I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being none, I will call the Clerk.
I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020. This is an important bill. It will help plug Mr Morrison's huge gaping hole in our border security at our maritime ports. Mr Morrison's a man who's got a trophy in his office of a boat, and it says, 'I stopped these.' You'd think that Mr Morrison would want to stay on top of emerging maritime border security threats. You would think that Mr Morrison would be doing everything he can to fight crime. But are we seeing this kind of behaviour from Mr Morrison? As Senator Sterle says, no, we are not. In fact, Mr Morrison has had a few bad weeks in one area where prime ministers really should not have a bad week, and that is in national security.
Many Australians will remember thinking how odd it was that Mr Morrison pushed his way into a press conference with the Australian Federal Police just two weeks ago. This was a press conference three years in the making for the AFP after they had worked diligently on Operation Ironside, working hand in glove with the FBI and state and territory police. The AFP were ready to tell their story to Australians about their extraordinary work, which has put such an incredible dent in the operations of some of Australia's most notorious drug barons. But what happened? Obsessed with photo opportunities, Mr Morrison stormed his way into the AFP's press conference, elbowing everyone out of the way, and took credit for years of hard work by the Federal Police. I'm sure it hasn't gone unnoticed that this press conference seemed to magically occur just in time for Mr Morrison to fly out of Sydney for the G7. The story appears in the morning papers, he jumps into the press conference, and then Mr Morrison runs out so that he can get on his plane onwards to the G7. What a coincidence. How extraordinary. Of course, I am hopeful that the Prime Minister did not seek to adjust any aspect of the AFP's media plan that day to suit his own political purposes. I certainly hope the AFP did not adjust any of its media plans to accommodate the Prime Minister, especially if the changes meant any officers might be put at risk.
But Mr Morrison did not stop just at hogging the limelight; he went further. Mr Morrison chose to use that moment to flat out lie about our national security, not once, not twice but three times. Mr Morrison lied when he said—
Senator Keneally, I ask you to withdraw. It's not appropriate to use that language.
Thank you. Mr Morrison misspoke when he said that Labor was holding up the progress of the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020. The truth is that the bill is still before the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Mr Morrison also misspoke when he said that Labor opposes the international production orders legislation. Mr Morrison said:
… that does not have bipartisan support and we need it passed.
In fact, the opposite was true. The intelligence committee had issued a bipartisan report in support of the legislation.
Then Mr Morrison claimed that Labor was holding up transport security changes. The transport security bill is a bill that has had in-principle Labor support since it was introduced in 2016 and that Mr Morrison allowed to lapse in not one but two federal elections. It could have become law in 2017 following amendments in the Senate, but the Liberal government did not proceed with the bill. Labor has long been concerned that the Liberals have refused to increase background and security checks for foreign crew working in Australia's domestic shipping industry. We want to work with the Liberals to improve our national security, but the government simply won't come to the table.
So we have Mr Morrison making false claims about three important national security bills. Mr Morrison politicising and playing games with national security, unfortunately, is not new. He sees everything through a political lens, and he thought that he could just politicise national security again. He was wrong. Most news outlets completely ignored Mr Morrison's claims. They knew these claims were false. They knew he was politicising national security. Those that did report the story called out Mr Morrison's false claims for what they were. Unfortunately, Mr Morrison did not learn from his mistakes and refused to improve the transport security bill. That is why we are here today debating the Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020.
For all his photo ops and tough talk, Mr Morrison has left Australia's border security with a big, huge, gaping hole. That hole is caused by the Morrison government refusing to increase security and background checks on foreign crew who work up and down Australia's coast. After years of the Liberals undermining Australia's domestic shipping industry, most ships in Australian waters are now foreign flagged. Some 20,000 foreign flagged ships, with some 200,000 foreign crew, are in Australian waters every year. Yet, while Australian crew are generally required to hold a maritime security identification card, foreign crew are not. Obtaining an MSIC for an Australian is not easy, with Australians waiting for up to three months for their security checks to be finished. But how long does this Liberal government allocate for checking the backgrounds of foreign crew? Just 24 to 48 hours.
The Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020 changes that. This bill will create two categories of maritime crew visa. The first visa, an international seafarers transit visa, is for seafarers entering Australia on a continuing international voyage. Indeed, this was the original purpose of the current maritime crew visa. The second visa will be an international seafarers work visa. Applicants for an international seafarers work visa must undergo similar security assessments as Australians do through an MSIC process. This is a common-sense reform to our visa system that will allow Australia to better protect its borders and root out a range of illegal activities that take place on foreign flagged vessels. Foreign flagged vessels, or flag-of-convenience vessels as they are known, have long been a source of illegal drug imports into Australia, with 83 per cent of cannabis, 72 per cent of cocaine and 72 per cent of amphetamines seized by authorities in 2018-19 coming from maritime ports. Despite these facts, the Morrison government has argued that foreign crew do not require vigorous security checks, because they are, 'Under constant supervision whilst in port.'
Well, events from just last week show that this is not true. On Sunday 13 June, two Vietnamese nationals escaped from their vessel while it was in port in Geelong. These two men also stole their passports from the master's cabin just before they escaped. To make matters worse, the Morrison government have refused to release details to the community to help them identify the escapees. If it wasn't for the Geelong Advertiser, who sounded the alarm, Australians may never have known about this border breach. The Australian Border Force is silent, with no Twitter updates and no media releases on its website. We know that a culture of secrecy has overwhelmed the Morrison government. It is now clear that that culture has spread into our border controls, with Mr Morrison limiting the information Australians can receive about border breaches. The incident in Geelong is symptomatic of the ongoing and significant risks of foreign crew working in Australia without sufficient oversight.
The Senate Regional and Rural Affairs and Transport Committee heard in March this year about an alarming lack of security screening conducted at our maritime ports. Our airports are investing in state-of-the-art scanners, with every crew member and passenger carefully scanned. But Morrison government officials have confirmed that there are no X-ray machines, no metal detectors and no bag checks at our maritime ports. The Department of Home Affairs also confirmed that foreign crew members can be left to wander through highly sensitive areas of ports without physical escorts accompanying them every step of the way.
I've previously spoken about the frightening case of Captain Salas and the Sage Sagittarius. He was provided with a maritime crew visa in 2015 and 2016 to sail into Australian waters, despite Australian authorities knowing he was linked to three suspicious deaths in 2012 and had admitted to being a gun runner. Despite all of that, Captain Salas was granted a maritime crew visa, which allowed him to work in Australia for a whole eight months. I could go on and on. I could speak about the gaps in the temporary licensing regime, whereby foreign vessels flagrantly flout Australia's laws. I could speak about how flag-of-convenience vessels have wreaked havoc internationally, used by al-Qaeda, North Korea, people smugglers and more. There are simply too many examples of the risks posed by a lack of oversight of flag-of-convenience vessels.
I could speak about how in 2017 the then Department of Immigration and Border Security advised this Senate that the regulation, rules and practices at our maritime ports allowed for flag-of-convenience vessels and foreign crew to undertake illegal activities—drug smuggling, gun running and more. In 2017 this chamber was warned by the Department of Immigration and Border Security that there are risks of foreign ships and foreign crew conducting illegal activities through our maritime ports. In the four years since, has this Liberal government done one thing to increase the security and to manage the risks at our maritime ports when it comes to foreign crew and foreign flagged vessels? No, they have not.
That is why this bill is before this Senate today. Where the government has failed, it is up to the Senate to step in and provide an appropriate security clearance process for foreign crew and flag-of-convenience vessels. They had their chance last week with the transport security bill. For some five years now they have had their chance to fix up the big gaping holes at our maritime ports, and they have failed to do so. It brings me no joy to bring this bill before the Senate. I would prefer that the government had tackled this problem. I would prefer that the government had amended their own transport security legislation last week. I would prefer that the government had listened to the advice of our national security agencies, including the Department of Immigration and Border Security. They have not, so it's up to the Senate now to take action.
I will conclude on this point. Australia's border security has a huge gaping hole at our maritime ports. It has been there for too long. It is a hole that organised crime is using to target and import illegal drugs into Australia. It's quite clear that the Liberals don't want us to think or know about this gaping hole in our border security. This is probably why Mr Morrison jumped into the AFP's press conference. He's obsessed with a photo opportunity. Mr Morrison wants you to think he's doing everything he can to stop drugs pouring into this country, but Australians are quickly learning that Mr Morrison is all about himself and he doesn't really care about them. When things go right, he is the first to take credit. When things go wrong, he refuses to take charge.
If Mr Morrison will not take charge, the Senate can. We must do everything we can to improve our border security to stop illegal drug imports, to stop illegal weapon imports, to stop human trafficking and to keep Australia and Australians safe. That is Labor's commitment to the people of Australia. That is why we have brought this bill before the Senate. That is what this bill will do. I look forward to the debate and seek the support of members of this Senate to fix this big gaping hole in our maritime border security.
It's my pleasure to rise and speak on this private senator's bill—the Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020. I start by reiterating that this government has always been resolutely committed to the security of Australia's borders and the safety of all Australians. In particular, it is committed to safeguarding our ports and maritime transport. As Operation Ironside demonstrated, we know that serious and organised criminals use our airports and seaports as transit points to import weapons, illicit drugs and other harmful goods into Australia. This kind of trafficking puts everyone at risk. It puts Australia's security at risk and it puts Australia's prosperity at risk. It ravages our communities and it costs this country over $47 billion every year.
Senator Keneally raised Operation Ironside. What a pity Senator Keneally was not able to focus on the fine work of the Australian Federal Police rather than engage in a personal slanging match targeted towards the Prime Minister. Her contribution reflected not only on the Prime Minister but on the independence of the operations of the AFP. I commend the AFP for the outstanding work that it has done on Operation Ironside. This extraordinary work has resulted in more than 100 people being charged and the incredible seizure of guns and other illegal materials. It was a very big international operation, including in concert with the FBI. What a shame Senator Keneally was not able to speak about the fine work of the AFP and one of the most extraordinary criminal investigations we have seen by the AFP, which has had incredible results in law enforcement.
Our government's focus on the security of Australia's borders is why we passed the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020, which strengthens our current aviation and maritime security identification card schemes, the ASIC and MSIC schemes, by ensuring that those with serious criminal convictions or links to organised crime do not exploit these schemes to access secure areas of airports, seaports and offshore facilities. Australia's aviation and maritime security identification card schemes are a vital part of our effort to curtail the risk of our transport network being used by criminals.
People who hold ASIC or MSIC cards are able to access the most secure areas of Australia's airports and seaports and remain there unmonitored. We know that over 200 people who hold ASIC or MSIC cards have already been identified by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission as having links to organised crime gangs and other criminal associations. These criminals use the access granted by their ASIC or MSIC cards to facilitate the trafficking of vast quantities of illegal goods through our airports and seaports. Through their hands, rivers of drugs and weapons flow into this country unchecked. This exploitation of our law and of all Australians must stop.
The government's bill strengthens our defences against organised crime by requiring background checks for ASIC and MSIC cardholders. Those background checks will determine if applicants have a criminal history and will harmonise the eligibility criteria under each scheme. It is essential that those accessing or working in the most sensitive areas of our airports and seaports are people of good character. We must be able to trust them to do their job without fearing that they may be involved in serious criminal activity. Such activity harms us all, and this government will not stand for it. Australians deserve to be kept safe from the machinations of organised crime syndicates. The government's bill is a strong step towards that worthy aim.
What does Labor propose? Labor wants to split the maritime crew visa class into two separate classes: one that mirrors the current maritime crew visa, and another, an international seafarers work visa, that is specifically for crews of ships under temporary licence to undertake coastal voyages under the coastal trading act. Labor wants to establish a legislative requirement that applicants for the coastal trading visa class be subject to security and criminal history checks consistent with the MSIC requirements prescribed in the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Regulations 2003. As we have come to expect from this opposition, Labor's proposal muddies the waters. It is shallow, it is ill conceived and it is wasteful.
All maritime crew visa applicants are required to meet prescribed public interest criteria regarding their character. This includes a criminal history and national security check. If a new visa subclass were introduced as Labor is proposing, it is very likely that applicants for that subclass would be subject to the same public interest criteria that apply to maritime crew visas generally. Moreover, if we're worried about potential security breaches, international crew who require unmonitored access to maritime security zones are already required to obtain an MSIC card. Accordingly, these crew members are already subject to appropriate identity, criminal history and national security checks as part of that process.
Labor's proposal is wasteful and unnecessary. There is no reason to introduce a completely new subclass of visa merely to duplicate a screening process that is already in place. If Labor's proposal was merely wasteful, perhaps we wouldn't bat an eyelid; after all, wastefulness is par for the course for this opposition. But here Labor seems to be discontent with mere wastefulness. It goes much further. Under Labor's proposed changes, all crew on cruise ships with a coastal training licence will need to meet MSIC requirements whether or not they need to access security zones. This means serving staff would need to undergo a national security check to serve you dinner. Dishwashers would need to have their criminal history checked before working in the kitchen later that night or doing whatever other work is required. This is clearly ridiculous. It's so ridiculous, in fact, that we might wonder if there is a hidden agenda here.
What is Labor's real purpose in proposing such a nonsensical amendment? Its purpose is to kill the government's Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020. Labor has done this before. It used this bill to move amendments to the Migration Act which would have rendered the government's transport security legislation inoperative. The effect of Labor's amendments would be that, if the new maritime crew visas bill were not to commence, the government's transport security amendment would not commence either. Of course, given that Labor's bill is a private member's bill, there is obviously little chance that it would pass the House of Representatives and come into effect, and Labor well knows this. Labor has proposed this bill with only one thing in mind. The purpose of this bill is to render void the government's strengthened ASIC and MSIC schemes. Its purpose is to undermine government legislation that actually bolsters Australia's national security and protects Australians from organised crime. This bill is a cheap trick to stall the government's genuine and effective legislative defence of our national security.
Organised crime is a scourge on this great nation. From the shadows, criminal gangs work tirelessly, using Australia's transport network to import illicit drugs, weapons and other harmful goods into Australia. These criminals do not care for the good of Australia or Australians. Any delay or disruption to the government's transport security legislation just increases the risk that Australians will be harmed by organised crime. So I reject Labor's time-wasting, ridiculous bill and I ask: whose side is Labor on?
I rise to speak in support of the Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020. We Greens actually think this is a very important contribution that the Labor Party has made on this issue. So Labor and the Greens are on the side of fixing a gaping hole in our national security that the Liberal Party seem completely blind to. They seem completely unable to recognise that this is a massive problem. So I'm hoping that, while, yes, it's a private senator's bill, the Liberal Party government will be able to see sense—that here is a solution to part of the problem.
We have this massive problem of foreign seafarers who do not have to go through the same checks and do not have to have the same security clearances at the moment as Australian seafarers do. To us, it is just common sense. It makes sense. As others contributing to this debate have noted, this bill is being introduced in the context of the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020. Others have also noted that, although that bill was dated 2020, it incorporated key elements of a much earlier bill from 2016 which passed the Senate in 2017, only a fortnight after it passed the House of Representatives. So we could have had action on this back in 2017, but the government has been dragging its feet. After that bill passed the Senate, it went back to the House. It went backwards and forwards. But the Liberal Party at that stage refused to pass the bill because the Liberal Party are all over the place when it comes to national security. For all that they like to strut and talk about how this is about national security, they are not willing to act. In particular, they're not willing to act on the gaping holes that have been exposed through multiple Senate inquiries.
I've been in the Senate now for almost seven years, and this issue of foreign flagged ships and foreign seafarers and the problems with national security has been raised multiple times. I call upon my colleagues here to go back and have a read of some of the Hansards from those inquiries, because it is all there in black and white. Their view of the world—that every foreign seafarer who steps foot on our ports is followed around by somebody with an MSIC and we know exactly where they are at all times and there are areas of the port that are designated security zones and we have nothing to worry about—is not what happens in reality. We have had that evidence presented to the Senate. It is there in black and white. We know from what happened in Geelong just a couple of weeks ago that those examples of the lack of security are ongoing today. You have foreign seafarers who are able to get through that security and get their passports and go off into Australia. And they're the people that we know about. Then there are the ones that actually don't have to abscond; they just have some time onshore having not had the security clearances that they should have. Who knows what arrangements they could be making when they are meeting with people when they are here in our port cities?
This happens. We know it happens and yet there has been nothing done to address this gaping hole in our national security.
The bill in front of us would make a significant improvement by creating new classes of maritime crew visas, and it would create a framework that could begin to address some of these risks, but the Liberals won't act. They will not act on this gaping hole. Why not? This is not about security. I mean, Senator Henderson was saying that this is a ridiculous bill that's just going to add extra work. What it means is that, if this was in place, it would maybe provide checks and balances with foreign flagged, foreign owned ships that at the moment are not just undermining our security but also undermining the conditions of Australian workers; they are undermining environmental controls as well. Basically, why they're refusing to act is because the government are acting in the interests of their supporters, of their donors, of their mates. They want to keep a shipping environment dominated by foreign flagged and foreign owned ships. They want to decimate the Australian shipping industry, because in the Australian shipping industry, where you have to pay workers a proper rate, you have to make sure that your ships are meeting all the environmental regulations.
Yes, this actually might cost a bit more, because we are not exploiting the workers and not exploiting the environment. These workers on foreign flagged, foreign owned ships, we know, in so many cases are being employed under the most atrocious of conditions. We know that they are being paid an absolute pittance. We know that the environmental controls on these ships are disastrous—but, yes, it means that it's cheap, doesn't it? The people, the vested interests that this government are governing in the interests of—that's all they're interested in. They just want to bring down the cost, bring down their bottom line, get away with paying as little as possible in their transport costs; that is what this is about. This is all about full bore ahead, full steam ahead for those foreign owned, foreign crewed, foreign flagged vessels at the expense of the Australian shipping industry.
The Greens are not going to be part of that. For all the government wants to talk about national security, we can see through it, and the Australian public can see through it, too. Certainly Australian workers can see through it. They know, by not supporting this bit of legislation, you're not governing in the interests of those workers; you are not governing in the interests of fairness. You are governing in the interests of your mates, of your donors, of your friends, who just want to keep the cost down as low as possible and put as few barriers in their way as possible. The Liberal government is not governing in the national interest. I mean, despite all of Prime Minister Morrison's spin doctoring, they're not governing in the interests of middle-class Australians—the quiet Australians, as he likes to call them. You see their position on this bill, and it fits with their position on so many other things. If their handling of the pandemic has shown us anything, they're willing to hand out billions of dollars to their mates in the fossil fuel industries but apparently not willing to pay so that Australians can get the Pfizer vaccine. Instead, as countries around the world are vaccinating large chunks of their population and are able to reopen, we're at the mercy of a leaky hotel quarantine system that the Liberal Party have refused to take action on. They're willing to govern in the interests of their mates and to give billions of dollars to their mates but not to take action that is protecting the interests of ordinary Australians, whether they are Australian maritime workers or people in the leaky quarantine system.
If the Liberal Party really cared about the national interest, if they cared about anyone, they would take action so that we actually had fair conditions for Australian workers. They'd be taking action to create a secure, safe future by acting on the climate emergency, but they only care about their corporate donors. Why aren't they acting on this gaping hole in our national security? They are failing to act because it's not in the interests of their donors; it might cost some of their donors. They've left a gaping hole and are happy to continue to leave a gaping hole in our national security system because it would cost the corporations. The Liberal Party, our government, should be supporting this bill. They should be taking action. They should stop propping up their corporate donors at the expense of actual people around this country.
I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020. The Prime Minister, as was mentioned earlier by Senator Keneally, infamously keeps a trophy in the office. You've really got to picture this: in the proudest spot in his office is a trophy of a boat. On the boat is written, 'I stopped these,' in thick black letters. I don't think the Prime Minister could name a single accomplishment he's achieved in his current office, because he certainly hasn't achieved a competent vaccine rollout, he certainly hasn't figured out a national quarantine system and he certainly hasn't grown wages for Australia's middle class. One thing he will always take credit for, apparently, is stopping the boats.
But here's the kicker. Here's the dirty little secret the Prime Minister doesn't want you to know. The crowning achievement of the Prime Minister's career is a lie. It's a fraud. They didn't stop the boats, because, if you're a drug trafficker, a people smuggler or a terrorist and you board a boat as a foreign crew member, it's all clear. It doesn't matter where the ship is coming from or what flag it flies. It could be a Liberian flag or a Russian flag; it doesn't matter. You can apply for the maritime crew visas. They operate with as little as 24 hours notice, and they give them the tick to come in across our borders. These foreign ships regularly have more than 20 foreign crew on board, and, under the Morrison government, our intelligence agencies have 24 hours to vet them all. That proposition would make any sensible person ask the following: how thoroughly can the Morrison government do a background check on 20-plus foreign crew members in just 24 hours, when it takes the Morrison government up to three months to process background checks for Australian maritime workers? It's a gaping hole in our border protection. If you're an Australian maritime worker, you need a maritime security identification card, or MSIC. The waiting time for one of these is as long as three months. It takes the government three months to do background checks on a single Australian maritime worker, and the Prime Minister would have you believe he can do it for 20 foreign crew members in a single day. That doesn't pass the sniff test, does it?
When confronted with these facts, what did the Morrison government do just last week? It introduced a bill to add more red tape to the approvals for processing Australian workers but did nothing to plug the Prime Minister's huge, gaping border hole. Labor even put forward amendments, in good faith, to fix the problem, but the government voted them down.
That brings me to the private senator's bill before us today. The bill aims to ensure foreign crew are subject to proper security background checks. This bill will bring the background check requirement for foreign crews on ships with a temporary licence to engage in Australian coastal voyages into line with the background checks required for Australian maritime workers. This bill will end the blatant discrimination by the Morrison government against Australian seafarers and maritime workers.
Here's another dirty little secret the Prime Minister doesn't want you to know. Thirty years ago there were 100 Australian flagged vessels. If you saw a cargo ship come into a port in Australia, there was a reasonable chance it was an Australian ship with an Australian crew paid a fair Australian wage, and it was complying with Australia's labour and tax laws and border requirements. How many Australian vessels are here today? Just 13. An Australian flagged vessel is almost as rare a sight today as a Prime Minister taking accountability. As a result, the government has overseen the deaths of thousands of jobs across Australia. It has exposed Australia to a massive national security risk and put our borders at risk. That's a risk that's compounded by foreign crews being able to waltz into Australian ports with 24 hours notice. Within 24 hours for a foreign crew and up to three months for Australian crews—it doesn't compute, does it? It doesn't compute unless you've been lax on border security and left gaping holes.
The government's own then Department of Immigration and Border Protection in 2017—I'd be pleased if those on the opposite side could answer this one—said:
Reduced transparency or secrecy surrounding complex financial and ownership arrangements are factors that can make FOC ships more attractive for use in illegal activity, including by organised crime or terrorist groups.
Here are some quick facts about the size and scale of the Prime Minister's gaping border hole: 20,000 foreign flagged ships with 200,000 foreign crew, both literally and figuratively, sail through Australian border control each and every year, again, on as little as 24 hours notice. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission reports that 72 per cent of cocaine, 83 per cent of cannabis and 72 per cent amphetamines seized in 2018-19 came through our maritime ports. Last year, 18 foreign flagged ships carried ammonium nitrate on Australia's coastal routes.
Let's look at the issue of ammonium nitrate. We've got people that have given 24 hours notice sitting on ships with ammonium nitrate without getting proper security checks. They get flagged through. They get the tick and they come in. For those who may not be aware of the dangers of ammonium nitrate, it's the same material that caused the massive explosion in Beirut last year that killed, tragically, more than 200 people and was heard hundreds of kilometres away. The Beirut explosion was caused by 2,750 tonnes of ammonium nitrate that had been seized from a Russian ship. The 18 foreign flagged ships that carried ammonium nitrate around Australia carried up to 6,500 tonnes each, more than double the amount in Beirut. In 2019, 85,000 tonnes of ammonium nitrate were moved through the port of Newcastle alone. That's more than 30 times the amount that led to the Beirut explosion. The crew carrying the material gets their maritime crew visas from the Morrison government with 24 hours notice and without adequate security checks.
The Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport heard recently that a foreign master, Captain Salas, was provided a maritime crew visa in 2015-16 to sail into Australian waters even though just three years earlier he had been investigated by the New South Wales coroner for three highly suspicious deaths on his ship. He had previously admitted to being a gun runner in Australia. Here is what the committee report said:
In giving evidence to the Coronial Inquest, Captain Salas admitted that he had assaulted a crew member on several occasions, and that he facilitated the purchase of guns. Captain Salas organised for crew to complete gun applications, collected money for the guns (with the guns to be collected in the Philippines), and 'kept a small commission for his administrative efforts'.
Or so he says. After all this, Captain Salas was granted a maritime crew visa in both 2015 and 2016. It's very apparent that the maritime crew visa system is absolutely a joke.
Just last week, two crew members of a Panamanian flagged ship, the Glorious Plumeria, snuck through security at the Port of Geelong. They're still at large nine days later: no Border Force, no security checks from screening and no on-time, real-time oversight. Quite clearly, the government has dropped the ball, but the thing is—we spoke about this last week—here is an opportunity for the government to rectify what is a gaping hole in our border security.
The Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visa) Bill 2020 addresses that gaping hole in the Morrison government's border security by creating two categories of maritime crew visa: a transit visa for international seafarers entering Australia on a continuing international voyage, which is supposed to be the purpose of the existing visa; and a more rigorous maritime crew visa for international seafarers engaged on ships authorised under a temporary licence to undertake coastal voyages.
Now, it's quite clear that there are these lax arrangements on our borders. We see this lax arrangement when it comes to foreign crews. We see this lax arrangement when it comes to moving dangerous goods, such as ammonium nitrate, around our coast, from port to port. And yet the government fails to say that those people need to be properly checked. Sorry, I'm not quite telling the whole truth. What the government did say is that, if the criminal or the terrorist applies for an ASIC or MSIC, then they will get the same test that every Australian crew member gets. What a ridiculous suggestion. What a ludicrous suggestion. What a pathetic suggestion. It is demonstrating the fact they have not got the answer on this critical question of border protection.
The government argues that the foreign crew do not need strong security checks because they are under constant supervision while in port. However, the Senate Regional and Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee heard evidence that there are no X-ray machines. We heard this last week. There are no metal detectors. We heard this last week. There are no bag checks. We heard that as well last week. These seafarers often just have a backpack, and they're not checked. And that's border security? That's the most lax border security, and the country will pay the price for what this government is failing to do. There is an opportunity to them redeem themselves: vote for the bill.
The Department of Home Affairs has also confirmed that, although some foreign vessels have more than 20 seafarers on board, all 20 foreign seafarers can be left to walk through highly sensitive areas of ports that are simply under security camera supervision, without any MSIC accredited officials physically present to escort them. That is interesting, because that information was given to a Senate inquiry this year. So what happened at Geelong? Exactly what Paul McAleer said, as I read out, when he gave evidence to the same inquiry—that is, that there are 'gaping holes' and that border security and the ABF are not aware of them. The government's certainly not aware of them; otherwise, they'd be filling them. It does raise a serious question: why aren't they filling the gaps in those lax border security arrangements? That's because their paymasters don't want to spend an extra amount of money, or have their businesses pay extra amounts of money, to make sure terrorists don't come into this country, drug traffickers don't come into this country and gun runners don't come into this country.
The Prime Minister owes Australia's maritime workers an explanation of why they should be forced to wait three months for an MSIC, while foreign crew can obtain a maritime crew visa in just 24 hours. And the Prime Minister owes an explanation to the Australian people why he's keeping our borders open to terrorists, drug traffickers, gun runners and people smugglers.
I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020 and why it is clear to me that this bill is not in Australia's interests and not in the interests of the maritime industry. As an island nation, Australia conducts 98 per cent of its trade through its ports. We are incredibly reliant on the maritime industry to keep us connected to the world and in ensuring our ports and maritime industry are operating as efficiently as possible. It's of vital importance to Australia's economy and national security.
My grandfather was an ambulance driver on the wharves for most of his working life. I still remember hearing him talking around the Sunday lunch table about the crime and corruption he used to see going on at those ports each and every day. This is why I was proud to see the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill pass recently, so that good, honest people like my grandfather who work at our ports are able to go to work every day in an environment that is free from crime and corruption.
The government's role is, first and foremost, to keep Australians safe and secure, and this government is committed to combating the impact and the influence of serious and organised crime at Australia's airports and seaports. That is why we recently passed the serious crime bill: to stop corruption and crime at our ports of entry and to root out organised crime from areas of national security importance. Numerous inquiries and reports have noted that malicious individuals and organised crime groups have been exploiting weaknesses in the aviation and maritime security identification card schemes. That is why the government introduced the serious crime bill: to stop serious criminal activity occurring at our seaports and to ensure that our borders are secure. That is the bill that those opposite fought for days last week to try to stop.
The Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill introduced by Senator Keneally is largely a redundant bill that only duplicates existing security provisions and threatens to undermine the serious crime bill that recently passed through the parliament. The amendments put forward by the Labor Party will not help keep Australians safe, and this bill looks to undermine the Morrison government's hard work in rooting out organised crime.
Firstly, in regard to the amendments on sheet 1117, if the migration amendment bill 2020 ever commences, the amendments made by the serious crime bill will never commence. This means that Australians will be less safe and less secure. This means that organised crime groups will continue to exploit weaknesses in the aviation and maritime security identification card schemes. Is Labor okay with that—seriously? Is Labor okay with letting serious crime threaten our economy and our way of life? Labor's attempt to stop amendments made by the serious crime bill show that they will never be tough on crime and that they don't take border security seriously; they never have. If we can't trust Labor to take border security seriously, what can we trust them to do?
One of the many lessons COVID-19 has taught us is that we must ensure that our supply chains are free from constraint and that they are able to operate as efficiently as possible so that critical goods and services can get to where they are needed. We've seen that maritime workers are essential to our economy and that without them our trade stands still. Ensuring that our maritime industry is able to operate as efficiently as possible means that our ports must be free from crime and corruption and unencumbered by unnecessary processes so that honest, hardworking people, such as my grandfather was, can get on with the job. However, what Labor is proposing only looks to constrain our maritime industry and place further administrative burdens on our departments.
Let's have a look at the amendments proposed in this bill by Labor and at what they do and why they are not in the interests of Australia's maritime industry. This bill splits the current maritime crew visa into two new categories: the international seafarers transit visa, which is largely the same as the current maritime crew visa, and the international seafarers work visa. Currently all maritime crew visa applicants are already required to meet prescribed public interest criteria relating to character, including criminal history and national security. If a new visa subclass is introduced, it is more likely that character and national security public interest criteria would apply and that the security assessments and criminal history checks would result in potential duplication of existing visa criteria for a subset of MCV applicants, creating more work for the departments and slower processing times for applicants.
This bill requires applicants for the proposed international seafarers work visa to satisfy criteria consistent with any criteria in maritime regulations concerning security assessments and criminal history checks of an MSIC applicant. The proposed amendments attempt to link aspects of the MSIC background check to the maritime crew visa, which would be a replication of current regulatory requirements and cause unnecessary delays in the issuing of visas. As a proud member of the Liberal government, I believe in making our systems more efficient in ensuring our trade industry is as productive as possible. Unnecessary delays in the granting of visas only threatens to hurt our maritime trade environment and, with it, our economy and economic growth. While this may not be something that the Labor Party cares about, I do, as all of those on this side do. This risk is simply unacceptable.
Senator Keneally's proposal would duplicate screening processes for a cohort who already need to obtain an MSIC and it would also increase the workload of screening agencies for an approved cohort who would only enter a security zone while monitored. If a maritime crew visa holder requires unmonitored access to a maritime security zone, they would be required, like all individuals, to obtain an MSIC and undergo the required background check. The decision to issue a maritime crew visa already considers the individual's criminal history as a security assessment before the visa is issued. For most MCV holders, unmonitored access to a maritime security zone occurs only to transit the onshore zones to access the ship. Generally they do not access the security zone unescorted. The duplication of these processes is simply unnecessary and unlikely to provide any tangible benefits to increase the security of our ports and reduce organised crime groups exploiting weaknesses in the aviation and maritime security identification card schemes.
When Senator Keneally spoke on this in 18 February this year, she said:
… this government has done nothing to ensure that these foreign workers are subject to robust background checking.
And she said that this legislation would:
… level the playing field to make sure that foreign workers are subject to the same kinds of background checks that hardworking Australians face …
However, this is simply not true. Labor is deliberately seeking to create confusion around the issue. As noted earlier, when an applicant applies for a maritime crew visa they are required to meet prescribed public interest criteria relating to character, including criminal history and national security. Similarly, international crew who require unmonitored access to maritime security zones are already required to obtain an MSIC card, and anyone seeking to have unescorted access to secure areas of our ports must have an ASIC or an MSIC. There is no government requirement for Australian seafarers to hold an MSIC. Not only are foreign workers who apply for a maritime crew visa subject to background checking but this government is going one step further under proposed changes to the coastal trading act. All crew on cruise ships under a coastal trading licence will need to meet MSIC requirements. This will incorporate everyone working on the ship, including those working in the kitchen and those working behind the bar, even though they are not accessing the maritime security zone.
The criminal history check and security assessment elements that are required by the bill set out by Senator Keneally are simply not appropriate for international maritime crew and may delay the granting of maritime crew visas. The last thing our maritime industry needs is extended delays while crew wait for visas to be approved. Further delays could be expected if this bill is supported as there are no draft regulations to support it, meaning that the department would have to prepare new regulations to be made under the Migration Act.
When it comes to ensuring the integrity of our ports of entry and the safety and security of Australians, we can't afford delay. The Morrison government has provided targeted, effective measures to address what is a very serious issue. The Labor Party want to delay this action and put the integrity of our ports at risk. One must ask: what is Labor actually proposing with this bill? Is it that we make applicants undergo unnecessary processes and procedures? Is it that we increase the financial burden of the maritime crew visa scheme? Is it that we unnecessarily increase the load taken by our departments? This bill will only cause uncertainty and delay for industry and government, and, when it comes to our borders, any level of uncertainty and delay is unacceptable. Our border security is too important to get wrong. These amendments are not being put forward to protect Australians, and anyone wishing to ensure that our borders are safe and secure should not support this bill.
I rise to speak in support of this bill, the Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020. I also supported the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020, but I think that this bill adds a proper dimension. The logic of Senator Van in his contribution—where he suggested we simply drop security because it might take a little bit of time—is hugely problematic. In terms of visa processing, if you care about time, why don't you care about the time it takes to give visas to people who want to come here and contribute to Australian life? The logic that's been put forward is fundamentally flawed.
We need to understand that ships are very large and complex machines. There's lots of working space, and there are lots of places where crime can be set up. It's an obvious place for criminals to exploit. On top of that, we know that customs doesn't have the resources to screen every container coming in from another country. That's just not possible. We know that they use intelligence to work through some of the selection processes for that screening, but we certainly don't get every container screened. When we're dealing with ports, there are two elements to the cargo that is transiting through them: there are the offshore parties that could be loading contraband and there are the crews working throughout the journey. That is problematic. We need to understand something about the seafarers who are on the ships that are transiting our coastal regions.
There have been a whole bunch of recent events in relation to criminal activity. I won't go through them, because of time. One of the problems we've got—and this has been quite typical of what I've seen coming from the Liberal Party—is that the Liberal Party says, 'We want a free market; we want to make everything easy,' but we load up the requirements for Australian companies, like leave loadings, super, long service leave, occupational health and safety standards, environmental standards and quality standards, and then we say, 'Let's buy stuff over here because it's cheaper.' We're doing the same thing in coastal shipping. Coastal shipping in Australia has been decimated as a result of the disproportionate measures that are applied. This is another good example of what's happening here. We've got Australian industry having to jump through hoops in order to make us safe, but then we drop the ball on the international component. Of course, that makes it cheaper for them, and their vessels may not of the same standards as the 13 ships with the Australian merchant flag. We've got all these ships running around with different standards and with crew that are simply not properly screened. That is hugely problematic. Because of the destruction of our coastal shipping, we've got more and more foreign ships ploughing through our waters, more and more of these people coming into Australia's maritime jurisdiction who have not been checked to the same standards that we check Australian workers. That is hugely problematic. We do not want to have a situation where we have a difference in the way we assess the security risks of foreign workers compared to Australian maritime workers. Risk is risk, and you have to deal with it. You don't say, 'It's going to take too much time to deal with our security risks; we're only going to apply that to the Australians and not to the international seafarers.' It doesn't make sense.
Ultimately, what we should be doing is restoring our Australian merchant shipping fleet. We need to be building a capability—we're going to be talking about fuel security a little bit later today. If we get to the end of 2027 or 2030 and we don't have any refineries, we're going to have to wean ourselves off these fossil fuels. I think it's inevitable anyway. One of the ways to do that is to have more efficient transport, and that may well be coastal shipping, and it ought to have an Australian flag at the back of any ship that is ploughing through our waters. That ought to be the goal of government, not to try and make it easier for the foreign entities to carry out that business.
I will be supporting this bill. This bill is a good bill. I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate interrupted.
I'm really pleased to be rising today to speak to my COAG Reform Fund Amendment (No Electric Vehicle Taxes) Bill 2020, which aims to neutralise the impact of discriminatory taxes against electric vehicles, such as the one that has just been introduced by the Victorian government and which has been described as the worst electric vehicle policy in the world. Hopefully, if passed through the Senate, this bill will warn off other states and territories thinking about going along the same misguided route. We need to be supporting electric vehicles, and in this place we need to be doing everything we can. The government has been missing in action, so it's up to us to be doing what we can to support electric vehicles and to support state and territory governments in encouraging the uptake of electric vehicles.
I went for a drive in an electric vehicle this morning with Daniel Bleakley. Daniel's an electric vehicle campaigner. He took me out for a ride in his Tesla. Daniel is famous for taking his Tesla to different places—he's been driving around the country—and letting people get behind the wheel of his Tesla. I understand Senator Patrick will be taking a drive with him tomorrow. It's a very practical demonstration of how great electric vehicles can be and exactly what our government, the Liberals and the National Party, are holding us back from. I'm not a revhead. My approach to cars is they are vehicles that get you from A to B. I enjoyed my ride this morning. It was a very nice car to drive, and it has a lot of oomph when you put your foot down. But the reason Daniel Bleakley and I are equally passionate advocates for electric vehicles is that shifting our private passenger transport to zero carbon vehicles as quickly as possible is incredibly important.
Daniel grew up in coal country, in Queensland. In fact, some members of his family are still very big advocates of the coal industry. So he knows the reality of the fossil fuel industry in Australia. But he learnt about the climate crisis, and he decided that he needed to do something practical and be part of the shift to a zero carbon society as soon as possible so that we can get out of mining coal and gas and oil and Australia can be playing its part, its role, in shifting the world to a pollution-free safe climate future. He's very aware of what the issues are, what the challenges are and how we need to be supporting Australians, ordinary working Australians, in the transition. That's the beauty of electric vehicles; they enable us to do that.
In our conversation this morning as we were driving around, Daniel shared a couple of things with me. One ongoing issue people seem to have with electric vehicles is range anxiety—'I couldn't possibly drive an electric vehicle because I've got to drive long distances.' In fact, he mentioned that this is an excuse that Angus Taylor, the minister for energy, has recently trotted out as to why he couldn't possibly have an electric vehicle. He told me the minister's office is 300 metres from an electric vehicle charger and that, with the current chargers, you can get a charge of your vehicle for 400 kilometres in about 20 minutes. So range anxiety is basically: how far can you go in an electric vehicle before you need to charge? How long is your bladder going to last out? You have to stop for a wee, and 20 minutes later your car can be charged up with 400 kilometres ready to go.
The other thing we talked about this morning was how much having a rollout of electric vehicles is going to improve the health of our cities. So much of the pollution in our cities comes from petrol and particularly diesel. There is no safe level limit for diesel pollution. Every diesel particulate is carcinogenic; it causes cancer. If we shift to electric vehicles and get that transition happening, we are going to have massive improvements in the health of our cities. In fact, Daniel told me about how the air quality in Oslo, with its uptake of electric vehicles, has improved dramatically over the last 10 years.
So, look, it would be really good if I didn't have to be introducing this bill today. It would be really good if we had a federal government that was actually showing some leadership and recognising that electric vehicles are so critical that we need to be taking every action we possibly can to incentivise their uptake. This government, by failing to take a leadership role, is what's leading the states and territories governments to decide they have to go out on their own. However, we know that the approach that the Victorian government is taking has been described as the worst electric vehicle policy in the world. We know it's going to stymie the uptake of electric vehicles by putting a discriminatory tax on electric vehicles.
The argument of the proponents of such a tax is that the electric vehicle owners are not paying excise; therefore, they should be paying the extra road user charge to make up for that. I want to tell people just to look at the amount electric vehicle owners are already paying. At the moment, out of the goodness of their hearts, because they want to be part of the shift to zero-carbon transport, they are paying on average an extra $20,000 to $30,000 for their electric vehicle compared to the equivalent internal combustion vehicle. By doing that, by paying that extra $20,000 to $30,000, they are paying more in stamp duty and GST, and that adds up to about the equivalent of five years of fuel excise. So they are already more than paying their way—five years worth of paying their way. Come back to me in five years time, when electric vehicles are actually up to around the 20 or 30 per cent mark, and then let's have a conversation about road user charges to replace fuel excise.
Let's start planning that uptake now. Let's do the work. Let's work out what is an appropriate regime of road user charging that's going to be fair, equitable and sustainable and will encourage the type of transport that we want to be encouraging and not discourage people from using public transport. Absolutely let's have that discussion and work out what is the road user charge that, I agree, is probably going to be introduced in the future. But let's do it properly. Let's not impose discriminatory charges as the Victorian government is doing.
We need to do everything we can here at a federal level to stop the states and territories from imposing those charges. My bill basically neutralises the revenue that would be raised by these discriminatory taxes. It would mean that every dollar that is raised by, for example, the Victorian government would be a dollar that that state wouldn't get from the federal government in the grants to the states and territories and that every dollar the Victorian government didn't get we would redistribute to other states and territories. It's the carrot-and-stick approach—a stick to the Victorian government and other governments that are doing the same thing, and a carrot of extra money to the states and territories to encourage them to take action, to encourage them to put money into the rollout of fast chargers. That's the nub of this bill.
The other thing I really want to talk about today is: why does it matter that we shift our fleet of passenger vehicles to zero-carbon-polluting electric vehicles as quickly as possible, side by side with changing our energy generation to be 100 per cent renewable? It matters because transport is now almost 20 per cent of Australia's carbon pollution and it's the fastest-growing area of pollution in Australian society and the Australian economy. This matters because Australia needs to be playing its part in tackling the climate crisis. Not only is this government failing us on the shift to electric vehicles; we know that it is totally failing us on doing anything else with shifting our society, shifting our economy, to a zero-carbon future. This matters because we are in a climate crisis. We are facing a future where global average temperatures are going to be three, four and even more degrees above what is safe for humanity and the rest of life on this planet.
I just want to remind people what this means. If we reach a future where we are three or four degrees higher than preindustrial temperatures, it will mean no more growing wheat in Australia—or pretty much anything else in the areas that are currently our major agricultural production zones. It will mean metres of sea level rise, flooding cities and towns where millions of Australians currently live. I find it hard to believe, but it will mean wildfires that are even more extreme, hotter and more frequent, over a longer fire season than we had in 2019-20. So it will mean thousands of properties being destroyed. It will mean, undoubtedly, many, many Australians dying, whether it's from the fires or from the heat. It will mean uncountable numbers of plants and animals across the world going extinct. It will mean billions of people around the world who will be climate refugees, homeless, without a way to feed themselves and looking to find anywhere on the planet where they can possibly survive. And it will mean billions of people living absolutely wretched lives, struggling to survive. It sounds really, really, really bad.
This is what the science is telling us. This is not over the top. This is not extremism. This is what the science is telling us. This is what we need to listen to. This is why we need to take urgent action to reduce our carbon pollution to zero as quickly as possible. There is no time left for delay or for half-measures. Other countries around the world have accepted the challenge. We've just had the G7. Let me remind you what the G7 agreed to, just over a week ago. They agreed that they would halve their collective carbon pollution from 2005 levels by 2030. That's in nine years time. They agreed that they would end fossil fuel subsidies by 2025 and they would achieve overwhelmingly decarbonised power systems in the 2030s. Australia needs to be up to the challenge as well.
The thing with electric vehicles is that they are a technology that we know we can literally be rolling out on the roads today. Other countries are doing it. In the UK they have got a commitment to have a ban on sales of polluting internal combustion engine vehicles by 2030. Similarly, 20 per cent of Norway's fleet is now electric vehicles. Seventy-five per cent of all new sales are electric. This is being rolled out around the world. Australia could be part of this electric vehicle revolution. But no. We are laggards. We have less than one per cent of our fleet being electric vehicles. We're being left behind, and we're being left behind in the opportunities for workers, for industry, for growth in manufacturing of electric vehicles or components or batteries.
Internal combustion engine vehicles have no place in a future where we need to be shifting to zero carbon as quickly as possible. Shifting to electric vehicles is a practical, easy response to address a huge part of our carbon transport pollution. It should not be about party politics. As I said, I've just quoted what the UK government are doing. They are a conservative government, led by Boris Johnson. The Norwegian government is a conservative government. We could be doing the same here. This should not be an issue of party politics. It's a matter of common sense. It's a matter of our common humanity. It's a matter of us working together to do what we can to create a safe future or us and our children.
Another example of why it's not an issue of party politics is an announcement over the weekend by the New South Wales government—a Liberal government—of a major new electric vehicle policy. I will come to the detail in a minute, but this highlights the devastating inaction and refusal to act that we've seen from the Commonwealth Liberal government. The New South Wales government have proposed subsidies of $3,000 for 25,000 new cars, waiving stamp duty for new and second-hand electric vehicles, $171 million in charging infrastructure, and access to priority lanes for EV drivers. In particular, on the issue of a road user charge, they have said, 'When the number of electric vehicles gets to 30 per cent, or in six years time, we will consider it.' This is exactly the way forward, and it should be coordinated at a federal level.
It's crazy to have a different system of road user charges right around the country. Nobody wants to see that. We need federal leadership, and we need support from the Labor Party as well. We need both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party to put their money where their mouth is. If they say they're concerned about carbon pollution, do something about it. I'm not sure whether the Labor Party are in support of this bill, but I urge them to be so. It's an opportunity to put your votes where your values are. If you say you want action on climate, here is an opportunity to do something about it, to act to reduce our carbon pollution and create a safe future for us all.
(Quorum formed)
It's my pleasure to rise and speak on the COAG Reform Fund Amendment (No Electric Vehicle Taxes) Bill 2020. I say 'it's my pleasure'; this is a bill that the government does not support, because we consider it to be piecemeal and not in the national interest. I'm really disappointed that Senator Rice didn't mention any of the very substantial incentives announced by the New South Wales government just yesterday in relation to electric vehicles. Some $490 million has been committed in the 2021-22 New South Wales budget in relation to cutting taxes, incentivising uptake and reducing barriers for electric vehicle purchases. These include a stamp duty waiver, rebates of $3,000 to be offered on private purchases of the first 25,000 eligible electric vehicles, $171 million for new charging infrastructure across the state and $33 million to help transition the New South Wales government passenger fleet to electric vehicles where feasible. So we're seeing some very good action in some states.
Very importantly, the New South Wales government and the South Australian government have deferred any road user charge because the Liberal governments in New South Wales and South Australia recognise that it is important to have a nationally consistent approach where there is proper consultation across the board. It is a shame that the Andrews Labor government has gone ahead with this tax—yet one more tax from the Andrews Labor government. On that point, the Greens and the Morrison government are in unison. We do not agree with the huge array of additional taxes being imposed by the Andrews Labor government. I note the significant difference between the New South Wales and South Australian governments with respect to a road user charge for electric vehicles, and, disappointingly, the Victorian government, which is persisting with this tax, which, frankly, is not an incentive to drive the uptake of electric vehicles in Victoria.
