I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
by leave—I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, by no later than 7.20 pm on Tuesday, 22 June 2021:
the planning parameters of the likely lowest and likely highest allocations of Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccine doses that each state and territory is expected to receive each week throughout 2021, which the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care committed on 21 June 2021 to provide to the Senate.
I thank the chamber for giving me leave to move this motion this morning. To disrupt or reorganise the program isn't something that we like to do, but this is a really important issue and I think it deserves the attention of the Senate at this time, at the beginning of the session. It is a motion that I think the government should support as well, as it was a government minister yesterday who said that they would provide to this chamber the documents that had been provided from the Commonwealth to the states and territories about the distribution of vaccines, both Pfizer and AstraZeneca, month by month right up to the end of this year.
There is no greater issue facing the country at the moment than the COVID-19 pandemic, as our colleagues from New South Wales would be feeling most acutely this morning. There is no greater issue that deals with the COVID-19 pandemic than the government's vaccination program. We know it has been a shambles. We know that there has been mistake after mistake, change after change. We know that vaccine hesitancy is an issue in this country. We know people have been worried about the changing advice coming from the government. We know that supply has been an issue. With the recent changes, with more people being brought into the category eligible for Pfizer, it makes the issue of how much supply they have and how it's getting distributed even more important. We know from the states and territories that there have been concerns about the distribution of supply. Are they going to have enough for the second dose? Do they need to hold back other doses so that they can vaccinate people within the three-week recommended time frame? These are all issues.
Yesterday the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, completely of his own initiative, said in this chamber:
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 …
Well, that didn't happen. He didn't come back as soon as possible. But, colleagues, he did come back and table a document at 10 to 10 last night which specifically didn't go to providing that information.
The information in question time that Minister Colbeck undertook to give to this chamber is extremely important information, because, if you are to believe the government, the changes to the vaccine program as recommended by ATAGI last week won't lead to a shortage of Pfizer vaccine—the evidence last night in the COVID committee was that they won't lead to any problem at all. We know that they don't want to be held to time frames, because they've missed every one they've set themselves. They missed 'vaccinate four million by the end of March'; they missed 'vaccinate 1a and 1b within six weeks and be done by Easter'. We know that they have missed every single time frame they have set themselves. So now they're in the business where they don't give time frames. They just say, 'There are different scenarios, and we'll focus on supply and on getting the supply out.' Now we know that the government has a document which clearly sets out how much vaccine is going, where it's going and what type of vaccine is going where, right up until the end of this year. That document exists, and it should be provided to this Senate.
This Senate has provided a crucial scrutinising role throughout the pandemic. When the Senate didn't sit, the COVID committee did. When there's a change to the advice coming from government, the Senate, through the COVID committee, sits. We interrogate. We examine. And this is no different.
Here we have the minister, who has appeared before that committee many times, of his own volition. He wasn't even asked to provide this information; he was answering a different question. He volunteered that those documents would be provided to the Senate as soon as possible, and they are critical to the government's credibility on rolling out this vaccine because their credibility is linked to the supply and distribution being effective, particularly over the next quarter. What I think those documents might show is that, over the next quarter, supply is going to be a bit tight—it's going to be tight if you need to get a Pfizer vaccine in this country—and that then it will improve in quarter 3 and quarter 4 as more doses of Pfizer or of Moderna enter the country. But we know that the government has that information. They are avoiding scrutiny of it. They are avoiding being transparent. It looks as though Minister Hunt, probably, has got to Senator Colbeck, clipped his wings again and said: 'You've overstepped the mark. That information is not being provided. That information, which is in the public interest, will not be provided to the Senate.' That looks like what's happened overnight.
So we get this letter, which is completely unrelated, answering a question that the minister had already answered and didn't take on notice. But the undertaking he gave—which was to bring it back to this chamber 'as soon as possible', to use his language—has been ignored. We're not going to let you get away with that, because you gave this Senate an undertaking yesterday in question time, and that means something. It means something when a minister stands up and says they will do something and then they don't follow through with it. This is the biggest issue facing the country now. The solution to the pandemic—to minimise the harm, economically and health-wise, and the social impacts of it—is the successful rollout of the vaccine. The government has a document that should provide comfort to Australians, if we believe it to be true, to say they have enough vaccine, they know where that vaccine is, they know when it's coming, they know where it's going and that the states and territories know what they're getting month by month.
This information is in the public interest. It's not good enough for the government to offer it up and then to have a second thought of: 'It might not actually work for us politically if we put that information out now, so let's fob the Senate off with an answer which is completely unrelated to the undertaking the minister gave.' We cannot let that stand. The Senate must stand up and hold the minister to the promise he made to this chamber yesterday in question time, which was to provide the information and to provide it as soon as possible.
There are concerns that the government doesn't have enough supply. There are concerns, from states and territories, that they're not getting the information they need about how they make the rollout as efficient and as effective as possible so that people can get access to the vaccine. We had evidence last night that said that they think that, over the next two months, there should be enough Pfizer for anyone who wants to have a shot. Presumably that is supported by this document. So release it, give it to the Senate and actually stand by what you said yesterday. That is important. It's not only important in terms of responding to the pandemic; it's important in terms of ministerial commitment and how the Senate holds this minister to account. We need this information. It is critical for understanding what is going to happen over the next few months, particularly in the next quarter.
The government still maintain their commitment to vaccinate any Australian who wants a vaccine by the end of this year. It's changed from being two shots—from being fully vaccinated—to one shot, but they are saying this is what they will maintain over the course of 2021. I see no reason, now that the minister has volunteered this information, that that can't be made available to this chamber today. It's really important for the trust in this program, for dealing with issues like hesitancy and for trying to get as many Australians vaccinated as possible that this information be provided. Any lack of willingness by the government to provide it should be looked at most seriously.
What are the government hiding if they cannot provide this information? Why will they not provide it? If they try and hide under national cabinet and say, 'It's a national cabinet document,' I respond: no, it's not. It was generated and developed by the Commonwealth and then shared with the states and territories. So don't hide behind national cabinet as you've done on every single other important aspect of the vaccine. It's been used as a way of avoiding transparency and avoiding giving Australians the information they deserve about this vaccine. If you're expecting Australians to roll up their sleeves and do what's right by the country then they expect you to be upfront and give them the information that enables them to do that in a way in which they can be fully informed. This document, I think, at this point in time, in terms of supply and understanding whether we have got enough to do what needs to be done over the course of this year, is critical to holding you to account and making sure that you can do what you're promising you'll do.
There is no reason at all why this should be secret information—none at all. This is all it is: 'This is the vaccine. This is how much we are getting. This is where it's going month by month.' There is nothing top secret in that. But it seems the government, after Minister Colbeck has volunteered to provide that information, has now overruled Senator Colbeck. Otherwise it would have been provided at 9.50 last night when the one-pager, completely unrelated to the matter, was tabled. The government feels that that's actually delivering on what you promised, Senator Colbeck. Well, your words were:
I am happy to provide that information to the chamber. I will come back to the chamber as soon as possible …
The chamber needs to hold this minister to account. It is not top secret information. It is information that should be made publicly available just like when the cabinet was first briefed about the pandemic and just like who decided what about the vaccine portfolio. All of that information is top secret. When did those meetings happen? Who was involved? None of that information is being provided to the Australian people, and it makes you wonder why. What is it that makes this information so top secret? Were the cabinet not briefed? Did they not follow the recommendations of the experts in terms of purchase of the vaccine? Did Pfizer offer an unlimited amount to vaccinate the whole population as a priority country? Who knows? We don't have any of the information available. This is just another attempt by this government to withhold critical information from the Australian people and hope that they can get away with it. We won't let you get away with it. We will keep asking you the questions and we will keep your feet to the fire, especially on this one.
I am sure the government will be able to support this motion, because this motion just asks them to comply with what they offered to do yesterday. How do you oppose this? When we have a vote, what does poor Minister Colbeck get told? That he's got to walk across the chamber and vote against what he said yesterday? He says, 'I know I said I'd bring it back as soon as possible and that I would make it available to the chamber,' but do you know what? Minister Hunt has been on the phone. We've all been on the phone and had an earbashing from Minister Hunt. We know what it's like. Stand up to him. Say: 'I'm sorry Greg, but I said this. Now we're going to have to deliver.' But do you know what? It's not such a bad thing, because this information is important information. It needs a light on it, and we need to be able to see what the government is planning in terms of the vaccine rollout. That's what this information's about. It is not top secret. The government should not be allowed to pretend that there's some secrecy attached to it because national cabinet is a body that just consumes secret information and never, ever spits anything out. We don't accept that. The Senate shouldn't accept that.
Minister Colbeck, we are on your side on this one. We agree with you that the information should be made available to the chamber, and I genuinely believe you do think it should be made available. I actually do. But I think you've been overturned. Well, we are here to strengthen your arm. The Senate is here to support you and, most importantly, to give that information to the Australian people, because I think there is interest in how much Pfizer vaccine there is in June, July and August this year. I think that is critical to what is going to happen for the next three months.
If the government's words are true—that there is no shortage of supply—then show us the spreadsheet. Show us the paperwork that supports that. There is absolutely no reason why the government should not be supporting this motion today other than just another attempt to withhold information, to play the politics of the pandemic and not actually deal with the genuine issues, to stage-manage, to make the PR fit the press conferences and to pat us all on the head and say: 'It's all coming. Don't worry. We've got it all sorted.' Well, that's not been our experience of the vaccine rollout. Every single commitment given hasn't been met, and now we have a minister prepared to share that information and he's been overturned. Now he's going to be in the most embarrassing position, where he's going to be forced to vote against a motion that actually requires him to do what he promised yesterday in this chamber to do. Well, we shouldn't let it stand, colleagues. I urge the Senate to consider supporting my motion. It's important information that should be made available.
The Greens will be supporting this motion. I was astonished when sitting in the COVID hearing last night when the department said that they couldn't hand over this information because it had gone to national cabinet, when I'd been here in the chamber with everybody else, hearing Minister Colbeck saying, yes, he would provide that information. If that information is not provided, how does that reinforce the community's confidence in our vaccine program, which is, I've got to say, at a pretty low ebb right now, unfortunately, because not one of their goals has been met? The goals have been rolled over and rolled over and rolled over. Now there is a vague promise that we may be there by the end of the year with everybody—those that want it—having had their first shot. There's been problem after problem after problem here, to the point where we've now had to bring in the Defence Force to make sure that we get the logistics right. People have no confidence at the moment, particularly after the announcements last week. We need to restore confidence in the program. There is absolutely no reason, unless the government is hiding something, that they cannot hand over this information to help restore confidence in the shambles that is the vaccine rollout program.
Last night we heard, in fact, that the government is now working on a new draft of the vaccine rollout program, the program that says you've got your priority 1a and then 1b and then 2a, 2b and 2c. That is apparently not going to be operating within the next couple of weeks. It has essentially been thrown out the window already; I will acknowledge that. The government are now in the position where they're redrafting that whole rollout program. Once again, there are changes to our vaccine program. Really we can have no confidence in any time frames the government articulates at the moment without that foundation information about how many doses of the Pfizer vaccine are going to be available from now through the next quarter and the next quarter. When is Moderna coming online, for example? Why didn't we have a contract with Moderna a long time ago?
The fact is that there has not been transparency in this whole program. What's happening with the contracts? We had one contract to start the logistics of the rollout, for example, in aged care to aged-care residents and staff. That didn't work, so then we got another contract because the first contractors couldn't do the job. Then we had a second lot of contractors come in to try and provide that rollout, and of course that didn't work either. There's a lack of transparency there; that's commercial-in-confidence information.
We have to make sure that we get access to as much information as possible. The government has to be as transparent as possible, because of the—I was going to say a slightly unparliamentary word there, so I'll retract that—shambles of the program that has been run out to date. When were these decisions made? How much Pfizer will we have? When will people have certainty that they can get their first jab and then their second jab? When will people have confidence that they will be vaccinated? This doesn't exist in a vacuum. It also connects to other issues that people want to know about—for example, when the borders are going to be open. It's absolutely critical that people have their vaccine, for the protection of themselves and of the broader community.
I see absolutely no reason why the minister cannot table this information. It is crucial information to start the rebuild of the community's confidence in our vaccination program. People are increasingly hesitant. We, as Greens, support the vaccination program and we were encouraging people to get vaccinated, but I can actually understand now why people are a little bit nervous. We want to counter that. We want to make sure that people have confidence and that we rebuild confidence in what has been a shambles—an absolute shambles. And the government can't say that they have been transparent in any of the vaccination program. They've only just started giving us some statistics.
Last night I was asking questions about mixing and matching vaccines and was told that they're doing some further work on it and that there wasn't a lot of information around. I subsequently got an email from someone—a health professional—who has been working on this and who attached at least three articles on the research that has been done on mixing and matching vaccines. Again, there's a lack of transparency. Other countries are doing it. Why can't Australia?
We actually need access and proper answers to these questions. We need them now, not down the track. We need this information now. So the Greens will be supporting this OPD because we do need access to this information. The government shouldn't be hiding behind national cabinet, as they continually do. They shouldn't be hiding behind it. This should be publicly available information. We should have had it last night, either here in the chamber or at the COVID committee. Instead, we've found the government hiding behind national cabinet. It is outrageous that the community cannot have access to this information. The government knows it. There is no excuse for the government not releasing this information, other than that they're trying to hide something—maybe that, in fact, there isn't enough, despite the government saying there will be enough. Maybe there won't be. Maybe we're going to be restructuring the rollout plans, perhaps to cover the fact that there is not enough. We just don't know. And, if we in here are speculating about this, what are people in the community doing? They're also speculating about whether there's going to be enough and why the government won't tell us what's going on. Produce the information. We shouldn't have to go through this debate in this chamber. The minister said he would produce the information—which was good—and now we find that we can't have access to it.
The Greens will be supporting this motion. It's about time that we had some transparency in what has turned out to be a shambles of a rollout.
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I will be supporting Senator Gallagher's motion. I, like her, have wider concerns about the virus campaign on which the government has embarked. On 23 March last year, a Monday, our first day sitting in this parliament with the virus, I supported the government on behalf of One Nation and said we expected the data and we expected the plan. Where is the plan? A vaccine is one strategy as part of a comprehensive plan to manage. There is no such plan. So I have wide concerns about the lack of a plan and the lack of data. There are seven strategies. I have checked this with the Chief Medical Officer in Senate estimates. I have checked with the Secretary of the Department of Health in Senate estimates.
The first one is lockdowns. Even the crooked, corrupt, incompetent, dishonest World Health Organization admits that lockdowns are to be used as a last resort and only initially to get control of the virus. Yet we've seen states using lockdowns repeatedly, which means they haven't got control of the virus. The virus is managing states. We see capricious lockdowns with one or two positive tests. We see people 2,700 kilometres from Brisbane, in Bamaga, wearing masks as an exercise in conditioning. So the first one is capricious use of lockdowns.
