural changes to the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court at all, and they had proposed an entirely different model. So there have been, what, 70 reviews now of the family law system since 1974—70 reviews—and not a single one has recommended that the Family Court be structured in the way that the government is proposing in this bill. I think supporters of the bill are simply ignoring that fact.

The Attorney-General specifically tries to cite as a basis for the findings a six-week desktop review—and other Labor senators referred to that; Madam Deputy Chair Polley, you did refer to that—by two accountants. Now, I know accountants are brilliant, but they're not specialists in this field. From my direct experience recently in Victoria, they're the last people you turn to if you want expert advice. Making a radical change to the Family Court system, probably the most radical in the 40 years it's existed, on the basis of a desktop review by two accountants strikes me as a little short-sighted and subject to argument, and it is easily discredited. I know PwC does very well out of this government—one of the great beneficiaries of this government—and it can put forward a whole series of heroic assumptions and it can suggest that there are enormous levels of complexity in these matters, but the review is simply a series of patently ridiculous assertions that don't match the facts in terms of the way in which people actually live and their lived experience of the way in which family law is actually administered in this country.

This will undermine the specialist nature of family law in this country. Over time, there is just no doubt in my mind that that's exactly what will happen. What the government's claimed, without evidence, is that the merging of the two courts will help reduce delays and backlogs. I'm sure everyone will say, 'We need a single point of entry on family law, and of course we need common rules and forms and practices and procedures, and of course we need to enhance the way in which judicial appointments are made.' But the reality is very simply that it is very different in practice, given what I've already said about the backlogs that exist at the moment and the workloads that individual judges have to deal with at this point.

The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee heard from no lesser an authority than the Chief Justice of the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court, simply, that these things can all be done without legislative change. We also heard from many other former chief justices of the Family Court—Elizabeth Evatt and Alastair Nicholson—who all said that this was unnecessary and inappropriate. In fact, Mr Nicholson said:

It is unbelievable that Government would propose the dissolution of a Federal Superior Court in this fashion without the most careful and searching Public Inquiry and without carrying out significant research and without consulting the many experts in this field.

I take some issue with Mr Nicholson. You can't simply say things like that about this government, because it is quite believable. They do do things like that. It is disgraceful, unconscionable and irresponsible. It's very believable, because this is a government that acts without evidence and without listening. That's what the legal fraternity across this country are telling us. We should pay attention to them.

We're debating the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019 and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019. Over the past year it has been an immense privilege to be the role of Deputy Chair of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System. The work of the committee has revealed what many of us know—that the proceedings, structure and systems of the Family Court profoundly impact more Australians than any other part of our legal system and too often that impact has devastating effects.

I first brought up many of these issues and problems in and around the Family Court back in 1996. I have never wavered in my belief that the Family Court requires a far-reaching and thorough overhaul if it is to properly serve the millions of Australians who come under its influence. These bills and the changes recommended are close to my heart. I speak with the benefit of firsthand knowledge. I have personally experienced and survived the Family Court first as a wife, then as a mother and later as a grandmother. Yes, I have experienced domestic violence. I have described the scope of these impacts previously in this place and I can think of no better way to focus our minds on the human motivation for this legislation than to quote my words from Hansard. I said:

The family law system has been, and continues to be, plagued by deep emotions, sadness, financial hardship and bankruptcies, long-term psychological damage, abuse, stress, suicides and, in some cases, murder—

including the murder of children by both male and female parents and extended family members—

Unfortunately, there are those in the community who thrive on the pain of those going through separation and the courts, lawyers who charge exorbitant fees to the point of bankrupting clients, feminists who relish the toxic anti-men rhetoric and jaded partners who will stop at nothing to use their separation and the court system to crush their rivals, including unfounded claims of domestic violence. Unfortunately, they are also harming their children in the process.

…   …   …

Put simply, we need to revamp the system to make it better for everyone involved. The Family Court is in an unusual position of being a rigged, formalised judicial body that is tasked with overseeing challenges that are human, all unique, emotional and characterised by vulnerability. As I've said previously, a one-size-fits-all approach in this arena will always fail.

Participation in the Family Court system, whether willingly or when a person is dragged in and compelled to defend allegations, has taken an all too often terrible toll on potentially millions of people in this country.

This bill is the product of a series of reviews that began with the Semple review in 2008. The Semple review produced a report titled Future governance options for federal family law courts in Australia: striking the right balance. This report found:

… there exists a significant level of duplication of administrative structures and corporate services across the Family Court and the FMC.

The report found that the structure and costs were not financially sustainable. It also found the structure took up a resource that could have been used more effectively to assist people appearing before the court.

The 2012 Skehill review looked at a number of options for action designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of court administration. The 2014 KPMG review found the current funding model for the courts was not sustainable and that simply throwing money at the problem was not a solution. In 2018 there was yet another review: PwC looked at the operations of the courts in relation to family law matters. That brings us to 2019, when the Australian Law Reform Commission review, commissioned by then Attorney-General Brandis, handed down its report. If, following report after report and review after review, you didn't already think there was reason enough to be here today, just listen to the commission's report, which said:

… the family law system has been deprived of resources to such an extent that it cannot deliver the quality of justice expected of a country like Australia …

The report went on to say:

There is a chronic lack of funding for the appointment and proper training of judicial resources … court-based social services professionals (including Family Consultants and Indigenous Liaison Officers), and legal aid services (including Independent Children’s Lawyers). As a consequence, children and families are deprived of sufficient time and attention being given to their matter at all stages of the process, with the obvious risks that this entails.

A decade of reports and reviews confirmed time after time that the system, the structure and the funding of the courts in this most critical of areas were all wrong. They proved that tinkering at the edges left a trail of devastated families in its wake.

At the time of its interim report last October, the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System, on which I serve as deputy chair, had received more than 1,500 individual submissions as well as 169 submissions from organisations, academics and other professionals. All of this brings us today to the bill before us.

We are told by the Attorney-General that the structural reforms contained within the bill will help Australian families to resolve their disputes faster, provide appropriate protection for vulnerable people and ensure suitably qualified and experienced professionals are available to support families in need. I also note that the proposed structural reform of the federal courts is intended to:

We are also told that the long overdue structural reform has the potential to allow an extra 8,000 cases to be resolved each year. That's 8,000 cases—just last year we had 45,000 cases come before the Federal Circuit Court. It will resolve an extra 8,000 a year, which, no doubt, will reduce the significant frustration felt by so many families. There has been criticism of the bill from some legal quarters. That does not surprise me. I believe it's fair to say that being appointed a judge of the Family Court of Australia has, until now, been regarded as a golden ticket within the legal profession. Any alteration to the current system will probably upset the long-term retirement and pension plans of some in the profession. I don't doubt that's where a lot of the squealing and resistance is coming from.

This legislation will provide a single pathway for Australian families to have their family law disputes dealt with within the federal courts. Our first priority is the people of this nation that are not only going through the hurt and pain of a separation from their loved ones, their families and their children but also have to face our family law courts. They are our main priority. If we could address this system, clean it up and make it easier for them, that is our job. I'm not interested in what the law fraternity want or their comments. It's all about the people in Australia. Under this reform, there will be a single set of rules, procedures, case management and practices. But, as the law currently exists, these changes cannot occur without a majority of judges in each court agreeing to respective rules. That's why these bills have been drawn up; they can't come to any decision because it may affect them personally. That's why we have to make the decisions on behalf of the people of this nation.

I've explained to a lot of people in this chamber that I've gone through the family law courts as a wife, as a mother and as a grandmother, and I've seen my children go through pain and anger during the process that they've had to go through. How many in this chamber have actually experienced that? How many have actually experienced domestic violence? Those are questions that we need to ask. People need to know, because some sit here in judgement of people when you've never worn their shoes. People tell me this all the time. They pull me up and say: "Please do something. I can't see my children. The system has made me wait this long." They can't get to see their kids or they see them under supervision. People feel pain and anger. There are suicides, murders, the murders of children, filicide.

I constantly talk about the fathers out there, because in many cases they are the forgotten ones. That shouldn't be the case. We talk about filicide, which I've raised in this chamber. The stats show that filicide is committed by women more than men. Filicide is the murder of your children. But, no, don't discuss that. These facts need to be made public, because I will not have any man wrongly accused, pointed at or downtrodden by feminist organisations or people with their own agenda. It's not about the sex of the person; it comes down to the children. It's about the marriage break-ups and what's happening. We have to address all this as a whole so that we can find the answers to it. This action takes it out of the hands of judges, who have been appointed for life, and puts it in the hands of the people through their elected representatives, us. In other words, it takes it out of the hands of those who have a vested interest in maintaining the system and retaining extraordinarily well-paid jobs for life, and puts it in the hands of politicians who remain directly answerable to the electorate.

This restructuring, we are told by the Attorney-General, will not lead to a diminishing of specialisation. In fact, in the federal circuit courts we have about 63 judges, and 50 of those judges are specialised. They have an average of 25 years experience in family law, and a lot of the Federal Circuit Court judges go on to become family law court judges. They hear an extraordinary number of cases each year; not only family law cases, but migration cases, civil matters and other matters as well. In the family law court, they don't have the same workload as do the others in the Federal Circuit Court. If you want a decision in the family law courts, you're waiting over 26 months. In the Federal Circuit Court, the average is 23 months for a decision to be handed down. No wonder there are so many suicides, so much depression and so many problems. And it's not only the parents who're going through it but the children who are going through it as well, because they don't have contact with their parents. They're denied that right.

I've got to say that it was One Nation that brought to the government's attention over three years ago the Lighthouse Project, which has now been installed in the court system. This is working to help with domestic violence. It was One Nation that actually brought that in, because I could see the potential and that it was a wonderful thing. It's being utilised now, and I'm pleased to see that.

I will be proposing many other changes to the committee that I'm deputy chair of, but this needs to happen. We need to merge the two courts. The restructuring has to happen. I can't accept that this restructure will in any way diminish the experience or the expertise of judges involved going forward. The restructuring proposal in the bill is long overdue. Its intended relief for families before the court is urgently required. I have maintained my efforts to reform the Family Court for over 20 years, and I am genuinely happy to strongly commend and congratulate the Attorney-General for presenting this bill in its current form. It represents a significant step forward, and I confirm that One Nation will be supporting the bill.

Firstly, I'd like to say that I take it as given that every single person in this chamber simply wants to do their best to make sure that Australian families going through family law issues get the best outcomes for themselves and for their families. Secondly, I want to say that I deeply respect the legal practitioners who have raised concerns with respect to this bill and I've considered those concerns. However, upon reviewing the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019, I cannot help but come to the conclusion that this is a necessary reform. I say that for six fundamental reasons.

Firstly, at the moment, family law matters are being dealt with by two courts: the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court. That's the reality now. Those listening outside of this place to this debate, if they are listening to some of the contributions being made, would think that we have a system where all family law matters are being dealt with in the Family Court. They simply aren't. Nearly 90 per cent of matters dealing with family law are being dealt with in the Federal Circuit Court—not the Family Court, the Federal Circuit Court. That's a fact today. One of the fundamental aspects of the reform which is contained in this bill is to provide a single entry point, when claims are made or proceedings initiated with respect to family law matters, and that's important.

Secondly, it will provide a single set of rules. I cannot understand why we cannot have a single set of court rules dealing with family law matters. At the moment, we have the Federal Circuit Court Rules. Then we have the Family Law Rules. Why can't we have one single set of rules, on the basis that this will promote efficiency and decrease cost? It's common sense.

Thirdly, specialist family law skills will be maintained. They are maintained under this bill. That is not put in jeopardy by this legislation at all.

Fourthly, all of the services which are currently provided in the context of family law matters by the Family Court will continue to be provided and, in fact, are already provided in the Federal Circuit Court when it's dealing with family law matters.

Fifthly, there will be a more efficient appeal system. As Senator Patrick commented, I cannot see why, in the family law jurisdiction, judges who are hearing appeals cannot also hear matters at first instance. That occurs in the Federal Court. I see absolutely no reason why it should not happen in all family law matters. That reform will be brought about by this legislation.

My sixth reason is a really fundamental point in this legislation, and it deals with the legal profession. The bill will create a new obligation imposing a duty on parties to act consistently with the overarching purpose of facilitating:

… the just resolution of disputes according to law, and as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible …

I want to read that again:

… facilitate the just resolution of disputes according to law, and as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible …

I was listening very carefully to Senator Watt's contribution to this debate, as I always do. I couldn't help but notice that, when he referred to the terms 'efficiency' and 'throughput', he did so with a measure of disdain, as though we shouldn't be totally concerned with throughput and efficiency. We need to be absolutely concerned with throughput and efficiency. We need family law matters to be dealt with as efficiently and as quickly as possible so that the families and family members can get on with their lives and not spend years in the system, chewing up family assets and going through a process to try to get resolution. The current system is simply not working for hundreds of thousands of Australians.

Two important amendments were made to the legislation in relation to specialisation and the formulation of court rules. Senator Patrick touched upon these two important amendments. I wholeheartedly support these amendments, and I congratulate the members in this place who made representations seeking those amendments. Firstly, there will be a minimum of 25 Division 1 judges. That's the division which constitutes a continuation of the Family Court. It will have to continue to have a minimum of 25 judges. It's not in the regulation; it's in the legislation. That's important. I support that amendment 100 per cent. Secondly, there will be a period of only 18 months, on a transition basis, for the Chief Justice to develop one set of court rules. Then, after that 18-month period, the position will revert to the usual situation with respect to input and decision-making across the judiciary. Again, that is as it should be. I support that amendment. I can see absolutely no reason why those opposite would oppose a situation where there is a merger of the Family Court with the Federal Circuit Court, which deals with nearly 90 per cent of family law matters. Then, on a transitional basis, the Chief Justice has an opportunity to develop one set of court rules to apply to the merged entity. To me, it's absolute common sense. I can't see the downside in terms of this reform. I've truly looked for it, but I find it extraordinarily difficult to find any downside whatsoever. I can find a downside if I go back to 2010, which those opposite, the Labor Party, proposed. I know that my friend Senator Watt wasn't in this place in 2010, but there are those opposite who were. That was an abolition of the Federal Circuit Court—an abolition of a court rather than a merger of two courts. Of course, that was a failed reform which got no currency, no traction and was not proceeded with. Those opposite should reflect quite carefully on the history of these matters before they attack this reform.

The second point I would like to make in relation to Senator Watt's contribution is that, as I stated, he talks about throughput with almost disdain: 'We don't need to consider the throughput of our court system.' The efficient delivery of justice to Australians seeking orders that can be legally enforced to allow their families to move ahead in their lives is absolutely crucial, and that is not occurring at the moment. We need to do something to correct the efficiency of the system. As I stated, the Family Court is not the only court that deals with family law matters; nearly 90 per cent of family law matters are dealt with in the Federal Circuit Court. This is not a case where we have only judges in the Family Court dealing with family law matters. It's been mentioned by previous speakers that close to 50 judges on the Federal Circuit Court have over 25 years experience in family law matters.

Order! Senator Scarr, you will be in continuation. We'll move to questions without notice.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Ann is an aged-care nurse who has been in her profession since 1978. She has said:

The proposed legislation doesn't make things better for us and our residents. It makes it so much worse. And to be honest, I don't think I can handle any more cuts.

Can the minister guarantee Mr Morrison's industrial changes won't see workers paid less?

I thank the senator for his question. I can absolutely guarantee that the industrial relations reforms our government proposes—alongside, indeed, all of the measures our government is proposing—are about ensuring that Australians have access to more jobs, have access to more job opportunities and are able to work in an economy that is growing faster and more strongly. In creating those jobs, we are putting pressure on wages over time to drive wages growth too. Indeed, what we want for Ann or for any employee across Australia is for them to have more opportunity overall. So our determination through this passage, having spent many hours engaging with the union movement and engaging with employer organisations, is to try to find efficiencies within the operation of the industrial relations system such that there can be far greater confidence for employers to grow their businesses, to hire more people and to create more opportunities. That is precisely what we have been driving at as a government.

As we've worked through the period of the pandemic, we've been able to say that, according to the Reserve Bank, some 700,000 jobs have been saved as a result of some of the direct policy actions of the government. We've been able to bring back more than 90 per cent of those employees who found that their hours went to zero or lost their jobs during the depths of the pandemic. We have been able to see around 800,000 jobs recreated, jobs growth over recent time and, pleasingly, very significant jobs growth among women. One of our greatest achievements prior to the pandemic was to see women's workforce participation reaching record levels, and it's fantastic to see it driving back to that point yet again. (Time expired)

Senator Ciccone, a supplementary question?

Karin has been a registered nurse for 12 years. She says that losing her penalty rates under the coalition's industrial relations changes will:

… have an impact on my income and that of all my colleagues. This will mean a drop in our standard of living and spending power.

Why does the coalition government want to inflict pay cuts on our nurses in the middle of a pandemic?

It's just not the case that there is any intention for those sorts of outcomes from the legislation that is before this parliament and upon which a committee will report in a few weeks time. This chamber will have its opportunity at that stage to debate and to pursue. But our intention is fully that there will be more jobs and more job opportunities, and, from that, better security for Australians into the future. We want to make sure that, through this, there are the maximum incentives for new jobs to be created for Australians—on greenfield sites, for example, where there have long been concerns about the operation of the system. What's distressing is that those opposite have decided to check themselves out of the debate completely in favour of a scare campaign. They've said, 'We're voting against this bill holus-bolus, even the parts that the trade union movement have argued for.' They're not even going to vote for tougher penalties on wage theft. It's remarkable to think that that is the case. (Time expired)

Senator Ciccone, a final supplementary question?

Aged-care nurse Belinda has pleaded, 'It is already so hard for us; please do not make things harder.' Why are Mr Morrison and his government ignoring the please of workers like Belinda, and instead choosing to supress wage growth and exacerbating insecure working conditions in the middle of a global pandemic?

A better question would be: Why are Senator Ciccone and the Labor Party so intent on trying to scare people with falsehoods, lies and mistruths? Why is it that those opposite have checked themselves out of any sort of rational policy debate and instead just want to try to run another scare campaign? On this side of parliament, we are about trying to get things done that create more jobs, and our government has succeeded.

Senator Watt interjecting—

Senator Watt!

Through our first six years, Senator Watt, we created 1½ million more jobs for Australians.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! I doubt anyone in the chamber can hear me with my open microphone, there was so much noise. I'm going to ask for some restraint.

Senator Farrell interjecting—

I couldn't hear him either, Senator Farrell, there were too many interjections.

I'm pleased Senator Farrell could hear me, because I was talking about the more than 1½ million additional jobs created through the first six years of our term in government, with workforce participation hitting record levels and women's workforce participation hitting record levels. We want to make sure that we get back to that point post-pandemic, and the only thing in our way is you lot. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care services, Senator Colbeck. Can the minister inform the Senate of the government's plans to roll out the COVID-19 vaccine into aged-care facilities across the country?

Thanks, Senator Van, for the question. It's an important one, especially given the Prime Minister and the health minister have advised of the TGA's provisional regulatory approval of the AstraZeneca vaccine, which, of course, is central to our vaccine strategy.

Rolling out the COVID-19 vaccine to our frontline healthcare and quarantine workers and our most vulnerable is the highest priority of the government. We saw the first delivery of Pfizer vaccines touch down in Sydney yesterday, and we are working to have those vaccines distributed to those priority groups across the country. Vaccination for residents and staff will be made available through residential aged-care facilities where they live or work. The vaccine implementation plan for residential aged care aims to administer doses to more than 240 aged-care facilities in the first week. Vaccines will be delivered by Commonwealth led teams. Healthcare Australia will provide vaccination workforce in New South Wales and Queensland, and Aspen Medical will be responsible for the other states and territories. The vaccination program will be supported at local levels by the Primary Health Networks, and everybody responsible for providing the vaccine in aged-care settings will be required to have completed the relevant training, including the use of multidose phials, cold storage and, of course, infection control. In the coming weeks, the vaccination program will reach more than 2,600 residential aged-care facilities and more than 183,000 residents and 339,000 staff.

Senator Van, a supplementary question?

Can the minister update the Senate on how the government is supporting providers and residents and their families for the vaccine rollout?

That's an important question. Information has been sent out to aged-care facilities for residents and their families, carers and loved ones about what to expect in the lead-up to and on vaccination day. Our clinical workforce will work very closely with each facility in the lead-up to vaccination day to plan and to make sure each vaccination day runs safely and efficiently. Each residential age-care facility will ask residents and their substitute decision-maker—if one is in place—to consent to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. Clinical staff at facilities will check the health of residents prior to administering the vaccine, and if families have any concerns about the health of residents they should consult a GP. As always, safety, safety, safety is uppermost in our minds as we embark on our vaccination program across the country.

Senator Van, a final supplementary question?

Can the minister also update the Senate on the phased national rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine?

COVID-19 risks the lives of the most vulnerable in our society. We have prioritised those most at risk—our senior Australians and our frontline workers. They will be part of phase 1a. It is on track, as planned, to roll out next week. Phase 1b will include adults aged 70 years and over; other healthcare workers; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people over 55; younger adults with an underlying medical condition, including those with a disability; critical high-risk workers, including defence, police, fire, emergency services; and meat processing workers. Phase 2a includes adults aged 50-69 years, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 18 to 54 years and other critical and high-risk workers. Phase 2b extends to the remainder of the population within Australia over the age of 16.

My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Reynolds. Yesterday the minister stated that the grant to the National Retail Association was made 'in response to that terrible terrorist attack in Melbourne'. Does the minister stand by this statement?

Yes, I do, and I will reiterate the advice that I received yesterday. The National Retail Association, as I noted yesterday, does donate to both sides of politics, but I did also note that there was the Bourke Street terror attack on 9 November. On 9 November 2018 one male attacker, whose name I won't mention, set his car on fire, stabbed three people and attacked police in Melbourne. Of those three stabbing victims, as we all know, one was a much-beloved Melbourne identity Sisto Malaspina, a retailer of the type of which the National Retail Association provides advocacy for.

Later the same month on 20 November, three men inspired by the Islamic State terror group were arrested on suspicion of plotting a terror attack in Melbourne. They had tried to source a semiautomatic rifle to kill as many people as possible in a crowded space—police will allege. The National Retail Association applied for funding for a protecting crowded places project to assist retailers to deter, detect, delay and respond to a terrorist attack. Noting the significant events affecting the public and retailers over the month of November 2018, the Minister for Home Affairs' office asked the Department of Home Affairs to consider this proposal. He also asked the Department of Finance to cost it to ensure it was suitable and it was value for money. The proposal was subsequently assessed and recommended to be funded as it represented value for money and a proper use of Commonwealth resources, consistent with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013.

Senator Keneally, a supplementary question?

I thank the minister for that answer. Documents released under freedom of information show that on 28 September 2018, almost two months before the Bourke Street attack, Minister Dutton directed his department to consider a proposal for a grant to the National Retail Association for protecting public spaces. How could the minister request his department to consider a grant in response to a terrorist attack that had not yet occurred?

Senator Keneally, I think you have completely misunderstood, so I'll go back over the answer I have just given.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! Order!

This is all about the politics of this issue, and this is really not a grant or a grant program to take that out. So, again, this grant was for the type of these activities. The National Retail Association, who represents businesses like those who were impacted by that terrible attack, were seeking crowded place protection. That is exactly at the heart of what this grant was all about.

Senator Keneally interjecting—

Senator Watt interjecting—

Senator Watt and Senator Keneally.

Senator O'Neill would have got that right!

Senator Scarr! Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question?

Public documents reveal the minister received a direct political donation from the National Retail Association a week before he asked his department to fast track a nearly $1 million grant. The Bourke Street terrorist attack was a national tragedy. It saw one victim lose his life and two stabbing victims seriously injured. Is the minister really using this tragedy the cover up his conflict of interest?

There is only one side of politics in this chamber that is playing politics with this issue. It was very clear that this was funding for protecting crowded places, which is exactly what Senator Keneally said.

Senator Keneally interjecting—

Senator Keneally.

It was vetted by Finance. It was vetted by Home Affairs. This was to protect retailers from terrorist attacks. It is that simple. There is only one side that is playing politics with that, and that is that side of the chamber.

Senator Keneally interjecting—

Order!

Senator Keneally interjecting—

Senator Keneally, while I'm talking, please. I'm going to ask people to respect my request, when they are called by name, to at least count to 10 slowly before they start breaching standing orders again.

My question is to Senator Birmingham, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer to Brittany Higgins's allegations of rape in this building almost two years ago. I asked you yesterday whether the Sex Discrimination Commissioner would be tasked with a culture review of parliament, but you didn't answer me. The Prime Minister this morning announced that a Liberal MP will undertake a culture review and that the deputy secretary of PM&C will undertake a review of the handling of Brittany's complaint. Given the secrecy with which previous reviews have been undertaken by PM&C, will the Prime Minister guarantee that the findings of these reviews will be made public? How can women have confidence that change will flow from two internal reviews when the culture of silencing is part of the problem?

I thank Senator Waters for her question. It's essential in matters such as this that the support provided to employees, members of parliament or any other individual in this building is support that is timely, is effective and is ongoing or enduring wherever necessary. It's important that, in ensuring that we can provide such support to individuals, everyone has confidence in the processes, support and systems that are available to them. That's why the Prime Minister has asked in particular the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to assist and advise on how those processes can work to support people.

It is my full expectation that, in relation to the conduct of that work, Ms Foster, the deputy secretary, will engage with Kate Jenkins, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and author of the report Respect@Work: national inquiry into sexual harassment in Australian workplaces. I also note that in the other place the Prime Minister has indicated a willingness and openness to working with party leaders across the parliament in relation to how these processes can be strengthened, including the type of work that Ms Foster will undertake and any additional assistance or work alongside her that will be necessary.

Senator Waters, a supplementary question?

I note the Prime Minister's previous empathy training. Will the Prime Minister now undertake training to become aware of the victim blaming implicit in his statement about Brittany 'being found in a vulnerable situation', as opposed to men's bad behaviour causing that situation, and training to understand the sexist underpinnings of his statement that he had to think of his daughters when thinking about how Brittany's rape case should have been handled?

Well, respect is crucial at all points of considering these matters. Ultimately, respect in this particular case and for Brittany, her wishes and the support that she needs is the most important factor. The government, through the minister, as indicated, sought to provide that support for Brittany. It is with deep regret and deeply distressing that, despite those efforts, including Minister Reynolds facilitating discussions with the police and the offer of assistance through the Department of Finance, that support was not adequate. We have to address that and rectify those issues. That's what the processes that will be undertaken will seek to do: to ensure that, whilst we will continue to offer whatever support to Brittany and to the police investigation, also in the future we make sure that staff can have greater confidence in the support that is available to them and utilise it. (Time expired)

Senator Waters, a final supplementary question?

This morning the Prime Minister said that Brittany should be listened to. Will he listen to her call today for an independent body for staff to take complaints to?

I imagine that the robustness of the Department of Finance procedures that are available at present will absolutely be part of investigations and discussions than ensue in relation to these matters and, where gaps exist in terms of the confidence that staff have in utilising those processes, options will then be on the table to fill those gaps. The government is not seeking to rule out options in that regard. The most important thing is that the support is there for individuals like Brittany so they feel empowered to make the best decisions for themselves and feel supported, empowered and respected through the decision-making processes that they wish to make. Clearly, the systems need to be in place to support individuals who feel that way, and we want to make sure that the systems are enhanced to achieve that outcome.

My question is to Senator Birmingham, as the minister representing the Treasurer. Last night the ABC's Australian Story ran a harrowing story about the dangers of button batteries. Last December, after many years of lobbying by advocates, including parents and paediatricians, the government introduced mandatory safety standards for button batteries, but these only come into effect in 18 months time. In the ABC program, the deputy chair of the ACCC said: 'We need a general safety provision that makes it illegal to sell unsafe goods in Australia. At the moment, it is not illegal.' Minister, the government has been looking at the introduction of a general safety provision since 2015. Does the government agree that there must be a general safety provision that makes it illegal to sell unsafe goods in Australia?