I want to reiterate that this government is committed to lowering emissions and protecting our economy, jobs and investment. Despite the many attempts by the Greens and Labor to mischaracterise the efforts of our government in the many different initiatives that we are delivering to drive down emissions to invest in our environment and, at the same time, protect jobs and the strength of our economy, this government has a very strong record in meeting and beating emissions reduction targets without sacrificing the health of our economy. In contrast to the Morrison government, we know that Labor is bitterly divided on its energy and climate policies—bitterly, bitterly divided. They are a complete and utter mess. The blue-collar workers, the coalmine workers and all other workers in the oil and gas industries in this country know that they do not have many friends in the Labor Party. Their friends are in the Morrison Liberal-National government. We understand the importance of oil and gas to this economy.
The key to this success has been the fact that our emissions reduction plan is driven by technology, not by taxes. It's one thing to have these lofty ideals—the rubbish that Mr Shorten took to the last election—the 50 per cent renewable energy target and the 45 per cent emissions reduction target, which said to every worker working in coalmines, in oil and gas, and in construction and building sites that Labor had deserted these workers. Mr Fitzgibbon has it right: he's worked you mob out. That's why Labor is such a mess when it comes to its energy and climate policies.
Proudly, Australia is only one of a handful of countries that has beaten our Kyoto commitments. We didn't just beat them; we beat them by a very substantial 459 million tonnes. Our emissions have fallen faster than the G20 average, faster than the OECD average and much faster than similar developed countries, like Canada and New Zealand. Between 2005 and 2019, they fell by more than 15 per cent, while New Zealand's fell by only four per cent and Canada's barely moved at all. In contrast, our emissions fell by more than 15 per cent. The latest figures for 2020 have us at 20.1 per cent below 2005 levels. We are well on our way to meeting and beating our 2030 target, which is to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels. As the Prime Minister said, our target is net zero emissions as soon as possible, and preferably by 2050. This is realistic and sensible. Net zero emissions is a worthy goal but it is not one that ought to be pursued at all costs. We will not sacrifice jobs, we will not sacrifice industries in regional Australia for no benefit and we won't increase taxes with no thought to the effect on families and businesses. (Quorum formed) I'm sorry that Senator Ciccone saw fit to interrupt my contribution. I think that Labor senators are imposing a bit of disruption on the chamber. Nevertheless, I will continue.
As I was saying, technology, not taxes, is the way to go. Australians are practical people, and this is no more apparent than in the context of technological adoption and adaptation. Australia's experience has always been that, when new technologies become economically viable, businesses and households rush to adopt them. We can see this happening right now with the adoption of renewables in Australia at 10 times the global average under the Morrison government. It is four times higher than in Japan, the US and Europe. We now have the highest solar capacity per person in the world. What an achievement!
That's why we have developed our technology investment road map. It is a comprehensive plan to invest in the technologies that we need to continue to bring emissions down here and around the world. It's driven by the most incredible investment in renewables happening here, on the watch of Prime Minister Morrison and under the leadership of the Morrison Liberal-National government. Our investment is accelerating technologies like hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, soil carbon measurement, low-carbon materials like steel and aluminium, and long-duration energy storage. Getting these technologies right will support 160,000 new jobs by 2030 and maintain Australia's position as a world-leading exporter of food, fibre, minerals and energy. Widespread global deployment of those technologies will reduce emissions or eliminate them in sectors that are responsible for 90 per cent of the world's emission—some 45 billion tonnes. This is about setting practical goals for the technologies that offer the most abatement potential where Australia has real advantage.
The government is also driving investment into consumer choice when it comes to new vehicle and fuel technologies. We have already committed around $1.4 billion to help increase the uptake of low- and zero-emissions vehicle technologies, including over $74 million through the Morrison government's Future Fuels package. This is proactive investment in future fuels, in future technologies for vehicles in this country. The Future Fuels Fund is the centrepiece. It will enable businesses to start integrating new vehicle technologies into their fleets and address blackspots in public charging or refuelling infrastructure. We're developing a Future Fuel strategy that considers all of these new technologies, not just in relation to electric vehicles. This includes hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, hybrids and biofuels to support fuel consumer choice. We've released a discussion paper for consultation to help inform our final strategy and shape the design and rollout of our investment programs. The strategy will be finalised later this year, once this feedback process is complete.
Australians are already making the choice to switch to new technologies such as hybrids. Hybrid sales have almost doubled in the last year. Hybrids have immediate emissions reduction benefits, even over battery electric vehicles, across many parts of Australia. In contrast to the Morrison government's integrated national plan, this bill from the Greens is, as I mentioned before, a piecemeal measure that would do little to provide the taxpayer with value for money. To bridge the gap over the 10-year lifespan of an electric vehicle purchased today would cost an estimated $195 to $747 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent. To put that into some perspective, the Emissions Reduction Fund price is $16 per tonne.
This bill, if it were ever to be implemented, would add yet another set of rules to an already dizzying number of local and state regulations that add nothing to what is incredibly important in this sector, and that is national consistency. We do not need more piecemeal regulations across different states and territories. Regrettably, this bill does not facilitate a nationally coordinated strategy for electric vehicles. It does not solve any problems that are not already being solved by the government's Future Fuels package and the Future Fuels Fund. It creates more red tape for local and state governments and delivers no value for Australian taxpayers. With this bill, the Greens rush without pausing to consider some of these bigger issues at a national-interest level. Unfortunately the Greens have not considered the better alternatives, including I think a lost opportunity to provide for a nationally coordinated strategy. This is very much legislation on the fly. It may be good enough for the Greens, but it's certainly not good enough for this government, and it's certainly not good enough for Australian taxpayers. When it comes to effective emissions reduction legislation, driven by incredible investment in renewable technologies in this country, we need the Morrison government's nationally coordinated scheme, not the piecemeal approach of the Greens. For these reasons, I do not commend this bill to the Senate.
I seek to make some comments about the COAG Reform Fund Amendment (No Electric Vehicle Taxes) Bill 2020. We know that Australians will need to transition to cleaner forms of transportation if we are to make meaningful reductions in our carbon emissions and avert the worst effects of climate change. Transport emissions make up 18 per cent of Australia's total greenhouse gas emissions. This makes transport the third-largest sector by emissions, and it is also the fastest growing source of emissions. Although transport emissions dropped during COVID, they have rebounded quickly as movement restrictions have eased. Based on the latest figures, passenger motor vehicle emissions make up 55 per cent of road transport emissions and eight per cent of total Australian emissions. Australia needs to change this. In the first instance, this means prioritising active transport, like walking and cycling—something I know you're very interested in, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle—and, where possible, making the collective investment needed for mass public transport to be a realistic option for Australians who are travelling to work, school or the shops. But cleaner, low-emissions private vehicles will also have to be part of the solution.
Unfortunately, Australia lags the world in the take-up of electric vehicles. In 2020, there were almost a million cars sold in Australia, and just 6,900 of them were electric. That's a market penetration of barely 0.7 per cent, compared with the global average of a little over four per cent. Take-up is more than six per cent in China, around 11 per cent in the UK and the EU, and almost 75 per cent in Norway, which is the world leader. The problem isn't just that we have a low rate of EV use in Australia; it's also that there's barely any growth. Electric vehicles tripled their market share in the EU and the UK from 2019 to 2020. In Australia, 6,700 were sold in 2019 and 9,900 were sold in 2020—a growth rate of less than three per cent. As a result, there are just 20,000 registered electric vehicles on Australian roads. This isn't because Australians don't want to drive electric vehicles. Surveys show that the majority of Australians would consider buying an electric vehicle as their next car. So what's the problem? Fifty per cent of those same poll respondents say that the purchase cost of an electric vehicle is one of the main reasons stopping them from purchasing one. There are no cheap electric vehicles for sale in Australia. Precisely zero new models are sold for less than $40,000, and there are just five models available for less than $60,000. In the United Kingdom, by contrast, there are 26 models in that price range. This of course is the government's fault. What has gone wrong?
The truth is that one of the greatest impediments to the widespread take-up of electric cars in this country has been the coalition government. They have done absolutely nothing to develop local manufacturing capacity. In fact, they gutted it years ago, as we saw with Holden and Toyota, in what was a very disgraceful period in Australia's history. The government cut financial support and dared Australia's last remaining automotive manufacturers to leave the country. The consequences of that decision didn't end with Holden. They ricocheted through the automotive supply chains from Adelaide to Melbourne. They were the death of countless small and medium manufacturing and industrial firms, and they ended the working lives of thousands of hardworking Australians, particularly in my home state, who had jobs they enjoyed and were proud of. And that was for petrol vehicles. The government's record on electric vehicles is much worse. Just last year, Renault pulled its Zoe EV model from Australia, citing a lack of government support. There is a lot that could have been done to encourage electric vehicles, such as providing subsidies for the development of charging stations, making it easier to import EVs and adjusting policy settings to support their take-up and use. We could even look at manufacturing subcomponents onshore.
Currently, Australia produces nine of the 10 minerals required for the lithium iron batteries, but largely sends these overseas as raw materials. We have a competitive advantage to value-add to these resources and create processing and manufacturing jobs for EV components, especially batteries. But it's hard to do that when we have barely any electric vehicles on the road.
The government could have provided support and incentives for local manufacturing capacity. The government has instead done next to nothing. This is because this government is paralysed on climate change. After eight years of government, they still don't have an energy policy. We are waiting on the outcome of yet another leadership challenge in the Nationals. I think at this point we do know that Mr Barnaby Joyce has been elected as the new leader of the National Party and therefore, under the conventions, again will become the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. This government is uninterested in climate change as an issue unless it can weaponise it as part of a culture war. Let's not forget that it was the government who ran a scare campaign last election threatening that the introduction of electric vehicles would end the weekend, a claim that was as shameless as it was untrue. The tragedy is that Labor's energy policy prioritised Australia's future energy needs and would have seen our government investing in renewables and storage, creating new industries and new jobs whilst lowering power bills for Australian families.
In the same way, a government which was serious about reducing Australia's transport emissions would support the uptake of electric vehicles that are cheaper for families to run over the long term. That is why Labor has committed to developing Australia's first national electric vehicle strategy. Labor will cut taxes on non-luxury electric vehicles, including import taxes and fringe benefits tax, to give people a choice and ensure that more Australians who want electric cars can afford them. Labor will cut government taxes on non-luxury electric vehicles, including import taxes to give Australians a choice. By reducing upfront costs, Labor's electric car discount will encourage uptake, cutting fuel and transport costs for households and reducing emissions at the same time. Labor's electric car discount will encourage carmakers to supply more affordable electric vehicles to Australia, which will in turn increase competition, drive down prices and give consumers more choice. Labor will pursue policy settings to encourage Australian manufacturing of EV components and consider leveraging existing Commonwealth investments in its fleet and infrastructure spend to increase electric vehicle stock.
Unfortunately, unlike Labor's policy proposals, this bill will not make a meaningful impact on electric vehicle take-up by ordinary Australians. This bill seeks to disincentivise taxes or charges on the purchase and use of electric vehicles by states and territories. While this may seem like a good idea given all I've just said about the electric vehicle market in Australia, the truth is far more complicated. Australian jurisdictions developed mechanisms for funding the construction and maintenance of roads and other infrastructure which assume that most private vehicles are fuelled by petrol. As Australians transition away from petrol vehicles to electric vehicles, taxes like fuel excise will deliver less. Governments will need to transition towards new models of funding road infrastructure, and it's likely that some of these models will include a capacity to recognise the impact of electric vehicles, like all vehicles, on our roads, bridges and tunnels. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Our aim should be to ensure that our policy settings as a whole support the use of electric vehicles, not that use of electric vehicles should be for all intents and purposes free.
This bill is a blunt instrument. The measures in the bill would adjust the formula for allocating GST revenue between states and territories to neutralise the effect of any tax, levy or charge imposed on electric vehicles but not on other vehicles. Where a state or territory sought to impose such a tax, the benefit of that would be neutralised through a reduction in the proportion of GST revenue they would receive. This would be redirected to other states in the normal manner. COVID-19 has seen a significant decline in GST revenues for the states at the same time there has been increased demand for critical services, especially in the health sector. The distribution of GST revenue is generally set by the independent Commonwealth Grants Commission. Adjustments to the GST formula are very rarely made, and particularly not to penalise states for using their potential heads of revenue. Changes to the GST formula need careful consideration and consultation. Australia needs to support our electric vehicle market. Unfortunately, this bill isn't the way to do that. What we need is what the Morrison government and its predecessors have failed to do—a real and comprehensive plan to lower the cost of vehicles, encourage a greater range of models to be imported, build the infrastructure needed to support them and grow Australia's local manufacturing capability. That's why Labor is proud to stand behind our electric vehicles policy.
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the question be put.
The question is that the bill be read a second time.
I rise to speak on the Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Amendment (No New Fossil Fuels) Bill 2021 [No. 2]. We shouldn't have to be introducing this bill today. We do, because, in the middle of a climate emergency, the government announced that it would use public money to back a fossil fuel project, which will make the climate crisis worse, at the same time as slowing down investment in renewables. Not one single energy analyst says that we need to build this white elephant. It will result in the loss of taxpayers' money, it will slow the transition to renewables, it will create even more market uncertainty, it will enrich the Liberal donor who owns the land and it will drive up energy prices. That is quite the combination of bad outcomes in just one decision.
The government only wants to build this because Minister Taylor wants to enrich his gas donors, mainly Santos, whose Narrabri gas field would supply the gas, should that field ever be fracked—and only over the proverbial dead bodies of the traditional owners would that occur. The energy industry pointedly refused to waste their own money on a gas plant. Yet this is a gas fired power station. Gas is a fossil fuel. Any new fossil fuels are locking us in for catastrophic climate impacts. The Climate Council says it best:
Building a government-owned gas power station in the middle of a climate crisis is the equivalent of asking the Australian public to jump onto a sinking ship without a safety raft.
This bill would stop that public money being wasted on a new fossil fuel gas-fired power plant. This bill would prohibit Snowy Hydro from developing or constructing—or being involved in the development or construction of—new fossil-fuel-based electricity generation capacity. It would prevent Snowy Hydro from acquiring, purchasing or otherwise investing in—or being involved in acquiring, purchasing or investing in—new fossil-fuel-based electricity generation capacity. It would prohibit Snowy Hydro from operating, or being involved in the operation of, new fossil-fuel-based electricity generation capacity. This bill would stop more public money being thrown at irresponsible fossil fuel projects that the market doesn't support, that experts have denounced and that the climate and future generations cannot afford.
This bill explicitly does not deal with the fossil fuel assets that Snowy Hydro already owns. We have to deal with that. We know we need to wind down our existing fossil fuel generation capacity, whilst transitioning those workers into jobs that have a long-term, sustainable future. The Greens have a clear position on this. The transition to 100 per cent renewables needs to be completed in the next decade if Australia is to do its fair share of limiting global heating to 1½ degrees Celsius in the next decade.
This bill also would not impact on the ongoing business of Snowy as an electricity and gas retailer, even though we know we have to urgently transition homes and businesses from gas to electric heat pumps and green hydrogen, but what this bill does seek is to prevent the government from making the problem worse. This government has made it clear that it intends to invest in new fossil fuel based electricity generation in the middle of a climate emergency, but no-one wants this gas plant. Since Minister Taylor put the call out to the private sector not only did they not invest in this project but they announced a range of other renewable projects. Origin announced a 700-megawatt battery at their Lake Macquarie site. Neoen have announced a 500-megawatt battery in the central tablelands. And CEP Energy have announced their intent to build a 1,200-megawatt battery at Kurri Kurri, which is the very site for this proposed taxpayer boosted gas plant.
Despite the private sector seeing the writing on the wall and wanting to invest in stuff that stacks up and will make their money, in future, as it tackles the climate crisis, this government is pressing ahead. Despite all their protestations about being neutral, Minister Taylor has made it clear that he's not interested in dispatchable capacity unless it comes from gas. The government has even knocked back a wind farm with storage through NAIF, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, because it's competing against gas. All this talk from the government about technology over taxes is just a hollow slogan, because when the sector steps up and says, 'We will make up for the shortfall in the form of renewables and storage,' the minister says, 'No, I prefer gas; I'm going to take money that could be going to schools and hospitals and, instead, use it to force investment in fossil fuels.'
Last week, the G7 countries made it clear that not only should we be not subsidising fossil fuels or funding more fossil fuel projects with public money but we should have strong emissions reductions targets by 2030, targets that should be at least double what this government is proposing. Of course, we know the opposition doesn't even have a 2030 emissions reduction target. Australia just keeps flying in the face of the rest of the world and flying in the face of the energy market.
The public owns Snowy Hydro. We hold 100 per cent of the shares. The government has the power, right now, to tell Snowy Hydro to stop investing in new coal- and gas-fired power plants, and that would make this bill redundant. Minister Taylor could tell Snowy Hydro to invest in batteries instead. He could tell them to invest in renewables in the Hunter and Latrobe valleys. But we have a government that is not interested in addressing the climate emergency. It's not interested in keeping energy prices low, through renewables, which we know depress the market price, and it's not interested in keeping Australians safe. It's not interested in representing the over 70 per cent of Australians who want us to be a global leader in climate action. It's only interested in delivering for its donor mates and doing nothing to avert a climate disaster.
That's why, sadly, we need the legislation. The government has proven itself completely incapable of addressing the climate emergency and dealing with public money responsibly. So it falls to this parliament to hold them accountable. We cannot let the government invest taxpayer money in new gas. We cannot let the government build new gas infrastructure. We know that we must bring down carbon pollution rapidly if we are to have any hope of having a safe climate for everyone on this planet and the creatures that we share it with. This parliament must hold the government to that responsibility. That's why we are bringing this private member's bill on for debate today.
The notion that you would spend taxpayer dollars to invest in a gas-fired power station, when the rest of the world has just said we need to get off fossil fuels and we need to end fossil fuel subsidies, is sheer lunacy. You only have to look at the number of donations made to this government—and, sadly, to the opposition—by big gas companies to work out why that's their position. So much for technology neutral. This government is now boosting for gas, even though renewables will do the job far better, will create more jobs for workers, will help us deliver a safer climate and will make money for Snowy Hydro. No, this government just wants to deliver for its gas donor mates. It is reprehensible that in this day and age they want to spend public money on opening a new gas station that private companies will not touch with a barge pole because it is an economic doozy. Yet this government dances to the tune, once again, of its gas donors. It is appalling. If we were to do one thing in this parliament, it would be to end those dirty donations from the coal, gas and other fossil fuel sectors. We might start to get some semblance of a science based climate change policy if that were the case. But right now the money is running the show, and those vested interests are getting the policy that they pay for. And there will be some cushy lobbyist jobs to follow for many of the MPs when they leave this building and go to work for those rep bodies, whether it's APPEA or the gas lobby or whether it is those companies directly. It's just a disgusting triumph of private interest over the public interest of this planet and this nation, and that's why we commend this bill to the House.
Here we go again—more alarmism from the Greens, who told us before the Prime Minister went to the G7 that he would be isolated, cast aside and ignored on the world stage. But, instead, the only distance we saw at the G7 was COVID social distancing because, in fact, the Prime Minister has been recognised, much like a very solid former senator here from Western Australia, my predecessor, Mathias Cormann, who, in travelling the globe in order to secure the secretary-generalship of the OECD, told Australia's incredibly powerful story when it comes to achievement in reducing emissions. That's so much more important than talking points, promises, commitments and vacuous statements of intent. Achievement is what actually matters, and that is where Australia has a great story to tell on emissions reduction.
At the same time, this is a government that is focused on achieving affordable, reliable and secure energy for all Australian households and businesses. They are the three pillars that we absolutely need in a reliable energy market: we need affordability, we need reliability and we need sustainability—no doubt about that—because of the impact that power interruptions or significant increases in energy prices have not only on us as Australian citizens in our houses but more broadly on the Australian economy. We need to see small, medium and large businesses in industries like manufacturing grow in order to diversify the Australian economy as we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, so they are the people that we target our policies at. That's why the government is taking real and practical action to deliver lower emissions at the same time as we protect our economy, protect Australian jobs and protect, most importantly, the investment that will deliver jobs into the future.
As the Prime Minister and the energy minister are fond of saying, the government's approach is driven by technology and not by taxes. We will not wilfully tax Australian business into the ground and cast thousands of Australians out of work. We are the party that supports Australians getting on with what they do best at the same time as we make the necessary investments and the technologies that unlock emissions reduction into the future.
We have a great story to tell here, not only on emissions reduction but also on our achievements in energy prices. Wholesale electricity prices on the east coast are at their lowest levels in more than nine years. There have been 19 straight months of price falls following the introduction of the big stick by this government. That's where we see the rubber hitting the road; that is what the average Australian experiences out in their home or in their business. It's what matters to them and it's what matters to us. Household retail prices are 11.2 per cent lower than they were just one year ago.
At the same time, not resting on our laurels from that great record of achievement, the government is making the necessary investments to ensure that reliable and affordable power continues to be available, and that's what underpins our investments in the Kurri Kurri power generation facility through Snowy. At the same time as the Labor Party and the crossbench are paying lip service to the gas industry, which generates tens of thousands of jobs for Australians directly and underpins the economic activity through our small businesses and our communities, we are not only supporting the energy industry but supporting the technology that will continue to deliver the sorts of results that have led to Australia being very isolated in achieving our Kyoto commitments and beyond. That's the only isolation that Australia feels at the moment. In fact, we beat our 2020 emissions reduction target by some 459 million tonnes. The latest forecasts show that Australia is on track not only to meet its 2030 Paris target but to beat it. Over the last two years, our position against that 2030 target has improved by some 639 million tonnes. What went before was good, what we're doing now is great and what is yet to come will be even better. This government has achieved the equivalent of taking all of Australia's 14.7 million cars off the road, not for a week, not for a month, not even for a year but for 15 years. That's quite an achievement. Further, between 2005 and 2019, our emissions fell faster than emissions fell in Canada, New Zealand, Japan and the United States, faster even that the OECD average overall. Emissions through electricity generation itself have fallen to the lowest level since records began, down an incredible 5.6 per cent in the last year alone, and the record levels of investment in renewable energy are continuing.
In 2020, some 7,000 megawatts of renewable power was installed in Australia. That's the difference between a taxing, spending, big-government approach advocated by those opposite and the record of the Morrison government in embracing renewable energy as part of an affordable, reliable and sustainable energy generation future for Australia. That 7,000 megawatts of renewable power installed under this government, in the last year alone, is more than what was installed under Labor during their six long years of government. Whilst we're often attacked for somehow being anti renewable energy, more renewables have been installed in the last year—in the course of a global pandemic—than were installed in the entirety of the last Labor government. Australia now has the highest amount of solar generation capacity per person of any country in the world. We have the most wind generation capacity of any country outside Europe, and electricity generation emissions, overall, as I've been clear to point out, are at the lowest level on record.
We've got to keep this momentum going. That's why the Morrison government has a clear plan to do so through the Technology Investment Roadmap. Our commitment through that process is clear: lower prices, keeping the lights on and doing our bit to reduce global emissions without wrecking the economy, and we're seeing the results. Advancing the next generation of low-emissions technology is crucial to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement. That's why our investment in the technology road map will maintain a reliable and secure energy supply for all Australians at the same time as living up to our commitments and delivering on them, most importantly, on the world stage. Our experience has been that, when new technologies become economically competitive, they're rapidly adopted by Australian businesses and households, and that is certainly unchanged by the COVID pandemic.
Our comprehensive plan to invest in sustainable, renewable and affordable power will ultimately mean that we have power for Australian households and businesses to do what they need to. We will have our necessary commitment to the global emissions reduction targets. We will be accelerating the investment in things like hydrogen, carbon capture and soil carbon measurement, and that will unlock the potential for advanced manufacturing and for long-duration energy storage. Ultimately, it will support 160,000 new jobs by 2030 and cement Australia's position as a world-leading exporter not only of energy but of food, fibre, minerals and advanced technologies. I thank the Senate.
The time for this debate has now expired.
I rise today to support the government's amendments to the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020. Labor will still be supporting passage of this legislation to ensure that all traditional owners have certainty and access to legal recourse through judicial review. Labor acknowledges that radioactive waste management is a complex policy challenge that requires the highest levels of transparency and evidence while balancing the need of the community to benefit from treatments for diseases like cancer. Accordingly, Labor will act in accordance with scientific evidence and with full transparency, broad public input and best-practice technical and consultative standards, taking into account the views of traditional owners, to progress responsible radioactive waste management.
The Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources is responsible for establishing a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility, which I'll refer to as the facility, under the Gillard government's National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012. Under the existing National Radioactive Waste Management Act, the minister has the power to nominate a site that has been volunteered by a landowner, and the process is subject to judicial review. The government is proposing amendments that reinstate the ministerial site declaration process in the current act, as proposed by the opposition and as originally contemplated in the 2012 legislation; to deem certain land taken to have been nominated and approved under the act, being the three short-listed sites of Lyndhurst, Napandee and Wallerberdina; and to allow for judicial review of the ministerial site declaration aspect of the process. The amendments include compensation provisions to ensure beyond doubt that existing rights to compensation are maintained.
The current government amendments, if passed, will mean the minister will make a site declaration regarding one of the three presently short-listed sites which have been nominated and approved or any other site which is subsequently short-listed. The traditional owners, the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation, and the Adnyamathanha native title holders and all stakeholders will then have the ability to undertake a judicial review of the ministerial site declaration. The community fund of $31 million will remain as part of the legislation. Labor's primary concern with the original bill which was presented by this government, which compelled parliament to make a site selection for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility, was that it removed judicial review. This was also the primary concern of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation. Labor has been consistent on this. We wouldn't support passage of this legislation unless the traditional owners were comfortable with it. Finally the government has come to the table on this. Labor insisted over many months that the BDAC be consulted in relation to the current government amendments before they go before the parliament. This happened last week.
These amendments are a good compromise which maintains the ability for judicial review, at the same time acknowledging the work that has already been done in short-listing the three sites to get the process moving ahead in the interests of all Australians. Concerns had been raised by the BDAC regarding the deeming of the three sites and whether this would restrict the government in future from nominating other sites outside the three listed. Labor clarified this with the government, who have since confirmed, in the explanatory memorandum, that recognition of the three short-listed sites confirms the sites as being nominated and approved under the act but does not limit the minister from approving new nominations. The minister may declare any approved nomination as a site and is not bound to declare one of the three short-listed sites. Given this commitment in the explanatory memorandum, the Barngarla people do not oppose the amendments, as they are confident that the revised bill provides the legal recourse they need to ensure their voices are heard. Labor has also consulted with the Adnyamathanha, who have been assured that Labor would never allow the government to declare Wallerberdina against the wishes of the community. That is why Labor is supporting these amendments.
Labor supports the community development package of up to $31 million, which will be available for the host community to contribute to its economic and social sustainability. This package includes a $20 million community fund to provide long-term support for the region, $8 million in grants for four years from 2019-20 to strengthen the economic and skills base of the host community and $3 million from the government's Indigenous Advancement Strategy, which will support the delivery of an Aboriginal economic heritage participation plan.
The question of a permanent storage facility for low-level radioactive waste has been an ongoing issue for 30 years, with decades of reports, studies and tests. The scientific and technical advice is that a national facility is required for Australia to meet its international obligations to manage our own nuclear waste. The national regulator, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, has made it clear that permanently leaving the waste at Lucas Heights is unsustainable.
National radioactive waste is predominantly the by-product of nuclear medicine. Australians depend on nuclear technology for medicines used in the diagnosis of heart disease and skeletal injuries, as well as a range of cancers. One in two Australians will use nuclear medicine in their lifetime. ANSTO can deliver over 10,000 patient-doses of nuclear medicines to more than 250 Australian and New Zealand hospitals and medical centres every week. So it's no surprise that Australia's radioactive waste has built up over 60 years.
Currently, Australia's radioactive waste is stored at more than 100 locations around the country. There will come a time when the main storage space at Lucas Heights will run out of room. There is a capacity to extend the storage capacity at Lucas Heights, but ANSTO have made it clear that they would rather use that space for scientific endeavours than as a waste facility. In their submission, the department claim that the ANSTO facility would be completely full by 2030.
The proposed national facility is expected to be in operation for 100 years and will permanently dispose of low-level radioactive waste and temporarily store intermediate-level waste. Low-level waste is made up of paper, plastic, gloves, cloths and filters, which contain small amounts of radioactivity and require minimal shielding during handling, transport and storage.
Labor is concerned that, to date, the government has been unable to provide any assurances on progress towards establishing a permanent facility for intermediate-level waste. We note that the community will expect a clear plan for a permanent facility to safely secure intermediate waste. It is hard to understand why, to date, so few resources have been allocated to the creation of a permanent, intermediate-level waste storage facility. In the absence of such resources or planning, the government should explain why the existing intermediate-level waste should be moved from one temporary storage facility to another. Labor will continue to hold the government to account and press for the department to explain how it plans to establish a permanent underground repository for waste of this nature.
It's important that this legislation pass to progress this important issue—which has been treated like a political football up until now—as nuclear medicine is part of modern health care and a storage site is necessary. Opponents of specific site selection will rightly have the opportunity to have their day in court. Labor is supporting this bill to provide certainty to traditional owners and to break the stalemate on this critical issue for Australia's security going forward.
I rise today to speak on the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 on behalf of the Australian Greens and my constituents in South Australia, who, of course, are outraged that once again we see the two big parties working together to dump on our state. This is an example of what happens when Labor and Liberal get together: they've got more votes on the eastern seaboard than they do in South Australia, so they dump on SA. That's what they're doing here today.
South Australians are frustrated at this debate. It's gone on for so long. They're frustrated that, every time, rather than putting in the work and coming up with permanent solutions, Labor and Liberal gang up together to decide: 'We don't want the nuclear waste in our backyards, so we'll stick it in South Australia. We'll stick it in communities that don't want it.'
This process has been a shambles from the beginning. The consultation process in relation to these three listed sites has been a debacle, mishandled over and over again. There have been different ministers in charge over time, and, every time you get a new minister, you get new promises, only for them to be broken, and consultations that are rubbish, and the locals in South Australia get ignored once more. And what are we seeing today? Right now, as we're debating and voting on this legislation, we are seeing another rolling of leaders in the National Party. First of all, when Senator Canavan was in charge of this portfolio, he didn't care about where the waste went as long as it wasn't in his backyard in Queensland. 'Let's just dump on SA.' Then we had Mr Pitt. What did he do? 'Just dump on SA.' And you can bet your bottom dollar Mr Barnaby Joyce will do the exact same thing. Just like he wants to take all of South Australia's water, he thinks that we should have all the country's nuclear waste as well—not our Deputy Prime Minister, I'll have you know.
This bill is a disgrace. It is an affront to community consultation, it is an affront to the best available science and it is an affront to the promise, the long-held promise, that this country would get serious about a long-term permanent solution to dealing with the waste that we have. Of course we have a responsibility. We create nuclear waste; we need to store it properly. It is of course incredibly toxic. That's why it is difficult to do. It is also why you don't see the Prime Minister advocating that they build a nuclear waste dump in his electorate, where Lucas Heights actually is. Oh no, you couldn't have it in the Prime Minister's backyard! You've got to dump it in South Australia instead. Actually, the safest place to keep it, as the scientists have told us over and over again in the various inquiries that have been undertaken, is to leave it where it is, and, for the intermediate waste, that would be in the Prime Minister's backyard—in the shire, at Lucas Heights. But, of course, that's not what we're debating today, because the big parties and the big states think it's all very cute and easy to dump on little ol' South Australia.
As I mentioned at the outset, the consultation process that led up to this piece of legislation has been a debacle, an insult. If you want to run a community consultation, this is not the way to do it. The First Nations communities in all three of these selected sites have been treated appallingly. Thankfully, one of the amendments that is going to be moved is to at least restore some type of judicial review, because the process has been so bad. In their incompetence, the ministers under the National Party that have been managing this for a number of years now have treated the local South Australian First Nations communities terribly.
We were first told, in relation to the proposals to build a national nuclear waste dump, that this would be just for low-level waste. 'Don't worry, we'll put this facility in the outback where no-one will really notice. It'll be low level. It doesn't matter. Let's run a process to consult. It doesn't really matter what the response is; we'll still do it. We'll pay you off, too—millions of dollars.' Of course, as this process has gone on, it's now been acknowledged that it's not going to store just low-level nuclear waste. This is actually going to be storing—for a temporary period of 100 years!—intermediate-level waste, above ground.
To anyone who wants to stand in this place today and argue that it doesn't matter, that this is all about low-level waste—the type you find in basements in hospitals—I would say, that is just not true, because part of this proposal has now morphed into storing intermediate-level waste. And the best available science—world practice, international standards—says that this should not be happening, that you shouldn't be double-handling this level of waste in this manner. This is all because the government has been dragging its feet on establishing a properly independent and expert inquiry about the whole nuclear cycle in Australia that would give proper advice as to what to do with the more toxic and dangerous intermediate-level waste. But of course that hasn't happened, so now we have intermediate-level waste tacked onto this proposal—not permanently stored; it will be above ground—and no-one knows what will happen next.
International experts have warned Australia that this is not okay. International bodies have said that this is not best practice. Yet there is no plan from this government as to what to do with it. We all know what happens in these situations. You get approval for the project as it is now, you don't consult properly and you pay off the communities, hoping they'll forget and hoping everyone else will forget, too. Well, we won't forget. South Australians are sick and tired of being dumped on like this by the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Nationals and the big states on the eastern seaboard.
If you wanted to do best practice, if you wanted to follow the science in relation to this, you'd put in place a proper plan for dealing with this intermediate waste. Yet that is just not happening. The other issue in relation to all this is: how is this dangerous toxic stuff going to get to South Australia in the first place? It's going to be driven on our roads, in big trucks, and shipped from Lucas Heights, in the Prime Minister's backyard, all the way around and into South Australia. And we're going to be doing that on boats. It's going to be loaded on and off in South Australia's port towns. But of course no-one in Whyalla, no-one in Port Augusta and no-one in Port Pirie has been consulted about having this toxic stuff arrive on their front doorstep. There's been no proper community consultation. No safety plan has been discussed as to how this toxic and dangerous waste is going to be transported to any of these three sites.
This has been a disgraceful process, and still the South Australian community are left in the dark. How is this going to be transported? How often are we going to have trucks and ships full of nuclear waste coming into our state, coming into our towns? What are the people of Whyalla meant to do—not to mention the towns and communities where this dump is built? One of the sites listed by the government in this piece of legislation, in their amendment, is in the heart of the Flinders Ranges—a jewel in the crown of our state. The Flinders Ranges are spectacular. They are beautiful—nature at its very finest. They are loved by South Australians. They are loved by the local First Nations people. They are loved by people right around the world, because of their special and unique characteristics. And today we're voting on a piece of legislation that suggests that this government could build a waste dump in the heart of the Flinders Ranges. And what do we see? Labor voting with the government. It's just a disgrace.
If it doesn't go to the Flinders Ranges, the other site is close to Kimba, in some of South Australia's best, finest, prime agricultural land. What happens with the product that's created and grown out there? It's shipped overseas, exported, with a superb reputation of being clean and green. Senators and members of parliament from Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria don't give two hoots about the reputation of South Australia's grain industry, our clean food and wine industry and our pristine environment. No, they don't want a dump in their backyard. Well, South Australians don't want it either, especially when you haven't even bothered to put in the legwork to run a proper process, to follow best available science, to do world's best practice. You just want a tick and flick, done, done, done—like the revolving door of the leadership of the National Party.
It's no surprise that the ministers—minister after minister after minister—responsible for this debacle have all been ministers of the National Party. They're far more interested in their own jobs, far more interested in being at the top of their party's ticket, far more interested in being Deputy Prime Minister than they are about making sure we handle this toxic and dangerous waste properly. Mr Joyce doesn't give two hoots about what happens to this waste, as long as it's not in his backyard. The Prime Minister, whose electorate is right where this nuclear waste is created, doesn't want it there—surprise, surprise!—so dump it in South Australia and everyone will forget about it.
We're not going to. We're going to fight this. We want a proper process. We want independent expert advice, not special favours from national ministers, and we want our state's reputation for having a clean, green, food, wine and tourism industry protected. It's only the Greens who are standing up for this in our state of South Australia.
I'm not going to address the nonsense that we've just heard from Senator Hanson-Young. It really does reveal why this country has spent 40 years discussing this issue, something that has proved to be terribly intractable. That contribution from the Greens has just revealed why, when you sink to the base politics of these issues, they do become difficult. You need to discuss the science. You need to work with communities. You need to consider the best interests of the Australian people and the need, particularly, to dispose of medical radioactive waste. That is what this very long and extensive scientific community-oriented process has done.
I want to be positive about this. I want to pay tribute to Mr Rowan Ramsey, the member for Grey in the other place, who happens to be in the gallery today. Mr Ramsey has been a staunch advocate of this process, of the community in his electorate that bravely put their hand up to be part of this process in the face of this extraordinary negativity from other places. It is extraordinarily brave, both what you have done, Rowan, and what the Kimba community has done in the face of opposition from those who don't want to engage and don't want to be productive in this area. I'll pay tribute to those opposite. It's good to see that we have support across the chamber for this proposal. It's an extraordinarily positive step forward that we can finally move this process forward. This is an absolutely vital piece of national infrastructure. It plays an absolutely crucial role in the nuclear medicine industry and in our capacity to drive innovation in this area into the future.
I don't want to speak too long on this bill, but I do want to note that I was chair of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, which held an inquiry into this bill. It was an opportunity to look at these issues in detail—
An honourable senator interjecting—
That is an absolute nonsense. In fact, the committee heard from traditional owners. I will take that interjection. We looked at safety, we looked at security concerns, we looked at alternative site proposals, we looked at native title rights and interests, we looked at local community views and we looked at agricultural considerations. It was an extraordinarily thorough process. It has been going on for many, many years, and the Senate economics committee was just a very small part of it. We received 105 submissions and many more form submissions.
I wish to note—this will be reflected, hopefully, in the chamber's decision in a very short period of time—that there is actually a broad, bipartisan consensus that we must manage our own radioactive waste. It has been accumulating now for over 70 years, largely as a by-product of essential nuclear medicine and research. We need to provide an appropriately effective solution for the management of radioactive waste for future generations. This bill gives effect to the commitment made by successive governments and ministers, including Senator the Hon. Kim Carr, who is in the chamber, and Senator Matt Canavan, to the Australian community to establish a purpose-built national radioactive waste management facility. This will dispose of Australia's domestically produced low-level waste and store Australia's intermediate-level waste for a period of time sufficient for the government to establish a permanent intermediate-level waste disposal facility.
What is this facility actually for? It's critical to our country's medical, scientific and technological advancement, in particular to the continued production and supply of nuclear medicine that, on average, two in three of us will need at some point in our lifetime. Most of us will need nuclear medicine for things such as heart, lung, liver or brain scans or for the treatment of cancer. Some 80 per cent of Australia's radioactive waste stream is derived from the production of nuclear medicine, which is currently stored in something like 100 locations around Australia. As I've said, this has been going on for around 40 years. It's been a very difficult process. It's caused the undertaking of numerous inquiries and numerous processes. It's good to finally see some real progress in the right direction.
Finally, it's really important that, as part of the inquiry process we heard from the community of Kimba. On a personal note, I know that Senator Gallacher, who was deputy chair of the economics committee at that point, was truly grateful for the input we received from a wide variety of stakeholders to that committee. It was a very productive process. I want particularly to thank those from the community of Kimba who put their hand up and stuck their neck out, who will, hopefully, finally get some sort of conclusion.
I will make a couple of comments about this bill, the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020. Labor will support this bill, subject to the adoption by this chamber of a series of amendments. We're here at this time, because this process has been entirely mismanaged by a succession of National Party ministers. The government should not be afraid of judicial review, of proper scrutiny or of proper community engagement over this issue.
As has been commented on by a number of the other speakers, this facility will principally be to deal with waste produced at Lucas Heights by ANSTO, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. That facility is a core part of Australia's technological, science, research and medical infrastructure, but it's also a core part of what should be our growing industrial capability. The facility at Lucas Heights can deliver over 10,000 patient doses a week of nuclear medicine, to more than 250 medical centres right around Australia. Australians rely upon nuclear medicine for all sorts of conditions. It is instrumental for diagnosing heart disease, for skeletal injuries and for a range of cancers. It's estimated there are about 650,000 of these procedures every year. One in two Australians will benefit from nuclear medicine produced at ANSTO in Lucas Heights. As an official of the AMWU, I saw this important and skilled work up very close, through members of the AMWU and a series of other unions—over 1,000 people from tradespeople to skilled technicians, scientists and administrative workers operate that facility. I was actually appointed by Senator Carr, the former minister, to a panel that reviewed the safety of that facility and saw up close just how vital that facility is to Australia's future not just in a medical sense but also for the build capability in this country for our science, our technology and the future of our industries. That is a vital facility, and its safety, security and future viability are critical.
The waste from that facility has been building up for the past 60 years. At the moment, that waste is stored in more than 100 facilities around the country, with most of it stored in drums at the ANSTO facility in Lucas Heights. That is not a sustainable position. ANSTO believes the storage capacity will be filled by 2030. They have an arrangement until much later than that. There are certainly more productive uses of space at that nuclear facility than creating further storage capacity. A permanent and specific nuclear waste facility is a core recommendation from ARPANSA, the nuclear safety regulator. It's consistent with our international obligations under the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. It is clearly the most sensible approach. However, the establishment of a world-class nuclear waste facility is obviously difficult and complicated. It requires leadership, deft management, a commitment to transparency, to community engagement and to technical assessment, but, more than that, it requires trust, competence and a capacity to follow through on the promises that are made to particular communities. That's why it was Labor that legislated the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Act 2012. It was to outline a process for the establishment and operation of the Australian National Radioactive Waste Management Facility. The existing act gives the resources minister the power to nominate a site that has been volunteered by a land owner through a process subject to judicial review. This bill, as originally drafted, would have obviated judicial review. It would change the mechanism of selection from a ministerial declaration to being specified through legislation, and that of itself excludes judicial review. We don't support the removal of judicial review from this process. It's critical to building community support. It's critical to legitimacy. A decision as permanent and controversial as the establishment of a nuclear waste facility has to be properly scrutinised. So the amendments will reinstate judicial review, and they will strengthen existing rights to compensation.
We on this side have been consistent. We've said that we won't support the passage of legislation unless the traditional owners are confident that those rights in terms of judicial review are restored. Those amendments are the product of consultation with the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation, who are confident that the revised bill gives them the legal recourse they need to ensure their voices are heard. That is what has developed the position within the Labor Party that we ought to support this legislation.
The fact that this bill has been presented in the way that it has, with the sort of shambolic approach that there has been, is entirely a product of the mismanagement of this portfolio by the National Party. They are entirely focused on themselves—and we've seen more evidence of that today—and unable to distinguish between the national interest and the interests of the National Party. How we manage our natural resources and how we ensure that their benefits are felt by the entire Australian community requires careful judgement and effective policymaking, and that is beyond the succession of National Party ministers that we've had from this place and from over in the other chamber. The National Party has delivered a series of resources ministers who simply aren't up to the challenges of their portfolio and are unable to balance the competing interests that go with the resources portfolio and with the agriculture portfolio. They are interested only in posing in interviews with 'Sky after dark', going for the most reactionary audience that they can find, rather than in the complex challenges of running a government that makes decisions in the interests of all Australians, including South Australians.
In 2015 there was a call for nominations of potential sites, with 28 applications received and six sites short-listed. A revised process was established in late 2016, and a suitable site was volunteered, near Kimba. It fell to Senator Canavan, a sort of cosplay coalminer, Mr Maybelline himself, to oversee the delicate process of nominating a repository under the provisions of the act. The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation, which holds native title over the adjacent Pinkawillinie national park—
Senator Ruston interjecting—
claims that it was unable to perform an adequate heritage assessment ahead of Napandee being nominated. And I'm very grateful to Senator Ruston for her correction of my very poor South Australian pronunciation. They claim that Minister Canavan assured traditional owners that land neighbouring the site would not be excluded from a ballot of the local government area to determine whether the proposal had community support. But, when the ballot came, it effectively did exclude native title holders on the basis that they weren't residents of the local government area. Strangely, somehow it did include 36 nonresidents who had property interests that were in the local government area. The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation challenged the ballot right through to the Federal Court, but ultimately they were unsuccessful. They held their own ballot: 100 per cent against the proposal.
So, when the government claims that this proposition has broad community support, it's worth considering who the government means by such a term. It is a stretch to call a 62 per cent 'yes' vote 'broad community support'. The facility now has unanimous opposition from traditional owners in the region. It's not hard to see why an Aboriginal community in South Australia would be sceptical about a nuclear facility.
Managing these concerns requires careful judgement, thoughtful consideration and a commitment to engaging with the community, at the very least a process that doesn't exclude sections of the community. But, then, in Minister Canavan's final act in his portfolio, on his last day before resigning from cabinet because of his baffling support for the member for New England in the last National Party leadership spill, which occurred on the day that the parliament convened to commemorate the victims of the 2019-20 bushfires—remember the National Party spent that day focused on themselves in a leadership spill that was ultimately fruitless; they've done it again today—he formally chose the Napandee site. In a reshuffle his job was handed to Minister Pitt, whose views about nuclear energy have been consistently out of step with the broader Australian community. He is one of those guys who is so reactionary on energy policy, so opposed to advances in renewable energy, so opposed to lower power prices, to lower emissions and to more jobs that would flow from investment in renewable energy, that he's committed to taxpayer funding for coal-fired power. He's a bloke who's so reactionary that, when he's challenged about renewable energy, he goes to the comfortable recourse of the old Australian reactionary, which is to start talking about nuclear power, which would make our electricity more expensive; more waste challenges. So this portfolio's been left in Minister Pitt's hands.
I welcome the decision by the government to support new amendments to the bill that will restore judicial review. The intended outcome of the government's original legislation would have removed procedural fairness for the government's critics. Those on the other side who drafted this bill should reflect on how removing those basic rights correlates with a long history of dispossession and exclusion. In their own report, government senators recommended that the government repair their relationship with the Barngarla with the assistance of a mediator. That's a sensible recommendation. It should have occurred in 2016.
The bill before us really is a sum of the government's mistakes over the long eight years it's had the capacity to fix this set of issues. The original legislation put the country on a path to resolving it. The government has bungled this every step of the way, all because Senator Canavan was too busy getting measured up for his monogramed hi-vis, performing to the Sky NewsAfter Dark audience, than actually taking the job of ministerial responsibility seriously and building the broad community support that he promised. When it comes to the resources portfolio in this country, it is clear whose interests are being served, who gets listened to and who doesn't, whose concerns are considered and whose are ignored.
Finally, the decision by the government to adopt the amendments recommended by the Labor Party is a welcome development. Australia clearly needs this facility to be built. It needs to be built in an environment where there is proper judicial review, consultation, transparency and commitment to the national interest that is served by maintaining our capacity, particularly at ANSTO, and trying to return to a proper, orderly process of ministerial responsibility.
I must stand and contribute to the debate on this very important National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020. Before I continue, I want to pay my respects to the Barngarla and Adnyamathanha elders and say thank you to their people, who are the traditional owners of the lands affected by this bill. Thank you for raising your voice so clearly throughout the campaign against the radioactive waste dump on your country. I hear you. The Greens hear you. And this place must hear you. I know that the voices of community have been sidelined many times in this process and I thank you all for staying strong, staunch and proud.