The second strategy is testing, tracing and quarantining. That has not been used properly in this country. There are countries overseas that have used it properly, with wonderful results. We have not. The third is restrictions—things like masks and social distancing. That has been used here, although we are told initially there was no need for masks, because there were no masks available. Then, when masks became available, we were told they must be used. They're a symbol of conditioning.
The fourth one is vaccines. And what a hazardous, disjointed mess that's turned out to be. I agree with Senator Siewert. I agree with Senator Gallagher. The people are concerned because we've had contradicting evidence and contradicting statements about vaccines. It's atrocious. People are scared because the government has terrified them with the uncertainty as well as the deaths from vaccine. I will talk more about that in a minute.
The fifth strategy that was signed off by the Chief Medical Officer and the Secretary of the Department of Health is the use of cures and prophylactics to treat people with the virus—successful antivirals dramatically proven overseas. They are low cost, safe—3.7 billion doses over six decades in the case of ivermectin—and now proven successful overseas and clinically.
The sixth one is personal behaviour—things like washing hands and personal hygiene. The seventh we have heard nothing about from this government, yet it's a well-known comorbidity: obesity. We need people to manage their own health and fitness.
That will provide a comprehensive plan. We see state and federal governments stumbling around vaccines, lockdowns and some restrictions. That's it. And our country is getting decimated economically—or was—because of it, and we are recovering slowly.
So I commend Senator Gallagher for moving this, because the government made a commitment yesterday and it needs to honour that commitment. We've had deaths from the vaccines—thousands of people overseas. We have had hundreds of people, after they received a vaccine, dying. We have a long delay between the death and the reporting of the death. We have a wide variety of side effects from the vaccine, including blood clots. The health minister himself had cellulitis and was hospitalised, and that is reportedly a known vaccine side effect. We've had the Chief Medical Officer, the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the head of the federal Department of Health refusing to declare that the vaccine is 100 per cent safe. How do they possibly get conditional approval?
The vaccine has failed to prevent transmission. How does that figure into a plan for managing the virus? The vaccine fails to stop someone getting the virus and getting sick. The intergenerational effects are not known. Now we have nurses talking about banding together because together they have power against a hospital or against an aged-care facility and because some of them are pregnant and don't know what the vaccine will do to their future child.
The dosage is unknown. The vaccine's effects against mutations are still unknown. The vaccine frequency is unknown. The number, the time of jabs—will we be required to do this annually? I won't be, but are people going to be jabbed forever? The vaccine fails to remove restrictions. The vaccine fails to open international borders. The vaccine makers have displayed a considerable lack of integrity, with fines of billions of dollars for misrepresenting their products. Health Minister Hunt summarises it so well with his words: 'The world is engaged in the largest clinical vaccination trial ever.' And I'm not a lab rat, and Australians should not be treated as a lab rat. Governments should be supplying the information freely and openly.
The vaccine showed that this is the first time in history that healthy people have been injected with something that will kill them. At the same time, we have a known, proven, safe, affordable drug, and sick people have been denied it in this country and in some other Western countries. As I said, ivermectin is off-patent and affordable. These are the things that need to be discussed and aren't being discussed. We need to start with the information that Senator Gallagher is wanting.
We learn that four pilots have died in British Airways employment in the UK after getting the jab. Will planes start falling out of the sky? Will nurses, especially pregnant nurses, concerned with the child they're carrying, band together as a mark of solidarity to prevent their children from being hurt by these vaccines?
I want to commend Senator Patrick. He pointed out quite clearly—and I agree with him—that there is no such thing as a national cabinet. Government is answerable to us, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The national cabinet is a fabrication. I support very strongly Senator Gallagher's motion and will be voting accordingly.
I would like to add a couple of different perspectives to this debate. Firstly, I'd like to talk about Senator Gallagher's discussion about providing this information to the Senate. I agree that's very important. But I think we need to appreciate something—that is, these documents were written by officials who are paid for by the taxpayer, they were approved by ministers who are paid for by the taxpayer, they were transmitted to the states by means which were paid for by the taxpayer and they are documents that are written for public purpose. They are documents that do not belong to the coalition government; they are documents that belong to the Australian people.
The default position in our representative democracy is that documents that you are custodians of—you are not the owners of them—must be made available unless there's some very good reason for them not to be. I agree with statements made in the chamber this afternoon basically asserting that, in actual fact, there can be no question that these documents are not sensitive from any national security perspective, from any international relations perspective; they're not legally privileged. There is no reason that these should not be handed over to the Senate so that we can make them public and we can assist in informing. The whole point of a representative democracy is that we allow people to participate in our democracy, either through this chamber, through the media, through discussions or through ringing their MPs—however they may wish to do that—but they can only do that if they're properly informed. In politics, information is currency.
I understand why the government want to keep this secret. It is not for any legitimate reason. You're just not open to scrutiny; you're just not open to criticism. One of the benefits of disclosure is that you might find some people might congratulate you for some things that you're doing. You might find that it helps sway the public in supporting whatever campaign you're running. But if you don't bring the people along with you then you're not going to get that support that you need. So, first and foremost, this information belongs to the public, and you are not allowed to keep it secret from them. That's not how things work in this country. If you want to play in the political system that does that, move to China; move to other places that don't have the sort of free democracy that we have. That's the first point.
The second point—and I note that Senator Roberts brought this up—is that the mechanism by which you claim that these documents ought not to be provided to the Senate is because of an aroma of what you call 'the national cabinet'. I'm going to criticise Senator Gallagher here for giving legitimacy to the national cabinet. I think we ought to be saying 'the thing that the Liberal government call the national cabinet'; it is not a national cabinet. As Lewis Carroll wrote in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Humpty Dumpty said, 'Words mean what I say they mean.' And that's what I mean: we've got a Humpty Dumpty Prime Minister who seems to think he can define what the word 'cabinet' means. That is not the case.
This chamber knows that I have a matter before the AAT that Justice White is considering at the moment, but let me tell you why there is no such thing as a national cabinet. There is an attempt by the government to connect the national cabinet to cabinet. A cabinet is something that's been around since King George II. It has particular attributes and those attributes must be respected. Those attributes include the fact that a cabinet is a meeting of senior ministers responsible to a single legislature. A national cabinet is not a single legislature. Our national cabinet is made up of one federal minister, that being the Prime Minister, and premiers and chief ministers, who are responsible to different legislatures. There are nine legislatures involved in what is called the national cabinet. That's the first problem.
The second issue is that, if you read the Cabinet Handbook, it makes it very clear that the Prime Minister controls who is a member of cabinet. The Prime Minister cannot control who the South Australian Premier is. The Prime Minister cannot control who the Queensland Premier is. The Prime Minister cannot control who the ACT Chief Minister is. So that's another inconsistency with what a cabinet is.
Thirdly, the very basal reason for having cabinet-in-confidence is cabinet responsibility, the idea that everyone agrees when you come out. That is not the case. The Prime Minister said it himself. He said in a press conference that he accepts that 'not everyone will be on the bus but the bus has to leave the station'. Those were his words. That is not how a cabinet works. A cabinet works with the principle of collective responsibility.
Another thing a cabinet works with is the principle of cabinet solidarity—that is, once a cabinet makes a decision, everyone who walks out of that cabinet must publicly support the decisions of cabinet. That is not what happens with the national cabinet. It has no resemblance to what is known in law as a cabinet. The Senate has faced an obstruction in respect of requests for documents which come from the thing that is called the national cabinet. The difficulty with that is that first and foremost, if you read Odgers, there is no proper claim—just as the courts have decided that cabinet documents may be adduced in a court or, as necessary, in the Senate in order for us to do our oversight role.
The second aspect of this is that 'cabinet' is a word that is defined in the statutes. So it is not for the Prime Minister to come along and simply say cabinet means something different now. Let me read to you from the submissions of the Commonwealth to the AAT. They suggest that, in spite of all the things I've just listed that have been determined judicially, and it is the judiciary that interprets what the words of the statutes mean, what the Prime Minister argued was that the tribunal should attach greater weight to the expert evidence—that is, Mr Gaetjens—before relating it to the specific issues raised in this case such as the generalised judicial observations made in very different contexts. What the Prime Minister was saying is: 'Don't you worry about what the word "cabinet" means in the statute. That's not for the courts to decide; it's for the Prime Minister to decide. The Prime Minister can decide whatever he likes.' We can put a word in the statutes here and then at some later stage the Prime Minister can just change the meaning of the word? That is not how this thing works. Humpty Dumpty will have to fall off the wall. There's a good chance that when our Prime Minister, Humpty Dumpty Morrison, falls off that wall there won't be many people prepared to put him back together.
The government needs to understand that it has to be open and transparent. It has an obligation to the people of Australia to be open and transparent in the conduct of its business. That's how this is supposed to work. That is especially the case when called on by the Senate to answer a question. In this case Senator Colbeck did answer the question and made a commitment to come back to the chamber to give the information, but somehow we find that information is no longer going to be provided. That's a disgusting state of affairs.
What is so sensitive in this information? It ought to be made public. It's to do with a very important program to be rolled out to make sure we can get on with our economy and get on with the work we do without being strangled by this awful pandemic. Cough up the information. That's the right thing to do. It's information that belongs to the public.
The motion before the chamber does one thing. It simply asks Minister Colbeck to do what he said he would do. It's pretty simple. In question time the minister was asked a question by Senator Sterle. He was asked directly how many vaccines per week the Commonwealth is going to make available to the states. Senator Sterle asked, 'How many Pfizer doses per week will the Commonwealth guarantee from today until the end of July 2021?' It's pretty simple information. We can only purchase vaccines on a national basis, as a national government. The states don't purchase them. The Commonwealth purchases them. They have to be supplied to the states, so the question from Senator Sterle was: how many per week have you indicated that you'll give the states?
Senator Colbeck actually gave a quite helpful answer. He said:
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.
We know this information exists, because the minister told us it exists. We know the minister can provide it to the Senate, because the minister told us he would provide it to the Senate. The problem is the minister hasn't and he won't. Sometime between question time and 10 to 10 last night, somebody got to the minister and said, 'By the way, we're not going to do that.'
I'll come to the Prime Minister's character in a moment, but this does come to the pattern across the government where information that is available is routinely denied to the Senate. I think, for example, of FOI claims that Senator Patrick and other senators have put in place. Under the freedom of information legislation, information which was denied through the chamber has been provided to the applicant—in this case a senator. That's not actually how this should work.
With the Westminster system—and we have all our political differences—the key way ministers are accountable to the Australian people is through the parliament. People use the media et cetera, but ultimately, as a matter of our democracy, the Westminster system says that I'm accountable to the people of Australia through the parliament. Yet what we have in this government is not even a creeping tendency but a considered strategy to reduce that accountability to this parliament in question time, in questions on notice, in estimates and in orders for the production of documents. They've so reduced the level of accountability that people are going outside of the parliamentary processes in order to get that information, and sometimes they've been successful through litigation. Well, we shouldn't have parliamentarians having to litigate FOI. We shouldn't have Senator Gallagher having to come in here to put a motion to require a minister to do what he undertook to his colleagues and the Senate chamber to do.
The facts are that the government have taken this approach in part because they don't want to be accountable for their failures. Essentially, Mr Morrison had two jobs: quarantine and vaccine. I'll leave the discussion about quarantine to one side. The discussion about the vaccine has been really notable for the way in which the government has dealt with its failures. Does everyone remember that we were going to have four million vaccines by the end of March? Well, obviously that didn't happen. What has occurred as a consequence of that and failures around targets is that the government has simply said: 'Guess what? We're not going to give anybody any targets.' Instead of saying, 'Look, we missed it for these reasons. We're going to be up-front about this. This is what's occurred,' they just stopped saying anything about any targets. We can't get any information from which you might even be able to infer a target. You can't get any information which might actually quantify any accountability. They're so grumpy about the fact that the Prime Minister was proved to have missed a target. The way they're dealing with this is by not providing any information. It's a very paranoid way of running government, I have to say.
I think Australians would actually appreciate the government being much more up-front about the vaccine. I think they did the wrong thing; the Labor Party has been clear about that. We think they put too many eggs in the AstraZeneca basket. We think they failed to make sure the rollout would be managed properly. We've seen Senator Colbeck in here saying the government had to reset, repivot the rollout vaccine. That was before the change of advice last week. We know that the so-called national cabinet was convened yesterday for an emergency meeting to help fix the rollout—of course, everyone was distracted because the National Party were in the middle of a big fight about who was going to be the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia.
Mr Morrison has effectively given up on targets, because he would prefer not to have one than to miss another one. And now we see this strategy of hiding information from Australians. Senator Colbeck said yesterday during question time that Australians could have confidence in the rollout based on the information provided to the national cabinet. Pause and think about that for a minute. On the basis of information he is now refusing to provide to the Senate, he's telling us all, 'You can have confidence.' Whatever your political views, Australians are entitled to be able to look at the information their government is providing. Australians are entitled to look at the truth, the facts about what is actually happening on the rollout. I don't think it's reasonable just to say: 'You can have confidence. We're looking after it.'
There isn't a lot of confidence in the rollout. I don't say that with any relish. I think that is a problem. I think it's a problem for the economy and for people's sense of confidence in what is occurring. The lack of confidence is not improved by treating people like they're mushrooms. The lack of confidence and the concern are not improved by refusing to give people information. A smoke-and-mirrors approach from a Prime Minister who refuses responsibility and refuse to admit his failures is not the way to deal with this.
I thank those crossbenchers who have indicated support for the motion. I think the Senate should be empowered to do its job. I say to the minister: can you just do what you said you'd do? Just turn up in here, provide the information that you were asked for that you have already provided to the states. You've already provided it to the states. That's the key issue here: he has it, he can provide it and he's refusing to do so. The Senate should hold him to his word.
I thank the Senate. I indicate at the outset that the government, having granted leave and agreed to the consideration of this motion, also will not oppose the passage of this motion. We acknowledge that, whilst ordinarily we would deny leave for consideration of motions that should be brought through the normal consideration of formal business, in this instance we acknowledge the importance of the subject matter. Because of the importance of the vaccine rollout, although we don't agree with the assertions that have been made by many during the consideration of this motion, we were happy to facilitate the time in the Senate for its debate and consideration.
Senator Patrick interjecting—
I will take the interjection, Senator Patrick, because the principle of whether or not a motion has precedence for consideration is an important one. Not every motion or OPD request or anything else that is bowled up at the start of the day is about to be granted leave. Even if we don't have the numbers, we'll go through the process of denying leave and the consequent consideration by the Senate that would occur.