I thank Senator Griff for his question. I know of his advocacy on these issues. I note his moving in November of last year a motion in the Senate related to button batteries and also the call to introduce a general product safety provision in the Australian Consumer Law. The government certainly takes seriously the safety of consumers. On 21 September, as you acknowledge, the government announced new mandatory safety and information standards for button batteries and products that contain them to improve the safety of such products, including their design, packaging and labelling. There have, indeed, been distressing stories in the past in relation to such products, and the government has sought to work through the processes of consumer law, which include engagement with the states and territories, to be able to bring about this ban and to provide heightened levels of protection.

In relation to general product safety provisions, the government is certainly of the strong view that all actions ought to be taken to protect consumers from unsafe products wherever necessary. Obviously, there are legal remedies and expectations available in the common law at present that place expectations upon businesses in relation to the safety of products that are offered on the market. However, in terms of specific consideration around a general product safety provision, I will revert to the relevant ministers and provide any further information that I can to the chamber.

Senator Griff, a supplementary question?

Minister, you haven't clearly stated whether you intend to legislate. You referenced that you will defer to the appropriate minister, so should I take it that at this point the government does not agree that Australia needs to urgently legislate a general safety provision? It's five years down the track now and there are a number of very significant issues. It does appear that the government does not see this as an urgent matter.

Certainly, product safety overall is very important. A general product safety provision, I imagine, would come with a number of different complexities in relevance to its drafting and interpretation. Clearly, as I indicated before, there are processes in relation to consumer law matters over which the states and territories often have primacy and which are usually developed in consultation and through consensus and agreement across the relevant ministerial councils. I am not briefed today, in terms of the detail and status of those particular discussions. That's why I undertook in the primary question to consult with relevant ministers, and I will do that and bring whatever further information there is in relation to that more sweeping provision back to the chamber for you.

Senator Griff, a final supplementary question?

Minister, I appreciate that you will bring that information back to the chamber but, when you do that, do you personally see this as a priority and a priority that needs to be dealt with before parliament is prorogued for the next election?

Well, I certainly see the safety of Australian consumers and particularly young consumers—children—as a very stark priority and an important one. It is important in the work of this parliament that we make sure that the legislation we bring forward, when we bring it forward, is also effective in meeting the objectives. There is little point in generic provisions, bringing them forward, if they will simply create a confusion but not effectively provide for the outcome; in this case, the outcome of safety. That is why working through, particularly with states and territories, in such consumer law protections is the appropriate thing. It is also the necessary thing under our constitutional structures. I would hope that, if such provisions can be provided for that do give a significant enhancement to consumer safety, they would be brought forward as quickly as possible, Senator Griff. But without having those briefings and advice, I can't commit to a time line today.

My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Reynolds. Reports indicate the alleged rapist's employment with the minister's office ended on Tuesday 26 March 2019. What was the reason for his employment ending, and did he resign or was he sacked?

I thank the senator for her question. I will answer the question, but if you would allow me just to address some of the matters that have been the subject of a lot of media in the last 24 hours. Reflecting on the circumstances and reflecting on what I would say here in the chamber today, saying 'sorry' is often the hardest thing for those of us who work in this place to say. But can I say today 'sorry' is the easiest word for me to say. I unreservedly apologise to Brittany Higgins. Last night we all heard from Brittany herself in her on words. Her trauma, her distress, was very, very clear to all to see. The fact that she felt unsupported in her time working here was also very, very clear for us all to see and, for that, I apologise.

At the time, I truly believed that I and my chief of staff were doing everything we could to support that young woman who I had responsibility for. At all times, my intent and my aim were to empower Brittany and let her determine the course of her own situation, not by me, not by my staff, not by the government as a whole, but by Brittany. When I first met with her in my office about the matter, I was not aware of the details and circumstances of what occurred. However, I deeply, deeply regret conducting the meeting in my office where the alleged incident had occurred. It is now clear that this also has caused ongoing distress to Brittany herself and compounded the trauma she continues to experience and, for that—

Senator Wong on a point of order?

Mr President, I would move that the minister be given an extension of time because obviously she wishes to make this statement. We also would have given her leave to make this statement at any time. As she has said she will come to the question, I would propose—by leave—that she be given a further two minutes to come to the question when she's concluded this statement.

I'll take it—unless there is an objection—that leave is granted. Please reset the clock.

Thank you very much, Mr President. Thank you very much to Senate Wong for that. As I said, it was very clear to me from seeing and hearing from Brittany on the TV last night that there was a range of circumstances which compounded her trauma and her grief. No woman should ever have to go through what she has clearly been through. That trauma that comes not just in the immediate aftermath of an assault but in the many months and the many long years that follow it is what those of us in this building failed to acknowledge. However, listening to Brittany describe the depression and the trauma she experienced in that subsequent time, it is very, very clear to me that more could and should have been done to support her.

The kind of support Brittany needs has to start in a political office. It starts with her boss—in this case, with me—with her colleagues, with her friends. But it cannot end there. That is why I welcome the Prime Minister's announcement this morning that he intends to look at how we can improve the support mechanisms offered to staff and the processes around the handling of these most serious of workplace complaints. As the inquiries that the Prime Minister has announced and the AFP investigation that was opened two years ago continue, I will work with them in every way that I possibly can. We have to do better, and I'm sure we all want to do better.

In relation to the question of my second staff member: he left my office shortly after that. I sought advice from Ministerial and Parliamentary Services, who assisted me through that process, and he was terminated from my office. (Time expired)

Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question?

So I think the answer is that he was sacked. Is that correct? The alleged rapist has been described as the minister's favourite, a go-to person who had a special bond with the minister. Did the minister consider it odd that her favourite go-to person would resign on the spot for a security breach, without a conversation with her? Has the minister had any contact with the alleged offender since his termination? If so, when?

The circumstances for both of my staff will be the subject of all of the ongoing investigations, because they all relate to the same matter. What I can say is, of course: I am responsible for my own conduct, as every single person in this place is. In relation to how I dealt with both of my staff: at all times I sought advice from Ministerial and Parliamentary Services, who worked and assisted me right through this process in how to deal with both of my staff members. I don't think it is fair for either party to air in this place today the details and the circumstances of that. However, there will be, I understand, the ongoing AFP investigation and the internal investigations, which is where I believe is the right place to air those—

Order, Senator Reynolds. I have Senator Wong on a point of order.

On direct relevance: the question was asked whether or not the minister has had any contact with the alleged offender since his termination. I ask the minister to return to the question.

I've allowed you to restate the last part of the question, Senator Wong. I do believe that the minister is being directly relevant to an earlier part of the question. There's an opportunity to debate these matters at an appropriate time.

As I said, these were very complex matters. He left my office— (Time expired)

Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question?

Can the minister inform the Senate why the alleged offender was terminated? Can she also inform the Senate whether the alleged rapist was assisted by herself or any other member of the government or her staff in finding employment following the alleged rape and whether she provided a reference for that person?

I'm somewhat bemused by the question. The person was terminated by me with the assistance of Ministerial and Parliamentary Services. I will take advice on how much I can say about that person's termination, but he was terminated very shortly after this incident. I'll take it on notice and seek some further advice about how much I can actually say in relation to the circumstances surrounding this, and I will come back to the chamber when I've received that advice.

My question is to the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator Cash. Could the minister please update the Senate on how the Morrison government's support for the construction industry throughout the COVID-19 pandemic has supported jobs and small businesses, kept apprentices in training and built the foundation for economic recovery?

I thank Senator O'Sullivan for his question. The construction industry in Australia is fundamental to our economy. It now employs over 1.1 million Australians, and, in terms of the number of small and family businesses within the construction industry itself, there are around 390,000 small businesses. This actually equates to roughly 98.5 per cent of all businesses in the sector. That is why the Morrison government has made supporting our construction industry a priority throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

In terms of what we've done for the construction sector, one of the fundamentals was obviously keeping apprentices and trainees on the job, where we need them. Of course, when you get hit with a pandemic, the apprentices and trainees are often the first to go, the first that an employer has to lay off. So we put in place a number of programs to assist our employers in keeping those apprentices and trainees on the tools, on the job, where we need them. They are, of course, the HomeBuilder program, support for our residential construction pipeline and extending the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme. Combined, there were a number of policies—JobKeeper, the cash flow boost, the SME guarantee scheme—all of which have helped minimise the economic impact on this vital sector.

As we emerge from COVID-19, the foundation these policies puts in place is driving our early economic comeback. Over the last quarter of 2020, employment in the construction industry has increased by two per cent, or 22,800 jobs. What we've also seen is more than 85,421 applications to the HomeBuilder scheme. We're seeing that the policies that the Morrison government have put in place throughout the pandemic are assisting the construction industry to employ more people.

Senator O'Sullivan, a supplementary question?

I thank the minister for that answer. How has the Morrison government's Supporting Apprentices and Trainees wage subsidy supported the future of the construction workforce through the COVID-19 pandemic?

According to the National Skills Commission, of the 1.1 million people that are employed in Australia by the construction industry, I'm pleased to say that over 50 per cent of them actually have a vocational education and training, or VET, qualification. In terms of the support that the government provided, we have our Supporting Apprentices and Trainees wage subsidy. This has been absolutely critical to keeping our apprentices and trainees on the job, as I said. To date, 119,500 apprentices and trainees, employed by 62,600 employers, have now been assisted, and that includes 59,000 small businesses.

In terms of the actual breakdown of those statistics, we've seen 22,500 bricklayers, carpenters and joiners, 17,200 electricians and 12,200 plumbers kept on the job because of the policies the Morrison government put in place to assist these businesses in the construction industry.

Senator O'Sullivan, a final supplementary question?

That's good news. How can the Morrison government's JobMaker Plan support the future of the construction industry and ensure that it can continue to drive Australia's economic success into the future?

The policies work together. In addition to the pipeline of work that we've secured through the HomeBuilder policy, what we've also put in place is a Boosting Apprenticeships Commencements policy. This is all about supporting the training of a new generation of apprentices. In relation to that policy, we've seen over 88,000 new training contacts registered with the program to date, which includes around 20,000 in the construction industry itself. So, when you look at the suite of policies that the Morrison government put in place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the business tax incentives are out there helping businesses, particularly small businesses; the instant asset write-off is allowing businesses to invest in themselves but also to write off the new asset; and we are removing costly barriers for business. All of those policies combined have supported the construction industry to keep apprentices and trainees in training, on the job, where we need them.

My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Birmingham. On 18 June 2020 the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Labor Party supported a temporary order restricting each senator's ability to move a general business motion. This rule change means that Independent senators can move only one motion per week. When you and the Labor Party decided to team up to cut the number of motions that smaller parties were able to move, you argued that it was because we were wasting too much of your time. In the six months since that temporary order, your government has spent 102 hours considering 111 bills. Over the same amount of time one year before, you spent 111 hours considering 136 bills. You spent less time on legislation after you gagged us than you did before you gagged us. This is over the number of sitting weeks too. My question is: what are you doing with all that time you've saved?

I can say as Leader of the Government in the Senate and having also held Senator Ruston's role as Manager of Government Business in the Senate that it is indeed often one of the deep frustrations for governments—and I suspect it was even the case during the years of Labor governments—that the finite amount of time that exists for government business and government legislation to be considered in this chamber can be eroded by all manner of things. Certainly the use of general business motions had become a very substantial point of erosion in relation to the time that it took in the chamber. But the chamber provides for senators to do many things by leave, for senators to pursue suspending the standing orders and for senators to use urgency motions and other things. That all adds up frequently to an erosion of the amount of time available to consider government legislation.

There are a number of factors at play in terms of the consideration of general business motions, not the least of which being the concern felt that increasingly there was complexity coming into those motions—and there not being an opportunity for individual senators to debate the content of those motions was a problem—and that was inconsistent with the original intent of the way that those motions were expected to be handled. There are still ample opportunities for all senators to have their say—be it through the take note of answers debate that will ensue shortly, the urgency motion that will happen this afternoon, the adjournment debate that will happen this evening, the matters of public importance debate that happens at other times in the Senate schedule, or the debate of legislation.

Senator Lambie, a supplementary question?

You said that the temporary gag order was needed to get rid of needless motions designed to make a political statement. On 4 February, 10 coalition senators moved a motion noting that the Queen has been in power for 69 years. If I agree to only move motions asking the Senate to note the length of the reign of foreign monarchs, can I please have my cap lifted?

I do actually suspect, Senator Lambie, that if the Senate had used that process in ways consistent with the original intent—that the motions be put without any debate or opportunity for individual senators to make a contribution—the motions would ordinarily have been largely noncontroversial by their nature. If you go back through the past practice of this chamber, you will see that that is indeed what the original intent of that process was.

Senator Lambie, if senators had simply done that throughout history, we probably would never have got to the point that the Procedure Committee and the chamber got to in relation to the consideration of this. There are probably many other points of congratulations and noting that could have been achieved without us reaching that point where the chamber made the decision that it did in relation to the management of motions.

Senator Lambie, a final supplementary question?

I've spoken to Senator Patrick and I know that he has made representations and asked for a reconsideration of this unfair rule change. You have provided no response. Do you think you could use some of that time you've saved to actually get back to him?

The Senate still sits the same hours per day, and indeed my time is often used in a range of ways. I've discussed this issue with a number of senators, including Senator Patrick, in that regard. I could equally point out, Senator Lambie, that you have just used one of the questions allocated to you in question time to pursue this matter of Senate process and procedure. You could have used it to raise any number of issues that you might have wished to in a motion instead, and that is one of the avenues available to all senators in this place to pursue their issues. There are countless avenues available to senators to pursue different issues in this parliament—it doesn't have to be through a general business notice of motion—and I would encourage you and other senators to avail yourselves of those different procedures in the standing orders, as is appropriate, to have your say on behalf of your state or territory.

My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Reynolds. On what date did the minister first become aware of the allegations of rape made by her former staff member? What action did the minister take as a result?

I thank the senator for that question. Can I just address a couple of the questions that somewhat took me by surprise previously, and I will come to that question, Senator. I've just checked and I can confirm that my second staff member—he was terminated shortly after this incident occurred, and it was for a security breach. I do not recollect any contact I've had with him since then and I certainly cannot recollect doing a reference for him. But, now that this issue has been raised, I'm doing a search of the files just to determine that that is true. But I have no recollection—and I can't imagine any circumstance in which I would. But, again, I will check that.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Absolutely—of course.

An opposition senator interjecting—

He was terminated for a security breach.

An opposition senator interjecting—

He was terminated for a security breach.

In relation to the last question, the dates, Senator, you probably know more about the incidents surrounding the incident itself, as other members of this chamber do, because there's been a parliamentary inquiry into the circumstances of when and how I was told. So I will provide all of those details to the investigation.

Senator Sheldon, a supplementary question?

On what date did the minister first become aware that the allegations of rape made by her former staff member related to conduct on her couch in her ministerial office? What action did the minister take as a result?

In my answer yesterday and in my answer again today I have gone through those details and, as I've said, all of the detail is now subject to an AFP investigation and at least two other inquiries. So I will be, as I've said, providing all information and assistance to those inquiries.

Senator Sheldon, on a point of order?

It's on relevance. I understand very clearly that Ms Brittany Higgins has said that she is comfortable with these questions being asked. I think it's important that we get to these questions being answered, and there is the capacity for the minister to dutifully answer them.

I've allowed you to make that point, Senator Sheldon. I don't think I can rule the minister as being not directly relevant with the answer she has given. Senator Reynolds, continue.

Noting what the senator has just said, I think it's even more important that we don't politicise that information any further in this chamber. Her trauma was incredibly raw and evident last night, and I think it is appropriate that all of this information is collected by the AFP, who had opened an inquiry into this two years ago.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! Order, on my left!

I think that is the appropriate course of action from here on in.

Opposition senators interjecting—

I'm going to call Senator Sheldon when there's silence. Senator Sheldon, a final supplementary question?

The minister's former staff member was allegedly raped in the defence minister's office almost two years ago. When was the Prime Minister's office informed, and how; and when was the Prime Minister informed, and how?

Again, I thank the senator for that question. I cannot speak for the Prime Minister and I understand he's been addressing that. I cannot speak for the Prime Minister and I will not speak for the Prime Minister. I understand your colleagues are asking those questions today in the House of Representatives. All I can answer about and all I can be responsible for is my own conduct, my responsibilities and how I enacted them. I will do that not in this chamber. I will do it as appropriate with the Australian Federal Police. I have provided as much information as I think is appropriate. There will be the forums to do that.

My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management, Senator Ruston. Is the minister concerned at reports that legislation is being jointly lodged by Democrat and Republican members of the United States Congress seeking to ban imports of kangaroo products to the USA?

I thank Senator McKenzie for her question and, in doing so, I acknowledge one of our former colleagues in this place, former senator Ron Boswell, for his very strong interest in all things agriculture, but particularly Australia's kangaroo industry, which he had such a huge, huge interest in. Yes, Senator McKenzie, we are very concerned about the proposed legislation that has been lodged by a United States congressman which seeks to ban the import of kangaroo meat and products into the US. We believe that the commercial kangaroo industry in Australia is absolutely appropriate and highly regulated. It's highly sustainable, and our quotas are based on a science based approach. Our commercial industry has been going now for over 60 years and is considered one of the world's best wild harvest industries in totality. The management of the export of kangaroo products is based firmly on the principles of sustainability, and the industry is a huge provider of jobs, particularly jobs in rural and regional Australia. It's very often the case that those jobs are taken up by our Indigenous Australians.

Australian exports kangaroo products like meat, hides and skins to around 70 countries around the world, including places like Italy and the United States. Although the United States is not a huge direct importer of kangaroo meat, it is a huge importer of kangaroo leather products. These leather products are considered to be some of the highest-quality leather products in the world. We are aware of the potential risks that this legislation poses for the industry. Given the size of the US market and that global brands could be forced through pressure to move away from using this sustainably harvested product is of great concern to the government. That's why we have been working to gain the support of the industry, so that we can put pressure on the US.

Order, Senator Ruston. Senator McKenzie, a supplementary question?

Good to hear, Minister. What damage would an import ban have on our industry, regional communities, farmers and the welfare of kangaroos?

We know that the coronavirus has had a big impact on all of our rural and regional industries, and the kangaroo export business is no different. But they have been amazingly adaptable and resilient. Any ban by an international market will have large implications. It's not just because of our direct exports to the US, but because much of our kangaroo product goes via other markets and is manufactured into great leather goods, which are then imported into the US. It's estimated that the commercial kangaroo industry provides about $200 million per year to rural and regional Australian communities, and 3,000 people are employed in this industry. It is a hugely important industry, but the fact is that harvest programs are ethically designed to reduce the significant impact that overabundant kangaroo populations can have on our natural environment. As regional senators would understand, kangaroo populations regularly experience booms and busts.

Order, Senator Ruston. Senator McKenzie, a final supplementary question?

Can you outline what urgent representations are being made by the Australian government to ensure the United States market remains open for the export of kangaroo products?

The government will continue to work to ensure that US consumers can continue to buy Australia's high-quality, responsibly sourced kangaroo products. Upon hearing about the bill's introduction to the US in the House of Representatives, the government spoke to the Australian Ambassador to the US, former senator Arthur Sinodinos, and emphasised the importance of this trade, the value of this industry across the whole of Australia and making sure we understood this was actually a humane management of kangaroo populations. Australian diplomats have initiated contact with congressmen and plan to meet with them to outline Australia's significant concerns around this bill. There is a myth that persists that commercial kangaroo harvesting is a threat to the species. This is not true. The staff at our Washington embassy are working to advocate for our kangaroo industry's potential in sustainability and animal welfare areas and are setting the story straight.

Order, Senator Ruston!

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. At the time Ms Higgins disclosed that an alleged rape had taken place in the minister's office on the evening of 22 March 2019, was the minister's chief of staff a person who had previously worked for the Prime Minister—a person returned to the Prime Minister's office after working for Minister Reynolds?

I'm aware of Senator Reynolds's former chief of staff at that point in time. I can't recall offhand, Senator Wong, in terms of the sequence of the different offices that she has worked in, but I will take that on notice.

Senator Wong, a supplementary question?

I thank the minister for taking the matter on notice. I ask a further question. Ms Higgins has said that the Prime Minister's principal private secretary, whom she describes as Mr Morrison's 'fixer', was involved in the week after the alleged rape. On what basis was the Prime Minister's principal private secretary involved? What was his role?

I am not aware. I understand the Prime Minister has answered some questions directly in relation to the contact or otherwise with the principal private secretary, and I'd refer the senator to the Prime Minister's answers to those questions.

Senator Wong, a final supplementary question?

I would ask the minister to come back and respond to that question. I ask a further question. Ms Higgins has said that the Prime Minister's principal private secretary contacted her to 'check in' on her when she was off work in the week following Four Corners airing its 'Inside the Canberra bubble' expose of sexual misconduct within the coalition government. Can the minister explain why the Prime Minister's principal private secretary made that contact?

I'd refer the senator to my previous answer. Not all of those statements, I think, are necessarily accepted, in relation to some of the responses that have been given. However, if there is anything to add to that I will bring it to the chamber.

My question is to the Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy, Senator Hume. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of accessible, quality and professional financial advice. What has the Morrison government done to progress the professionalism of the finance advice industry and make high-quality advice accessible to Australian households?

I'd like to thank Senator Brockman for his question and for his enduring commitment to quality, accessible and affordable professional financial advice. This government has taken significant action to professionalise the financial advice industry. We've put in place renewed professional standards for those who work in the advice industry, including an exam, degree requirements, a code of ethics and continuing education requirements. These standards have helped ensure Australians can be confident that, when they need guidance on their personal finances, they are receiving high-quality and professional financial advice. I would like to congratulate the nearly 12,000 now financial advisers, stockbrokers, planners and people in the life insurance industry who have taken and already passed the financial adviser standards exam so far. The average pass rate for that exam is 90 per cent, and that's a testament to their hard work, to their skill, and to their dedication to the profession, as well as to their commitment to making high-quality financial advice available to every Australian household. Even over the summer break, a further 1,200 advisers sat the exam across 14 Australian cities and online. They are now awaiting those results, ready to demonstrate to their clients that they are the committed professionals that their clients expect.

I would like to encourage practising financial advisers, stockbrokers and insurance advisers who have not yet taken the exam or passed the exam to take advantage of the remaining sittings left in 2021 before the deadline ends at the end of this year. I ask you to work with us to make the Australian advice industry the best it can possibly be, because together we can achieve our goal of creating a world-class industry that offers affordable, accessible and high-quality financial advice for all Australians.

Senator Brockman, a supplementary question?

How has the government supported the transition for the financial advice industry during COVID-19 to ensure that remote advisers, those with family commitments and those affected by COVID-19 can complete these requirements?

The Morrison government has extended the transition period, and advisers now have until January 2026 to complete the education requirements set before them. They also now have until the end of 2021 to pass the exam, but I remind them that, with time ticking, it's very important to note that there are only a further three opportunities to do so this year. We hope that all existing advisers will make the most of these very important opportunities. We have provided remote sitting options to assist advisers to sit the exam during the pandemic, and many have taken up that opportunity. The online exam can be taken at any time of the day or night, each and every day of the six-day sitting period, giving advisers the maximum flexibility to fit it around work and family commitments.

Senator Brockman, a final supplementary question?

Can the minister outline further to the Senate how financial advisers can sit the exam?

The next exam sitting will be held between 25 and 30 March this year, including on weekends and with up to two in-person sittings each day. The exam can also be taken online or in person in 16 cities across Australia, both metropolitan and regional. The booking period for the March exam is currently open online. Preparation materials are available on the FASEA website and via private providers.

When my financial adviser—I won't name him, because he'll get embarrassed—received his results, he was so pleased he sent me a text message. Even for highly skilled and educated advisers, as he is—he already has a master's degree in finance—he knew that this was a new level of professionalism for him and for his firm.

I encourage all financial advisers who have not yet passed this exam to register for this sitting. With your help, we can make our financial planning, stockbroking and insurance advising industry the best in the world.

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

Under standing order 74(5)(a), I seek an explanation from the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts, who is represented by Senator Hume in this chamber, as to why portfolio questions Nos 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 307, 309, 311, 312, 318, 321, 323, 325, 326, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342 and 344, which I placed on notice on 17 November 2020, remain unanswered.

I thank the senator for her statement. I won't ask you to repeat those numbers. I didn't write them all down. I am advised that the questions on notice from budget estimates 2020-21 that are being sought were asked of the National Broadband Network Corporation, NBN Co. And I understand that the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications have repeatedly encouraged NBN Co to provide those responses in a timely manner. I will contact the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts in relation to these questions.

Under standing order 74(5)(b), I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

Based on the evidence we have received from the committee, the overwhelming majority of these questions, as the minister is aware, as she just outlined, to NBN Co were due on 21 December 2020. Today is 16 February 2021. This means that the questions outlined are now 58 days overdue and counting, which is simply unacceptable. And I understand that there are a number of other questions which other senators have placed on notice in the Senate to NBN Co which are also overdue—significantly overdue. This lack of responsiveness reflects very poorly on the minister for communications and very poorly on NBN Co. More broadly, it underscores a lack of respect for Senate accountability, which has plagued the communications portfolio throughout the parliamentary term of this government. Labor calls on the Morrison government and NBN Co to release these questions immediately and stop disrespecting the intelligence of Australian taxpayers.

The majority of the questions on notice go directly to the economics of the NBN and financial metrics underpinning the NBN Co Corporate Plan 2021. They go to the issues such as debt, cash flows, cost per premises, operating costs, capital expenditures, bonuses and a range of other information that allow the parliament, the media and the Australian public to better understand what was happening with our public money. In fact, much of this information was consistently published in previous corporate plans, but this year the government decided to withhold this information because they did not want the media or the parliament to have visibility of its latest cost blowouts. It's another smokescreen. It's another cover-up. So, today, the Senate seeks an answer to that question. What exactly is the Morrison government trying to hide by not answering these questions or allowing them to be answered?

What we know is that the release of NBN Co's corporate plan was delayed this year. It's normally released on 31 August, but this year it was delayed. It was withheld until 23 September. Notably, it was withheld until the afternoon after Minister Fletcher had announced the government's embarrassing copper backflip at the National Press Club. And then, when the corporate plan came out later that afternoon, it immediately became clear that key information published in previous corporate plans had been omitted. So laughable were the redactions that the revised cost of the NBN, $57 billion, was not mentioned anywhere in the document.

In terms of the information sought by the questions on notice, we know this information is held with the Chief Financial Officer and could have been provided to the Senate in December. We know that NBN Co's corporate affairs division is among the best resourced corporate affairs divisions in the country, if not the best resourced. We also know that the delay of these responses is not an accident—it's intentional. It's clear that the intent was to withhold this information.

NBN Co and the government have gone to great lengths to prevent the Chief Financial Officer of NBN Co from appearing before the Senate and other parliamentary committees. The one time the chief financial officer was forced to appear, under the threat of a Senate order, the Chief Executive Officer of NBN Co wouldn't allow him to open his mouth and respond to any question of substance. It was the most curious form of witness protection.

There is a very simple reason that the minister for communications is seeking to delay the release of this information: this government's inferior NBN has not been faster and it has not been cheaper. On every measure, this technological debacle is slower, is less reliable and is more expensive. Let it be lost on nobody that in 2013 the Liberals, standing alongside a hologram of Sonny Bill Williams at Fox Studios, promised their second-rate version of the NBN would be delivered for $29.5 billion. Then it blew out in 2014 to $41 billion. Then it blew out again to $49 billion in 2015. Then it increased to $51 billion in 2018. By late 2020, it had surged again to a forecast of $57 billion. What a shame that the technology hasn't surged as fast. Worse still, the government even tried to cover this figure up and have their public officials invent a new accounting methodology to talk about the costs of NBN.

It took less than 90 days from when the rollout was supposed to be completed for the government to begin desperately backflipping towards fibre, imposing greater cost and time on consumers and taxpayers. If you want the Oxford definition of 'incompetence' and 'waste', look no further than the Liberals and this hapless minister for communications and their technological omelette known as the NBN multitechnology mix. The Liberals promised every Australian would have access to minimum speeds of 25 megabits per second by 2016. We are now in 2021, five years on, and these minimum speeds are still not being delivered over the copper NBN network.