The Greens oppose this bill and we call on our fellow senators today to oppose this bill. The government has, for many years now, been trying to push a permanent waste dump for low-level radioactive material and a site for long-lived intermediate-level waste on the traditional lands of either the Adnyamathanha or the Barngarla people against their clearly expressed opposition. It is disgraceful. The originally proposed Wallerberdina site in the Flinders Ranges on a sacred women's site has been opposed by the Adnyamathanha community, led by staunch elders determined to protect country and culture. Labor support this, mind you. The community fought a long, exhausting fight to protect their country in December 2018. The then responsible minister, Senator Canavan, ruled out the site for the dump, and the community could finally take a breath again.
The proposed amendment in front of you today paves the way for this sacred site to be again considered for a radioactive waste dump—a sacred site turned into a radioactive waste dump! That's the colonial project right there. The oppressors are at their dirty game again. The proposed amendment paves the way for absolute destruction of country, people and sites that have been there for thousands of generations. You fellas have only rocked up over the last 200 years. My heart is heavy today thinking of the pain this must cause the Adnyamathanha community, how betrayed and disillusioned they must feel. Shame! Time and time again this Liberal government have changed their approach on this important matter because they know it does not have community approval. Again, Labor talk about consultation with blackfellas. They think that that means consent. It's not consent. You can run around saying you consulted with blackfellas anywhere you like, but that does not mean consent.
Now they are backtracking on their promises again. How can we or anyone believe in the word of this government? The amendment, in fact, puts all three short-listed sites back on the table, including the Lyndhurst and Napandee sites, both in Kimba. The Napandee site was one Minister Pitt wanted to specify in the original bill amendment. None of these sites have the consent of the traditional owners. Seriously? You all talk about having mates that are black and you say that you can get advice from them and everything's okay. But I can guarantee you now that none of these traditional owners want their sacred sites desecrated—none of them. That's the part you obviously don't hear, Labor and the government.
Although this Liberal government has always stressed that it won't impose a nuclear waste dump on any community, that is exactly what is happening. They say one thing and stab you in the back the next. It makes me so angry that the so-called community consultation—not consent—via the Kimba community ballot did not even include the Barngarla people, despite their explicit request. This ballot went ahead without including the Barngarla native title holders on the basis that the Barngarla do not pay council rates. Only ratepayers, considered worthy members of the community, were allowed to vote. Does that mean Aboriginal people weren't in that community? What were they considered?
The Barngarla people weren't even contacted as part of this so-called consultation and had to reach out themselves, again and again, to make sure they were heard. If that's not discrimination, then what is? The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation engaged a private, independent electoral company to conduct its own ballot to determine the Barngarla community's support for the waste facility at Kimba. What happened with that ballot? The vote was a unanimous no. All of those traditional owners got together and said no to the waste dump. Does anyone want to hear that? Or do they want to pretend that they consulted?
This was the result the corporation took to the minister for consideration and inclusion in the process to assess community sentiment. But it would appear that this has not been heeded by the former minister, Minister Canavan, or by Minister Pitt, who is putting forward the bill we have before us today. Is it that you just don't care? How do you feel walking into all of your offices with your big, deadly, thousand-dollar dot paintings? Does it make you feel good? Do you have your hand on your heart while you're stabbing us in the back and digging our graves? How does that feel? Maybe you should think about that next time you look at your dot paintings. You certainly don't care. You're not genuine people, senators or people representing the people. How can anyone say the community is being consulted and considered under these circumstances? This is shameful. It's outrageous, and it's disrespectful to traditional owners not just on that country but everywhere. It just shows your colours, both of you, Labor and Liberal.
Now they are putting before us a bill which proposes three potential sites for the dump. We know where those sites are, and we know how significant those sites are to traditional owners, the people who've been here since time began. Remember: you fellas rocked up only 200 years ago. You've been working out how much you can destroy since you got here. It's take, take, take—all for money and power. This is a sneaky way to avoid further debate about this controversial issue. You're putting forward an amendment that says, 'Oh, the traditional owners can go to court.' What supports do they have to go to court, Labor? Are you going to get dollars out of your pocket or hand over some of your corporate donors' money to support those traditional owners to fight the system in court? You know what the hopes are of that happening. How dare you pretend you support us!
The Liberal government, we know, will just push through with their agenda anyway. I say no. The Barngarla people say no. The Adnyamathanha people say no. I call for all those senators who want to keep their dot paintings to also say no. If you want to stand for an acknowledgement of country in this place, say no. Otherwise, sit down and stop pretending that you're here for the First Peoples of this country, because you're not. You have your own interests in this place, which are to continue the colonial project that has committed genocide and ecocide against the First Peoples of this country. We say no. We say no today and we will say no tomorrow. We'll continue to say no and we'll continue to fight against the destruction of our country, our water and our people.
Radioactive waste is an intergenerational issue. It's not something where you just put it in the bin and walk away, and everything's lovely. It's something that lasts longer than any of you here, in any parliament; it lasts forever. It's something you never take out of the ground. If you know blackfellas and you know our story, you know not to even take that stuff out of the ground in the first place.
We need to change a lot of the ways we do business in our nation and in this place. We need to start with respect for those who have been here the longest and with the deepest understanding that we are inheritors of the past and shapers of the future. This new approach should start today—if you've got any go in you, and if you want to keep your dot paintings up. It should start today, it should be clear and it should be unequivocal rejection of this fundamentally flawed and deeply disrespectful government bill.
Finally, how can the government and Labor—waving their little Aboriginal flag around and saying that they're First Nations friendly—acknowledge the traditional owners' country that you're on when you destroy country, when you support a bill that will destroy sacred women's sites? You up there in the gallery can laugh. That's what I expect from the patriarchy. Colonisation of this country brought the patriarchy: the old whitefellas who are laughing and heckling me in the background. They're the problem with this country. Patriarchy is violence and colonialism is violence. That is what we're dealing with in this bill. Labor, if you want to be friends with us, then you should stand up and vote against this bill as well, because the traditional owners collectively have said no. That's where I'll leave it. We'll continue to fight. And Labor, stand in front of the picket line and fight beside the blackfellas you say you support.
Senator Steele-John?
I want to seek your guidance. We had some interjections during Senator Thorpe's speech. Her commentary was referred to by the individual in the gallery as 'bullshit'. I want your direction as to how appropriate an interjection such as that is from a person in the gallery.
I didn't hear it, so I can't rule upon it from where I was sitting.
Well, I did hear it.
Perhaps a reminder that people in the gallery are not members of the chamber—
I'm happy to remind people in the gallery that they're not able to contribute, but I didn't hear it. Senator Thorpe, a point of order?
My point of order is that I did hear that comment. If there were a bunch of blackfellas up there who said that, they'd be thrown out the door by security. I would like the patriarchy sitting up there reminded that they cannot do that in this place. It's my workplace.
That is not a point of order. I've reminded the gallery, in accordance with Senator Steele-John's and Senator Hanson-Young's suggestion. I disagree with your imputation of what I would or would not have done in those circumstances. I find that personally offensive. Senator Fierravanti-Wells.
I rise to speak on the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020. This important piece of legislation has been years in the making.
Can I say at the outset that I support nuclear power. However, before embarking on any future policy of nuclear power, we must first sort out the disposal of our nuclear waste. This is the vital first step of that process. Every hospital is a radioactive-waste disposal site. Nuclear medicine is vital to the wellbeing of so many in the community and it will continue to save many lives into the future. We all know someone who has benefited from nuclear medicine. Eighty-five per cent of Australia's radioactive waste results from nuclear medicine, which, on average, one in two Australians will need in their lifetime for the diagnosis or treatment of heart, lung, musculoskeletal conditions and certain types of cancer.
But radioactive waste is produced not just in medicine but from a variety of other practices, such as industry and research, including in facilities such as ANSTO, CSIRO, the Department of Defence, hospitals and universities. The radioactive waste is currently spread across more than 100 facilities throughout Australia, including at five sites within 200 kilometres of Kimba, the site of the proposed waste storage facility. Storage in a national facility will mean the waste will be consolidated into a single, safe, purpose-built radioactive waste facility, consistent with government policy and international best practice. The National Radioactive Waste Management Facility program is at a critical juncture in what has been a 40-year effort to identify a community to host a facility. Importantly, it provides parliament with a say in this important national infrastructure rather than the decision about the site location resting with a single minister.
The bill also contains an amended definition of 'controlled material' to provide clarity as to the type of waste which may be stored at the facility. Thus, it aligns with other domestic legislation and international obligations. The new definition does not expand the types of material that can be stored at the facility. Rather, it covers all types of waste that will be held at the facility but, at this point, expressly excludes high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel. This is designed for Australian waste only—namely, waste that is used in Australia, generated by activities in Australia or sent to Australia under contractual arrangements relating to the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. The facility will only be designated for and large enough to store Australian waste for approximately 100 years. It will then be monitored for 200 to 300 years afterwards. Near-surface disposal at ground level is a commonly adopted and safe solution for low-level waste, and such repositories are standard in many countries, including the United Kingdom, Spain, France, Japan and the United States. All waste will be fully immobilised and then placed within multiple layers of protection to ensure safety for workers, visitors to the site and the surrounding community. The facility will be designed and engineered to the highest of standards, with multiple safety barriers ensuring it is prepared for and resilient to all credible scenarios.
The government has established the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency, which will lead the process to deliver the facility at Kimba. The agency will be independent of but will work closely with existing waste holders such as ANSTO, CSIRO or the Department of Defence. It is important that a dedicated agency does this work to build radioactive waste management practice and capability in Australia but is independent of existing waste producers.
Questions have arisen as to why an existing Commonwealth site was not chosen to store the waste. In 2017, 42 Commonwealth-owned sites were assessed, but the department did not identify any sites suitable for hosting the facility. In relation to ANSTO, in my home state of New South Wales, its functions relate to science and medicine production and the Lucas Heights campus was never intended to be, or licensed as, a long-term waste management facility. ANSTO has advised ARPANSA that it plans to move its radioactive waste holding to the national facility once it is developed, and ARPANSA has accepted those plans in principle. Australia's facility will be a world-class, purpose-built, state-of-the-art facility, operated in an open and transparent way, in line with international best practice. All radioactive waste at the facility will be safely shielded so radiation levels, even close to stored or handled materials, will be well below regulated safety levels. As is the case at Lucas Heights, workers and visitors will not require protective clothing.
Australia has a uniform national radioactive waste classification system which is based on the International Atomic Energy Agency guidelines and adapted for the Australian situation. Low-level waste emits radiation at levels which generally require minimal shielding during handling, transport and storage. Ninety-two per cent of the radioactive waste produced by ANSTO is low-level waste made up of paper, plastic, gloves, cloths and filters that contain a low level of radioactive activity. Intermediate-level waste is largely associated with the by-products of nuclear medicine and emits higher levels of radiation that require additional shielding during handling, transport and storage.
Australia does not produce high-level radioactive waste. A high-level-waste facility would require a separate investigation to determine technical requirements and other needs. This remains an issue for the future, but it must be tackled, because it behoves Australia to manage its own waste. Shipping our plastics overseas was a case in point. The move away from multiple storage sites for the same class of waste is aligned with international best practice for the long-term management of radioactive waste as recognised by the Commonwealth regulator, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, ARPANSA. The government has committed to intermediate-level waste being temporarily stored at the facility while a permanent disposal pathway is developed—an absolute must. It is anticipated that it will take several decades to site and develop an intermediate-level disposal facility.
The role of the waste management function is to coordinate with waste holders, producers, regulators, international counterparts and policymakers to develop agreed pathways, strategies and management practices for Australia's radioactive waste from its production through to its disposal. This function will lead the development of a permanent disposal pathway for intermediate-level waste. This involves a major program of research and development activities, and while no deadline has been set, this process is expected to take years.
Regrettably, there are those who are simply opposed to anything nuclear. They forget that, on average, one in two Australians will need nuclear medicine in their lifetime. Cessation of all activities that produce radioactive waste would be counterproductive and damaging to our society and the economy. Even if it were viable for Australia to cease producing nuclear medicine, doing so would not provide a solution for our legacy waste, which has been accumulating for over 70 years and still requires a permanent facility. Defence is not a significant producer of radioactive material. Therefore, activities relating to the defence of Australia will result in very small amounts of radioactive waste being sent to the facility. Australia has no nuclear weapons capability.
Before I conclude, I would like to make some comments regarding nuclear power. The time has come to consider nuclear power. If we are to be ecumenical on all power sources, then nuclear needs to be in the mix. There is a certain hypocrisy about those who are opposed to even contemplating consideration of this issue. They are happy to go to Europe, including the UK, and have no qualms about benefiting from nuclear power supply on tour. They will happily sip champagne or good Italian red wine whilst adopting the NIMBY principle—'not in my backyard'—for Australia.
In summary, nuclear power generation creates different levels of waste. However, before we contemplate storage of high-level waste, it behoves Australia to successfully deal with low- and intermediate-level waste to demonstrate that in future we would be fully able to safely store any waste resulting from a nuclear energy cycle.
I'm very pleased to be able to support the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 and I acknowledge the work of the Senate Economics Committee, which Senator Brockman has referred to. I also want to particularly thank the deputy chair, Senator Gallagher, for the work that has been undertaken in examining this bill and the detailed studies related to it. I also thank the department. Prior to the last election, the caretaker convention allowed me the opportunity to consult with the department about the matters that relate to the community fund and other matters. While I may not agree with every aspect of the draft bill as it was then, I do want to acknowledge that the department treated me, as the shadow minister, very well and I think answered every inquiry I made in regard to the policy issues related to the fund and the site selection processes that had been undertaken up to that date, including the community consultation processes that have been undertaken. I just wanted to acknowledge that.
This is a bill that has taken 40-odd years. The process began with the 1978—I emphasise that: 1978—meeting of Commonwealth, state and territory health ministers that asked for the Commonwealth to coordinate a national approach to the management of radioactive waste and the development of relevant codes of practice. What concerned me in the consultations that I undertook in these matters, as a former science minister, was the failure of the previous attempts to develop an effective strategy here. It is something that I felt very deeply. There are times when we have genuine national interest projects that go to the welfare of the entire nation, and this issue is one of those. We simply cannot understand the importance of the nuclear technologies that this country uses, with their enormous benefits, without understanding the need to deal with the safe disposal of the by-products of those technologies. Frankly, since the 1970s this country has failed to face up to its responsibilities. Despite our international obligations, despite the extraordinary advances in those technologies and despite the ubiquitous uses of those technologies, we as a nation have failed to deal with the consequences of the use of those technologies. This bill provides us with an opportunity to begin, hopefully, the next phase of meeting those international and national interest responsibilities.
For decades, ARPANSA has warned us that it's simply not tenable to keep storing waste at ANSTO's facility at Lucas Heights and at the various other sites around the country. It's simply not tenable to have nuclear waste left in filing cabinets. It's simply not tenable to use nuclear technologies throughout industry and to have a situation where one in two of us is relying upon the benefits of radiopharmaceuticals for health purposes, where one-third of all procedures used in modern hospitals involve radiation and radioactivity and where 500,000 doses a year are produced by ANSTO and not deal with the consequences of that. We have something just short of 10,000 cubic metres of low-level waste in the country at the moment, dating back to CSIRO sites in Port Melbourne—soil, gloves, plastics, filters and other industrial equipment. And we have some 3,700 cubic metres of intermediate-level waste from radiopharmaceutical production.
We have been told for far too long that the facilities at ANSTO simply are not able to cope with it and that sooner or later they'll be exhausted. We can't have a situation where we are faced with one proposal after another being defeated because it can't meet the various requirements of both the science and the politics of the development of such a facility. It struck me that the idea of a reverse auction was the appropriate way to go; that is, for the 22 sites that were proposed that meet the scientific criteria—that's why the Academy of Science strongly supports these particular sites—provide the communities with the opportunity to engage in a proper process of consultation and provide the necessary social infrastructure to support community development at those sites. The $31 million that's provided here certainly helps that proposal. The capacity, however, to understand the reach of nuclear technology means that these methods can't be held up all the time or forever, as they have been throughout the various measures. At the back of the Senate report, there's a list of various activities undertaken, throughout the period of the last 43 years, in an attempt to find a solution to this fundamental national problem of dealing with the by-products of the nuclear manufacturing capabilities in this country, whether it be the use of technologies for measurement in mines—even in this parliament we use nuclear technologies, in this chamber and in the security at the front desk. We use it in civil construction and in so many other ways.
The amendments the government has proposed, removing the most contentious elements of the bill when it was first released, go some way to dealing with the questions that remain outstanding, and I trust that the judicial processes don't lead to further delays. With regard to the consultation with Indigenous communities, the Barngarla people, I note that there are no native title issues with regard to the specific sites in this bill. As the Senate report makes clear:
Native Title rights have been extinguished at the specified site; however, the Aboriginal heritage, either tangible or intangible, may still be present. The land was voluntarily nominated by its owners for selection as the site for the Facility. Additionally, the process for acquiring any additional land to extend the site for the purposes of establishing and operating the Facility or for allweather road access includes a consultation period.
In terms of the electoral system, they are matters that went through a judicial process, to the point of the Federal Court full bench. That's a point worth emphasising. There has already been a judicial review of the balloting process.
The determination that others have to have further legal challenge for this is entirely consistent with the amendments that the government is moving. The Labor Party are not pressing our amendments on that matter. We will allow the passage of this legislation, which provides for a further level of judicial review. The $31 million in the community fund is still part of the legislation. That provides for $20 million in community support, $8 million over four years to improve the skills base, $3 million for a further Aboriginal economic heritage plan and a total of 45 jobs for the site. On top of that, there are 35 jobs at the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency, so there's an extraordinary economic opportunity, as well, that comes through this process. They might seem small steps, but they're important ones. While I know that those who have a hostility to nuclear energy and the nuclear fuel cycle will be unhappy about any aspect of this, there are rigorous safety precautions built into this proposal. As far as I can tell, that's why the Academy of Science is so strongly supportive of it. All the rigorous scientific requirements for site selection and processes have been satisfied.
This is a matter of genuine national interest. The 40-year search for a permanent site may finally be able to be dealt with properly. The safety standards laid down by the International Atomic Energy Agency are being met and monitored by ARPANSA. ARPANSA is supposed to keep the national inventory of our waste, but it is not doing a very good job of it. It is not providing proper scrutiny of what's happening in private industry, in our universities and at the state level. ARPANSA itself has 140 barrels left over from its days as the Commonwealth radium laboratory. That will presumably move to this site, but ARPANSA has to do a better job in its monitoring of our inventory. If it wants to act as the world-class regulator, it has to actually make sure it regulates the entire industry, including in the state and private sectors. The endeavour will only succeed if all parts of the government—the department, the agencies and the regulator—work together in a common interest and handle this matter properly and in a manner that's able to maintain our global reputation in nuclear research and our capacity in the manufacturing of radiopharmaceuticals, where we ought to be world leaders.
ANSTO is one of the great gems of the Australian research community. I have long been a strong supporter of ANSTO. You cannot rely on a storage site in tin sheds on wooden stilts, using drums for the storage of waste. ARPANSA in the past has made it clear that that licensing requirement will come to an end. ANSTO itself also made it clear it simply cannot provide the room in the future as a storage facility. It is totally inadequate as a site for the storage of waste materials. On scientific grounds alone, it should be rejected. So those who say, 'Just leave it where it is,' are ignoring the fundamental principles that are required in our national and international obligations for the proper storage of waste materials. We as a parliament have an obligation to act now, to decide now, and to be guided in making this decision in what is genuinely a national interest concern. It is a matter that is long overdue and, given that it's now 40-odd years since we started on this journey, it is surely timely that we do so.
To talk about the history and management of radioactive and nuclear materials in Australia, we must talk about race, we must talk about racism and we must talk about the reality of colonisation, of stolen land and of the systemic and purposeful exclusion of First Nations people from decision-making processes from the very beginning of the existence of the country now known as Australia upon this ancient continent. I had the opportunity a couple years back to visit the Songlines exhibition when it was hosted by the National Museum here in the ACT. As part of that exhibition, there was an incredibly powerful co-located piece of digital immersive art which took you into the first-person experience of a traditional owner who was affected by the Maralinga nuclear testing. Many First Nations people were not informed that the tests were going ahead, and this art exhibition took you through their perspective and lived experience as the mushroom cloud rose high into the sky. It then took you on a journey to hear directly the voices of survivors speaking about what it was like to hear the noises and see the smoke and the mist move through the towns, and then to watch old people lose their sight. It had an incredible impact on me.
I'm from WA, and our state has a long history with these debates around the storage of nuclear waste. It has in the past been proposed many times that such a facility be hosted in Western Australia. Every single time, just like every single time this proposal is put anywhere in the country, there's a common thread, there's a common dynamic, and that dynamic is white people rocking up to a community and saying, 'Guess what, everybody? We've got the most toxic and deadly substance known to humanity. It's currently being stored a bit close to where nice, rich, white people live, and that's a bit worrying for the nice, rich, white people who vote for us at elections. Would you mind if we took this awful, toxic substance which we dug up and developed—despite the fact that you shared with us stories going back tens of thousands of years about the urgent need to keep it in the ground—and dumped it on your lands? And, while we're at it, would you mind if it also served as a global nuclear dumping ground? Surely that'd be okay with you because we've said there are going to be all these protections, and all these things we're going to do to make things safe for you. And you know that every time in the past when we've come to you and said, "Hey, we've got this idea; there'll be all these protections in place," we've always lived up to our promises, haven't we?'
That is the common thread: we've got some stuff that we don't want in our backyard; let us put it in yours. And this time is a real kicker, because this time what is proposed is to take the material stored at the Lucas Heights reactor, in Scott Morrison's electorate, in his backyard, and put it in South Australia and put it on traditional lands after a process which has excluded traditional owners. These are conversations that can be had in this country only because of the continuing existence of systemic racism and the differential power that exists in this nation between white people with money and black First Nations people without.
Another common thread of these stories is black people, First Nations people, pushing back, banding together, calling for support from allies in the broader community and shooting down these proposals, despite the fact that in this country it is reflexively expected that you as a black person will defer, that you as a First Nations person will be quiet and sit down—and maybe, if you're lucky, produce a bit of art that we can put on our walls: 'Oh, isn't that pretty!' We are hosting the longest continuing culture in the history of humanity: 'Yes, let's roll that out, particularly in the international space.' But, when the rubber hits the road and it's decision-making time, you as a First Nations person in this country are meant to shut up, sit down and let the process go ahead. And, if you're consulted, you're lucky, and that consultation is considered consent, and any demurral from that is responded to with derision and dismissal.
We have had this afternoon in this very chamber an example of that. I sat here as Senator Thorpe, a duly elected senator for Victoria, my honoured colleague, gave her perspective, her contribution to this debate, as the Greens representative on First Nations issues, and she spoke about the views of First Nations owners and she spoke about the nature of the injustice and she spoke about the risk to sacred sites, and she spoke the truth of the history. And, from the gallery, what did we hear? We heard an old white male voice utter the word 'bullshit'. I looked to my right and I wondered who it might be. I'd never seen the guy in my life. Ladies and gentlemen: who was it? It was no other than Owen Ramsey, the member for Grey, in whose electorate these dumps are being proposed.
A point of order, Chair: it's a reflection on someone else, even though he got the name wrong.
Senator Steele-John interjecting—
It was not a statement of fact. Acting Deputy President McLachlan, you've actually already ruled on an earlier point of order.
Senator Steele-John interjecting—
Senator Steele-John, I've already ruled on it. I did not hear it. You're impugning a member of the other house.
I will not withdraw that. That is what he said, standing up there. Standing up there, he ruled my colleague's contribution as 'bullshit', because he forgot that he is not in the House of Representatives. While that might pass over there, this is the Senate, the federal Senate of Australia. You have no right as a member of the House of Representatives to come into this chamber and heckle my colleague from the gallery and rule her contribution to be 'bullshit'. This is her workplace, and it is completely unacceptable behaviour.
Senator Steele-John, I have dealt with the matter. I ask you to move on.
It is an example of exactly the point that I am making, that structural racism exists in this country, that, when First Nations' people's sovereignty is violated, their country is trashed and this awful substance that white people don't want in their backyard is shipped off to their lands, there is an expectation that First Nations people defer, sit down and shut up. And, when a colleague of mine refuses to do that, she gets heckled from the gallery. That's what it looks like.
In her contribution to the debate on this bill, Senator Hanson-Young—I must acknowledge the work that she and her team have done in opposing this legislation—made the observation that it seems to have been, I think, South Australia's bad luck to have been identified as the site of this unnecessary waste dump. South Australia and Western Australia share a certain history of being selected by the other states of the federation to host these sorts of facilities. The Greens of Western Australia also share a history of opposing such developments. I pay tribute here also to Giz Watson, Robin Chapple, Scott Ludlam and Rachel Siewert, who all in their time have contributed greatly to the anti-nuclear movement in WA and made sure that it had a voice in state and federal parliament, whether it be against the Pangaea Resources venture or many of the other forms that that project took. The Greens have been on the front lines of those campaigns and have opposed them every step of the way. It also needs to be noted, as was noted by my colleague, that the process that has identified Kimba, particularly, is one that has excluded traditional owners.
The real kicker, of course, is that our national peak body, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, has ruled that the intermediate-level waste facility at Lucas Heights is secure and in line with best practice for the storage of nuclear waste. So our own body says that where it is now is where it should be. We know that international best practice tells us that the No. 1 thing you should not do with radioactive waste is double-handle it, yet that is what this project would entail.
The reality is that nuclear waste is one of the most toxic and dangerous materials in existence. That is why the safest place for uranium and nuclear by-products is in the ground, having not been taken out in the first place. Yet it is the wont of both sides of this chamber, over many decades, to bow to the pressure of the minerals councils to dig this stuff out of the dirt—at this particular moment, at the assistance of the National Party, who seem to live in an alternative universe where there is a need for nuclear power in this country and where the member for New England is a fit and proper person to be Deputy Prime Minister.
In conclusion, let me say that the continuing reality of the way in which First Nations people are treated in these discussions is an ongoing national shame to this nation. What we are seeing here is a can being kicked down the road through First Nations communities. We are seeing the Prime Minister get this stuff out of his electorate and into the backyards of all South Australians, particularly traditional owners. It is a proposal that we in the Greens oppose, and proudly so. We will continue to work with traditional owners. We will continue to listen to First Nations voices and support folks to oppose this proposal at every step of the way. I thank the chamber for its time.
At the outset, let me say that like most of my colleagues on the government benches I don't come to this place to stereotype and to divide, by any means, let alone by how someone looks. Yet the arguments in this very important national conversation, as Senator Carr rightly pointed out, are approaching some four decades in the making. Today we've heard people described as white and as black and therefore it follows they hold particular views. I think that's an outrageous affront to the rights of Australians to determine their own world views, to exercise the liberties and choices that we would consider to be in accordance with fundamental values.
Let's talk about what we're actually doing with this important national conversation. What we're actually doing is bringing legislation before the parliament to allow a site to be specified, for a national facility, to enable some $20 million to flow through a community fund and provide support around the local community, where this facility eventually becomes constructed, and provide clear links between the operation of the act and the relevant constitutional heads of power. These are important steps in what I consider to be an essential step for our nation as we seek to develop a nuclear industry. I'm a big supporter of a nuclear industry not only for its potential in power and generation in time but also for the benefits of nuclear medicine and a sovereign capability that, frankly, allows us to participate on the world stage in this way.
The need for a national radioactive waste management facility has been recognised for decades and, finally, this government is getting on with the job of getting it done. The operation of this facility will greatly improve the safety and security of radioactive waste management in Australia. In addition, it will bring science and technology together to allow Australia to join some of its key international partners at the forefront of the nuclear industry. There have been unsuccessful efforts to identify a suitable site in the past, but this proposal allows for the permanent disposal of low-level waste and, temporarily, to store intermediate-level waste until a suitable permanent disposal facility can be constructed. That's expected to take several decades, in part due to the intransigence of the parties like the Greens, who won't engage in a reasoned and rational discussion on matters of national importance.
This is a project that can be used as an important precedent for supporting the creation of a nuclear industry here in Australia, where we are well suited to deal with the challenges and the complexities of handling nuclear substances due to our impeccable track record of high safety standards in this space. It's not well known, for instance, that we've had three nuclear reactors operating in Australia, on and off, for some decades. That is a track record that speaks to our capacity to lead the way in the development of a nuclear industry—
Order! Senator Small, you will be in continuation when debate resumes. It being 2 pm, we will go to questions without notice.
My question is to the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister, Senator Reynolds. Who is the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia?
Michael McCormack, until other swearing-in processes take place.
Senator Green, a supplementary question.
Is Mr Morrison's preference for net zero by 2050 the position of the Morrison-Joyce government?
The position has not changed. The Prime Minister oversees it. Again, the foreign minister yesterday made it very clear.
Order! Senator Green, a final supplementary question?
When asked whether the Nationals' party room would be supportive of net zero, Mr Pitt said, 'I think they would be unsupportive.' Is it Deputy Prime Minister-elect Mr Joyce's intention to make the Nationals opposition to net zero emission part of the coalition agreement?
Thank you for the question. This government has been very clear that we want to get to net zero as quickly as possible. This is a global problem in need of a solution that works right across the world. We need to make net zero practically achievable for us all. We are taking action now to get the technologies right to enable us to get there.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business, Minister Cash. Can the minister please update the Senate on how the Morrison government's economic recovery plan not only is securing our country's economic future but also has ensured that more Australians are in work today than ever before?
I thank Senator Small for the question and, in doing so, acknowledge that he is an employer—he knows what it's like to have sleepless nights and he also knows what it's like to be able to embrace the Morrison government's policies to ensure that he is able to expand his business and employ more staff. The Morrison government's plan for Australia, our economic plan, is giving businesses the confidence they need to employ more Australians, and we saw this last week when the labour force figures for May were handed down.
Senator Watt interjecting—
Order! Senator Cash, please resume your seat. Senator Watt, I'm going to be strict on you this week. You have incessantly and continuously interjected, and it's only Monday at 2.05. I need to be able to hear Senator Cash.
Only just last week what we saw with the labour force figures being handed down was that unemployment in Australia dropped by 0.4 points to 5.1 per cent. In fact, that is lower than when Labor was last in office. When they were last in office in August 2013, it was 5.8 per cent. We also saw employment figures that well exceeded the market expectations, with 115,000 more Australians in work in the month of May.
What we have also seen is seven months of continuous employment growth and there are now 130,000 more Australians in work than we had prior to COVID-19. We also have record female employment with 6,255,000 females in work across Australia, and we have 97.5 thousand more females employed—more than prior to the pandemic.
We also have record male employment, with 6,870,200 in work across Australia. That's actually 32,900 more males in employment than prior to COVID-19. We've also seen Australians putting up their hands and saying they have confidence in the labour market, with the participation rate rising by 0.3 percentage points to 63.2 per cent. We're putting in place the right economic policies to help businesses employ more Australians.
Senator Small, a supplementary question?
Because I'm sure the minister's not done yet, can I ask how this government is backing small businesses and Australian employers to create more jobs, not only now but into the future?
Again, as Senator Small knows, as a small-business person himself, the Morrison government's economic plan is backing businesses and it's giving them the confidence they need to take on new staff. We know that businesses create jobs—not just government, but businesses. Governments put in place the policy frameworks for businesses to lever off in order to prosper, grow and create more jobs for Australians, which is certainly what we are seeing under our government.
Our expensing measures and our loss-carryback measures are helping businesses to reinvest in themselves. We're backing those businesses that have the capacity to invest in themselves. We're saying to them, 'Invest in your business, grow your business and employ more Australians.' We also see business confidence now at a record high, and we're seeing business investment continuing to grow. This shows that the Morrison government is putting in place the right economic framework, the right economic policies across Australia to help businesses prosper, grow and create more jobs. (Time expired)
Senator Small, a final supplementary question?
How is the government supporting Australians of all ages to gain new skills and therefore secure jobs now and into the future?
Our government is backing Australians to gain, in particular, new skills right across the economy. The Morrison government invested around $7 billion in skills last year to help Australia's pipeline of skilled workers. In this year's budget we have continued our support to back Australians to upskill and reskill. In particular, we have expanded our Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements wage subsidy, providing an additional $2.4 billion, which has now seen more than 157,000 apprentices come on board and find a place in around 60,000 businesses across Australia. That's a good thing—putting in place the right policy incentives so that businesses are able to take on a new apprentice and create new jobs for Australians. We're also expanding access for Australians to free or low-cost training by, again, working with the states and territories and increasing capacity in our JobTrainer fund. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. When asked whether net zero by 2050 is a position of the Morrison government, the Minister for Foreign Affairs said on Insiders on Sunday, 'It is the clear position that the PM has articulated.' Is net zero by 2050 a position of the Morrison-Joyce government? Yes or no?
I thank Senator Keneally for her question. Indeed, as the Prime Minister has made clear, it is important for Australia to drive towards net zero emissions, to play its role in the development of new technologies, to invest in technologies, not taxes—as those opposite would have—and to make sure that in doing so Australia, which has been such a crucial leader in relation to energy sources in the past, continues to be a crucial leader in the delivery of energy sources now and into the future.
That's why, whilst at the G7 and associated meetings, the Prime Minister was furthering the policy commitments made in terms of the pursuit of hydrogen hubs around the country, the pursuit of the stretch target to achieve the delivery of hydrogen at $2 per kilogram and the pursuit of strong international partnerships in that regard. The Prime Minister pursued agreements whilst overseas and signed them—with Germany and Singapore, for hydrogen cooperation with those key economies and key investors in Australia, as we've pursued with Japan, as well. It's this type of investment by coalition governments that has enabled Australia to reduce its emissions, not with the taxes proposed by those opposite—
Senator Keneally, a point of order?
Yes, on relevance: the question was fairly tight and clear. Is net zero a position of the Morrison-Joyce government, yes or no?
I can't instruct the minister the terms in which he or she must answer the question as long as the minister is directly relevant to it, and I think the minister is clearly being directly relevant. There's a chance after question time to debate ministers' answers.
Australia beat its Kyoto-era targets by some 459 million tonnes. Australia's emissions are down over 20 per cent from the period 2005 to December 2020. That's compared with an OECD average of 6.6 per cent. This is what achieves a pathway to net zero: achieving real emissions reductions through real investment in real technologies.
Senator Keneally, a supplementary question?
Senator Payne also said net zero by 2050 is 'the broad position of the Australian government,' and 'a sensible position'. Is net zero by 2050 a position agreed by the Morrison-McCormack cabinet? If so, will it be revised by the Morrison-Joyce cabinet?
It is a sensible position and it is an important position for Australia to not only play our role but, most crucially, for Australia to ensure that we continue to drive the investment and attract the investment in the technologies that will get us towards net zero but do so whilst protecting the jobs, businesses and livelihoods of Australians. That will forever remain the coalition government's priority—the protection of jobs and businesses across Australia—ensuring those businesses can operate with the technology, with the support, with the investment—
Senator Wong, on a point of order.
Mr President, the point of order is direct relevance. I understand the position you have previously articulated. Senator Keneally's question, though, was a direct question about what the position of the cabinet was. The minister is giving us a long lecture about how you might approach a target, when the question is only whether or not the target is his government's position. I mean, we are having a discussion about direct relevance on a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate about what the government's position is.
I don't need you to remind the minister of the second part. I thought the minister engaged with that at the start. He has 16 seconds remaining but he is also entitled to address the quotation that was used in the question and remain directly relevant to the question.
I was asked whether it was a sensible position and I said—
Senator Keneally, on a point of order?
I'm sorry, direct relevance. The minister said he was asked if it was a sensible position; he was not. He was asked if it was the position of his government.
I allowed the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate to restate the question in some detail. The minister is entitled to address any or all parts of a question.
I was asked whether the position, as articulated by the foreign minister—a sensible position—is the government's position. Of course it is the government's position. Of course it is, and the government is determined to make sure we continue to drive investment into— (Time expired)
Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question?
In an op-ed in the Australian in February, Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce wrote:
… the Nationals have always been opposed to a net-zero target. … If the Nationals supported net-zero emissions we would cease to be a party that could credibly represent farmers.
Will Mr Morrison rule out abandoning his preference for net-zero emissions by 2050 in any revised coalition agreement?
The Prime Minister has made clear the government's position. I am confident the government's position in relation to supporting investment in driving towards net zero and seeking to achieve that as quickly as is possible and practical was not applying taxes, like those opposite would, but instead investing in the technologies that are necessary to get those outcomes remains indeed the position.
I note the new Leader of The Nationals was asked about this very matter in his press conference just immediately prior to question time. Mr Joyce made clear that he would be consulting with his party room, having discussions with the Prime Minister.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! On my left.
But I assure the Senate and Senator Keneally as well, the government has made clear and the Prime Minister has made clear, Australia's position, in international discussions to the Australian people, that remains the position.
My question is to Australia's outstanding Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy, Senator Hume. Can the minister outline to the Senate what the Morrison government has done to ensure superannuation works harder for all Australians?
I thank Senator Scarr for this very important question. The Australian superannuation system manages over $3 trillion in retirement savings on behalf of 16 million Australians. Australians pay around $30 billion a year in superannuation fees, more than the $27 billion that households spend on energy bills and the $12 billion that they spend on water bills.
Those on this side of the chamber are ensuring that superannuation works harder for all Australians. All of our reforms since coming to government have been putting billions back into the pockets of Australians for their retirement, giving Australians choice, making the superannuation system transparent for the first time, protecting your super, capping fees on low balances, reuniting small and inactive accounts with active ones, putting members' interests first and removing from young people's accounts inappropriate insurances that erode their balances.
Now I'm very proud that we have passed the Your Future, Your Super package—opposed by those opposite—which will create efficiencies, reduce costs and remove duplication in the superannuation system. The package is the Morrison government's next step towards modernising and improving the superannuation system to ensure that it workers harder for all Australians. Treasury estimate that this package will add around $17.9 billion to Australians' superannuation balances over the next decade. It will do so in four ways: when you change job, your superannuation will follow you; a new online super comparison tool, covering performance and fees, will make it easier to find the best super fund for you; there will be clear standards for performance; and the package will clarify that funds have to act in your best financial interest. For too long, some funds have relied on people not knowing what they're up to. With the Morrison government's reforms, they won't be able to get away with the rip-off any longer.
Senator Scarr, a supplementary question?
Can the minister inform the Senate of what the government has done to ensure Australians are not forced into duplicate accounts?
The Treasury estimates that around six million multiple accounts are held by 4.4 million Australians. To address this, from 1 November 2021, when you change jobs your superannuation fund will move with you. If you don't know your superannuation details, your employer will check with the ATO to find your active super account. There will be no more accidentally doubling up on your fees, doubling up on your insurance premiums or losing money to super accounts that you didn't even know existed.
It's important to note that, thanks to the coalition government, you still have choice. You will always have choice. Your super fund will now move with you, but you have the option to change that fund at any time. If your fund is underperforming, you can seek a fund with lower fees. You're able to do this. Your employer can't stop you, and nor will this measure. Treasury estimates that this change will increase superannuation savings by around $2.8 billion over the next decade, which will go straight back into the retirement funds of hardworking Australians.
Senator Scarr, a final supplementary question?
Can the minister advise the Senate what the government is doing to hold underperforming accounts or funds to account?
Super funds have an important job, and that is to grow Australians' retirement savings. All too often, when a fund has underperformed, members either don't find out about it or don't know that the fund is underperforming. These funds have been able to hide behind the skirts of the well-performing funds. In fact, around $100 billion of Australians' money is in underperforming superannuation products and around three million superannuation accounts are in underperforming superannuation products. The Productivity Commission estimates that, once the Your Future, Your Super measures kick in, approximately 25 of the current 80 or so MySuper products will fail the performance test. The Labor Party may have introduced superannuation to Australia, but, by goodness, it's taken a coalition government to make it work in the interests of members, rather than super fund managers.
My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Birmingham. The proposed changes to standard 3 of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission regulation of 2013 have been labelled by the Law Council as unnecessary, cumbersome and inconsistent with the of the ACNC Act. Others say these changes will have a chilling effect on lawful policy advocacy by charities. They will bury them in red tape and stop charities from working to improve the lives of Australians. Why is the government making these changes? Why shouldn't the sector see this as an attack on the ability for them to advocate?
I thank Senator Siewert for her question. It is always nice to get a detailed policy question, although sometimes when it is particularly precise in detail it can be a challenge to be able to provide the granular information that the senator may wish to receive in response initially. I will take the senator's question on notice and provide a swift response to the chamber for her.
Senator Siewert, a supplementary question?
I thought that was a fairly simple question. It's about why you are doing it. The government claims this is implementing the recommendations of the ACNC expert panel, when the panel actually explicitly recommended that that standard be repealed. How is this implementing the recommendation if the expert panel said it should be repealed?
I'm sorry, Senator Siewert, but I don't have a copy of the recommendation in front of me or, indeed, the detail of the response. I am happy to provide for the senator as much information as I can on notice in relation to the specific issue that she has raised, and I will endeavour to do so as promptly as I can.
Senator Siewert, a final supplementary question?
The proposed changes allow the ACNC commissioner to make judgements on potentially unlawful activities by charities. If a charity breaks the law, shouldn't it be dealt with under criminal law and, in fact, under standard 5?
Certainly if laws are broken then it ought be handled under criminal law. Equally, if laws are broken in the administration and operation of a charity then I would imagine that Australians would expect there should be consequences for the operation of the charity itself as well. Again, I'm happy to provide further detail in responding to Senator Siewert given I don't have full information on the specific issues she has raised before me.
Senator Siewert interjecting—
I appreciate Senator Siewert would like to debate the issue right now, and I apologise to her that I don't have the information she would wish in detail right now. But I will undertake, as I have, to make sure I provide those details back to the chamber.
My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. Today the Prime Minister held an emergency national cabinet meeting, with the sole agenda item being the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. The Liberal New South Wales premier, Premier Berejiklian, has said she will request more supply of vaccines from the Commonwealth, saying, 'If we had more doses of Pfizer, we could get them out through our New South Wales state government mass vaccination hubs.' Why has the Morrison government failed to ensure enough supply of Pfizer doses in New South Wales, which is now facing a new COVID-19 outbreak?
I thank the senator for the question. The senator is correct; there was a national cabinet meeting this morning, with the primary issue on the agenda the national vaccine rollout. At that meeting this morning, the coordinator-general of Operation COVID Shield, Lieutenant General Frewen, provided each state and territory with planning projections for Pfizer and AstraZeneca doses for their jurisdictions over the remainder of this year so that the states and territories can effectively plan their vaccine rollouts. The coordinator-general confirmed that Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine allocations are being provided on a proportional population basis to each state and territory, and the government remains on track to offer every eligible Australian a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by the end of 2021.
Senator Walsh, a supplementary question?
Victoria's Acting Premier, James Merlino, has warned that the country is heading into winter without enough supply of COVID-19 vaccines and has slammed the national vaccine rollout as an 'absolute shambles'. Can the minister guarantee that the Morrison government will supply sufficient doses to meet demand for each week through July?
I thank the senator for the question. As I've just indicated, state premiers and territory leaders were updated this morning on the supply projections for COVID-19 vaccines out to the end of 2021. The state leaders agreed that they would continue to prioritise category 1a and 1b people seeking vaccines during that period of time. So we will continue to work cooperatively with the states and territories on the national vaccine rollout to ensure that Australians, as we've indicated, have the opportunity to get a first dose of the vaccine by the end of 2021.
Senator Walsh, a final supplementary question?
When New South Wales and Victoria are experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks and the Morrison government's vaccine rollout is an absolute shambles, why is the Morrison-Joyce government more focused on rolling each other than rolling out the vaccine?
Honourable senators interjecting—
Mr President—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Senator Colbeck, I'll ask you to resume your seat till the chamber extends the courtesy of silence to you—on both sides. Senator Colbeck.
The Prime Minister calling a national cabinet meeting this morning to specifically discuss the vaccine rollout clearly demonstrates the Prime Minister's and the government's focus on the vaccine rollout. That was the point of having the meeting—to discuss with the states and territories the rollout of the vaccination process. And we will continue to maintain that focus. The Prime Minister will continue to maintain that focus. The whole purpose of the discussion this morning was to ensure that the states and territories had the information available to them that they needed to coordinate the supply and the rollout of the vaccination process so that every Australian who wants a vaccine by the end of the year can get one.
My question is to Senator Reynolds, the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Minister, in 2011, the Productivity Commission estimated a national disability insurance scheme would cover 411,000 participants at a gross cost of $13.6 billion when fully implemented. A half-a-percentage-point rise in the Medicare levy was introduced in the 2013 budget to help fund it. It is now forecast that the cost of the scheme will rise to a staggering $30 billion plus by 2024-25, with a projected 530,000 participants, costing more than the Medicare costs for the whole nation, and could blow out to $130 billion by the 2030s. Minister, what is the government going to do to rein in the cost of the NDIS so that it is sustainable and affordable to taxpayers?
I thank Senator Hanson for her question and I also thank her for her passion and commitment to this extraordinary, globally unique scheme. The Australian government is ensuring that this world-first scheme—and remember this is a scheme for people with significant and permanent disabilities—continues for many generations to come.
Today, there are 450,000 Australians on the NDIS—fifty per cent of those for the first time. As Senator Hanson has said, that is a significant increase over what was anticipated in 2011, in terms of both the number of participants and the average cost of the packages. We have seen more people enter the scheme, and I think that says so much about the goodness in Australians' hearts, about their abilities and about their commitment to pay for this. But this also means that we have sustainability issues with the scheme now.
The average payment per participant has increased by almost 48 per cent over the past three years alone. That is a 12.5 per cent increase every year, which, as all of us in this chamber know, is not a sustainable growth trajectory for taxpayers into the future. The NDIS will always be fully funded under the Morrison government, which is why over the last two budgets alone we have made a commitment of an additional $17.1 billion—that's $17,000 million—to fully fund the NDIS over the forward estimates. This takes the total investment in the NDIS to $121 billion over the next four years, which, as Senator Hanson has said, will make it more expensive for taxpayers than Medicare.
Senator Hanson, a supplementary question?
Unlike other government benefits, there is no means-testing of recipients of NDIS assistance. Is it fair that people on other benefits are means-tested while people on NDIS, regardless of income or wealth, are not?
Again, thank you to Senator Hanson for the question. It's important for everybody in this chamber, and also for those watching or listening, to realise that the NDIS is a social insurance scheme; it is not a welfare scheme. The NDIS is a way of providing individualised support for people with disabilities, their families and their carers. This means support provided is related to a person's disability and the support that they need; it's not directly related to their capacity to pay for support. The NDIS was based on the principles of fairness and equality, meaning that your postcode, your socioeconomic circumstances or your means to pay for medical reports should not matter. But, sadly, today, they still do, and we have much work to do together to actually make sure that that is not the case. For example, in the senator's own home state of Queensland, the average plan budget is $76,000, while in Brisbane— (Time expired)
Senator Hanson, a final supplementary question?
Minister, I've been advised that, under current arrangements, sex worker therapy—that's prostitutes—could cost the taxpayer anywhere between $400 million and $2 billion each year. If this is correct, what is the hourly rate for the service? I've got the current price guide and I can't find the hourly rate for a prostitute. Can you advise if that could be the cost to taxpayers? What are we paying an hour?