In relation to the motion and its content, it is correct that Senator Colbeck was asked yesterday about provision of vaccine doses to the end of July 2021. I note that the motion that's been brought forward here seeks information through to the end of 2021, a considerably longer period of time than Senator Colbeck was asked about in the chamber yesterday. Senator Colbeck did come back to the chamber last night with further information, as he had promised to do. The further information that he provided to the chamber indicated that the government has to date received 4½ million doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine and that Pfizer have confirmed supply of a further 3.4 million doses to the end of July 2021. He also quotes a statement that Pfizer had released in relation to the broader supply of vaccines through the period of 2021 that's important to place on the record. That statement from Pfizer says: 'As Pfizer informed parliament whilst giving evidence on the record to the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19 hearing on 28 January 2021, Pfizer proposed to the Australian government the procurement of 10 million doses of our COVID-19 vaccine, and that was the number initially contracted by the government. The parties have since contracted agreements for a further 30 million doses.' Indeed, Pfizer in their statements have confirmed that Australia will be supplied with a total of 40 million doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine in 2021.
I note that, in much of the rhetoric during the debate, there was scant reference to the changed circumstances that have hit the vaccine rollout during the course of this year. These are just realities that we have had to face, which Senator Colbeck and others have spoken on extensively. It would, of course, be preferable, and it would have been the government's preference, had contracted vaccines that were expected to come to Australia during the early parts of this year arrived on time. They didn't—some 3.4 million.
Senator Lambie interjecting—
I will take Senator Lambie's interjection as well, which is just false. Indeed, many were urging us to make sure that we proceeded in supporting a vaccine that we had the capability to manufacture in Australia, which was the case with AstraZeneca. Australia does not yet have the capability to manufacture the new mRNA technologies. That's why we're going through the process of trying to procure and secure the intellectual property and the technology and investment to ensure that, for the medium to long term, we are able to get that manufacturing capability into Australia.
But the reality is that certain supplies didn't turn up as had been contracted and expected. The reality is that there have been two significant changes in relation to the health advice around AstraZeneca. These have been disruptions the government would wish had not occurred, but they have occurred. We have responded to them, the states and territories have responded to them and, indeed, so have the medical practitioners participating in the rollout. I place on record our thanks to all those involved in the rollout for the way in which they have adapted to the changed circumstances.
Senator Patrick interjecting—
It's actually called having ownership of the technology and the ability to manufacture, Senator Patrick. You can all pretend, if you like, that there's an easy answer here. What we're working through are the realities we face in an ever-changing circumstance that we've confronted.
As I said, the government won't oppose this motion. We will endeavour to provide as comprehensive a reply as we can. I note that there are aspects of this that will require discussion with the states and territories about releasing information relevant to them and that we'll look at any commercial aspects in relation to consideration of the motion. But the government does not oppose this motion and notes the importance of the vaccine rollout to all Australians.
Question agreed to.
I rise to support the Fuel Security Bill 2021. Securing Australia's fuel supply is essential for our national economy and our national security. We need a secure supply of fuel to keep planes in the air and trucks on the road. We need a secure supply of fuel to keep our regions connected with our capital cities and to make sure that Australians can buy essential goods like groceries and hopefully—one day, in the not too distant future—get a Pfizer vaccine.
Twenty years ago, eight Australian oil refineries met almost our entire domestic demand for refined fuel. Today we import more than 90 per cent of our refined petroleum. Unfortunately, that appears to be a recurring story with the Morrison government and matters of national sovereignty and security. This government has largely given up on the domestic fuel refining industry, just as it has given up on domestic shipping fleets. Whereas some 30 years ago we had 100 Australian-flagged vessels with Australian crews, paying Australian taxes and complying with Australian laws, we now have just 13. And whereas 20 years ago we had eight Australian oil refineries meeting almost our entire domestic demand, we now have just two oil refineries in Australia, and we import more than 90 per cent of our refined petroleum. It's a shameful outsourcing of Australia's national security. It's a shameful outsourcing of Australia's national sovereignty. And it's a shameful outsourcing of thousands of good-paying, skilled Australian jobs—the sorts of highly skilled, specialised technicians that Australia will need as it transitions to new sources of energy. To send so many of these jobs overseas is a short-sighted act of economic vandalism.
This piece of legislation is long overdue. I want to particularly note the efforts of the Australian Workers Union, which, for many years, has pushed for support for our fuel refining industry, for refinery workers and for our fuel security.
In 2015, the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport produced a report, Australia's transport energy resilience and sustainability. It recommended that the government undertake a comprehensive review of Australia's fuel supply and fuel security. That was six years ago. It took the government three years to finally announce, in 2018, that it would actually do this review. The interim report on liquid fuel security was delivered to the government over two years ago, in April 2019. We still haven't seen the final report, which was due in late 2019. The interim report identified a number of steps the government could and should have taken two years ago. The report identified our serious noncompliance with international energy obligations for domestic fuel stocks. We are required to have a domestic fuel stock of 90 days to protect ourselves against global and domestic oil shocks. We weren't compliant then, and we're not compliant now. In fact, today, we have only 58 days of fuel reserves in Australia. This is still 32 days short—more than a month short—of the bare minimum 90-day target. We're still far below the target. That interim report referred to us as an outlier in our cavalier approach to fuel security. Just as with coastal shipping, just as with maritime crew visas, the Morrison government loves to take liberties with our national security when it comes to fuel reserves.
It's taken six years to finally get to this bill. Australia has suffered through three Liberal prime ministers and four deputy prime ministers to get this far. Australia has also suffered through a series of abject marketing stunts dressed up as announcements. This is where the government's ineptitude really shines. On 22 April 2020, the minister for energy issued a media release titled 'Australia to boost fuel security and establish national oil reserve'. The announcement, said the government, was to purchase two days of cheap fuel—just two days worth, when we are 32 days below our target. It gets better. If you read a few paragraphs down, it turns out that the fuel is being stored 14,000 kilometres away in the United States. The Morrison government's bright idea to protect our fuel security is to store our emergency fuel reserves on the other side of the world. Retired Air Vice-Marshal John Blackburn summed it up well. He referred to it as an 'opportunistic marketing stunt'. He then delivered one of the bluntest indictments of government policy you'll ever see. He said: 'You don't get improved domestic fuel security by buying oil and sticking it in America. It's really that simple.' The Morrison government went back to the drawing board.
On 14 September 2020, the Prime Minister issued a press release titled 'Boosting Australia's fuel security'. According to the Prime Minister, $211 million would be invested in creating over 1,000 new jobs in domestic fuel storage and refining. Within six weeks of that announcement, one of our four remaining refineries, the Kwinana refinery in Western Australia, announced on 30 October that it would close. On 14 December, Minister Taylor issued another announcement. Wait for this one. He said that the government was taking immediate and decisive action to keep our domestic refineries operating. On 10 February this year, two months later, Exxon announced it was closing its refinery in Altona. So, there were two big, flashy announcements that were supposed to create 1,000 jobs. Instead, we have two of our remaining four refineries closed, taking 950 jobs with them. One of these 950 workers is an Altona maintenance fitter, Tim Tomlinson. In February, he said:
It's devastating, definitely, this is the second time I've been through this … I used to work at another refinery in West Footscray until that shut down 10, 11 years ago. It's not good, we don’t know what the future is here … Manufacturing's just about gone in this country. What do we do? Where do we go now? Highly skilled jobs, and we've got nowhere to go.
When the Prime Minister shows up for the photo-op for a flashy announcement, it's workers like Tim who are left behind to pick up the pieces. These 950 direct jobs that are the thousands of jobs downstream from these refineries are being put at risk by six years of negligence and delay.
The Liberal government's flippant attitude towards the industry over the last six years is a disgrace. It's utter negligence towards thousands of Australian jobs. It's utter negligence towards our national security. We have the government talking about beating the drums of war with China when, according to the Australasian Refinery Operatives Committee, or AROC, most of our refined imports come from north Asia through the South China Sea. Not only have we had the Morrison government oversee the offshoring of our oil refining industry, but it has been outsourced to trade routes through the South China Sea. All the while, the Morrison government's top bureaucrats talk about beating the drums of war with China. Isn't that absolutely reckless? Australian Workers Union national secretary, Daniel Walton, has summed it all up well. He said, 'Relying on imports across the South China Sea is clearly something we cannot take for granted anymore.' He also said:
Being able to make our own fuel is a critical sovereign capability. Without it, our national and economic security are completely at the mercy of trade routes that are threatened by potential international conflict or pandemics.
It's just common sense to protect our national security. We must be able to make our own fuel and not depend on imports through the South China Sea.
While Labor supports this bill, it's important to understand that the Morrison government has been dragged to this point over six years. While the Prime Minister has been out doing photo ops and press releases, two of our remaining four refineries have closed. This bill is too little, too late for 950 workers at Altona and Kwinana. As recently as three years ago we imported only 60 per cent of our refined fuels. Imports now account for 90 per cent of our refined fuel sector. That increase has come under the leadership of Mr Morrison. He cannot shirk accountability for this one. He cannot shift blame for that to the state governments. It is his responsibility and that of this government.
This bill certainly does not address all the Prime Minister's gaping holes in our national security. We are still completely reliant on a fleet of foreign owned tankers, and those tankers are still crewed by foreign crews, who come into Australian ports with 24 hours notice. While Australian maritime workers wait three months for a security clearance, these same foreign seafarers, who are moving our fuel supplies along with many other supplies, get their security pass in 24 hours because there aren't proper checks. It's a national disgrace. While Australia's maritime workers wait for those three months, it's important that we don't have to wait six years to get that hole patched up.
I rise to speak on the Fuel Security Bill 2021. When I came into the Senate in 2016 I raised the importance of fuel security for all Australians. This and previous governments have continually failed to meet the internationally mandated 90 days stockpile of fuel for the people of this nation. That means this government has put at risk the fuel security of our daily transport needs: our defence, our aviation industry, our mining and our commuter needs. Without this internationally mandated 90-day stockpile of fuel, Australia risks coming to a grinding halt. My concerns were echoed by Senator Jim Molan when he entered the parliament in December 2017. What has happened over the last five years? Nothing.
If we go back to the year 2000, Australia had eight refineries that literally met the entire needs of our domestic refined fuel requirements. That is the same year Australia was manufacturing more than 320,000 new cars and over 23,000 commercial vehicles. Fast forward two decades, and Australia's self-sufficiency in the fuel space is going the same way as manufacturing. It's almost dead. Shamefully, in the space of four months, Australian oil refineries in Altona, owned by ExxonMobil, and Kwinana, owned by BP, announced they were closing half of this nation's remaining oil refineries. They suggested the facilities were no longer economically viable. How is that possible?
When I looked at the consolidated income statements of each of these oil companies operating in Australia, I saw that each of them is pulling in tens of billions of dollars of revenue each year from Australians. They drill the oil and gas. They send the bulk of it overseas to Asian markets that have cheap labour. Then we're forced to buy it back from foreign markets, where the oil companies have extracted the bulk of the jobs and profits that should belong to Australians.
Successive governments have squandered the opportunity to negotiate better deals for Australians off the back of these highly sought-after resources. And here we are today expected to pass legislation that will pay these same multinational oil companies $2.3 billion of taxpayers' money to continue refining activities until 2027 and, if we're lucky, until 2030. Well, I've got some bad news for this government: I'm not going to help pass a bill that takes us down the same path as the car industry, which received billions and billions of taxpayers' money only to close. I make no apologies for looking out for the best interests of Australian taxpayers. If we're going to pay $2.3 billion to secure Australia's fuel supply, the government should buy the Brisbane refinery in Lytton and let it become an asset owned by the Commonwealth. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper, and this government could then claim it has secured our refining capabilities well beyond 2030.
John F Kennedy was famous for saying: 'Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.' The truth is this government fears proper negotiations, because multinational companies have walked all over Scott Morrison, just as they did with Malcolm Turnbull, Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd. I'll say it again: these overseas corporations come here, they drill and mine our resources, and then they pay little to no taxes. Paying oil refineries $2.3 billion to keep operating in this country is hardly in Australia's best interests. We don't get a single share in these facilities. Instead we hand over the cash and simply kiss it goodbye. Again I remind Labor and the Liberal and National parties what happened to Australia's car industry after they had been given tens of billions of dollars in subsidies. They took the cash and buggered off when it suited them. Now we import every single car and still impose a luxury car tax on buyers—a tax scheme that was designed to help save the Australian car industry. A big help that was! No wonder the government and Labor continue to reject my private senator's bill which amends the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act and calls on policymakers to ensure that the exploitation of these natural resources is for the benefit of the Australian community.
When I investigated how other countries dealt with multinational oil companies around the world, I discovered that Norway had struck the right chord for its citizens, earning $1.5 trillion from its commodities. Australia, on the other hand, last year took a measly $300 million in direct payments for $50 billion worth of gas off the North West Shelf. Meanwhile, Qatar traded slightly less gas than Australia and collected $26 billion in royalties. Can we honestly suggest that successive governments have negotiated the best deals on behalf of Australians when it comes to the resources of our nation? The answer is no.
This bill should be the new definition of insanity. While I strongly support fuel security in this nation, One Nation cannot and will not support the waste of $2.3 billion worth of taxpayers' money as a bandaid for the very real problem of fuel security in Australia. Australians will support me on this, because we've lost so much of our asset-making infrastructure over the period of successive governments. I talk of governments that have sold off to foreign multinationals the Commonwealth Bank, Telstra, power plants and lines, and airports, all of which were profitable for the government on behalf of the taxpayers. They have been sold off now and at a cost to the taxpayer. We are going to do exactly the same with this refinery. I said to the government: Buy it. Put in half your money that you're going to hand over to them. We will get absolutely nothing. We will have no skin in the game. We are not going to get anything back from them for a security of six years or, maybe, if we're lucky, nine years.
We hear Labor in here criticising the government. We have gone from eight refineries down to two and now they are criticising them because we won't have fuel security. That's exactly right. Yet what are they doing about it? What's the suggestion from Labor? It's only that they are going to support the bill. Where is their succession plan? If they were in government, what would they do about the refineries when this comes to an end? Are we going to still keep propping them up? The idea is that we have security by owning our own refinery. The government did tell me, 'We can't get public servants to run it.' Bloody oath, you wouldn't. You wouldn't want public servants running it, because they can't. They're useless. You'd get people who can run it properly at a profit for the Australian people to give us national security. You don't keep selling it and relying on Asia, because, the way China is positioning themselves in the South China Sea, who knows what's going to happen? We won't be able to provide the fuel that we need ourselves. Get the military to run it, if that be the case. We need oil refineries in our own name and providing our own fuel security.
It's not just about jobs. That's exactly why Labor are propping this up at the moment. They don't have any solutions. They don't have any ideas. They are just going along with this and they talk about the jobs. Senator Sheldon stands there talking about poor Tim, asking, 'What am I going to do; where's my job?' Your job can be in having our own oil refinery where we don't expect a company just six or nine years down the track is going to say: 'That's it. We're closed.' They usually hold the government to ransom, saying, 'You've got to pour more money into this.' We did that with the car industry for 20 years. It was half a billion dollars a year for 20 years. And what did that do? Nothing. We had nothing to gain from it. They ended up with the land and the facilities. We got nothing out of it. We had no skin in the game.