According to reports, up to 238,000 households still cannot access minimum speeds, which are actually a requirement of both Australian law and the NBN Statement of Expectations. The Liberal Party—yes, I'm referring to the same Liberal Party who are on track to amass $1 trillion in debt—has used taxpayer money to purchase over 49,000 kilometres of new copper for the NBN. That's enough copper to wrap around planet earth, with some left over. Labor has heard that the government maxed out the copper supply in Australia and had to start importing copper from Turkey and Brazil. If you're a global copper trader, the Morrison government is your best friend.

Who can forget when Malcolm Turnbull, the then Prime Minister, hailed HFC technology as 'the great game changer'. Now Minister Fletcher has said that too. It most certainly did change the game, but for all the wrong reasons. Never has the rollout of network technology in Australia been more of a shambles. The NBN HFC rollout is the most uneconomical and, arguably, the most unreliable in the world. There is a good reason former NBN Co CEO Bill Morrow wanted to toss the entire HFC footprint in the bin. There's good reason that Mike Quigley and his management team also rejected the use of HFC, under Labor. After talking it up as the best thing since sliced bread, the Liberals had to scrap the Optus HFC network, because it was not fit for purpose. That was a humiliation. Then they had to pause the rollout of the remaining HFC network in November 2017, because the technology was so unreliable. Turning on your vacuum cleaner was enough to cause your internet to drop out.

Just last fortnight we found out that NBN Co will pause activations on the HFC network because they have run out of the chips for their modems. What a hot mess! No wonder Launtel, a Tasmanian ISP provider, recently wrote a blog referring to HFC as 'a dog's breakfast' and singling it out as the most unreliable technology on the NBN network. Remember, this was the stuff that the previous Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull hailed as a game changer. A Tasmanian ISP said, 'It's the most unreliable technology on the NBN network.'

This brings me to the performance of the NBN during lightning storms. We have been hearing reports from the Blue Mountains, the Hawkesbury regions, parts of Greater Sydney and outer Melbourne that fibre-to-the-curb modems on the NBN have been literally getting fried during lightning storms, with some households requiring up to six modem replacements, with technicians having to visit each time; not very efficient. There's been an unacceptable lack of transparency on this issue but, from what we understand, lightning is causing a voltage surge down the copper line and into the modem.

The Liberals had one job and that was not to stuff up fibre-to-the-curb like they stuffed up everything else. This entailed ensuring that the electronics and vendor equipment used to deliver the service were fit for purpose and had adequate surge protections. If storms are capable of blowing up six consecutive NBN modems then something is not right. When political parties are incapable of taking a long-term view and consistently put politics ahead of the public interest, it invariably extracts a heavy price. Australians have paid more and gotten a worse NBN, and no matter how much spin the Liberals churn out, that is the stark reality. This 'build a dud and backflip it later'' approach means NBN Co is now borrowing billions more to construct a fibre network that will run in parallel with the existing copper network. Critically, despite new cost blowouts and rhetoric about upgrades, the government has only budgeted for one in 10 households in the copper footprint; 400,000 premises are to receive a fibre lead-in between now and 2024. On top of this, the full copper network will have to be operated and maintained, while the fibre network constructed in parallel goes underutilised. Remember the copper that wraps around the planet and there is some left over? A lot of that's going to be now underutilised.

You would in all sincerity be hard pressed to think up a more illogical and costly way to deploy a national broadband network with public money. After $51 billion, the purchase of 50,000 kilometres of new copper and a decade of ridiculing fibre, not only have this government forfeited their credibility but they have done so without explaining what the real cost of their capitulation is. This backflip is not simply a vindication of Labor policy but an affirmation of something more fundamental: the Liberals get the big calls wrong.

To sum all this up, we have a minister and a public company spending $57 billion of taxpayers' money, disrespecting the Senate and seeking to evade security and scrutiny. We have a copper network that is so defunct it still cannot deliver minimum speeds to up to 238,000 premises. We have an HCF network that is arguably one of the biggest and most expensive telecommunications debacles in the world. We have modems literally frying because of lightning surges down copper lead-in cables.

Evidently, the decision in 2013 to dump fibre has resulted in a colossal waste of time and money. Do it once, do it right, do it with fibre—had the Liberals simply followed this path, Australians would have a faster and more reliable network at far less cost to the taxpayer. Little wonder we have a dud NBN at a cost now forecast to reach $57 billion, nearly $30 billion over budget, and are ranked 61 globally for speeds and a rollout schedule running more than four years behind what the Liberals originally promised. They said they could do it better and cheaper, and they haven't delivered on any of that. It's no wonder this government is trying to evade scrutiny; it is really no wonder at all. I would call on the government to ensure they hold NBN to account, provide the answers to these questions, and provide an open and transparent process through Senate estimates and in other areas. They should be scrutinised. (Time expired)

Under standing order 74(5)(a), I rise to speak on the explanation sought by my colleague and friend Senator Urquhart from the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts, represented by Senator Hume in this chamber.

I won't read through the numbers of the questions on notice.

Senator Urquhart interjecting—

With encouragement from Senator Urquhart, I will: 301, 302, 303, 304, 305—good news; they managed to answer 306—and 307. They also managed to answer 308, but 309 is unanswered, along with 311, 312, 318, 321, 323—

Senator Kitching, resume your seat for a moment. Senator Brockman, on a point of order?

These have already been read into Hansard. I would raise tedious repetition.

There is no point of order. Thank you, Senator Brockman.

To continue: 325, 326, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342 and 344. Of course, that isn't tedious repetition, as was suggested by Senator Brockman; it's actually just embarrassing for the government to have an agency that think they are above the standing orders of this chamber. That is actually the problem. No-one on the other side actually wanted to hear all of the numbers of those questions on notice that are outstanding.

Who do the NBN think they are? Remember that committee members were told informally that they wouldn't get any answers until the end of January. In this blithe nonacceptance of the Senate standing orders, the NBN decided they would set their own timetable. We'll get to more of their outrageous antics later on.

Clause 74 of the Senate standing orders provides that a minister has 30 days in which to provide an answer to a question. As at midday today, 16 February 2021—also my birthday, Deputy President—there are 118 overdue questions on notice, lodged via the Table Office, the oldest being 62 days overdue. There are 345 questions on notice which were taken by the communications portfolio in the 2020-21 budget estimates. The committee set the following due dates for responses to questions on notice: 3 December 2020 for the initial hearing and 21 December 2020 for the spillover hearing. Two hundred and thirty-nine questions were taken on notice during and post the initial estimates hearings. Only 59 were returned to the committee on time, and 180 were or are overdue, that being 75 per cent of the questions, and 32 still have not been answered. One hundred and six questions were taken on notice during and post the spillover estimates hearing. Only nine were returned to the committee on time, and 97 were or are overdue, that being 91 per cent of the questions overdue, and 49 still haven't been answered. What this actually shows is a clear pattern of disrespect and lack of transparency and accountability by the minister for communications, Minister Fletcher, and his representing minister in this place.

There are two particular agencies that are among the most egregious in their constant and continued attempts to withhold information sought by me through the questions on notice process. I do not say this lightly. With the exception of the Department of Parliamentary Services, whose constant evasions and obfuscations are masterly—and that is a bit of an understatement—both the NBN Co and Australia Post are perhaps the worst I have ever seen. As someone who has asked many questions on notice—over 11,000 in the life of this parliament alone—I do not say this lightly.

I preface this by making the point that this is in no way a slight on the hardworking men and women in these organisations. Remember that it was the party to which I belong, the Australian Labor Party, and our union affiliates who saw off an attempt by this government and the former CEO of Australia Post to sack a quarter of our nation's posties under the cover of the coronavirus pandemic. It was also the grand vision of my predecessor in this place Senator Conroy that realised the National Broadband Network to give all Australians world-class access to the internet. We've heard from Senator Urquhart some of the problems with that.

We on this side stand up for those workers every day. What we don't stand up for is senior executives at public sector government business enterprises—remember, they take no corporate risk and are remunerated extremely well—stonewalling questions put to them by the nation's parliament on behalf of the people of Australia, just like they were company directors at an annual meeting avoiding the scrutiny of their shareholders. Let me start with the NBN senior executives and board. I discovered through a question on notice that they actually answered that the NBN has 13 employees earning over $500,001, 21 employees earning between $400,001 and $500,000, 110 employees earning between $300,001 and $400,000, and 733 employees earning between $200,001 and $300,000.

Their conspiracy of silence is a disgrace. They do not get to choose to keep secrets from the taxpayer and the parliament. It is disrespectful to the people who are paying their large salaries—the same people who will be paying the bills racked up by this organisation for a long time. No doubt their children and their children's children will also be paying these bills. They are the same Australians who put us here and who expect us to do our jobs. Part of that job is to keep the government accountable and to ensure that there is scrutiny of government departments and agencies.

Labor has even heard that the government maxed out the copper supply in Australia and had to start importing copper from Turkey and Brazil. But let me read you some of the questions on notice that are outstanding in relation to the NBN: 'How many executives received an increase to their base salary in the 2019-20 financial year? In each of the 2018-19 and 2019-20 financial years and the 2020-21 financial year to date has NBN engaged, employed or hired the services of a media personality? If so, who was engaged, employed or hired, for what purpose and at what cost? Please produce a copy of the register of declarations of interest as at 1 December 2020.' Let's just take that last question. You might think that was a fairly easy question to answer. If you were an organised entity and your documents were organised, you should be able to produce that quickly. But, no, we're still waiting for that one.

NBN Co and the government have gone to great lengths to prevent their chief financial officer from appearing before Senate and other parliamentary committees. The one time the chief financial officer was forced to appear, under the threat of a Senate order, the chief executive officer of NBN Co wouldn't allow him to open his mouth and respond to any of my questions that were being put to him. It was a total joke. I also had to insist that the legal counsel of NBN Co come to estimates because, not surprisingly, you have to put in FOIs in order to get NBN Co to respond to anything. They haven't responded to the FOIs either, so we shouldn't get our hopes up. It was a strange performance. The chief financial officer was more reminiscent of a hostage than a senior public executive fronting up to answer questions about the expenditure of public moneys. It was a little like the end of the film Thelma & Louise. As they drive off the cliff, NBN Co's CEO is Louise and the unaccountable minister is Thelma.

As for the performance of NBN Co executives at estimates, it is a masterclass in obfuscation and how not to answer a question. These fat cats at NBN can run, but they will not be able to hide. It is just a matter of time and how bad they want to look in the meantime before this parliament will get the answers to the questions that we seek. At some point they are going to have to answer these pretty basic questions, which are easy questions to answer. But maybe we can assume that their records are not in any fit state for an entity of that size and they can't actually access anything, because there is no excuse for their inability to produce those documents. They spend a fortune on PR gurus who usually defend such upstanding corporate citizens at James Hardie. For example, Australia Post employed Ross Thornton but actually can't seem to locate how many hours he has put in there. That matter is in another lot of questions on notice that we have put to another agency, another government owned business, that is supposedly answerable to Minister Fletcher.

I will go through some of my points. Australia Post employed a PR guru. He has worked for James Hardie and AMP. Let's not forget that AMP, during the banking royal commission, were found to be charging fees to dead people. If you were to look at the make-up of the board of Australia Post, it is full of people who have Liberal Party connections and who are now on what is a pretty prestigious board, the Australia Post board. What we had heard long before we had Cartier watches being purchased for already well remunerated executives were extraordinary stories of the former CEO, Ms Holgate, racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars on the corporate credit card, spending eye-watering amounts on fresh floral arrangements and plants for the office at a time when everyone was working from home—so they were putting these floral arrangements into the offices when no-one was there—and the board trying to approve exorbitant bonuses for themselves.

The spectacle of one pampered poodle after another defending the right of a multimillion dollar salaried public servant using public money to buy luxury watches as personal gifts for favoured staff is one that defies credulity. But perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. In some ways, I think the NBN situation is actually worse than anything Christine Holgate did. Ms Holgate showed a fundamental misunderstanding of her role, her duties and her obligations as a public sector CEO. There were the Cartier watches, the floral arrangements and the bonuses they tried to approve for the executive team at around about a million dollars each. There she was asserting that Australia Post money is not taxpayer money. Of course, Australia Post is very much a government owned organisation and it actually belongs to all of us. We all use it. It is a part of every Australian's life. Her answers revealed a very unhealthy culture that I fear explained much about the profligate spending culture at Australia Post that the hundreds of questions on notice exposed.

Let me now read some questions on notice that are outstanding in relation to Australia Post. 'Please provide Australia Post board documents, including but not limited to board meeting agendas, board papers and board meeting minutes created between October 2018 to December 2018'—remember, that's October 2018 to December 2018—'which reference or relate to rewards, gifts or bonuses for any Australia Post employee, manager or executive.' We called for documents for October, November and December, and they still can't find them. Then there's this exchange between me and then Australia Post CFO and now Acting CEO, Rodney Boys, who is apparently likely to become the CEO, at an estimates spillover session:

Mr Boys, do you think you will be able to respond to my question on notice, fully, in terms of a breakdown of the expenditure on the office of the CEO credit card? You said you could not answer, because everyone was working at home from coronavirus. We had a brief discussion at the last estimates and you said, 'We could not answer that, because people are working at home,' and we had a discussion about whether you did any online banking—

Remember, this is the CFO of Australia Post—

and whether you were able to do banking when you weren't in the office. Are you going to be able to answer that question on notice properly, and give us a breakdown of the expenditure—

You won't be surprised to learn that we also have yet to receive this information. A large proportion of the answers that we seek here today relate to the NBN's extraordinary entertainment spend, for which the Morrison Government refuses to provide automated reports from accounting software, so I've asked for a breakdown of $874,000 in a financial year. Apparently they are not able to break down that figure. I have also asked for NBN's aggregate of bonuses paid to its executives, whether or not NBN increased staff salaries during the APS pay freeze, NBN's internal FOI procedures given the numerous FOIs lodged by me that have been resisted, requests for copies of Australia Post board documents, and breakdowns of executive-issued credit cards. But in actual fact, today, the Senate seeks an answer to the following question above all: What exactly is this government and the Minister for Communications trying to hide? All the Liberals who sit opposite who were preselected on a mantra of small government and accountability should not be running interference for the spivs and grifters who seek to obfuscate and evade parliamentary scrutiny by refusing to answer questions on notice put to them by the Australian parliament.

Well, this afternoon it is of grave concern to yet again see the lack of accountability of this government in answering questions on notice. I did see Senator Hume come in here and explain that, despite the minister's best endeavours, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications has been unable to get NBN Co to answer these questions. I put to you that the troubles in this relationship and the troubles in the lack of accountability and the lack of reporting in outcomes of NBN Co's performance to this parliament go much, much deeper than that. For example, Senator Urquhart asked questions in relation to the forecast of the outstanding amount of debt and equity by financial year 2024. How much in free cash flow does the 2021 corporate plan forecast NBN will generate by financial year 2024? Have these cash flows been committed? If yes, towards what? What was the capex for the fixed wireless network as at 1 July 2020? How many fixed wireless towers have been built? How many fixed wireless cells have been deployed? Based on the 2021 corporate plan, what is cumulative capex for the fixed wireless out to 2024?

These were issues in previous corporate plans but, for some reason, the government and NBN Co saw fit not to adequately explain this information in the latest corporate plan. Now we find that, even still, despite these questions being asked by opposition senators, there are still no answers. The NBN corporate plan was missing information on peak funding from cost blowouts. There is no update on the NBN debt profile—again, a question that was asked by Senator Urquhart—and no updated capital expenditure by technology. You know, this is capex expenditure. It is a fairly basic thing to go in a corporate plan yet we cannot even get these questions answered in estimates. There is no operating expenditure profile.

The corporate plan shows a complete lack of transparency and, as the shadow minister, Michelle Rowlands, said, it was nothing short of a cover-up designed to conceal unfunded announcements made by Mr Fletcher today. The issue here is that this government keeps trying to assert that it is meeting the connection milestones, that it exceeds them and that it is doing a great job in managing NBN Co to deliver to Australians. So it is little wonder to me that NBN Co and the department of communications are also dragging their feet in answering these questions because, again, what it exposes is cost blowouts and consumer disappointment when the promises that the government has made are simply not met.

I will take you to some of the questions asked by Senator Green in estimates. Senator Green, asking about the 1.5 million premises being G.fast enabled, said:

One of them said it would be by 2020 and the minister is now saying it's 2023. Why won't fibre to the curb network be gigabyte capable by the end of 2020?

Mr Windeyer, the key official answering these questions from the department of communications, said:

I think there are some details here that would be worth raising with NBN or we can take them on notice, but I think NBN will be able to answer for you when they appear exactly what the state of the FTTC network is and its readiness.

As we see in the kinds of questions that remain unanswered, the department of communications said: 'Let NBN Co answer these questions. We could take them on notice, but best direct your questions over there.' Well, perhaps we should've asked both NBN Co and the department some of these questions, because now we've got the department complaining that they can't get NBN Co to answer these questions in a timely manner. What does this show about the accountability of this government in relation to the promises that it has made to the Australian people in relation to its NBN network?

It is an appalling state of affairs. I have been speaking to constituents that have responded to marketing and have signed up to certain megabit levels that simply cannot be met by the current infrastructure that exists in their local area. Essentially, they have been sold something that doesn't exist in their area. Senator Urquhart asks at question 188: 'How many FTTN premises cannot currently achieve a layer 2 speed of 25 megabits per second?', and they haven't answered it. What we're really talking about here is Australian consumers that were sold a dud product, where we have a government that refuses to be accountable for the promises that it made. This is an appalling state of affairs.

While I've seen many a government official at estimates complain about the number of questions that Senator Kitching asks—they tend to kind of go, 'Oh, here we go again'—there is a real relationship between things like executive bonuses, flowers bought, corporate culture, and how much is spent on entertainment and the like when you relate that back to poor performance and accountability. These are promises that are made to the Australian people, that this government is essentially responsible for, that are not delivered. They were asked:

In 2013, the Coalition promised every Australian would have access to minimum speeds of 25 Mbps by the end of 2016. Can you confirm this target was missed up by up to 7 million premises?

We're here in 2021 now. You would have thought that, somewhere in Minister Fletcher's accountability or the officers that the department of communications has sat with, they would be tracking their promises and the outcomes and that they would be able to say that the department would be able to answer, that the minister would be able to answer and, indeed, that NBN Co would be able to answer basic questions about the promises that they made as a government. But again, here you can see in these unanswered questions that we've got on one hand a government that likes to make big promises and pays no attention to the detail of getting them delivered. Not only is the government not paying attention to detail but it seemed to me, in the answers given by officials, that they did not have the technical know-how at a senior level to be able to answer the questions about the milestones NBN Co should be meeting in order to meet these commitments. That to me seems like an extraordinary state of affairs.

Senator Green also said in estimates, 'You don't have the details of the $70 per home that it's going to—by the government.' Mr Windeyer said: 'No, I don't have the technical details of what NBN is going to be spending money on over the next few years with respect to the FTTC network. I'll take that on notice, but I think they'll be happy to answer it.' Senator Green said: 'I think I have to hand over, but you said that this was a significant upgrade—it's so significant that you don't know what it is.' Mr Atkinson from the department said:

Can we just desist with this. I think Mr Windeyer is saying you'll get a better answer from the people who are actually going to be implementing the upgrade on the technical aspects of exactly what's going to happen to the FTTC.

We see that, when we ask technical questions of NBN Co, Senator Hume comes in here and says that the department is doing their best to get answers from NBN Co, and yet the department doesn't have the expertise to answer them themselves—which I think they should have. These are major announcements that are embedded in the translation between the announcements that the government has made and the relationship of the department with NBN Co that holds together that accountability to the Australian public. And still we come in here and Senator Hume says, 'We're doing our best to get NBN Co to answer these questions.' I remind Minister Fletcher and Senator Hume, who was indeed at the table at the time, that it was the department that directed many of these questions to NBN Co—questions that I believe they should have been able to answer. The failure to answer these questions very much underpins the disaster that is now the NBN and data promises that this government made to the Australian people about the technology that they should be able to have access to at work, at home and in the broader community.

The kinds of issues that are being raised by the opposition are in relation to NBN Co's financial year 2020 results. Again you can see NBN Co and the government trying to self-congratulate themselves on their outcomes, and yet when you dig down into the data—if you can get it through these processes, because the department doesn't seem to be able to ask NBN Co for this accountability—the claims being made don't stand up.

NBN Co, by all reports in their data, showed a great outcome by completing the volume rollout over COVID-19. But in this parliament we have a duty to scrutinise the kinds of claims being made, and the cost blowout from the multitechnology mix that the government has promoted has gone from $29.5 billion to $41 billion to $49 billion and now to $51 billion. The kinds of questions we asked about the corporate plan, which Senator Urquhart has asked, highlighted that the 2020 corporate plan saw significant revision downwards in targets, making it easier to exceed the stated claim and claim credit for having done so. If you compare the 2020 results with the unrevised 2019 corporate plan forecasts, capital costs are up $1.5 billion and revenue is down $100 billion. The kinds of questions that Senator Urquhart asked about capital expenditure remain unanswered.

It is little surprise to me that NBN Co is dragging its feet in answering these questions, but I find it completely galling that the government pretends it wants to be completely accountable to this parliament and that there's some kind of administrative accountability when we know that these issues go right down to the core of the disaster that is this government's commitments to the Australian people in relation to the NBN.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Birmingham) and the Minister for Defence (Senator Reynolds) to questions without notice asked by Senators Ciccone and Gallagher today relating to industrial relations laws and to allegations concerning ministerial staff.

The Minister for Defence came into this chamber today not on her own initiative but in response to a question asked of her. Do you know what? It's two years too late. She apologises to Ms Higgins for her treatment by herself and her office two years later. Minister, nice words saying the right thing now do not compensate nor forgive two years of doing nothing. Minister Reynolds's apology might be more believable if something—anything!—had been done at any stage to support Ms Higgins following her disclosure. But nothing was done then, and nothing is being done now. Has anyone from this government reached out to Ms Higgins to offer any support? The defence minister said she could see the trauma and hurt to Ms Higgins in the TV interview, but has anyone followed up with her? Has anyone, in any agency, reached out to see if any support can be provided now by her former employer? I doubt it.

Today, the defence minister of Australia, in responding to allegations of a rape occurring on her couch, in her office, hides behind the excuse of a possible police investigation to deny this chamber and Ms Higgins answers that should be provided now. Senator Reynolds, the defence minister of Australia, is accountable to this chamber and, through us, to the people of Australia for her conduct as a minister. The question Senator Reynolds refuses to answer goes directly to her conduct: to what she knew, to when she knew it, to what she did and to the steps she took as a minister to deal with allegations about a serious crime occurring in her office. We will continue to hold this minister to account. This is not some minor political inconvenience; this is about what happens in one of the most senior offices in this country. A full statement outlining exactly what the minister knew, when she knew it and what was done—none of which is subject to a police investigation, to our understanding—is the minimum amount of information this minister should be providing to this chamber.

Some of what the defence minister has said to date in this chamber simply does not add up. She would have us believe that she didn't know the details of what is alleged to have occurred on her couch in her office, but, at the same time, she facilitated the police involvement and terminated the alleged rapist. She would have us believe that some six days elapsed from Ms Higgins's disclosure to the minister's chief of staff before the minister met with Ms Higgins and that, at that meeting, which brought Ms Higgins back to the scene of the alleged rape, the minister was still unaware of any details about the incident.

The minister would have the chamber believe that, despite many others knowing of the incident, including a number of agencies and her chief of staff, who had met with and received a full disclosure from Ms Higgins, she didn't know any of the details, which then leads one to ask: did she not ask? Did she not wonder why one of her close advisers had all of a sudden disappeared? Did she not ask her chief of staff whether she had been given an account of what had occurred? Did she not wonder, coming into her office, why she was meeting with a young woman—just her and the chief of staff? Why was she having that meeting? Seriously, something like this was happening in your own office and no-one said anything—nothing—to you? It's simply unbelievable. The only other explanation, aside from the Senate not being given accurate information to date, is that the minister was therefore wilfully negligent in her duties as a minister and as an employer.

Today we saw the Prime Minister lay the groundwork to distance himself from this, first in the media conference and then in question time. An apology two years too late is not going to make this go away. We need to get the story straight from this minister. She needs to stop avoiding questions and hiding behind investigations. She needs to take responsibility for what happened to Ms Higgins and take responsibility for her position as a minister. (Time expired)

Something that can never be taken for granted is the right to work in a safe environment, whether that be on a building site, on a cattle station or even in a parliamentary office. Workplace reform, especially for women, has come a long way, but more needs to be done to ensure that all people, both men and women, feel comfortable and empowered to take action should the worst occur. It is impossible not to sympathise with Brittany Higgins and others who have endured the double blow of being involved in an incident and then not feeling supported by those who could do something about it. Yet I feel deeply uncomfortable. The opposition has raised this issue and pursued this issue. In the way that the opposition has ensured that this has played out, it has ensured that there will be other complainants who will now potentially be considering whether or not they want to be publicly discussed. Brittany's colleagues and managers certainly acted with good intentions, and Brittany herself has acknowledged the support she received, but processes can always be improved, and they will be.

I refer to the Prime Minister's statement today in the first question in the other place, in which he referred to the process that has been put in place and said that this government will review our processes and our culture. He embraced the suggestion from the Leader of the Opposition and thanked him for the suggestion and the spirit in which it was put forward. But, as he said:

… all of us agree that in the important work we all do here, whether it's members of this place, senators in the other place or our staff, we all come here because we want to make a contribution to our country and we should be able to do that in a safe environment for everyone who is here.

He welcomes that suggestion, so the government will continue along the process that the Prime Minister has outlined today. He's keen to get that moving, and we will. But it is important that every party and everyone who is in this place embrace that same process. The Prime Minister has encouraged the Leader of the Opposition to pursue a similar exercise amongst his colleagues, and I think that, as a government, an opposition and a cross bench, we would all do well to review our own cultures and come together to share those notes and ensure that the process is as productive as possible.

The government has already aimed to provide Ms Higgins with agency and aimed to provide support to make decisions in her interest and respect her privacy. The investigations into her experience are underway. I'm confident that the system in place to deal with serious allegations will be improved once a full review is completed, because having a safe, inclusive and supportive workplace is something everyone, not just one political party or one office, should strive for.

Our workplace has many elements that are not unique—a significant amount of travel and time away from home. But what is unique is the number of late nights and weekends that are worked. This is not unique to any side of politics, and I welcome the PM's review and hope that both sides will take advantage of this concept to look deeply into our own cultures. As a previous small business operator I too know of the challenges of managing people, because we are, in all of our glorious, technicolour differences, interesting and challenging, and I know that we all embrace the challenge of ensuring a safe culture and a safe environment for our employees.

Today the Minister for Defence has stood in this place and apologised to Ms Higgins and made a very comprehensive statement. But I do want to note that Brittany's statement concluded with this:

I ask for my privacy to now be respected as I begin to emotionally recover from this difficult period and wish to make no further comment.

I would suggest that we would all be served by allowing the process to proceed and ensure that this does not happen again in this place.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Birmingham) to questions without notice asked by Senator Ciccone today relating to workplace relations.

Senator Ciccone asked about the plight of an aged-care nurse, Ann, who has been in her profession since 1978 and who expressed her concern about the government's IR legislation, saying:

The proposed legislation doesn't make things better for us and our residents. It makes it so much worse. And to be honest, I don't think I can handle any more cuts.

Prime Minister Morrison and Minister Porter have made it clear that they are only ditching their plan to scrap the better off overall test, the test in IR law—and doing so would have given employers the capacity to strike agreements that made cuts—not because they don't believe in it, not because they recognise that it's unfair, but because they can't get it through this Senate. The Labor Party is very firmly opposed to it, and, now that some discussions have taken place with the crossbench, it's very clear that there's only one motivation behind the government dropping this test, and that is that they don't have the opportunity to pass it.