Thank you, Senator Hanson, for the question. The previous Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme has already discussed this issue at some length and clarified the government's position on this. We do not believe that taxpayer NDIS funds should be used for the services of a sex worker, because we don't believe that that is in line with community expectations, nor should the NDIS pay for what might otherwise be considered an ordinary living expense. We do recognise that people with disability should be supported to have control over and choices about access to services that pertain to their sexuality, to enable them to live an ordinary life. However, should an NDIS participant feel that they need to purchase such services, they should be purchased using their personal income. Reasonable and necessary support must come, we believe, with some boundaries, and I notice that this has bipartisan support and that Mr Shorten has recently endorsed the government's approach on this issue. (Time expired)
My question is also to the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Senator Reynolds. Can the minister please update the Senate on how the Morrison government is supporting people with motor neurone disease through the National Disability Insurance Scheme?
I thank Senator Van for his question on this most important of issues, one that I know unites everybody in this chamber. Today is Motor Neurone Disease Global Day. Today we recognise and shine a light on motor neurone disease, a cruel and unrelenting degenerative disease. MND is represented by a blue cornflower, which is a symbol of hope: it has a fragile appearance but is hardy in nature.
This morning I attended the MND Global Day event here at Parliament House. There I had the privilege to hear Sharon and Peter share their personal journeys with MND. Seven-year-old Harrison did a wonderful job speaking on behalf of his mother, Sharon, who is no longer able to personally share her story. Sharon shared her journey since her diagnosis at the age of only 34, her life, her work and her aspirations for herself and her family. Sharon herself described her journey with MND as a nightmare. It's a journey in which she is seeking as much control as possible so she can provide as normal a life as possible for her husband, Adam, and for her sons, Harrison and Hayden. Peter spoke of the need for hope, despite being diagnosed with MND, and how he could maximise control of his life and the quality of life for himself and his family.
Hope for a cure still remains so elusive, which means we must keep working together to ensure that people with MND and their families have quick and ready access to the supports they need. This is why NDIS has prioritised people with MND seeking access for the supports that they need, with claims now being completed within five days. The NDIA continues to work with the MND associations nationally to ensure that people have the flexible and timely supports—in particular the AT—that they need. (Time expired)
Senator Van, a supplementary question?
I'm sure everyone would join me in welcoming Neale Daniher getting an AO last weekend. Can the minister explain the importance of timely and flexible access to assistive technology and resources for those with MND?
Again, I thank Senator Van for the question. As we all know, the degenerative progression of MND is rapid and it is unrelenting. They call it the thousand day disease. Therefore, more flexible assistive-technology options are absolutely essential, particularly access to loan equipment to ensure people with MND can get the AT that they need as soon as they need it. I congratulate the MND associations in Australia who are leading the way to provide assistive-technology loan libraries for their members.
Senator Chisholm interjecting—
Order, Senator Chisholm.
These schemes have been so successful that last week the NDIA released an RFI to test—
Senator Chisholm interjecting—
Mr President—
Senator Chisholm, I called you to order already.
On an issue like this, a bit of respect at least—these schemes—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Please resume your seat, Senator Reynolds. I asked, at the start of question time, for people to restrain themselves. I've also reminded senators that when I use their names I expect them to remain silent for a while. Senator Reynolds.
Again I congratulate the Australian MND associations for leading the way in this space to provide assistive-technology loan libraries. The scheme has been so successful that the NDIA is now looking to do that for children. (Time expired)
Minister, what other resources are available to support people with MND and their families, including planning for end of life?
While the blue cornflower does symbolise hope for people with MND, the sad reality is that today MND is still a terminal illness. It's important, therefore, for people with MND, their families and their carers to have access to sensitive information and helpful information about the journey that lies ahead. This is why I also—
Senator Chisholm interjecting—
Order, Senator Chisholm. I haven't called you to order, Senator Reynolds. You're free to continue.
This is why today I also announced the release of an end-of-life guide for people living with MND. Being able to plan ahead can reduce the stress for not only those with MND but their families and carers, to give them more control over the remainder of their lives. It is not something any of us like to think about, but this planning is important. I congratulate MND Australia and the Department of Social Services, who have provided the resources for this sadly necessary guide. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. Last week the minister was asked why the Morrison government failed to secure an early agreement for Pfizer vaccines when it had the chance some 12 months ago. The minister took this on notice, so today, Minister, can you inform the Senate of your answer, please?
Thanks, Senator Sterle, for the question. You're correct: I have taken the question on notice. An answer to that question is being prepared and will be provided to the chamber.
Senator Sterle, a supplementary question?
Can the minister confirm that, by the time Australia took delivery of its first shipment of Pfizer, at least 44 other countries had already begun inoculating their citizens with Pfizer?
Australians would recall that what occurred in this country is that we took a very deliberate approach to the rollout and the approval of vaccines. We didn't, as happened in many other countries, have emergency approvals for the vaccine rollout. We waited and asked our approval agencies to fully approve the vaccines before we started administering them. We took advantage of the experience in other countries to understand what was happening with the vaccines and for that data to be utilised as a part of our approval process. We took a process where we would be able to say to the Australian people that we had undergone a full and thorough assessment of each of the vaccines before they were approved. I think that that was an appropriate thing for us to do.
Senator Sterle, a final supplementary question?
Minister, how many Pfizer doses—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Stop the clock. I can't hear Senator Sterle.
That's unusual, isn't it?
Senator Sterle.
How many Pfizer doses per week will the Commonwealth guarantee from today until the end of July 2021?
That information with respect to the number of doses available—of both Pfizer and AstraZeneca—was provided to state and territory premiers as a part of the national cabinet meeting this morning. I am happy to provide that information to the chamber. I will come back to the chamber as soon as possible with that information, because that information hasn't been given to me off the back of the national cabinet meeting this morning.
My question is to the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services, Senator Colbeck. Can the minister outline to the Senate the Morrison government's commitment to ensuring more older Australians can live at home for longer?
Thank you to Senator Henderson for the question. The Morrison government has a strong track record of supporting senior Australians, and it has been strengthened through our $17.7 billion investment in aged care announced in the budget. The government understands that many senior Australians want to live at home for longer, and we are boosting entry-level support services with an additional $112 million in investment in the Commonwealth Home Support Program. The latest allocation of funding will provide more access to a range of high-demand care services, including meals, transport, social support, respite, gardening and cleaning for older Australians, their families and their carers. The recent budget includes $6.5 billion to deliver an additional 85,000 home-care packages, reduce the wait list and give more seniors the opportunity to live in the comfort of their own home for longer. As part of this allocation, 40,000 home-care packages will be delivered in 2021-22 and a further 40,000 in 2022-23, which will make a total of 275,598 packages available to senior Australians by June 2023.
Our commitment and investment is already paying off for senior Australians. Between December 2019 and December 2020, home-care packages increased by 19 per cent to 173,495 packages. I'm happy to report that as of 31 May this year 189,369 people have access to a home-care package. This government is committed to showing senior Australians the care, dignity and respect they deserve.
Senator Henderson, a supplementary question?
Can the minister inform the Senate of how senior Australians in rural and regional areas, including regional Victoria, will benefit from this record investment?
Senator O'Neill interjecting—
Senator O'Neill, I'm going to insist that the completely inappropriate interjections that are always in breach of standing orders don't start before the minister gets to their feet to answer a question. Senator Colbeck.
The Morrison government's $17.7 billion investment in aged care includes more than $630 million to improve the access to quality aged-care services for senior Australians in regional, rural and remote areas, including special needs groups. This targeted investment will support communities identifying as being most in need. To ensure that Commonwealth home support program services remain accessible to all eligible senior Australians, providers are required to be as responsive as possible to requests from senior Australians and their carers for short-term or ongoing home support services. To access services, senior Australians, their family or their carers can contact My Aged Care for advice to arrange an assessment of their aged-care needs.
Senator Henderson, a final supplementary question?
Can the minister outline the government's long-term plan for aged care through the recently announced $17.7 billion investment in the budget?
Thank you, Senator Henderson, for your question. And you're right, the government recently handed down a $17.7 billion package to deliver once-in-a-generation reform of the aged-care sector in response to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety final report recommendations. This package that was announced in the budget is the largest investment in aged care and the largest response ever to a royal commission. The focus through our aged-care reforms is to ensure that senior Australians have access to high-quality and safe services, are empowered to have more control and choice of their care arrangements and are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. Every year, under a coalition government, home-care packages are up, residential home-care places are up, and aged-care funding is up. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Can the minister explain to Australians who, for the last 15 months, have been unable to visit dying loved ones overseas, have been stranded overseas and have been separated from their children, why the Prime Minister gets a leave pass to visit Cornwall and pay respects to his ancestors?
If Senator Watt really thinks that was the purpose of the Prime Minister's visit, then he pays even less attention to what's going on than I thought was actually possible.
As the Prime Minister made clear, as I've referenced in this chamber and as Senator Payne has referenced in this chamber—you'd have thought that Senator Watt might have been listening on that occasion—the Prime Minister, whilst at the G7, secured the Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat. I am not particularly annoyed at the lack of respect shown to me, but this place will become unmanageable if I call senators to order and they don't have a modicum of respect for the standing orders.
The Prime Minister secured the Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement—of huge importance to Australian farmers, of huge importance to Australian businesses, of huge importance to ensuring that Australians continue to enjoy the opportunity of more jobs, of more economic growth, the sorts of things that our side of politics has delivered for them. Those opposite want to demean the opportunities created by such trade agreements. They want to demean the opportunities created by the discussions the Prime Minister had with, for example, President Biden and Prime Minister Johnson, about the opportunities to talk about the strategic challenges faced in our region and around the world. They are very serious challenges and they were very important discussions that of course saw, during that time, the NATO countries meet and issue statements in relation to China and the challenges we face.
The Prime Minister also took the opportunity to engage in bilateral discussions with a number of his counterparts. Already during this question time—as Senator Watt would know if he had been paying any attention—I referenced the fact that hydrogen agreements were signed during the recent trip—with Germany, with Singapore—the decarbonisation agreements signed. This is why Senator Watt doesn't actually remember any of these things: because he doesn't shut up during the debate; he doesn't ever listen to any of it. Motormouth Murray over there just doesn't know when to be quiet. He won't pay any attention to the achievements. He won't pay any attention to what's accomplished. (Time expired)
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! I repeat again: it's going to be a particularly long week if it is this noisy. Senator Watt, a supplementary question?
Thank you, Mr President. We've obviously touched a nerve.
Not mine, Senator Watt, if you're reflecting on me.
Not yours, Mr President. Why did the Prime Minister pretend that this was an unplanned side trip when we know that he had already commissioned the St Keverne Local History Society to research his family tree? The Prime Minister wouldn't be telling fibs, now, would he?
I reject the premise of the question. But, Mr President, you would think, in the midst of a global pandemic—
Senator Watt interjecting—
Order! Senator Watt, I can't hear a word Senator Birmingham is saying, with you screaming across the chamber like that. Senator Wong on a point of order?
Yes, on relevance: 'in the midst of a global pandemic', maybe going off on a side trip to visit your ancestors isn't quite what a Prime Minister should do.
That is not a point of order.
In the midst of a global pandemic, in the midst of a recession, there is the situation where our government, this government, has helped to ensure that Australia's health outcomes are some of the best in the world, that Australia's economic outcomes are some of the best in the world. You'd think that those opposite would care about the jobs of Australians and would want to ask questions about that. But, no, they don't. You'd think they would care about the security of Australians and would want to ask questions about that. But, no, they don't. All the different meetings and discussions that the Prime Minister had when he was overseas—do they come in and ask about any of those? No, they don't. They're just obsessed with the pettiness. They're obsessed with the smear. They want to try to win the next election on smear, not policy. Well, we will stand on policy. We will stand on a record of jobs, of economic growth and of keeping Australians safe, because they're the things that matter to Australians.
Senator Wong interjecting—
Senator Wong, you used a term in reference to an individual that is unparliamentary. I ask you to withdrew.
I withdraw.
Thank you, Senator Wong. Senator Watt, a final supplementary question?
When Australia was on fire, Scott Morrison ran off to Hawaii. When his vaccine rollout fell apart, the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, went sightseeing in Cornwall—something that no other Australian can do. Why is it that when the going gets tough Mr Morrison goes on holiday?
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! I have asked those on my left to respect the standing orders during answers. I will ask those on my right to respect the standing orders during questions. Senator Birmingham.
Mr President, it's the 'senator for smear' over there, and the opposition tactics are completely laid bare. Their tactics for the next election are all about smear, all about denigration. They're not going to bother bowling up any policies. They won't ever come clean on whether or not they'll implement lower taxes for Australians. Indeed, we know that taxes will end up being higher for Australians. They won't talk about the substantive issues that Australia faces. They will just engage in the type of dirt-digging and smear that they think might get them a cheap headline.
On this side, we will continue to stand on our record. We are proud of the fact that Australia's economy is bigger now than it was pre the pandemic and that we are the only economy in the advanced world to have achieved that outcome. We are proud of the fact that more Australians are in jobs today than was the case prior to the pandemic, and we were the first advanced economy in the world to achieve that. We are proud of the fact that most of those jobs coming back have gone to Australian women. We're proud to see full-time jobs coming back, and that side don't seem to care. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth, Senator Reynolds. Could the minister update the Senate on how the childcare system in Australia is supporting women's participation in the workforce?
I thank Senator Hughes for the question and for her passion and commitment to the childcare sector. Supporting the economic security of women is a key and enduring priority for the Morrison government. This is why we are addressing the barriers to women's workforce participation through record childcare funding. This funding sees $10.3 billion being spent this year, including $9 billion to subsidise the fees set by childcare services.
In 2018, the Morrison government overhauled the childcare system to introduce one childcare subsidy, offering more support for families with lower incomes who needed it and also basing hours of subsidised care on family activity. Three years on, Australian families remain the beneficiaries of this government's childcare policies. In this year's budget, we went further. We announced an additional $1.7 billion to further help Australian families with more than one child aged five or under in those years that are the toughest on the hip pocket for families. By increasing the subsidy for families with a second or third child aged five or under, 250,000 Australian families will be better off.
This support will assist second-income earners in a family, often women, who want to return to work and work additional hours. Women's workforce participation has reached a record high of 61.8 per cent under our government, and that is something that we are incredibly proud of. We continue to put in place measures to support women who choose to work or to work more hours in the workforce.
Senator Hughes, a supplementary question?
What benefits will families and the broader economy experience from the Morrison government's childcare measures?
Thank you, again, Senator Hughes. This one budget measure alone will support around 250,000 Australian families each and every year, and these are the families who need it the most. These families will benefit by up to $183 per week for their second child and any further child in the family under five who is also in care. This means that these families will be better off by $2,260 per year. That is a great outcome for these families. We're also removing the annual cap on subsidies of $10,560 a year, which currently only applies to families earning over $189,390. This measure will benefit around 18,000 families and mean no family will have an annual cap on their childcare subsidies. (Time expired)
Senator Hughes, a final supplementary question.
Can the minister outline to the Senate how the government's record childcare funding has delivered access to childcare services and supported economic opportunity since it was first elected?
Thank you, again, for the question. Today over 280,000 more children are in child care, and women's workforce participation has reached a record high, as I said, of 61.8 per cent in March this year, which is up from 58.7 per cent when Labor last left office. Let's never forget, when Labor were in government, fees went up 53 per cent, including a one-year spike of 14.5 per cent. Now, under Labor's so-called universal child care, a family earning a half a million dollars would receive $50,000 of taxpayer money for two children in full-time child care. This universal child care means they really don't care if parents are working to be eligible and they don't really have faith in parents actually deciding what is right for their families. Again, under this government— (Time expired)
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Senator Reynolds) and the Minister for Finance (Senator Birmingham) to the questions asked by Senator Green and Senator Keneally.
I, more than anyone in this chamber, knows how good a place regional Queensland is. I spend an awful lot of time there. I have many family members there and, even just over the last five years, I have seen the fantastic industries, the fantastic people and the fantastic natural environment of regional Queensland. But, for all of that benefit, regional Queensland also has significant challenges. It needs more jobs, it needs more job security, it needs a government that once and for all will tackle the scourge of casualisation and labour hire that is endemic across regional Queensland, it needs reef infrastructure and it needs health services.
If there was any political party represented in this place that would be more concerned about those issues and what regional Queensland really needs, you would think it would be the National Party. You would think it would be the party that holds itself out as being the voice of farmers, the voice of regional communities and the voice and the advocate for all of those kinds of issues I have just talked about. But what we've seen over the last few days, particularly today, is the worst rerun of a television program you can ever imagine. That's right; we had yet another Nationals leadership squabble. I've lost count of how many leadership squabbles there have been in the National Party, even in the five years I've been here.
We in Labor were reflecting before that we have had Abbott-Truss, Turnbull-Truss, Turnbull-McCormack—or was there someone in between?—and Morrison-McCormack. Now we are back to Morrison-Joyce. There are probably combinations there I can't remember, because there have been so many changes in the Nationals. There have been so many changes in the Nationals, because they are so obsessed with fighting themselves rather than doing anything about any of those issues I just listed, which are of real concern to people in regional Queensland. Where is the National Party when we need more jobs in Central Queensland or anywhere across Queensland? Where are the Nationals when we need something actually done about casualisation and labour hire in the mining industry? You can't count on the Nationals to be there; they're too busy dressing up for their next leadership challenge. That's what the Nationals are spending their time on. The Nationals have just become a bunch of babies, a bunch of children, squabbling over a toy. It's like Barnaby has one hand on that toy, saying, 'I want it. I want it,' then you have Michael McCormack, saying, 'I want it, I want it'. You have Matt Canavan in between trying to pull one leg out. You have Bridget McKenzie pulling another off.
Senator Watt, I remind you to refer to other senators and MPs by their correct titles.
Thank you, Madam Deputy President. You have every member of the National Party and every senator from the National Party in there squabbling, trying to pull the toy of the National Party leadership apart. All the while, regional Queenslanders are left in the lurch, looking for jobs, looking for job security, looking for an end to casualisation and labour hire, looking for decent health services, looking for infrastructure—all the kinds of things that the National Party should actually be focusing on.
To their credit, the outgoing Leader of the National Party, Mr McCormack, joined by the member for Capricornia, Michelle Landry, today admitted that people in regional Queensland don't want to see the Nationals have another leadership challenge, especially in the middle of a pandemic. But that's exactly what Mr McCormack's and Ms Landry's colleagues have served up again today. When regional Queenslanders are wondering when they will get their vaccine from this government, they get another leadership challenge. When regional Queenslanders are wondering when the National Party will finally do something about casualisation and labour hire, they get another leadership challenge from the National Party. That's what we know lies ahead, because it happens every six months or so. We have leadership challenge after leadership challenge in the National Party, while all these issues in regional Queensland get ignored by the party that claims to represent them.
It's all coming to a head, of course, around what this government's policy is around emissions. If anyone knows what this government's position is on net zero emissions, please explain it to me, because I certainly don't know, and I don't think anyone in Australia knows either. We've got the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, claiming that he wants to get to net zero emissions preferably by 2050. We've got the British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, out there saying that Mr Morrison has already committed to net zero emissions by 2050. We've got Mr Pitt and any number of other National Party members saying that's not the government's position. In fact, when we were asking Senator Birmingham and other ministers about this today, to agree that the government's position is to get to net zero emissions by 2050, preferably, who was sitting over there shaking her head? It was the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, Senator McKenzie. The Nationals have not signed up to this. We don't know what the government's position is. (Time expired)
How quickly those opposite forget about squabbles and changes. I seem to remember prime ministers—was it Rudd-Gillard-Rudd?—with some squabbles over that side, too, over similar sorts of issues, I suspect. I'm very glad that Senator Watt has asked about jobs. I think it was very telling, what we saw with our most recent jobs figures, which I'm pulling up now for Senator Watt—but he's, sadly, left us. It was easy to see that employment surged by 115,000 jobs in May to a record high. These are across regions, not just in the big cities. Full-time employment rose by 97,500 to a record high. The unemployment rate fell by 0.4 per cent to 5.1 per cent in May. The participation rate rose by 0.3 per cent to 66.2 per cent. So it's very clear, in answer to Senator Watt, that we are creating jobs. Whether in his regional Queensland, whether in regional Victoria, which I am a proud senator of, we are creating jobs in record numbers that that side of politics has never, ever been able to do.
Senator Watt was also asking about our vaccine rollout strategy. It was a very good question, and I'm happy to be able to update him on some of those numbers as well as the goal of net zero by 2050. As those opposite know, the only target the Paris Agreement requires is a 2030 target, which we have. We're yet to hear from those opposite about what theirs is. While this morning the Leader of the Opposition was ducking and weaving about what their 2030 target would be, we have committed to and are on our way to achieving our targets for 2030. We have runs on the board for this. We beat our target for Kyoto by 439 million tonnes, I think it was. I'll come back to the Senate if I'm wrong on that, but I believe it was about that.
Senator Rennick interjecting—
It was 459 million tonnes; thank you, Senator Rennick. That's why our approach is working. It's driven by how, not when. This is the problem. There is no-one who can tell us how to get to net zero by 2050. The technologies that will get us there don't currently exist. Other countries may be able to say that, because they have power such as—what's that other one we talk about a lot on this side?—nuclear power. That may be something that we have in Australia in the future, but not now—
Senator Ayres interjecting—
no more than we have hydrogen power in commercial quantities. I'll take any interjection that Senator Ayres wants to give me. Madam Deputy President, you might want to pull up those interjectors, that being your job. We are doing so much by pulling together to get to net zero emissions. Our vaccine rollout is going exactly as it should be. We are managing the economy better than those opposite ever could. I don't think it's very clear from that side of politics—particularly Senator Watt and Senator Ayres, who love to come in here and chuck around little jokes and slurs on those on this side that rarely get pulled up—if they can claim any goals at all. What are they going to do with Paris? What's your Paris goal? What's your road map? Are you just going to use renewables? Are you going to put up more wind towers and solar panels? We're not hearing any details on that. The response that your side gives us has the same effect on me, Senator Ayres; it bores me to tears and makes me yawn like you just did.
Senator Van, I would remind you not to reflect on other senators. You can speak about senators in the third person.
I was making an observation.
You make it to the chair, not directly to senators. Please continue.
Senator Ayres interjecting—
We have no doubt that you'll give us that, Senator Ayres. I thank the opposition for their time and Senator Ayres for his entertainment, and I look forward to it being returned in kind.
May we say, 'Australians all let us rejoice,' but I'm sure the response from people all around the country is going to be, 'Must we really rejoice?' We have had eight years of tired, dysfunctional government with no plan for the future, a track record of the lowest productivity growth in 50 years and no plan on climate and energy. What have we had? As Senator Watt said, we've had Abbott and Truss, we've had Turnbull and Truss, we've had Turnbull and Joyce, we've had Turnbull and McCormack, we've had Morrison and McCormack, and now we're back to Morrison and Joyce. It has been eight long years of tired, ineffective government entirely focused on itself. This government has become much worse under the current Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, with its tendency for secrecy, its obsession with marketing, its requirement for spin at all costs and its capacity for deflection. When the country needed something more, when the country needed leadership to fix this tired old mess of a government, who did the National Party turn to when we really needed to focus on the interests of regional Australians? They've given us poor old Mr Joyce. Why isn't there anybody from the National Party here in the Senate defending Mr Joyce? Why isn't there anybody in the National Party on their feet in this debate? I'll tell you why: because they're all on the telephone, only interested in their own jobs. Where's Senator McKenzie? She's lobbying to make sure she gets a job out of this. Where are the other National Party senators? They're in corridor meetings trying to make sure they squeeze something out of this tired, incompetent government regarding jobs for themselves, the only jobs they're interested in.
Poor old Mr Joyce. As a backbencher, he was still putting out Christmas videos. At Christmas time in 2019, he did this deranged beetroot-faced video from some paddock out the back of Walcha. In the video, he said: 'Look, I just don't want the government any more in my life. I'm sick of the government being in my life.' Well, not anymore. He's going to get plenty of the government in his life. He's going to get plenty of it. He's looking forward to the big salary, he's looking forward to the ministerial cars, he's looking forward to lots of staff and he's looking forward to throwing his weight around all the corridors of Canberra. But, I will tell you what, the people who miss out—as always—will be the people of regional Australia. Poor old Darren Chester, first to get the job—
Senator Ayres—
Poor old Mr Chester—former Minister Chester—who, we're told, is the only decent person among that bunch of clowns looking for a rodeo. He's the only one who has shown any decency over the course of the last eight years of this miserable, incompetent government, and he's the first to get the chop, because the people surrounding Mr Joyce are going to make sure they get what's coming to them out of this leadership change.
Mr Joyce left with very serious allegations surrounding him, from the short period that Mr Turnbull was in office. They have not been satisfactorily dealt with. Despite the findings about the allegations brought by Ms Marriott—that she was forthright, believable, open and genuinely upset—the National Party in its investigation into itself said, 'Unable to make a determination'. What has driven this change? I will tell you what: it's all about climate change, as it always is. The only thing that this is going to do is improve the old podcast industry. I'm not sure whether it's 'weatherboard' that's being deleted or 'iron', but poor old Mr Joyce—it will be very interesting to see whether he continues his podcast. (Time expired)
What a time to be alive! Never before have the forces between darkness and evil been more clear than here today. What we've had here today is nothing but a vile session of putrid, personal smears—a fantasy target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Senator Watt has the audacity to come in here and talk about regional Queensland and somehow blame the Nationals for everything that's gone wrong in regional Queensland. Let me tell you something, Acting Madam Deputy President, state Labor is responsible for the destruction of—
Senator Rennick, resume your seat, please. Senator McCarthy?
Point of order: you are the Deputy President.
Thank you, Senator McCarthy. Senator Rennick, I was allowing you in the full spirit of things to let yourself go.
Apologies. Where do we start when it comes to regional Queensland? What we have here is a state Labor government who privatised nearly all of the assets that the state government owned, including Queensland Rail, Golden Casket, Forestry Plantations and the Port of Brisbane. They sold the Port of Brisbane—six times earnings, a monopoly—a 99-year lease. And they wonder why the state of Queensland is going broke.
I will tell you what our policy is, by the way, when it comes to energy: it is cheap and reliable energy that is going to create jobs in the manufacturing sector—not in the imports, not in the cost sector, creating energy; no. We had the world's cheapest energy from the world's best coal when Labor came to power in 1990. But that has all been destroyed thanks to the mismanagement of the Queensland Labor government and the fact that they now subsidise foreign companies to come to Queensland and generate renewable energy. Queensland coal-fired power stations and gas power stations have the potential to generate 13 gigawatts of energy a day. The most Queensland has ever used is nine gigawatts. In order to meet their 50 per cent target, they are going to add another 20 gigawatts of renewable energy, despite the fact that they don't need it, because we already have sufficient supply to meet demand. They will drive Queensland owned energy companies—the last thing the Queensland Labor government didn't sell—into the ground. Last year the Queensland energy companies lost $1½ billion because they had to get turned off all the time, while the foreign owned renewable companies had the opportunity to make money. The other thing is that, with all this wonderful talk about net zero 2050, blah, blah, those who are doing the heavy lifting in this country when it comes to reducing emissions are our farmers, with their reductions in land use.
I just want to quote some figures here on how much money is being invested in reducing carbon emissions across Australia. In New South Wales, there's $630 million being invested in reducing carbon emissions; in Victoria, a measly $15 million; in the ACT, nothing; in WA, $109 million; and, in the Northern Territory, $38 million. But, in Queensland, there's $886 million being invested in buying back land, locking up land, agricultural land, in order to reduce carbon emissions. And do you know where the bulk of that is? It's on my turf, the Darling Downs in the south-west, where it's $523 million. That's almost as much as the entire amount in New South Wales and more than the rest of the states combined. This is typical. Labor love to talk the talk, but they never walk the walk. When are all these inner-city people who want to reduce emissions going to start riding their pushbikes to work, stop taking aeroplane flights and turn their air conditioning off, rather than pushing farmers in south-west Queensland out of jobs? When are they going to start walking the walk for a change, instead of dictating to everyone else what should happen?
As for meeting 2050 targets, why should this country be subservient to other nations? We remember well, during the Hawke-Keating government, when Hawke took the states to the High Court in 1983 to block the building of the Franklin Dam. Had that dam been built, that would have been carbon-free energy. You know what Tasmania did for the rest of the eighties? They voted against Labor. Do you know how Tasmania's going now, since they have allowed more dams and weirs to be built? They're the second strongest economy in the country, thanks to the building of dams. But do we see that in Queensland? No, we don't. What's the state government doing? They're ripping down our own dams. They're ripping down Paradise Dam. That's a carbon-free source of energy if they put a generator on the end of it—but no, no, no. They're happy to pull down Australian made, Australian owned clean energy and then pay foreigners to produce energy that, after all, isn't all that clean because it's come from solar panels and batteries and wind turbines that can't be recycled.
I also rise to take note of answers given by Minister Reynolds to questions without notice asked by Senators Green and Keneally, relating to the new Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce. Let's just look across the chamber at this crew. They're unable to roll out vaccines, they're unable to roll out quarantine, but the Nationals rolled out the grand old man to put in yesterday's man. What an indication of where this crew is up to. Look at the sorts of questions we now have in front of us. On a day when we have a crisis recurring with COVID-19 cases, with exposure sites across New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland; on a day when an emergency national cabinet meeting was convened; on a day when the premiers, both Liberal and Labor, of multiple states are sounding the alarm about a shortage of Pfizer vaccines, the coalition government thought it was a good time to have a leadership spill again. The government can't roll out a vaccine to save their lives—or the lives of Australians—but they are experts at rolling out their leaders.
It was only in February last year that the Nationals last had a spill motion. So, if the Australian people are wondering what their elected members of parliament and senators have been doing in the last 18 months in Canberra, you'll be very surprised! What they've been doing is looking after themselves. If people are curious about why the federal government can't organise a vaccine rollout, can't organise a quarantine system, can't grow wages for the Australian middle class and are predicting a wage decline in the forward estimates, now we know one of the reasons why—because one half of the coalition government has spent the last 18 months plotting and scheming among themselves. Instead of doing the job they're paid so handsomely to come to Canberra and do.
Today I'm thinking particularly of Australians living in regional communities, areas that the Nationals are supposed to represent in this place. I'm thinking of coalminers in the Illawarra, in the Hunter and in Queensland who are being shoved into labour hire jobs on lower pay, without any entitlements or job security. The Nationals come to Canberra and masquerade as coalminers' friends, all the while voting for a bill to overturn the Federal Court's decision that labour hire coal workers are entitled to basic employment rights. The Nationals voted to strip those rights away. The workers and their families in regional areas depend on the agriculture sector, but there should be good pay and secure jobs in sectors like horticulture in our regions. Instead, under the National Party, these jobs are reserved for exploited migrant workers. In fact, just last week the Liberal-National government announced a new agricultural visa aimed at importing and exploiting workers from South-East Asia. That visa, reportedly, will be less regulated than the Seasonal Worker Program.
The British know these schemes are exploitative. That's why they just negotiated with the Prime Minister to get an exemption. Last week I met with a Taiwanese woman named Kate, who was paid $4 an hour picking oranges on a farm in Renmark, South Australia. She said, 'I went dumpster diving to find food in recycled bins at supermarkets when I didn't have enough money.' This is the sort of economy that the Nationals promote in regional Australia. When bad employers pay migrants $4 an hour and force them to eat out of the bin, how are Australian workers in regional communities supposed to get a decent-paying job?
Of course, the exploitative nature of mining and agriculture isn't the reason we have another Nationals leadership spill; it's just petty internal politics to restore yesterday's man in a position for which he has already proven himself unfit. It is yet another sign of a tired, bloated incompetent government which has failed to turn around regional Australia. Australians, during this most difficult period, deserve proper leadership, considered leadership and a leadership that is focused very much on making sure that Australians are better off, not what the Nationals propose—that Australians are going to be worse off.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate takes note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Treasurer (Senator Birmingham) to a question without notice asked by Senator Siewert today relating to charity law.
I rise to take note of the answer—or should I say nonanswer—from the Leader of the Senate representing the Treasurer in this place to my question around charity law. I'm deeply distressed that he couldn't answer it, because this statement 3 will have a significant impact on charities in this country. Make no mistake, the government knows, because it's been told—and in a minute I will read out quotes from some of the organisations that will be affected—that it's going to have an effect on charities in this country, which is exactly why they're doing it. It's exactly why they are trying to browbeat, bully and threaten charities into not taking up advocacy, into not doing their work.
The Community Council of Australia, in its submission to the exposure draft of statement 3, says:
The proposed changes to the ACNC governance standards will diminish our democracy—
which is exactly what the government wants to happen—
They will silence some charities by creating fear about potential repercussions. They will impose new limitations on staff and others involved in charities and their capacity to express a view. They will impose significant new regulatory burdens on many charities—
Keep them busy doing regulation, the very things the government said they were trying to cut. Keep them busy with new regulations, new bureaucracy—
They will not achieve their policy purpose. They will diminish the capacity of our communities to voice their concerns.
They also point out that threatening increased enforcement action against charities that support public campaigns and protest action is not going to make governments stronger—quite the contrary. I sincerely and truly support that statement because good policy is made with the advocacy of people at the front line of the advocacy of civil society. That was acknowledged in this place when the legislation to establish the ACNC was passed in 2013. Specifically written into that law was the capacity for charities to advocate; to take up the case to government when it has got it wrong or is not putting in place good policy; to campaign for the most vulnerable in our community in particular; and to complain and advocate for good environmental protection. Let's face it, this is what the government is doing. It doesn't want people raising these issues. That's why it is trying to change standard 3.
In the EM on draft standard 3, the government claims that it is implementing the recommendations of the expert panel on the ACNC, which looked into how the law could be improved. They said, 'Repeal statement 3.' They're not telling the truth in the EM, because it was recommended that standard 3 be removed—yes, to improve some elements of the law, because I'm not saying that some of it could not be improved, as was pointed out by the expert panel. But this government is taking the opportunity to browbeat charities, to make them frightened to speak up, and to put in summary charges when they're not proven. It is trying to curtail actions and to take action against charities for things that are not proven. It is trying to make the ACNC commissioner make judgement on what is lawful or not, when it has the criminal law and statement 5—if charities have broken the law.
This is a blatant attack on charities. The proposed changes will have, as many organisations have said, a chilling effect on the work of charities in this country, which is exactly what the government wants. The government has been aiming to wind back and undermine charities again and again. It has form in this area. It used to have gag clauses in funding agreements with charities that said they couldn't speak out. They could support the most vulnerable and provide services—mop the brow, as they say—but not advocate for policy change. That is exactly what the government is doing. It is trying to deliver on its long-term aim to gut charities, to silence charities, to gag charities and to stop advocacy. That's what the government is on about. The charities know it, and it is already having a chilling effect. Those who are interested should have a read of what the Law Council says, which is that it's very questionable as to whether this is constitutional or not. I bet that this gets through, although I'll work my hardest to stop that. If it does get through, there'll be a constitutional challenge. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to the following senators from 21 to 24 June 2021:
(a) Senator Askew, for personal reasons; and
(b) Senator Chandler, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020, and for related purposes. Coronavirus Economic Response Package Amendment (Ending Jobkeeper Profiteering) Bill 2021.
Question agreed to.
I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
by leave—I table an explanatory memorandum to the bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The Greens are introducing the Ending JobKeeper Profiteering Bill because someone has to hold greedy big corporations to account in this country. The Morrison Government has shown that it is completely unwilling to do so.
In exchange for millions of dollars in political donations from the big end of town, the Liberal and National parties govern in their interests. For years, big corporations have been lining up and getting all sorts of handouts from this government. At the same time, one in three of them do not pay any tax.
During the pandemic, these handouts have included JobKeeper payments. The Morrison Government is allowing big corporations—who have made giant profits and handed over bonuses to their super wealthy directors—to keep public money that was meant to be for workers' wages. The Greens say, very simply: if you're making enough money to buy a private jet or pay executive bonuses, then you should pay back JobKeeper.
This Bill ensures that big corporations are incentivised to do just that. It puts a hold on them claiming GST input credits for up to ten years, unless they repay the amount of JobKeeper funds that they used to profiteer instead of helping their workers. That means those big companies that made profits, paid dividends and/or paid executive bonuses during the financial year they received JobKeeper payments will be motivated to pay it back.
This Bill also introduces some much-needed transparency around the JobKeeper scheme. It requires the Australian Taxation Office to publish a list of big corporations which received JobKeeper payments, and how much they received. This will end the Morrison Government-approved secrecy around JobKeeper profiteering.
The independent Parliamentary Budget Office estimates that over $1 billion in JobKeeper funds has gone to just 65 big corporations, who then went on to make big profits and paid dividends or gave out executive bonuses. This is just the tip of the iceberg, because the government refuses to say just how much public money went in the form of handouts to billionaires and big corporations who were making out like bandits already.
Many of us have been pleading with the billionaires and the big corporations to give it back. But it's not enough to just ask them to pay back JobKeeper; the government and Parliament have to make them do it. Simply appealing to these billionaires' better natures won't work, because they don't have better natures. Billionaire magnate Gerry Harvey, chairman of the Harvey Norman corporation, continues to refuse to pay back JobKeeper, despite the big profits made by the company—hundreds of millions of dollars. He had literally a captive audience during the lockdown. People were shovelling money through the front door, but he had his hand out for more money from the government, which this government was only too willing to give him.
Many small businesses and many workers were able to stay afloat because of JobKeeper. Many businesses that went on to turn a profit have paid some or all of the JobKeeper they received back, but not billionaire Gerry Harvey and not the Harvey Norman corporation.
Instead of lining the pockets of billionaires like Gerry Harvey, the more than $1 billion in JobKeeper profiteering should go to things like schools and hospitals and lifting Australians out of poverty.
I commend this bill to the Senate and urge all parties to support it. It's time to force the billionaires and the big corporations to do the right thing and pay back JobKeeper.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1135 relating to paramedics 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. 1139 be taken as a formal motion.
Is there any objection to this motion be taken as formal?
An honourable senator: Yes.
There is an objection.
I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management, by no later than 7.20 pm on Tuesday, 22 June 2021, the latest version of the Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for Poultry produced by the Independent Poultry Welfare Panel and/or the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The poultry panel standards and guidelines are currently under development by an independent expert panel. The most recent draft version has been provided to stakeholders for comment. Over 900 comments on this version have been received. The independent expert panel is reviewing these comments and considering changes to the standards and guidelines as necessary.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Ministerial Suitability Commission of Inquiry Bill 2021 be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 August 2021.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is a bipartisan framework for the sustainable use of water in the Murray-Darling basin system;
(b) supports a river system that has healthy ecosystems, agricultural production, sustainable local communities and encourages First Nations cultural practices;
(c) further notes the commitment of the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia (Mr Pitt) to recover all of the 450 gigalitres from New South Wales and Victoria in his press release of 4 September 2020; and
(d) supports the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, in full and on time.
I ask that the question be divided so I can vote differently on parts of the motion.
How are you asking for it to be divided?
I ask that (a), (b) and (d) be put separately to (c).
I also ask that the question be divided and that we divide separately on (a), (b), (c) and (d).
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave granted.
One Nation does support completing the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in principle, so we agree with (a), (b) and (d). South Australia is owed 450 gigalitres, with 70 gigalitres already underway. However, One Nation objects to (c). New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland have given up enough water. The farming community has been decimated by what has been taken so far. Enough is enough. Why would anyone think taking water from 2,000 kilometres away, in Queensland, to fix salinity in the Lower Lakes makes more sense than using the water that is right there now, flowing through man-made drains straight out to the sea every time it rains? This is madness. Fresh water flowing into the Southern Ocean is killing the seagrass beds, while the Coorong, which should naturally receive this water, is dying of hypersalinity. This is what Senator O'Neill wants to continue. This is madness. Turn the drains back around and leave the family farms alone.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government is committed to working with the states in a bipartisan manner to support the implementation of the plan through the recovery of water through $1.3 billion of off-farm efficiencies and $234 million for the Murray-Darling Communities Investment Package, all while ruling out further buybacks, which cost jobs and hurt our regional basin communities. The coalition will be opposing part (c) of the motion as it's based on an incorrect interpretation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan as well as a misrepresentation of Minister Pitt's 4 September 2020 media release on the government's commitments to working with the basin states in putting communities at the heart of the plan in its implementation.
We're just going to go through them individually, so that's (a), (b), (c) and (d). Senator Patrick?
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Yes.
One of the things I like about the Murray-Darling is it does turn the Senate into the states' house and we see all the different perspectives and that's very rare. But the fact of the matter is that there was an agreement to the plan and, that included the 450 gigalitres, so you can't walk back from that now. That is an important element. It was something that South Australia negotiated before it ceded powers to the Commonwealth in relation to this, and it can't be rescinded. We need to support the plan in full.
Senator Patrick, I do appreciate we are in a division, but it is appropriate that you speak from your seat.
Opposition senators interjecting—
He is? I beg your pardon, my error. Sorry.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The 450 gigalitres is absolutely essential for the survival of the Murray-Darling Basin and it has been promised in the plan and promised to South Australia. What I am worried about is what on earth is going to happen now that Barnaby Joyce is the Leader of the National Party. This is the bloke who told South Australians, 'If you want more water, move to Queensland.' That is the bloke who is now the Deputy Prime Minister. This is shameful, absolutely shameful. South Australians are going to be worried that the Deputy Prime Minister of this country thinks that South Australia doesn't deserve any water, let alone the 450 gigalitres.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The National Party will be supporting sections (a) and (b) as statements of fact as written. We do not support section (c), as it is a misrepresentation of the facts and, certainly, a misrepresentation and a misquotation of the very press release as asserted. Furthermore, we do not support section (d), because it is a misrepresentation of what is in the Basin Plan. The Basin Plan, as written by former minister Tony Burke back in 2012, said that the extra 450 gigalitres must be based on no negative social and economic impacts, and it has been shown time and time again that there will be negative social and economic impacts. In fact, all basin ministers, including South Australian ones, agreed to the criteria, and that must be respected.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I thank the Senate. Well, it hasn't taken long, has it? We saw what Mr Joyce said about the Murray-Darling plan and about the 450 gigalitres. He said, 'You have not got a hope in Hades'. It's pretty clear the way the National Party is going to operate now under Mr Joyce. South Australians will remember Mr Joyce telling people to move. They will remember Mr Joyce telling South Australians the way to deal with water shortages in the Murray-Darling was for them to move. They will remember the contribution that was just made where the National Party essentially undermined what has been a bipartisan position on the Murray-Darling plan. I look forward to Senators Birmingham and Ruston doing the right thing and making sure they deliver what they said they would.
Thank you. I'm going to put the motion. I'm just going to check, Senator McKenzie, if it is still your wish for (a) and (b) to be put separately?
No, it is not.
The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1127, parts (a) and (b), standing in the name of Senator O'Neill, be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I'm now going to put part (c). The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1127, part (c), standing in the name of Senator O'Neill, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [15:58]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1127, part (d), standing in the name of Senator O'Neill, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:05]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 1137.
Leave granted.
I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate calls on the Federal Government to reject critical race theory from the national curriculum.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Critical race theory is predicated on the belief that the laws and institutions of our nation are inherently racist. This theory is patently false, discredited and without any basis in fact. The national curriculum, which is open for consultation, is agreed by consensus between the Commonwealth and all state and territory education ministers. The federal government will reject any changes to the national curriculum that would give effect to critical race theory within the curriculum.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
It looks like Senator Hanson has been watching a little bit too much of Fox News and Sky News lately. It's hard to imagine she knows much about critical race theory. But know this: we will not stop fighting against systemic racism. We will not stop fighting for people who are marginalised and discriminated against every single day. No matter how much Murdoch media rubbish you regurgitate here and how much you bring in your petty attacks, you will not stop us. You can jump up and down in here with your hate filled stunts, but out there on the streets, tens of thousands of people are marching against systemic racism. Shame on this government for voting for this motion, because that's what it looks like it's going to do. You will be condoning racism and you will be condoning far-Right politics. Murdoch media mouthpieces in here will not dampen our anti-racism movement; in fact, it will strengthen it.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Labor will oppose the motion. It is longstanding practice that the Australian Curriculum—the national curriculum—is developed by education experts, not by senators and not by motions in the Senate.
The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1137 standing in the name of Senator Hanson, as amended, be agreed to.
I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1140 standing in the name of Senator Walsh be taken as formal.
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. 1147 be taken as formal.
Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?
An honourable senator: Yes.
There is an objection.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion being moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.
The question is the motion to suspend standing orders moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the International Energy Agency has documented that to achieve net zero emissions requires, from the year 2021, ̔no new oil and gas fields approved for development',
(ii) the immense amounts of pollution that will be released from these gas fields that will blow Australia's carbon budget and ruin any hope of Australia doing its fair share to stop runaway global warming:
(A) Santos' Barossa gas field,
(B) Woodside's Scarborough gas field,
(C) Santos and Energy Australia's Narrabri gas field in the Pilliga, and
(D) Origin Energy, Santos, Empire Energy's Beetaloo Basin, and
(iii) that in the last nine years these gas companies, their owners and directors have donated at least $3,457,641 to the Liberal and National parties and $2,377,838 to the Labor Party for a total $5,835,469 in political donations; and
(b) calls on the Australian Government to stop taking donations from the companies behind these destructive projects that will turbocharge the breakdown of the world's climate system.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Australia has been a trusted energy supplier to our trading partners for decades and will continue to be under this government. The government will continue to support businesses and commercial sectors of the economy that are critical to our export wealth, our energy security, our economic prosperity and the employment of hundreds of thousands of Australians. Unilaterally withdrawing Australian production will not reduce global demand for those products and will harm Australia's economic interests and energy security and cost Australian jobs.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Although this motion has an element of truth, it's the Greens' contradictions of science and lack of integrity that ruins it. One Nation agrees that donations from the pharmaceutical, banking and energy industries seem to be distorting government policy. The millions of dollars in donations shame the Liberal, National and Labor parties for accepting that money. The public is rightly cynical about the Morrison government's multiple decisions that make no sense, including the current attacks on responsible lending laws, the billions spent on the largest vaccine trial in history and the continued loss of hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue that multinationals don't pay. This is what happens when the Morrison government accommodates a conga line of lobbyists trying to extract the maximum benefit from their political donations.
There are many honest and productive Australian energy companies working in the traditional, proven, reliable effective, cost-effective energy needed to keep the lights on when the Greens' unreliable and expensive wind and solar policies— (Time expired)
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Labor will be opposing this motion. Again, if we actually deal with this part of the program, these are exactly the sorts of motions that have led to the reforms that we're seeking to implement. If the Greens want a debate about renewable energy, energy policy and donation reform then allow the chamber to debate it. Time and time again, they bring these motions to force a vote and then put it out on their social media. Everybody knows that if you want positive action on renewable energy or energy policy in general or donation reform you are going to need a Labor government. Don't bring motions that seek to divide when we should be working together in the interests of the country to make a difference and get a good energy policy and get donation reform.
The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1148 standing in the name of Senator Waters be agreed to.
At the request of Senator Birmingham and pursuant to contingent notice, I move:
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent motion No. 1135 being moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of Senators McLachlan, Small and Urquhart, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) recognises the selfless contribution of paramedics across our nation to Australia's efforts to combat the COVID-19 pandemic;
(b) notes that paramedics:
(i) are one of Australia's most trusted and ethical professions, and
(ii) during their service providing lifesaving care to those in need, are:
(A) at the highest risk of workplace violence compared with other healthcare workers,
(B) twice as likely to develop post-traumatic stress disorder than other emergency services workers,
(C) twice as likely to suicide compared to the general public, and
(D) have the highest risk of workplace injury of any profession in Australia;
(c) acknowledges the significant personal risk as well as the physical and mental health impacts that paramedics experience whilst serving as frontline health professionals in our community; and
(d) calls on state and territory leaders to ensure that those who practise in the field of paramedicine receive the support and recognition they deserve for their incredible service.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to move general business notices of motion Nos 1139 and 1140, and that they be determined without amendment or debate.