That's why Australians and I are fed up with seeing taxpayers' money basically pissed up against the wall. That is exactly what is happening. We should be responsible with the taxpayers' dollars and get back our Australian owned assets. When I went to Norway, their petroleum gas bill was only 25 pages long. Ours is 1,150 pages, with bandaids all the damn time. I can't get any support in this chamber to pass that part of the legislation that has been in Australia's best interests. The first line in Norway's bill is that it be in Norway's best interests. That's why they have $1.5 trillion in the bank for the people.
We are such a resource-rich country. I know why Labor aren't interested in propping up or building their own refinery. They won't get support from the Greens. They can only win the next election on Greens preferences. They know the Greens are totally against fossil fuels, so Labor are heading down the same path—that they don't want fossil fuels in this nation. They don't support the coal industry. They don't support the resource industry. They don't support gas. They don't support the mining that we have in this country. It's all smoke and mirrors. That's what this is all about. Yet they stand there and say that they care about the jobs in Australia. What a load of hogwash! I've heard it all now.
It's about finding solutions. It's about securing our security into the future for Australian jobs and not relying on other countries to meet our needs. What is going to happen when we don't have the fuel for our defence, for our commuters, for our airports, for our planes—for everything? I would like to know what they are going to do then. How is either side going to handle that?
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I note that while the government's bill has some merit it raises far more questions than it answers. Before proceeding, I want to compliment Senator Hanson on her comments. At last, someone's standing up for Australia. We understand that the government has a dilemma, because the government and the Labor Party have deferred—put off—a decision on fuel security for years. In that deferral, putting it off, they have put our nation into an almost impossible position. And still, through this bill, the government shows that it has not faced up to the issue of fuel security. Let me remind everyone: energy is crucial to human progress.
One hundred and seventy years ago was the start of the industrial revolution. Look how far we've come. Look at everything in this room. Look at everything around you—in a city, in a town, while you're driving in a car. That has come in the last 170 years. Why? Sure, it has been human creativity but, above all, it has been the relentless ever-decreasing real price of energy. Electricity was unheard of 170 years ago. Coal-fired power stations and petroleum powered cars were unheard of, undreamt of, 170 years ago. A king 200 years ago would not have lived as easily, as safely, as comfortably, as well, as long as people on welfare today. That shows remarkable human progress.
Senator Hanson and I raised energy security in 2016. The government avoided the decision. Now the Liberal-National coalition want to push it out to 2027. They want to avoid it again. It has deferred the decision again, and Labor will support them. So much for job security and investment across all industries. The key to driving an economy is low energy prices and energy security. That's what brings investment for future jobs. Now, in response, what we see is a lack of thought and a lazy, lazy approach.
Why? Why do so many so-called solutions of the Liberal, Labor and National parties end up being, simply, a gift of taxpayer money to multinationals who are not taxed? Why does the government have a fetish for labelling bills with the word 'security'? I'll tell you why. It attracts votes, even if the bill does not provide security. Australians love security. All humans love security. We've had cybersecurity, border security, energy security, internet safety security and data security, often hiding a lack of security. When it comes to votes, Labor and Liberal know the word 'security' buys votes. Yet the word itself—security—is not real security. All three tired old parties repeatedly fail to provide real, meaningful, lasting security. They refuse to get back to basics and the truth.
We know that job security is important. We want it beyond 2027, though, for the jobs of refinery workers, construction workers and, when we get back to cheap, reliable fuel, all workers across all industries, including agriculture, not just manufacturing and services. Two refineries have recently shut. That was half of our refineries. We have to do something, then, to ensure future fuel security. The government's attempts simply reduce the risk for refineries. We understand why. But taxpayers pay for that, and at the end of the deal in 2027 we have nothing to show for it—nothing, zip. So where's the government's energy plan? A plan is not a plan without addressing the five Ws and one H. That's a simple management tool, management concept: Why? What? When? Where? Who? Then comes: How?
This government, like so many Liberal-National and Labor governments, goes straight to the 'How?' missing the specifics, the actions, the time lines, the responsibilities, the justification of cost-benefit analysis and a business plan. Government plans that jump straight to the 'How?' are not plans, unless the five Ws are addressed. Look at climate. Look at energy. The same applies everywhere. Look at the NDIS. Look at education. They are fundamentals that are really important for our country.
Why does the government repeatedly avoid facts and data and a disciplined, objective approach to policy and, instead, adopt media lines and pander to Greens ideology and drive policies in accordance with then Senator Mathias Cormann's often repeated dictum, 'We will fulfil our global obligations'?
What he means is and what he meant was: our obligations to globalists. We are the world's largest exporter of energy, largest exporter of liquefied natural gas, second largest exporter of coal. We were the largest and we still have the highest quality coal but we have been overtaken by Indonesia as the largest exporter. Yet we have the world's highest domestic gas prices and electricity prices, now three times that of countries who use our coal to generate their electricity. Three times our prices using our coal—why? Why can't we use our own gas domestically? Why can't we build a transnational pipeline to bring North West Shelf gas to the east and convert it to produce liquid fuels like petrol and diesel? The gas is suitable. Why can't we use the gas itself to power cars directly? Why can't we brainstorm and discuss alternatives, many alternatives, in the national interest?
Consider what the government says is a solution. The government will pay up to $2 billion to multinationals to keep them here. Remember the car makers, as Senator Hanson reminded us? We paid them billions to stay here and then they left and, as a final insult, sold their factories and their land to developers and pocketed the cash, after we gifted them so much taxpayer cash. Is this a solution, when in 2027 the oil companies can simply leave, run away, after we give them up to $2 billion along the way? Liberal-Labor put off making a decision and now, when our country has self-inflected deeper problems, make a half-baked solution that really defers it again until 2027, when we will have to face up to it again. Why? Because we haven't faced up to it now. Why? Because the government lacks the will to listen and to do something novel and appropriate for the people of Australia and their national interest. Just as Senator Hanson recounted, Norway is doing something in its national interest.
In 2027 then what? China and our Asian competitors will, rightly, continue using hydrocarbon fuels like natural gas, coal and oil. For decades, we have had a small volume market. How can we compete with Singapore and China in refining fuels and do so with fair wages for good workers in this country? Here is a hint: energy. Singapore lacks any resources apart from human resources—a well-educated, industrious people—but it has solid stable governance that puts Singapore first. It has a superior tax system, a superior education system, superior governance focused on Singapore's national interest.
China, it takes a different strategy, one that won't last but here is what it does: it exploits labour, sacrifices the environment, sacrifices worker safety. We can compete because we have Australian management and leadership; we just need to let it have a go—our energy combined with our people, Australians, Australian workers and our executive leadership in business.
Other facts need consideration. The government repeatedly bet on technology that's unproven and very expensive. They're dreaming about hydrogen that currently costs about $6 a kilogram to produce and say they have a vision for $2 a kilogram. Even at $2 a kilogram, the electricity cost is $200 per megawatt hour, four times the price that coal can do it now. So in their dream, they're going to send us bankrupt. Solar is another one of their dreams—dependence on China, who makes the damn things, cost, reliability, unreliability, instability, the loss of jobs. This is what the government is dreaming about. Wind—same applies—dependence on China, cost, reliability, stability, instability and loss of jobs. China, meanwhile, continues building coal-fired power stations. In its Paris Agreement, it has to do nothing until 2030 and then maybe it will think about it.
We have abundant clean goal and gas; we should be the super power, as we were when international investors flocked to the Hunter Valley, Central Queensland and Victoria to build aluminium refineries near cheap abundant coal. Those jobs are gone and, under current Liberal-Labor-Nationals policies, the few that remain in aluminium are doomed. Instead, the trio put bets on unproven, pixie farts for energy and stake Australia's energy on rainbow-coloured unicorns in some imaginary Garden of Eden in the future. It abandons workers and the people of Australia. It abandons our country. It is hollow rhetoric keeping people ignorant, hollow rhetoric destroying our economy, hollow rhetoric destroying our national future.
So, let's consider some possible options. What about this? Create a corporation to run the refineries. Issue government bonds, with bonds investing in the corporation in the same way we do with low-income housing. Buy the damned assets. Use the bond funds to buy oil and build additional fuel storage. Modernise the refineries to produce high-quality fuel to international standards. Fill up the oil tanks at startup to eliminate risks in the market. Once it's up and running, sell 49 per cent of the ownership in the refinery on the stock market and invest the other 51 per cent with the Future Fund. That's its job: holding assets on behalf of the Australian people to produce future income for future generations and ensure future fuel security. Government absorbs the initial risk—in the proven refineries, anyway—with proven personal enterprise, with oil industry executives managing the business and with proven executives and proven workers running the show, combined with accountability from the stock market.
The benefits are that Australians own the business, taxes stay here and the overall cost to taxpayers is considerably less, because we'd sell off half the enterprise. And the purchase price for an abandoned asset would be very low. People would buy shares because the risk is in setting up the venture and the asset would be stable. Fuel storage would work exactly as it does now on our overseas storage: buy when prices are low and sell when prices are high, to drive down prices at times of high prices, as with our existing International Energy Agency commitments. Major fuel producers would buy shares to get access to trading in stored oil. We could make extra money storing oil for other nations—Pacific countries, Indonesia.
Alternatively: fuel security is ultimately a matter of defence security. Has anyone in the government considered taking the refineries and getting the defence forces to operate the refineries in 2027? Or the government could, as a minimum, simply take the refineries' land if refiners close down and leave. If they shut up shop after we gift them billions, why not take their real estate? We need some skin in the game, as Senator Hanson said. We need something for our money. Get the land as partial payment.
Another issue: tax oil companies fairly. Stop giving foreign multinationals a free ride. They exploit our resources, use our assets, use our services, use our trained people, and rely on our defence forces and our laws—for free, damn it! They don't pay for any of it. Fix the tax system. Start with taxing multinationals. Jim Killaly, the former deputy assistant commissioner for taxation, in charge of large companies and foreign taxation, said, in 1996 and in 2010, that 90 per cent of Australia's large companies are foreign owned and since 1953 have paid little or no company tax. The government needs to establish honest energy policies across all our energy needs and invest in infrastructure to restore our nation's productive capacity. It needs to restore national sovereignty, to restore good governance based on data and facts and on putting the national interest first.
All these would be enormous changes from current government approaches—decades of such approaches. They would be a return to our nation's roots and the time when Australia led the world in per capita income. Instead, the government's approach is a short-term bandaid at best. And 2027 is not the end. We need to think and prepare for beyond that. Liberal, Nationals and Labor governments, for the past three decades, have thought that 'long-term' means just two budget cycles: two years—that's it. Australians deserve better—far, far better.
This bill is not even a bandaid. It's a deferral, a putting off. It's Labor, Liberals and the Nationals playing hide-and-seek, hiding the reality from the public. It confirms this government's incompetence and laziness and continues decades of poor, dishonest and accountable governance. Now, I'm all for personal enterprise—or, as some may say, private enterprise. I'm all for security. Instead of repeated gutless bandaids and short-term fixes, where's the long-term solution? Where's the vision? Where's the national interest? Let's secure our nation's future with a comprehensive solution that addresses the basics for all Australians: job security, industry security and national security.
I rise to close debate on the Fuel Security Bill 2021 and the Fuel Security (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2021. These bills are critical to fulfilling the government's ongoing commitment to ensure long-term fuel security in Australia, supporting our economy and keeping our critical services running.
The Fuel Security Bill addresses the need to safeguard our country against disruptions in the market and the need to ensure that Australians have access to reliable and affordable energy. Through these bills, we are placing a minimum stockholding obligation on industry, requiring a percentage of their total import and production volumes to be stored in Australia. Not only will that improve our domestic security but it will assist Australia to meet the 90-day stockholding obligation that it has as a member of the International Energy Agency.
The fuel security services payment is also a critical measure of this bill. By providing an adjustable cent-per-litre payment to market conditions—linked, in a sense—we are supporting domestic refineries to only limit their downside risk. This will mean that we are providing support only when it's truly needed and that we're not making payments when times are good. We will also further protect our taxpayers by ensuring that this payment is capped at 1.8c per litre and by having a comprehensive compliance and monitoring framework in place.
If we lose the last two refineries we have in Australia, we will lose the last of our ability to refine fuel onshore and the ability to refine domestic crude oil in an emergency. Any risk to that capability is simply not acceptable. Without the measures in this bill, it's very likely that Australia's remaining refineries will close within the next five years, leaving our country 100 per cent dependent on international supply chains for our petroleum products.
Through these bills, the government will also protect 1,250 workers employed across the Ampol and Viva refineries. A further 1,750 construction jobs will be created for the major infrastructure upgrades that are needed, and another 1,000 jobs created to support the construction of new diesel storage. The government has already secured the agreement of the Ampol refinery in Brisbane and the Viva Energy refinery in Geelong to operate until at least—at a minimum—30 June 2027 if these bills are successful, although of course our objective is much longer term.
Similarly, the Fuel Security (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill ensures that the minimum stockholding obligation and the fuel security services payment will operate as intended. It will also allow for the proper monitoring of the integrity of both measures and will reduce the regulatory burden on the industry.
In closing, Australia is dependent on a strong and stable fuel market to thrive, and action to support the security of that fuel will be delivered through these bills. I thank my colleagues for their consideration of the bills and commend them to the Senate.
The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Rice be agreed to.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (13:46): The question now is that the bills be read a second time.
Pursuant to standing order 115(2)(a), I move:
That the Fuel Security Bill 2021 be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 2 August 2021.
Last week, in the selection of bills committee, we sought to refer this bill to inquiry, and the Liberal Party opposed that. In fact, they specifically introduced an amendment to the selection of bills report to ensure that the Fuel Security Bill not be sent to a committee. We did not have the opportunity to debate that when we were considering the selection of bills report last week, so I want to take the opportunity now to give the chamber the opportunity to reconsider—to think about what's at stake here and to consider the strong, solid logic as to why this bill should at the very least be sent to committee.
We have $2 billion of taxpayers' money that's going to be sent off to prop up ageing oil refineries and we are not even being given the opportunity to send the bill off to committee to do the basics of what the Senate ought to be doing. All we are asking for in this step is for some basic transparency, for some basic democratic processes to do what the Senate is set up to do. The former Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Cormann, said, 'It's the Senate that has the tradition and the expertise in scrutinising the activities of government.' But here the major parties are refusing to participate in that basic process of a transparent examination of these bills, where we have such a lot at stake.
What is happening here is that this bill in fact is not about fuel security. On the basis of what we know, it is about handing over $2 billion to oil refineries. A Senate inquiry would enable a few things. It would give the public time to read these bills, which run to over 70 pages. They've been through the House and considered by the Senate for only a matter of weeks. An inquiry would allow time for the public and stakeholders to make submissions on these bills, to get some wisdom from the wide range of stakeholders in the community who have a lot to say on fuel security, who know that there are a whole range of different ways to be approaching the issue of fuel security, rather than just promising $2 billion in fossil fuel subsidies to be propping up ageing oil refineries. We would have time for a public hearing or hearings, where senators could ask questions and get some basic answers from departmental officials and other witnesses. We would also have time for the non-government parties to consider that information and to allow it to inform their position.