Mr Porter said very clearly he still believes in the change—a change that would remove the safety net for workers and give employers vastly expanded powers to cut pay and entitlements. Minister Porter continues to say it is 'sensible and proportionate'. Nevertheless, this IR legislation, which is in the guise of 'the COVID recovery package', is really the government saying, 'We'll create rhetoric around the creation of new jobs, because we will boost company profits by cutting the wages and conditions of Australians.' So why are they retreating on this? They are retreating now for the sake of political expediency. But we cannot forget that this is their real agenda, as we have seen time and time again in this place.

We can also see in what the government continues to put forward in this place that dropping the BOOT test was only part of the picture. It's certainly not the only issue. There are issues in relation to changes in rostering and hours, the conversion of pay et cetera, and moving from casual to permanent employment that are also egregiously problematic.

What does that mean for a nurse like Ann, a registered nurse for 12 years who works in aged care? As we've seen in the course of this pandemic, aged-care workers have been told that they can't work two jobs, despite the fact that they don't earn enough in their aged-care job to get by. We've seen workers have significant problems in this regard. These are the kinds of flexibilities that this government wants to continue to impose on Australian workers instead of coming up with funding reform and a package for areas like the aged-care sector.

The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, in their submission to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, said:

The impact of COVID-19 served to draw attention to the risks associated with a casualised, insecure workforce.

They highlighted that, in health and aged care, movement across work sites was an infection risk. This has been the situation for these workers for too long. COVID has only highlighted that. We've got to stop this legislation before it passes as a whole. (Time expired)

What we saw today was another classic case of the Labor Party spreading lies, fear and pessimism. There is going to be absolutely no cut to the better off test. There never was. What we wanted to do was enable businesses that are suffering under COVID to survive. If wages are going to be cut by any party—

Senator Pratt interjecting—

Order! Senator Pratt, you were heard in silence.

it's going to be under the Labor Party, because the Labor Party's policy is to force casuals to take up permanent work. That's expected to cost $153 a week. That is typical of the Labor Party because they are all about command and control. Don't give the workers a choice as to whether or not they want to stay on casual conditions and earn a 25 per cent loading. 'No, we're going to tell you what to do and how to do it.' What will that do? It will reduce flexibility and, if you reduce flexibility, you're going to destroy jobs. That's what the Labor Party does.

This government has created over 1½ million jobs. We've got 80 per cent of the people who lost their jobs in the initial COVID outbreak back into work. If it weren't for the Labor state premiers shutting their borders and causing lockdowns at the drop of one or two COVID cases, we'd probably have 100 per cent of people back in work.

This is the thing with Labor. If you go and look at Labor's record, after they introduced the Fair Work Act, wage theft went up because the laws were so complicated. This wasn't just big business. This was the ABC. This was Maurice Blackburn. Maurice Blackburn, an industrial relations law firm which Senator Watt and Senator Green have both worked for, couldn't even pay their staff properly. That tells you just how complex the Fair Work Act was when it was introduced by the Rudd-Gillard government.

Let's not forget which party raised penalty rates for the retail industry. Do you know who that was? It was the Liberal-National party. Saturday rates went up from 140 per cent to 150 per cent, and loading from six to nine o'clock on weeknights went up from 130 per cent to 150 per cent. That's because we know that it's important to reward people when they're working those hard hours. I know, as a former stay-at-home dad, those hours between six and nine o'clock at night are very important when you've got children. You've got to bath them, feed them, read to them and get them to brush their teeth, and anyone who's been a parent will know how hard that is when you've got three little guys running around. So make no mistake that under the coalition, only under the coalition, we will create jobs. What we are doing with these IR changes is to actually give workers the choice so they can convert from casual to permanent. We know Senator Watt. He's been very quiet as the shadow minister for resources lately. He's not doing a very good job there. We don't see much of him at all. It is a bit like 'Where's Murray?' when it comes to supporting the coal industry and the mining industry. We will be the party actually giving workers the right, if they choose—we're not going to tell people what to do—to go permanent.

The other change that I think is a very good change is the fact that we want to make it 21 days to finalise a negotiation. I've got to admit I've had a lot of jobs over the years. Most of them have been off award. When I was a student, I worked under award conditions. I didn't need three weeks to work out my pay contract. Basically, you get a salary, you get four weeks leave, you get two weeks public holidays and you get two weeks sick leave. All of these awards are in place, so why do you need so long? Of course it's just a racket for the industrial relations lawyers to make more money, to milk employers, to milk employees and to keep everything as complex as possible so Labor can keep their IR mates in a job and basically destroy industry.

I rise to make a contribution in the debate on Senator Pratt's motion to take note of Minister Birmingham's answers with regard to industrial relations, but, first up, I want to associate myself with the comments from Senator Gallagher, which were directed to Minister Birmingham and to the Minister for Defence.

I am here to stand up for Australian workers who are, at this particular point in time, under great threat from a really dodgy piece of work in the shape of an industrial relations bill that the government is pushing. We know how dodgy it is because today, despite the denials and the comments there from Senator Rennick, the government has had to drop a big chunk of the bill, the BOOT—the better off overall test—because it became very clear in evidence given to the Senate employment committee over the last couple of weeks that what the government was proposing was going to lead to workers being worse off overall—more insecurity and cuts to wages. That is what this bill was lined up to do. If it gets through, even with the amendment, workers in this country will still be absolutely worse off.

We could tell today that Minister Birmingham, in full flight here in the chamber in question time, didn't know what his colleagues in the other chamber were doing, and the only defence he could muster was to say it's 'his intention' in this legislation, it's the 'government's intention' in this legislation, to look after workers. I can tell you what: you cannot trust the intention of this Liberal-National government. You can never ever trust its intention. And I remind Australians who might be listening to this that the road to hell is, in fact, paved with good intention, and this bill will be hellish in its outcomes for Australian workers.

Senator McDonald made a contribution here this afternoon. She was actually in Queensland, in Townsville, where our committee went to take evidence. She asked a question about what was going on with this legislation, and she got a response from Mr Bukarica, who was giving evidence about the total impact of the bill. He did agree that this omnibus bill—for those who might be listening who don't understand, it's like you get a great big bag and you chuck everything in it that you want and somewhere at the bottom you bury a tiny smartie-sized little sweetie that you think you can get away with, so one small thing that might be good that you can hang on to while the rest of it is totally doing over the Australian workforce—'has a range of measures'. He was trying to be honest—a unionist saying, 'Not all of them are bad, but, taken as a package, the bill should be rejected.'

Well, they've jettisoned one bit today. They've jettisoned the BOOT. There's a lot more they need to get rid of. The rationale? Mr Bukarica put it very well:

I've already stated … there's a critical flaw in the bill in relation to the definition of 'casual employment'.

Let's be clear. If this government gets its way and this legislation gets through, you'll be a casual employee if your employer says you are a casual employee. There will be no clear and proper test. It's totally exploitative. It's totally exploitative of Australian workers. The only reason that this government's mentioned the definition of casual at all is because they want to stand up against workers. Through this legislation, they want to construct cuts to your pay—more insecurity for you in your work.

They have dressed up the most disgraceful little response to the concerns of people who want to become permanent. Not everybody wants to become permanent. Sometimes it's handy in your life to be a casual. We know that. We support it. But, if you want to become permanent, this government's got this little play going on where they say, 'If you want to become permanent, we're making it easier for the boss to ask you if you want to be permanent.' Except they're not letting you know that if the boss changes your shift any time in the last six months, over a period of 12 months, that means they do not have to ask you. The government have given the whistle to the captain of the opposite team and removed the umpire. That's what they've done. That's how rigged against the workers this government's construction of this legislation is.

We are fighting tooth and nail against this omnibus bill, for the Australian small businesses and workers. We will continue to fight day in and day out. The BOOT's gone. We need to stick the boot into the rest of it and get rid of this disgraceful piece of legislation that is full of government intention—mal-intention—for Australian workers.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Birmingham) to a question without notice asked by Senator Waters today relating to allegations concerning ministerial staff.

I asked about this issue yesterday and I asked whether or not the government would support the Sex Discrimination Commissioner doing a culture review of what on earth is going on in this building, where we have incident after incident. I didn't get a reply to that aspect of the question yesterday. This morning we saw the Prime Minister finally respond, but his response was really the bare minimum. What he's now proposed is two reviews, but they're both internal. There is one internal review that will be led by his own staff member in his department that will look at the mishandling—frankly—of Ms Higgins's rape allegations and the fact that she felt silenced, unsupported and let down and has ultimately moved on from politics. The second review will be led by a Liberal MP into the culture of this building. When you have the fact that there is a silencing affect and a previous history of party being put before personal safety, it is not enough—it is not adequate—to have internal reviews to deal with this issue. I can tell you now: internal reviews do not give women confidence that these issues will actually be tackled and that anything will change. So that's our first message to the Prime Minister: do an independent, external review. It can be the Sex Discrimination Commissioner; they've got a great track record of looking at these issues in other workplaces. Sadly, we know that Parliament House is not unusual in having sexual harassment and assault incidents that are, sadly, rife for many, many workers.

The other point that I asked and didn't get a response to is: how do we know if these internal reviews, and the findings of same, will even be made public? There's a long history of the PM charging his own people with looking into some scandal or another, usually involving one of his ministers—usually a male minister, I might add—and often the results of that review are simply not made public. There is no transparency in that process. Naturally, the conduct doesn't tend to change. So I asked about whether or not the review findings will be made public and, again, sadly, I did not get an answer. We also don't know what time frame will be applied for those reviews. The Prime Minister didn't answer that request in his press conference earlier today—I would hazard a guess that it's not till after the election. We don't know whether or not these internal reviews will interact with existing reviews that are on foot being led by the CPSU, the union that covers this building and the workers and staff in this building. That review is already underway and they have been trying to get members of the government to engage. My understanding is they have had no success in so doing, which, frankly, is unsurprising but is unacceptable. It's not clear whether or not staff themselves here in this building, or the women's safety sector, or any other relevant experts, will be consulted in the course of those internal reviews. Again, internal reviews are not good enough. They will not restore confidence. The Prime Minister needs to do better. Perhaps he could ask his wife for some advice in that regard.

On that point, the press conference earlier this morning by the Prime Minister, which I asked Minister Birmingham about, really had some very dated undertones to it. We know the Prime Minister spent some money receiving some training from an empathy consultant. My suggestion is that the Prime Minister now seek some training about modern attitudes to gender, because, frankly, there was victim-blaming that occurred in his press conference today. He may not have intended it—it may well have been unconscious—but nonetheless it was there. His statement that Brittany Higgins 'found herself' in a vulnerable situation completely denied the fact that she had been put in such a situation by a badly behaved man who happened to be employed by his own party. That victim-blaming is, sadly, so widespread and often unconscious that training clearly is required.

The other point was that the Prime Minister was asked to reflect on: what if it had been his daughters? Well, it's not the 1950s anymore, Prime Minister. Women have value irrespective of whether we are daughters or wives or in any other way related to men. We have value in and of ourselves. So I was disheartened to hear that very outdated notion expressed by the so-called leader of our nation. Ms Higgins has called for an independent body for staff to take complaints to. The Prime Minister said today he would listen to her. I asked him to listen to that call. We'll see what happens in that regard.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator McMahon for today, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

I inform the chamber that Senators McKim, Whish-Wilson, Brown and Urquhart will also sponsor the motion. I ask that general business notice of motion No. 986, in the name of Senator Bilyk, be taken as a formal motion.

Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?

An honourable senator: Yes.

There is an objection.

I ask that general business notice of motion No. 991, in the name of Senator Dodson and others, be taken as a formal motion.

Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?

An honourable senator: Yes.

There is an objection.

I inform the chamber that Senator Davey will also sponsor the motion. I ask that general business notice of motion No. 992, in the name of Senator Keneally and others, be taken as a formal motion.

Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?

An honourable senator: Yes.

There is an objection.

I haven't said anything, Mr President. I just want to put that on the record. I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 985, relating to seismic testing, before asking that it be taken as a formal motion.

Leave granted.

I amend the motion in the terms circulated in the chamber. I ask that it be taken as formal.

Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?

An honourable senator: Yes.

There is. We'll move to notice of motion No. 989.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! I can play my recording from the last time I had this discussion. We've done it before. Senator Whish-Wilson, are you seeking leave to make a short statement?

I am.

Is leave granted for Senator Whish-Wilson to make a short statement? There being no objection, you can make a statement.

Thank you, Mr President. I want to ask if I could move that again and the Labor Party reconsider.

You have asserted that someone objected. I need to make sure the Hansard does not necessarily reflect something that didn't occur. I heard an objection. I'm not going to say from whom, unless someone wants to claim ownership of it. I think that's the way it should be reflected in the Hansard. I will give you the opportunity again. Is there any objection to notice of motion No. 985 as amended being taken as formal? There being none, you may move the motion.

I move the motion as amended:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

  (i) all sides of politics have expressed concerns about extending Petroleum Exploration Permit 11 and oil and gas drilling off the coasts of Sydney and Newcastle, and

  (ii) ConocoPhillips Australia wants to look for gas reserves in the Otway Basin in an operational area of 4,089 square kilometres only 23.5 kilometres off the west coast of Tasmania's King Island, from 1 August;

(b) acknowledges the:

  (i) knowledge gap surrounding the impacts of seismic testing on local communities and local industries which depend on healthy oceans and coastline, and

  (ii) importance of the rock lobster industry to Tasmania and the King Island community and that any negative impact on the industry would impact on the community itself;

(c) further notes Liberal MP for Braddon Mr Gavin Pearce's statements, that the concern felt by the King Island community is genuine, and that:

  (i) ConocoPhillips must address these fears with evidence-based answers, and

  (ii) if ConocoPhillips cannot prove there will be no impact on local fishing livelihoods then the seismic testing should not go ahead; and

(d) calls on NOPSEMA to apply the precautionary principle when independently assessing the impacts of seismic testing and processing permit applications.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government recognises the importance of both the fishing and petroleum industries to the economy. Oil and gas activities in Commonwealth waters have been effectively regulated alongside fishing for many decades, with strict safety and environmental standards underpinned by science and overseen by an independent expert regulator in NOPSEMA. We recognise the concerns of the fishing industry about the potential impact of seismic surveys on the marine environment. We're working with fishing industry peak bodies and the offshore petroleum industry on a voluntary national approach for consultation and engagement, improving certainty for both industries. This is complex, constructive and ongoing work that will achieve more than this intentionally divisive motion from the Greens.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

One Nation will support this motion. Australia has the most attractive offshore gas laws in the world. These laws act as a magnet for foreign-owned integrated gas businesses, like ConocoPhillips, because they don't pay for our gas, don't pay income tax on the profits made from selling our gas and don't give us any gas, leaving us with higher priced onshore gas. The Prime Minister's gas led manufacturing strategy is just another marketing campaign until the gas laws are reformed, because Australia is the only large gas producer in the world where the domestic gas price is higher than the export gas price. One Nation will not support drilling in sensitive environmental areas, including the Great Southern Reef and the pristine waters near South Australia or Tasmania.

Question agreed to.

I ask that general business notice of motion No. 989, standing in the names of Senator Wong and Minister Payne, be taken as a formal motion.

Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?

An honourable senator: Yes.

There is.

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

That the Senate—

(a) notes the Bergin report concerning Crown's gaming operations and its findings of money laundering and criminal activity;

(b) calls on all political parties and candidates to join the Greens in refusing to accept donations from Crown; and

(c) calls on the Liberal, National and Labor parties to return the almost $2 million in political donations received from Crown since 2000 or to transfer an equivalent amount to a charity or support service that deals with problem gambling.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Australia has an appropriately robust system to regulate the disclosure and reporting of political donations. It is overseen by the independent Australian Electoral Commission. The Morrison government takes allegations of criminality seriously. AUSTRAC commenced an enforcement investigation into Crown Melbourne in August 2020 as a result of an AUSTRAC compliance assessment that began in September 2019. It's not appropriate to discuss details, as the matter is ongoing.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Labor will be opposing this motion. This is just another political stunt from the Greens. What the Greens don't tell you with this motion is that, since 2013, the Greens have accepted over $1.5 million from high-end gambler Duncan Turpie. Prior to the 2016 election, the Greens accepted $500,000 from Mr Turpie. In 2018-19, they accepted $545,000 in donations from Mr Turpie, including a $450,000 donation 18 days before the last election. Last year, the Greens accepted $150,000 in donations from Mr Turpie, including a $100,000 donation to Senator Waters's own branch, the Queensland Greens, 12 days after she introduced her bill to ban donations from the gambling industry. If the Greens were serious about donations reform, they'd be handing back the donations they've received, which have been financed by the gambling industry.

The question is that motion No. 990 be agreed to.

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

That the Senate—

(a) notes that this year will be the 30th anniversary of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody's final report;

(b) further notes that the 339 recommendations from the Royal Commission have still not been fully implemented;

(c) expresses its dismay that since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody there have been over 455 deaths of First Nations people in custody; and

(d) calls on:

  (i) the Prime Minister to meet with the families left behind after a death in custody on the date of the 30th anniversary of the Royal Commission's report being handed down, and

  (ii) the Government to commit to implementing all of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody in partnership with First Nations communities, particularly the family members who have been left behind after a death in custody.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Every death in custody is a tragedy. As the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody found, the fundamental issue is that too many Aboriginal people are in custody too often. An independent review of the RCIADIC recommendations conducted in 2017 found that the Australian government had fully or mostly implemented 91 per cent of recommendations for which it had responsibility. The Morrison government is committed to working with the states and territories, who have responsibility for their justice systems, and communities through initiatives such as the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. The government does not support parts (d) and (e) of the motion.

The question is that the motion moved by Senators Thorpe and Dodson be agreed to.

I seek leave to move general business notices Nos 986, 989, 991 and 992 together and that they be determined without amendment or debate.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Gallagher from moving these motions together and that they be determined without amendment or debate.

The question is that so much of the standing orders be suspended as would allow Senator Gallagher to move a number of motions together to be taken as formal. The division requires an absolute majority.

I move motions 986, 989, 991 and 992 together:

General Business Notice of Motion 986

That the Senate—

(a) congratulates the Tasmanian nominees for the 2021 Australian of the Year Awards on their success in securing the state's nomination, namely:

  (i) Local Hero nominee, Edna Pennicott OAM, who has helped thousands of people through 40 years of charity work including through her local charity, Kingborough Helping Hands,

  (ii) Young Australian of the Year nominee, Toby Thorpe, who has been a national and international leader in the youth climate change movement through the Australian Youth Climate Coalition and the Climate Justice Initiative,

  (iii) Senior Australian of the Year nominee, Brian Williams, group leader of the Blackmans Bay Scout Group, who has dedicated most of his life to the scouting movement, and

  (iv) Australian of the Year nominee, Grace Tame, who has been a key driver of the Let Her Speak campaign fighting for the rights of survivors of child sexual assault to publicly tell their stories; and

(b) further congratulates Grace Tame on becoming the first Tasmanian in the 61 years of the awards to be awarded Australian of the Year, and for her bravery in speaking publicly about her own personal tragedy and using that story to fight to give a voice to the voiceless.

Gener al Business Notice of Motion 989

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

  (i) a strong, democratic and united America (US) is overwhelmingly in Australia's national interest,

  (ii) the US democratic system and its enduring institutions are robust, transparent and resilient, and

  (iii) the Australia-US alliance is strong, based on shared democratic values of upholding the rule of law and the integrity of international institutions, and protecting our freedom, security, prosperity and sovereignty;

(b) condemns unreservedly the incitement and use of violence at Capitol Hill in Washington D.C. on 6 January 2021, including through disinformation, in an attempt to undermine the democratic process, disenfranchise millions of electors, and disrupt the lawful duties of elected senators and representatives;

(c) recognises the conduct of an orderly, complete and effective transition of Presidential and Congressional power on Inauguration Day, Wednesday, 20 January 2021; and

(d) affirms the longstanding commitment of both Australia and the US to global security and, in particular, a free, secure and prosperous Indo-Pacific and looks forward to working with President Biden and his administration in pursuit of those goals.

Gener al Business Notice of Motion 991

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

  (i) 13 years ago, on 13 February 2008, former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered the National Apology to the Stolen Generations in the Australian Parliament,

  (ii) on behalf of the nation, the former Prime Minister apologised for the suffering inflicted on First Nations families, especially through the removal of children from their families,

  (iii) the first Closing the Gap targets and strategy were part of the National Apology,

  (iv) the new National Agreement on Closing the Gap contains additional targets, including to address overrepresentation in the criminal justice and child protection systems, and

  (v) this is the first year since 2008 that the Prime Minister has not presented a Closing the Gap report to Parliament on the anniversary of the National Apology;

(b) acknowledges:

  (i) the ongoing impact of dispossession, discrimination and trauma on First Nations people;

  (ii) the continued disparity between First Nations and non-Indigenous Australians, including the disproportionate number of First Nations children in out-of-home care, and

  (iii) the responsibility of the Federal Government in maintaining the ambition necessary to achieve the Closing the Gap targets; and

(c) calls on the Federal Government to ensure adequate investment in the new Closing the Gap targets.

Gener al Business Notice of Motion 992

(1) That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

  (i) 15 October is International Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day, on which parents, families and friends memorialise babies lost through miscarriage, stillbirth and infant death, and

  (ii) in Australia:

     (A) approximately one in four pregnancies result in miscarriage—103,000 every year,

     (B) in 2018, 2789 lives were lost due to stillbirth or newborn death,

     (C) stillbirth rates have not changed in two decades, and

     (D) the rate of stillbirth and newborn death is higher in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

(b) congratulates the Government for implementing the Senate Select Committee on Stillbirth's recommendation for a national stillbirth action plan which sets an achievable goal of a 20% reduction in rates of stillbirth over five years;

(c) extends condolences and sympathies to families who have suffered a miscarriage, stillbirth or infant death;

(d) recognises previous generations who experienced such a loss during a time when the subject was taboo, and families were given even less of an opportunity to commemorate and remember their children; and

(e) officially and eternally recognises 15 October as International Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day.

(2) That a message be sent to the House of Representatives seeking its concurrence in this resolution.

I ask that they be determined without amendment or debate.

I raise a point of order, Mr President. I just want clarification. The temporary order had a restriction on the number of times a senator could seek formality on a motion, with that being only one per sitting. I just want to make sure that everything is being done properly here.

Off the top of my head, Senator Patrick, and I will come back to the chamber and plead ignorance if I get it wrong, I interpret the previous motion as suspending so much of standing orders as would allow Senator Gallagher to do this, which includes the suspension of the temporary order you referred to. If I'm wrong, I apologise in advance and I'll correct myself in the chamber and make sure it doesn't happen again.

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

Leave is granted for one minute.

As a point of principle, we want it placed on record that we oppose moving motions en bloc. We don't want to set a precedent to do that.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Waters should be heard in silence.

Parties may wish to vote differently if this were to occur in future. We also would normally exercise our right to seek leave to make a short statement to explain our voting position, which we were going to do in relation to the complex foreign policy motion that your party put, Senator Gallagher. We welcome that as a change of position on being able to debate complex foreign policy matters in this chamber and we look forward to you doing the same thing to us when we seek to move similar motions, but we also remain opposed to the restriction on motions. It has a disproportionate effect on crossbenchers and the Greens, and we continue to push to be able to use our democratic rights even where it's inconvenient to put you on the spot for your own policy positions.

In clarification of that, Senator Waters, I will seek advice if this matter comes up again. But, unless there is a strenuous objection from the chamber, I'm going to extend the courtesy of allowing these motions to be voted on separately as I would separate clauses of motions if senators wish to vote differently, and indicate that they will be voting differently, on them. Now, unless there's a strenuous objection—we haven't had this circumstance before—I intend to extend that courtesy. Again, if I'm wrong, it won't happen again, but the Clerk has said to me by message that my previous ruling was correct.

Could you read out the numbers that we're supposed to be voting on?

I have—986, 989, 991 and 992.

I do not want to vote for them en bloc.

Unless there's an objection from someone, I am going to offer senators, if they indicate they will vote differently on at least one of them, the courtesy of putting them separately. Is that the case? It is the case. In that case, I will put matter No. 986, in the name of Senator Bilyk. Those of that opinion say aye; to the contrary, no. The ayes have it. I will put matter 989, in the name of Senator Wong and Senator Payne.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave not granted.

I'm going to put matter No. 989. Those of that opinion say aye; to the contrary, no. The ayes have it. I'm now going to put matter No. 991, in the name of Senators Dodson, McCarthy and Thorpe. The question is that motion No. 991 be agreed to.

I will now put matter No. 992, the final matter. Those supporting that matter say aye; to the contrary, no. The ayes have it. Thank you, senators. That concludes the discovery of formal business.

I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, 27 proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the letter from Senator McKim proposing a matter of urgency was chosen:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the National Party to be stripped of the federal water portfolio, due to their refusal to accept the science of climate change, particularly in light of the Productivity Commission's draft report into the National Water Reform which found that climate change is threatening Australia's water security, clean drinking water and food supply.

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 rise to contribute to this important debate today. Last week the Productivity Commission released an interim report into the National Water Reform. This is a damming assessment of the state of Australia's water supply and water security. But, of course, the Productivity Commission, being the economically conservative body that it is, has taken a very rational approach to what is a looming crisis right here in Australia. The Productivity Commission has nailed the issue: climate change—a warming climate, more extreme weather events and the destruction of our environment—is putting our water at risk within our rivers, our treatments, our water catchments and the water supply for our towns and our cities.

When the Productivity Commission raises such important issues, you have to turn and wonder who is in charge. We know who is in charge of Australia's federal water policy. It's the National Party. That's because, of course, the deal that was done to form the Morrison government was to ensure that the water portfolio was given to a member of the National Party. Think about this: the party who doesn't accept the climate science and doesn't even believe that we need to do what the science is requiring—to reduce pollution to tackle climate change—is in charge of the very important portfolio that is impacted most by the drying climate. The National Party with their head buried in the sand on climate change—

Senator McKenzie interjecting—

is putting Australia's water supply at risk.

That's outrageous.

Australia's water security is threatened by climate change, and it is hanging in the balance because of the climate denialism inside the National Party and of those at the helm of Australia's water policy.

The Murray-Darling Basin is in crisis. It is oversubscribed. The extraction levels are so big that there is not enough water in the system the keep all of the users sustainable. There's not enough water in the system to keep the river flowing from A to B. In fact, we have towns right now in New South Wales, like Wilcannia, that don't have enough water to drink. Of course, this issue gets worse and worse not just because of the drying climate but because of those further upstream who are allowed to siphon off water that would have run into the system when it rained.

So on one hand we've got climate denialism overarching in the National Party and in this government, and then we've got a corrupt system of mismanagement of the scarce amount of water that is there.

Senator McKenzie interjecting—

We've got cotton farmers in the north harvesting floodwater. Meanwhile towns further downstream don't even have enough clean water to drink, let alone to irrigate crops. I tell you what: you can't eat cotton, and you certainly can't—

Senator Hanson-Young, I have Senator Patrick on his feet for a point of order.

I'm actually struggling to hear Senator Hanson-Young because of Senator McKenzie's interjections. I ask that you remind—

Government senators interjecting—

Thank you, Senator Patrick. I do note that there is a considerable level of noise in the chamber. Please respect Senator Hanson-Young as she finishes her contribution.

The squawking from this corner of the room—

Point of order—

A point of order, Senator McKenzie?

I really think that's poor language from the senator. I think reflecting on another senator by saying they are 'squawking' is unparliamentary.

I'll rule on that. The discussion was general. It wasn't at one person, so it is not a point of order on this occasion. Senator Hanson-Young to continue.

The National Party over here in this corner are carrying on because they know the truth. They know that there is not enough water in the Murray-Darling Basin to ensure that towns, small farmers and the environment can survive, because they, of course, have allowed their political interests to siphon off, to harvest and to take all of the water so that the rest of us are left with nothing. Now we hear from the Productivity Commission that this is going to be made even worse because of climate change. If we want to get this right, if we want to secure Australia's water supply, we've got to get rid of the Nationals in running this portfolio. If Mr Morrison as Prime Minister is serious about the future of this country, he has to dump the National Party in pulling the strings on Australia's water supply.