Leave granted.
I move general business notices of motion Nos 1139 and 1140 together:
GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1139
That the Senate—
(a) recognises that, over the course of the last week, heavy rains and strong winds have devastated significant parts of Victoria, particularly in the Gippsland region;
(b) notes that, as a result of these weather conditions, many Victorians have incurred significant damage to their homes and businesses and that some remain without electricity, communications services and ready access to drinking water;
(c) acknowledges the tireless work of emergency service personnel and volunteers who have laboured to protect life and property and restore services to those in need; and
(d) expresses its sincere condolences to those who have regrettably lost loved ones.
GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1140
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the Morrison Government's failure to keep Victorians safe because of its disastrous vaccine roll out and failure to build fit for purpose quarantine facilities,
(ii) that vulnerable aged care residents and workers have therefore been put in harm's way by the Federal Government, and
(iii) that as Victorians faced new COVID-19 outbreaks due to a South Australian hotel quarantine breach the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services claimed 'a very positive record across the board with respect to maintaining a safe border for Australia'; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) build dedicated quarantine facilities in every state and territory, and
(ii) complete the vaccine roll out.
I ask that the question be put separately on each motion.
The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1139, standing in the name of Senator Ciccone, be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I table a statement relating to general business motion No. 1140.
by leave—I table a short statement on general business motion No. 1140.
The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1140 standing in the name of Senator Walsh be agreed to.
I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1138, about the $450-per-month threshold for employer superannuation contributions, be taken as formal.
Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal? There is an objection.
I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1143, about the hemp industry, be taken as formal.
Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal? There is an objection.
I seek leave to make a very short statement, of just 30 seconds.
Leave not granted.
Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Whish-Wilson moving the motion immediately and the motion being determined without amendment or debate.
Senator Whish-Wilson, are you seeking to suspend to make a statement or to put the motion?
I might suspend to make a statement if that gives me five minutes to make a statement.
It's your call to make, not mine to advise.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Whish-Wilson making a statement about notice of motion No. 1143.
I remind senators that we are voting to suspend standing orders to allow Senator Whish-Wilson to make a short statement. The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Whish-Wilson to suspend be agreed to.
Iinform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, 28 proposals were received. In accordance with standing order 75, the question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter from Senator Rice proposing a matter of public importance was chosen.
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
Members of the Morrison Government have called for ads on the ABC and for Australia's national youth broadcaster, Triple J, to be sold. The Senate agrees that the public broadcaster should remain ad free and that Triple J should not be privatised.
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 discussion. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.
I rise today to contribute to this debate. The reason is that last week I became very concerned sitting here and listening to the contribution in this place by Senator McGrath. In an absolute spray and attack on our public broadcaster, it called for Triple J to be privatised and sold off. Senator McGrath called for it to be advertised and sold off on Gumtree. He called for ads on the ABC and made a number of other veiled attacks on our national broadcaster.
We know that this government has had the knives out for the public broadcaster from day dot, right back to when Tony Abbott promised no cuts to the ABC, only to, 12 months later, bring in massive cuts to the public broadcaster. It has never stopped since then. In the national Liberal Party room, only a couple of sitting weeks ago, we heard members of this government standing up and attacking the chairperson of the ABC and attacking the hardworking staff of our public broadcaster. Then, of course, there's Mr Kroger, former president of the Liberal Party, going on Sky News and demanding that Ita Buttrose, the chair of the ABC, go.
These attacks are absolutely unfounded. They are the stuff of a boys' locker room. They are petty. It sends a message to some of the knuckle draggers in the Liberal Party that they might want to hear, to beat up on the public broadcaster, to beat up another woman in charge, to beat up on facts, news and public interest journalism. But what we have now is members in this place, members of the government, senior members of the team in this Senate, calling for Triple J to be sold off. Is this the platform that the Morrison-Joyce government are going to be taking to this election? What does Mr Joyce think about selling off Triple J, putting ads on the ABC and this attack on the public broadcaster? Does Mr Barnaby Joyce, the new Deputy Prime Minister, think that regional Australia want to have ads on their ABC? I think not. What's next, paywalling iView? That's where this leads. What you've got from this government is cut after cut after cut, attack after attack after attack. Then, once the ABC is struggling, they say, 'We'll just sell it off, like everything else.'
There's going to be an election either at the end of this year or early next year, and the Morrison-Barnaby Joyce government are telling the electorate that they want to sell the ABC and fill it full of advertising, paywall ABC iView, flog off Triple J. I don't think Australians are going to be very happy about this at all. Australians love our national broadcaster. When they need trustworthy news and analysis, when they need information in times of crisis—what do they do? I'll tell you what: they don't turn on Sky News. They don't open up their Murdoch rag. They turn on the radio or they turn on the TV or they go to ABC online and they hear, directly, what they need to hear from the trusted source that is the national broadcaster.
We know that during the summer bushfires back in 2019-20 Australians relied so much on the information that was coming from the national broadcaster, in terms of those emergency warnings. What does this government want to do? In between a warning about a bushfire they're going to run an ad, probably from Harvey Norman. In the midst of this pandemic, who have the Australian people and the community turned to, to know what's really going on with COVID-19, the vaccine rollout, the safety information, the health information about this health pandemic? Thank goodness they weren't listening to members of the National Party or the Liberal Party, who don't even believe the science and the health advice, often. No, they've been turning to the ABC and listening to Dr Swan, because they trust the information that is coming from the public broadcaster.
As we move towards the election, let's be very clear. If you want to protect the public broadcaster, if you want to save the ABC, if you love Triple J, then you have to vote this mob out. The attacks are not even veiled anymore. They are blatant. They are unhinged. The personal vitriol thrown towards Ita Buttrose, as the chairperson of the ABC, from men in the Liberal-National Party is just appalling. Is there a strong woman in leadership that this government doesn't like—another woman to tear down, just like they did to Christine Holgate? Now they want to do it to Ita Buttrose. They can't stand strong women and they can't stand facts, information and the public broadcaster having the support that it does from the Australian community.
Is Barnaby Joyce, now having been elected as the Deputy Prime Minister, going to go around regional Australia spruiking this platform advocated by Senator McGrath—ads on the ABC, a paywall on ABC iview, the selling of ABC radio stations to the highest bidder and the filling of our emergency news with advertising? There is a reason this government doesn't like the ABC. It's because it doesn't like scrutiny. There is a reason the government doesn't like the public broadcaster. It's because it doesn't like being asked tough questions. We know because every time the Prime Minister gets a tough question from somebody in the press gallery or from a journalist out in regional Australia, he attacks them and dismisses the question: 'Oh, that's just the Canberra bubble.' No, it's a question about your ability as a leader of this country, Prime Minister. It's your responsibility, if you want the top job, to answer the tough questions. Rather than being upfront, rather than telling the Australian people what he really wants to do and rather than being accountable and transparent, the Prime Minister lets the attack dogs in the Liberal and National parties run riot about the ABC.
If you want to protect the public broadcaster, if you love the ABC, if you think that regional news needs to be independent, if you love Australian music, if you love knowing what's really going on and if you want access to emergency services information instantly, when it's needed and at hand, then you've got to protect the ABC, and that means voting this mob out. It means making sure they can't get their claws into any more of our public broadcaster. The Liberal and National parties like to kick the ABC and use it as a punching bag. Thank God there is such a strong will within the Australian community to protect our public broadcaster, to protect news and to support and demand accountability, and thank goodness for Ita Buttrose, who is standing strong in the face of such disgusting vitriol from members of the Liberal Party and from members of the National Party—from members of Mr Morrison and Mr Joyce's team.
You might think the Liberal party bullyboys have got their way with Ita. I'll tell you what. She eats men like you for breakfast, mate, and she won't be cowering under your attacks on the ABC.
Triple j should be sold and there should be ads on the ABC. It's simple. When we get to the model of the ABC, it's very important to understand the history of where the Australian Broadcasting Corporation comes from. From its commencement back in 1932 as the Australian Broadcasting Commission and, further back in history, its commencement in 1928 as the National Broadcasting Service, it was established to fill a gap in the market. We're talking about a period of Australian history when the medium was just emerging. The cricket scores weren't broadcast live from Lords; they were actually sent by telegram. The radio wireless operators would read out the telegrams as if they were live scores being replayed from London. That was 90 years ago. The media market has moved on since then. Since then, there has been invented this wonderful thing called the internet, which means every device like the smartphone I'm holding is a device for us to seek news, to be a purveyor of news, to transmit news and to give an informed opinion on the world.
During a particularly boring part of the Senate sitting while the Greens were speaking before, I was reading The Times and The Daily Telegraph online, seeing the latest that's happening overseas. That's very important. We find this to be a very patronising approach from those on the Left, who think there has to be a taxpayer funded national broadcasting service. There actually doesn't have to be a taxpayer funded national broadcasting service. In my home state of Queensland, back in the 1920s, we had taxpayer owned butcher shops. Even in the town of Babinda, there was a government owned pub. Society has moved on since then. The failure of the ABC and the board, including the chair, is to understand how Australians get their news and that there is a plurality in the media market. For the ABC to constantly and consistently portray themselves as being the sole arbiter of all that is right and just in this world is just an example of this poor, sanctimonious approach they take to people who live outside the Canberra bubble.
What the ABC fail to understand, especially when they don't understand those on the centre-Right of politics, is that I don't want a right-wing ABC. I don't want a left-wing ABC. If there is to be an ABC, it should be an impartial national broadcaster. But, sadly, the ABC consistently fail to understand that people voted for Scott Morrison as Prime Minister. People like Scott Morrison as Prime Minister. The ABC just don't get that. When I ask the question, 'Name one conservative commentator or journalist on the ABC,' the Left go feral and say, 'Why are you asking that question?' It's because consistently there are no conservative commentators or journalists on the ABC. I just want one conservative commentator on the ABC—just one. Give me one. The fact that the ABC consistently fail to do that shows to me that they are snubbing those quiet, aspirational Australians. So the question must be: why should the taxpayers pay for it? Why should the taxpayers pay for a national broadcasting service that fails to consistently appreciate how most Australians live their lives?
I'm someone who actually is a fan of the ABC. I like the ABC. I think the ABC should be reformed to save itself. I think we need to sell off the inner-city headquarters, sell off Ultimo, that grand palace that would make a German prince blush, and sell off the headquarters in Brisbane and Sydney and move all of the staff out of the CBDs to suburbs. Queensland would love to see the ABC staff based in Beenleigh or Burpengary or further west to Thargomindah—somewhere like that. It should get out of the CBD. That would help those staff realise that that latte bubble is not how most Australians live.
Secondly, I think there should be a review of the charter and the governing act. There hasn't been a detailed review for some time. That review should look into what the purpose of a taxpayer funded national broadcasting service is and, if there is to be one, should there be ads on it? I think there should be ads on the ABC. There are ads on the SBS. Certainly the quality of programming on the SBS has not been diluted in any way or form. But, also, Triple J should be sold. It goes to why the ABC was set up in the first place. It was set up to fill a gap in the market. Triple J is, by all accounts, I'm told, a successful radio station that garners a particular demographic, especially those who are 15 to 25. Funnily enough, those between the ages of 15 and 25 have quite a lot of money to spend. So you'd find that advertisers would be very keen to advertise on Triple J. It could be self-funding. So why don't we just sell it off and let it be self-funded? You will have that quality music that those opposite seem so obsessed with, but it would mean the taxpayers aren't funding Triple J.
The third point on how we should reform the ABC goes to the recruitment of their staff. There are many fine and good people who work at the ABC; I acknowledge that. But there is a groupthink that has taken over that organisation, and it has got particularly worse. These are staff who work together—they're lovely people, but they think the same. They think Scott Morrison should not be Prime Minister. It's this Scott Morrison derangement syndrome. They can't believe that Bill Shorten didn't win the last election and that Scott Morrison is somehow Prime Minister. They've never, ever come to terms with that. We see that most particularly with some of the recent programs. I will mention Four Corners. A couple of weeks ago, Four Corners attacked the Prime Minister because he has a friend who has some—I would say—wacky views. The Prime Minister was very strong in condemning the views of QAnon. But what the ABC failed to mention in the program was that one of their key witnesses is a serial conspiracy theorist who has twice been detained by the fixated persons unit of the Queensland police and admits he took part in the TV program to politically damage Scott Morrison.
So here is the ABC allowing, quite frankly, a nut job to go on their so-called premier current affairs program and attack the Prime Minister. Of course, the ABC didn't say, 'Oh, and this person has been twice detained by the Queensland police because they're a nut job.' Rather, they put them up on a pedestal. What the ABC fails to understand is that those on the centre-right of politics are sick of you. It is very dangerous for you in the ABC, because why should the taxpayers of this country continue to fund an organisation that continually derides and sells down those of us who have centre-right views? I can tell you that the thought leaders in the centre-right community around Australia are also sick of the ABC. The ABC needs to reform itself, and the challenge is for Ita Buttrose to understand that the centre-right of politics is continually and increasingly questioning the role of the ABC in modern society and questioning whether there is a need for the ABC.
In my maiden speech, I said that, if the ABC doesn't reform itself, it should be privatised, but that there should be a rural and regional broadcasting service. I repeat that today. I think it is time for the government to look at whether the ABC should be halved—whether we should have a rural and regional broadcasting service and then sell off the rest, if the ABC won't reform itself. On behalf of the taxpayers of Australia, who put billions of dollars a year into this organisation: we want value for our money and we're not getting it at the moment.
I, too, rise to speak on this matter of public importance. I wasn't quite sure, just then, if I was sitting here in the Senate or in a Young Liberals branch meeting or even in Senator McGrath's living room, listening to him shout at his television. Perhaps it's best to let Senator McGrath's contribution speak for itself, rather than me unpacking it line by line.
The ABC has a long and proud history at the heart of the Australian media landscape. It is consistently one of our most trusted institutions, with 72 per cent of Australians agreeing that the ABC is their most trusted source of news and current affairs. During the depths of the COVID pandemic, 61 per cent of Australians tuned into its digital platforms, showing that when accurate, timely information really matters Australians turn to the ABC. It's an incredibly valued and impactful institution. Its flagship current affair programs have shaped news coverage and driven significant policy change. Children's content, like Bluey, has become an international phenomenon.
Despite the assertions of some of those opposite, the ABC is not some ivory tower in the inner cities. In regional Australia, including regional South Australia, it is more important than ever. Often the ABC is still the only provider of vital local content. It keeps Australians connected with their communities and the broader nation, as shown by their weekly reach among regional Australians being 49 per cent.
The ABC also saves lives in times of disaster. We've seen it time and time again, and we saw it also during the Black Summer bushfires in my state. South Australians tuned into the ABC to get the vital and critical information they needed to keep their families safe. If that's not relevance to regional South Australians, I don't know what is.
Despite the clear importance the ABC holds for Australia and Australians, including the regional South Australians that Senator McGrath was talking about before, it has been subject to burdensome efficiency measures and ideologically driven cuts under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison/Truss-Joyce-McCormack-Joyce governments—I think I've got them all there. In 2020, the ABC were facing an $83 million cut in funding, forcing them to operate on increasingly fine margins and putting enormous strain on their staff, systems and programs. I sat there in estimates as the minister tried to deny they were making these cuts, but they were; the cuts were in black and white, and they were confirmed by the CFO at the time. Those cuts meant that 250 staff could be facing the sack. There was an enormous amount of talent, passion and knowledge on the line for our national broadcaster. Of course, it's not just staffing which is under threat. When the Liberals enforce these brutal cuts, it's programs like the flagship 7.45 am radio news bulletin, which was cut after 81 years on air. Many other iconic programs have faced reduced episodes and resourcing. In every one of the eight long years that have passed since Tony Abbott's false promise of 'no cuts to the ABC', this Liberal government has embarked on brutal cuts which leave Australians with less and less service from their loved and cherished national broadcaster.
Senator McGrath has come in here today and openly called for the ABC to be privatised. He has openly made that call. It's not veiled, it's not hidden; that's what he wants to see—a member of the Liberal government, quite high up on the Senate ticket, if my memory serves me correctly, calling for the ABC to be privatised. These are calls which go deep within their ranks.
But let's imagine if the ABC were privatised and their board were suddenly responsible for delivering a profit to shareholders. Would they still broadcast the important emergency information, ad free, that keeps Australians safe? Would they invest in valuable Australian made TV over cookie-cutter television content produced overseas? Would they still have local journalists in regional areas or, like some of the commercial networks have done, would they just have centrally produced news grabs filmed in other states? A privatised ABC would be a disaster. It would be a disaster for all Australians.
Of course, something that is often lost in these discussions about the future of the ABC is triple J and how these absurd calls from Senator McGrath to see it privatised would impact young Australians. It's no real surprise to me that these calls to privatise triple J are coming from those who haven't been particularly relevant to triple J's target market for several decades. Triple J is the incubator of unique and experimental Australian music. South Australian artists like George Alice and the most recent Unearthed High winners, Teenage Joans, all featured on triple J, leading to broader commercial success. It's not just those on Unearthed; it's also the other Australian musicians, bands and artists who get that valuable airtime on triple J which leads to other commercial opportunities which wouldn't have been there otherwise.
And it's not just music. Triple J is also home to exceptional reporting through the Hack program, which is reported, produced and broadcast by young people for young people, covering topics which impact young Australians—Australians who often feel ignored by this Liberal government and often feel ignored by the other networks. In just the past few months, the team at Hack has produced stories on consent reforms; the failure of online dating platforms to address sexual harassment and assault; and in-depth reporting on how the federal budget impacts young people. These stories matter to young people. Having relevant content produced for them and by them matters to young people, and, without triple J, it is unlikely they would be able to access it. Particularly under a privatised Triple J it's hard to see how this content would continue or how this support for our budding Australian artists would continue. Very few institutions in Australia have the reach and impact amongst young Australians that Triple J can boast. Most of us would have tuned into it when we were young. Maybe I'll reflect on that, looking around the chamber. Certainly some of us would have tuned into Triple J when we were younger.
An honourable senator: I did.
There we go—a broad cross-section of this chamber tuned into Triple J when we were young. So shouldn't we stand up for them now, when they continue to provide that vital service to young Australians?
Of course, it's not just the youth who would be affected but kids, too. Ads on the ABC would be a disaster for the children who tune in afternoon after afternoon. Do we really want our kids exposed to ads while they're watching Play School or when they put on The Gruffalo after school and having a snack, being exposed to advertising for anything from junk food, games, toys and gambling to ads from the private sector that we can't necessarily control? Corporate advertising on the ABC would be a slippery slope, and our kids could be some of the most affected.
The ABC produces some of Australia's—actually the world's—best children's programming. For countless families across Australia, as in my household, Kangaroo Beach and Bluey are absolute staples. I'm grateful that my three-year-old can turn on the TV and find age-appropriate, educational and engaging content. It's hard to imagine any of these shows getting the investment required and, therefore, the reach if it weren't for the ABC. Developmentally appropriate content on television is absolutely critical. It's particularly critical for vulnerable kids who don't have access to some of the commercial content, who can't afford Netflix and who can't afford other pay-per-view providers. It matters to those kids. It matters that that's on the ABC.
Of course, it's not just our ABC which is under attack from this government. Community television in my state of South Australia and in Melbourne and Geelong is also being systematically attacked by the Liberal government. Community television is incredibly important to South Australians and Victorians. It contributes so much to our communities, but it's facing a rapidly approaching end, thanks to this Liberal government. During the pandemic, community TV was there for South Australians and Victorians, especially people of faith in my state, who couldn't go to their services because they were closed down due to the pandemic. Community TV provides incredible training opportunities and job opportunities. I've spoken to people from Channel 44 who got their start as volunteers at that station and were then able to use that to get work commercially. Instead of valuing this asset, the Liberals want to kick it off the air. They want to kick it off the air when it costs them nothing to keep it on the air, and they have no plans to replace it. They're kicking community television off the air to replace it with static. It is absolutely unacceptable. It's an ideologically driven attack on community TV from a government and a minister who hold a callous disrespect for those who make it and watch it, just as they do for the ABC. They attack precious community assets that matter to Australians, and we won't stand for it.
In making this speech today, I'd like to dedicate it to that wonderful organisation, ABC Friends, and particularly to my mate in Western Australia Margo Webb, who recently chased me down and gave me the forms and information to become a 'friend' of the ABC. She also got me to become an official member of an organisation here in parliament which I'd assumed I was already part of, which was the Parliamentary Friends of the ABC.
I was lucky enough to spend a bit of time chatting to a couple of regional heads of the ABC Friends organisation who were in the building for a Parliamentary Friends of the ABC event. I put to them some of the ideas that have been circulated recently in relation to the future of our national broadcaster, particularly the idea that has been floated by some in the Liberal Party and in the national spaces that it be separated and that a rural and regional broadcaster be created and the rest of it sold off. The president of the New South Wales regional chapter, I think it was, was quite angry at that idea, and I was quite surprised. I said: 'Why? What would be the problem with that for you?' She said, 'One of the greatest challenges that we as country people have is that the people in the cities don't always seem to understand us and we, being isolated in rural and regional communities, don't get the opportunity to connect and engage with what is happening in metro and other areas of the country. So the fact that the ABC serves both the rural and regional communities and the metro communities allows it to act as a bridge between the two and ensure a continuation of shared understanding.' She said to me that it was actually quite offensive to assume that any particular content on the ABC wouldn't be relevant to rural and regional communities because actually people in rural and regional communities like to know what is going on in other parts of the country too. Then we had a very interesting conversation about how certain political parties in this place seem to function to reduce rural and regional identities and communities down to a flat parody of what they actually are, for political purposes. I said to her: 'Well, enough about the National Party. Let's get back to the ALP and to the ABC more broadly.'
On the question of our national broadcaster, I've got to say that I love it. There are so many people in our community who feel the same. As somebody who came to Australia from the UK—I know I hide my accent well!—it was something that allowed me to begin to develop my identity as an Australian person and to connect with the community that I'd joined. I remember so fondly, obviously, Play School and all of that. Also, for anybody watching along at home, there was a series the ABC did when I was a kid called Ace Lightning, which was an early attempt to meld together a children's program and a computer animated thing, which I absolutely loved and rewatched recently and realised how utterly terrible the graphics are by modern standards. But, between that and the educational portions of ABC programming in the morning on the TV, that was it for me, really. I consumed it all, loved it all, and found it an amazing source of knowledge, information and connection to community and to the world.
It struck me, even as a kid, that whether it was listening to a Radio National program at night on the beach in Rockingham and a story about thylacines—I think I was probably eight at the time—or whether it was watching the children's programming in the afternoon or sitting on Pop's knee and watching Lateline when it was technically bedtime, the ABC was somewhere you could go where there wasn't the noise. You could go and engage with the information. Now in this job I have discovered that that is so much the case. If you put the ABC next to any of its commercial equivalents, there's no comparison. Putting aside the gross, horrible stuff that often comes spewing out of a channel like Sky, trying to consume their content is really quite challenging because there are about 14 million things happening on the screen simultaneously and it breaks every five or 10 minutes for an ad session.
Every Australian should be concerned that there are views given oxygen within their government that are not only somewhat questioning of the value of the ABC; they are nakedly hostile to the ABC. They want to cut it up and sell it off. They don't want it to be a thing anymore. They'll come in here and give you all these arguments and clasp their hands behind their backs as though it's a Young Liberals meeting, and talk about the history and all the rest of it. But, if you cut it all down and cut out the noise, what is their problem? Their problem is that sometimes the ABC has the gall to fact-check them. That's the problem. It fact-checks them and it finds out they're speaking nonsense, and then they come in here and have a sad, and they take that sad to the cabinet room and put all these ideological ideas around it and say, 'For these reasons, we've got to cut the thing up and sell it off,' when really it's just that they're annoyed by the fact that they've been fact-checked and called out.
May I suggest that, rather than trying to take the knife to the national broadcaster, a better course of action would be to actually do your homework before you speak, and then this whole thing could be avoided. Senator Hanson-Young, who has done fantastic work in this space and I think is quite fairly regarded as the parliament's fiercest champion for the national broadcaster, has made the observation that Ita Buttrose, the current chair, could eat some of her critics for breakfast. I totally agree—she absolutely should! But, knowing some of her critics, I would suggest that she not do that, because I can't imagine that they would be very good for her health.
An honourable senator: She's a vegan.
Oh, she's a vegan. Okay. Well, then they're safe! Going specifically to the idea of selling off Triple J, Triple J is a fantastic institution. It is often one of the only mediums through which information about public affairs and complex issues in our community are addressed by young people in a way that is relevant to our lives. Programs like Hack are indispensable. Triple J also has the proud honour of being the host of the world's largest experiment in musical democracy, with over three million people participating in the Hottest 100 process every single year. It is a platform that has given space to innumerable artists who make incredible contributions to our cultural life as a community. It absolutely should be preserved and celebrated.
The ABC, as I said at the beginning of my speech, is excellent. It should be celebrated, supported and well funded. This government's taken about $1 billion out of the ABC between 2014 and the 2024 budget. Not only is this money in need of urgent return to the ABC; what is needed is for the proper investment to be made. It's not good enough just to take the ABC back to where it was in 2012. We actually need to see proper investment in our ABC so that it is able to be the dynamic, diverse, relevant and trustworthy public broadcaster that our community loves, needs and wants to see continuing to exist. I thank the chamber.
In the first instance I would like to correct the record in one sense, and that is that there are members on this side of the chamber who have listened to Triple J. And I must say, whilst my good friend from Western Australia was giving his wistful remembrances in terms of engagement with the public broadcaster, I thought back to 1991, when I was going through—
I wasn't born yet!
No, you weren't born yet, absolutely! I'd gone through a particularly torrid matter of the heart and was looking for some emotional succour and I spent the day listening to Triple J's Hottest 100. It was 1991. Let me tell you what was on Triple J's Hottest 100 in 1991. No. 1 was 'Smells Like Teen Spirit', by Nirvana. No. 2 was 'Love Will Tear Us Apart', by Joy Division. That wasn't a particularly great song for me to be listening to in that 'State of Mind'. 'Lithium' by Nirvana—it all had a pretty bleak quality, I must say. There was 'Throw Your Arms Around Me' by Hunters and Collectors, 'Tomorrow Wendy', 'How Soon is Now' by the Smiths, 'Blister in the Sun' by Violent Femmes—I've heard that song at many Young Liberals conventions after dark. So there are those of us on this side of the chamber who have engaged with Triple J in the past. I was a fan of Triple J. I'm more likely now to listen to jazz on the ABC after dark, I must say, but I do listen to our public broadcaster.
One point that has been missed in this debate by those on the other side who have spoken on this topic is with respect to how advertisements have assisted one of our great public broadcasters, the SBS, in delivering quality material to the Australian people. SBS's annual Corporate plan 2020-21 says on page 13:
SBS's unique hybrid funding model means that commercial returns may be channelled back into curating Charter-focused content, while continued government funding supports allows for stability and long-term creative ambitions to be realised.
So we have an example of a publicly owned broadcaster that has a hybrid model. There is a degree of advertising on SBS and its charter has not been undermined. Those on the opposite side of the chamber should reflect on the fact that SBS has managed to run ads whilst being true to its charter. It has not undermined its independence. It has not undermined the important public function that it undertakes.
SBS's 2019-20 annual report, at item 1.2A in the financial statement, says that in service delivery, including advertising revenue, SBS generated $114 million in revenue. Isn't that a good thing—that, whilst having the safeguards in place to protect its editorial independence, especially around news and current affairs, it's managed to generate a stream of revenue that has allowed it to produce more content? Isn't that a positive thing? Why do we have to be so negative about commercial realities? Appropriate advertising can generate revenue, which can assist in paying for quality content for the benefit of the Australian people.
SBS has appropriate safeguards in place with respect to advertising. I quote from section 5 of the 2014 code of practice. It says:
SBS may broadcast advertisements and sponsorship announcements that run in total for not more than five minutes in any hour of broadcasting. Revenue from advertisements and sponsorship announcements assists in the funding of programming which fulfils SBS's Charter obligations.
Those opposite haven't mentioned this at all—this hybrid model and its success. SBS hasn't been mentioned by those opposite in the course of this debate because it undermines their argument. This hybrid model works. I quote again from section 5 of the code of practice:
All decisions regarding commercial revenue are subject to the overriding principle that the integrity of the SBS Charter and SBS's editorial independence are paramount. SBS reserves the exclusive right to determine what is broadcast on SBS services.
That's entirely appropriate. The safeguard is there that permits advertising on a public broadcaster, which enables SBS to produce more content, Australian content, for the benefit of the Australian community. What's the problem? It actually works.
Again, we look at the facts. I don't need an ABC fact-checker on this. The ABC, or whoever's listening, you can do your fact-checking on me. On page 75 of the annual report 2020, there is a section dealing with the SBS Ombudsman. This details the complaints, because SBS has a complaint process if you have some concern about ads undermining the editorial independence of SBS.
Let's look at the figures. During 2019-20 there were 34 complaints with respect to accuracy on SBS—not many. And there were 29 complaints with respect to how different programs were classified—again not terribly many, but a few complaints. How many complaints were there about advertising on SBS? There were eight complaints about advertising on SBS, fewer than one a month. So where's the issue? Isn't it a good thing to allow our public broadcasters to generate a stream of revenue which will enable them to produce more Australian based content and actually discharge their service?
The reality of the matter is: there are so many calls made upon us in this place for funding, from so many desirable endeavours, and so many things that we need to address in this place. The track record of advertising on SBS demonstrates that it can work in the context of a public broadcaster. We've seen it work. Eight complaints in 2019-20—that's all there have been. I've been trying to find out how they were resolved to see how many of them went through to ACMA or the different complaints authorities and were assessed and judged. But that's all there were—only eight complaints in the whole year. How many people watch SBS? There were only eight complaints. They could have been eight complaints from one person for all I know. I don't know how many people actually complained. But there's the proof that a hybrid model actually works, and it enables SBS to produce more content for the benefit of the Australian people. Isn't that a good thing? Wouldn't we like to see more women's sport on our public broadcaster? If, in order to get that women's sport on our public broadcaster, there needs to be some advertising or sponsorship, what's wrong with that? SBS has demonstrated that it can work.
We need to be open-minded with respect to funding opportunities for our public broadcasters. They provide an absolutely invaluable service to the Australian community. I can't believe those opposite are not aware of the fact that SBS runs ads. I'm a frequent watcher of SBS—SBS World Movies, a lot of the cultural programming on SBS and current affairs in particular. I assume those opposite are watching SBS, but not one of them in this debate has mentioned advertising on SBS. I can only assume it's because there's some sort of ideological objection to having ads on a public broadcaster, even though it works. So don't come into this place—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—throwing bricks at those of us on this side of the chamber and accusing us of being ideologues, when you're not prepared to enter into a reasonable discussion about a hybrid funding model which, over the course of quite a few years, has proven to be successful, as demonstrated by the fact that there were only eight complaints during 2019-20 in relation to advertising on SBS.
Thank you, Senator Scarr. Senator McCarthy.
I rise to speak on this matter of public importance. Just to pick up on Senator Scarr's last comments there in terms of SBS and ABC: I've had the opportunity to work at both and I can give a comparison of what it's like. This has to be about whether the Australian parliament supports public broadcasting in this country and in what form it supports public broadcasting. If we look at the history, certainly over the eight years that the coalition government has been in power, there is no doubt that there have been enormous cuts to public broadcasting in this country. The cuts have been exponential, not only with SBS but incredibly so with the ABC. We only have to look at the regional areas of this country. I'm sure all of those members in the other chamber who have electorates in the regional areas of Australia will know how valuable and absolutely vital the public broadcaster is to this country.
We've seen here in the Senate those from regional areas who have joined with us in our battles to stop the cuts to the ABC. Let's look at short-wave, for example, in the Northern Territory. For many, many years we fought—we even had Senator McKenzie join us on this side with Senate inquiries, acknowledging the fact that the public broadcaster is an absolutely vital service. Cutting it, and cutting it completely, in those areas where it reaches remote and regional Australians is having a detrimental impact. Let's acknowledge in the Senate that those cuts have been unfair. When you throw on top of that the pressure of now having to go down the path of advertising on the ABC and you compare the advertising on SBS, there hasn't been an adequate body of work done on that. Ask some of the employees at SBS how they think that organisation is running. I can tell you a few things they tell me. No, having advertising on SBS isn't the panacea that senators opposite would like to think it is. Nor is it an example that you should hold up to say this is why the ABC should be going down that path. That's not good policy, and, yes, it's all about politics.
The Australian parliament has to be better than that. The Australian government has to be better than that. Ask the Australian people what they think. Come to the Northern Territory and find out what people feel in relation to the fact that short-wave has disappeared. It has been gone for nearly five years. Where once we were able to hear when cyclones were coming, we were able to be made aware of road floodings and closures, remote communities, rangers out on their boats and fishos out on the seas were able to tune into the ABC through short-wave, they can no longer do that. Time and time again, I've stood in the Senate to express the importance of the ABC in remote and regional Australia. If you think putting ads on triple J and on ABC programs is the answer, then you're missing the point, as usual.
The public broadcaster is vital in its role as an independent media service not influenced by political or commercial interests. Yet this government wants to see Aussie kids watching advertisements during children's programming and it wants to see commercial influence in ABC news and current affairs. Haven't we seen, just in recent weeks, the complete attack on the ABC over the importance of integrity and reporting? You do not agree with it even now, and then you want to throw in something else to add to the pressures that the organisation is facing. It's hardly surprising, isn't it? We know that this government is on a mission to destroy the public broadcaster. You absolutely are. There is no doubt about what your intentions are. We know that you have form. I've given one example of short-wave in the Northern Territory. There are the cattle stations up there, the truckies who drive the highways and the grey nomads who go along the Stuart Highway and beyond. There's no way they know what's going on, because you removed that. Yes, you can say that the ABC made that decision, but there is a reason why it was forced to make that kind of decision. It's because you lot keep taking, keep taking and keep taking the amount of money that's required to keep a very good public service in this country.
In 2018 the Liberal federal council voted to privatise the ABC. We all know that the Howard government's attempt to privatise ABC international was an abject failure. You remember that one? ABC overseas—yes, you'll probably forget that one, conveniently. Since the coalition came to power in 2014 the ABC has lost $783 million in funding. That's according to a 2020 report into the cumulated impacts of government cuts to the public broadcaster. The report's author said:
The ABC is now operating with the smallest budget since the Howard Government's extraordinary 2% funding cut in its first budget, in 1996, which removed $55 million from the ABC's triennial funding.
Today the ABC has more services, including iView, ABC online and podcasts, yet so much less money. While facing these cuts, the bushfire crisis of summer 2020 added an extra $3 million in emergency broadcasting costs, which had to be absorbed into the budget. We are certainly grateful that they did. The ABC saves lives during emergency times, with journalists in news rooms across the country working tirelessly to get accurate and up-to-date information out. How many senators in this chamber sit on their iPads and sit on their phones and go through the news and check what the ABC is reporting? It's all those journalists and producers out there who are bringing it in here for you.
Objectivity: they are bringing stories from right around the country. All the way up there in Arnhem Land, north-east Arnhem Land, across to the Kimberley, down to Perth, over to Adelaide and across to Victoria, Mildura and Wagga—you name it. ABC journos are bringing this Senate and this country the stories that matter, yet you continuously disrespect that organisation, which is our national organisation as the public broadcaster.
Senators opposite have asked about SBS. Well, SBS certainly does punch above its weight, but, let me tell you, if you're absolutely serious in wanting to know what the workers of SBS and the workers of the ABC think about advertising, then put it to the test. Do your homework. Don't just go in there demanding that advertising take place on the ABC simply because (a) you don't want to give it any more money and (b) you don't like it anyway. That's what this is about, isn't it? It is about politics. It's not about good policy. The journalists, the producers, the staff, the camera crews, the editors—all of the people who work in our ABC newsrooms and ABC offices, from dramas to children's programs—do an exceptional job. This parliament needs to show more respect for all of those people who work for our public broadcasters, the ABC and SBS.
Order! The time for the discussion has expired.
I table a response to a question taken on notice during question time on 11 May 2021, by Senator Kitching, relating to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The answer read as follows—
Senator the Hon Scott Ryan
President of the Senate
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Dear Mr President
Please find enclosed responses to questions asked by Senator the Hon Kimberley Kitching taken on notice during question time on 11 May 2021.
Yours sincerely
Linda Reynolds
Q1: How many thousands of taxpayer dollars did the Morrison government spend on legal advice and lawyers to deny Liam his $445 seizure mat?
Q2: Could you answer the question about what you spent in legal costs?
Q3: Why then did the National Disability Insurance Agency still deny Liam the support he needed?
A1, 2 and 3: Circumstances relating to this case are currently under review by NDIA. The outcomes will be communicated to the family prior to any public commentary.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
On 11 May this year, during question time, I asked the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme questions relating to the tragic and unnecessary death of Liam Danher. On 5 February, Liam Danher died of a seizure in his sleep while his parents were next door. He was 23 years old and had a severe intellectual disability. He was also suffering from autism and epilepsy. Liam's parents have said that his death was avoidable and could have been prevented if he had been provided with a seizure mat. I'll come to the cost of that seizure mat shortly. Liam's parents have spoken out about being cut out when Liam was moved from a state run service on to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The Danhers had become increasingly worried that their son might be having rare night-time seizures. Even his neurologist had recommended the purchase of the—wait for it—$445 mat, which would have detected a seizure and sounded an alarm. Liam's family has since been told that the $445 figure was just for the mat component—they would have happily paid for this—and that the whole set-up was priced at over $2,000. However, let's compare that cost with the cost of what the government spent fighting the Danhers in the AAT. The $2,000 is a mere fraction of that cost, and that is why we are here today.
The minister has just tabled a response to a question taken on notice during question time on 11 May this year. The questions taken on notice were:
Q1: How many thousands of taxpayer dollars did the Morrison government spend on legal advice and lawyers to deny Liam his $445 seizure mat?
Q2: Could you answer the question about what you spent in legal costs?
Q3: Why then did the National Disability Insurance Agency still deny Liam the support he needed?
The minister's response in the documents just tabled was:
Circumstances relating to this case are currently under review by NDIA. The outcomes will be communicated to the family prior to any public commentary.
That's right; the minister has again failed the Danher family by refusing to answer just how much time she and this cruel government have spent trying to deny their son a relatively inexpensive item that we now know would have saved his life. He would not be dead.
Three of Liam's own treating professionals, including a neurologist, recommended that he have this mat. Despite the overwhelming evidence suggesting Liam needed this potentially lifesaving device, the agency, instead of amending his plan to provide it, spent 18 months in the AAT trying to deny him this. The agency deployed thuggish tactics and engaged lawyers and barristers. Liam was unable to access legal aid, and the NDIA stopped his parents from representing him. He was by himself.
Perhaps the saddest part of this whole story is that, a week after Liam's death, the NDIA contacted the family support coordinator requesting quotes for the seizure mat. The least the minister could do, after all we now know about the tragic death of Liam Danher, is offer a personal and heartfelt apology. She has not done this. Even this is too much for this minister. Last Wednesday, when I asked the minister if she had personally apologised to Liam Danher's family, she gave one of the most offensive answers I've heard in this place. The minister said:
... my chief of staff has been in contact with Mr Danher, and I have, through my chief of staff, offered to either in person or on the phone talk with Mr Danher myself.
The minister also said:
If my chief of staff does something on my behalf, then I consider that is the case. And I did, on further questioning, clarify that point, that it was in fact my staff.
However, the Danhers have told Labor that they would like the parliament to also get any answers about their son's case on the record. That is the family. Senator Reynolds spent that question time saying: 'Oh no, I'm thinking of the family. I just want to consider their feelings.' I'm paraphrasing because I'm not sure she was that articulate. Remember: she also previously said that she had contacted the family. In fact, it transpired that she had not; her department had. Now we find out that it was her chief of staff, not even her—not even at that point. That family is very happy for those answers to be tabled—correct, full answers to the question, rather than the mealy-mouthed rubbish that we got just then.
Instead of always feigning 'woe is me', perhaps the minister should take some responsibility for her ministerial responsibilities and actions and pick up the phone to the Danhers to apologise. While she's at it, she could also inform the Senate how much the government spent trying to avoid providing the Danher family with the simple device that could have saved their son's life.
Today, at an event for the global day for motor neurone disease, Senator Reynolds heard from Peter Chambers, whom she referred to in her response in question time today, who had been rejected by the NDIS the first time around. What did she say? She said, and I paraphrase, 'We must get onto those administrative problems.' This is a person with motor neurone disease, rejected by the NDIA, and she says, 'It's a bit of an administrative problem.' She is overpromoted and she feels sorry for herself for losing the portfolio she did have. Not much will be remembered about Senator Reynolds's reign of error, other than a lack of candour, a lack of rigour, a lack of intellect and a lack of decency.
Question agreed to.
I table a document relating to the order for the production of documents concerning COVID-19 vaccination certificates.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
In taking note of this, I'm firstly going to take the chamber through a cognitive bias effect. When we consider the performance of Minister Reynolds, we are afforded a living, breathing embodiment of what social psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger described as the 'internal illusion of people of low ability where they perceive their competence to be much higher than it is'. While a fascinating experiment to see just how out of her depth a minister can be without a whole government department collapsing and government programs failing, it is clearly time for the government to accept that the Dunning-Kruger effect is real and to put this hapless, heartless, cretinous minister out of her misery.
On 18 March this year, I moved a motion—
I'm wondering—sorry, Senator Brockman?
The chamber's offering a lot of leniency here—but standing order 193(3). This is very clearly a personal reflection.
Senator Kitching, if you could—
Which was the personal reflection? Is it 'hapless, heartless, cretinous minister'—
Senator Kitching, it would assist the chamber if you could just withdraw, please.
Well, I think, if everyone goes and looks at the Dunning-Kruger effect, they will see that that does describe Senator Reynolds.
Senator Kitching, if you could please withdraw just to assist the chamber, please.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is a psychological—
Senator Kitching, if you could just please withdraw. That's all I'm asking.
Well, why don't I say 'not entirely competent'—not entirely competent minister?
Point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. You've been asked to withdraw.
Senator Kitching—
I withdraw.
You withdraw? Okay. Thank you.
On 18 March this year, I moved a motion in the Senate that passed with the support of the entire crossbench, requiring the minister to table a monthly report outlining information on COVID-19 vaccination certificates, including the number of certificates issued, the number uploaded to the Australian Immunisation Register, the number made available on the myGov app, the average number of days between receiving a vaccine and the certificate being made available, among other information—and this was to be tabled. Let's see what we got.
On 8 April I received the first reply to the order, which, instead of being the report that is required, was a letter from Minister Reynolds. Here she declined to provide the report on the basis that 'the request is premised by an assumption that Services Australia provides COVID-19 vaccination certificates to individuals immunised against COVID-19. This is not the case, as the proof of vaccination process is customer initiated, and the production and potential sharing of any proof of vaccination is controlled by the individual solely and designed to support a range of essential vaccines requirements and settings'. However, the minister's letter goes on to say, 'Services Australia's role is to maintain the record of vaccination.'
Let's move back in time to the previous minister in this area, Minister Robert. I have to say I think his sole qualification was that he was the Prime Minister's flatmate. But he said in an interview with Fran Kelly on 8 February:
So, the vaccination record gets updated with every vaccination you receive. So, after your first dose, you'll be able to look at your vaccination certificate online, or indeed, go and print it out or the vaccination provider can print it out for you, and you'll see that it'll have the first dose, and then you'll see it'll have the second dose.
He went on to say:
… so it'll be able to be provided in hard copy, either through the vaccination provider or through Services Australia, if you call us we'll send it to you or pop into a service centre.
Now, it is common knowledge around this building that Minister Robert has always said that he's never going down; he's only always going up because he's a friend of the Prime Minister's. But the minister who replaced him is no better. He's made similar statements during other interviews.
In Community Affairs estimates on Friday 4 June, Services Australia acknowledged that 'vaccination certificates'—I will put that in quotes—were coming very soon. In fact, the minister noted on that day—amongst, may I add, many other things she said, both on Hansard and privately—that 'that's the next step'. There is a table that we wanted to see, the vaccination certificates, as provided by the previous minister, Minister Robert. Then the current minister—anyway, look, I won't say it; I know: 933—goes on to say that this is the next step. Just remember that. I then wrote to the minister on 11 June to remind her that now that it had been acknowledged that vaccination certificates were here, there was no reason my order could not be complied with. In my correspondence, I noted that 'vaccination certificates' is the recognised term and, now that vaccination certificates are being provided to those who have been fully vaccinated, a plain-language reading of order 1077 would be that it stands as is and that Services Australia is able to furnish the Senate with the monthly report detailing the information requested.
After all this, the minister comes to the Senate today and, using similar weasel words for the first response to order 1077, says:
This request is premised by an assumption that Services Australia provides COVID-19 vaccination certificates—
It's as if she never heard a single word that was being said at the table during estimates—
to individuals immunised against COVID-19. This is not the case, as the proof-of-vaccination process is customer initiated, and the production and potential sharing of any proof of vaccination is controlled by the individual solely.
The former minister, Minister Robert, said that we will have vaccination certificates for COVID-19. The current minister has said this. The department has said this. If you have received both doses of your COVID-19 vaccination, you can log into myGov right now and see your vaccination certificate.
But the minister still refuses to provide the information set out in order 1077 agreed to by this Senate. I can only assume that this is because the vaccination rollout so far has been a disaster. That still so few have received the COVID-19 vaccine is a national disgrace. If this government can't get this right, how do we expect that they will be able to open up this country and get the economy going again? Not only has the government failed in its responsibility to keep its citizens safe; it has also failed in its responsibility to provide for the conditions that ensure that Australians can be prosperous, and what we've seen is two ministers who are totally out of their depth.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Northern Australia—Joint Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Siewert
Appointed—Senator Thorpe
Trade and Investment Growth—Joint Standing Committee—
Appointed—Senator Steele-John
Question agreed to.
I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
Biosecurity Amendment (Strengthening Penalties) Bill 2021
This Bill is about sending a clear message to individuals and companies who put at risk Australia's $61 billion agriculture industry and over $1 trillion in environmental assets by contravening the Biosecurity Act 2015.
A strong biosecurity system is critical to Australia's prosperity. Biosecurity laws protect agriculture, tourism and other industries, plant and animal health, the environment, and our market access. They are necessary to allow us to trade and for our nation to continue to thrive.
Australia's biosecurity system faces growing regional and global threats such as African Swine Fever and hitchhiker pests like khapra beetle and Brown Marmorated Stink Bug. As we look towards our economic recovery from COVID-19, the growth in trade and travel will only further emphasise these biosecurity threats.
This Bill increases a number of civil and criminal penalties under the Biosecurity Act to ensure they are appropriate, adequate and fit the crime. It targets key provisions of the Biosecurity Act where non-compliance has the potential to cause a significant and unacceptable risk for Australia's biosecurity status.
While we all play a role in protecting Australia's biosecurity, these amendments focus on individuals and businesses, such as commercial importers and biosecurity industry participants, that have a particular responsibility to know and understand their obligations under the Act and take the steps required to comply with the law.
This Bill ensures that penalties are set at a level that means they are not merely a cost of doing business. These maximum penalties, in some cases up to $1.1 million, reflect the potential gains someone might obtain or seek to obtain through non-compliance with our biosecurity laws, as well as devastating impact that contraventions may have on Australia's biosecurity status, market access and economy.
The increased civil penalties introduced by this Bill will serve as a significant deterrent to anybody considering undermining our biosecurity laws and the criminal penalties will allow a proportionate and appropriate punishment for contraventions of the Act.