As I said, fuel security is a serious issue. We have been considering it in a range of ways for a number of years. But the way that's being proposed to address this issue of fuel security is just one very narrow way that happens to meet the vested interests of the government, without considering the broader context and without considering, in particular, that we are in a climate crisis and without considering that the G7 two weeks ago specifically said that we need to stop subsidising fossil fuel industries. Yet that is exactly what this bill does—once again, hands over money to the fossil fuel industries without even a Senate inquiry to consider it. This goes completely against what every other responsible government in the world is doing at the moment; it goes completely against what the G7 said we should be doing when they met two weeks ago. We had our Prime Minister there, sitting at the table, when they came to that decision, yet here we are about to hand over $2 billion to oil refineries with no guarantee of jobs, with no guarantee that these oil refineries are going to stay open beyond six years, with very limited information of exactly how this is going to address the issue of fuel security—in fact, a lot of the information is not going to do that—and without looking at the opportunities for other ways to be addressing it, in particular, looking to how to reduce our reliance on oil, petrol and diesel. What if we did some other things, like investing in electric vehicles and investing in other renewable technologies? There are so many other ways we could be going about this issue of fuel security that would be able to be unpacked in the inquiry that we are not actually having.
These are basic, simple steps. Extra time would allow the Parliamentary Library to prepare a bills digest on this package of legislation. It's a real indictment in the Liberal Party's rush to get this legislation through that we don't even have a bill's digest. We call upon the major parties to support a referral to committee so we can have a proper, basic process looking at this issue of giving $2 billion to the oil refineries. (Time expired)
I rise to place on record Labor's position on the referral of the Fuel Security Bill to a committee. We will not be supporting this referral, which has been moved without notice, not unlike the second reading amendment, which was also moved without the normal courtesies afforded to other participants in the debate in this chamber. This is a bill that, if it is not passed this week, will not come into effect in the way that it's intended. Our priority, in working through this legislation, is to ensure that the support that is required for fuel refineries is available from 1 July. We're disappointed that the government has placed the chamber in this position. The government has placed the chamber in this position where things have to be rushed. I was on the PJCIS when we reported on this back in 2018, making recommendations that the government actually do some work around fuel security, asking the Department of Home Affairs and the department of energy to do this work and come back to the parliament with a plan. It is incredible that we're dealing with it now, but here we are. We don't intend to hold up the bill's passage by further referral.
The question is the motion moved by Senator Rice be agreed to.
I table, for the information of the Senate, a revised ministry list. I seek leave to have the document incorporated into Hansard and to make a short statement.
Leave is granted.
The document read as follows—
Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there can be two departments in one portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a Minister in all cases. Ministers are sworn to administer the portfolio in which they are listed under the 'Minister' column and may also be sworn to administer other portfolios in which they are not listed. Assistant Ministers in italics are designated as Parliamentary Secretaries under the Ministers of State Act 1952.
I advise the Senate that the updated ministry list reflects the updated ministry announced by the Prime Minister on 22 June 2021 and the appointment of Mr Joyce as the Deputy Prime Minister.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Senator Hume. This morning on RN, the Minister for the Environment, Sussan Ley, refused to guarantee that Mr Morrison's preference for net zero emissions by 2050 would survive Mr Joyce's return as Deputy Prime Minister, saying, 'We will have discussions with the Nationals.' Have these discussions started yet?
I'll take the question on notice.
Senator McAllister, a supplementary question?
Minister Ley went on to say, 'Of course we want to reach net zero as soon as possible, and I don't think anyone in the government would disagree with that.' Does anyone in the Morrison-Joyce government disagree with reaching net zero as soon as possible?
I can't imagine why anyone in the government would not want to reach net zero emissions as soon as possible.
Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question?
The Nationals Senate leader, Senator McKenzie, has said: 'There is no agreement with the second party of this coalition government on any target date for zero emissions. In fact, it would fly in the face of the Nationals public policy commitment.' Is Senator McKenzie right?
I can't imagine why Senator McKenzie's response is in any way, shape or form contradictory to that which Sussan Ley said this morning.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator Cash. The mining sector generates billions of dollars of economic activity and employs hundreds of thousands of Australians. Can the minister inform the Senate how the Morrison government is securing our economic recovery by supporting jobs and investment in the mining sector, particularly in our home state of Western Australia?
I thank Senator Brockman, a fellow Western Australian, for that question. The Morrison government is committed to putting in place the right economic framework to support the creation of jobs, in my home state of Western Australia and, indeed, right across the economy. One of the things that we will do is support big, job-creating projects, particularly in the mining and resources sector. The Morrison government understands the contribution that the mining and resources sector makes—
Senator Abetz interjecting—
That's right, Senator Abetz, just like Joel Fitzgibbon—not just to Western Australia but also to Australia as a whole. We have already seen our economy rebounding back strongly after the COVID-19 induced recession. Unemployment is now down to 5.1 per cent. Underemployment is at its lowest level since 2014. In May, just last month, 115,000 new jobs were created. Eighty-five per cent of those new jobs were full-time jobs and 60 per cent of the 115,000 jobs went to women.
But we also know there's still more work to do. That's why the mining industry is in need of skilled workers. The Morrison government is putting in place the right policy framework so that Australians can get the skills that they require to get into the mining sector. We are doing this in a variety of ways, including through our $1 billion JobTrainer Fund, providing free or low-cost training in areas of labour market need, but also by extending the highly successful boosting apprenticeship commencements wage subsidy.
We as the Morrison government have also committed to helping the mining sector by speeding up approvals for big projects and cutting red and green tape. Don't forget that we are the side of politics that put forward reforms to greenfields agreements that would have given the mining industry certainty in their industry investment. (Time expired)
Senator Brockman, a supplementary question?
Can the minister outline—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Senator Brockman, I'm going to ask you to start again because there was way too much noise for me to hear the question.
Senator Ayres interjecting—
Really, Senator Ayres; I would appreciate some respect for the chair.
Can the minister outline how the government's economic plan, including lower taxes, reducing red and green tape, and boosting skills and training will provide greater certainty for mining investment and job creation?
Senator Ayres interjecting—
We're wasting time for the opposition, Senator Ayres. I will call Senator Cash when there's silence.
Senator Rennick interjecting—
Senator Rennick, that's not helpful.
Those on the other side make fun of jobs. It is a fact that we have record full-time employment in Australia. It is a fact that those on the other side recently voted against our amendments to ensure the definition of 'casual' was properly put but also to put in place a pathway to permanency from casual employment. Those on the other side voted against it.
They also voted against the reforms that we were putting in place on greenfields agreements to ensure greater certainty for the mining sector. They have the audacity to say they are going to visit the great state of Western Australia. Mr Albanese said he is taking his shadow cabinet to the great state of Western Australia, and guess what? They can't support reforms to greenfields agreements. How can you possibly touch down in the great state of Western Australia to stand on a mine site in hi-vis? Guess what? That does not prove that you support the mining industry, in particular when you don't support the cutting, as Minister Morton does, of red and green tape in the mining industry.
Senator Brockman, a final supplementary question?
This has probably been answered in ample amounts in the last couple of minutes, but can the minister advise the Senate of any risks to this important sector that would harm our economic recovery.
When Mr Albanese touches down in Western Australia and the question is put to him, 'Do you support the mining industry and will you support cutting red and green tape in relation to the mining industry, as Premier Mark McGowan does?' will he side with the people of Western Australia, with the Morrison government and with Premier Mark McGowan, or will he look Western Australians in the face and say, 'I do not support you'? Mr Albanese can't just go to Western Australia, stand on a mine site and wear a bit of hi-vis and say he supports Western Australia.
There are policies here in this place, such as on greenfields agreements, that we could bring on tomorrow to show support to Western Australia. There's also the cutting of red and green tape in the mining industry. So I look forward to Mr Albanese going to Western Australia and showing his clear support for the McGowan government and their call supporting the Morrison government for cutting red and green tape in the mining sector.
I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of the Ambassador of Slovenia to Australia, His Excellency Mr Jurij Rifelj. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to the parliament and, in particular, to the Senate.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister for International Development and the Pacific, Senator Seselja. When asked in 2020 about a target of net zero by 2050, Minister Seselja said it was 'reckless' and the sort of policy you would expect from 'a minor party like the Greens, but not a party who claims to be a party of government'. Is this still the minister's position?
I thank Senator Gallagher for the question. When it comes to action on climate change, our government—
An honourable senator interjecting—
Well, it is, actually. It's about zero net emissions. That is actually about climate change, Senator; sorry to break it to you. When it comes to that, the Morrison government has of course signed on to the Paris Agreement, and the Paris Agreement outlines a number of important goals.
Honourable senators interjecting—
It does. It outlines a number of important goals. It has things like a 2030 target—something that this government has committed to—of bringing down emissions by 26 to 28 per cent, something we are well on track to meet. It also talks about getting to zero net emissions in the second half of the century, and our Prime Minister has said that we intend to get there as soon as possible, preferably by 2050. One thing that this government won't be doing and where we—
An honourable senator: Reckless!
What is reckless, absolutely reckless, is to make targets or promises with no plan for how you're going to get there, as those opposite do. What are the Labor Party going to do? They don't have a 2030 target because they don't want to tell us how they're going to get there, and, when it comes to zero net emissions, they won't tell us. So what are we to take from that? Well, it might be that they might go back to previous form. When they were in coalition with the Greens, what did they do? They brought in a carbon tax. That was their main method of bringing down emissions. We on this side are about technology, not taxes, so investing in renewables, working in smart ways on new technologies like hydrogen, but not destroying jobs. Be it in regional communities, be it in manufacturing, be it in the outer suburbs, this coalition government will stand for those things, whilst meeting and beating our 2030 targets, as we are doing, in contrast to many countries around the world.
Order! Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question?
That was an interesting answer. Can the minister confirm that the minister now supports the Prime Minister's preference for net zero by 2050?
I support absolutely all policies of the government. As a proud member of this coalition government, I tell you what: I support every one of them, because the alternative, over on that side, is ever higher and higher taxes; destroying jobs, whether it be in our regions or in our cities; and completely abandoning those people who the Labor Party used to pretend to represent—the working class, people like me who come from relatively low-income backgrounds. The alternative is you mob, and what are your alternative policies? It might be to tax your way to your non-existent 2030 target or to your aspirational 2050 target, but you won't tell us how you will get there. We've made it very, very clear that we will put on the table exactly how we're going to reach our targets. That's why we've been successful to date, and we will continue to pursue those kinds of policies into the future.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! I'll call Senator Gallagher when there's order. We're wasting time for the opposition. Order, on my right! It's not helpful when there's noise from my left.
I have a further supplementary question. In February the Deputy Prime Minister 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.
Does the minister support the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister?
As I said earlier, I support all policies of this coalition government. And as I pointed to earlier, the fundamental difference, and what the Labor Party doesn't seem to understand—maybe the member for Hunter understands it. Maybe there are some others. Maybe Senator Farrell actually agrees with the member for Hunter that you don't achieve good things for the environment by trashing jobs and trashing industries. This is a party that claims to support gas, yet the second we put forward a gas-fired generator—that supports renewables, that backs up renewables—what does the Labor Party do? They oppose it. This side of politics will continue to meet and beat our targets. We will continue to grow our economy. We will continue to reduce emissions while protecting jobs, protecting livelihoods and growing our economy, in stark contrast to those opposite.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment. After losing 50 per cent of the coral cover of the Great Barrier Reef since 2015, UNESCO has today recommended that the reef be listed as World Heritage in danger, pointing out that climate change is the biggest threat to the reef. They have warned Australia of this since 2012, yet the minister today claimed to have been blindsided and stunned by the decision. How did the government manage to miss the memo that without significant action to address climate change an in-danger listing is likely? Or is the minister just stunned that your eight years of lobbying other nations to ignore the science has finally failed?
Thank you, Senator Waters. The Morrison government is deeply committed to protecting the World Heritage listed Great Barrier Reef. We fully recognise that the Great Barrier Reef is facing pressure from climate change and from other impacts, but we do not support the recommendation to immediately place the reef on the list of World Heritage in danger and we will strongly oppose that recommendation. We think that this recommendation is premature and doesn't recognise the enormous efforts of the Australian and Queensland governments working with farmers and working with tourism operators, traditional owners and communities, right up and down the reef coast, to protect the reef and supporting them with a $3 billion joint investment.
The government has been stunned by the backflip on previous assurances from UN officials that the reef would not face such a recommendation prior to the UNESCO World Heritage Committee meeting that's being hosted by China this July. We are also concerned about a deviation from normal processes in assessing World Heritage property conservation status. The UNESCO draft decision has been made on the basis of a desktop review with insufficient firsthand appreciation of the outstanding science based strategies being jointly funded by the Australian and Queensland governments.
The last visit to the Great Barrier Reef by UNESCO officials was, in fact, in 2014. The Great Barrier Reef is the best managed reef in the world, and this draft recommendation has been made without examining the reef firsthand and without the latest information. Indeed, of the 83 in danger properties that have been identified by UNESCO, this is the only one that has been singled out, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Of the 83 properties that have been assessed, this is the only one that has been singled out. All properties could end up on that in-danger list with no prospect of any individual state or party being able to get them off. (Time expired)
Senator Waters, a supplementary question?
Your government's inaction on the climate crisis now threatens the 60,000 jobs that rely on the Great Barrier Reef. You won't commit even to net zero by 2050—and now the National Party certainly won't let you do that—but the rest of the world is focused on 2030, and the G7 has called for strong 2030 targets and no new investment in fossil fuels. When will you put the interests of the environment, the economy and our tourism sector ahead of the interests of your fossil fuel donors?
Firstly, I reject the premise of that question. Minister Ley, the Minister for the Environment, has said on multiple occasions that climate change is the biggest threat to the reef. But the World Heritage Committee is not the forum to make a point about climate change. Moreover, there are more than 80 World Heritage properties that UNESCO has identified as being under threat from climate change, which we all agree is a global problem that requires a global multilateral solution. If UNESCO had decided to list all of them, then that policy would potentially be understandable. But to pick only one out of 80 is a subversion of process. This decision and the motivations behind it are indeed baffling. It sends a very poor message to countries that are not making the investments in reef protection that Australia is.
Senator Waters, a final supplementary question?
The new Deputy Prime Minister claims to represent rural Australia, and one of the country's most profitable regional assets is the Great Barrier Reef. With the UN recommending that the reef be put on the endangered list, when will you stop digging and burning the coal and gas which are killing the reef?