The water portfolio—you say it like it's a gift to the Nationals. But the water portfolio is a poisoned chalice. It is the poisoned chalice of all portfolios, because it is the one portfolio in our nation—

An honourable senator interjecting—

Do you Greens want it? That would be great, because the Greens solution is to just add water. That's all the Greens can think about when it comes to managing our environment and managing our waterways: just add water. Miraculously it rains, and Wilcannia's got water. I wish I could make it rain and I wish that we could stop taking water and still feed ourselves and still clothe ourselves. Would that not be good, Senator Patrick? The same can be said for your irrigators, who are fantastic irrigators. South Australian irrigators are very good. New South Wales irrigators are good. We need our irrigation industry. We absolutely need our irrigation industry. It underpins our agricultural production and it underpins our regional communities and our regional economies. And it's these communities and economies that have been absolutely devastated by the 'just add water' approach that the Greens cling to time and time again.

I want to remind this chamber what our communities have given in the name of the environment, and it goes way back. Let's talk about the early nineties, when communities in Victoria and New South Wales gave up their right to some water in the name of the environment, with the very first environmental water allocation, the Barmah-Millewa forest allocation. They gave that water up with no compensation. Then again, in the late nineties, the cap on diversions was put in place, and again our communities gave up water, with no compensation, in the name of the environment. Fast forward to the 2000s and we got a National Party minister, and good on him—John Anderson did the right thing. He recognised water as a property right. He developed the National Water Initiative, which the Greens are now holding up as the doyen for water reform. Thank you, National Party. If it weren't for the National Party, that water initiative would not have been signed in place, and the Productivity Commission report wouldn't exist. So thank you to the National Party for that. That is not the only reform the National Party have led.

My colleague and friend Senator Patrick over there doesn't believe that the National Party have taken any steps when it comes to water compliance, and that could not be further from the truth. It was the National Party in New South Wales that implemented the Natural Resources Access Regulator, which is now held up as the compliance cop on the beat in the basin. The National Party has led the way in developing modern telemetric technology to apply to on-farm water storage so that we can measure what we manage when it comes to water. We in New South Wales and Victoria have had telemeters and compliant meters for years, since the early nineties. In fact, in my area of Murray Irrigation, we have had volumetric caps on our entitlements and metered take since the sixties. People down at the south end of the system stand on a soapbox and try to claim purity, when, in their districts, up until two years ago, they were allowed to take water with no water in their account. They were the only jurisdiction left in the Murray-Darling Basin that, even under National Water Initiative compliant entitlement regimes, were allowed to access water when they didn't have it in their account, effectively manipulating the market, going into the market after the fact, when prices were cheaper, instead of, like every other state in basin, having to have a positive account balance. Imagine that—it's like having water on a credit card. It should not happen and, thankfully, South Australia have taken steps to amend that—congratulations to them. But I remind other South Australians who stand on a soapbox and point the finger: don't throw stones in glass houses.

I also want to remind people that the Greens hold this up and say the Nationals shouldn't have the portfolio because they deny climate change. I've never denied climate change. My colleagues don't deny climate change. But you can't make all policy—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order!

But let's look at this. They say that because blaming someone like the Nationals for being denialists is good for their constituents. But their constituents don't bear the brunt of the reforms that have been done over years in the name of the environment. Those regional communities have been put through the wringer and are still living in perpetual uncertainty about what water regime they will be living under and whether there will be enough water remaining in their region to enable effective, efficient and affordable water management. You can't do it alone. Let's talk about the progress of water reform and what it has actually cost. Forget about the cost to the taxpayer; what about the cost to our communities? In the Edward-Wakool system, 50 per cent of their water entitlements have been recovered in the name of the environment. Imagine trying to run a store and being told you're only allowed to put 50 per cent of your stock in that store, but you've still got the same costs and the same overheads. It doesn't work.

The dairy industry in the Murray region, which includes Victoria, has been decimated by water reforms since the 2000s, and it is ongoing. It has declined by 40 per cent since the turn of this century, during the peak of the water reform frenzy. While our remaining dairy farmers are absolutely pulling their weight and keeping Australian dairy going, there is no doubt that they are in pain. Our rice industry, the most water-efficient rice industry in the world, is on its knees because of the impact on the water market that water reform has had. This is the water market that the Productivity Commission says has significant net benefits. I'm not saying the water market is a bad thing, but look at the cost of reform. We can't keep exporting our problems. We cannot say, 'Just grow rice overseas.' Should we grow rice in Third World countries, which need to feed themselves, or grow rice in countries that use triple the amount of water, which is a precious resource everywhere in the world? Should we grow rice overseas, where they may or may not use child labour, where their chemical regimes are far more questionable than Australia's? No, we've got to take responsibility for our own nation and our own production. I also remind people that rice growing can be turned off and on, so think about that next time you're choosing between rice milk and almond milk when you're ordering your latte. Almonds use more water than rice per hectare every year, without fail. Rice can be grown when it's wet and not grown when it's dry. Rice is the perfect crop for our variable climate.

Finally, if we want to talk about climate change—seriously, water reform and climate change—let's talk about the Lower Lakes. Let's talk about the impact of rising sea levels on the barrages and the Lower Lakes.

Take away the dams!

Order!

Senator Patrick, if you would like to take away the dams, congratulations; you bring that argument upstream and—

Senator Patrick interjecting—

Senator Patrick, I am not saying got rid of the barrages; I have never said that. What I am saying is that the barrages as they currently exist and operate will be compromised by rising sea levels thanks to climate change. The conversation needs to be had about how we manage the Lower Lakes and the barrages to address that instead of just looking upstream saying, 'Just add more.' It has to stop.

Any Australian listening to this would despair and reach the conclusion that the Greens and the National Party can't be trusted with water policy. Listening to Senator Davey's account, she speaks with some authority, I think, on questions around southern New South Wales and the rice industry, and I respect her contribution in that area. The truth is the National Party's administration of water policy, though, has let the people in the southern part of the river system down. The truth is that the National Party is institutionally incapable of administering water policy at the federal and state level in a way that deals with the environmental questions in the river, that deals with the water usage questions for agriculture and, in particular, deals appropriately with the rights of native title holders along the river.

I listened carefully to the Closing the Gap report yesterday. I have to say I was horrified again by one particular political party's approach to those issues, but I guess I will save that for another day. I was considering as I was listening to the Closing the Gap report what that meant for water policy in western New South Wales, because the issues around the gap are nowhere more apparent than in the way that we deal with water, particularly water in New South Wales.

Aboriginal communities and corporations own just 0.1 per cent of the more than $26 billion worth of water entitlements in the system. I travelled to these communities. I visited Wilcannia during the drought, where the Barkindji people have lived next to the river for millennia. Life expectancy for Wilcannia men is 37.5 years. I visited the Brewarrina fish traps, believed to be the oldest human structure on earth. They should be a national monument; they are 10 times as old as the pyramids. They were bone dry. I visited Walgett and talked to local health services. When the town runs dry, and it was dry then, the consequences for people's health and kids' health is catastrophic—drinking less water, bathing less frequently, eating less nutritious food. It is a town that already has endemic health issues concentrated in the town's Aboriginal communities. While I heard the refrain from those senators in the National Party that we just needed it to rain, the truth is the arrival of rain has not solved these problems. In January, Menindee's water supply, its drinking water, turned green. A thick slime now covers a third of its surface. That is despite the fact that north-west New South Wales has received twice as much rain as 2018 and 2019 combined.

Water management is a complex set of problems but what it requires beyond the framework is a rigorous approach to compliance, to dealing with corruption and to dealing with powerful lobbies and interest groups, because the truth is that the people who have missed out under the national stewardship water policy are farmers all along the river. It is the environment that has missed out, it is the people in the towns who should have good, decent jobs coming out of Australian agriculture and it is certainly native title holders or prospective native holders along the system.

Last week, the New South Wales Irrigators Council found that inflows have almost halved over the last 20 years, consistent with climate change projections. That availability will get worse. The Nationals don't have a plan for water and no more evident in that is—

Senator Canavan interjecting—

I will take the interjection from Senator Canavan. Build more dams—these jokers have not built a dam for decade after decade after decade. Putting aside whether or not that would be a good idea, there are plenty of private sector, unregulated dams out there, but you guys haven't built a dam. There is big talk about the dams. In every regional newspaper, there's always some joker from the National Party saying, 'We're going to be out there; we're going to build a dam.' But do they ever build one? They announce and they never deliver. Over and over and over again, these characters sell out the people of country New South Wales and country Australia.

It does invite, I think, a broader consideration of the issues facing Australian agriculture. A political movement that once purported to represent country-minded thinking has become a political front for a very narrow set of interests. With the big questions about Australian agriculture, as we rebuild from a record drought, now is the time for a big debate about building a stronger future for Australian agriculture. This year, the national cattle herd fell to 24.6 million. Australia's sheep flock fell to 66 million, the lowest level since 1905. And these characters mumble about nuclear power and building dams, but they have no substantial solutions.

The government has set the goal for Australian agriculture to be exporting $100 billion by 2030. The government set that goal because the National Farmers Federation set that goal. That is a good goal for the National Farmers Federation to have. But the question has to be asked: is it the right goal for the country? In truth, it lacks ambition. The truth is that Australian agriculture has continued to fall down the global value chain. It's fine for the National Farmers Federation to set an objective for farmers about farmgate prices and volumes, but the truth is we should be having a big debate in this country. If we're really interested in the people who live and work or want work in country towns, we should be focused on a debate about creating value in Australian agriculture, about adding value and about food manufacturing. Where are the National Party on these questions? They are nowhere.

In terms of climate change and agriculture, where are the poor old National Party? They are nowhere. The party that purports to represent the communities that will be most affected is nowhere on climate change policy—it's completely missing. Net zero emissions have been endorsed by every key agriculture body. Poor old Mr Joyce, the member for New England, said:

… a net-zero emissions policy would destroy any hope of expanding Australian farming. If the Nationals supported net-zero emissions we would cease to be a party that could credibly represent farmers.

Well, here is what the peak body for cattle farmers said in their Red Meat 2030 plan:

We will play our role in reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by extending our existing commitment to carbon neutrality by 2030 … across the supply chain.

The National Farmers Federation are there; everybody in agriculture is there. Where is the National Party? Nowhere. They have already ceased to have any claim to credibly representing Australian agriculture or Australian farmers.

We will bring to the next election a credible platform in agriculture. This parliament should be debating the big issues about the future of Australian agriculture. In no small part, one of the key issues facing Australian agriculture is the lack of research in Australian agriculture. Research funding in Australian agriculture has collapsed year after year after year. The small increase in private funding for research is completely dwarfed by the collapse in government funding. And guess who's in charge of government funding for Australian agriculture? The truth is private sector research delivers short-term benefits, but public sector research into the big challenges for Australian agriculture delivers long-term benefits, and you would think that the National Party have nothing to do with the government. There is a complete collapse in research funding for Australian agriculture, and those guys, again, are nowhere to be seen.

So if you've got an interest in the future of the river system, if you've got an interest in sustaining communities along the river and sustaining Australian agriculture along the river, if you've got a concern about the future of Australian agriculture and lifting it up the value chain and increasing jobs in country towns, don't go to the National Party for solutions.

I rise to speak on the matter of urgency today, which goes to concerns about the National Party ever doing much about water.

Let's go back to the start of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, where sensible decisions were made to introduce an act to manage the Murray-Darling Basin and to do so in a manner that established what the sustainable level of take was by the best available science—the best available science. A 726-page document was produced by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority showing that the right number in terms of the amount of water we had to recover was somewhere between 3,900 gigalitres and 7,600 gigalitres. Of course there was debate about how much uncertainty we were going to allow in the recovery of water to make sure the river was healthy.

Unfortunately, there was political interference from the Nationals. In fact, one of the people suggesting those numbers were wrong is the current Interim Inspector-General of Water Compliance, who is on record saying, 'No, it shouldn't be 7,600, it shouldn't be 3,900; it should go even lower. It shouldn't even be 2,750,' which is ultimately what the political number was. He wanted it to be 2,100. He's on record suggesting that it be 2,100 gigalitres. This is the inspector-general who is a former New South Wales deputy premier, a National Party member, appointed by a National Party minister in this government. What does that do for confidence in the plan?

Of course, the Nationals are not concerned about lawfulness when it comes to the river. I'm a little bit surprised that Senator McKenzie—'Senator McKenzie SC'—hasn't stood up, having won lots of High Court challenges, and tried to contest what Bret Walker SC said in the royal commission! And that is that the plan is unlawful. It's unlawful because of the Nationals' interference in determining what the appropriate SDLs ought to be. Having got a plan, having got an unlawful plan, they still want to take more water from the river. The National Party says, 'Let's pray for rain.' It's not about that. We know what the rainfall is. We know the in-flows are reduced. The problem is you're taking too much water. Funnily enough, Senator McKenzie pretends to represent irrigators. I've been to the southern river—

Senator McKenzie interjecting—

Well, you might live there, but what about the people who are there who can't take water as it goes past because there's no water coming down—

Order, Senator Patrick!

the Darling River. That's why.

Senator Patrick, please direct—

Because the Nationals have turned on—

Senator Patrick, order!

Senator McKenzie interjecting—

Senator McKenzie! Senator Patrick, could you please direct your comments through the chair. And interjections are disorderly.

So we have a situation where the National Party talk about rain, blaming it on rain. It's not about rain; it's about taking too much water. Some of them think that we're letting the water roll down to the Murray mouth and then letting it go out to sea. Let me read what Richard Beasley said in his recent book: 'Several people involved in agriculture in the other basin states and some of the politicians they support consider any water that flows out of the Murray River to be an exercise in irrigating the Southern Ocean. These people are idiots.' I think he got it right. Imagine a river that runs into the ocean—imagine that! Unfortunately the Nationals don't even understand that. They don't even understand that, in order to have water that is not saline and is useable in irrigation, you've got to have a healthy river system. But, no, they continue to take, take, take. And they continue to stand in the way of the execution of the plan, making silly water purchases that don't actually return anything to the environment and paying twice the tote odds. The National Party have corrupted the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. (Time expired)

I'll tell you what we won't take, Senator Patrick, through you, Madam Chair: we will not take the carping from a South Australian senator, because it is our people and our communities in the heart of the Murray-Darling Basin who have paid the price for the complicit arrangement between South Australian senators in this chamber and the other place. It is our people.

The Murray-Darling Basin is an area that spans four states. Two million Australians live in the Murray-Darling Basin, and it is vastly productive in terms of food and fibre production. You know what you can't do for these two million people and their communities and industries? You can't keep them employed or keep them sustainable and prosperous without water, without a triple bottom line approach to irrigated agriculture.

What we have done, as a political party and a movement very proud to stand up for these people and these industries, is actually bring their concerns. You pretend to bring their concerns, Senator Patrick. You don't know their concerns, Senator Hanson-Young. But we live in these communities, and we're proud to bring their concerns here and to be reformers around water policy and to deliver for our communities.

We are the political party that actually put people into the triple bottom line. Remember the triple bottom line? It was supposed to be about humans, the environment and the economy. Well, you only hear about one side of the triple bottom line from the Greens and from Centre Alliance these days—oh, actually, you'd probably throw South Australia in there as well. When you want to know why there's no water in the Murray-Darling Basin, it's because it's all heading south.

As I stand here today, this chamber has done over 10 Senate inquiries into the Murray-Darling Basin, because it's not working. The great plan concocted with a number pulled out of the air—that number is a political solution with no science to it—which has been prosecuted in estimates and in Senate inquiries ad nauseam over the last decade, is actually ripping apart rural communities in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland.

When we talk about why the National Party holds this policy, it's because we understand the implications of the policy intent. We have to deal with the outcomes. It was National Party ministers who decided to decentralise the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, so the people making decisions and implementing this plan actually had skin in the game. They weren't bureaucrats in Canberra, far away, not understanding how their policy decisions and their implementation decisions were impacting real people, kids at school and the future sustainability of our communities.

We are actually very proud to have been the political party that introduced the 1,500-gig cap on water buybacks. That's good policy. We actually prioritised water infrastructure projects over this casual disregard of coming into rural communities and buying back water from willing sellers. Remember 'willing sellers'? They were actually drought affected farming communities and families that had been there for generations who had no other options. And there was the devastating impact of the Swiss cheese effect of those water buybacks in our communities. But you weren't even here when this was happening, but what has occurred is absolutely horrific and there are the channels that have had to close et cetera as a result of that.

You know what? It's the National Party that decided to conduct an investigation, Senator Patrick, into the socioeconomic impact of the plan on our people. Heaven forbid that the National Party actually calls government to account and asks for an assessment of how this Labor-Greens policy is impacting the people and the industries that the Murray-Darling Basin flows through. It's the National Party that delivered a 605-gig reduction in water recovery to the southern basin through a package of 36 projects. It's the National Party that got the Productivity Commission report done. It's the National Party that protects water security, clean drinking water and food supply through a raft of measures, including the Murray-Darling Communities Investment Package, which is amazing.

We've strengthened governance of the plan through our particular ministers. I think it's absolutely fantastic that we've got an inspector general who's lived in the basin, who has a lived experience of what this is like. We make no apology for being the party the people in the Murray-Darling Basin choose to vote for. They don't vote for the Greens. If the Greens' policies were so fabulous for the basin communities, why don't they hold a single seat, state or federal, in any single basin community? Do you know why? Because your policies only float in a couple of places: Brunswick in my home state of Victoria and the CBD of Sydney.

We halted water buybacks and chose to invest in on-farm efficiency to help farmers deal with the impacts of a changing climate and seasonal variations. They are on the front line. They are changing practice every day in response to the high price of water because the South Australian and New South Wales state governments will not stop developments in the southern region of the basin. That's what the National Party is calling for: stop those thirsty almond tree developments which are driving the price of water up. The National Party is also calling to split the compliance functions of the MDBA away. I am very proud to be Senate leader of a party that takes its role in this place seriously and whose water ministers take their role seriously to perform and reform this area, which is so crucial.

We are focused on delivering a triple bottom line. It's a pity the Greens and the Labor Party are no longer interested in putting people at the centre of their policy. You're very happy for people to vote for us to come here; it's about time you started remembering that food and fibre production in this country is reliant on the human beings who till the soil in the communities we represent.

I rise today to speak on this urgency motion. Again, I'm speaking on an urgency motion drafted by the Greens to, as we've seen before, essentially trigger the Nationals into delivering this type of performance art we've seen in the last couple of speeches. The truth is it is a difficult motion to be directed at the Nationals. I think it takes out what is important about this debate. But we do know—fair enough—the Nationals try to pick and choose when they're in government and when they're not. I don't live in some of these communities that people have spoken about today. I'm not down south in Adelaide or down in southern New South Wales, but it is an issue that deeply affects people in regional Queensland. I know from living there that the Nationals like to run around and talk about the things that they care about, but, when they come down here, they forget to do the work to get the policies delivered. They're very good at turning up with some corflutes and some petitions, at getting media to come along and at talking about the things that they're going to do because they're in the National Party, but, when they come down here, they're part of the Liberal-National Party and they make sure that they are part of a government that continues to mismanage water and environment policy and all the things that actually matter to the people that they say they represent.

This productivity report slammed the Morrison government's management of water, and that's because it takes a commitment to deliver not just to your constituency but to everyone who relies on water. You can't deliver a policy that is just about delivering applause to yourself when you get back to where you're from. You've got to deliver a policy that supports everyone who relies on water and that acknowledges the very real impacts that climate change is having on our environment in our rural regions and the impact that it is having on the very communities that the Nationals say that they represent.

Some of the big economic impacts in the regions and the rural areas are some of the things that the Nationals and Liberal government refuse to deal with and refuse to put a plan in place to deal with. In the water minister's own electorate, there are towns that have run out of water. I'm not talking about a couple of weeks where they had to be restricted in the way that they were using water. They are trucking water into the water minister's own electorate, and they have been doing that for years. For over 12 months now, water has been trucked into the water minister's own electorate, and yet this report shows—

Honourable senators interjecting—

If the Greens and Nationals want to take this outside, go ahead, but, if you want to just give me a couple of seconds, I can—

An honourable senator interjecting—

Possibly, Senator.

Order! Please direct your comments through the chair.

Those communities in southern Queensland who have run out of water deserve to be part of this conversation. They deserve to have a local member and a minister who will not just turn up for the photo op but will actually deliver when they come down to Canberra, because right now that is not what is happening.

I want to note that the Productivity Commission's advice is very important. It is crucial. It says:

The overarching goal of the National Water Initiative remains sound but should be modernised through reference to adaptation to climate change and recognition of the importance of water in the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

That is imperative—that our First Peoples are part of this conversation. That's not what the Nationals come here to talk about. They do not see this as something that affects every single person living on every single piece of land in Queensland, New South Wales and down south to South Australia. They see this as something for them to have in the cabinet room but to do nothing with. (Time expired)

I rise to contribute on this matter of urgency, and I thank my colleague Senator McKim. May I remind everyone in this chamber: no-one owns water. Nobody owns it. If anything, you've stolen it. You've stolen the water. No-one owns the water. You can't look after it. It's a mess. You are stealing it. This country, the earth, is our mother, we say. You have to look after your mother, okay? If you don't, bad things will happen. The water, to our mother, is the blood that runs through her veins. You would know that, Senator McKenzie. You're a mother and you know how important it is to protect and respect your mother. That's how we should be looking at water. I know that's difficult for you to understand, Senator over there with the face happening—

Excuse me, Senator Thorpe. That's not appropriate. Please direct your comments through the chair.

I apologise and I take that back, but it is very close to my heart that a bunch of white people are talking about owning water and water rights and the monetary value to water. It's absolutely disgusting. It's disrespectful. No-one has mentioned First Nations people except for the Labor Party over here, and I respect that. Water, to us, is life. It is life. For our people, water is our songlines. There are stories to every waterway in this whole country. There is a story about why they meet up to one another and how important they are to the people who have been on that part of the country for thousands and thousands of generations. I'm not going to sit here and listen to a bunch of white people telling me that they know more about the water in this country than the people who have been here for thousands of generations. Water is not about money. Water is about life, your children's lives, and it is fundamental to our people, to our survival. This continent has been our peoples' ancestral home for over 70,000 years. Our peoples' relationship with the inland waters, rivers, wetlands, sea, islands, reefs, sand bars and seagrass beds is part of who we are. This is why Article 25—you Nationals over there might want to listen to this, because you could put it in some of your writings—of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People says:

Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard.

Who's looking after our water for future generations? Certainly not this lot. For all of us but particularly for our people, water is far too important to be left in the hands of the climate-denying Nationals, who can only think of water as a resource to be exploited for greed and total mismanagement.

The coal-loving minister for resources, Keith Pitt, himself dismissed the climate warning issued by the United Nations by saying, 'Grand statements are quite simple to make.' He's so triggered by anyone calling him a climate denier—and we see the other reactions today—that he even requested a parliamentary inquiry into lenders and insurers blacklisting companies linked to coal and gas producers. You have to wonder who the Nationals are actually for these days, because they're not even looking after the farmers. Farmers and traditional owners are joining forces. They know that not even the Nationals are protecting their interests; they're better off working with us. Farmers already know that climate change is costing them. Water is too important to be in the hands of climate deniers who have no respect for or understanding of water. They should never be in a position to make decisions on such a sacred resource. That will do.

Senator Canavan.

It's got to go around the chamber, mate. I'll be—

Senator Whish-Wilson, on a point of order?

My point of order is that there's a speaking list. The next speaker is not here. I'm next on the list. I have no problem with Senator Canavan going after me and taking that last five-minute spot. You should check with the Clerk, but I should be the next person who gets the call.

The convention in this chamber—and the standing orders—is to rotate the call. My understanding is this is an informal, agreed list. Given Senator Roberts isn't here and the call should come to this side of the chamber, it should be Senator Canavan who gets the call.

On the point of order, I'm going to rule on the basis that the list has fallen apart during the course of the session, because we haven't got Senator Roberts here. So I'm going to call Senator Canavan as he was the next person on his feet.

I note that we are not taking any more time for the Nationals than was agreed. Senator McKenzie did cut her time. We're not seeking at all to deny other senators their appropriate times.

I want to add quick thoughts on this motion and particularly something that I don't think has been mentioned during this debate: I, as an Australian, am incredibly proud about what we have built as a nation in the Murray-Darling. There's been very little mention of the hard work, the pioneering effort that went into building the dams and the farms that actually feed us today, providing 40 per cent of our nation's food. We would really be in serious trouble—in as much trouble as the early settlers—if we didn't have the Murray-Darling here in Australia. We should recognise the sweat, the toil and the desperation that many people before us went through to get that to happen. I heard Senator Patrick say before, 'Let's just get rid of the dams,' as if that would mean nothing for the rest of the country! How would we feed ourselves? How would we be able to provide for other people in this country?

I think it's very important that we mention and recognise that some of the key things we want to achieve out of the management of the Murray-Darling is the production of food and the creation of viable rural communities that are not constantly under the threat of having their economic base pulled out from under them.

The National Party Senate leader, Senator McKenzie, summed it up very well before. What the National Party have brought back to this debate is people. We have brought back people to the heart of this debate—people on a farm, people who are trying to keep a farm in their family over generations and people who own a cafe in Wagga Wagga. I think Wagga Wagga has the best bakeries in this country and beautiful restaurants. Those people deserve to have a future. People in the cities who want to eat all the food they see on MasterChef or the latest reality TV show are important as well. There are the Indigenous people of the system as well. It was the Nationals that introduced a $40 million fund to buy back water for Indigenous people. I have met many Indigenous people through the basin. They too want to develop their own farms and economic opportunities and potentially use water.

It's very important in this debate that we represent the whole country, from the rural community with the farmers to the dinner plate in the urban environment. It is the National Party that has representatives right across the Murray-Darling. Sometimes in this debate you hear people say: 'Let's blow up the barrages. Let's blow up Cubbie Station. Let's blow up Menindee Lakes.' We have to manage it as a system. There is not one single answer. There is not one thing you can do that will solve all of the issues. It must be balanced in a respectful way that puts people at the heart of this debate because ultimately we all have an interest in seeing a strong, viable and sustainable Murray-Darling that can continue to feed us long into the future.

I have no problems with Senator Canavan contributing to the debate on this urgency motion, but I notice he studiously avoided even mentioning the Productivity Commission report—that's the agency he used to work for before he came to the Senate. I also note that he made no comment at all about climate change, but he has been very vocal on the national stage in the last week. He said recently: 'Under no circumstances would I support any 2050 climate plan. Under no circumstances would I support climate action.' He also said that regional towns in this country, including in the Murray-Darling Basin, face 'complete destruction' under a net zero emissions policy.

Let me tell you why these towns will face complete destruction in the next 100 years. It will be because of the National Party and their climate denial. It will be because of this government. It will be because of record heatwaves. It will be because of drought, fire, flood and pestilence. We will lose more farmers to suicide. That's because this party that purports to represent farming in rural and regional communities in this country has completely let them down. They are in this place playing culture war games and playing politics.

What policy have they put up to help farmers? What policy have they put up to tackle climate change? Mr Littleproud in the other place this week said: '2050. Yes, that might work for us, but I want to see a plan first.' This is the guy who has the agricultural portfolio. Why hasn't he developed a plan? What has he been doing for the last five years that he has been at the helm? It begs the question: what have any of them been doing? The government have sat on eight years of climate inaction. They have ripped up every policy that was in this place to act on climate change, and they've cost farmers big revenue.

It's not only the costs that farmers face of climate inaction—and ABARES recently said that farmers have lost more than $1 billion because of climate change inaction. We know that removing the carbon price and the Carbon Farming Initiative has cost farmers big time. They could be selling their excess abatement credits in the UK market and the EU market right now at $50 a tonne. Instead, they're facing down the barrel of having to pay $50 a tonne of carbon for their agricultural exports. That's the genius of this mob.