The biosecurity system is constantly evolving, with new threats from pests and diseases emerging. We are continually reviewing the effectiveness of the Biosecurity Act to respond to these threats and are committed to the management of biosecurity risks associated with imported goods.
This Bill aligns with recommendations of the Inspector-General of Biosecurity for stronger penalties for serious non-compliance and builds on our continued commitment to ensuring adequate penalties for non-compliance, as demonstrated by the amendments in the Biosecurity Amendment (Traveller Declarations and Other Measures) Act 2020 which were passed last year to enable increased infringement notice amounts for travellers who fail to declare high risk goods on their incoming passenger card.
This Bill will further enable a stronger penalty system that reflects the seriousness of any breach of the Biosecurity Act so that those who flout our biosecurity laws feel the full force of the law in a manner that reflects the seriousness of their actions.
Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 4) Bill 2021
This Bill contains a number of important measures which are designed to:
• incentivise employers to retrain and reskill redundant employees;
• encourage greenfields minerals exploration;
• protect older Australians and people with a disability from financial abuse and exploitation;
• support ASIC to proactively address consumer harm;
• ensure that New Zealand maintains its primary taxing right in respect of New Zealand sporting teams; and
• deliver tax relief to around 10.2 million taxpayers.
Schedule 1 to the Bill will introduce an exemption from fringe benefits tax for employer-provided retraining and reskilling benefits provided to redundant, or soon to be redundant employees where the training is not related to the employee's current employment. This change will apply from 2 October 2020.
This will incentivise employers to retrain and reskill redundant (or soon to be redundant) employees so that they are better prepared to transition to their next career. This incentive supports the Government's skills reform agenda and current programs and assistance for education and training.
Schedule 2 to the Bill extends the Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive for a further four years from 2021-22 to 2024-25, with a minor amendment to allow unused exploration credits to be redistributed a year earlier than under current settings.
The Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive provides a tax incentive for new investment in junior exploration companies undertaking greenfields minerals exploration in Australia. Eligible companies can create exploration credits by giving up a portion of their tax losses relating to exploration expenditure, which can then be distributed to new investors as a refundable tax offset or a franking credit.
Greenfields minerals exploration underpins the Australian resources sector by finding new mineral deposits and ensuring a strong investment pipeline of new projects that will support our economy in the future. It is a high-risk activity that can involve large up-front costs and long timeframes before any return on the exploration is made.
In conjunction with Australia's broader support for resources development, the Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive will help to open up new opportunities for the sector into the future.
Schedule 3 to the Bill provides a targeted capital gains tax exemption for granny flat arrangements where there is a formal written agreement in place.
Capital gains tax consequences are currently an impediment to the creation of formal and legally enforceable granny flat arrangements. When faced with a potentially significant capital gains tax liability, families often opt for informal arrangements, which can lead to financial abuse and exploitation for example, following a family or relationship break down.
The changes mean that capital gains tax will not apply to the creation, variation or termination of a formal written granny flat arrangement providing accommodation for older Australians or people with disability. The measure encourages the take up of formal agreements between families, reducing the risk of abuse to vulnerable Australians.
Schedule 4 to the Bill makes technical amendments to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission's product intervention power, so that it can continue to proactively address consumer harm caused by financial and credit products.
This schedule ensures the Australian Securities and Investments Commission can make a product intervention order which imposes conditions relating to the costs (fees, charges or other considerations) of a financial or credit product to a consumer where the product is suspected to cause significant consumer detriment.
The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was notified of the measure as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002 and the National Credit Law Agreement 2009.
Schedule 5 to the Bill ensures that New Zealand maintains its primary taxing right under the Convention between Australia and New Zealand for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with Respect to Taxes on Income and Fringe Benefits and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion (the Convention). This is in respect of members of New Zealand sporting teams and support staff that spend an extended period of time in Australia to participate in league sporting competitions because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Due to the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, in order to compete in league competitions in Australia, members of New Zealand sporting teams and support staff may have been required to spend more than 183 days in Australia in a 12-month period. This has led to Australian income tax and fringe benefits tax liabilities which normally would not arise in non-COVID circumstances.
The measure ensures that the Convention operates as intended in this situation by relinquishing Australia's taxing right that has arisen due to COVID-19. This applies to income in the 2020-21 and 2021-22 income years only.
Schedule 6 to the Bill delivers tax relief to low and middle-income earners to support household incomes and create jobs as the economy recovers.
It retains the low and middle income tax offset in 2021-22. The low and middle income tax offset is worth up to $1,080 for individuals and $2,160 for dual income households, which is paid on assessment after taxpayers lodge their tax return.
It is estimated that around 10.2 million taxpayers will benefit from retaining the low and middle income tax offset in 2021-22, with the majority of the benefits delivered to those earning less than $90,000.
This is on top of the $25.1 billion in tax relief flowing to households in 2021-22 that has been announced in previous budgets.
Retaining the low and middle income tax offset will put more money in taxpayers' pockets, allowing them to spend more and strengthen the economic recovery.
Full details of the measures are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
Farm Household Support Amendment (Debt Waiver) Bill 2021
The Australian Government is committed to backing our farmers. The Farm Household Allowance (FHA) is a key element of this, ensuring we're looking out for our farmers when times get tough.
Since FHA was introduced in 2014, over $621 million in support payments have been made to over 16,500 farmers and their partners. The FHA is available to farmers and their partners for a total of 1,460 days (4 years) in every 10 years.
As conditions have improved, a cohort of FHA recipients no longer require access to this payment and are now able to preserve access to it for use again, if or when conditions deteriorate.
Right now, there are more people preserving their FHA allocations than there are new entrants.
We have said repeatedly, the story of agriculture is 'just add water'. The government is proud of the resilience of the farming community and their ability to bounce back.
When the 2018 independent review of the FHA recommended improvement, we stepped up. Our response has made it easier for farmers to access the payment when needed, and we increased the support available. These changes are having a real impact for our farming families:
The FHA story is one of change and improvement. Over 90% of respondents to the FHA exit survey advise that they have finished the program with clear expectations for their future. This is what some of them have said:
"It has been a lifesaver, providing basic financial household support which has alleviated depression and anxiety."
"This has been an unbelievable help to improve our viability as a farming business."
"Receiving the FHA helped us educate our son who will more than likely take over the farm with more education than my husband or I had."
Feedback like this demonstrates why it was so important to remove the confusing policy setting of business income reconciliation (BIR) from 1 July 2020.
Farming income is volatile, based on uncertain yields and prices, and unpredictable weather. We asked farmers to make difficult predictions about this income for the year ahead. When farmers, acting in good faith, got this wrong, BIR would make them liable for a debt.
The Farm Household Support Amendment (Debt Waiver) Bill 2021 will address historic BIR cases. We will permanently waive repayment of the majority of BIR debts between 1 July 2015 and 30 June 2020. This will give debt relief to up to 5,300 farmers and their partners.
The Bill will also ensure fairness among recipients by maintaining the 1,460 day limit on payment. FHA recipients who were re-credited days from a previously raised debt, will have the option to trade these days back in order to access the waiver. This means that no one will be able to 'double dip' on their benefit.
Importantly, this Bill will maintain the integrity of the program. It will not allow debts arising from other sources, such as undeclared wages and rental income, to be waived. Existing reporting obligations and regular compliance activities will be maintained.
Though the quantum of the debts to be waived through this Bill are modest, this measure will provide breathing space as our farming families recover from the drought, bushfires, floods and global pandemic of the last few years.
Waiving these debts will ensure that these families retain every dollar possible to help them recover, build resilience and grow their businesses.
Debate adjourned.
I will pick up where I left off in discussing Australia's impeccable track record with delivering a high level of safety and assurance in the operation of the complexities around nuclear technology. I think it's worth briefly reflecting on the fact that radioactive waste facilities such as are contemplated are located in the farming regions of France, Belgium, the UK, Spain, the United States and Germany. The impact of those sites on local agriculture was considered as part of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee's inquiry into the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020. The inquiry found that the international examples provide a strong argument that such a radioactive facility will not undermine agricultural activities or our reputation as a world-leading agricultural exporter of quality. In short, this facility would be subject to strict regulation, meet Australia's already high bar, in terms of licensing and environmental approvals, and be responsive to the concerns of local communities. It is for that reason, after all of these years, that it is finally time to see the Morrison government implement this important reform.
This evening, as we in this place debate the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020, I am reminded of many such debates in this place, some that have resulted in successful legislation and others that have been mired in dispute, in large part because of the failings of government to adequately consult. We know that radioactive waste is stored in a great many places in Australia, which is an undesirable thing. It is stored in more than 100 places, including Australia's hospitals and, of course, at Lucas Heights, the originator of much of the nuclear medicine material.
Our radioactive nuclear waste has built up over 60 years. It's a legacy that has supported the medical treatment of many, many thousands of Australians, including my own family members. It is therefore an important industry, and we need to find a solution for its waste disposal. We know there'll come a time when the storage at Lucas Heights runs out of room. Lucas Heights does have some capacity to keep the waste there, but I've visited Lucas Heights, and it is a fairly constrained site, and ANSTO have made it clear they would rather use that space for other scientific endeavours than see it have ongoing status as a waste facility. The department has claimed that the ANSTO site is going to be completely full by 2030 in any case.
For more than a decade I've participated in debates around this issue where the parliament and the government have yet to find a solution. We know that, if we're going to continue to use nuclear medicine, a dedicated storage facility is necessary. Back in 2012 the Gillard government enacted the National Radioactive Waste Management Act, for the purpose of creating certainty in a process to enable site selection for a waste management facility for this low-level waste.
However, in the hands of this government, that process has been entirely botched, in large part because of their failure to properly consult with First Nations people and traditional owners who've a cultural relationship with the community and lands around Kimba. It's a shame that this government has made such a mess of this process that it's trampled on the rights of First Nations people. In particular I note its attempt previously to get the Labor Party to simply vote for its site selection, to override that community consultation process, because it botched that process. It botched that process explicitly by failing to include and specifically excluding First Nations people from those consultation processes.
It's all very well for local government to have a vote—that's terrific—and for ratepayers to have a vote. But there are a whole range of different cultural values and relationships with that country that should have been taken into account, as was intended by Labor when it enacted that legislation. The original bill that was due to be debated in this place previously proposed a new facility at Napandee, near Kimba, to store low-level waste and to temporarily store intermediate-level waste. I think it's important to note that high-level waste should not be stored there. That is not what the community has voted for. That certainly also has the objection of First Nations traditional owners.
But the thing is, it hasn't taken much, now that this site has been identified, for many of those opposite to start talking about a nuclear energy future for Australia. So we need to be very careful, lest we jeopardise the important mandate for nuclear medicine and the need to consult with community, to consult with First Nations people, to find a site where we can safely store this waste. For those opposite to start mixing things up by talking about their support for nuclear energy and nuclear power is I think an indictment on what has already been a terrible process. It's worth noting that Australia will receive intermediate-level waste in 2022. This is waste that's been created by Australia and has been reprocessed into a form that is safe for storage, and it is due to be stored at Lucas Heights until a dedicated facility is available. As you start to see that intermediate-level waste coming in, you see the looming pressure there on Lucas Heights.
The Senate Economics Committee, through its inquiry, has taken evidence showing that some in the community—a majority of ratepayers—were perhaps supportive of this facility. But that's not the view taken by all of the community, including many farmers and others who have significant concerns about the impact on the region's agricultural production. I note that others have said that the facility will provide economic opportunity in the region. I do note, though, that there's little capacity for traditional owners to participate in deliberation around whether they support or get economic benefit from such a project, when they have been so overtly excluded from that process.
The Bungala Aboriginal Corporation has criticised the process undertaken by this government to assess community attitudes to the facility. They've notably shown quite comprehensively how inadequate those processes have been, including on the grounds that their members were excluded from taking part in a community ballot that was commissioned to assess community sentiment around the site. I think this is an extreme act of negligence and disrespect that this government has committed. It's an act of disrespect that we've seen repeated in other Commonwealth actions, including in the Commonwealth's failure to intervene under the powers that it has for the protection of Juukan Gorge and at the Gunlom site in Kakadu National Park.
We need to see First Nations traditional owners in our nation given a respected place at the table in all of these kinds of projects, so that their traditional connection and culture is held central to our decision-making as a nation. Unless we do that, and until we do that, it's very difficult to see how the search for a nuclear waste facility is going to be successful, because we've seen time and time again that the community division that is created through the failure to uphold community consultation and consent has brought previous processes, rightfully, undone. It was a privilege to talk to traditional owners around Muckaty Station, who through many Senate inquiries raised concerns they had about their country being chosen as the disposal site.
What's telling in this case is that it has brought around an inevitable failure for a successful site to be found. It has also brought incredible upset and discontent for these communities, who have been put through these arduous processes, where they have felt excluded, marginalised and put upon in relation to something that has a profound impact on their country. To my mind, it's why a First Nations voice to parliament, which has been called for in the Uluru Statement, is so important. It would mean that we couldn't debate legislation like this without having a proper intersection of First Nations voices in our deliberation on those issues. It's critical that we have a voice to parliament so that this parliament, and governments, can legislate responsibly and effectively in the interests of First Nations people and, most importantly, in the interests of being able to get important things done on behalf of the whole nation.
We know that last year the government wanted to, in effect, wedge Labor into helping it select their preferred site—in a departure from the legislation that's before us today, in which the Kimba site and two others have been put forward. These could prospectively, with community consultation, also be chosen. We know that the government has agreed to reinstate the ministerial site declaration process in the current act, as was proposed previously by Labor. It remains unclear to me—they wanted to make Labor complicit in overriding the rights of First Nations people in appealing that decision—to have the previous legislation come before the parliament.
Labor firmly believes that an aggrieved party should have access to judicial review. If people feel that the decision to locate the facility in their community—on their country, on their farming land, on their traditional ownership country—was not reached in a proper manner, then they should have the capacity to seek judicial review of those decisions, to see whether they were made properly in the first case.
I note there has been unanimous opposition from traditional owners. It would appear that, if the legislation had already been passed, the outcome would have been to impose this facility on traditional owners who didn't want it on their country. That's why we moved an amendment to that bill that would remove schedule 1 while retaining schedules 2 and 3. With the previous bill, schedule 1 dealt with site specification; schedules 2 and 3 dealt with the community fund and other measures. We're now back in the place where the government has seen sense, but I'm still incredulous that this government would have sought to ask Labor to be complicit in imposing that site on that community. Unfortunately for us, we didn't want to support the overriding of their judicial rights, but we certainly didn't want to see, therefore, a site declaration made that would have seen the community fund go to waste when it should be properly in place to support local community impacts.
It's worth bearing in mind that judicial review of the decision only allows the legality of the decision to be tested, rather than the merits of that decision. In that context, I would note that if the proceedings are unsuccessful there's no guarantee that a site selection would not still go ahead without the accompanying community fund, which was in the previous legislation. The rigmarole that this parliament and, indeed, the local community has had to go through to get to this place is a sad indictment on the environment that this government has fostered when it comes to consultation and the inclusion of First Nations people.
I rise to speak on the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020. I want to go back a bit in history so that the chamber's aware of how we got to where we are today, because the bottom line is that this bill is a bit of a ruse, a facade. I need to ground that properly in order for people to understand exactly what I'm talking about.
We'll go back to 2012, the bill where we're seeking to establish a national radioactive waste management facility. I might point out that I'm in favour of such a facility. I think we need a facility. We do need to take responsibility for our own radioactive waste. In terms of the safety aspects and the philosophy, I'm not, in any way, a person who's fearful of radioactive material. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I'm the only person in this place who has spent weeks sleeping within the distance of this chamber of a nuclear reactor on US submarines, when I spent time on them. So it's not as though I'm concerned about that side of the ledger. If I look at the process that we've gone through to select a site, that's where I have some major concerns.
Firstly, the concept behind the whole process is fundamentally flawed. Instead of selecting the best site for a facility in Australia, we kind of had a raffle and said, 'Who wants to have a site in their backyard?' or 'Who wants to have a site on their land?' Of course people put up their hand, but that's not the best way to select the best location. It's like trying to say, 'Let's build a highway, and we'll go out and see who wants to have their house knocked down to have the highway run somewhere.' That's not the way in which you tackle a project. You work out the best route and then you deal with the issues along the way. That's not what we've done in this process. We've just said, 'Anyone who wants to stick up their hand, we'll have a look at your property and see if it fits.' It's not the best way to do it.
I can see Senator Dean Smith across there. He's a Western Australian senator who perhaps supports the facility. I'm guessing here. Places like Leonora in Western Australia could well be a site. There are proponents that are pushing for that. I went to Leonora, Senator Smith. I went there, had a good look at it and spoke to some of the locals, and they said that they were interested. In fact, they nominated, but the nomination was cut off. My point is that what we should have done is look around the country and ask, 'Where is the best site? What are the best characteristics for a site for a radioactive waste management facility?' I've clearly touched a sore point, because Senator Smith rarely interjects across the chamber.
Having picked a bad way to do this, the government then committed to the idea that they would not put a facility at a location unless there was broad community support. Broad community support is what they promised. You know what? When a minister of the crown stands up and says, 'I'm going to put this facility in a place where there is broad community support for it,' people are entitled to expect they can put trust and confidence in what the minister says—that that is the criterion against which a decision would be made. Initially the government did some polling, using a private company, and came up with some numbers. They weren't very happy with the numbers—and at this stage there were a few different sites—so they upped their effort. They started bringing people in and taking people to ANSTO. Interestingly, as they travelled, they brought a bunch of experts to places like Kimba. I concede that the government did spend money to do that, but they didn't bring any contradictors. There were lots of contradictors along the way that wanted to offer a differing opinion, but the government wouldn't assist them in getting there. I might point out that at this time it was Minister Canavan at the helm. Anyone who knows a bit of history about Senator Canavan knows that his first political party was the Marxist party. That's on the record. He was a member of the Marxist party. As much as you find that unbelievable, that is that case.
Senator Smith, a point of order?
Senator Patrick knows you can't use unparliamentary language in the chamber.
That's not a point of order. Senator Patrick has the call.
I invite you to google the words 'Canavan' and 'Marxist'. You'll see the history. In his community consultation, he took a Stalinist approach, with the Soviet free-thought feel being, 'Please don't think your government will do that for you and then tell you what you need to know,' in accordance with the doctrine. That's the sort of approach he took with the community at Kimba.
Eventually we got to the point where we had a vote. In the lead-up to the vote, it wasn't unreasonable that we might ask, 'What does broad community support mean? What's the definition?' To find the answer to that, on 22 March 2017, in this chamber, former Senator Xenophon asked Senator Canavan, 'What's the criteria?' The then Minister Canavan said:
We had taken forward a proposal from the Hawker region—Senator Xenophon might be aware of that—where support was at 65 per cent. We have not put a definitive figure on broader community support, for the reason that it is not just about the overall figure; we would need a figure in the range of the support we received in Hawker.
So he laid down 65 per cent. But we needed to consider other factors, like the direct neighbours—and I note the definition of 'direct neighbour' changed over the period of the process—and we also needed to get the Indigenous people onboard, the Barngarla people. Again, in a Stalinist approach, Comrade Canavan stole from Stalin's playbook. There's that saying: it's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the vote. We ended up with a situation where only after the vote came in did the minister say what broad community support was. We did get to 62 per cent. The government spent a lot of money getting the community to 62 per cent. But, along the way, they still didn't deal with the neighbours, and they still didn't deal with the Barngarla people. I might point out that, even in terms of the people that were allowed to vote, there were a number of people who were quite close to the facility who were unable to express their view in the vote because they lived outside the council area—the voting area—so they were excluded. Lots of people were excluded from the vote. We ended up with a completely flawed process.
We got to the point where, eventually, we down-selected away from Hawker. I'm very disturbed now that we're going to upset the community if this bill passes, and we reintroduce the idea that Hawker might be involved. That community has been through enough. We already know that the community in Kimba is split on this. It has caused irreparable division between people who used to be mates and friends, people who used to go and play football with each other and cheer for each other's kids. Now people in Kimba don't shop in certain shops, because of the division created. I note this bill tries to reinstate division in the Hawker community, and that's not acceptable.
We got to the point where the government decided to make a recommendation. They didn't make a decision under the act. Under the current legislation, the minister was empowered to make a decision, but he didn't. Why didn't he do that? It's because the AGS has clearly given the government advice that if they go down that pathway, there will be a judicial review and there's a reasonable chance that their process will get chucked out by a judge who looks at it closely. That's likely what's going to happen. What did the government do? They said, 'Senate, please fix-up our botched process by passing a law that nominates the site, because the courts can't overturn that.' That's the process we were looking at when this bill first lobbed itself on to the floor of the Senate.
We've done an inquiry. We've looked into this. I thank the Labor Party, who have done a good job in identifying a pretty key issue here. That issue is that the bill sought to oust any ability to conduct a judicial review. At the inquiry into this, I asked one of the officials, Ms Samantha Chard if she was thinking about this, what the conversations were and whether she was talking about judicial rule in the lead-up to this bill being tabled. She couldn't recall doing that. Yet, when I FOIed her two or three days later, there were 500 and something documents in her possession that talked about judicial review. That was deceiving the committee; I used much stronger words in the dissenting report. You have an official who denies that this bill is about judicial review. A few days later, when faced with an FOI request, it came back saying, 'There are too many documents that mention that. We're going to have to refuse your FOI.' That's the status. So we had a deception by the government who were trying to hide the fact that that the intent was to hide judicial review, and, shamefully, it was supported by officials. People who, shamefully, lied to a Senate committee in order to cover-up what the minister was really trying to do. That's what we got to.
We got to a point where the Senate stood up and said, 'We are not going to fix your botched error, Senator Canavan. We are not going to do that for the Liberal government.' What have they done now? They've tried to smooth us over a bit by saying, 'Okay, we're not going to get the parliament to select the site, but we're going to bring some other players back into the game. We're going to bring back Lyndhurst in Kimba'—which will cause the same problem of putting a radioactive waste management facility on prime agricultural land—'or we're going to reintroduce Hawker as an option.' Again, the community in Hawker have had their say. They don't want the facility.
We've heard in this debate issues of heritage sites, sacred sites. I say that because I've been there. I've driven out into the bush and had a look at these sites. I've been taken out there by the Indigenous communities and proudly shown their heritage. That's what we are going to do with this bill. We're going to introduce and bring back into the picture a few more options. I'll talk about this in the committee stage, but I will foreshadow that one of the options I'm going to propose is Woomera. If we'd started out with the view, 'Where's the best place to put a facility?' instead of saying, 'Who wants to volunteer some land?' Woomera may well have been one of the places. In fact, it was examined in great detail under a former Liberal government as a reasonable place to put a facility. But, again, there's Leonora in Western Australia. I understand. I travelled there and talked to Indigenous people and the community, and they wanted the facility. It got knocked out. In fact, it wasn't allowed into this process. I thank the Labor Party for recognising that.
Senator McAllister did a fantastic job drawing out in the committee stage that this bill, as it originally entered the Senate, was about ousting the jurisdiction of a court to deal with a botched process. This bill now, as a ruse, says that it's about maybe three sites, again, when we know the government is going to select Napandee. That's what's going to happen as a result of this. Don't pretend for a moment, don't try and deceive the Australian public that this bill is anything other than a way to walk away from the failure of the process, the failure of the bill as it originally came into the Senate, to try and smooth over what has been a totally botched process.
I rise to speak on the second reading of the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020. The issue of a national radioactive waste facility in Australia has a long and fought history. We don't have a national facility for the storage of this waste, which instead is held at more than 100 locations around Australia, many of which were not designed for the long-term storage of waste. The majority of the radioactive waste produced in Australia is classed as low-level waste. We do produce some intermediate-level waste, for example, from the production of nuclear medicines. The use of radioactive materials in this context is of critical importance to Australians. Managing this waste at a single site rather than at many sites across Australia has been an objective of governments of both persuasions. The public policy rationale for this is clear. Despite this, we have been at an impasse for decades, dating back to the 1970s. Understandably, community anxiety about the storage of radioactive waste has not been able to be overcome, resulting in the failure of all attempts to agree on a site for a national facility.
In an effort to break this impasse, in 2012, the Gillard-Labor government enacted the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012. That act provided a transparent legislative process for selecting a site for a national radioactive waste facility. It sought to build community confidence to overcome anxieties about the risks that a national radioactive waste facility might pose to any community. It is unfortunate then that, at every step, this process has been so bungled by the coalition. The deep flaws in this process have been the subject of significant debate here and work by Senate committees. I don't intend to revisit all aspects of it, although Senator Patrick did go to some of those in his contribution. But a brief history demonstrates how we came to find ourselves here today debating this bill that is before the chamber.
In September 2014, the Abbott government released a notice of intention to consider opening a nationwide volunteer process of landowners to dominate a national radioactive waste facility. Between 2 March and 5 May 2015, 28 applications were received. In November 2015 the then minister for resources, Mr Frydenberg, announced the six nominated areas that had been assessed as suitable for a further assessment and public consultation. Two of the three sites now listed in the government's proposed amendment were not contained in that process. But in November 2016 the subsequent minister for resources, Senator Canavan, announced a revision to the radioactive waste management nomination of land guidelines. His revision set out a process allowing landholders to nominate their land as a potential site for the facility. Then in March 2017 Minister Canavan announced the formal receipt of two new nominations near Kimba, Napandee and Lyndhurst, which he accepted to proceed to initial consultation. In June Minister Canavan accepted the nominations of the Kimba sites and announced that the sites were to proceed to the next phase of assessment.
The consultation process undertaken by the government can best be characterised as shambolic. It fomented division within communities, divided between support for the potential economic benefit of hosting a nuclear waste facility and opposition based on the reputational, environmental and cultural heritage risks. But rather than work with communities to inform debate and reconcile differences, the approach adopted by the coalition and, in particular, then Minister Canavan exacerbated these tensions. As the Conservation Council of South Australia noted in a submission to the Senate Economics References Committee:
… confidence in the decision-making process has been eroded by the flawed and divisive consultation, lack of definition and geographic definition of the community and stakeholders …
This is no more evident than in the treatment of traditional owners through this process.
Senator Canavan refused to allow the Barngarla people, the traditional owners, the right to vote at all in the community ballots. The Barngarla challenged this decision in court but were unsuccessful. Despite this, Minister Canavan and now Minister Pitt rely on the Kimba community ballot result to justify their support for locating a facility at Napandee. Because the Barngarla people were denied the right to vote, members of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation held their own ballot, and it returned a no vote. Of course, the minister has refused to acknowledge the Barngarla community's ballot.
The fact is, for years now the minister has had the power to make a declaration, under section 14 of the 2012 legislation to which I referred, to select a site. For years the minister has refused to do so, instead, bowling out this bill to the parliament—this bill with which the government is seeking to cure its own stuff-up by asking the parliament to do the government's job, by asking the parliament to make the very decision the minister is empowered to make and to remove the capacity for community to challenge that decision in court. So it is important to remember in this debate, this government could have made this decision at any time over the last four years but it has refused to do so.
When this bill was introduced to the parliament, the Barngarla people approached me. I met with their representatives and I heard their concerns. I encouraged the government to engage with them. Yet it has not been, until recent days—at the urging of Labor and, in particular, the shadow minister for resources, Ms King—that the minister has finally engaged. And when the amendment now circulated by the government was first published, the fact that it included a site on the traditional lands of the Adnyamathanha people was news to those peoples. There was no consultation, no discussion about the meaning of its inclusion, no explanation about the government's intention. It was this side of the chamber, again—not the government of the day—who reached out to the Adnyamathanha people. So Mr Ramsey and many others who keep publicly supporting this facility perhaps should have concentrated on talking to impacted communities—rather than telling me and other people to get out of the way—hearing them and working with them. It's the approach that should have been taken to this bill and the approach that I have sought to take.
As I said, when this bill was first introduced I was contacted by the Barngarla peoples and their representatives. They made the very reasonable point that the bill as it was overrode their democratic and legal rights. This is against a history of their exclusion in the decision-making process. Labor is a party committed to reconciliation and recognition. We understand the importance of consultation with First Nations peoples and of respecting their views. This matter, this bill and the associated matters, was discussed at Labor's First Nations Caucus Committee, and the position adopted by the caucus reflected the importance of preserving the legal rights of the Barngarla in respect of any decision; hence our prior position, which was to oppose site selection by legislation and oppose the removal of the capacity for judicial review. It also informs our position today.
We do welcome the government introducing amendments, which abandon site selection by legislation and the removal of capacity for judicial review. I note that the minister has agreed to address additional concerns raised by the Barngarla in a further provision to the explanatory memorandum. We have also consulted in the time allowed with the Adnyamathanah people and we look forward to the government clarifying on Hansard its intentions in respect of the site at Wallerberdina. It is on the basis of that clarification that the Adnyamathanah representatives have accepted our support for the amended bill.
I also want to take a moment to briefly respond to the contribution made earlier by Senator Hanson-Young, who came in and ran a line without regard to the content of the bill or the positions expressed by the traditional owners on the question actually before the Senate. Ultimately, the bill before us is not about whether a nuclear waste facility proceeds. The minister already has the power to make that decision and he could do so right now. Labor have listened to traditional owners throughout this process and we have worked with them in securing concessions from the government and in taking Labor's final position, and I encourage all senators to do the same.
I want to acknowledge the significant amount of work by the shadow minister for resources, Ms King, her predecessor, Mr O'Connor, and the shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, Ms Burney. I also want to thank the members of Labor's First Nations caucus committee. Our party is made so much richer for our commitment to reconciliation, a commitment that we have sought to demonstrate by our approach to this bill—to consult, to discuss and work together—to achieve an outcome.
Labor supports the Uluru Statement. We support 'Voice. Treaty. Truth.' The need for a voice enshrined in our Constitution has never been more clear to me. The whole process is a reminder of how much further we have to go to achieve a more respectful relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia. We won't always be able to find agreement but we must try. We must talk, we must listen and we must seek to understand, and only then will we be able to continue on the path to reconciliation.
I rise to speak to the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020. One Nation will never support the removal of judicial review from legislation. This position means One Nation has and will continue to resist pressure from the government to legislate a site in Kimba in South Australia for radioactive waste management. One Nation will always stand up for the freedoms past generations have passed on to us.
In the next 12 months there will be a general election to elect a new federal government. If Australians act like sheep, voting for the two parties and their sidekicks who want to take away their judicial rights, they are going to get wolves in government. If the two big parties had their way, a radioactive nuclear waste facility would now be under construction on the Eyre Peninsula in the middle of prime cropping land in South Australia. Just four per cent of the land in South Australia is suitable for wheat, barley and canola, but the government wants to use the prime land to build a radioactive waste facility. Up until recently, Labor agreed to the removal of judicial review in relation to site selection for a national radioactive waste storage facility. Now they champion judicial review? I ask: what grubby deal has Labor done with government to get this bill through the Senate? No wonder voters are leaving Labor and turning to One Nation.
Today we are debating the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020, whose purpose is to avoid the need for Minister Pitt to declare a site for a nuclear dump under section 14(2) of the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 and consequently to avoid judicial review in the court. One Nation believes the government should be answerable to its citizens through the process of judicial review. It is this principle which underpins our strong stance on the matter. I made it clear to the government that One Nation supported a radioactive waste facility in a suitable permanent site but that we would not support a bill which took away the rights to judicial review.
The government now accepts it does not have the numbers to get the Senate to declare Napandee as a site for a national radioactive waste management facility. Now the government is amending its own bill. The effect of the amendment would be to continue providing community funding and negate the proposal for the Senate to make the site decision. One Nation will oppose the bill and the amendment. We will not take part in face-saving theatre. The government can put up a separate community funding bill once it declares a site and judicial review is complete.
There is no doubt we need to store nuclear waste we produce, but the arguments put up by the government about hospital waste are a red herring. The people of Australia have been let down in this matter. Nearly $100 million has been wasted on buying off special-interest groups when that money should have gone into rural and regional health and education. The Australian public has been subject to a campaign of misinformation by the government aided by poorly researched opinion pieces on the proposed legislation, like the one written by Caleb Bond in the Adelaide Advertiseron 12 December 2020. Caleb Bond accused me of selling South Australia up the creek for refusing to pass the government's bill to legislate a site for a nuclear waste dump just outside of Kimba. My advice to all journalists is to do your own research rather than make up stories based on briefings from the government. If you must use the government as your source, at least acknowledge the source.
I am not responsible for the decision by the government to narrow its site selection in South Australia and to reject other sites which appear to have more going for them, like the site at Leonora at Western Australia's low ground in an old mine of solid granite. This remote location has community support, including the native title holders, but this government refuses to investigate the Leonora site. A radioactive waste storage facility is a target for terrorists. In the event of a terrorist attack, the deadly waste stored in an above-ground facility at Kimba could easily become airborne and then carry to Adelaide and beyond with prevailing westerly winds.
The government has ticked every wrong box to arrive at its decision to impose a national dump site for radioactive waste on unwilling communities in South Australia. The three sites mentioned in the amended bill are all in South Australia. No-one seriously believes that the government is considering any site other than Napandee near Kimba. They have already given this small community upwards of $6 million, with the promise of more. There is no place on the map called Napandee in South Australia, but you can find the name 'Napandee' on a farm sign. The site manager is living in the area and the government is considering tenders for engineering advice for the site of Napandee.
The government knows it will face a challenge in the courts from the Barngarla people, who are the native title holders on the Eyre Peninsula. The Barngarla people carry the hopes of the Indigenous people of South Australia. Aboriginal people in South Australia and other Australians carry the legacy of the nuclear testing done in the 1950s and 1960s in South Australia. If the government want to give Aboriginal people a voice, then they should give them a voice on the site for a radioactive waste management facility. To date the government has sought to silence Aboriginal people on this most important issue, but the day of reckoning will come in the courts. The government talks about reconciliation. In One Nation, we just do it.
No-one has seen a list of the radioactive waste materials to be stored in the national radioactive waste facility, opening the real possibility of mission creep over time. There is no safety case. The minister says it will be safe. How would he know? Nothing is safe where humans are involved. The National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 proposes to find a single location to store low-level radioactive waste produced in the production of nuclear medicines and other products and intermediate-level waste reactor core components that have undergone reprocessing overseas.
The level of radioactivity in each of these waste categories at the rate at which they decay determines the management, storage and disposal. In other words, we need to know what will be stored before decisions can be made about where and how to store it. Low-level radioactive waste, like paper, plastics and scrap metal items which have been used in hospitals and research institutions, are kept locally for six months and then disposed of locally, which means no storage problems here. Intermediate-level radioactive waste needs to be stabilised before being moved and then packaged in steel drums and stored in purpose built facilities which are located away from population centres.
The frequency, flow and volume of surface and ground waters is critical to the siting of any nuclear waste storage facility, particularly on the Eyre Peninsula, where all the population relies on groundwater. The government has not released the groundwater studies. Where are they? Is the radioactive waste to be stored permanently underground? No. The legislation proposes a temporary above-ground site at Napandee, near Kimba, with a permanent site to be found later. I will tell you when that will be, when all the members of this parliament are dead. The proposed cost of this above-ground radioactive waste dump site is estimated to cost about a third of a billion dollars, all of which will have been wasted because it's a temporary solution. I am annoyed. The hard decision, which is the permanent dump site, has been kicked down the road like a can instead of being picked up and dealt with.
Is the movement of radioactive waste minimised for public safety by keeping the dump site close to the site of production? No. Large volumes of radioactive waste will be transported hundreds of kilometres by road into South Australia, contrary to section 9 of South Australia's Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000. Has the government resolved the conflict with section 8 of South Australia's Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000, which expressly forbids the construction of a nuclear waste facility? No. The federal government proposes that this bill override any state legislation regulating, hindering or preventing the establishment of a national radioactive waste facility in South Australia.
Where is the Marshall government in South Australia on this issue? Its silence is deafening. The next state election in South Australia is on 19 March 2022. Premier Marshall has said nothing and has not repealed South Australia's Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000. I note that the 2021-22 budget provides South Australia with $3.4 billion in new commitments, compared with $2 billion for Queensland and $377 million for Tasmania. Has the federal government bought the Marshall state government? I will let the voters in South Australia work that one out for themselves.
Is the proposed dump site near Kimba a geologically stable area? No. The site at Napandee, near Kimba, is on a geological fault zone in the Great Artesian Basin. Has consultation with South Australia been adequate? No. The consultation process and the millions spent on bribing locals to support their plans is a stain on this government and on the department of industry, innovation and science. I call on the government to invite the Auditor-General to audit the funds spent at Kimba and Hawker in the Flinders Ranges. While they are investigating the millions spent on bribing locals, they can investigate how taxpayers' money was spent renovating a local hotel which was then sold. It is such a tragedy, when 18 per cent of children live in households below the poverty line in rural and regional South Australia.
One Nation will not support this legislation. Heads should roll in the department of industry, innovation and science, which has a sorry record on this matter. We need to find a permanent solution to the storage of intermediate-level radioactive waste in Australia, but the process needs to be thoroughly done, and giving another $2 million to the small community of Kimba is not going to get there. The conduct of the government and, in particular, National Party ministers—that is, Minister Pitt and the former resources minister, Senator Canavan—in this matter is a national tragedy.
The siting of a radioactive waste storage facility is a tough decision for our nation. It is one that has been under consideration for many decades—indeed, for about 40 years. Before I go through some of the history of that 40 years, I want to take the opportunity to thank the many people in Kimba and Hawker, and the Hawker region, who have been involved in this latest consultation process. It was my great privilege and honour, as the minister for resources, to meet so many of these great people, some of whom were for and some against the radioactive waste facility in their region. But both of those regions are special parts of our nation. The Hawker region is proximate to the beautiful Flinders Ranges, and I am thankful for the hospitality that was shown to me by the people of that region. Indeed, I paid for some of my children to come down onto Aboriginal country at the time to experience their culture and we stayed near the Flinders Ranges with the Adnyamathanha people at the campsite that they run. It's a great community, a great part of our nation. I hope they're doing well with all the domestic tourism that's going around at the moment.
I also love the town of Kimba, a beautiful town in rural South Australia. It is a lovely community, full of great people—again, people who support it and people who are against it. I've always understood why people would not be rushing out to support a radioactive waste facility in their town. It is a tough decision that, as I said, we as a nation have to make. I want to thank the mayor of Kimba, Dean Johnson. I spent a lot of time with Dean, and the landowners, the Baldocks—Jeff Baldock. I forgot to thank, from Hawker, Tiger McKenzie, a great fellow out there, a proud Adnyamathanha man who runs his own property with his people, and also Vince Coulthard, who was the CEO of Adnyamathanha at the time—I think he might still be, but I'm not as close to it as I once was. I want to thank others from Kimba, like Tony Scott, and Marie, from the local hotel, who put me up in a beautiful room for one night. Thank you, Marie. She runs a great pub there at Kimba, if you're ever passing through.
So, I just want to thank them, because I know how hard it has been for those communities to go through such a lengthy process. They haven't been there for the whole 40 years, but this latest process to short-list sites and go through a grassroots process to find a facility for our nation has taken many years, unfortunately. It did get held up in the courts—and it's the right of people to take court action—and of course it's taken a little while to get this bill here to this position. In that regard, I want to thank the Labor Party for, I believe, their cooperation here, and also congratulate the minister for resources, Keith Pitt, on bringing this forward. It's a very tough issue. If it was easy, it would have been solved at some point in that past 40 years. I want to recognise some of the previous ministers who have been involved in this process and put a lot of effort into it, many from the Labor side of politics, like Senator Kim Carr and former members Martin Ferguson and Gary Gray. I know all of them are very passionate about this issue, and I thank them for their long commitment and involvement. On our side, also, I want to thank Ian Macfarlane and Josh Frydenberg, who played a role in getting it to this stage. As I said, it is a tough decision. But it is one that we must make at some point.
We should be proud of the fact that we produce some of the best nuclear medicines in the world. We have a world-class nuclear medicine facility at Lucas Heights, just 30 kilometres from the middle of Sydney. It is respected around the world. It puts us in the upper echelons of nuclear research and technology around the world and in nuclear regulation as well, because it is a reactor. There is a nuclear reactor 30 kilometres from the middle of Sydney. It doesn't produce electricity, and it's a relatively small reactor, from memory—about 30 megawatts. But it produces lifesaving medicines that one in two Australians will need at some time in their lifetime. Think of the 76 senators here in this chamber, and add on a few of our dedicated staff and you'd maybe get to 100-odd people sometimes in this chamber; 50 of them will at some time in their lives need nuclear medicines, most of which, in this country, will have produced at Lucas Heights.
We should take pride in that. I'm sure all of us in that situation or with loved ones in that situation would want to have access to such medicines. But we also, if we want to have access to the good things, have to be adult about it and face up to the tough things that are produced as part of that process. As part of that process of producing those nuclear medicines, there is nuclear waste. There's both nuclear waste produced in the nuclear reactor reaction process itself, in the nuclear rods, and nuclear waste associated with the management of the nuclear medicines and distribution and application of those medicines, in things like medical gowns and equipment.
As I said, we've been searching for a place for around 40 years. I asked someone in the department once, 'When did we start doing this?' They mentioned that they'd asked someone once who they thought had been around at the time. It was in the Fraser administration that we started looking at this. It was that long ago, and we as a nation still haven't found a solution to this tough question. Right now, what's happening is that nuclear waste that's generated for this necessary, life-saving process, is almost all stored at Lucas Heights itself, 30 kilometres from the middle of Sydney. There's nothing wrong with that. It's perfectly safe there and has been managed safely for decades. But the site itself is small and we are running out of room at Lucas Heights to store it all—hence the need to find a long-term place to store low-level and potentially mid-level waste for our nation.
I heard Senator Hanson say that somehow the consultation had been inadequate. I'm not here to defend everything the government did—others will make their judgements about this—but there perhaps has not been a more extensive consultation process. Whether it's been effective or not I'll let others judge, but it has been as extensive as you can get in talking to people and trying to find a grassroots solution. At the start of this, before my time as minister, there were applications from different places around Australia. We called for applications. The government didn't go along and say, 'We're going to look at you, you and you.' We asked people to nominate their own land. A process was then gone through to look at whether there was initial support. Then the region of Hawker and Quorn was consulted as well and the Kimba council area was selected. A proper, intensive vote happened. Everybody in that area got a vote, according to the local government rolls. It was a democratic process.
We went through an intensive information campaign to provide people with the information they needed to make an informed decision. I believe I as minister travelled to Kimba and Hawker three times as part of that process to answer people's questions and concerns and to provide the experts there to help people make an informed decision about this. There was a lot of feedback and a lot of views on both sides. I want to stress here, as I said at the start, that I recognise and accept all different views on this matter. I always understood why people would have a certain view. There is not going to be a place that exists in this country where we would get 100 per cent, 90 per cent or 80 per cent support for a facility of this kind. That would not happen. I think some of those here who are holding out to perhaps seek such a nirvana or utopia either really don't want to find a solution to this because they, for some reason, oppose the nuclear industry, even though I'm sure they'd like to use nuclear medicines, or are seeking to use the understandable division in the community for their own political purposes.
What I was humbled by, though, was hearing all of those views. It was tough for those communities. It took a lot of time for them. I put aside almost a full week, I think, early last year to read through the hundreds of submissions we received. Alongside the vote, we called for submissions. I sat down and read each of the bespoke submissions individually. There were of course some campaign based letters and emails. I read examples of each of those. Yes, it was an eye-opening experience to read all of that individual feedback. As I said, there were people concerned, as Senator Hanson said earlier, about the hydrology, the geology and the safety of the materials. I completely recognise that. We went through a very extensive design process around stormwater, hydrology issues and geological testing. I can say I'm confident that this would be a safe facility based on world-best standards. It would have to go through the world-class regulatory process that we have here in this country, which already does regulate Lucas Heights.
What particularly struck me were the letters from young people in these regions, in Kimba and Hawker, especially those young people who saw this as an opportunity for them. These towns are only small. There are only a few hundred people in either location. They are vibrant communities centred around agriculture, primarily. But, outside of that industry, there are not an enormous number of job opportunities. I know what that feels like, coming from a regional town, albeit the larger regional town of Yeppoon. So many of our young people have to move away from their home just to find work because there's not the diversity of work opportunities in a regional town as there always is in a big city.
That's always going to be the case. We always face that handicap. But where there can be an opportunity to grow new skills, new industry, that is quite attractive to people in these circumstances. Some people want to stay in their home community. They don't want to move away, but they also need to have a job and need to be able to pay the bills. This facility would make a difference for some. It's not going to be a panacea. It's not going to help everybody. But, for some, it would help give them an opportunity that doesn't currently exist in these towns. Most importantly of all, it would help connect these small country towns—great places but small places—with the world-class nuclear industry that we have here in this country.
There are towns the size of Kimba and Hawker right around the country. But very few of them—none of them, I would say—would be able to have a direct connection to a world-class scientific establishment like the Lucas Heights nuclear facility. It is a world-class facility. I think what did seem to convince some people, if I could posit this, was travelling to Lucas Heights. We offered to have all the leaders of community consultation groups we'd established travel to Lucas Heights to see the waste that's currently stored. We offered opponents of the facility that access. A lot of people who went there were struck by it and said, 'This is a serious scientific establishment. Our small town of a few hundred people is not going to get a nuclear reactor or a medical facility, but, if we had this waste facility, our kids would get school trips,' as we're going to do. We'll make sure there are connected school trips to Lucas Heights. Some kid from Kimba might get interested in nuclear medicine and go on to a stellar career through that, or they might come back and help manage this waste at this facility. I think the projections were that there would be about 15 to 20 skilled positions at this facility, which would need training, and that would help people. That, to me, was probably a reason behind the fact that, at Kimba, more than 60 per cent of people supported the waste facility. I recognise there were opponents. I particularly recognise the position of the Barngarla people, who I met with and wanted to meet with more. But we also cannot ignore those 60-odd per cent of Kimba people who do want an opportunity for their children. We need to find a way of balancing these views and positions in making these tough decisions as a nation.
I hope that, through this process, we do not walk away from this tough decision. There have been a lot of other sites proposed around the country that have fallen through at the last minute, kicking this can down the road for future generations of Australians to deal with. We all benefit from nuclear medicines today. We should not be kicking the responsibility of managing this waste to future Australians. We should be able to take charge of this issue, find a solution, work with the communities involved and make this as much as possible a win-win for our nation.
The National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 is worthy of the Senate's support. I commend Senator Canavan on an excellent speech outlining all the issues. The issue of a waste management facility and its placement is something that the community does need to be consulted about, and it's appropriate that we, in this place, talk about it and talk about the consequences. But one thing that the community has never been consulted about is the 100 facilities dotted around our country today, as we speak, where radioactive waste is actually stored—under hospitals, in industrial sites et cetera. Doesn't it make good sense to try to bring all that together in one national facility, to ensure that it is all properly looked after, cared for and protected in a manner that can ensure community confidence in its storage?
Regrettably, some people seek to get political mileage out of the fact that there is understandable concern whenever the term 'nuclear' is mentioned. The simple fact is that 50 per cent of us will one day be the beneficiaries of some form of nuclear medicine. For those who want to ensure that Australia has no nuclear waste to deal with, be upfront: tell your fellow Australians that the cancer sufferers and others should not be the beneficiaries of nuclear medicine. That is always dismissed from the debate. If you want lifesaving nuclear medicine, there are consequences. There will be nuclear waste. That is why there are these storage facilities in hospitals dotted all around our nation. Is that a good thing? Would it be better for it all to be stored in the one facility? Of course it would be. Common sense dictates that that ought to be the case, and I think most Australians looking at this situation would commend the government for making a tough decision.