For over 40 years, the Australian and Queensland governments have been working together in a strong cooperative approach to protecting, conserving and managing the reef. This has included the establishment of a standalone management agency, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Authority. In 2015, Australia embarked on a new long-term adaptive planning approach to protecting the reef, and the centrepiece of that is the 35-year Reef 2050 Long-term Sustainability Plan. The Reef 2050 plan is delivered jointly between the Australian and Queensland governments in collaboration with local governments, traditional owners, researchers, industries and communities. The World Heritage Committee asked the government to accelerate efforts to meet the targets of the Reef 2050 plan, and we have done exactly that. The Australian and Queensland governments are investing more than $3 billion from the 2014-15 to 2023-24 budgets to implement the Reef 2050 plan. More than $2 billion of this is from the Australian government, an unprecedented investment. (Time expired)
I wish to ask a question of the Minister for Women's Economic Security, Senator Hume. Can the minister please update the Senate on the recently announced labour force figures, especially with regard to women's employment and how the Liberal and National government's economic plan is supporting our recovery and delivering economic opportunities for Australian women?
I thank Senator McDonald for this question. The Morrison government's plan to drive down unemployment in Australia is working. More Australians are in a job now than before the COVID-19 pandemic and the COVID induced recession that it brought about. Importantly, the Morrison government's economic plan is delivering for Australian women specifically. Workforce figures published recently for May highlight that there are more women in the workforce now than ever before. There are even more women in the workforce now than the record female participation rates that were achieved in April this year. Overall unemployment has dropped to 5.1 per cent from April to May. The number of employed women has increased by 69,000 in May—that's 1.6 per cent above the start of pandemic levels. The good news doesn't stop there. The hours worked are also up: now 4.1 per cent higher for women than prior to the pandemic. In addition, more women who want additional hours are able to get them, with female underemployment now 1.9 per cent lower than prior to the pandemic. This is the lowest rate in over a decade.
These are not just numbers; these are Australian women who are getting ahead. These are Australian women who are improving their lives, who are getting more hours of work than ever before. Each one of these success stories is a story of independence. It's a story of women taking control and managing their own economic security, their own economic wellbeing and their own future prosperity, as well as securing our economic recovery and strengthening Australia. There are few things in this world more important to women's economic security than a good job, and the Morrison government is delivering on exactly that for Australian women.
Senator McDonald, a supplementary question?
Minister, it's disappointing that those on the other side are so uninterested in women's participation. I ask you to continue to outline to the Senate the most recent women's workforce participation figures and what is driving them.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! Before I call Senator Hume, I again ask for silence during the question being asked.
Thank you, Mr President. You're right; I couldn't really hear the question, but I'll guess what it was. The most recent women's workforce participation rate is higher than has ever been recorded in Australia. Increasing by nearly four per cent in the course of 2021, the latest women's workforce participation rate beats Australia's record figures in April this year. Senator McDonald asked what might be driving this increase in economic participation. Well, it's the Morrison government's strong economic management and this government's plan for a stronger Australia that are delivering for Australian women. But the Morrison government is also providing more women with more choice by reducing the cost pressures of child care. With even more support announced in the 2021-22 budget, women will have the incentive to stay connected to their employer and to work that extra day or those extra hours should they wish to do so.
Senator McDonald, a final supplementary question?
Can the minister advise the Senate of the recent gender pay gap figures and how they have changed over time?
I thank Senator McDonald again, and I'm very glad you asked, because the present gender pay gap is in fact at a record low—a record low of 13.4 per cent. It's no coincidence, because it's coalition governments that drive the gender pay gap lower. In fact, when the coalition left government in 2007, the gender pay gap was 15.4 per cent and on its way down. However, when Labor came to government, they oversaw a gender pay gap that went as high as 17.4 per cent. That's right; the gender pay gap in Australia went up considerably under Labor. It's taken a coalition government to get this figure back on the right trajectory, heading down once again.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order, on my left!
And we won't stop here. In the 2021-22 budget, we announced a targeted review of the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, with the aim of pushing that gender pay gap even lower. Australians know that it's the Morrison government that delivers those opportunities for Australian women. Real equality is not about platitudes; it's about opportunity. (Time expired)
There is too much noise during answers.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Seriously, Senators Ayres and Green, if I'm calling the chamber to order—Senator McAllister, and on my right, who I didn't see. If I'm calling the chamber to order, can people please be quiet and have some respect for the procedures of the chamber.
My question is to Senator Reynolds, the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister. Western Australian Nationals leader Mia Davies has said of newly appointed Deputy Prime Minister Joyce's return:
I'm disappointed the party felt they needed to change leaders. I think it shows they're focused on internal matters instead of the people of regional Australia.
Is Ms Davies correct?
I thank the senator for the question. This is fairly and squarely a matter for the National Party of Australia and not for government. But can I just say the Liberal-National party coalition has been an enduring one for seven decades and it will continue, and it will continue very strongly.
Senator O'Neill, a supplementary question?
Jess Price-Purnell, formerly a Nationals member, for 11 years, and former chairwoman of the New South Wales Nationals Women's Council, has said of Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce's return:
It's actually pretty devastating. There's only so many times you can bang your head up against a brick wall.
Is Ms Price-Purnell correct?
Can I just say again that that is a matter for the National Party. From all of us here who sit on this side of the parliament—
Order, Senator Reynolds! Senator O'Neill, on a point of order?
This is the correct minister who is representing the Deputy Prime Minister: Senator Reynolds.
What is your point of order, Senator O'Neill?
If this is how she commences representing that minister—
Senator O'Neill, what is the point of order?
The point of order is that this is within the minister's remit—
Well, Senator O'Neill—
and absolving herself of responsibility—
Senator O'Neill!
simply isn't appropriate.
Again, if I'm speaking I expect senators to be quiet. Senator O'Neill, firstly, you rose when the minister had been speaking for less than five seconds. It took me a while to get senators to be quiet. Senator O'Neill rose less than five seconds into the answer. With respect, I do not think, unless there's an egregious breach of standing orders, it is appropriate to try and assert the issue of relevance, which I assume you were trying to assert then. I'm listening carefully to the minister's answer. The minister is entitled to answer in a form she sees fit as long as she is directly relevant to the question. Senator Reynolds to continue.
I'll continue by saying that we have had an enduring partnership for seven decades, which has served Australia, particularly rural and regional Australia, very well. That will certainly continue. I join the Prime Minister and, I know, all colleagues on this side, in thanking Michael McCormack for his dedicated service as Deputy Prime Minister. Michael will continue to be an invaluable member of the National Party and also of our coalition. He was a passionate advocate for regional and rural communities, as the new leader and the National Party team will continue to be.
Senator O'Neill, a final supplementary question?
The deputy leader of the Victorian Nationals, Steph Ryan, has said:
I’ve never made any secret of the fact that I think Barnaby Joyce's previous actions didn't really make him eligible for the top job.
Which previous actions is Ms Ryan referring to? Does the minister agree with Ms Ryan?
I'm going to make a statement on this question before I call the minister. A minister can be asked about public statements that they themselves have made that are outside their portfolio or on matters relevant to the minister they represent. That particular second supplementary question refers to a quote claimed to be—I'm not disputing it—from a member of the state parliament in Victoria that doesn't directly link, in my view, to the minister that Senator Reynolds represents. The minister can answer it to the extent that she's able to, because it doesn't draw, in my view, to a matter here. Senator Wong, on the point of order?
On the point of order, Mr President, I simply make this point. This is a question to a person representing the Deputy Prime Minister. There's obviously a much broader remit when it comes to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. It actually goes to the suitability of the person now occupying the job. If it is your ruling that that is not relevantly a matter to be addressed to the person representing him, we accept that. I would submit it is entirely reasonable for the opposition to put to the person representing the Deputy Prime Minister whether or not the Deputy Prime Minister is in fact suitable to retain that role.
I take your point, Senator Wong. I'm not ruling this out of order; I'm just pre-empting what I anticipate might be a point of order. If the question was phrased in the way that you put it, I would not make this observation. My badly hand-written notes here refer to a quote from a Victorian state member of parliament that doesn't ask for the minister or Deputy Prime Minister's view on the matter. It just simply asserts—it didn't use 'Does the minister agree,' did it? There was another part?
If I can assist—I understand you ruling in respect of which actions Ms Ryan is referring to. You may not have heard that Senator O'Neill went on to say, 'Does the minister agree with Ms Ryan?'
I heard the first part and I viewed the second part in the context of the first. I'll ask the minister to respond to the question if she deems it appropriate, given what I've just said. Senator Reynolds.
Thank you very much, Mr President, for that clarification. I repeat that those are internal party matters for the National Party of Australia, not ones for this side. I welcome Barnaby Joyce to the role. Also, I very much look forward to working with him and representing him here in this chamber. I know that all the National Party members strongly support rural and regional Australia. As part of this coalition government, they have delivered time and time again for rural and regional Australia, in partnership with the Liberal Party, in coalition.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management, Senator Ruston. Can the minister please inform the Senate of the importance of a seasonal workforce for our agricultural sector in securing the economic recovery in rural and regional communities following the challenges posed by COVID?
I thank Senator McMahon for her question and her ongoing interest in ensuring the farmers of Australia, particularly the farmers of the Northern Territory, have got the workforce that they need to be able to harvest their crops.
We know that the Australian agricultural sector is an absolute economic powerhouse for this country. Last year alone, $66 billion was generated in our rural and regional economies through our agricultural exports. Our farmers and our exporters should be absolutely justifiably proud of the achievements that they deliver on behalf of Australia, feeding 80 million people worldwide and employing 1.6 million Australians. It is one of the absolute underlying economic drivers of the Australian economy.
But, as you would know, Senator McMahon, in many places around the country, we still have a significant reliance on an overseas workforce to support our agricultural sector. In fact, there are some places around the country where 90 per cent of the workforce comes from overseas. The pandemic, because of the reduction in the number of working holiday-makers in Australia falling quite significantly, has absolutely highlighted the challenges faced by our regional communities. That's why this government, the Morrison-Joyce government, has put in place programs to support the agricultural sector like AgAttract. Together, these sorts of programs are able to provide the agricultural sector with the workforce and skills to continue to build on its workforce to ensure the farmers of Australia have the workforce they need.
Furthermore, we also introduced the National Agricultural Workers Code in September last year to facilitate mobility in the agricultural sector so that we could make sure that we could get workers to be able to move across borders much more easily; to make sure that we were providing the workforce that the Australian farmers need to get their crops off and to make money for Australia.
Senator McMahon, a supplementary question?
Unlike those opposite, who have no support for agriculture whatsoever, can the minister outline the ways that the Liberal-National government is supporting our farmers to meet the workforce needs?
The government of which I'm proud to be a member and of which Senator McMahon is also proud to be a member has worked extremely hard to make sure that we have programs in place so that we can support our farmers through the pandemic. One such program, which is a program that's very close to the hearts of both Minister Payne and me, is the Pacific Labour Scheme. I also acknowledge the amazing advocacy and leadership from Senator McMahon on the matter to make sure that there was an adequate workforce in the Northern Territory to make sure that your mango crop got picked this year. You were faced with a crisis, you came to us, and we were able to solve the problem by bringing in a number of people from Vanuatu to enable the crop in the Northern Territory to be picked. That happened back in September, and it was a great success. In addition to that, the government introduced the Agricultural Workers Code to make sure that the state borders were open. We also introduced AgMove to provide support to people to move to the country, to support our agricultural sector.
Senator McMahon, a final supplementary question?
How will the recently announced agricultural visa further assist farmers to meet their workforce requirements now and into the future, in addition to existing highly successful labour mobility arrangements?
The new agricultural visa arrangements will be very important in putting in place a workforce for our agricultural sector to play an absolutely essential role in delivering the workers that we all know on this side are needed for us to pick our crops. The success of the Pacific workers scheme has demonstrated how these sorts of programs are able to supplement the workforce for our agricultural sector to make sure that we are able to get the crops off. Currently, in Australia, we have over 12,000 people from the Pacific and Timor-Leste, and more are on their way. The government is currently consulting with stakeholders on streamlining these programs to make sure that they work even better, to make sure that our agricultural workforce is there to pick the crops, harvest the fruit, and make sure that we are providing the food not just to Australia but to the rest of the world—the clean, green, world-class produce that Australian farmers are so famous for.
My question is for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. Three weeks ago you stated you were seized of the matter of urgently processing visas for Afghan civilians who put their lives at risk working for the Australian government, including the Defence Force, Foreign Affairs and AusAID, during Australia's longest war, in Afghanistan. Since the ADF's departure from southern Afghanistan in 2013, at least nine of the local civilians who worked for AusAID's flagship stability and development project in that province have been murdered by the Taliban. Australian civilians were targeted for working on it and Afghan civilians are being murdered for it. Will the government approve visas and conduct emergency evacuation for Afghan contractors and their families whose lives are in terrible danger from Taliban reprisals?
I thank Senator Lambie for her question. As you are aware, Senator, through you Mr President, this program has been underway since 2012. A special humanitarian visa program has seen over 1,400 visas offered since the program began. Referring to your more recent questions in relation to the last period of time, we have granted over 186 visas since April this year, so in the last six or seven weeks. It is absolutely a priority for the Australian government to support those locally engaged employees who have supported Australia's mission in Afghanistan, as you have said. Many of them have given an enormous amount, and they have worked under very difficult circumstances. We are working swiftly across agencies—it involves the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Department of Defence and the Department of Home Affairs—to ensure that each case is considered. Those who are at risk of harm and who meet the visa requirements are resettled to Australia as soon as possible. In terms of the transport and movement of those applicants who are successful, the International Organization for Migration, the IOM, and the Australian departments and agencies work to both transport and assist those Afghanis who assisted us.
Senator Lambie, a supplementary question?
Just yesterday, your department rejected the visa application for a site manager of this project, who is now in hiding and receiving constant threats from the Taliban. They've already made multiple attempts on his life. What kind of danger does he need to be in in order for his life to be considered worth saving?
Each case is examined and considered in terms of the individual's experience in the role they held with Australian forces and Australian staff. Each locally engaged employee has a number of factors taken into account. There are a number of things that need to be considered in what are difficult circumstances: identity, the accuracy of their claim of employment, the risk to the individual and, for my part as the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the advice that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade provides to me on the validity of the application. Then, if they are agreed, I am in a position to certify that the application should be considered by Home Affairs, which is something I have done both in this role and in my previous role as the Minister for Defence.
Senator Lambie, a final supplementary question?
It is absolutely shameful. Your coalition has had seven years to get this job done. The world is watching how we treat our mates here. What kind of message does it send to the rest of the world that when you work with the Australian government you're taking your life into your own hands?
I understand that these are issues which are deeply felt, including by you. Over the last number of years, as I set out in my first response, more than 1,400 visas have been issued since the program began. In terms of applications that have been received in the recent period, 186 visas have been granted since April of this year. There are a number of other locally engaged staff and families who have applied for visas. They are in the process of being certified and assessed, and they will be assisted if they qualify under the regulations. This is a very, very important process. We take it very seriously. We deeply appreciate the support provided to us by Afghani locals both in the context that you have raised and in terms of assistance to the Australian Defence Force. That is why 1,400 visas have been issued since the program began and it is why we are continuing this process as of right now.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia, Senator Ruston. Just hours after rolling the Deputy Prime Minister, the Nationals in the Senate split with the Morrison government, voting to walk away from the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. When did the minister first become aware the junior coalition partner no longer supports the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full and on time?