Senator Thorpe's contribution in here was a very moving, beautiful contribution. Everyone in this chamber has been here, what, nearly two generations on this planet. I will take it we're all connected to our land, in our own ways. Two generations—maybe the odd MP or senator in this place might be in their third generation. Imagine being part of a culture that was here for not 20 generations or even 200 but 2,000—2,000 generations living on this land. If we can't learn from our First Australians about how to live in harmony with this land then we are totally stuffed. What have we managed to do in just eight generations? That's how long white people have been in this land—eight generations. What have we managed to do? We have managed to completely stuff the Murray-Darling Basin—millions of dead fish just last year. How easily we forget! Millions of dead fish, and no-one was more angered and appalled and saddened than farmers when they saw that. What else have we managed to do? Half the Great Barrier Reef is dead and so on and so forth. I would need another 20 minutes to go through how badly we have managed country since we arrived here, invaded this country and colonised it. I'm really peeved that these guys continue to come in here and act as though they care about farmers when they don't.

The question is the urgency motion moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.

I seek leave to make a very short comment.

Leave is granted for one minute.

I'm very concerned that the Labor Party voted for this motion, since the South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill was very happy to appoint a National Party minister to the water portfolio. Do I need to get the vote recommitted?

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

Senator Canavan was here. I was looking forward to talking to Senator Canavan about the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. In December last year, the government tabled a statutory review of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. I think if there were any government funding body that was in desperate need of a review, it was the NAIF, better known as the 'No Actual Infrastructure Fund'. This $5 billion fund, announced by the government more than five years ago, has on the most recent figures released only a couple of hundred million dollars of its funds, which works out to roughly five per cent. So, five years after this funding body was announced, only about five per cent of the funds have actually been released and invested in projects across northern Australia. If there were ever an example of this government's prioritisation of announcements over delivery, the NAIF has to be pretty high up on the list. When this body was announced by the government, it was going to be creating jobs and funding projects right across northern Australia, something that was and still is desperately needed. We know that northern Australia can be an area that finds it difficult to attract private finance, for a whole range of reasons, including remoteness and the innovativeness of some of the projects and industries that are happening there. There is a need for a government financing vehicle to help fill the gap in private financing, and that's what the NAIF was held up to be.

This statutory review is not the first review of the NAIF that's been done by this government. I think we're up to about three or four reviews. It's not a bad record that this government has had to have a review of the NAIF almost every year since it was announced! Again, that's a bit of an indication that there are serious problems. But having said all of that, we welcome the fact that this review does seem to be finally acknowledging, and recommending change on, a number of issues that the Labor opposition has been highlighting for a very long time. It's probably two or three years now that we've been calling for fundamental change of the NAIF so that it can deliver on what this government promised, which was jobs and projects across northern Australia. I don't know why it's taken so long for these changes to actually be recommended, let alone implemented.

I do note that there's now a new minister, Minister Pitt. He seems to be moving a little bit more quickly than his predecessor, Senator Canavan, in actually getting this NAIF to work. I know that before too long the government will have some legislation introduced to try to implement some of the recommendations that have been made in this review. I've already indicated to Minister Pitt that the opposition will approach that legislation in good faith and, provided we think that the legislation will actually get the NAIF working at last, then we would be happy to support it. We've obviously got to go through that legislation in detail, but we hope that the recommendations in this review are going to be implemented. We've been saying for a very long time that the NAIF is not doing enough to fund some of the smaller projects that are in abundance across northern Australia but have not to date been able to attract finance from the NAIF. The reality is that, while there are megaprojects in the hundreds of millions of dollars or tens of millions of dollars in northern Australia, there are many more smaller projects that still have enormous potential to create jobs but have real difficulty obtaining finance from commercial banks. We'd like to see the NAIF pay a bit more attention to those kinds of projects.

I've had consistent feedback for years that the NAIF is too risk averse, and I welcome the fact that this review has indicated that the NAIF and its risk appetite will be reconsidered as well. I welcome the fact that this review indicates that the NAIF should be open to investing in means other than just providing loans—for instance, in taking equity stakes in projects.

The bottom line is that the NAIF is a worthwhile body. There is a need for a government financing vehicle for northern Australia, but the way the NAIF has been established so far has been a dismal failure. We welcome this review identifying some recommendations and we hope the government will act. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

In respect of government response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee's Inquiry into Centrelink’s Compliance Program Second Interim Report, February 2021, I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

On behalf of the Chair of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Senator Askew, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiry into the provisions of the Aged Care Amendment (Aged Care Recipient Classification) Bill 2020.

I rise to speak on the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, additional information, Aged Care Amendment (Aged Care Recipient Classification) Bill 2020 report. The amendments made by this bill allow for the introduction of a new classification system that focuses on independently determining the care needs of older Australians, assessing residential aged care and some types of flexible care.

Currently, the fiscal contribution that the Australian government makes to aged-care providers is administered through the Aged Care Funding Instrument, better known as the ACFI. The ACFI is a tool which assesses the care needs of residents and is the largest source of revenue for residential aged-care providers. The ACFI is based on dependency, so there are limited incentives for aged-care providers to actively encourage re-ablement and rehabilitation methods.

In reports produced by both independent researchers and the statutory Aged Care Financing Authority, it was found that ACFI provides strong incentives for providers to deliver outdated methods of care to produce higher subsidy payments. Concurrently, many aged-care providers are not commercially viable. These corporations usually employ complicated business structures which, while being legal, cast a veil over their financial performance and transactions. Transparency must accompany this sector by increasing reporting requirements. This will allow for more informed policy and investment decisions.

Labor also believes we need better transparency around funding. We need to know that the funding going into aged care is actually improving quality of care. At the moment we know it isn't, because the Morrison government rates aged care like a monkey dancing on a razor blade. They have no idea about, let alone interest in, the care of senior Australians in aged care.

This mechanism is clearly broken and has been for some time. There has been report after report into the aged-care sector, around ACFI and the fact that this system is broken. It took the government finally calling a royal commission—so now, finally, there's been a light shone on this sector and the lack of accountability by this government and previous Liberal governments in this area, where we have not had a minister who would take responsibility, have a plan and be able to address the real challenges that this sector is facing.

There needs to be a complete overhaul of the financing of aged care. That's the only way that we are going to move this aged-care crisis along. The excuse that the government have been using since they set up the royal commission is, 'We can't do anything because we have to wait until the final report is brought down.' Well, we know that there's been report after report after report, so on the issues that will be highlighted out of this final report, dare I say that many in this chamber have known about these issues for a long time and have been trying to get this government to act to ensure that older Australians and some of the most vulnerable Australians are well cared for, are not being abused and are getting the care that they so richly deserve.

In 2017, there was a review of ACFI which found that this outdated instrument needed to be replaced. So what have the Liberals done since 2017? Nothing. The government sat on this report for four years, and, in line with their very slow approach to the management of and any reform in the aged-care sector, they've just ignored it. They've just shoved it under the rug, hoping it'll go away. It hasn't, and it won't. Unfortunately, this government has a real reputation for having reports and having inquiries, allowing those reports to sit on the ministers' shelves and in the Prime Minister's office gathering dust, and not doing anything with them.

Labor has been saying for a very long time that there needs to be more transparency so that older Australians and their loved ones know what's happening, how they're being looked after and that their needs are being properly provided for. There have been a lot of questions about transparency surrounding the taxpayer funds that go into aged care. Over $20 billion a year goes into the aged-care system, to support older Australians at home and in residential care. What we need is more accountability about where that money is going. We need greater oversight about how it's been expended and we need to know that there is going to be transparency so that families will be able to make the very clear judgement—if they need to put their mum, their grandmother, their grandfather, their loved ones or their friends into residential care—that there is transparency about the care and the funding that's going into the residential sector in this country, just as older Australians have every right to expect that, once they have been assessed for a home-care package, the level that they are assessed for will be delivered to them before they die. We have spoken—and I know I have countless times—about the wait times for people who are waiting for a home-care package in this country, and it's an absolute disgrace.

Under the amendments to this bill, there will be a move to a new instrument as a possible replacement for ACFI. This has been designed by the Australian Health Services Research Institute at the University of Wollongong. In 2017, the group undertook the resource utilisation and classification study, RUCS. On 10 February 2019, the government announced a trial of an alternative residential aged-care assessment tool. It was called the Australian National Aged Care Classification, AN-ACC, assessment tool. This tool is based on six key design elements:

1 Resident assessment for funding to be separate from resident assessment for care planning purposes.

2 Assessment for funding purposes to be undertaken by external assessors capturing the information necessary to assign a resident to a payment class.

3 Assessment related to care planning to be undertaken by the residential aged care facility based on resident needs and underpinned by consumer directed care (CDC) principles.

4 Provision of a one-off adjustment payment for each new resident that recognises additional, but time-limited, resource requirements when someone initially enters residential care.

5 A fixed price per day for the costs of care that are shared equally by all residents. This may vary by location and other factors.

6 A variable price per day for the costs of individualised care for each resident based on their AN-ACC casemix classification.

The Department of Health has estimated there will be around 250 full-time equivalent assessors. Funding for these assessors has been estimated at $90 million. The assessors will be required to hold a qualification such as a registered nurse, occupational therapist or a physiotherapist. While we will support the recommendations of this report, we do have concerns that the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission will not regulate the estimated 250 full-time assessors of this new instrument. The regulation of these assessors will be the responsibility of the Department of Health.

There are also concerns about the practical implementation of this instrument, including the automated decision-making for reviewing classification decisions and workforce consideration. The fundamental problem with this report is that the government, on the benches opposite, have no idea what needs to be done or what they're prepared to do as a plan to turn the aged-care sector around. They cannot be trusted with aged care. Minister after minister has failed. The Prime Minister has failed on his election commitment. They cannot be trusted to care for older Australians. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

I present the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, Nationhood, national identity and democracy, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

This report is not a typical Senate committee report. It was a new challenge for the Senate staff who helped us to produce it. With that in mind, let me just give a special acknowledgement of the committee's secretariat, whose expertise and diligent work in dealing with what is a very complex problem made it possible to reach this point. I'd especially like to thank the committee secretary, Sophie Dunstone, and her team, made up of Dr Emma Banyer, Antony Paul, Sara Lailey, Brooke Gay, Sofia Moffett and Margie Morrison.

I would also like to record my appreciation of the works of Senator Stoker, who was the deputy chair for most of the duration of the inquiry, and Senator Henderson, who replaced her for its completion. I'm also grateful for all the committee members who participated in the inquiry: Senators Chisholm, Green, Dodson, Scarr, Thorpe, Chandler and McKim. The report we tabled today is nearly 80,000 words. It's much longer than most Senate reports. It contains 18 focused policy recommendations that go to building confidence in our democratic system. They are recommendations that go to the heart of all policymaking. They are about sustaining public trust in government and our political system. That is a major problem for democracy here and internationally.

This is a problem whose nature has changed throughout the inquiry, as a result of the pandemic. Recent political research highlights that people are in search of certainty and security as they have been lashed by the devastations of the pandemic. The restoration of confidence in science is gratifying. However, there are clear signs of fatigue in the public response. The RedBridge survey, which has been given prominence on the front page of the Herald Sun today in Melbourne, has highlighted that it's the poorest and most vulnerable of our community who are the most sceptical, for instance, about things like the various side effects of any vaccination program. So the question about the depth of commitment to the government's assurance, in my mind, remains an open question.

This report shows that we ignore the threats to our democratic system at our peril. The core recommendations that we present today are about strengthening the parliamentary process, and, in particular, the committee system, as the most important means by which parliament holds the executive government to account. It's about a way of focusing public trust by strengthening public institutions and, as I say, especially through the use of parliament. We call for the strengthening of the parliamentary committees because those committees have the role of providing the Australian people with direct access to this parliament. We argue that members of parliament must also be more vigilant when it comes to defending the democratic process and discharging their responsibility as elected representatives and ensuring adequate scrutiny of legislation.

Nearly half of our legislation now contains some form of delegated legislation, and far too much of it contains measures which cannot even be disallowed by this parliament. We have a responsibility to restore trust in the accountability of the people's elected representatives. We must strengthen our civics and citizenship education to ensure that citizens understand the democratic choices that they have in how this place operates. We call for further political education on the value of science, through the establishment of a parliamentary office of science. This report reflects the fact that this inquiry was conducted in a greater spirit of bipartisanship than is usual in Senate committees of this type. The original Senate reference was identified on 29 July 2019. The pandemic delayed our work. It caused us to question the way in which we operate and asked us to present the material that's before us in different ways. There were some 205 written submissions conducted through three public hearings. The report gives us a snapshot of what Australians thought about themselves and their country in this time of global anxiety.

However, the decline in public trust in public institutions and democratic processes has been apparent at least since the global financial crisis of 2007-08. The origin of that decline can be traced beyond that upheaval to the end of the Cold War at the beginning of the 1990s. In liberal democracies, the consequences of the decline in trust has been a backlash against what people refer to as the elites—or at least against those perceived to be the elites. It is a backlash from people who feel, and I believe often rightly, that the system no longer works for them. These are people who feel that they have been excluded from a full share in the opportunities that are available to others. These feelings of resentment and alienation have driven a rise in populist political movements, and, in some countries, especially in Eastern Europe, liberal democracy—I would say social democracy—has all but been extinguished. The liberal world order that many in the West expected would arise at the end of the Cold War has in fact yet to be achieved.

Populism is not an inherently bad thing, and populist attitudes are not confined to any one part of the political spectrum, but the populist movements that have transformed politics around the world in recent times have mostly been on the far Right. They have whipped up virulent nationalist sentiment in pursuit of their aims—the kind of nationalism that all too easily spills into xenophobia. This is what has been happening in countries like Hungary, Russia and Poland. It's been present in events such as the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom in 2016, in the election of Donald Trump in the United States and in the resurgence of the far Right parties in France, in Germany and in Italy. It's far too early to tell whether or not the movement started by Donald Trump in the United States will survive his electoral defeat. The upheavals formed by the global context were the basis on which this Senate committee examined its work. Australia has not experienced the chaos, the deceit and the manipulation of hatreds that we've seen in other countries. We've done a much better job than many other countries in coping with the stresses and strains of globalisation. But, in undertaking this inquiry, we were also aware of the decline in trust which allows populist politics to take hold, and that certainly has been happening here as well.

The decline is measurable. The Democracy 2025 project, based in Old Parliament House, has tracked the fall in public satisfaction with democracy in this country, from 78 per cent of the survey respondents in 1996 down to 41 per cent in 2018. The disaffection with the democratic process and public institutions has not, however, been a relentless downward plunge. There have been peaks and there have been troughs. In particular, the decline in trust that seemed so widespread when the committee began its work became less evident once the pandemic was underway. It was replaced by a renewed public confidence in the power of government, particularly in the power of the states. It remains to be seen whether that confidence will outlast the pandemic. What is undoubtedly true is that the level of civic engagement and debate in this country remains disturbingly low. Australians respond, in my belief, if they are persuaded that politicians and this parliament are acting in the defence of their living standards, their liberty and their democratic rights. I remain absolutely confident about that.

The Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee hopes that this report can be treated as a benchmark for Australians whenever they debate ways to preserve and extend the country's vigorous democratic history. I commend the report to the chamber.

At the outset, I acknowledge for the record Senator Carr's outstanding contribution to this process. I joined this committee only two weeks ago, and the first document with which I was confronted was Senator Carr's 250-page draft report. I did enjoy reading it immensely and I think it reflected a great deal of thought on Senator Carr's part. I would like to put on the record Senator Henderson's and my thanks to all the people who made submissions to this inquiry and all the people who gave testimony. Also, we would like to thank Senator Stoker for her assistance in preparing the dissenting report. I will come to the extent to which it is a dissenting report. It is labelled as such but that perhaps does not reflect the true spirit of it. I will come to that.

Before doing that, I would like to associate myself with the remarks that Senator Carr made with respect to the importance of the committee process in parliament. I absolutely, 100 per cent, agree. I would also like to associate myself with the remarks that Senator Carr made—and I'm sure, Madam Acting Deputy President Fierravanti-Wells, if you were in a position to do so, you probably would as well—with respect to the increasing trend for delegated legislation to be brought into effect without it being subject to appropriate disallowance procedures. I 100 per cent associate myself with those remarks.

Thank you, Senator Scarr.

Senator Henderson and I have provided a dissenting report, but it is important to note there are many, many, many things in this report with which we agree. We agree with many of the recommendations either entirely or in principle, or with the sentiments underpinning them. That needs to be placed on the record.

One of the areas where perhaps we do diverge in some respects from our good friend Senator Carr is in regard to the preponderance of time in which the report deals with extreme populism on the right wing. We see extreme populism and extremism of all types as something which occurs on both the Left and the Right, and I think one only needs to refer to the disaster in Venezuela that is unfolding after the extreme left-wing populism of Hugo Chavez. I draw to the chamber's attention our concerns in that regard.

We also have some reflections in relation to the characterisation of movements such as Brexit. I note that Senator Carr did state that populism in some cases is justified, but movements like Brexit tend to lead one to question whether or not a populist movement is simply an authentic expression of dissatisfaction with the order that's in place that leads to radical change in order to give ultimate expression to the majority will of the people. The question is: when does that validity, when does that authenticity and when does that acceptable expression of democratic will start to transcend into something more to go into the realms of the extreme? That is a debate about an area we could discuss for many, many hours in this chamber, and I don't propose to do so this evening.

I absolutely agree with Senator Carr with respect to the state of social cohesion that we have in this country. I think we can all be proud that we live in a country which does have a great deal of social cohesion. We've demonstrated that over the last 12 very, very difficult months, and we stand in great standing when we look at what has occurred in other countries in that regard.

I would like to touch on a few of the recommendations where we do have a divergence of opinion. I know that Senator Carr is sitting there with bated breath, waiting for my revelations to unfold—maybe not totally bated; some other analogy might be more appropriate! Recommendation 7 states:

The committee recommends that the Australian government investigates options to allow dual citizens to run for, and sit in, the federal parliament.

We recognise that this recommendation is simply calling upon the Australian government to investigate options; however, Senator Henderson and I believe that it is appropriate that, if someone seeks election to this place, they should not have any allegiance other than to Australia. There is a renunciation process which people can go through if they are dual citizens to renounce any allegiance to a foreign power before they seek election to this place. I should note in this respect that 'renunciation' is not the renunciation of their past, of their heritage, of their ethnicity or of their personal history—far from it. It is simply a renunciation of allegiance to a foreign power. That is the view which Senator Henderson and I hold. In stating that position, we have the utmost sympathy to those parliamentarians who were caught up unawares in the dual citizenship debacle of a few years ago.

The other area in which we would like to express some concern with recommendations is in relation to recommendation 9, which states:

The committee recommends that the Australian government works with the Australian Media Alliance, through a co-design process, to develop a national strategy to tackle fake news and misinformation.

We simply say that, for any proposal which seeks to limit or in any way regulate free speech, it must be incumbent on the government to consult extensively and make sure that any such proposal does not trip into the area of stifling free speech, and we make that point in the dissenting report.

Recommendation 15 states:

The committee notes that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters recently tabled its report on the 2019 federal election. The committee recommends the Australian government works with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) to develop and implement strategies to increase voter enrolment and voter turnout …

We simply note the fact that, as evidenced in its 2018-19 annual report, the Australian Electoral Commission made the following comment in relation to the 2019 federal election:

With the largest ever number of Australians enrolled to vote and a national enrolment rate of 97 per cent, we also saw a large increase in early voting and an increase in turnout for the House of Representatives. At 91.9 per cent, turnout was nearly one per cent higher than at the 2016 federal election.

So there was a higher turnout at the last federal election than there was for the federal election before that. From that perspective, Senator Henderson and I are gratified that many, many Australians—the vast majority—are engaging in the democratic process, as they should.

Finally, recommendation 18 states:

The committee recommends that the Australian government works with academics, national institutions and cultural organisations, and the non-government sector, to develop a long-term national strategy to strengthen Australia's democracy.

We simply say that we consider Australia's democracy to be vibrant, robust and healthy. While we have no issue with the sentiments expressed in this recommendation—far from it—we're not exactly clear what this strategy would mean in practice. As with the vast majority of the report, we certainly agree with the sentiments that underpin it.

I rise to take note of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Reference Committee, titled Nationhood, national identity and democracy. As a participating member of the committee, I didn't haven't to do the hard work; I came along and listened sometimes and obviously had the privilege of assisting the chair with aspects of this report. I wish to reflect on the unique nature of the inquiry. As the chair has already pointed out and noted in his foreword, this is not a typical report for a Senate inquiry. It makes relatively few policy recommendations but engages in a deeper examination of our democratic processes and foundations.

The release of the report comes at a time when we have seen a troubling decline of trust in public institutions. As noted in the report itself, this decline is measurable. The Democracy 2025 research project, based in Old Parliament House in Canberra, has tracked a fall in public satisfaction with democracy, from 78 per cent of survey respondents in 1996 down to 41 per cent in 2018, and the chairman has already referred to that. The release of this report also comes merely weeks after we witnessed with horror the violent assault on democracy at the Capitol in the USA capital—a violent assault that grew from the manipulation of truth and from the deliberate fanning of hatred, built on generations of unresolved racial oppression. Nothing could make clearer the precious nature of our democracy; nothing could make clearer the need to nurture and protect it; nothing could make clearer the need to build unity, respect and common cause across our diverse populations; and nothing could make clearer the need for truth-telling, to heal and build trust and peace for the future.

As this report acknowledges, the concept of Australia's nationhood and national identity is deeply vexing for First Nations peoples. The true history of this country has, in the words of anthropologist Bill Stanner, been shrouded in a great Australian silence. The report notes that, for many decades, official versions of Australian history have been told as if it starts from the arrival of Captain Cook and the First Fleet. The report also quotes Justice Jayne Jagot of the Federal Court:

By the doctrine of terra nullius, the common law of Australia could not and did not recognise the laws and customs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. … until 1992 and the Mabo decision, to acknowledge that land is the land of Aboriginal people would have conflicted with legal doctrine. That legal doctrine … did great harm to our society, and its consequences continue today …

What we have fortified through these harmful narratives, and what this report suggests—and this is important—is that we can reclaim our history and that it is an opportunity to develop a deeper and more honest foundation for our national pride. And we have much to be proud of in the long history of the First Nations peoples: at least 60,000 years of occupation by the oldest continuing culture on earth; over 500 different Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nations; around 270 different language groups; peoples and cultures with deep spiritual connections to land and waters; stories, songs, dance and art that are rich and unique and precious. What is often not told is the unique capacity of the First Nations peoples to live in this diverse land and develop their beliefs and philosophies, accommodating the wisdom of its lessons. This is a legacy that all Australians can identify with through our common humanity, our common occupation of these lands, as the outcry over the Juukan disaster has demonstrated.

I welcome and commend the committee on its recommendations calling for an active approach to the teaching of history which embraces First Nations history, civics and citizenship. Importantly, this recommendation urges a model that includes resources developed by First Nations peoples. It's a basic concept, but, for far too long, our history has been written, interpreted and misinterpreted by others. The report's second recommendation recommends awards for excellence in teaching, including for the teaching of First Nations history and civics. Teachers who can bring alive our history, particularly those who can balance two-way learning across cultures and even languages, are worthy of celebration. I wholeheartedly agree with the statement made by the chair in his foreword:

… a higher level of civics engagement … is the best defence of democracy, and the best means of building a more just and equal society.

This starts but doesn't end with what we teach the next generation in schools. Those of us in this parliament have a role to play. Strengthening our democracy includes strengthening our work in this place. It means valuing our system of parliamentary committees, as the chairman has pointed out, which are a critical way for this parliament to reach the Australian people and for those Australian people to participate in the work of this parliament. It means safeguarding the role of the parliament and passing legislation, not merely resorting to delegated legislation as has recently been the case during the pandemic—and the chairman has pointed that out. It means allowing and ensuring adequate scrutiny of government and parliamentarians, including through our process of budget estimates and our National Integrity Commission. It means having a broader vision about what our country can become. As the report states:

Contemporary conversations about nationhood and national identity are about writing the next chapter in Australia's story …

First Nations peoples have expressed their formula for nationhood, for national identity and democracy, and it's called the Uluru Statement from the Heart. I commend the committee for recommending that the Australian government prioritise 'engaging fully and respectfully' with the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

In only three months time, it will have been four years since First Nations peoples gathered in Central Australia and composed the Uluru statement. Four long years, all of them under a coalition government, and what have we achieved?

Much has been promised; little has happened. Uluru was no really revolutionary document. It sought constitutional reform to empower First Nations peoples to take their rightful place in this country. It called for a First Nations voice to be enshrined in the Constitution. It sought a makarrata commission to supervise a process of agreement making between governments and First Nations and truth telling about our history. It talked about voice, treaty and truth. As modest as this agenda is, its implementation would go a long way to bringing a new peace to this nation, a new enrichment of our identity. As I said in this place yesterday, may those opposite open their hearts and embrace the Uluru statement. This is the gap that has to be closed. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I'm wondering if I may seek the chamber's indulgence. I want to take note of the government response to the Centrelink report. I promise I'll keep it short, as I have a very tight deadline.

With the concurrence of the chamber, we could do that—very briefly, Senator Siewert.

I promise I'll keep it brief. This is the government's response to the second interim report of the Community Affairs References Committee's inquiry into Centrelink's compliance program. In fact, the government's response is the very reason that they got into the mess with the Centrelink compliance program in the first place. When you look at what the government says, it's basically a joke of a report. Let me remind the chamber that this is about robodebt, where the government is paying out $1.2 billion because the program was illegal—or, as the government puts it, legally insufficient. It was illegal.

The government do not support—who would have guessed?—recommendation 1, which was that they immediately terminate the income compliance program. They note the next two recommendations; they are to do with the process of the repayment of the debt. They note recommendation 4, but then go on to say that the government notes that a person can request a review of a decision at any time. Now, this recommendation was actually about going back and looking at elements of the act to make sure that the program was compliant with and met the legal requirements of sections 1222A and 1223 of the Social Security Act and, likewise, going back and looking at whether section 66A of the Social Security Act provides an appropriate legal basis for requiring individuals to update income information. The government's response is that people can go and lodge an appeal or ask for a review, and we know from the extensive inquiry into this how hard, in fact, that process is.

The government doesn't support recommendation 5. This is about an independent review being immediately initiated into the policy, design, administration and impact of Centrelink's compliance program, including the Income Compliance Program. Now, we established during this inquiry that, in fact, the process of the government going back and checking robodebts only goes back to 2015. We don't know that the government has not, through this compliance program, applied other illegal processes to apply debts that are actually illegal, because they haven't gone back that far to look. That's why we need a royal commission into this process. Until there is a royal commission, we will not see the end, potentially, of the illegal use and illegal application of debts.

This report is a joke. The government needs to go back and rethink its whole approach to this compliance program, otherwise we or other people are going to be back in this chamber having to litigate all these arguments again because we're in another fiasco where it has illegally applied debts, in terms of the government using and abusing the Social Security Act that has already brought so much misery to Australians. I don't want this place having to see that process ever again. They need to have a royal commission.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

On behalf of the Chair of Law Enforcement Committee, I present the report of the committee's inquiry into an Australian standard for the training and use of privately contracted security and detection dogs, together with the minutes of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

I present three government responses to committee reports as listed on today's Order of Business. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to incorporate the documents in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows—

The documents were unavailable at the time of publishing—

I seek leave to postpone business of the Senate No.2 for another date.

Leave is granted.

I postpone business of the Senate No. 2 listed for today under my name—disallowance of the Federal Court and the Federal Circuit Court amendment fees regulation 2020 to 23 February.

I move:

That the Industry Research and Development (Bankable Feasibility Study on High-Efficiency Low-Emissions Coal Plant in Collinsville Program) Instrument 2020, made under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, be disallowed [F2020L00772].

I spoke previously on a previous motion to disallow this ridiculous waste of taxpayers' money, a feasibility study into a coal-fired power station in Queensland. Spoiler alert—it is not feasible. Renewables are cleaner, cheaper and create more jobs. I don't intend to repeat everything I said last time, but I do want to set out again why the Greens remain strongly opposed to this project. I'm seeking to disallow this grant of $3.3 million of taxpayers' money being allocated to a private company, Shine Energy, that has no relevant experience in order to support a coal-fired power station that we don't need in the middle of a climate crisis.