For a couple of decades now, this issue has been kicked around on the political agenda. People have asked: 'What about here? What about there?' We are now finally focusing on the possibilities of a facility, with a $20 million community fund to assist in all this. I simply say to colleagues in this chamber that politics really has to be set aside and the wellbeing of the nation has to be considered. The question is very simple: will you tell your constituents, 50 per cent of whom will be the beneficiaries of nuclear medicine, that you are against nuclear medicine? I'm sure they won't do that. If you don't have the intestinal fortitude and the intellectual coherence to tell your constituents that, then you must accept that the nation has to deal with nuclear waste. The question then is how best to deal with it. Should it be scattered around the nation in 44-gallon drums, under hospitals and in other places, or should it all be gathered together and held in one purpose-built facility? We all know the answer to that. That is why I would encourage the Senate to consider this legislation in that light. Let's get on with the task of ensuring that we can deliver world-class facilities that will ensure the good and proper storage of these waste materials, 85 per cent of which actually come from the medical sector. I commend the bill.
As Senator Abetz has just articulately outlined, in their lifetime, every Australian is likely to rely on nuclear medicine to identify and treat life-threatening cancers and other conditions. Australia has a responsibility to safely and securely manage our radioactive waste, which is the by-product of nuclear medicine manufacturing and other nuclear research in the national interest.
This bill reflects over 40 years of effort by successive governments and successive ministers—such as Senator Carr on the other side and Senator Canavan, who just made a contribution, and now, in the other place, the member for Hinkler, Mr Pitt—to progress the facility and guarantee the production of nuclear medicine in this country. I would like to thank the communities around Lyndhurst, Napandee and Wallerberdina for engaging in this lengthy process in good faith. I'd also like to thank the member for Grey, Rowan Ramsey, for his ongoing commitment to this project, and acknowledge the South Australian government's support for this important infrastructure which is in the national interest.
Government has invited parliamentary oversight of this bill. Minister Pitt referred the bill to the Economics Legislation Committee to ensure stakeholders had the opportunity to have their say about the delivery of this vital piece of national infrastructure. The committee report recommended that the bill be passed without amendment. Consistent with other recommendations made by the committee, the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency continues to reach out to the Barngarla people to seek their support to engage with an independent mediator. The government remains committed to working with the Barngarla people to appropriately manage Aboriginal cultural heritage and to support Aboriginal economic development in the region.
Senator Patrick's proposed amendments are unsuitable. It would not be sensible to permanently site a facility in a missile-testing range. The government accepts the advice of Defence that a radioactive waste facility is not compatible with those operations. Additionally, these amendments would impose a site on a community that has not been subject to thorough community consultation or extensive technical assessments.
In the course of the inquiry and legislative debate, it has been clear that stakeholders are uncomfortable about the site selection decision being one made by the parliament. The government has heard these concerns and consulted with the opposition and the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation on these amendments that will reinstate judicial review to the site decision. The amendments recognise the three short-listed sites and reinstate a declaration process, a process whereby the minister must have regard for all the relevant information and make an informed decision to declare a suitable site for the facility. This is no longer site-specific legislation.
The level of community support will weigh into the minister's consideration when determining where to declare a site for a facility. Listing the Wallerberdina Station site recognises the short-listing stage of the site selection process only. It is not—and I reinforce it is not—intended to signal a change in the government's assessment of that site. The community that live and work in the vicinity of Wallerberdina Station have made it clear that they do not broadly support the facility being located there. The government's position is clear: the facility will not be imposed on an unwilling local community.
In passing this bill, the Senate has the opportunity to establish important mechanisms to support the host community and ensure they can realise the benefits that this new industry will bring. The Senate also has the opportunity to recognise the bipartisan support for a purpose-built facility which will permanently dispose of Australia's domestic low-level waste and temporarily store our intermediate-level waste.
In concluding, I thank all of the senators who have made a contribution to this bill, whether it be through the very extensive committee process, the bipartisan support that this received in the recommendations from that committee report or the contributions that have been made by senators in this place as we have started to debate this bill tonight. I thank them very much for their contribution to this debate and I commend the bill to the Senate.
I table two supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government's amendments to be moved to the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020.
The question is that this bill be read a second time.
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (10) on sheet SV110 together:
(1) Clause 1, page 1 (line 15), omit "Specification", substitute "Selection".
(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 1) to page 14 (line 19), omit the Schedule, substitute:
Schedule 1—Site selection
1 Certain land taken to have been nominated and approved
(1) For the purposes of the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 (the Act), the following table has effect:
(2) The land specified in this subitem is the area of land that is bounded by the line starting at the point described in item 1 of the following table and running sequentially as described in the table.
(3) The land specified in this subitem is Section 38, Hundred of Moseley, in the area named Moseley, being part of the land described in South Australian Certificate of Title Volume 5925 Folio 858.
(4) The land specified in this subitem is the whole of the land described in South Australian Crown Lease Volume 6200 Folio 237 (formerly South Australian Crown Lease Volume 1215 Folio 28), being:
(a) the allotment comprising pieces 30, 31, 32 and 33 Deposited Plan 46041 in the area named Flinders Ranges Hundred of Cotabena; and
(b) the allotment comprising pieces 40, 41, 42 and 43 Deposited Plan 46041 in the area named Flinders Ranges Hundred of Cotabena.
2 Compensation for acquisition of property
(1) If the operation of this Schedule would result in an acquisition of property (within the meaning of paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution) from a person otherwise than on just terms (within the meaning of that paragraph), the Commonwealth is liable to pay a reasonable amount of compensation to the person.
(2) If the Commonwealth and the person do not agree on the amount of the compensation, the person may institute proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia for the recovery from the Commonwealth of such reasonable amount of compensation as the court determines.
(3) Schedule 2, item 1, page 15 (lines 9 to 11), omit the definition of local government area in section 4, substitute:
local government area means an area that, at the time the Minister makes a declaration under subsection 14(2) in relation to a site, is an area for which a local government body is constituted by or under a law of the State or Territory in which the site is situated.
(4) Schedule 2, page 15 (after line 14), after item 1, insert:
1A Subsection 22(1)
Omit "Immediately after a declaration under subsection 14(2) takes effect, the", substitute "The".
(5) Schedule 2, page 15 (after line 17), after item 2, insert:
2A Section 34A
Repeal the section, substitute:
34A Application of Part
This Part applies if:
(a) the Minister has made a declaration under subsection 14(2) that a site is selected as the site for a facility; and
(b) a facility has been constructed at the site; and
(c) a facility licence that authorises a person to operate the facility has been issued under the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998.
(6) Schedule 2, item 3, page 16 (lines 1 to 4), omit paragraphs 34AA(2) (b) and (c), substitute:
(b) the local government body that serves the local government area in which the facility is situated;
(c) the government of the State or Territory in which the facility is situated.
(7) Schedule 2, page 17 (after line 27), after item 6, insert:
6A Paragraphs 34B(1 ) ( b) and (c)
Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:
(b) the State or Territory in which the facility is situated;
(c) a Commonwealth entity or an authority of the State or Territory in which the facility is situated;
(8) Schedule 2, page 18 (after line 1), after item 7, insert:
7A Subsection 34B(3)
Repeal the subsection.
(9) Schedule 3, page 19 (before line 4), before item 1, insert:
1A Section 3
Repeal the section, substitute:
3 Object of Act
(1) The object of this Act is to ensure that controlled material is safely and securely managed by providing for:
(a) the selection of a site for a radioactive waste management facility on land in Australia; and
(b) the establishment and operation of such a facility on the selected site.
(2) By ensuring that controlled material is safely and securely managed, this Act, among other things, gives effect to certain obligations that Australia has as a party to the Joint Convention, in particular, Australia's obligations under Chapters 3 and 4 of the Joint Convention.
(10) Schedule 3, page 19 (after line 23), after item 3, insert:
3A Section 4
Insert:
Joint Convention means the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, done at Vienna on 5 September 1997, as amended and in force for Australia from time to time.
Note: The Joint Convention is in Australian Treaty Series 2003 No. 21 ([2003] ATS 21)] and could in 2021 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au).
The government is absolutely committed to the urgent establishment of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility to secure Australia's nuclear medicine manufacturing capability. The government has invited parliamentary oversight of this bill and is open to further scrutiny of the site selection decision. The specification of the site in legislation was never intended to avoid scrutiny of the site selection decision. The government has heard the concerns that have been raised, particularly about those who are uncomfortable with the site's selection decision being made by the parliament, and has worked closely with the opposition in developing and consulting on these amendments.
I am moving amendments which reinstate the existing site declaration process and provide legislative recognition of the short-listed sites. Focusing the site declaration decision on the three short-listed sites is consistent with community expectations and the existing site selection process. Together with the legislative amendments establishing the community fund, these amendments will ensure a national radioactive waste facility can be progressed in the national interest and that the community that hosts it will be well supported.
I've got a couple of questions for the minister. In relation to these amendments, which seem like a nice face-saving exercise for the government on something that they were unable to get through the parliament until now, why is the table that lists the three sites included? If this is not prescriptive, then what's the purpose of the table that includes the three short-listed sites, as opposed to a nomination process by the minister that is then, of course, available for judicial review?
My understanding is that the purpose of identifying the short-listing of these three particular sites and the fact that it's recognised in legislation draws a line between the three short-listed sites, which have been subject to the extensive consultation, analysis and community surveys, and other historical nominations. Whilst the minister is not bound to declare any of the three sites, it's important to recognise that the sites have been nominated by landowners in good faith and have been short-listed for further assessment. As you rightly point out, the amendments will recognise the three short-listed sites of Lyndhurst, Napandee and Wallerberdina Station.
Could I just ask the minister to clarify if, under these amendments, the minister is not bound to declare one of these three sites, is it correct that the minister could declare a fourth site or a fifth site or a sixth site?
The answer to your question, Senator Hanson-Young, is yes. But if there was to be an additional site nominated, it would have to go through the full and thorough process of consultation, assessment and analysis before it was able to be listed.
I appreciate the minister answering these questions. I think it's important for people to understand why these amendments have been drafted the way they have. If the minister is not bound to declare any of these three sites, they could indeed go through another consultation period to declare a fourth or a fifth site. What would the be process for declaring any of these three sites? And what would be the process if, indeed, the minister said: 'We don't want any of these three sites. We'll go back to the drawing board?'
The process that has to be followed is outlined in the act, so the same process that was followed in relation to these three sites would have to be followed by any other site that was put forward, but it would be bound by the requirements of the act.
Can I clarify that, Minister, in your second reading contribution, you said that the site in the Flinders Ranges is not a site that the government wishes to pursue. Are you able tonight to rule out a nuclear waste dump in the Flinders Ranges?
The minister obviously has not made a decision in relation to the site that he may choose. However, it is consistent with government policy that the site would require the support of the community in order for it to go forward. I've been clear around the fact that the deeming of the Wallerberdina Station site does not change the government's position in relation to that site.
Can we just be crystal-clear about this? Previously, the minister has ruled out a nuclear waste dump in the Flinders Ranges. Surely, we can get that commitment again tonight, and if not, that should be ringing alarm bells.
As you would be aware, the amendments that are being put forward still leave the determination of the site as a process, a decision and a determination that still remain with the minister. I think I was very clear in my second reading speech that the listing or the deeming of the Wallerberdina Station site is nothing more than recognising that it was part of the short-listing stage of the process that has already been undertaken. The community that live and work in the area of Wallerberdina Station have made it very, very clear that they do not support the facility being located there. Therefore, on that basis, the act speaks for itself in terms of the process that must be accepted in order for the site to go forward. The government could not be clearer. It will not force the facility or impose the facility on an unwilling local community.
I'm struggling to understand why the minister can't just rule out Flinders Ranges being used as a nuclear waste dump site. I thought that is the position you were taking, and now I'm getting weasel words. I don't understand why you can't just say, 'No, we will not be putting a nuclear waste dump in the Flinders Ranges—full stop, end of story.' Give us that commitment.
Senator, you quite clearly understand the legal process that has been undertaken by these amendments. I have made it very clear that the government is not going to enforce a facility on an unwilling community, and that absolutely remains the government's position. However, I am not in a position to be the person who makes the determination in relation to the site. This legislation does not give me that power. That decision-making power remains with the minister for resources. However, I think I have been very, very clear in saying that the government does not intend to enforce this facility on a community that does not want it.
Following on from that, I want to know the process the government went through in publishing these amendments. You can appreciate that the people in Hawker had been through a process that was quite divisive; it divided the community. In reintroducing this into legislation, what consultation did you have with the community to set their minds at ease that this was not a reselection or, really, reintroduction of Wallerberdina as a possible site?
I understand that the department has spoken to the community to reassure them that there is no intention by the government to reopen the Wallerberdina site, because they have already clearly stated that they don't want the facility in that location. Also, statements by both me in this place and the minister in the other place have been very clear that this decision and these amendments does not reflect a decision to change our position on that particular site.
Noting that the list in some sense is not really a list from which the site is going to be selected—I did listen to your second reader—why is it then that you won't permit Woomera to be included on the list? I note that it's an option, and the list has little meaning.
In order for another site to be deemed, it would have to go through the same process. As I also mentioned in my second reading summing-up speech, it is very much the view of the military that a radioactive waste repository and a missile testing range don't really go very well together.
I wonder if you're aware of the study commissioned by the Howard government in 2002 that looked extensively at the suitability of the Woomera site. I have the document here, if you'd like it. It's about 400 pages. It's a very, very comprehensive study, which finds in favour of putting a facility at Woomera. Perhaps you weren't aware of the study, but I wonder whether or not it would change your view. I'm happy to walk over and give it to you. It's a public document. I'm happy to table it, or whatever is necessary to convince you that a lot of due diligence has been done on the Woomera site.
It will probably come as no surprise to you, Senator Patrick, that I actually haven't read the document to which you refer, but I'm sure that the minister and preceding ministers have. My understanding is that Woomera has not been nominated or shortlisted as a site under the current process that is underway, as you would be aware, and nor have the communities surrounding it been consulted in relation to this.
I've also further been advised that in 2017 the department conducted a risk assessment and found the WPA unsuitable to be considered as a site for the facility. That is the most recent assessment that has been undertaken, at which point it was determined that that particular site was not preferred for consideration.
Can you just confirm that the department you are talking about is the department of industry, or is it the Department of Defence?
I understand it is the department of industry, but I will make sure that I get clarification to make sure that I haven't misled you in my answer. I understand it is Industry.
I think Industry did make inquiries to the Department of Defence. In a two- or three-page submission, they sought to rule that out. You'll be aware that the committee that examined this piece of legislation took a trip to Woomera and had a look at the site. I note in your speech in the second reading debate you said that Woomera was not suitable; it's a test range. Just to inform you, Minister—you may already know this—Woomera is 13 per cent of the area of South Australia. It is twice the size of Tasmania. It's beyond comprehension that anyone would accept from the Department of Defence the idea that you can't fit a facility there. It is a massive area. If you look to the north-eastern corner of the Woomera prohibited area, you will find there's a uranium mine at Roxby Downs. It's something like 20 or 30 kilometres inside the WPA. There is a community that clearly doesn't have any particular issue with radioactive material, noting that their livelihoods depend on that. I'm sure you've been up there, as I have, to Roxby and the Olympic Dam.
I also heard during your speech in the second reading debate the idea that we were going to mix a radioactive waste site with a missile firing range. This has all been dealt with by the committee. The Department of Defence advises that, whenever they conduct a missile firing, they have a safety template. So they lay out the area for which there is a danger so that if a missile, aerial vehicle or drone goes rogue it will actually most likely land in that particular safety template. The Department of Defence provided the committee with an overlay map of all of the safety templates that have been used since 2014, and there are massive areas of the Woomera prohibited area that, in actual fact, do not overlap with any test sites. It's an area that is remote. It's not on prime agricultural land. There is quite a thick study that shows that it's quite feasible. It's done all of the geological work and all of the safety work. On the idea that you can't find a location there, this is Defence defending Defence land like no other. This is the department that came to the government in 2009 and said, 'Let's have a $12 billion Future Submarine project,' and then that project got estimated up to $50 billion and then grew to $89 billion and now we have to pay an extra $10 billion to extend the life of the Collins class in order to get it to the point where it can last until the future submarines arrive sometime after 2035. This is the same department you're talking about. It's clearly incompetent in relation to these sorts of projects.
Any person could reasonably go up to Woomera, have a look at the sites and have a look around the airfield up there. You'll see that there are ammunition areas and fuel storage areas, all of which are manageable from an aircraft perspective well away from the range. We've got the road to Roxby Downs that's a stone's throw from the airfield. It's never been shut, under the various rules. There's lots and lots of space up there. You've got a list of three sites that appear to be face-saving sites. Why wouldn't you simply accept the possibility that Woomera is not a bad facility? Remember, at the start of this we ended up with the three sites that you have named in your table, in the amendments, by asking people whether they'd want to have their land as a radioactive waste management site—not by looking and asking, 'What's the best place to put it?' but simply, 'Who wants to have one—which landowner wants to sell their land at four times the market rate to have a facility?' So they can move on and go somewhere else and leave behind a facility.
I've got an amendment on the sheet, and that amendment includes consultation with Indigenous parties and indeed the community. It beggars belief that the government doesn't want to add another potential site where there could well be broad community support, where in the past proper studies have been done that say that this can go there. It's a government that seems to be scared of the Department of Defence and takes a two- or three-page submission to rule out something—afraid of the brass, afraid of the shiny uniforms—and basically takes at face value what they've said yet doesn't listen to the community in Kimba and what their concerns are. That doesn't seem to matter.
I'm left flabbergasted as to why it wouldn't be considered, particularly in circumstances where there are two radioactive waste sites up in the Woomera Prohibited Area. Hangar 5 has 10,000 CSIRO drums sitting there that will have to be moved at cost. Koolymilka has defence waste that includes intermediate-level waste. That's somehow managed to survive for 20 years—longer, actually—without causing interruption to the operations up in the Woomera Prohibited Area. So, I wonder, Minister: how do you reconcile the fact that we've had radioactive waste up there since the 1990s, yet Defence have been able to operate perfectly well with the two facilities that we have up there? I wonder whether you can reconcile that.
There are a number of responses to that long contribution from Senator Patrick. We are going to have to agree to differ in our opinions in relation to the advice that's been received by Defence. You clearly have your own point of view in relation to the advice and the efficacy of the advice that we've received from Defence. We obviously take very seriously the advice we receive from our defence forces.
It's also worth noting that this is a process that's been going on for 40 years now, as you would be well aware, Senator Patrick, and we did undertake previous processes to seek site identification on the basis of technical specifications. But at no time were we able to secure community support for any sites solely on that basis. Also, you made the comment that nobody's listening to the Kimba community. Well, I acknowledge in the gallery—and he's been here most of the day—the member for Grey, who lives in the Kimba community and has had very hands-on involvement in the consultation process that's been undertaken in his community in relation to this particular facility. He would probably have been aghast to think that you would come in here and say that the Kimba community hasn't been consulted, that the Kimba community hasn't been listened to, because I think he would absolutely think that that was not the case.
In relation to Woomera, it has not been nominated to date. It has had no technical assessment, and it has had no community consultation. To simply suggest that we go and tack on to a process that is already well underway, in terms of the full process that has been undertaken in relation to the act that governs this particular activity, is something that you've obviously overlooked. Senator Patrick, we're just going to have to agree to disagree in relation to the validity of the advice received by the government from defence.
In the lead-up to the transportation of radioactive waste to Woomera that came from CSIRO and St Marys, there's a report I got under FOI that dates back to 1995. The report is called Review of arrangements for the recent transportation of radioactive waste. It describes some of the material that is on the Koolymilka site. I want to understand what the plans are in relation to that particular material, noting the fact that it is not low-level radioactive waste. The paragraph reads:
The waste includes obsolete medical radium sources, radium-based luminescent paint powder, obsolete radium-contaminated laboratory equipment, electronic valves, luminescent watch and compass faces, night markers, and spent sealed medical sources. The radionuclides which comprise the main part of the waste are cobalt-60, radium-226, americium-241, strontium-90, and caesium-137. The waste also contains very small amounts of other radionuclides, including a minute amount of plutonium-239.
This material is intermediate-level waste. If a site is chosen in Kimba, I wonder whether the government plans to shift that particular waste into the facilities at Kimba, in effect making it almost immediately an intermediate-level waste facility. If that is the case, what is the process by which this material will be rendered safe?
I'm advised that, before waste is able to be transported to or located at the proposed new facility, it would have to achieve waste acceptance criteria that would enable it to be eligible to be safely stored at that site.
I'm curious about that particular material that I've identified, which is on the Koolymilka site. We don't need to go to the specifics of the different types, but is it the intention of the government to transport that material, eventually, in some form, to the site that would be determined by the minister under the current act?
I can't answer your question specifically about the waste that is currently located at Koolymilka. But I can say that there is a set of criteria for the storage of any waste that goes to this new facility that has to be met. I'm happy to take it on notice and come back to you in relation to what would need to happen to the waste that you're referring to if it were to be transported. But I am unaware of the specifics in relation to the particular repository of the waste that you're talking about. I will have to come back to you. But, as I said, there are predetermined standards that the waste has to meet before it is able to be stored at this facility. I'm unaware of the actual details of the waste that you're referring to, but I'll come back to you on notice with a direct answer as to whether that would require further treatment.
In some sense, the question is as much about Woomera as it is about Kimba because if the circumstances are that you can't store that particular type of waste—as I said, there are small amounts of plutonium stored there—then, in fact, you're going to be in a situation where you have a facility at Kimba, presumably, but you still have a radioactive waste storage area in the very place that Defence says it can't exist, because it's not consistent with their operations. I wonder if that question was ever asked of Defence in order to test their assertions in relation to the claim that you can't put this waste there. Is it the intention of the government to close the Koolymilka site at Woomera and in what time frame?
I've tried to answer the question as well as I can on the basis of the determining criteria for the use of the site that we're establishing at the moment. I do not have to hand the information in relation to the issue that you're talking to. I've said I will take it on notice and get the information to you, because I simply do not have that information with me.
I don't mean to ambush you, Minister, but I have two amendments on the table that look at Woomera as a site. I don't think it's an unreasonable question to ask, noting that in your second reading speech you said that a radioactive waste site is not consistent with the operations at Woomera, when in fact we've had radioactive waste stored at Woomera since about the mid-nineties. It may well be that it will continue to be stored there, because the waste at Koolymilka is not suitable to be shifted, in which case the whole thing becomes a bit of a shambles with Defence saying, 'We can't have it here,' knowing full well that it's going to stay there. That's the burden of my question. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that question, noting I have a couple of amendments on the table that look at Woomera, which you're knocking out for what appears to be quite shallow reasons. If you've gone through the process completely—not you personally, Minister—if the department has gone through the process or the minister has gone through the process properly, when that advice came back from Defence you would think that you might have challenged some of it, particularly to get an understanding of whether or not that waste will go to, presumably, Kimba. Maybe we can start with hangar 5. Hangar 5 has 10,000 drums of low-level radioactive waste that is stored very close to the range head. Perhaps you can say whether it's the intention that that material, noting it's in a pretty perilous state—I know CSIRO is working to tidy that up—go from hangar 5 at Woomera to the new facility?
Senator Patrick, you are asking a series of questions with some level of detail. I think I've already explained to you that, in the process that is currently being undertaken, the proposal is for the establishment of a facility that will have site-specific design, that will have a whole heap of information that is contained in that that will determine what is and is not to be located at that site into the future. The fact is that the site that you are suggesting in your amendment should be deemed alongside the two or three sites that are proposed to be deemed by the amendments that I have just moved has not gone through the same process as the process of the three sites to be deemed. What we are merely saying to you is that you cannot just tack on a site that has not been through the appropriate processes that are contained in the act. The reason that the three sites that we are proposing to be turned by this amendment is that all three of them have been through that process. You're talking about something that is quite in advance of what we are proposing. The sites have not been consulted on, so we've never tested the community acceptance of those sites. As I said, Defence have suggested that it is unsuitable. I accept the fact that you disagree with that, and that it's entirely your prerogative to do so, but the advice that we've received from Defence is that the site is not appropriate.
As I said, I'm more than happy to get some specific information in relation to the particular current repositories of waste that you're referring to, but that is not the point of what we're trying to do here by these amendments. The point of what we're trying to do here is to enable the determination, as has been highlighted through the consultation process that's undertaken, to allow the three sites that have already had the process undertaken for them to be deemed, to give the minister the opportunity to select one of those sites or undertake a full process again should none of those sites be ones that the minister determines to declare, but that is a matter for the minister.
Thank you. You actually clarified things in the last part of your answer. I thought, when Senator Hanson-Young asked about adding additional sites, you said that that is a possibility and that there could be other sites other than those nominated on the table, which means they would have to go through a process. In fact, you've presented the Senate with an option that says, 'Look, here's three sites that have been through the process, but we're not going to limit it to that.' I'm suggesting that the minister could nominate a site in the WPA that we know has gone through an extensive process. It might not have been the exact same process. How is that different to, perhaps, some other site that could be included in the minister's additional research if he decides not to have it at Napandee?
As we've discussed ad nauseam over the last half-hour, the advice of Defence is that the site is not suitable. You disagree with that, and that's entirely your prerogative to do so, but the advice that has been received by government from Defence—and I understand also from the department of industry—is that the site is not suitable. Equally, it has not gone through the process. We can sit here and argue all night about your opinion that it is suitable, but the advice that I have contained in my papers is that it is not suitable. That is the reason it has not been listed in this short-listing process.
I just thought I might put on record the opposition's position on these amendments. The government is proposing amendments that: firstly, reinstate the ministerial site declaration process in the current act, as proposed by the opposition, and as originally contemplated in the 2012 legislation; secondly, deem certain land taken to have been nominated and approved under the act, being the three short-listed sites of Lyndhurst, Napandee and Wallerberdina; and, thirdly, allow for judicial review of the ministerial site declaration aspect of the process. The amendments include compensation provisions to ensure beyond doubt that existing rights to compensation are maintained.
The current government amendments, if passed, will mean the minister will make a site declaration regarding one of the three presently short-listed sites which have been nominated and approved, or any other site which is subsequently short-listed. In the event that Napandee is selected, the traditional owners, the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation, will then have the ability to undertake a judicial review of the ministerial site declaration. The community fund of $31 million will remain as part of the legislation.
Labor's primary concern with the original bill, which compelled parliament to make a site selection for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility, presented by this government, was that it removed judicial review. This was also the primary concern of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation. Labor has been consistent on this throughout this debate. We wouldn't support passage of this legislation unless the traditional owners were comfortable with it.
Finally, the government has come to the table on this. Labor insisted over many months that BDAC be consulted in relation to the current government amendments before they go before the parliament. This happened last week. These amendments are a good compromise, which maintains the ability for judicial review, at the same time acknowledging the work that has already been done in short-listing the three sites to get the process moving ahead in the interests of all Australians.
Concerns had been raised by BDAC regarding the deeming of the three sites and whether this would restrict the government in future from nominating other sites outside of the three listed. Labor clarified this with the government, who have since confirmed in the explanatory memorandum the following:
Recognition of the three shortlisted sites confirms the sites as being nominated and approved under the Act, but does not limit the Minister from approving new nominations. The Minister may declare any approved nomination as a site, and is not bound to declare one of the three shortlisted sites.
Given the above assurances in the explanatory memorandum, the Barngarla people are supportive of the amendments and are confident the revised bill provides the legal recourse they need to ensure their voices are heard in the event that Napandee is ultimately declared to be the site. That is why Labor is supporting the amendments. I know there have been a lot of things said, particularly by the Greens today, about the rights of traditional owners and Labor's position on this bill, but we are actually following the request of the traditional owners in this respect.
The Adnyamathanha native title holders, who are the traditional owners of the Flinders Ranges, have rightly expressed alarm at the inclusion of the Wallerberdina site in the proposed amendments to the government's bill. The ATLA, alongside the Wallerberdina community, have vehemently rejected this proposal. I note that after the ballot was lost in 2019—the community ballot, that is—Minister Canavan stated:
While the community ballot was just one of many measures I am considering, I have said that achieving at least a majority level of support was a necessary condition to achieving broad community support …
This ballot does not demonstrate a sufficient level of support and I will no longer consider this site an option for the facility.
Listing the Wallerberdina station site recognises the short-listing stage of the site selection process only. It is not intended to signal a change in the government's assessment of that site. Labor wouldn't support legislation that forced this facility on a community that doesn't want it. Labor has consulted with the Adnyamathanha and their legal representatives, who are comfortable with Labor's support of the bill, providing the government confirms it will not impose the facility on Wallerberdina. Labor expressed this to the government, who have assured Labor that this legislation does not do this. Labor therefore called on the government to assure the ATLA of this fact on the record in the Senate, and we welcome this statement by the minister in her summing-up speech.
Again, Labor's position is very clear, and we have consulted with traditional owners for two different sites. We welcome the shift in the government's position, and that's why we have decided to support this legislation and why we're supporting these amendments.
I just want to move from Woomera to Leonora in Western Australia as another possible site. I see you shrugging your shoulders, Minister. I can see the two Western Australian senators sitting behind you are very keen on this idea—jobs for WA. Leonora was actually nominated under the process. It's gone through a part process. It's a site that was made available or at least discussed well before the process started, actually. I've been there, Minister; let me describe it to you. It's just barren land. If there is a goanna on the site at Leonora, it's in transit to some place better, I can tell you. That's the situation. It's a hard rock site. It could have a facility underground. It could possibly take on intermediate-level waste. It just strikes me as unbelievable that that's not a place that the government would also put on this list or at least signal that it was willing to consider as a site.
Obviously, you'd need to consult with the locals. I went up there. I spoke to some elders who seemed favourable towards that being a site. Now, that's not to say that my consultation would be accepted as rigorous—but perhaps as an indication. I wonder whether, beyond the passage of this legislation, the government is looking at the Leonora site.
Given the way you've just described their communities, I'm not sure you'd be welcome back there. I'm advised that the communities of Leonora and Brewarrina were both advised that their alternative site nominations would be considered if any of the short-listed sites did not progress. To date, the communities have not had the opportunity for the in-depth analysis that the other three sites have had. It is also the government's policy to try to come up with a centrally co-located intermediate-level waste storage facility with a low-level waste storage disposal facility. Whilst those two communities have been considered in the mix, my understanding is that they've been advised that, if none of the sites currently being considered are deemed suitable, they would potentially be considered.
That's at least some good news. I just want clarify, on the record, that I don't describe Leonora, the township, in that way. In order to get to the site that is proposed, you have to get into a four-wheel drive and head out to the never-never. It's well away from town. If you get there and you see a goanna, it is transiting. I seek leave to move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1310 together, which are amendments to the government amendments on sheet SV110.
Leave granted.
I move:
(1) Amendment (2), Schedule 1, item 1, at the end of the table in subitem 1(1), add:
(2) Amendment (2), Schedule 1, item 1, at the end of the item, add:
(5) The land specified in this subitem is the land within the area determined by the Minister under subitem (6).
Minister to determine area within the Woomera Prohibited Area
(6) The Minister must, by legislative instrument, determine an area within the Woomera Prohibited Area (within the meaning of the Defence Act 1903) for the purposes of table item 4 of the table in subitem (1).
(7) The determination must specify each person who, on the day the determination is made, held an interest in land within the area determined in the determination that is an interest of a kind referred to in section 7 of the Act.
(8) For the purposes of subitem (6), section 72TA of the Defence Act 1903 applies as if the purposes referred to in paragraph 72TA(2) (a) of that Act include establishing and operating a facility.
Table has no effect until determination made
(9) Despite subitem (1), the table in that subitem does not have effect until the day after the Minister makes a determination under subitem (6).
Selected site within Woomera Prohibited Area
(10) If an area within the Woomera Prohibited Area determined under subitem (6) is selected as the site for a facility, the Minister administering Part VIB of the Defence Act 1903 (which deals with the Woomera Prohibited Area):
(a) must ensure that the Woomera Prohibited Area Rules made under section 72TP of that Act enable access to the selected site for the purposes of establishing and operating a facility; and
(b) must not exercise, or fail to exercise, the Minister's powers under that Part or those Rules in a way that prevents or hinders the establishment or operation of a facility at the selected site.
The government does not agree with the amendment that's being proposed by Senator Patrick. This amendment is in relation to the Woomera Prohibited Area. As I've already said in response to Senator Patrick's questions, it would not be sensible to permanently site a radioactive waste facility in this area. Woomera has not been nominated for short-listing, nor have the surrounding communities been consulted. The government is absolutely committed to community consultation and to only siting a facility where there is broad community support. There have been no community consultations on the Woomera site or indications of broad positive sentiment towards a facility.
Labor will be opposing these amendments. As Senator Patrick is well aware, Woomera is unable to be deemed a site, as it hasn't voluntarily nominated itself to be a site. Labor is not going to be supporting legislation or amendments from any senator who forces this facility on a community that doesn't want it. I'd encourage Senator Patrick to think about that.
In actual fact, much of the land up there is either owned by the state of South Australia—it's Crown land—or owned by the federal government, which can self-nominate a site. The amendment is not prescriptive in identifying a particular site in the Woomera Prohibited Area. I point out that the Woomera Prohibited Area is 12.7 million hectares of desert. It's not a small site. There is scope to find a reasonable location; you just have to be willing to try. Again, a nomination can come from either the state government or the federal government, which owns some of the land there. That could then initiate a process, which, in a number of sites, has been examined in detail. Of course, there would have to be consultation with the local community, including the Indigenous folk.
The question is that the amendments to government amendment (2) be agreed to.
Question negatived.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question now is that the government amendments be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The opposition welcomes passage of the government amendments on sheet SV110. As previously stated, the opposition has worked with the Bungala and Adnyamathanha peoples to ensure this bill reflects their preferences. In doing so, we sought two actions by the government. First, the government clarified the effect of this bill on the site nominations process, which was done in the explanatory memorandum with the addition of the following passage: 'Recognition of the three short-listed sites confirms the sites as being nominated and approved under the act, but does not limit the minister from approving new nominations. The minister may declare any approved nomination as a site and is not bound to declare one of the three short-listed sites.'
Second, we welcome the minister's commitment that listing the Wallerberdina Station site recognises the short-listing stage of the site selection process only. It is not intended to signal a change in the government's assessment of that site, and the government has not changed its position that it will not impose a facility on an unwilling local community.
With these actions by the government and the passage of the amendments on sheet SV110, I can advise the chamber that the opposition will not be proceeding with the amendments that have been circulated on sheet 1042, revised 2, and sheet 1322.
I'll indicate to the chamber that I don't intend to move amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 8965, revised. But I will urge the government as it moves forward, noting the division in Kimba, noting the fact that this process has been completely botched to get to the point where it has, that it will almost certainly go to judicial review if it picks Napandee. There is an alternative that makes a lot more sense. You have to be able to stand up to those uniformed people who have made a claim that is outrageous in the context of the site at the WPA—12.7 million hectares, 13 per cent of South Australia, twice the size of Tasmania. Not all of the site is used for missile testing. It is in the middle of a desert. It's on a secure Defence site. The community are likely to be much, much warmer to the idea and, indeed, it is not agricultural land.
The question is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.
I move:
That the bill be now read a third time.
The question now is that the bill be read a third time.
The Fuel Security Bill is indeed welcome, but it is this government's failures, unfortunately, that have made this legislation before the parliament necessary. Our nation needs a secure fuel supply. We need fuel in order to move around our country from A to B. We need it to fly around our regions, particularly in a big state like WA, which is my home state. We need to be able to get to our workplace here in Canberra. Our nation needs it to move its goods and people from A to B—everything we use: groceries, construction supplies and medical equipment. It is a critical good for our nation on which our access to everything else depends.
We know from the last 18 months that we can't take our ability to get things from A to B for granted and, indeed, our fuel supply. Only now is this government taking any action on fuel security. Our country is now close to 100 per cent dependent on international supply chains, and we're seeing job losses across refineries around our country as refineries have closed down. This has been the case in my own home state of Western Australia. But we have seen these warning clouds on the horizon for a long time. They have been brewing for years.
Under this government, we have seen many a broken promise on fuel security and jobs security for Australia's fuel workers. A Senate inquiry back in 2015—that's right, six years ago—recommended the Australian government undertake a comprehensive review of Australia's fuel security problem. The government didn't even start this review or announce it until 2018, with a due date of late 2019. As with everything else with this government, fuel security and the job security of thousands of refinery workers only gets a call-up when there is a bad front page.
The interim report on liquid fuel security was delivered to the government more than two years ago, in April 2019. The government has not released the final report, which was due in late 2019. The government has delayed and neglected the basics that we need to keep this country running. The government chose not to act then, not even to deliver the final report so that we in this nation could see what was really going on.
Thanks to that failure to act, our country has been left almost entirely reliant on global supply chains for one of our most critical domestic inputs. The interim report identified a number of things that could have been done a couple of years ago. It identified serious noncompliance with the International Energy Agency obligations for domestic fuel stocks. Our requirement is to have 90 days of fuel to help protect against global and domestic oil shocks. We weren't compliant then, and we aren't compliant now. What will happen in our country if the stock all gets tied up in one of the global production locations—say, Singapore—and we don't have access to those inputs?
For not one year in the last eight have we been compliant by having the right stores. This leaves our nation wide open to fuel security shocks. It also leaves our national security vulnerable. We're at only 58 days of supply now. That is a massive 32 days short of that 90 days. This is really significant for Australian families, businesses and industry. Most Australian households spend the same amount of money on fuel as they do on electricity and gas combined. We must have a secure supply to prevent price shocks to Australia's families and businesses. It's critical for our national security. In our volatile world we need fuel stocks for industry, defence and aviation. For a government that likes to talk really big on national security, on this key issue that is so important to national security they've been missing in action for years.
The interim report went as far as to call Australia an 'outlier' in our approach to fuel security. We are an outlier, because our fuel stocks have been far from secure. Indeed, the government's appalling record on electric vehicles makes our appalling fuel security stocks and the predicament that leaves us in even worse. It exposes Australian families even more. In amongst this government's inaction on fuel security is the government's ideological bent against electric vehicles. Their policy neglect leaves us as an outlier here, too. It consigns Australian drivers to high fuel costs, takes away choice and maintains our dependence on foreign fuel rather than on our own renewable energy sources.
The Electric Vehicle Council notes that the lack of policy action has rendered the Australian market 'uniquely hostile' to electric vehicles. Sadly, they're not wrong. Australia used to be a world leader in many fields, including electric vehicles, vaccines and any number of other measures. But under this government we're at the back of the pack, with Australians missing out. Only 0.7 per cent of cars that are sold here in Australia are electric, compared with a global average of 4.2 per cent, 11 per cent in the UK and 75 per cent in Norway. This is not because Australians don't want these vehicles. A majority of Australians say they'd consider one for their next car. But there are simply no electric cars available in Australian for under $40,000, and just five models for under $60,000. By comparison, in the UK there are eight models that are cheaper than the cheapest model in Australia. Under this government we've seen inaction and scaremongering, including by the Prime Minister and multiple frontbenchers, saying that electric vehicles will 'end the weekend'. And we've seen entrenched higher costs for electric vehicles, higher transport costs for families and much higher emissions. Labor's electric car discount will cut import tariffs and fringe benefits tax from non-luxury electric vehicles in this country. The fact that this government still has no electric vehicle policy in 2021 is a significant embarrassment. It's an embarrassment that costs families at the bowser and exacerbates our fuel security issues, which under this government have been left to languish.
We have seen little delivery on fuel security and fuel jobs under this government. Those on the other side will want to point to the pandemic as the reason our fuel security is in dire straits and the reason that this package is needed, but that's a convenient distraction from their lack of stewardship of Australia's fuel sector over the last eight years. Here is the time line. In 2015 a Senate inquiry, five years before COVID, recommended a comprehensive review of our fuel security problem. It took this government three years, until 2018, to announce that it would even look at the issue. In April 2019 we finally got an interim report, four years after it was recommended by the Senate inquiry, and it was absolute crickets from then on. That was, of course, until there was a photo-op, last September. It was a photo opportunity that delivered nothing in terms of fuel security and nothing in terms of job security for fuel sector workers. We have a government that likes to pretend it is a friend of working people, of people in traditional energy industries, but the record of those opposite on fuel refineries is about as good as their record on the now non-existent auto manufacturing industry in this country.
Let's take a look at the government's announcement of the fuel security package in last year's budget and what it has delivered. They promised, according to the media release, a fuel security package that was going to secure Australia's long-term fuel supply. It was going to create a thousand new jobs. What have we seen since then? We've seen the announced closure of two of Australia's only four remaining refineries. That's right: half of Australia's refineries have announced they're closed since this announcement. In September, Prime Minister Morrison and Minister Taylor claimed their package would back local refineries to stay open. Just six weeks later, in October, the Kwinana refinery announced that it would close. On 14 December, Minister Taylor claimed the government was taking immediate and decisive action to keep our domestic refineries operating, but within two months, on 10 February this year, ExxonMobil announced its Altona refinery would also close.
What about those jobs? Those two refineries alone directly employ 950 people, between them. Thousands more jobs in fuel dependent industries are on the line. Australia's petrochemical manufacturers all rely on by-products of these refineries, which are closing. This is dire for our plastics and other industries in Australia. It's more proof that the government knows how to talk about jobs but doesn't actually know how to deliver them for working Australians. Labor knew this photo opportunity last September was insufficient. We warned then that it was inadequate and would fail to address Australia's fuel security needs, just as we have warned for years about our increasing dependence on foreign fuel imports in the changing global environment. We've gone from relying on imports for 60 per cent of our refined fuels in 2018 to now having a 90 per cent dependence on imports of liquid fuels.
This package of bill does nothing to address Australia's lack of a strategic fleet. We're still completely reliant on a fleet of foreign owned tankers. This is at a time when those opposite are talking about the drums of war beating. Our fuel security is in a disastrous shape on their watch. Government inaction has hung workers out to dry. It has worsened our national fuel security and it has left Australian families, businesses and industry exposed to fuel shocks in an increasingly uncertain world. Government neglect over electric vehicles worsens this predicament. So, while we welcome this package of bills today, it simply comes too late for the workers at Kwinana and Altona. It comes after eight consistent years of not having enough onshore fuel stocks.
This bill, the Fuel Security Bill 2021, is not about fuel security. It's about $2 billion. It's about handing over $2 billion to the government's oil company mates to try and prop up ageing polluting oil refineries that are on their last legs. If this bill were really about fuel security—meaning ensuring sufficient fuel for transport so that we can keep transporting goods and people around the country in the short, medium and long term—you would think that it would actually move us forward by focusing on the two things in its name: firstly, what particular types of fuels we should be using to move people and goods around the country—what types of fuels does it make sense to support—and, secondly, securing the supplies of those fuels.
If there's $2 billion on offer then you'd think that any sensible government would want to ensure that that $2 billion is spent wisely on these fuels and does in fact secure the supplies of these fuels. But, no, the bill is fixated only on propping up the production of polluting fossil fuels—petrol, diesel and jet fuel—rather than paying any attention at all to clean alternatives. This legislation is extraordinarily out of step with the times. At a time when the rest of the world is taking action to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, when governments around the world are committing to ending subsidies on fossil fuels and slashing their carbon pollution, we are increasing our dependency. We are increasing our subsidies. It is just so wrong. This bill is basically providing massive handouts of our taxpayer dollars to some of the biggest polluters in the country. This is while we're in a climate crisis, when the No. 1 responsibility of any government concerned about the security and safety of the community has got to be shifting away from burning oil, coal and gas.
Let's have a bit of a think about what could be done with $2 billion. That would secure supplies of clean fuels and/or the ability for people and goods to be transported using a minimum of fuel, or perhaps none at all. Let me just summarise some of the options that the government are obstinately ignoring in their quest to prop up their fossil fuel mates. No. 1. is serious support for electric vehicles. That means electric cars, electricity buses and electric freight vehicles. How about having an electric vehicles strategy? How about having some targets, like other countries and other conservative governments all around the world have? How about rolling out a network of fast-charging infrastructure so that everybody in the country has got the opportunity to drive a non-polluting electric vehicle?
How about some incentives to help overcome the fact that electric vehicles are, on average in Australia at the moment, $20,000 to $30,000 more expensive than internal combustion engine vehicles? How about requiring that people who import vehicles actually have to import clean vehicles as a proportion of their imports? How about investing in renewable energy to power these electric vehicles, turning Australia into a renewable energy superpower with solar, wind and pumped hydro?
How about upgrading the grid to make sure that it's fit for purpose for renewables, so we can shift energy around to where it's needed? How about investing in green hydrogen, produced by this abundance of renewable energy, and then the hydrogen infrastructure, so that it can be used for heavy vehicles, freight trains and substituted for fossil fuel gas and exported to the world as a zero-carbon fuel?
How about investing in public transport and in walking and cycling infrastructure to give people the opportunity to get out of their private vehicles altogether? Give people the choice of great public transport and they use it. Give people the option of riding their bike safely, which requires no more fuel than your Weet-Bix in the morning, and give them the choice of doing that on dedicated bike infrastructure and people will use it. How about investing in low-carbon or zero-carbon shipping, investing in electric aircraft? How about producing biodiesel and other green liquid fuels, like producing jet fuel from algae? In other words, take the types of actions that governments all around the country are doing at the moment. They're taking this seriously, tackling two problems hand in hand—our fuel security concerns and the climate crisis. But, no.
Just imagine we had a target like Norway does of no sales of new internal combustion engines by 2025. That's in four years' time. Or in the UK, a ban on sales of internal combustion cars by 2030. Imagine, like in Norway, in the UK, in Germany and in other countries around the world, that we were actually seeing a rapid shift to electric vehicles. Imagine what that would do for our need for polluting petrol and diesel. Correct—it would absolutely slash our need for polluting petrol and diesel. Our fuel security problem would be well on the way to being solved.
The government and the Labor Party talk jobs as being a reason why they are going to support this massive subsidy for refineries. The Prime Minister's media release speaks of this cash splash resulting in 3,000 jobs—1,250 direct employees across the two refineries and creating up to another 1,750 construction jobs. I'm very curious about the projected 'up to 1,750 construction jobs' that are apparently going to be created to accelerate the necessary major infrastructure upgrades. I think we need to take this figure with a very big grain of salt and note that these construction jobs are only likely to last for a few years. As for securing the jobs of the 1,250 workers in the two refineries, apparently the government has secured a commitment that these refineries won't close before 2027—that's six years. I would not be betting any money at all on them continuing beyond that given the age of these refineries and given where the world and Australia need to be in slashing our use of petrol, diesel, and jet fuel beyond that.
But, look, let's just take it at face value. Let's pretend that these job numbers are real and let's do the sums. Two billion dollars for 3,000 jobs is $666,667 per job, each of which may only be for a few years. This is a really serious subsidy for fossil-fuel jobs that could be spent so much better in helping the shift to jobs in clean, green, zero-carbon industries. Why does this matter? Why do we care about where our money's spent, whether it's spent on propping up oil refineries or in clean energy?
I'll bring it back to the basics. What every government in the world should be focusing on is its most urgent task. We are facing a climate crisis. We are facing a climate crisis where, on current projections, we are headed to global average temperatures three, four or more degrees above what is safe for humanity and the rest of life on the planet. Four degrees of global heating means no more growing wheat in Australia. It means pretty much no more growing anything in the areas that are currently our major agricultural production zones. It means metres of sea level rise, flooding the homes of millions of Australians. It means wildfires that are more extreme, hotter, more extensive than they were in the 2019-20 Black Summer fires. It means more extreme floods when there aren't fires. It means unaccountable numbers of plants and animals going extinct. It means billions of people across the world being climate refugees, homeless without a way to feed themselves and looking to find anywhere on the planet where they can survive, and it means billions more people suffering, struggling to survive, living absolutely wretched lives. That is why it matters. That is why we need to be taking urgent action. There is no more time for hard-heartedness. There is no more time for half-solutions. There is no more time for subsidising the polluting fossil fuel industries.