Thank you very much, Senator Smith, for your question. The government policy remains that we absolutely support making sure that we have a sustainable Murray-Darling Basin system into the future for all Australians who rely on it. That means for the communities along the river, the farmers who grow the produce and the fibre as a result of the use of that water, whether it be Australians who rely on it as a source of drinking water—as is the case in South Australia, where I live and where Senator Smith lives as well—it is absolutely essential we have a sustainable river system going into the future. That is why 12 years ago we came together in this place in a bipartisan agreement to make sure that we delivered for a sustainable system. That was absolutely a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put together a plan.
This is probably one of the most ambitious water, environmental and agricultural combined plans that has ever been agreed to in this place. Fourteen chambers of government around Australia agreed to the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and I pay tribute to everybody in this place, whether they're here today, whether were here when the plan was first put in place or whether they've left this place now, and other parliaments in Australia, for having the foresight to realise the importance of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. As we go forward, we know that we will have challenges. We continue to work together collectively to deliver the plan on behalf of all Australians.
The Murray-Darling Basin Plan—none of us should shy away—has very significant complexities but that doesn't mean to say we shouldn't all be working towards making sure we continue to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. We will continue to put new initiatives in place, apply innovative solutions about how we can get more water to our environmental sites, but at the same time— (Time expired)
Senator Smith, a supplementary question?
When Mr Joyce was last Deputy Prime Minister, he declared the water promised under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan didn't have a hope in Hades of being delivered. Is abandoning the Murray-Darling Basin Plan the position of the Morrison-Joyce government?
The position of the Morrison government is absolute commitment to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Just because we put on the record there are difficulties and complexities in delivering such a complicated and complex plan as the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, it does not mean in any way that this government has moved away from its commitment to the delivery of the plan for all Australians, as I said, not just Australians who live in the cities but Australians who live along the Murray-Darling Basin—the communities that rely on the water, the farmers who rely on the water for their livelihoods and the full infrastructure of rural and regional Australia in the Murray-Darling Basin catchment area—to make sure that they continue into the future to get access to water to support their communities. So the position and the commitment of this government have not changed. We are absolutely 100 per cent committed to the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan for the benefit of our farmers and the communities that live along the river as well as those in the cities.
Senator Smith, a final supplementary question?
Mr Joyce has never supported the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. He famously told South Australians to 'move to where the water is'. Will the minister recommit to implementing the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full and on time?
I don't need to recommit to anything, because we have never moved away from our commitment. There are many people who have made many comments in relation to the difficulties in being able to deliver this really ambitious plan but that doesn't change the commitment of this government to remain absolutely focused on the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. We will continue to work with jurisdictions. As I said, this is a plan for all Australians and all states that sit within the basin. This is not just the federal government. It's the Queensland government, the ACT government, the New South Wales government, the Victorian government and the South Australian government. We will continue to work together to deliver the plan, because every single state and territory knows that the outcome of not delivering the plan is absolutely a negative outcome for the states and territories. We remain committed to that, and any suggestion whatsoever that we have moved away from our commitment to the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is factually incorrect.
My question is to the Minister for International Development and the Pacific. Can the minister update the Senate on how the Liberal-National government is responding to the health and economic challenges posed by COVID-19 in our region and how this supports our own health security and economic recovery?
We're all very aware of the devastation that COVID is causing around the world, with around 10,000 deaths a day. Serious outbreaks in our region threaten both our region's health security and Australia's health security and economy, and that's why we have pivoted our aid program to respond. We've added $1 billion in additional COVID-19 related spending to help our region weather the storm. This year we are providing record funding of nearly $1.7 billion to the Pacific. That's 50 per cent higher than when Labor was last in office. To help contain Fiji's current outbreak, we've already provided 250,000 Australian vaccines, and at least 750,000 more will follow. Yesterday a joint Australian and New Zealand medical assistance team arrived in Fiji. Our support has helped Fiji to maintain its world-class levels of testing and contact tracing. In PNG, Australia has reprioritised well over $100 million to support PNG's COVID-19 response and provided an additional $52 million in targeted financing for critical health and education services. This is in addition to providing PNG with AUSMAT teams, Australian vaccines and substantial supplies of personal protective equipment to bolster PNG's COVID-19 response.
Nowhere is the threat to Australia more acute than in the Torres Strait. Vaccinating communities on both sides of the Torres Strait is critical to Australia's health security. On the Australian side, almost 95 per cent of the eligible population on the outer islands of Saibai, Boigu and Dauan have received their first dose of vaccines. With Australia's support, Western Province is currently PNG's third-best-performing province for vaccine delivery, a remarkable achievement given its geography. The government remains absolutely focused on protecting Australians from COVID-19 at every level—globally, regionally, domestically and on our borders. (Time expired)
Senator Abetz, a supplementary question?
I thank the minister for that interesting answer. Can the minister outline the government's efforts to provide vaccines to our neighbours and how this supports regional health security?
Our Prime Minister recently said that helping to vaccinate the Pacific is both a moral necessity and an economic necessity, and indeed it is. That's why we've committed more than $750 million to supporting vaccine access for our region. We're delivering it through four pathways. There's $130 million for the COVAX Facility, which has already distributed over 15 million doses to South-East Asia and the Pacific. There's $523 million to help countries in the Pacific and South-East Asia access and roll out vaccines. There's $100 million under the Quad Vaccine Partnership, focusing on last-mile delivery. Finally, and most directly, from Australia's own supply, we will share at least 20 million doses in our region. We've already delivered almost 360,000 doses, including 250,000 to Fiji, 70,000 to Timor-Leste, almost 19,000 to PNG, 13,000 to the Solomon Islands and 7,000 to Tuvalu. Australia is leading the delivery of vaccines across the Pacific for the health security and prosperity of Australia and that of our region. (Time expired)
Senator Abetz, a final supplementary question?
Can the minister update the Senate on how the government is otherwise supporting economic stability and resilience in our region?
( COVID-19 poses extraordinary economic risks to our region. To support regional stability, including our own, the Australian government is stepping up our economic response. Across the Pacific, we are delivering over $300 million in grant funding to support economic recovery. Nearly $200 million of this has already been delivered. In Fiji we are bolstering social protection schemes for the most vulnerable. In Timor-Leste we're building water systems, roads, bridges, health clinics and schools. Our work has also enabled the restart of the Pacific Labour Scheme to help Australian farmers and Pacific economies. Nearly 8,000 Pacific workers have arrived in Australia since September 2020. Our loan financing is taking effect, too. Just last week, we signed financing agreements with the Solomon Islands government for the Tina River transmission system. Our support, worth approximately $60 million in total, will help deliver renewable energy to Honiara. This is vital work that is supporting our region's and our nation's economic recovery.
My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth, Senator Reynolds. An investigation by the Nine newspapers found Australia's 50 wealthiest private schools now have assets worth $8.5 billion. This grew by more than 40 per cent over just four years. The investigation also found the combined surpluses for the top 50 schools was almost $400 million in 2019 while still receiving public funding of more than $620 million in the same year. Minister, why does the government continue to overfund these obscenely rich private schools that are running surpluses and accumulating enormous wealth?
Thank you, Senator Faruqi, for that question. Can I just say that there is nothing further from the truth. This government is not abandoning any student or any school and never will. The federal government has clear responsibilities, as do states and territories. The DMI method gives a more accurate record of the capacity of families to contribute to the cost of non-government schooling. This ensures that Commonwealth funding is better targeted and fairer. The move to the new DMI method would result in an estimated additional $3.2 billion in funding for non-government schools were it done in May 2020. So, from 2022, all schools will have their funding adjusted according to the capacity of their school community to contribute as assessed under this new methodology.
The government has put in place a range of supports to assist non-government schools with the transition to DMI school funding. These arrangements include the financially best socioeconomic status, SES, score and the new DMI score funding in 2020 and 2021. Secondly, there will be a gradual transition through to 2029 for schools transitioning downwards to their share of schooling resource standards. Thirdly, there's an extra $1.2 billion from 2020 to 2029 for non-government schools through the Choice and Affordability Fund. Fourthly, we are establishing a robust review process to address unexpected or unique circumstances affecting the financial capacity of a school's community. The fund includes requirements that non-government representative bodies provide a specific level of support to transition regional and remote schools and also a consolidated annual report on the expenditure to ensure accountability and transparency.
This government's record beats that of any other government, particularly those on the other side— (Time expired)
Senator Faruqi, supplementary question?
Minister, under current funding arrangements, private schools will be overfunded by $6 billion from now until 2029 and public schools will be underfunded by $58 billion over the same period. The choice and affordability slush fund will dish out more than $100 million every year to private schools, while public schools are completely locked out. Minister, what on earth happened to needs based funding?
Thank you for that question. The truth and the facts matter. Let me share with all of those in this chamber the truth of this matter. First of all is a funding comparison between government and non-government schools. The Commonwealth funding for government schools to 2022 has doubled—in fact, just over doubled at 100.7 per cent—since 2013. We will see a further increase to 2029 of 46 per cent. The facts matter. We have funded government schools more than those on the other side of this chamber ever did.
Additionally, from 2013 to 2029, government schools funding will have increased by 192 per cent. This government, between 2013 and 2029, will have provided a nearly 200 per cent increase for government schools. (Time expired)
Senator Faruqi, final supplementary question?
Last month's budget revealed that private schools are set to receive over $20 billion more federal money than public schools over the next four years. This government seems to be hell-bent on exacerbating the funding inequalities between private and public schools. Minister, why is the government continuing to betray more than 2.5 million public school students and thousands of under-resourced and underpaid public school teachers?
Well, again, that is simply not true. Senator Faruqi talks about individual students. Let me tell you what the figures are for individual students under this government. Between 2013 and 2022, Commonwealth funding per student in government schools has increased by nearly 80 per cent and will see a further increase of 72.2 per cent to 2029. Commonwealth funding per student for non-government schools has grown by 53.6 per cent since 2013 and will see a further increase of 53.6 per cent to 2029. Additionally, from 2013 to 2029 government school funding per student will have increased by 127 per cent per child. Again, in comparison, from 2013 to 2029, non-government school funding will have increased by 81 per cent. (Time expired)
Much as I would like to hear more about record funding for Australian schools, I ask that further questions be placed on the NoticePaper.
I move:
That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister for Women's Economic Security (Senator Hume) and the Minister for International Development and the Pacific (Senator Seselja) to questions without notice asked by Senator Gallagher and I.
It was reported that in 2019 Mr Joyce made an intriguing contribution to his Facebook page. I invite senators to really think about what these words could possibly mean. He wrote:
One of the few graces of being on the backbench is you can be honest with what your views really are. I believe this is one of the greatest policy phantoms, the misguided and quite ludicrous proposition that Australia can have any effect on the climate. If we could we should be the first to make it rain and, more importantly, stop the recurrence of an ice age anytime in the coming millennium.
That was obviously a very important contribution just a few years ago from Mr Joyce. The thing is that those are no longer the views of a humble backbencher, are they? They are the views of the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Prime Minister of this country.
He is actually yet to unveil his plan to stop the recurrence of an ice age—and I look forward to his announcements—but his opposition to acting on climate change is on full display. He has said: 'The Nationals have always been opposed to a net zero target'. He also said: 'If the Nationals supported net zero emissions, we would cease to be a party that could credibly represent farmers.' Well, it's going to be news to the farmers, isn't it, because the body actually constituted to represent farmers, the National Farmers Federation, does support net zero. But it's certainly Mr Joyce's view and he hasn't been quiet about it at all. On a day when the vast majority of Australians, in a poll that's out today, have confirmed their very strong preference for investment in renewables, it's worth considering his views on that.
He said: 'What is this insane lemming-like desire to go to renewables going to do to our economy?' He also said: 'If you want zero emissions, nuclear power does it.' So my question to the moderates in the Liberal Party—and I'm pleased to see that there's a couple of them remaining in the chamber and one just leaving now—what are you going to do about it?
Dr Katy Allen has said that she will be a strong voice in the party room for stronger action on climate change. She says: 'I have been and will continue to be a strong voice for climate action inside the tent. I am working on influencing that agenda. We need to have higher ambition to lead the world in renewables.' Is Dr Allen going to be as strong a voice as Mr Joyce?
Mr Dave Sharma, a man who understands all too well the fury of a Liberal electorate that's been betrayed on climate change, has said that Australia needs to be acting with a higher level of ambition. He has also said:
We've allowed something that should really be a conventional policy challenge to become a kind of culture and values issue. It shouldn't be the third rail of Australian politics.
What is Mr Sharma going to do? What is Mr Sharma's plan?
What has Mr Trent Zimmerman got to say? He told Fairfax that Australians want to get on with the job of meeting our Paris emissions targets while looking at what more we can do to reduce our emissions further. What will Mr Zimmerman do to have the government commit to reducing emissions further than what was agreed at Paris? That's the challenge, isn't it? It's the challenge for Mr Zimmerman. It's the challenge for Dr Allen. It's a challenge for Mr Sharma. It's a challenge for others, like Mr Falinski, Mr Wilson, Mr Evans and Ms Hammond. It's a challenge for those in this place too, isn't it? Those like Senator Hume, Senator Payne, Senator Paterson, Senator Bragg and Senator Birmingham, who once held the portfolio of environment.
We know that there are people remaining in the Liberal Party who do believe that humans are driving dangerous climate change. Senator Birmingham is quite welcome to get up and confirm his support for that, if he'd like to. We know there are people who support real action on emissions. We know there are moderate Liberal parliamentarians who have made a public commitment to that, not just here but to their electorates—all those people they've given a nod and a wink to. You've all told your electorates that, when the time comes, you will stand up for their interests—all those people out there in your electorates who actually want you to do something about climate change. The Deputy Prime Minister is now a man who is more worried about a coming ice age than he is about global warming. What will you do to keep your promise to the people who've supported you?
As a Liberal with traditional values, I'm delighted to take part in this debate. What Senator McAllister and colleagues opposite have forgotten is that they self-described the last election as the climate change election, which they lost. Why did they lose that election? Because the Australian people sided with the coalition, because it had the sensible policy in this area.
The extreme policies of the Australian Labor Party were rejected by the Australian people. Here they are seeking to re-prosecute the case of the last election, which they so comprehensively failed. We, on this side, were blessed with the support of the Australian people, because of our sensible approach. This is yet again the Australian Labor Party saying to the Australian people, 'You got it wrong.' The Australian people, I suggest, got it right, as they do.