The funding was a government pre-election promise from a slush fund designed to shore up Liberal and National Party support particularly in Queensland. It was the sop to the Nationals, who love coal and who have abandoned farmers. As two farmers from a National Party-held electorate in my office earlier today themselves offered up and as I sadly had to assure them was, in fact, the case.

When Shine's thought bubble project couldn't get any funding from existing programs, the government created an entirely new grants fund: the so-called Supporting Reliable Energy Infrastructure Fund. Then it designed the terms of reference to match Shine's project. Minister Taylor announced that Shine would receive up to $4 million of taxpayer money from the fund for a feasibility study for a so-called high-efficiency, low-emissions coal plant. That was two days before Shine were even invited to apply for the money. They won the thing before they had even applied. No other tenders were sought.

We learned in estimates that the grant was announced by the minister before the department had evaluated a commissioned prefeasibility study into new power plants. I regret to inform the chamber that there has also been little oversight of grant money that has already been paid out to Shine Energy. Reports are that such money has been frittered on vehicles. There's no deadline set for completing this so-called feasibility study.

The entire process stinks. It's currently the subject of an ANAO inquiry, which is due to report next month. It is, sadly, yet another example of why we need a strong independent integrity commission and why we need more funding for the ANAO, rather than the 20 per cent capacity cut that they're going to have to cop because this government hasn't given them additional funds in the budget process—possibly because they do such a good job and would end up embarrassing the government for their own profligate and inappropriate decisions. It's also why we need an enforceable ministerial code of conduct that would prevent misuse of public money.

Even ignoring the integrity questions, as the government would be happy to do, this project is unsupportable. The government says: 'It's only a feasibility study. It may not get built.' Newsflash: new coal-fired power stations are not feasible. While the Nationals persist with their irresponsible calls for new coal-fired power plants, the Morrison government's own energy policies make it clear that new coal power is dead.

The 2020 GenCost report by CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator compares the cost of building and running various electricity generation technologies. It found that coal-fired power costs—wait for it—three times as much as big solar farms or twice as much as wind. For the policy wonks out there: they cost new coal at $4,450 per kilowatt to build, they cost large-scale solar at $1,408 per kilowatt to build and they cost wind power at $1,951 per kilowatt hour to build. Analysis by the Queensland government last year found that, to be viable, a new coal-fired power station would require a wholesale price of $120 a megawatt hour. That's double the current average wholesale price in Queensland, so, unless you want Queensland power prices to double, your own coal-fired power plant proposal is not economically viable.

GenCost, CSIRO's report, says renewables are cheaper than the cost of new coal and gas-fired electricity generation, even though they require investment to expand the transmission network to link solar and wind to the grid and to build up battery storage. Even with those additional capital inputs it is still cheaper than coal, and that's not even to mention the climate impacts. It doesn't account for the benefit of avoided emissions and the damage that that will do, the public health benefits in avoiding those emissions, the jobs saved on the Great Barrier Reef, the jobs created in the renewable energy sector, and the human and proprietorial harm avoided by not making natural disasters even worse.

When asked about the Collinsville project prior to the state election, the Queensland LNP said Queensland had plenty of power and, 'The LNP is not proposing for any government investment into a new coal-fired power station.' Perhaps someone could tell former Minister Canavan that. Given that he's in the chamber, he might like to take note that his own Queensland party is not in fact proposing the very project that he has been hounding the feds for public money to support.

Somewhat surprisingly, last week the Western Australian Liberals also saw the writing on the wall and they pledged to close all publicly owned coal-fired power stations by 2025 as part of 'the biggest jobs, renewable energy and export project in the nation'. It's very interesting to see Liberal state parties accepting the economics of renewable energy. Maybe they don't accept the climate science yet, but they certainly seem to be accepting the economics of it. One hopes that the federal folk here are in contact with their state counterparts. As Frank Jotzo, who's the Director of the Centre for Climate and Energy Policy at ANU said:

… there is no prospect at all for a commercially built new coal-fired power plant in Australia. It really is an open-shut case now. Australia's electricity future is in renewables, bolstered by storage in batteries and pumped hydro.

All of that makes throwing public money at the Collinsville folly extremely negligent. This chamber could stop that criminal waste of public money today. We could disallow this funding instrument. We could do our job and refuse to waste $3.3 million of taxpayer money on a climate-destroying coal-fired power station run by a company with no experience in energy.

Regional Queensland, along with the rest of Australia, doesn't need a white elephant coal project. Those communities need real, sustainable jobs powered by renewable, clean energy. They need a government that acts with integrity and they need a government that takes the climate crisis seriously and cares about their future. I look forward to seeing whether or not sanity will prevail on this obscene waste of public money for a feasibility study into a climate disaster when the grids are already oversupplied and we have cheaper, clean alternatives. I look forward to seeing how the vote goes on this.

The Senate leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Waters, quoted a lot from professors and people from other political parties about whether or not this should happen. But, nobody that I heard her quote—I missed the beginning of Senator Waters' remarks, but I doubt there were any quotes—actually live in Collinsville or even live in North Queensland. I know, visiting Collinsville many, many times, that they would love to see this job-creating project in this region.

I know that the Indigenous people, the Birri people of this region, would love to see a project of this nature come there and provide them jobs. Indeed, the Birri people know about energy. They were involved in a solar panel project a few years ago with RATCH at the site of the old Collinsville coal-fired power station. They were very happy to receive some hundreds of jobs through that project. Of course, renewable is a sugar hit. It only lasts for a little bit, then the jobs go away. That's exactly what happened to the Birri people. Once the solar panels were installed, all the jobs went, and there were no more jobs for them there at Collinsville. They were meant to go back to penury and poverty, whilst renewable energy warms the hearts of those in the city. They want real jobs. They want ongoing jobs. That's why they got together as a group. A Birri leader, Ash Dodd, formed a company called Shine Energy. They decided to get behind a coal-fired power station because they've got a coal mine on their lands. All that coal currently goes overseas to create jobs in other countries, so they thought, 'Why don't we keep some of it here for our own people?' and use some indigenous coal here to create Indigenous jobs. Yet the Greens are once again denying the franchise to Indigenous peoples because they are pursuing an ideological campaign against coal-fired power; not one supporting people who actually live in these regions.

I only have limited time, so I want to quickly ask: what are the Greens afraid of? If everything Senator Waters says is right and this $3.3 million study that we're debating here—it is a study we're debating here tonight, not the project—comes back and says, 'This is not viable, it can't work,' I've said on the record that I'll accept that. That's fine. Let's focus on what can work. If Senator Waters is so confident in what she's said, what is she afraid of? Won't the inquiry find that? I know she is afraid. Senator Waters is quite intelligent and she would know that there have actually been a number of detailed engineering studies showing that a coal-fired power station at Collinsville would stack up with lower prices for people in North Queensland, and it could potentially make money depending on how it works with the price guarantee that exists in Queensland. Back in 2013, Wayne Swan commissioned a study by GHD which found this very thing. Another report by, I think, Energy Edge, which was commissioned by the Queensland department of environment and energy, had very similar conclusions about this coal-fired power station.

It stacks up for a reason: there is no base-load power station in North Queensland, and, with increasing investment in renewables in North Queensland, the case for this power station becomes even more clear, because there needs to be a station that can follow the load of, particularly, solar in North Queensland. With modern, coal-fired power technologies, we can make sure that the coal is there in the morning and the evenings when the sun is not, to ensure that North Queensland people have power 24 hours a day, just as I'm sure Senator Waters would like, and, most importantly, keep those manufacturing industries going in Townsville, like the copper refinery and the zinc refinery and many other jobs in that industry in Townsville. So I look forward to seeing the results of this study. I hope the Senate confirms it, as it did late last year, because we should back Indigenous Australians in their desire to create jobs in their region. And we desperately need some reliable, base-load power in North Queensland.

This was a commitment the government took to the last election. We keep all our commitments, including this one to the people of North Queensland. We are creating jobs and opportunities for Australians, particularly in a post-COVID-19 world. We want a stronger economy, supported by affordable, reliable power. A vote to disallow is a vote against jobs in North Queensland. There's already been a disallowance motion in the Senate on this matter. This is just another stunt by the Greens and a waste of the Senate's time.

The question is that the disallowance motion moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.

Look at all the Labor Party senators running out of the chamber because they know I'm going to be talking about Paradise Dam, which is the greatest infrastructure failure in the history of Australia, and it happened on Labor's watch. Welcome to Queensland, where Labor are not only not building dams; they're tearing down existing dams. Senator Watt is running out of the chamber like a chook running out of a chook pen!

Farmers in Queensland's Wide Bay produce more than 75 per cent of Australia's sweet potatoes and more than 50 per cent of Australia's macadamias. They grow chillies and strawberries and sugarcane and passionfruit—it's the king of fruit, the passionfruit. At times, this region produces around 25 per cent of all fresh food grown here in Australia. But it's all at risk. Why? That's because, for more than 18 months now, farmers in Wide Bay-Burnett have been waiting for answers. They've had only one gloomy certainty, which is that, without significant rainfall, Paradise Dam will be virtually empty by June this year, according to Sunwater's own storage models. And this is all thanks to Queensland's Labor government.

Unlike the Premier, I've been to Paradise Dam. I was there only a couple of weeks ago, and it was depressing. It was less Paradise Dam and more like 'paradise lost', because what I found was a dam currently sitting at 20 per cent of its original supply capacity. There were cranes in the sky, and there were bulldozers on the ground already tearing down the dam wall. And while works continue to tear down this dam wall, there is nothing but deafening silence from the Queensland Labor government and the mute Premier, who are responsible for this terrible infrastructure fail. This is a story I've told many times and I will continue to tell, because it simply cannot be ignored. These farmers cannot be allowed to fail because they are out of sight and out of mind of the Labor Premier in Queensland. The Premier might not like it, but we won't forget about it. Keith Pitt, the member for Hinkler, won't forget about it. Stephen Bennett, the member for Burnett, won't forget about it. Tom Marland from Marland Law, who was helping the farmers with their legal fight, won't forget about it. Bree Grima at Bundaberg Fruit and Vegetable Growers won't forget about it.

In September 2019, in the midst of a drought—and, for those who are listening at home, don't forget that two-thirds of Queensland is still drought declared—the Queensland Labor government flushed 105,000 megalitres of water out to sea and set to work to reduce the dam's capacity. This is the modern Queensland, where the Labor Party are not only not building dams, they're tearing down existing dams. The farmers who invested millions of dollars to build one of Australia's greatest food bowls have been left for dead, without answers from this Labor government as to when this dam will be restored, how it will be restored or whether it will be restored at all. There have been inquiries and there have been motions in this place passed by the Senate, but no-one is any closer to finding out how this infrastructure fail occurred. We know it happened on Labor's watch, because Labor aren't really good at doing anything, are they? No-one is finding the answers to how this can be remedied.

The Queensland Labor government continue to promise a report with a plan for Paradise Dam, a bit like how they promised no new taxes before an election and delivered lots or a budget then failed to deliver one—it's the same old Labor tune. They push the report further and further into the future as the dam wall gets lower and lower and as the water gets lower and lower. They don't have a care in the world, but, with the dam capacity projected to reach zero without rain by June, farmers in Wide Bay-Burnett don't have the luxury of time on their side.

After investing on the promise of water security, these farmers are now facing another dry year plagued with uncertainty. Labor senators mightn't care about this because they go to Coles and Woolies and they get their fruit and their veg and they think it's all well and good, but if the farmers in Wide Bay-Burnett do not have water and do not have water in the dam, guess what? Their fruit and veggies aren't going to be grown. When you go to Coles and Woolies, Labor Senators, you're not going to be able to get your passionfruit, your blueberries and your macadamia nuts, and we know Queensland produces some of the best fruit in the world.

We know this opportunity not only underpins our economic recovery in this country; it could bring significant benefits to regional Queensland. It brings jobs and it brings businesses—two things that Labor and the Greens don't really understand. So my message to the Premier is simple: give our farmers the answers they deserve in Wide Bay-Burnett and restore this dam.

This week in the parliament the Morrison government are returning to their happy place: cutting workers' wages. In the Liberals' happy place it is always time to cut workers' wages: economy going well, time to cut wages in case they spiral out of control; economy going badly, time to cut wages in the name of flexibility. No matter the circumstance, no matter what people need and no matter what the experts say, cutting wages is the happy place of Liberal governments. They're so happy there, they even boast that low wages are part of their economic design. They're so happy there that, even in the middle of a global pandemic, they stand ready to cut your pay. They're so happy there that, despite calling our essential workers 'heroes' all through 2020, they're ready to slash their wages in 2021. They are just so happy in this Liberal Party paradise that despite the dire need for us to rebuild our economy based on good secure jobs, the Morrison government has set about doing the exact opposite.

The government's IR omnibus bill includes cuts to your pay with more low-wage non-union agreements, cuts to your overtime and cuts to your right to permanent, secure and regular hours. Their so-called recovery plan will leave Australians worse off: worse off in the middle of an economic crisis; worse off in the middle of a pandemic, when so many workers have worked so hard to keep us safe; and worse off when Australians have done it tougher than any time in the last hundred years. This government are so happy cuddling up to their pay cuts, they've fallen asleep. They haven't even noticed what economist after economist is saying, that right now what we actually need is to get wages moving. Right now what we need is reform to make jobs more secure, not less. We need to build confidence, to build spending and to rebuild hope. But testifying at the Senate inquiry last week, the economists at the Centre for Future Work stated plainly that there are literally no pathways to higher wages in the Morrison government's plan—none. There are only pathways to lower wages. There are only pathways to more insecure jobs.

Twenty-three law academic agree. They say the Morrison government wants to punch a hole in the award safety net, and now nine public health experts have labelled the bill an immediate threat to public health. There is a crisis of insecure work in this country and that crisis supercharged the pandemic, with low-paid, insecure essential workers working two and three jobs to make ends meet. Essential workers in public-facing roles were unable to miss work because with no sick leave, with no buffer and with no savings, they had nothing to fall back on. They needed to work in multiple locations to make ends meet. Christine Thomas, a cleaner who testified at the Senate hearings last week, said it better than I ever could:

I have four small children and a partner in my house, with only one income.

…   …   …

Workers like me continued to work during this pandemic. I worried about my safety and the safety of my families but I needed to keep my job.

…   …   …

In return, the government has pushed forward this bill that will destroy job security. … I don't want this for my future or the future of my children. …Thank you for listening.

If only Scott Morrison would.

I rise tonight to speak on the outcomes in the form of a declaration of the Mental Health Services Learning Network, or TheMHS, pre-conference consumer forum, 'Share our Power', this year hosted by Consumers of Mental Health WA. The declaration, 'Our Collective Voice', outlines consumers' vision for a national consumer voice. The declaration was created by people with lived or living experience of emotional distress, trauma, neurodiversity, mental health challenges and psychosocial disabilities. It seeks to outline a vision of a future where the collective voice of mental health consumers is heard, valued and central to the design and implementation of policy and care. I had the great privilege of being asked to accept this declaration, and, in accepting the declaration, I committed to the forum to table it in the Senate and to pursue a national voice for consumers. I now table the declaration, which I have taken to whips. It's the declaration from the consumer forum on mental health.

There are no objections to the document being tabled, and my understanding is this has been agreed.

Consumers of mental health are very clearly saying they want and need a national voice. They've articulated what a voice would give them. They talk about what a collective voice needs to be. It needs to be: heard, consumer led, essential, inclusive, funded, involving people, independent, peer led and valued. They're the things they're calling for. They see that having a consumer national voice would give them: validation, strength, acceptance, amplification of their voice, opportunities, belonging, power, agency, acceptance, safety and empowerment. They're the things that the consumers of mental health services are saying they need. Consumers of mental health services are very clearly saying this is what they want.

The declaration is a reminder to all members of parliament that consumers must be involved in decision-making about services, and that services must be reflective of their needs and experiences. Over the last year, it has been encouraging to see a renewed focus on mental health, not only from the government but across society, as we have all felt the effects of devastating bushfires, the global COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing uncertainty that has been created.

Late last year we saw the release of the Productivity Commission's report on Australia's mental health system, confirming that we are in the midst of a mental health crisis and that significant work is required to support individuals onto a path of ongoing wellbeing. It found that one in two adults will at some stage in their life suffer from a mental health illness or condition. One in five of us will face the struggle in any given year, costing the economy between $43 and $51 billion. With the Productivity Commission's report, we find ourselves with a unique opportunity to radically redesign our mental health systems in Australia. Putting consumers of mental health services and those with lived experience front and centre is absolutely essential and integral to any reforms that are initiated.

I've heard—and so have many in this chamber, I'm sure—the challenges that people face when seeking the care they need for themselves or when trying to find support for a friend or family member in times of crisis, only to be hit with roadblocks and red tape. We must take the lead from those who need access to services and those with lived experience of navigating the system on what is needed to deliver the outcomes for people suffering from emotional distress, mental ill health, trauma and psychosocial disabilities. We must listen to the consumers of those services and make sure that they have a national voice. I'm committed to supporting that call and encouraging the Senate to do what we can to support a national voice. (Time expired)

Last year at Senate estimates I asked Sport Australia, the nation's peak sporting body, if strength, stamina and physique are relevant attributes in rugby union, Australian Rules football, cricket, hockey, tennis, athletics, golf, swimming, basketball and so on. It's not a difficult question. An average year 6 student could tell us that strength, stamina and physique play a role in all of these sports. But our peak sporting body couldn't, or wouldn't, answer that question. After three months, they wrote back and said, 'The nature of individual competitions and teams is a matter for the relevant sporting organisation to determine.' Aside from the fact that it's embarrassing for a sports-mad nation's peak sporting body to apparently not know that strength and stamina are relevant in most sports, why does this matter? It's because of section 42 of the Sex Discrimination Act. Section 42 is sometimes referred to as the 'competitive sports exemption'. In a country which, quite rightly, doesn't permit discrimination on the basis of sex in many aspects of life, this is the provision which makes women's sport legal. Section 42 says, very plainly, that it is not:

… unlawful to discriminate on the ground of sex … by excluding persons from participation in any competitive sporting activity in which the strength, stamina or physique of competitors is relevant.

As drafted and as intended, it's a very simple provision. If strength, stamina or physique are relevant to the competitive sporting activity in question, it's perfectly legal to operate a women's sporting competition on the basis of sex. That's something that most major sports had been doing for decades, without ever being told by a court that it's illegal to do so.

Until recently, nobody ever questioned that it's perfectly lawful, not to mention eminently sensible, for sports like rugby, Australian Rules, tennis, athletics and swimming to be able to offer women's sport and to discriminate on the basis of sex when doing so. If the law doesn't allow them to do this, then there would be nothing to stop any male from turning up and competing in women's sport. But suddenly, in 2019, Sport Australia and the Human Rights Commission produced a guideline that told sports and sporting clubs around Australia that they may be in breach of the law if they exclude male people from female sport and should instead operate sport on the basis of gender identity. Sport Australia say that this guideline was requested by the Coalition of Major Professional and Participation Sports, and its purpose was to provide sports with clear guidance about complying with the Sex Discrimination Act.

It does seem more than a little odd that Australia's largest and most wealthy sports, each of which no doubt have access to their own expert legal advisers, suddenly, in 2019, decided that they didn't know if their women's competitions were allowed to operate on the basis of sex. Presumably, there are people within each of these peak sporting bodies who understand that the purpose of women's sport is to provide sporting competition for women, acknowledging that males and females have different physiologies, which lead to different capabilities on the sporting field. It is bizarre that the people who run the AFL and Rugby Australia wouldn't be confident that strength, stamina and physique are relevant to playing their ultraphysical contact sports and therefore could operate on the basis of sex. Frankly, it defies belief that, having been asked to provide clear guidance on this, the best Sport Australia can offer is to say, as they did at the most recent set of Senate estimates, that they have no idea and it's up to the sports to figure that out. The result of this piece of professional ignorance is that, if Sport Australia or Rugby Australia or the AFL admit that strength, stamina and physique are relevant in those sports, they would have to stop telling sporting clubs that they'll get sued if they exclude biological men from women's sport. But they don't want to do that. They've already decided that they'd prefer to receive plaudits from activists for being inclusive than uphold the purpose and integrity of women's sport—to let females play with and against other females. So we're treated to the unedifying spectacle of our peak sporting bodies pretending they don't know if it's helpful to be strong or powerful or tall in their sports. If these sports don't want to let females have their own competitions, then they should have the courage to say so. Don't hide behind a convoluted legal argument to pretend you have no choice. People around Australia see what you're doing, and we won't stand for it.

I've spoken in this place previously about sexual harassment in the workplace, and it grieves me that I need to speak about it again. It's got to stop; it's got to be stopped. This abject failure to provide a safe place of work here in parliament, and in politics more broadly, has got to come to an end. I acknowledge Brittany Higgins's extraordinary courage and act of civic leadership in speaking out about her ordeal in the office of the now Minister for Defence two years ago. The fact is that being raped in your workplace and speaking about it shouldn't have to be an act of courage. The crime that is alleged and being discussed today across the nation is a stain on the parliament of Australia. Through the behaviour that is tolerated, accepted and even celebrated in some ways in this building by some, clearly, the Australian people are marred.

As Brittany stated:

… everyone should feel safe to report sexual assault without fear of losing their job. These incidents shouldn't have to play out in the media for change to happen.

She's 150 per cent right. It's obvious to any moral person that she is totally right. But media pain is the only way that seems to work to get the government's attention. I have to ask the question: for how long will this government pay attention? Will it bat this matter away, as we've seen it bat so many other matters of moral integrity away? It batted away the much reported cultural malaise that hangs over this building after the incidents in the Four Corners reveal, 'Inside the Canberra bubble'. People were shocked by that, but that was a few months ago. What did the government actually do? What's happened? I wish I could say that it was resolved. I wish I could even say that nothing really bad came of it. But the reality is that Minister Alan Tudge, who is one of the features in that particular piece, is now promoted to being the Minister for Education and Youth in Australia. That's how much moral courage and moral integrity Mr Morrison really has. He promoted the man who was exposed as, really, a perpetrator of this culture.

I'm heartened by the growing belief in our nation that people should be physically and mentally safe in their workplace. I at least hang on to the hope that—and I'm sure many of my colleagues here do—this view of a safe workplace inside and outside the parliamentary circle is widely held. But no matter how many times the public shaming of perpetrators is noted by the media here in this parliament and supposedly noted by the government, there continues to be a culture of acceptance of sexual predation, sexual assault and sexual entitlement by the powerful over the less powerful that reeks like a decaying corpse in the corridors of this place, the 'corridors of power', as they're often called, where power is being abused and where abuses are papered over. It's pretty clear that the papering over isn't working.

I fear that the hastily constructed inquiry that was announced by the Prime Minister today will fail, because it's another media fix, not an acknowledgement of a deep, cultural problem that is manifesting itself in incredible struggle, despair and trauma for people working in this building. It's not just about parliamentarians or their staff; it's about people from the Department of Parliamentary Services who come in this building. It's about people in the media corridors. Power is operating in this building, and it's not operating in a safe and enabling way. It's dangerous, and we saw the consequences of that danger not being named and not being properly handled, and we see them in the story of Brittany. There are sources out there. The Inter-Parliamentary Union has informed Labor's announcements today of what we have proposed to do. There needs to be a proper allocation of resources to this, and—(Time expired)

Today, 16 February, is known as the day the world said no to war—to the Iraq War. It is still considered the largest protest action in history. Over 10 million people in 600 cities across 60 countries took part in a coordinated action to march against the criminal US led invasion of Iraq. In Australia, nearly half a million people also marched. I joined them in Sydney, where I took part in my first-ever protest action. I was very angry about this illegal, immoral war, and I still bloody well am, for many reasons. Ten million people around the world knew this war wasn't right, but it still happened, because a few powerful people and interests wanted it to. A handful of dreadful, deceitful diehards in various corners of the Bush administration at the time created a momentum towards war that couldn't be stopped, even by many good, honest people. No-one is disputing the justification for this war was a lie, a manufactured deceit. Remember US General Colin Powell fronting the UN, making the case for war? Iraq needed to be invaded because they were a threat; they had weapons of mass destruction.

Recently, US journalist Robert Draper wrote in The New York Times Magazine an article called 'Colin Powell still wants answers'. It states:

In 2003, he made the case for invading Iraq to halt its weapons programs. The analysts who provided the intelligence now say it was doubted inside the C.I.A. at the time.

Discussing the process that led to Colin Powell's speech, Draper's article goes on to say:

At 10:30 the following morning, Powell addressed the international body. For the next 76 minutes, he laid out the U.S. government's case against Hussein. "My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources," Powell said in his calm, sonorous baritone. "These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."

The story Powell told marked a departure from the Bush administration's evocations of madness, evil and mushroom clouds. It was an investigator's meticulous brief of institutionalized deception and murderous intent.

I advise all senators to read this article, with the investigative journalism that went behind it. The article finishes by saying:

The speech remains one of the most indelible public moments of the Bush presidency. By the time Powell resigned from his post, his performance that morning before the U.N. Security Council had come to symbolize the tragic recklessness of Bush's decision to go to war. Iraq, it was by then widely understood, had played no role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor did it possess weapons of mass destruction. Nearly all the intelligence Powell presented to the world in his speech turned out to be false.

What a disaster it turned out to be—hundreds of thousands of people killed, instability across the Middle East.

Those 10 million people who marched and are still with us today, on this dark anniversary, should turn their minds to the ongoing persecution of Julian Assange. Assange and WikiLeaks are a threat to the powerful people who lied to us and took us to war. They expose lies and deception and war crimes. That's why Assange is facing a virtual death sentence in a UK prison. Have no doubt: Assange's extradition trial and his persecution are purely political, and this is going to require a political solution. The US administration, and, unfortunately, recently the Biden administration, is making a political gamble that we have all forgotten this illegal and immoral war and the lies and the unnecessary deaths. If those going after Assange for truth telling are betting on us forgetting, let's use today's anniversary to remember, to not forget the frustration of not being listened to and the righteous anger of those who are quickly proven right by history. It is also a timely reminder we must fight for Assange's freedom and for press freedom. The only thing we have— (Time expired)

I rise tonight to speak in relation to the worrying trend of incursions into common sense, values and decency at state level across our nation. On occasion I'm asked what drew me into public life, and it's a question I presume is asked of most parliamentarians. For me, the answer is simple. I was tired of watching the political class, including some polyester conservatives, allow the tide of cultural Marxism to wash over us. I wanted to be a voice for common sense and a voice for decency, and I wanted to play a small part in retrieving politics in this country from the political elites.

Ours is a country founded on Judaeo-Christian values—values which have served us over the centuries, values which have stood the test of time, values which are under attack and values which are being forfeited day by day. The radical Left, through their political wings—the Australian Greens and the Australian Labor Party—are determined to cleanse the public narrative of family values. We've been watching this for decades. But what's more troubling is the extent to which these incursions are being ignored at state level. The radical Left has become emboldened, and these trends are not corrected by pandering. State parliaments are being weak. The assaults on religious liberty creatively known as 'conversion therapy bills' which have been moved in Victoria, Queensland and the ACT provide a perfect example. The Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill passed in Victoria two weeks ago is a bill which criminalises the truth, and it passed, 27 for and nine against. In 2021 South Australia will see its own conversion therapy bill and a further euthanasia bill, appropriately dressed in the Left's Trojan Horse language of 'voluntary assisted dying'. There have also been euthanasia bills introduced in Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania and Western Australia. Last year in my home state of South Australia, parliament defeated yet another prostitution bill, only to see it rise again later this year. This week the South Australian state parliament is debating the Termination of Pregnancy Bill, a bill which would allow abortion till the moment of birth. South Australians have told me they reject this bill, with survey results showing that 63 per cent of South Australians oppose late-term abortion and only 20 per cent support it.