Other countries around the world have accepted this challenge. Let me remind you of what the G7 agreed to just over a week ago. They agreed to halve their collective emissions by 2030, to end fossil fuel subsidies by 2025—not to hand out billions of dollars to oil refineries—and to achieve an overwhelmingly decarbonised power system in the 2030s. Australia is part of the world, yes? We consider ourselves to be an advanced, developed country, yes? We're not separate on another planet. We have a responsibility to play our part.
The good news is that there are so many ways that we can shift to zero carbon and zero-carbon technologies. There are so many ways in which we can change the way we are living, working and producing food and fibre and manufacturing. Some of these technologies are mature technologies. Some of them need some more work and development. It really makes sense to get a move on with the more mature technologies while we sort out the rest. These mature technologies include renewable energy, batteries and electric vehicles. Transport is an area where we can make huge inroads, and transport is 20 per cent of our carbon pollution. It makes so much sense to do everything we can to shift our transport to zero-carbon transport. This is such an opportunity. If we have a government that has $2 billion it wants to spend to create fuel security, then I can tell you there are so many ways it could be spending that money, ways that will not only create fuel security but will also make big strides towards tackling our carbon pollution.
That brings me back to the bill before us. Basically, while the rest of the world is acting, transforming their fleets of vehicles, this government has its head buried in the sand. We have been waiting more than two years for any kind of action on electric vehicles, but this government is just ignoring them and bringing forward legislation like this. It's still scrambling even on this bill. It's rushing urgently to get it through the Senate without a proper process. The bill was not referred to a committee. There was no public exposure draft of the bill for community consultation. There has been no Senate inquiry process; that was opposed by the government when we suggested it. Instead, we have a rushed, artificial deadline of 1 July to hand over an enormous amount of money without any scrutiny.
I will be moving a series of amendments to this bill to try to improve this awful piece of legislation. We think they are very sensible and reasonable amendments. I really hope that the government and the Labor Party will support them in order to improve this awful bill. First up, instead of spending $2 billion on fuel refineries, we should be spending that sort of money on a national electric vehicle strategy, with public investment in charging infrastructure and incentives to encourage people to shift from polluting vehicles to electric vehicles. We've also got an amendment that's going to require the Productivity Commission to report on this framework and on how cost-effective it is compared to other mechanisms. The Liberal Party like to say that they are cost-efficient. The reality is that they use that argument whenever they want to oppose spending but never when it comes to subsidies for their mates. We also have an amendment that is going to require the government to provide more detail on the amount of subsidy spending and who it has gone to—simple, basic transparency. Finally, we think that, even if this paying money to their fossil fuel mates goes ahead, this fuel security framework absolutely should not kick into action until the Liberal Party has taken some basic steps on electric vehicles. They are very reasonable, sensible steps: asking them publicly, 'What is your strategy on electric vehicles?' and tabling analysis by the Productivity Commission as to how the strategy compares to other countries. These are really sensible, basic transparency and accountability mechanisms that would at least mean that we would know what we were getting for our money. They would at least mean that you'd be able to compare the wisdom of subsidising the production of polluting fossil fuels with the wisdom of investing in clean technology.
Let's be clear. The Greens support fuel security. We want real action to reduce our reliance on imported fossil fuels. We want clear policy, with public consultation, on how we can improve fuel security. But this bill does nothing of the sort. It's handing over $2 billion to fuel refineries. The regulation impact statement didn't even consider the option of encouraging EV. This bill is an embarrassment to the Liberal Party, and we hope that the Senate will be supporting our very sensible amendments.
I move the second reading amendment that's been circulated in my name:
Omit all words after "That", substitute: "the bill be withdrawn and the Senate calls on the Government to divert the full funding amount to a national electric vehicle strategy that includes:
(a) clear consumer incentives to ensure rapid electric vehicle uptake; and
(b) public investment in a national fast charging infrastructure network".
I rise to speak on the Fuel Security Bill 2021. The Australian fuel market operates on a near just-in-time basis and is heavily reliant on global supply chains operating under normal conditions. This helps to keep operational costs low but means the market is very vulnerable to disruptions. In the Northern Territory this near just-in-time was replaced with a 'ran out of time' event, when we actually ran out of bulk fuel. This happened just as I was leaving to come down here for these two weeks of sittings. Just before I left the Northern Territory, we actually ran out of bulk fuel supplies. While domestic users were largely unaffected, motorists did notice a price spike, and industry was forced to jump in and do what industry does, particularly in the Northern Territory, and find a solution. They found the solution by sending multiple road trains interstate to pick up fuel and bring it back to the Northern Territory to supply the bowsers. The federal government was not advised by the Gunner Labor government, as it should have been, on this dire fuel supply situation in the Northern Territory.
The Greens over here don't care about fuel. They don't believe in fossil fuels and they'd like us to stop using them. Perhaps they'd like to come to the Northern Territory and tell the people there that they should run their tractors or road trains on solar panels. And I certainly haven't seen a plane or a helicopter running on pumped hydro. Imagine running an electric helicopter mustering cattle. I imagine you would probably move one beast 20 metres before you'd have to stop and recharge for 10 hours. They also want us to ride bicycles. That's lovely if you live in Sydney or Melbourne or Brisbane; I imagine you can ride a bicycle to the shop. But try telling the people of the Northern Territory that they should complete a 600-kilometre round trip on a bicycle just to go shopping.
An honourable senator: It's a long ride!
Absolutely it's a long ride, and you're not going to carry very much home, so you're going to be cycling to the shops 600 kilometres every day.
So it's obvious to us that maintaining adequate fuel supplies is extremely important, and it's also a responsibility of state and territory governments to not let those supplies run out. In this case, with the Gunner Labor government, it was a complete abrogation of their responsibilities not to, at the very least, inform us of the dire situation the Northern Territory was facing. This issue came about, as things often do, because of a convergence of problems, none of which had been adequately appreciated or understood by Chief Minister Michael Gunner or his government. The problem was that international shipping had been affected due to COVID-19. This, combined with the extra demand from domestic users and people travelling to the Northern Territory as part of their annual holidays because they can't go overseas, so Darwin became their new Bali—which was great—placed a lot of pressure on our fuel supplies.
It was also combined with the fact that there is only one bulk storage facility in the Northern Territory, Vopak, at East Arm port, which meant we sailed extremely close to the red line of empty. In fact, industry went into the red and domestic service stations had only the supplies that were in their tanks at the time. A ship did sail into Darwin Port approximately five days after bulk supplies ran out, but the problem is that, when a ship turns up, it takes another three to five days to have the fuel tested and then unloaded, distributed and settled in tanks before it becomes available to retailers and domestic suppliers.
I've been working with the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, Angus Taylor, to ensure that the Territory does not face these types of issues again due to the fragile nature of our fuel supplies and the behaviour of the Gunner Labor government. The federal government's 10-year comprehensive fuel security package includes a storage program called Boosting Australia's Diesel Storage Program—imaginatively named!—which will see domestic fuel supplies increased by 40 per cent by 2024. Hopefully, as we move into the future with these programs in place, we in the Northern Territory will not face such a fragile environment again.
The fuel security package aims to increase Australia's resilience to fuel supply disruptions, secure sovereign refining capability and keep fuel prices low for consumers. I commend this bill to the Senate.
I can indicate, as the previous Labor speaker did, that Labor will support this legislation. I've listened with interest to the contributions thus far. If you take this issue of fuel security, it really revolves around three central concerns which I think even the Prime Minister accepts are actually national responsibilities. This is a bloke who has ducked most of the responsibility for the core issues of Australians in the course of the pandemic, but I think even he accepts that energy policy, industrial capability and national security are core national responsibilities. After listening to the last two contributions, you can see why the Liberal Party and the Greens can never be trusted on these core national issues.
The bill does involve a substantial subsidy to the two remaining oil refineries. The key question that Australians should be asking, though, is 'What took you so long?' These are sensible measures that should have been implemented when there were four oil refineries—four operating oil refineries—instead of, now, just two. For all of the laps of honour that the government is demanding for taking these measures, it's actually the Australian Labor Party that has been campaigning and fighting to make fuel security a national interest priority.
In particular, I want to acknowledge the Australian Workers Union, who have fiercely advocated for their members in the refining sector for years. Similarly, my old union, the AMWU, has long represented maintenance workers in this sector. As an official I saw very closely what impact the refinery closures in Sydney had on not just the workers. Anybody can do the cheap maths and add up the number of workers and divide it by the package. There are of course the interests of the workers who are directly employed. There are the interests of the subcontractors who work in those facilities—many, many thousands of them. There are the interests of the hundreds of Australian firms in the supply chains that rely upon these refineries.
And then, of course, there are the interests of our future manufacturing capability and our future national security, all of which were entirely ignored by this government until the pressure got too much. Both the Transport Workers Union and the Maritime Union have also been publicly campaigning to raise awareness on these issues.
There are still outstanding concerns. Australia will still be noncompliant with its International Energy Agency obligation to hold 90 days of reserves. Australia will still disproportionately depend on imported fuel from vulnerable supply chains, still leaving us vulnerable to geopolitical tensions. We still lack a strategic national fleet, which leaves us reliant on a fleet of internationally owned, operated and crewed tankers. There is no Australian fleet. In the event of a crisis, the government would not be able to requisition tankers because we don't have any.
The bill has come too late for the hundreds of refinery workers who've lost their jobs and for thousands of direct subcontractors and supply chain firms. They join thousands of workers from Holden and Ford, the shipbuilding industry and rail manufacturing who've lost their jobs as a result of this government's negligence when it comes to manufacturing capability and fuel security. That's tens of thousands of blue-collar jobs and technical jobs—the people who actually wear hi-vis to work and have it as a requirement of their job, not as a dress-up for a photo opportunity. They actually put it on seven days a week, get up early in the morning and go to work.
This crisis has all of the familiar tropes of the Morrison government—an obvious problem left unsolved, ministers posted far above their obvious competence, rank amateurism that cost Australians their jobs, press conferences with little flag lapels and all of the hot waffle that comes along in a Morrison press conference, saying the word 'sovereign' over and over again while trying to look tough—
Senator Ayres, you do need to refer to the Prime Minister by his correct title, and personal reflections are disorderly.
You are absolutely right. The Prime Minister wraps himself in the flag and overuses these words over and over again but never, ever delivers in the national interest. He talks about it, but he never, ever delivers. It's all about the announcement, never about the follow-through. It's political fixes to systemic problems. It's absolute failure of leadership from the top down. Policy after policy, they're dragged kicking and screaming to the most basic of solutions. Then they celebrate like they've won the World Cup.
The government has been warned for years that fuel security is a matter of national importance. The question is: why did it take them so long to act? In 2013, Air Vice-Marshal John Blackburn, retired Deputy Chief of the RAAF, warned that:
… Australia has small and declining fuel stocks—about three weeks' worth of oil and refined fuels.
His report described long maritime supply chains for liquid fuels, supply chains that run through a number of conflict zones and vulnerabilities to trading systems, shipping ports and refineries. He concluded:
If a scenario such as a confrontation in the Asia Pacific region were to happen, our fuel supplies could be severely constrained and we do not have a viable contingency plan in place to provide adequate supplies for Australia's essential, everyday services and for our military forces.
What did the government do? Nothing. It wasn't the last time this issue and Air Vice-Marshal Blackburn were going to be ignored. In June 2015, the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport tabled its report into Australia's transport energy resilience and sustainability. Their first recommendation was:
… the Australian Government undertake a comprehensive whole-of-government risk assessment of Australia's fuel supply, availability and vulnerability. The assessment should consider the vulnerabilities in Australia's fuel supply to possible disruptions resulting from military actions, acts of terrorism, natural disasters, industrial accidents and financial and other structural dislocation.
What happened? Nothing.
In March 2018, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security recommended:
… the Department of Home Affairs, in consultation with the Department of Defence and the Department of the Environment and Energy, review and develop measures to ensure that Australia has a continuous supply of fuel to meet its national security priorities.
What happened? Nothing, diddly-squat. Later that year, Senator Molan began publicly criticising his own government's failure to hold fuel reserves in Australia. He told Alan Jones, correctly: 'The vulnerabilities are very, very high. It is a critical national security issue.' He's been publicly criticising them ever since, and he hasn't been the only one. You can't find somebody in the defence and national security institutions that doesn't think this is a critical issue that has been ignored year after year.
In 2018, the International Energy Agency published an in-depth report on the Australian energy policies. It found:
Australia is the only IEA country which is a net oil importer and solely relies on the commercial stockholding of industry to meet its minimum 90-day stockholding obligation under the International Energy Program. The country does not have public stockholdings and does not place a minimum stockholding obligation on its domestic oil industry.
What happened in relation to that finding? Absolutely nothing. In April 2019, the Department of the Environment and Energy indicated that Australia had a reserve of 18 days of petrol, 22 days of diesel and 23 days of jet fuel. What happened when this obviously urgent state of affairs was revealed to the government by its own department? Nothing—no policy change, no administrative action, no substance, nothing. The only thing that could get anyone in this eight-year-old, tired, ineffective government even mildly interested in fuel security was the possibility of controversial oil and gas projects.
In 2019, the then resources minister, Senator Canavan, cynically tried to use fuel security to open up oil exploration in the Great Australian Bight. Air Vice-Marshal Blackburn, who had now been lobbying for this issue to be taken seriously for five years, said of this obvious political grandstanding:
Guaranteed flow of oil is what's important, and its stock holding is the spring in the supply chain when it goes on and off … The Government has done little or nothing to guarantee this.
Year after year, the government has been warned that we are facing a problem as a nation. And year after year, this government, the Morrison-Turnbull-Abbott-Truss-Joyce—and the other guy, what's his name?—McCormack-Joyce government, has done nothing. It took an utter crisis for the government to act, and, in the intervening period, half of our oil-refining capability in Australia has gone, disappeared for good. And these guys want to do a victory lap. The government hasn't had a real energy policy for eight years. This crisis came along, and they've had to jerry-rig something together.
The government announced a comprehensive fuel security package in September last year. Nothing guarantees that something's not comprehensive like when the government announces that it is. The government said:
The government is committed to a sovereign onshore refinery capacity despite the threat to the viability of the industry.
Minister Taylor said: 'Our fuel security package will keep fuel prices for Australian consumers amongst the lowest in the OECD. It will create around 1,000 new jobs and protect the existing jobs of our farmers, truckers, miners and tradies.' Do you know how long it lasted? It lasted just three days. Three days later, BP announced the closure of Australia's largest refinery, in Kwinana. In December, there was another announcement. Minister Taylor announced:
… the government was taking immediate and decisive action to keep our domestic refineries operating.
Why does anybody pay any attention to what Minister Taylor or Prime Minister Morrison say? It's all about the spin. It's all about the announcement. Two months later, after this breathless announcement from Minister Taylor, ExxonMobil announced that they were closing their refinery in Altona—350 jobs lost. So, one announcement lasted for three days and the other one lasted for 60 days. Within six months of the government's comprehensive fuel security package—so-called—half of Australia's refineries had announced their closure. So now we've got another package—more press conferences with monogrammed hi-vis being worn by ministers hoping to line up with the Prime Minister for another photo shoot. It's the old nick on and then nick off, from the Morrison government! And the government wants to be congratulated for finally dragging itself, over eight long years, to a basic modicum of a fuel security package that will achieve about half of what is required.
Labor will support this piece of legislation. But we will point out that this government ignores the advice, that they are hostile to the experts, that their incapacity to develop an energy policy framework does real harm—not just to household bills, by driving the price of energy up, and not just to manufacturing jobs, by reducing investment certainty, and not just by making it harder for businesses to invest in the kind of industry that creates good jobs. It does real damage to our national security. This is a government that's entirely lost its way—it lost its way a long time ago—and the Australian public should send this government packing at the next opportunity they have, and get a real government who will actually deliver a national fuel security framework, a manufacturing framework that actually might create a few decent jobs and lift our national capability, instead of pushing it backwards. (Time expired)
I stand to speak on the Fuel Security Bill 2021. I indicate up-front that I'll be supporting the bill but I, like Senator Ayres, share concerns about the way in which we got to this point. I'll go back to 2000, when we imported 60 per cent of our liquid fuels. By 2013 the demand had grown and basically we'd seen our production drop—substantially reduce—and had moved to 90 per cent importation of our liquid fuels. That's the state that we're in. Back in 2012 we had seven refineries. By 2015 that had dropped down to four.
That was at about the same time that the Senate started looking at things in relation to fuel security. I refer back to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee's inquiry into Australia's transport energy resilience and sustainability. The alarm bells were ringing back then. We could see what was happening. We were importing most of our fuel, and we saw our number of refineries decrease substantially, to where we had only four. And it was at that time that we started looking at the numbers of days of fuel that we had available in stock, here in this country. The government will try to claim that they're meeting some of their international obligations—the 90-day obligation—by saying, 'We've got fuel in ships, on the way.' But that's not allowed to be counted—and sensibly not allowed to be counted—because it's not on hand, not fuel that you have available. Many things could happen that could disrupt that fuel in making it to Australia. So, properly, we should not count that.
That was the situation. We've seen some other reviews. We've had joint parliamentary and House committee reviews into fuel security. One of the recommendations that came from those committees was that there ought to be a liquid fuel security review, which has occurred and it sat on the minister's desk for two years. For two years it sat there. I looked at my notes over the last week or so and I did actually FOI that document, but the claim was that it's a cabinet document. I'm now seriously starting to doubt that claim—that a document sitting on the minister's desk for two years is destined for cabinet. What sort of responsiveness are we getting from the government to all of this?
Perhaps another sign of where we had some difficulties was back in 2018. There was a great international military event, the Pitch Black exercise. It ran over three weeks, from July through August 2018. We had 16 different air forces there. We had 140 aircraft. Our military were conducting exercises, preparing for defence-of-Australia type activities, working with other air forces, working with our allies. And what happens? We run out of fuel. We ran out of fuel because a ship that was supposed to be coming from Singapore didn't turn up. So we had to end the exercise early. Now, if that wasn't a signal that there was a problem, then I don't know what sort of signal you can expect.
Maybe a pandemic helps you realise that supply lines can be interrupted. Supply lines can be interrupted even by way of border closures. We were just hearing of the refinery shutting down in Kwinana—Western Australia's supply. You'll also recall, during the pandemic, that Minister Taylor announced that he'd bought into reserves in the United States. I asked some questions about this strategic oil that we'd purchased. In answers that I got from Minister Taylor, he revealed the arrangements. He said the arrangements between the Australian and United States governments were not legally binding, not treaty-level agreements; instead, they were a lesser government-to-government arrangement.
Both governments had agreed the text of the arrangements, but that remains secret. We have not seen what that agreement is. The Australian government won't be tabling the text of the arrangement in the parliament, I was advised, and there will be no review by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. We went off and purchased $94 million worth of fuel to stick in tanks in Louisiana. So our strategic reserves sit 14,000 kilometres away. Seriously? Is this a government that doesn't appreciate what happens in time of conflict? We've already heard Senator Ayres telling us that we don't have ships with an Australian flag on them. So we can't really control what happens, as we might do in wartime or a time of conflict, to get that fuel that is in Louisiana back to Australia. Sure, we got it cheap. We all remember the negative price of fuel, I think, that occurred throughout the pandemic. But it doesn't help us in having fuel here in this country.
I do support the aim of this bill. This bill does a couple of things. One of the things it does is put a minimum storage obligation on refineries, on importers and on storage companies, and that's a good thing. Indeed, the government has announced $200 million to assist companies to build up their storage capability, and that's a good thing. I'm not standing here saying we shouldn't do what we're doing; I'm just standing here saying we're not doing enough. We've got, at best, to be generous to the government, about 30 days of fuel. If something happens, we have the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act, which allows the minister to intervene in the market and preserve our fuel for essential services. But anyone who knows anything about this topic will know that those powers are brought on very slowly. Through the normal course of use, we would probably run out of fuel before all of those powers kicked in.
We have a real problem. We have a national resilience problem. I'd like to think that, if supplies were cut, we would have 90 days of fuel like we are required to have so that we could keep our economy running, so that we could move across to various different measures to make sure that our economy ran to the extent that it was possible—certainly to make sure that essential services were available and that our Defence Force didn't run out of fuel. These are important issues. These are the sorts of issues that one would expect the Liberal Party to be good at. They're normally very strong on defence, but they've ignored this. Senator Molan has stood up and said stuff about this, bravely, in the face of his own party's failure to do anything. This is a really important issue.
The other part of the bill is to assist refineries. Remember: there were four refineries when the announcement was made, but two of them have said, 'No, sorry, not interested.' We have to rely on the two ASX refineries. They have said that they're going to stay, but we have to assist them to make sure that they stay on Australian soil. I support us assisting those refineries, but there's an amendment that I'm going to move to this bill. The amendment says that the government needs to provide a plan, which it has to table in 2023—in a couple of years time—that says what happens after 2027 and after 2030, which is the maximum extent to which the refineries can rely on the assistance. I want to know that. I'm not trying to be prescriptive and say, 'You've got to tell us what Senator Patrick wants to hear.' I'm not asking for that. I just want to know what the government's plan is. Does it intend to continue supporting the refineries? If the refineries are going to leave, how are you going to manage stock? They have some elasticity about them, because there's an in-feed to the refinery, and, as long as that's full, we've got fuel coming out the other side that's available for Australians to use.
I want to know how you intend to transition away from fuels that are, potentially, not stocked here in Australia. If we're not prepared to have 90 days of fuel, then we need to make sure that our country is running on things like electricity, hydrogen and ammonia. We need to think about shifting some of our transport from road to rail or from rail to coastal shipping. We need to have a plan. It's a novel concept to have a plan about energy security for this country! I know I've got some support amongst the crossbench—and I'm hoping I'll get Labor's support for this—but I hope the government itself will say: 'You know what? Having a plan is not a bad idea. Having a plan that we can put out in the public domain, where people can contest it and maybe enhance and improve it in some way, would be a good thing.' I'm told the government is not going to support it. The government does not want to have a plan, which is consistent with everything that's happened to date. We've just stumbled along. We didn't wake up when we couldn't properly fuel an Air Force exercise, embarrassingly, and we haven't really learnt from the pandemic.
The measures in this bill are important. They are a step, but in no way could they be considered a comprehensive plan to deal with our fuel security. It is a really important issue. I've looked at the United States strategy papers on how they might tackle a war with China. Do you know what their strategy is? They're going to cut off fuel through the Strait of Malacca and across the Stan countries, the pipelines, and they will probably take out the fuel supplies of China using cruise missiles, possibly launched from submarines. But the point is the US strategy is to starve China of fuel. That's what they intend to do, and the Chinese are very alert to this. They know that's a weakness. They refer to the Strait of Malacca as their Achilles heel. It is a huge problem for them. They're thinking about it. The United States is thinking about it. Yet we look at our own fuel security and we're not prepared to have a robust discussion, a robust debate. We're not prepared to act when the signals have been there, whether it is the 2014 Senate inquiry, the House inquiries or the NRMA funded study that looked at fuel security. With all these things—Exercise Pitch Black, the pandemic—we are skating on thin ice and not reacting properly.
I will be moving an amendment during the committee stage that requires the government to lay out a plan. How sensible is that? How sensible is the idea that we would have a plan about energy security and that we'd put it out into the public domain so industry could see it and the public could see it and we could all talk about it? But I fear the government is not going to support that.
I want to rise and commend the government on this very important bill. It is so important for our fuel security, for our energy security and for our national security. As a very proud Geelong based senator for Victoria, I was delighted to join energy minister Angus Taylor a few weeks ago in touring Viva Energy's Geelong refinery to celebrate this wonderful package, which has delivered such a massive win for Geelong workers. The Geelong refinery is home to some 700 local jobs. It is now playing a pivotal role in Australia's fuel security, as it produces half of Victoria's fuel.
This package is so vital for the Geelong refinery and for manufacturing workers. To those opposite, particularly to Labor senators: the AMWU and the AWU have worked you out. They were rolling their eyes. There has never been any such proposal from Labor when it was in government. Only the Morrison government is delivering this security, through a variable fuel security service payment, funded by the government, which recognises the fuel security benefits that our two refineries provide to all Australians; up to $302 million to support major refinery infrastructure to deliver better production and better quality fuels, bringing that forward by three years; and the $50.7 million for the implementation and monitoring of the payment, which includes a minimum stockholding obligation.
This is an incredibly important bill for our nation. We heard nothing from Labor last year when the lockdown, month after month in Victoria, brought Viva Energy and the Geelong refinery to its knees. We saw none of the so-called empathy for manufacturing workers when Mr Marles declared that the end of thermal coal would be a good thing. We have seen policy after policy from Labor which demonstrates it does not care about energy security. The carbon tax, the 50 per cent RET, the 45 per cent emissions reductions target—in all of these policies, union members across this country have worked out that Labor has deserted them. Even the Andrews Labor government, when it was asked to make a contribution to the Geelong refinery, turned its back on one of Geelong's most important manufacturers. This is a very important piece of legislation. It will make a huge difference. I commend these bills to the Senate.
Debate interrupted.
I table a response to questions I took on notice today during question time and last week. It provides detail on the Pfizer vaccine as part of the COVID-19 rollout.
Last week in the Senate I spoke about a dam that Labor and Queensland are tearing down, Paradise Dam. Tonight I want to talk about a dam that Labor in Queensland are refusing to build, Urannah Dam. Urannah Dam has been on the cards since 1957 and is now finally going to happen, because the private proponent is determined to deliver water security. We need this dam because of the huge demand for water in the region. It will transform Collinsville and Bowen the way that Fairbairn Dam transformed Emerald. But—and it is a big 'but'—bureaucracy and red tape, courtesy of Labor in Queensland, are delaying this project, stopping the creation of thousands of jobs and stopping the region from water security—water security that it so desperately needs.
To date, the proponent of Urannah Dam has written and submitted over 4,000 pages to the state government. This process started in 2015 under Bowen River Utilities, and it has been a hard slog for them, but it is progressing. The environmental impact assessment is underway. There is an application for funding under the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund, but Labor in Queensland are too inept to forward on an email to receive this money from the federal government, but I am hopeful—very, very hopeful.
It has been more than 200 days since Labor in Queensland committed to supporting the Urannah Dam project, but a red-tape and a go-slow approach is stalling economic growth and jobs for North Queensland. They are sitting on a pile of bureaucratic paperwork probably with Premier Palaszczuk plonked on top. The federal Liberal-National government has an open chequebook with $2 billion in funding as part of the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund, but Labor in Queensland, sadly, just doesn't seem to care enough about water security in the regions to forward on just an email. Without water security we won't have agriculture, fisheries, mining, manufacturing or horticulture or the diversity of the North Queensland, indeed the Queensland, economy. Urannah Dam will create thousands of direct and indirect jobs during construction and ongoing operations. Despite calling for federal government support for key water infrastructure projects like Urannah Dam, lazy Labor in Queensland can't even submit the proper paperwork.
If Labor were serious about water security and nation-building infrastructure to fix our economy, create jobs and deliver economic growth to North Queensland, they would support and forward on applications for federal government funding. This could be and will be the largest dam built since the Burdekin Falls Dam. With a capacity of 970,000 megalitres, Urannah Dam would fill almost 40,000 Olympic swimming pools. It is the only water infrastructure project in North Queensland—North Australia even—to attract private investment. Maybe that's why Labor in Queensland are slowing it down. They know their own projects aren't as good—enter Paradise Dam—and they don't like it when things happen, let alone when they happen by the private sector. Please, Labor in Queensland, fix Paradise Dam and build Urannah Dam.
I rise to pay tribute to a trailblazer of Australian media. The Koori Mail is celebrating 30 years of publishing and sharing the voices of First Nations people on a national stage. The national newspaper is fully First Nations owned, telling our stories, celebrating our achievements and presenting the news through a black lens.
Since its first edition 30 years ago on 23 May 1991 the Koori Mail has been at the cutting edge of First Nations affairs. Whether it was covering the tragedies of First Nations deaths in custody, the genesis of the Uluru statement, a local community barbecue or a fashion show, you could find it in the pages of the Koori Mail.
It was in the wake of the deaths in custody royal commission that Walbunja man Owen Carriage is credited with creating the Koori Mail. He and Bundjalung pastor Frank Roberts were disappointed in the mainstream media coverage of the royal commission in particular and First Nations issues in general. The Koori Mail was born, and the following year the paper was taken into the hands of the Bundjalung nation. Thirty years later, it is still published out of Lismore in New South Wales but has contributors around the country. It has trained a couple of generations of first-rate First Nations journalists and storytellers, and continues to support and encourage young people looking at a career in media. It continues to be on the cutting-edge of journalism and storytelling, branching out into the social media sphere and podcasting. There are not many newspapers in this current climate that can celebrate more than 700 editions and still be going strong. In the words of Koori Mail chairperson Trevor Kapeen, 'It's our paper for our people.' I visit First Nations communities around the country and, wherever I go, in cities, towns and remote communities you can find a copy of the Koori Mail and people wading through the paper.
It's an example of why First Nations media is so critical to our national landscape. First Nations media connects communities, reflects aspirations and shares our culture. Local relevance and local language is at the centre of what they do. Industry members are the experts in getting information to communities in a way that is culturally appropriate, accessible and timely. As an example, the First Nations media sector worked enormously hard to ensure communities were kept informed of the latest health and safety advice during this pandemic. Brilliant local content was developed to get the message across—for example, community leaders and members taking part in videos about closures and also about promoting good hygiene. First Nations media is critical in emergency situations, broadcasting in local languages to local regions. First Nations journalists and commentators have shared their perspectives and knowledge with mainstream media programs, but it can't end here and it's not good enough to just seek out the First Nations perspective during Reconciliation Week or NAIDOC Week or, at times of simply controversy or drama. Including a First Nations lens in all our discussions on all issues, local, regional and national, is critical if we are to play a role in shaping our own lives and futures and having a voice, and organisations like the Koori Mail are absolutely vital to this.
I want to congratulate the general manager, Naomi Moran, who has recently taken over as chair of First Nations Media Australia from Dot West; the editor, Rudi Maxwell; and all of the current and past staff who have worked tirelessly and played a vital role in keeping First Nations stories and issues at the forefront not only for First Nations people but for all Australians.
Every year on the Queen's birthday, we honour special individuals that go above and beyond in servicing the community. There were many worthy Australians that graced the list this year, and I would like to recognise individuals in areas close to my heart across Victoria.
I'll start in the beautiful north-east, a place I visited only a few weeks ago. They are Loretta Carroll AM for significant service to the livestock industry and to the community, Dr Allan Curtis AM for significant service to environmental management education and research, Vivienne Ritchie AM for significant service to the Anglican Church of Australia and to the community, Ken Broomhead OAM for service to the aviation industry, Marion Uebergang OAM for dedication to tennis and Clive Walker OAM for service to the community of Myrtleford. Senior Sergeant Mark Hesse and Superintendent Paul O'Halloran were both awarded the Australian Police Medal, and Garry Cook was awarded an Australian Fire Service Medal.
I would also like to mention some inspirational people in our northern and north-western suburbs who have had an incredible impact: Dr Ian Freckelton QC, AO, for distinguished service to the law across fields including health, medicine and technology; Dr Jane Melville AM for significant service to herpetology research and the museum sector; Susan Woodward for significant service to the not-for-profit sector, fundraising and the law; Maria Alexiadis OAM for dedication and service to karate; Abigail Forsyth OAM for dedication to sustainable design; Liberty Sanger OAM for service to the law and to the community; Paul Hammat OAM for service to the community through pastoral care; Helen Patsikatheodorou OAM for service to the community of Hume; Casey Nunn for service to the community of Craigieburn; and Dr Selvanayagam Selvendra OAM for service to multicultural organisations and to medicine.
Finally, I'd like to recognise those who've had a significant impact over the course of my political journey: Colin Tate AM, a thought leader in the superannuation and financial advice industries who has been recognised for significant service to the community through charitable initiatives; Amanda Miller OAM, a digital innovation pioneer herself who has been recognised for service to the community through philanthropic and impact investment sectors; Kerry Chikarovski AM, a trailblazer for women in the Liberal Party who has been recognised for significant service to the parliament of New South Wales and to the community; John Daley AM, one of the sharpest minds in even the most rarefied of rooms, who has been recognised for his significant service to public policy development and to the community; Vivian Ngyuen AM for significant service to the multicultural community in Victoria, specifically the Vietnamese community; Helen Shardey OAM, a former state member of parliament, the member for Caulfield, and a member of my own Liberal Women's Council, who has done terrific work serving on the board of Alfred Health and also Temple Beth Israel and was recognised for service to the Jewish community of Victoria; James O'Halloran for outstanding public service to superannuation reforms and implementation of infrastructure to enable the government's economic support measures for Australians during COVID-19; and the inimitable Peta Credlin AO for distinguished service to the parliament, policy development and the executive function of government. As a proud senator for Victoria, and on the global awareness day for MND, I couldn't possibly end this contribution without acknowledging Neale Daniher AM for his distinguished service to people with motor neurone disease and their families through advocacy, public education and fundraising initiatives.
I would like to send my congratulations not only to those I've mentioned but to all recipients of Queen's Birthday Honours. Australia is a nation rich in diversity and these honours reflect that. I would like to again thank this year's recipients wholeheartedly for their commitment, service and dedication to our communities. Australia is indeed a better place because of your contribution to our nation. I would also like to acknowledge the three young people in my office this week—Tyler Southwick, Danny Tan and Charlie Hume—who did the research for this contribution.
Despite the Morrison government's best efforts, the Fair Work Commission last week announced a 2.5 per cent increase to the minimum wage. It may well have been a higher figure if the Prime Minister had lifted a finger to advocate for wage rises. You would think, given Mr Morrison has overseen the lowest wage growth in Australian history, that he would be more interested in raising wages. But, on wages growth, Mr Morrison has been doing what he does best—that is, pretending he is not responsible. But we know the government has direct influence over wages in this country, and we saw a prime example of this last week when the Morrison government announced a new agriculture visa for workers from South-East Asia. According to Minister Littleproud, the new visa category will be less regulated than the Pacific seasonal workers program. There are a lot of ways to describe conditions for migrant workers in agriculture, but being too heavily regulated is certainly not one of them.
In fact, last week, Unions NSW released a report with the Migrant Workers Centre titled Working for $9 a day. Of the 1,300 horticulture worker surveyed, 89 per cent were on a temporary visa and 78 per cent were underpaid. Some were earning less than $1 an hour on piece rates while working up to 20 hours per day. We have a term for that sort of work: slavery.
I met one of these workers last week. She's a very brave Taiwanese woman, named Kate, who was getting paid $4 an hour to pick oranges. She said, 'I was dumpster diving for food and had to live in one room with seven other people.' At one farm, she said, she was sexually harassed and told she would have to put up with it if she wanted to keep her job. Well, Minister Littleproud, go to the media and complain that Australians don't want to do these jobs, but when these are the conditions, it is hardly surprising that willing labour is hard to come by.
The British government knows that the work standards on our farms are appalling. That's why, just last week, they negotiated for their citizens to be exempt from having to do their 88 days on a farm. That's great news for British backpackers. Instead we've got a new, unregulated, exploitative visa for workers from South-East Asia that's going to encourage rampant exploitation across the horticulture sector, especially in labour hire. It isn't just that these poor South-East Asian migrants like Kate are going to suffer through this dangerous scheme, workers from countries like Tonga and Vanuatu—our Pacific neighbours—who've had opportunities to come to Australia under the more regulated Pacific seasonal worker program, are going to be left behind. Why would a dodgy, horticulture labour-hire company choose to hire Pacific workers through a more regulated program?
Guess what—the same goes for Australians in regional communities. They are the very people that the National Party are supposed to be representing in this place. When the National Party can import migrant labour into regional communities for just $9 a day, why would these companies fork out the minimum wage to give an Australian worker a fair-paying job? Too often, those jobs and those farms are a result of what happens in supply chains with some of the biggest and most powerful retailers in this country. There is a need for proper regulation.
The Morrison government wonders why it can't shift wages growth up from record lows. I've got a very innovative suggestion for you. Stop exploiting vulnerable migrant workers and driving down wages and conditions for Australian workers.
I rise tonight to talk about electric vehicles. I want to say to you, Mr President, it's rare, but from time to time you call me, and I always answer. However, tomorrow morning at nine o'clock, don't bother, because I'll be in a Tesla car doing a bit of a spin around Canberra. I'll be doing that because I recognise that electric cars are the future. However, what we have to work out is how Australia slots into that future.
The world is shifting away from internal combustion engines. Norway has set a deadline of 2025 to cease sales of new fossil fuel powered cars. Denmark, the Netherlands, Ireland, Israel and the UK have set 2030 as their target. Quebec in Canada plans to ban gasoline powered cars from 2035. California will do the same, adding trucks to the ban list. Australia could end up being the dumping ground for outdated internal combustion engine technology that other nations no longer accept. The EU has imposed a fines system for vehicle manufacturers selling vehicles that exceed CO2 emission targets. This is a contributing factor to the situation where manufacturers won't ship their newest EVs to Australia because they need them to offset emissions in Europe.
Electric vehicles are the future, and we need to be making an investment in that future. We so often hear the claim that range anxiety detracts from electric vehicle take-up. It's a genuine concern for many; I understand the situation. However, the fact that you've got range anxiety is not a basis to do nothing about it. It should be a basis for recognising that a solution is required. We need to get infrastructure in place. We need to install more chargers. It fits in neatly with the Stop, Revive, Survive campaigns to address fatigue and reduce road fatalities. We heard Senator Rice talking today about the need to stop, go to the toilet, have something to eat and all those sorts of things, not just as part of Stop, Revive, Survive but as part of our normal functions—to be able to stop by the side of the road and spend 20 minutes filling up a car. We need to invest in R&D with the aim of developing batteries with higher energy density.
Last month, a Hyundai Nexo EV powered by a hydrogen fuel cell travelled from Melbourne to Broken Hill and beyond on one tank of hydrogen, a distance of 887.5 kilometres, setting a new range record for fuel-cell powered vehicles. A little under two weeks ago, a Toyota Mirai EV utilising a hydrogen fuel cell travelled 1,003 kilometres across France on a single tank, usurping the previous distance record. Technology is the answer, but it won't occur miraculously. It requires a plan and investment. That investment doesn't have to come from government, but the government is the only one that can lay out a national plan in which that investment would sit. Deferrals may be justified, but they should only be on the basis of a new technology being available in the near term.
We need a charging network. We've had a national EV charging network infrastructure plan since February 2019. It's still waiting to have a proponent identified, let alone to be implemented. We have fewer than 2,500 charging stations. Norway, in contrast, has around 10,000 public charging stations. We've got 25 million people and 2½ thousand public charging stations; Norway has five million people and 10,000 public charging stations. The UK added 7,000 new charging locations last year alone and now has over 15,000 charging locations, with over 24,000 charging points. All of this could happen if we had a national strategy, but, despite its having been promised two years ago, the national strategy for electric vehicles is still not available.
It seems that the lack of a plan is a consistent theme for this government. A tagline is not a plan. Net-zero emissions by 2050 sounds good, but how will it be achieved? The uptake of EVs has to form part of an emissions plan. Cars account for about half of Australia's transport emissions, which makes them responsible for around eight per cent of Australia's total. In the absence of national guidance, the states are going ahead and laying out their own electric vehicle strategies and, in some cases, plans to tax electric vehicles. We're having a rail gauge fiasco here. I invite all you senators to come to Peterborough in South Australia, because you'll find there that we have three different rail gauges: narrow gauge, standard gauge and broad gauge. That's what we had in Australia because we didn't have a national plan, and we're doing the same thing with electric vehicles. If that happens with EVs across Australia, we're going to end up with different charging stations, different charging arrangements and different taxes right across the states. We want to have a situation where we have vehicle-to-grid chargers. We want to have cars that can plug into your home, with the technology to draw from the network when the network has lots of capacity and perhaps contribute back to the network when it doesn't. We want to make sure that a car from South Australia can plug in in Victoria and do vehicle-to-grid. That's sensible stuff, but it requires that a plan be laid out.
We need to think about heavy vehicles. Thus far, we've mostly focused on passenger vehicles. We need to consider heavy vehicles—buses, trucks and road trains. I've been out to BusTech at Edinburgh in South Australia and I've seen their buses under construction, including electric buses. I've also seen the challenges they're facing in dealing with the environment of not having a plan. Should we be electrifying rail lines or investing in commuter trains powered by hydrogen fuel cells and the associated hydrogen refuelling stations? What about farm implementation, mining equipment and overland rail? This all requires prior planning to bring these vehicles into service. Again, road user charges based on a user-pays model—that's an easily understood concept and the principle makes sense, but it's also clear that the current fuel excise model will have to change. The schemes being developed are quite flawed. We have a system in place for fuel excise whereby you have a difference between the heavy vehicles and the light vehicles. We don't have that in place for electric vehicles. It doesn't deal with such variations. That doesn't help.
We have got to develop a national strategy for electric vehicles, a strategy that will ensure we maximise the economic, environmental and social benefits that electric vehicles can bring. We need to think about leading developments in these areas, where we can take advantage as a country. We can back local EV manufacturing, like we have in South Australia with ACE Vehicles—and I do thank the government for responding to my advocacy in that regard. How about we create a local capacity in battery manufacturing? Electric cars are the future. We have trainloads of lithium in Western Australia that could be utilised for that purpose. We need to be investing in R&D and establishing apprenticeships and traineeships in the EV sector. We can't just sit back and wait and see what happens. We need to have a plan. Unfortunately, we don't have a plan, and that's the fault of the government, which promised one but has simply sat quiet and done nothing.
This morning, I was fortunate to attend the Local Government Association of Queensland breakfast. It's the opening salvo for the Australian Local Government Association. I rise to congratulate the many local councils, particularly the smaller councils, of my home state of Queensland for the extraordinary amount of work they do to provide critical, grassroots services, under financial pressure that increases every year. However, before I do, I want to acknowledge a gentleman who has given a significant part of his life to the Local Government Association of Queensland. Mr Greg Hallam has been the CEO of LGAQ since 1992—that's 29 years—and he has become synonymous with advocating for this critical level of government.
Greg is no stranger to hard work, having been a dairy farmer in an earlier life. He breeds racehorses. He has given generously of his time, volunteering as a parish finance committee chair and as an elite-level accredited athletic coach for 23 years, including 20 years with the Sporting Wheelies. His contribution to Australia in these fields has been recognised by his being awarded a Member of the Order of Australia in 2018 for his contribution to local government, sport and disaster management, the Public Service Medal in 2000 and the Centenary Medal in 2001. Greg has also received the Olympic Council's Merit Award, in 2005, which was personally presented to him by the IOC president, as well as Roads Australia's John Shaw Medal. Greg is the only local government employee to receive that honour in its 40-year history. In 2012, Greg was the proud recipient of the National Emergency Medal for his work in Queensland's 2011 natural disaster response. In a few short months, Greg will retire and his shoes will be filled by Alison Smith. All I can say is all the wonderful people who represent their local communities will miss Greg and his enthusiasm for local government. I salute you, Greg Hallam.
Many local councils and regional councils face the constant battle of maintaining service provision across vast areas with small populations while trying to keep rate rises to a minimum. There are grants outside of the long-established FAGs that councils access for specialty works on roads, bridges and community infrastructure. One example of this is the Building Better Regions program that has delivered infrastructure into local government regions across the state. These extra funds go a long way towards helping councils keep rate rises to an absolute minimum, but costs are rising all the time.
Infrastructure built regionally costs materially more in regional centres, more than double the cost of the south, in northern Australia. On top of the regional roles councils play in roads, rates and rubbish, they also look after water supply and treatment, planning and even disaster management. At the same time, the Queensland Labor government, to its great shame, continually tries to heap more responsibilities on local councils, such as managing cemeteries, state lands, stock routes and major roads. This appalling situation is set against the backdrop of an underspend of close to $6 billion by that government on regional roads. To local councils' credit, they are continuing to find ways to manage, to adapt to these changing circumstances in order to make their regions more liveable for their communities. I've visited council run childcare and aged-care centres and they do an outstanding job providing the services that are normally provided by bigger organisations in the cities.
According to the Local Government Association of Queensland, the sunshine state is the most decentralised in Australia, and its councils are responsible for providing more services than councils in other states and territories. There are 77 Queensland councils. Seventeen of them are First Nations councils, 32 are reef catchment councils, and 45 are rural and remote councils. There are 41,829 council employees, which cover 294 occupations. The LGAQ reports its councils manage $150 billion worth of community assets and 153,000 kilometres of local roads. They manage $10 billion of spend on providing services for communities on 53,000 hectares of parks and playgrounds, or more than 74,000 soccer fields, and they have 2,800 bridges in their care. They do more. They spend $25 billion in water and wastewater assets. They have 314 water treatment plants and 76,000 kilometres of water and sewer mains. They have greater planning autonomy and authority, and they are the front line for disaster-planning responsibility and recovery.
Councils are also taking upon themselves the role of tourism promotion. One example from North Queensland is the Hinchinbrook Way campaign that has been credited with boosting the population of Ingham just north of Townsville after some years of decline. In Boulia, Mayor Rick Briton is immensely proud of the council run Min Min Encounter exhibit, which treats visitors to a mechanised sound and light show based around the mysterious Min Min lights that are found in the area. Of course, we can't forget the famous camel races of Boulia.
Winton and Longreach both boast world-class tourism assets. Further along the Dinosaur Trail, Richmond has a terrific centre. And spare a thought for Karumba—a population of 531 permanent residents that explodes to 4,500 people over winter, and the council has to provide the services, like water and sewerage, for that expanded population. Unlike those opposite, we don't need a photo opportunity in order to get out to the bush. We believe in our councils, big and small. A tangible way that we have demonstrated that is the establishment of the $10 billion reinsurance pool in North Australia. Whether it be insurance for a country market, insurance to host a major street parade or even just insurance for assets, the cost of premiums is a crippling burden that is passed on to ratepayers and diverts funds from the essential services that councils provide. Everywhere I travel in regional Queensland, this is one of the main complaints from councils and businesses—that insurance costs have become crippling. Some estimates have put the expected drop in premiums from the introduction of the reinsurance pool at as much as 50 per cent. This would be an extraordinary outcome.
But imagine if the Queensland Labor government also halved or even abolished the stamp duty it charges on premiums. The ACCC reports that the state government raked in $65 million in 2018-19, from North Queensland alone, in stamp duty, which adds between nine and 10 per cent to premiums. From this, the state government allocates only $11 million a year in grants to help people make their homes more cyclone-resilient—in effect treating North Queensland like a $54 million cash cow. The stamp duty increases with insurance premium rises and delivers no increase in services. Sadly for people living in North Queensland, their elected Labor representatives have maintained a head-in-the-sand approach to stamp duty issues, and they're quite happy for businesses and residents to continue to pay up. The worst aspect of high running costs for businesses and councils is that the costs are passed on to average consumers. Therefore they're not only paying their own exorbitant, artificially inflated, Labor-sanctioned premiums; they're paying more in rates, and for goods and services, to cover councils' and businesses' high insurance as well.
The Queensland Labor government's treatment of its councils is nothing short of contemptuous, but I'm glad I'm part of a coalition federal government that unashamedly backs our councils. I was once told that council bashing was a national sport, and I suspect that's right. However, being a local councillor, while a tough job, is an important one, and I congratulate every councillor across Queensland and Australia. I'm very proud to call these councillors and mayors my friends, and I commend my coalition colleagues for taking very seriously their role as the councils' voice in Canberra.
Senate adjourned at 22:27