Two weeks ago I attended the Walk for Life, on a rainy day, with 5,000 South Australians who, like me, oppose this bill. Last weekend a pro-late-term abortion gathering—it really wasn't a rally—unsurprisingly attracted a mere 300 people, on a beautiful sunny day. With this much public support for decency, why is the political narrative so slanted? Why are our state parliaments even debating such matters when Australians have not given them a mandate to do so? It's because conservatives have vacated the field, and radical dogma is filling the void. The proponents of these matters don't give up. They don't walk away. They seek fleeting glory from a small but vocal minority. They seek to wear you down and they have time and energy on their side. A small but vocal cross-section of society is now in control of the narrative. We can't allow our state parliaments to continue being weak, to continue being compliant and to continue waving the white flag to a vocal mob. Ask yourself: why are your rights being eroded? Is your member of parliament protecting your values or is he or she hiding behind platitudes and false intellectualism? Is your member of parliament firm in their beliefs or are they scared of the activist media, scared of a corporate standover, scared of the mob?

George Orwell once said, 'The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.' Conservatives need to fight back. They need to become loud and they need to get more involved in the machinery of politics. Common sense, decency and values need you; they need your family and they need your friends. They need you to be heard before the mob cancels you and cancels your way of life.

When I first came into this place, in my first speech I spoke about the values that my parents instilled in me and how they would be my touchstone through my time representing the people of Victoria. One of the most important lessons they taught me was that there is enormous dignity in work. Work helps contribute to a person's sense of self, their purpose. It brings the opportunity to make a contribution to the community, the knowledge that you're doing your bit. Work is one of the things that bring stability, routine and inclusion. And, importantly, it brings an income. That income can support a family. It goes to the purchasing of local goods and services, supporting small businesses. It provides food, clothing, warmth and a roof over one's head. With work, you get to have a go, as our Prime Minister has reminded us in the past. When you have a go, you get a go, or so the Prime Minister says.

The workers at the Opal Australian Paper mill in Maryvale, in my home state of Victoria, are trying to have a go. Despite the rhetoric of the Liberal and National parties, there's no go for them, because the Commonwealth is importing paper instead of buying quality, Australian made paper. In the three months from July till September last year the federal government only purchased around one-third of Australian made copy paper. This is nothing short of outrageous. At the height of the pandemic the federal government ditched paper made in Maryvale in favour of cheap imported paper. I thought we were all in this together, but clearly not. Clearly the workers at the mill couldn't even count on the federal government to be on their side.

The CFMEU manufacturing division is calling on this government to commit to purchasing 100 per cent Australian made paper. A commitment like that will provide workers with stability and job security at a time when it is so badly needed. Australians in regional communities are already experiencing higher levels of instability and unemployment compared to Australians in major cities, so why would this government—and the National Party claims to be the party of regional Australia and to have regional Australians' best interests at heart—put the jobs of these workers at risk? It beggars belief.

Regional Australians deserve a government that puts their interests first. They deserve a government who is on their side. Instead, they have a government that has taken no serious action to arrest the decline of manufacturing jobs and no serious action to support and invest in regional jobs. It has put the jobs of Maryvale paper mill workers at risk. My message to the coalition is: commit to procuring 100 per cent Australian made paper. Do more to support and invest in regional Australia.

With the 1½ minutes I have left on the clock I want to turn to another matter. Recreational hunting in Victoria contributes $356 million to Victoria's economy, with almost three-quarters of this going directly into Victoria's regions. In my home state, recreational hunters take, on average, six hunting trips per year. They visit regional towns, patronise local establishments and purchase goods from local stores. In total they are estimated to support over 3½ thousand jobs, either directly or as a result of flow-on activity. These benefits are particularly felt in towns like Mansfield, Wangaratta and Traralgon, where recreational hunters and the economic benefits they offer are significant contributors to the local economy.

I know that, for some, duck hunting can be a sensitive issue. There are those on both sides of the divide who feel very passionately about the sport and its place in our community. Looking beyond these emotive arguments, the recent changes to the arrangements for the 2021 duck hunting season are quite disappointing. Whilst I'm certain that the decision has been made this year on the basis of the very best advice, I'm sure many country towns in Victoria would say it is regrettable.

The Morrison government's industrial relations omnibus bill will make job security worse. That's not all the government are going after. They are using the pandemic as a disguise to launch a full-scale attack on the pay, conditions and working security of the very people who have helped us get through this pandemic. Make no mistake, this bill will hurt not only workers but also the economy. The pandemic has showed us that insecure work has an impact on the way we are able to manage this pandemic.

The bill that the government hasn't brought forward yet—it is still working on changes and making a deal with crossbenchers to slip it through in this sitting—will make bargaining for better pay and conditions harder for workers. It will give more power for employers to casualise jobs, instead of making them permanent. It will weaken wage theft punishments—and we have some in place in Queensland thanks to a good Labor government. Up until this morning they had planned to scrap the better off overall test.

This is what the Morrison government are choosing to do after the pandemic. Labor will not support them in these changes, because Labor is on the side of workers. We know that insecure work has increased under this government's watch. The gig economy is exploiting workers so they're being paid less than the minimum wage and working in unsafe conditions. We know that dodgy labour hire firms are still getting away with employing workers who do the same job as someone employed directly through the company but for less pay and fewer entitlements and with weaker conditions. Australians are prepared to work hard. They worked hard through the pandemic, but this government is turning its back on them. They need a government that is on their side.

Labor understands that being in a good, secure job allows families to plan for the future with certainty. Every Australian deserves a good, secure job, and workers deserve to feel safe in a job that they can count on. It is true that the number of insecure jobs has increased under this government. Right now, one in every four employees is a casual. Insecurity in work impacts on people's livelihoods and then their wellbeing. Eighty per cent of the 800,000 hospitality workers across Australia are currently casuals. The Morrison government turned its back on casual workers during the pandemic by excluding them from JobKeeper, and now it's trying to change their workplace conditions to make it even harder for them to have security of work. The pandemic has shown us that we cannot continue to treat workers in this way. We must have a system that respects workers. That is why a Labor government will ensure that the Fair Work Commission has the ability to inquire into all forms of work and determine what rights and obligations should apply.

The Morrison government will argue that being employed as a casual has the benefits of flexibility, but we know that when the mob opposite talk about flexibility what they're really talking about is insecurity. No workers know this better than the workers in Central Queensland who are working in the mines and in manufacturing in our region, because labour hire has continued to minimise the working conditions of people in those industries beyond a same-job same-pay ratio. We know that there are workers working alongside each other where one is on an EBA and one is employed by a labour hire firm but the labour hire worker is being paid less money. Not only does it mean that the person who is working for the labour hire firm is unable to plan for the future, have a secure financial future, get a mortgage and plan holidays with their family; it also undercuts the EBA worker. It undercuts the worker who is already directly employed by that mine, by that business. This is something that the mob opposite have talked about fixing for years, but it's not in their IR bill, and it never will be, because they don't care about making sure that workers don't have insecurity in work. What their bill will do is entrench casualisation, and that's why Labor won't be supporting it.

I rise to contribute to this adjournment debate. In August, the Premier of Queensland, Annastacia Palaszczuk, said that the government that she leads is committed to developing a treaty with our people. Then, just last week, she announced a knee-jerk policy that will entrench First Nations kids, in particular, in the quicksand of the criminal legal system, because News Corp, the real Premier of Queensland, wants it so. For our people, an encounter with a police officer is often not helpful but lethal. Over 445 of us have died in police or prison custody in the last 30 years. Our people have not forgotten that the very police services that control the government of Queensland and even my own state of Victoria were the ones that came to steal our babies from their mothers, creating the stolen generations, something that is still happening today. It was these very police services that enslaved our men in chain gangs, shackling them to each other by the neck and the waist—a practice that continued up until the sixties.

Instead of working with us, like she says she wants to, the Premier of Queensland is sending police officers into schools in Cairns to target children. We don't yet know if these officers will be armed or not—this, after Australia's governments were condemned by the United Nations for our barbaric practice of targeting and jailing children as young as 10 in this country. Let's be honest here. What the Premier of Queensland is doing is not about community safety; it's about building the biggest school-to-prison pipeline that she can get away with. In Queensland, kids, our kids in particular, will be shackled again, except the colonial neck braces have now given way to ankle monitors. The Premier of Queensland—because News Corp told her so—also wants to remove the presumption of bail for a lot of young people, as well as giving cops portable metal detectors to randomly check for weapons. We all know who will be most affected by these changes: First Nations children. Forty-three per cent of children in prisons in Queensland are First Nations kids, despite our people making up only four per cent of Queensland's population.

The Premier isn't serious about doing the things that work, because she's more interested in racing the LNP to the bottom and in keeping News Corp happy. A premier that actually wanted to prevent youth offending from becoming devastating tragedies would keep the kids out of the endless cycle of criminalisation in the first place. GPS-enabled shackles or throwing kids in watch houses will not do this. A caring premier that was interested in doing the things that work would be making sure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children's legal services had the resources they need to keep our kids out of the criminal justice system—or the criminal legal system, because you don't get justice in that system. A good premier would be moving heaven and earth to do these things—like the Premier of Queensland did for Adani coal, extinguishing Wangan and Jagalingou native title for a coalmine, a dirty coalmine. Instead of backing and promoting better opportunities for our kids, she just wants to lock them up.

We need culturally appropriate housing. We need better mental health services and family support services for everyone everywhere. A premier with a spine would be raising the age of legal responsibility to at least 14 and implementing strong, culturally safe diversion programs. The Premier of Queensland should be ashamed of saying she wants a treaty with our people while also implementing policies that will hurt our kids even more. That is not a treaty. That does not create peace. That creates more harm and locks up more of our kids.

I rise tonight to reject a statement made recently in this place by Queensland Senator Scarr, who cynically used the protection of parliament to impugn the integrity of a former parliamentarian, with no basis in fact. On 3 February, Senator Scarr did not name the former federal member for Fremantle, Melissa Parke, but he precisely identified her as the initial Labor candidate for the WA seat of Curtin in the 2019 federal election. He accused her of uttering a vile lie, of spreading vile misinformation and, by direct implication, of being an anti-Semite. His false accusations relate to events that occurred when Melissa worked as a lawyer for the United Nations in Gaza in 2003. One of those events involved a well-documented case of a Palestinian refugee woman being forced by an Israeli soldier to drink a bleach-like cleaning fluid. We must engage with what is occurring here. The senator is using parliamentary privilege to defame Melissa Parke. He's using parliamentary privilege in an effort to silence criticism of the Israeli government for the human rights abuses it has perpetuated and continues to perpetuate against Palestinian citizens.

I challenge Senator Scarr to reiterate his assertions that Melissa Parke has spread a vile lie and a vile misinformation and that she is an anti-Semite outside the walls of this place. If he is unwilling to do so, he must retract his assertions and apologise to Melissa Parke, for the record of this parliament. If Senator Scarr is willing to do neither of these things, he must look at his integrity, as others certainly will, for there are only two explanations for his professed ignorance about the facts of Melissa Parke's experience in Israel and Palestine and the human rights abuses perpetrated by Israel. One is that he has not taken the trouble to research the documented history of the matter before proceeding to defame people of integrity. The other is that he does not wish to be troubled by the facts. There are no other options.

I put it to my colleagues in this place that the cynical use of the slur of anti-Semitism as a tool to silence critics of Israel for that state's exhaustively documented human rights abuses against Palestinians must stop. Equally, this place must not be used as a refuge from reality from which false accusations can be hurled against people of greater integrity than their accusers.

I bring to the attention of the Senate the incredibly valuable work of the Taiwanese Buddhist international humanitarian organisation Tzu Chi and its founder and spiritual leader, Dharma Master Cheng Yen. Around the world, Tzu Chi conducts year-end blessing ceremonies. They are usually an occasion for great fellowship and celebration, attended by members and volunteers alike. During the ceremonies, leaders distribute red envelopes of blessings and wisdom as a token of Cheng Yen's appreciation for their unwavering support of her organisation's mission throughout the year past.

Tzu Chi is active in my state of South Australia, and we are very grateful for their charitable work. Upon entering public life, I have had the privilege of attending their year-end blessing ceremonies held in Adelaide. It is always a joy to spend time with Tzu Chi volunteers, who do so much great work in our community.

As senators would be well aware, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused restrictions to be imposed on large gatherings all over the world. This challenge has seen organisations such as Tzu Chi take an innovative approach to engaging with their membership. So, whilst the format in which this year's ceremony was conducted had to be changed, it still went ahead earlier this year, but in a digital setting.

I, along with my state parliamentary colleague the Hon. Tung Ngo, a member of the South Australian Legislative Council, had the opportunity to deliver a message to the Dharma Master Cheng Yen on behalf of all those South Australians who have benefited from Tzu Chi's valuable charitable work.

In 1996 Tzu Chi began with a group of 30 women who Cheng Yen asked to save 50c per day from their family budget and store it in a bamboo savings bank to help needy families. When the women asked Cheng Yen why they could not give the same total just once a week, she replied:

Because giving is a practice and we need to give every day. If we have a yearning or a positive desire in us, we must nourish it and bring it to fulfillment. Just as Buddha was guided by a noble desire to help others, we too can listen to those who are sad or help those who are in pain.

As I've said, a key part of the year-end blessing ceremony is when members of Tzu Chi are given a coin. It also symbolises the 50c those 30 women saved at the time of the founding of the organisation. It is amazing to think that, at the age of 83, the founder, Cheng Yen, still wakes at 3.45 each morning to start her work and devotions, including a daily morning broadcast address known as Wisdom at Dawn. She is considered one of the most influential figures in the development of modern Taiwanese Buddhism and is recognised as one of their four heavenly kings. I had the great honour and privilege of meeting Dharma Master Cheng Yen during a parliamentary visit to Taiwan in 2016.

Tzu Chi has now in excess of 10 million members worldwide and branches in over 63 countries. It operates over 6,500 recycling stations and provides disaster relief aid in over 85 countries. Its critical work is based on the concept of four endeavours, standing for its major causes, which are charity, medicine, education and humanity. This translates to eight footprints which include, among a number of others, medical research and hospitals, international disaster assistance, volunteering in the community and environmental protection. Around the world, Tzu Chi has undertaken many long-term and complex projects, such as building schools, hospitals, homes and places of worship for those communities devastated by natural disaster. I have witnessed firsthand the work they are doing to assist those in need, especially during the bushfires in my home state of South Australia.

I will conclude my remarks with the words of Dharma Master Cheng Yen, which not only apply to the objectives of the humanitarian organisation that she founded and she continues to inspire but also the challenging times that we are all facing: 'With perseverance and courage, the roughest roads can become smooth.'

There are various reasons to remember 7 April 2020—the drama of the High Court acquittal and later the dramatic film taken by helicopter of Pell's release from 12 months of solitary confinement in Victoria's Barwon high-security prison. But another reason is the response of the Victorian Premier, alias 'Chairman Dan'. Andrews could barely conceal his upset at the decision. Not prepared even to concede that the seven High Court judges might have released an innocent man, Andrews said:

I make no comment about today's High Court decision.

But I have a message for every single victim and survivor of child sex abuse:

I see you.

I hear you.

I believe you.

Vintage Andrews—a two-fingered salute to the High Court and an eloquent sign of his willingness to accept a complaint, however improbable, because it involved a member of the Catholic clergy. Is that to be Victorian government policy? As Chris Merritt wrote in The Australian:

Relevant evidence about the complainant—

whom I shall call 'J'—

was kept from the jury by virtue of legislation that was put in place with the clear intention of protecting those who claim to be victims of sexual assault.

Unquestionably, there are thousands of Australians whose lives have been damaged, often irreparably, by sexual abuse, as the McClelland royal commission found; but it does them no favours when a government overreaches by replacing the presumption of innocence with one of guilt.

But there are certain royal commissions that Andrews pays less attention to, like the Lawyer X royal commission that exposed corrupt police practices which resulted in tainted prosecutions, trials and the overturning of criminal convictions. Despite months now having passed and notwithstanding the recommendation of a special investigator, we haven't seen the appointment of that investigator. Perhaps the Victoria Police are hoping that the Victorian public might just forget about Lawyer X. Perhaps the praise lavished by the Premier on Deputy Commissioner Ashton in 2020, whom he described—after the evidence was in about him—as 'an outstanding Victorian, might make adverse action against him a bit too difficult.

And so I turn to Pell's prosecution in Victoria. In early 2013, a decision was made within Vic Pol to get Pell—so much was considered, in evidence given by Detective Superintendent Paul Sheridan at Pell's committal hearing. In November 2012, Vic Pol set up the SANO Task Force, led by Michael Dwyer. It was the same Dwyer who in March 2013 set up Operation Tethering on a hunch, according to Melbourne journalist Morris-Marr. The progress of Operation Tethering is intriguing. When Pell's barrister asked Sheridan at the committal whether Operation Tethering was a 'get Pell' operation, given that it was set up a year before any complaints about Pell had been made, Sheridan told the court, 'I wouldn't use those words but I guess you could term it the way you did.'

Confined to only Pell, a more accurate name would have been Operation Pell. That is why some have characterised the probe as having an accused in search of a crime. Nothing much happened until 2014, when VicPol Senior Constable Ray took a statement from a man, whom I shall call Smith, who made some bizarre allegations against Pell concerning Lake Boga. Smith, as it happened, had a history of admissions to psychiatric hospitals. VicPol put Smith's allegations to Pell, who told police they were false and absurd.

By the end of March 2014 high-profile radio hosts would tell Victorian listeners of a story that was to break, describing lawyer X as one of the biggest law and order scandals in Victorian state history. On 1 April 2014, Ashton knew well of the scandal. In an email exchange Morton, assistant director of media and corporate communications, advised Ashton not to make a media appearance in response to the lawyer X scandal because forthcoming announcements about Cardinal Pell could distract media and public attention. Morton wrote: 'The Pell stuff is coming tomorrow and will knock this way off the front page.' What was the Pell stuff? Perhaps it was a reference to the forthcoming ABC 7.30 report, which would make serious allegations against Pell and which went to air the following week. Were the police working hand in glove with the ABC?

In December 2014, Bernard Barrett once again becomes something of a middleman between J's mother and VicPol. The initial contact did not concern Pell but a former priest, Galea, who had died back in 2002. Somehow the complainant would come to allege vicious assaults against him and another choirboy, whom I shall name R. Barrett referred J to Ms Waller. Waller, Broken Rites, Barrett and the ABC Four Corners became topics on the Twittersphere throughout this period. Someone knows something is happening behind the scenes. By April 2014, Tethering's record logs showed the operation—that is, the Pell investigation—had essentially lain dormant from 2013 and the matter now had priority. Why did that happen all of a sudden? What had happened with VicPol? When Richter QC probed informant Reed as to why, after two years, the investigation had been given priority status, Reed untruthfully answered, 'Oh, I don't recall. Just simply that it had been sitting there, I would presume.' He repeated that he did not recall what made it a priority.

In May 2014, Barrett spoke with J regarding his allegations. Barrett, of course, was centrally involved in 2002 in encouraging a chap called Scott to make allegations against Pell going back to the 1960s. Perhaps Barrett had unfinished business. In June 2014, J made his first police statement. In July 2014, J made a second statement, correcting aspects of the first one. In the months that followed, complainants suddenly appeared in Ballarat, giving inconsistent and improbable accounts of abuse. VicPol appeared to accept them as gospel truth. In September 2015, Tethering had worked up three sets of allegations against Pell at three different locations and in three different time periods. They were looking promising in the campaign to get Pell.

Just before Christmas 2015, SANO task force made a public call for witnesses of sexual abuse of an unknown number of male victims who were 14 years of age at time that allegedly occurred at the cathedral. By June 2017, after a series of back-and-forth manoeuvres with the Office of Public Prosecutions, VicPol decided to lay charges against Pell. Did Andrews know what was happening behind the scenes—after all, Andrews's former chief of staff, Brett Curran, was now working with Ashton? Was there a belt-and-road Chinese wall to prevent whispers? The laying of criminal charges against the most senior Australian Catholic would eviscerate the reputation of the cardinal in the community. The police knew that, from that moment going forward, it would be not so much for the prosecution to prove guilt; rather it would be for Pell to prove his innocence. That was so even before the ABC and other media devoted thousands of dollars and hours to attempt to poison the mind of the community against the cardinal. Lots of smoke, so there must be fire. Experienced prosecutors publicly expressed their concerns as to whether Pell could ever receive a fair trial given the hostility of the media against him.

Senior police, armed with their potpourri of allegations, decided they would conduct a police interview of Pell. Three policemen went to Rome: Patton, Sheridan and Reed. Of course, the trip could not have happened without Ashton authorising it and sending his deputy. It was odd in its own way that, having flown all the way to Rome for the purpose of interviewing Pell, Patton stood outside the interview. Why did Patton go? What occupied him while he was there? What did Patton report to Ashton? Did Ashton report further along the chain? Those who walk the corridors in Victoria speak of Sheridan as an honest, hardworking detective. That is why Sheridan's own role in the investigation is worth looking into, for it's likely that he knows everything that was going on behind the scenes within VicPol. Sheridan was one of the two persons present throughout the entire interview in Rome, and Sheridan barely asked a question. He certainly did not challenge any of Pell's answers to the myriad of allegations put to him by Reed. Pell answered every question, forcefully denying the allegations and telling them whom they should speak to for corroboration. Despite all of that, VicPol decided to press on with charging Pell—why?

The time has come for a royal commission—not a tame and inconclusive inquiry into the relationship between the Victorian Labor government and VicPol. The ALP 'red shirts' matter—again Curran and Ashton were central—lawyer X, the Pell prosecution, the connections between Ashton and Spring Street over private security and hotel quarantining, and other matters all need examination. This is more than just about Cardinal Pell; it is about whether the people of Victoria can have confidence in VicPol to be properly independent of government and not an agency of the executive of the day.

As the Australian Greens spokesperson on foreign affairs, I rise to speak out about human rights violations wherever they occur, because we believe that universal human rights are fundamental and must be respected in all countries and for all people. That's why we call out human rights violations here in Australia, and we'll do the same for other countries where they occur. We call on the Australian government to consistently advocate for human rights internationally, wherever violations and attacks on human rights occur.

Tonight, I want to start in Myanmar. We're incredibly concerned by the reports overnight of military forces being deployed against protesters. People have been injured by rubber bullets, students have been detained, and those who are protesting for freedom and democracy are facing an internet blackout. Many have been detained, including Aung San Suu Kyi, President U Win Myint and Australian Sean Turnell. We affirm our support for those protesting. There have been protests around the country as well as a strike by government workers. I want to quote particularly UN Special Rapporteur Tom Andrews on the situation of human rights in Myanmar:

It's as if the generals have declared war on the people of Myanmar: late night raids; mounting arrests; more rights stripped away; another Internet shutdown; military convoys entering communities. These are signs of desperation. Attention generals: You WILL be held accountable.

I reaffirm the Greens call for the military leaders who have undertaken this coup in Myanmar to release those who have been detained and to cease interference with election outcomes and a democratic transition. I urge the Australian government to take clear steps to address this assault on democracy and work to free those who have been detained. The Australian defence forces must immediately suspend their military relationship with Myanmar. We should immediately impose targeted sanctions on General Min Aung Hlaing and all others involved in this action by the military. If Myanmar's generals continue to refuse to release those who are arbitrarily detained, the Australian government should be considering further options, including extending the targeted sanctions to the corporate holdings of the key generals and to their immediate family members.

We welcome the decisions of the United States and New Zealand to provide a clear response to the coup, but sadly some of Myanmar's regional neighbours have not sent the same clear message. As some recent coverage noted:

The coup d'etat this week has thrust China back into the uncomfortable position it held for years with Myanmar: as the principal defender of a military dictatorship facing an international firestorm of criticism.

That's particularly noticeable given China's failure to acknowledge the coup, referring to it instead as a 'major cabinet reshuffle'. The world is watching the Chinese government's relationship with the Myanmar military coup. They are on notice.

I want to continue to focus on the Chinese government. I want to focus on two of their most egregious recent attacks on human rights and to call on the Australian government to do more to support people in China and in Hong Kong.

The attacks on democracy in Hong Kong are incredibly concerning. The most recent changes in Hong Kong will prevent recognition of dual citizenship. As the ABC and others have reported:

An estimated 100,000 Hongkongers hold an Australian passport, but if the local laws are enforced dual nationals will be recognised as Chinese citizens only, and could be prevented from accessing Australian consular support.

I recently met with Hongkongers who were incredibly sad for the assault on democracy we've seen in Hong Kong and concerned about the changes impacting Hongkongers with dual citizenship. We welcome the Australian government's safe haven, offering visa extensions of five years and potentially a permanent pathway to residency, but we call on the government to do more and to grant permanent protection for all Hongkongers who currently reside in Australia. I'm also glad to see that the Australian government has changed its travel advice to highlight the risks to Australian citizens who are Hongkongers.

I also want to mention the tragic situation in Xinjiang in China. Many words have been spoken about the cultural genocide the Uighurs are facing, and I was appalled to see the reports of systemic rape of people detained in camps in Xinjiang. The situation demands a UN investigation, and we call on the Chinese government to allow full and unfettered access to UN officials and call on the Australian government to advocate directly and multilaterally for this access and for human rights overall.

One of the key international institutions that aims to seek justice for those who are subject to the gravest of human rights abuses is the International Criminal Court, the ICC. Last week the ICC determined that it had jurisdiction in Palestine. Disgracefully, Australia was one of only seven countries that argued that the International Criminal Court should not have jurisdiction, because Australia does not recognise Palestine as a state. The Australian government's position is a disgrace and deeply disappointing for Australians who support accountability for crimes, including alleged crimes, no matter who commits them or where they are committed. The Greens position is that, in any military occupation or conflict, such as that which exists in Israel and Palestine, everyone loses. It is clear that peace and sustainable co-existence can only occur if there is justice for all and if there is a commitment from all parties to reject all forms of violence and cease all form of human rights violations.

Many countries have modelled for us that reconciliation depends fundamentally on truth-telling, hence the famous truth and reconciliation commissions. Wise leaders will view this ICC decision not as a threat to Israel but as a tool towards the goal of truth and reconciliation, which helps to frame the context of sustainable and lasting peace.

Human Rights Watch have highlighted in their statement that some of the actions that the ICC have indicated may constitute war crimes. This was included their statement:

For over 50 years, Israeli governments have transferred their citizens into the Occupied Palestinian Territory, even though such transfers to occupied territories are unlawful under international humanitarian law.

…   …   …

The alleged crimes at issue at the ICC are not limited to unlawful settlement-related activity … Human Rights Watch documented unlawful attacks, including war crimes and apparently deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, during the 2014 hostilities in Gaza that killed more than 1,500 civilians in the Gaza Strip.

Human Rights Watch also highlighted that Palestinian armed groups, including Hamas, launched thousands of rockets and mortars indiscriminately towards Israeli population centres, killing five Israeli civilians and wounding 36.

I visited the West Bank and Israel in 2017 and, despite having known for decades about the rolling tragedies in the Middle East, it was only on visiting that it really hit home. I will remember to my dying day meeting with the widow of Yakub Abu al-Kiyan in the ruins of their home in the Bedouin village of Umm al-Hiran three months after her husband had been shot to death during the destruction of their village. The ongoing violent killings, loved ones being left to grieve and to cope with massive losses, individuals and whole communities living with lifelong injuries and trauma—every element of life is impacted by not having the security of peace.

It's because of how important this is for people's lives as well as for the peaceful future of the two nations that the Australian Greens welcome the ICC's recent decision. If international justice is to apply equally then war crimes should be investigated wherever they occur. I'd also like to highlight here the point raised by Human Rights Watch, which is an important one—that an ICC probe is not about taking sides in the political conflict; it's about ensuring that perpetrators of serious international crimes, both Israeli and Palestinian, answer for their actions at a fair trial. As a court of last resort, the ICC has a critical role to play in situations like Palestine, where the path to domestic justice is closed and impunity is the norm.

We call on the Australian government to advocate human rights equally everywhere and to cease its opposition to this ruling by the ICC. Of course, at the same time, we reiterate our call that they should recognise the state of Palestine, as so many other nations have done.

Senate adjourned at 20:41