What I would invite the Labor Party to do is have a look at their policies and understand why they lost the last election. Indeed, somebody that might help them in that regard might be the member for Hunter, Mr Fitzgibbon. He has certain views that are not necessarily mainstream within the Australian Labor Party these days but they're very popular on the ground, I must say. I am very thankful that Mr Fitzgibbon has been frozen out of the Australian Labor Party. We, on this side, celebrate the diversity of views. We celebrate that different people will, in good faith, come to a position with different considerations. We, in a democracy, ought to celebrate that and the fact that Mr Joyce, the newly appointed Deputy Prime Minister, has expressed certain views.
Let me remind those opposite that everybody on this side is absolutely convinced that trying to reduce emissions by as much as possible makes good sense. Good environmental stewardship is something that we all believe in. But something we won't believe in is the sort of nonsense that the Australian Labor Party used to fund. Who was your climate change commissioner—Professor Flannery or somebody—who said, time and time again, 'We are in a drought paradigm—the Brisbane River will never flood again'? They paid him $180,000 per annum to prognosticate for two days a week. After he made those profound prophecies, the Brisbane River flooded once and then twice, with loss of life and property, completely debunking his assertions. Another one of his assertions, which Labor funded, was that the Murray River would never flow out to sea again. As Senator Birmingham, from South Australia, would know, the Murray River has flowed back out to sea again. The objective evidence—which is there for all to see, whether you like it or not—is that the Brisbane River has flooded twice since that prophecy and the Murray River has flowed out to sea since that prophecy. Has Professor Flannery ever apologised? Has the Australian Labor Party ever apologised for unnecessarily scaring the Australian people? Of course not. It doesn't matter if it's about the environment or Medicare, they are into trying to scare people into voting for them.
We on this side have practical policies. Rather than scaring people to vote for us, we help them come to the understanding that we are on their side and that we actually support their aspirations. We want the very best for our country, and that is why good environmental stewardship, as shown by the coalition—the Liberal and National Party together in lock step—has delivered for the Australian people. In return, the Australian people have very kindly delivered for the coalition at the ballot box. Here we are watching the Australian Labor Party trying to reprosecute their failed election campaign of 2019. I suggest those on the other side get with the program, the program of the Australian people, which is: 'Let's do something about good environmental stewardship, but don't over-egg it.'
Senator Hume and Senator Seselja might try and do their best to paper over the enormous cracks in the coalition on climate change policy, but these cracks, which have been there all along, have really come to the fore, absolutely decimating any credibility the government has in this space. While Prime Minister Scott Morrison was out and about at the G7 in the UK last week, trying to spruik Australia's climate change credentials, Barnaby Joyce, who doesn't support the very target that the Prime Minister was spruiking, was returned as Australia's Deputy Prime Minister.
Senator Hume was asked about Sussan Ley's interview this morning on RN, in which she refused to guarantee that Mr Morrison's preference—which he had just put forward on the world stage in order to rehabilitate our credibility—would survive Barnaby Joyce's return as Deputy Prime Minister. Sussan Ley simply said, 'We will have discussions with the Nationals.' What does Barnaby say? Barnaby doesn't come out and forthrightly say, 'I don't believe in climate change targets.'
Senator Pratt, I remind you to refer to members in the other place by their correct titles.
Mr Joyce doesn't say, 'I'll just announce my new climate change target.' No. He says, 'I'll listen to the National Party.' Indeed, what do we know about what the National Party thinks? As we've heard, time and time again in this place, they don't support these targets. To be honest, this puts them completely out of step with their own constituency. It's little wonder to me that the National Party has no federal seats in Western Australia. WAFarmers president Rhys Turton said, on record,
We understand that climate change is real, that it's affecting farms in Western Australia and it needs a whole-world approach.
Australian agriculture has an equal and equitable obligation—
I'm sorry about this coughing; I can't—
Okay. Thank you, Senator Pratt. We will move to Senator McDonald.
I don't know whether to be pleased or vaguely concerned at the opposition's obsession with the National Party—during question time, the calling out and the discussion with the National Party, and the number of questions focused on the National Party. I guess it is a reflection of how the National Party continues to punch well above its weight in terms of its influence and its contribution to the national debate. We will have to continue to listen to the opposition's complete focus on what the National Party does and thinks at every turn. And today we're going to discuss the National Party's position on sensible climate targets and practices.
I'm really proud to be a part of a government that believes in practical environmental programs and outcomes, and the target of 2030, which Australia has engaged with and already done so well on, is a great reflection. I want to talk, too, about the great work that's done around the Great Barrier Reef catchments, where we had a 25 per cent reduction in nitrogen output on the basis of the very practical changes made by Queensland cane farmers. They have done a terrific job of adopting new practices and of innovation in both mechanical and farming practices. Well may those on the other side bury their heads in their hands, because that's how they operate. They don't understand farming. They don't understand the practical realities of balancing the environment with good environmental outcomes.
You cannot do good things for the environment when you trash jobs and you trash industry. That is what Labor would have done if they'd been successful in their desire to form government after the last election. Their high taxes and their crippling policies on farming and on industry would have left tens of thousands of Australians out of work and wondering how they'd transition. We all remember Jackie Trad's policies on 'transitioning coalminers' to—I don't know, maybe coffee jobs, or perhaps tourism?—in their coal areas. These are the sorts of practical environmental and economic balances that we in the National Party consider, because we do understand the regions and we understand the important work that happens in the regions. I can't begin to imagine what would have happened if the opposition, who continue to take this kind of moralising, anti National Party stance, had been in government.
If we're going to talk about emissions targets, I think we have quite practically and reasonably decided to discuss how technology and innovation will be able to achieve the environmental outcomes the world is talking about. Certainly in mining there are a number of programs and projects happening that will allow that industry to have greater control over its emissions through changes to practices around mining, around fuel in trucks and around tailings dams. In the agricultural sector—well, of course we know that agriculture has already borne the great brunt of these changes, with the introduction of the draconian vegetation management laws in Queensland. The loss of property rights for Queensland farmers has been quite traumatic. But that industry has continued to go on and innovate and make practical changes to land management, to genetics in animals, to crops like cotton, which can use less fertiliser, pesticides and water and yet achieve greater yields. These are the kinds of practical outcomes that mean that we still have jobs in the regions, we still have successful industries and we don't smash Australian jobs, as Labor would have us do.
It's very interesting that the Nationals get up here and wonder why they're being criticised. It's clear that the Nationals would like to have things both ways. They'd like to be in government but not be criticised for their decisions. They'd like to be in government but not be responsible for governing the country. We are asking what the Morrison-Joyce government's policy is on net zero. What we got from the ministers opposite today was nothing short of confusion, because what the Nationals spill did yesterday was launch this country into confusion and chaos. For anyone who thinks that this was just a routine shifting of the chairs, let's just wait and see what happens over the next couple of weeks. Here in question time today they weren't able to answer simple questions about what the government's policy is. These are the people running the country, and they can't tell us what their policies are when it comes to net zero emissions.
We know that the Nationals spill was all about selfishness and self-interested people who are out there protecting their own jobs but not protecting the jobs of everyday Australians. They're particularly not protecting the jobs of the regional Australians that they say they stand up for. They say that this is all about jobs, but it is about their own jobs. It is about making sure that Mr Joyce returns as Deputy Prime Minister, that his salary goes up while wages are going down for everybody else. This was about returning Senator McKenzie to the frontbench, someone who resigned after the sports rorts affair. We know that nobody else in this government has been held accountable for anything that they have done. We need to know what the Nationals coalition agreement will be, what is in it. If they don't make it public, then there is a good reason why.
They say that they care about jobs, but, if the Nationals and the Liberals really cared about jobs in regional Queensland, then they would do something to ensure that workers that do the same job get paid the same wage. It's very simple. They have done nothing to stop rampant labour hire bringing down the wages of people in regional Queensland. If they cared about jobs in regional Queensland, as they say they do—and we had the minister today talking about investment in renewable energy—then why did Minister Pitt veto a wind farm in Far North Queensland that would have created 250 jobs, in a region that has been smashed by COVID and needs these jobs right now? It's because they don't care about people living in Far North Queensland. They don't care about people living in regional Queensland. They only care about their own jobs.
If they really cared about the jobs in regional Queensland, then they would do something to protect the Great Barrier Reef. I know it's very inconvenient for the Nationals and for the Liberal ministers who stood up today that the Great Barrier Reef is also located in regional Queensland, but those are regional jobs too. The Great Barrier Reef supports 64,000 jobs around Queensland, and we need to protect the jobs that rely on the reef.
The net zero policy may have been an instigator for the Nationals spill, and that's why we're asking questions about it today, but I just want to remind the Senate that yesterday there was an emergency national cabinet meeting to sort out the bungled vaccine rollout. While that national cabinet meeting was happening, Nationals members of the government were out there rolling their leader. As that meeting was taking place, members of the government were rolling the Deputy Prime Minister. They should be rolling out the vaccine. People across this country do not know when they will get the vaccine. They don't know how much vaccine the government has. They need to make sure that there's certainty out there. Instead of rolling people in your own government, why don't you roll out the vaccine? Instead of fighting each other, do as you have been saying that you are doing: fight the virus. Go out there and help Australians get through this COVID crisis, instead of creating a crisis of your own government that will leave this country in more chaos, in more crisis, at a time when we can least afford it. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy and Minister for Women's Economic Security (Senator Hume) to a question without notice asked by Senator Waters today relating to the environment.
This climate-denying government, this government that is pro fossil fuels in the time of a climate emergency, this government that's had no policy on climate action for the eight years that it's been in power, must have been the only government, the only group of individuals on this planet, that was surprised last night when UNESCO declared the Great Barrier Reef in danger. They must have been the only people surprised.
Let me tell you about the lengths they have gone to to avoid this in danger listing from the World Heritage Committee on the values of one of the world's great icons, this precious living organism that can be seen from space. Not only am I aware of direct ministerial intervention with the World Heritage Committee over many years—bureaucratic interventions in relation to whether climate change would be included in the deliberations of the committee—but a Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, gave $444 million for the Great Barrier Reef Foundation in order to avoid a World Heritage in danger listing for the reef. They are the lengths this government has gone to to avoid this.
The big question is: why? Why is this government so hell-bent on this on a day like today, when everybody can see the reef's in danger? It's lost half its coral cover in the last five years. The magnificent habitat for thousands of marine creatures has crumbled and died. Why does this government not want to admit this? Why is this government lashing out to everyone today, blaming the Chinese Communist Party for this? Heaven forbid! Why is this government going to these lengths? It's because it makes them a global embarrassment as a custodian of this internationally recognised and loved ecosystem. This government has failed because, as the World Heritage Committee points out, it has not taken climate action seriously. This government is a global embarrassment and a disgrace, and I'm glad the international community has called them out.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services (Senator Reynolds) to a question without notice asked by Senator Faruqi today relating to private school funding.
It's clear that the government has no interest in properly funding our public schools. The Nine investigation published this month was only the latest evidence that this government continues to overfund private schools that are incredibly wealthy to begin with, that are educating the most privileged communities and that have also been accumulating immensely valuable assets, running big surpluses and making a mockery of the government's ostensible commitment to fairer school funding. The investigation's findings are obscene. The government continues to overfund the likes of these 50 schools, which share $8.5 billion worth of assets. The government is not even taking this extraordinary wealth into account when deciding funding arrangements.
Make no mistake, the current funding arrangements are cooked. Recent analysis from Save Our Schools found that, over the last decade, federal and state government funding for private schools increased by more than six times that of public schools. Per-student funding for each private school student increased by more than 22 per cent compared to just 2.4 per cent for public school students.
My office spoke recently with a public school teacher in Sydney who lamented that there were only two printers for a school with many hundreds of students. Teachers are buying stationery for their students from their own money. It's a very common story. Poor funding cannot be separated from chronic problems with staffing. When teachers called in sick at this particular school usually there were no casuals available to cover them. Classes would simply be merged and become bigger to accommodate all students that day. It is simply untenable and is symptomatic of a completely broken system. It's time that the government and Labor woke up to the reality that our public schools are in crisis. It's time to properly fund our public schools.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I table a document.
by leave—I move:
That today:
(a) the hours of meeting be midday till adjournment;
(b) the routine of business following consideration of the urgency motion be:
(i) business of the Senate notices of motion nos 1 and 2 (proposed disallowance of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Amendment (2020-21 Budget Programs) Regulations 2021)—motions to be called on together and debated for not more than 30 minutes, after which the question be put, and
(ii) consideration of the following bills:
Fuel Security Bill 2021
Fuel Security (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2021
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2021-2022
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022
Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021
Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Age of Dependants) Bill 2021
Online Safety Bill 2021
Online Safety (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021
Financial Regulator Assessment Authority Bill 2021
Financial Regulator Assessment Authority (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2021
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No.1) Bill 2021;
(c) if by 9.15 pm, consideration of the bills has not concluded, the questions on all remaining stages be put without debate;
(d) paragraph (c) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142;
(e) the question for the adjournment be proposed without debate after consideration of the bills has concluded, or on the motion of a minister.
This is the 10th time motion that has been moved by Senator Birmingham in his time as Leader of the Government in the Senate. He has been in that position for 35 days, so every 3.5 days the minister has moved a time motion to try and get business through the Senate because he is not able to manage properly the time of the Senate.
I will point out that this is not a time motion. The government did me the courtesy of talking to me about this motion. I agreed to the idea of a time extension tonight so we could accommodate the government's requirements. But this is not a motion just to extend time; it's a gag motion. It has the requirement at the end of it that, once we've reached 9.15, the questions on all remaining stages be put without debate. That is not how this chamber is supposed to work. A number of bills have been laid out today for this time motion. Some of them are complex. Whenever we move bills and amendments without debate people don't have the opportunity to stand up and put their perspective. Often I listen to the perspectives, whether it be in my suite or sitting here in the chamber. This motion is disrespectful to democracy, particularly noting how many times this has been done. I point out that Senator Cormann over the period of a year moved only nine time motions, so you've now capped him in a much shorter time frame, Senator Birmingham. It's poor management. We should not be supporting this with a gag at the end of it.
Here we go again. Here is a government that is trying to ram through—I just counted them—12 bills tonight. We all know that there will be another hours motion tomorrow and possibly one on Thursday as this government desperately tries to clear the decks, leaving their options open for an election. This is not the way to manage the chamber. You are treating the Senate like a rubber stamp, like a tick-and-flick exercise. I'm sorry to say that it's generally One Nation that gives you the numbers to treat the Senate thus. I hope Queenslanders realise that and remove Senator Hanson at the coming election and replace her with someone who will actually fight for them, rather than tick off everything the government proposes, screw over the battlers and deliver for the big corporations and the billionaires, as you and One Nation love to do.
We have 12 bills here tonight. There will not be proper time for debate. We won't get to justify and explain the amendments we are seeking to make, but you don't care; you're just ramming it through, treating the Senate like a rubber stamp because you have the numbers with One Nation in your back pocket. How lovely for you to have democracy sewn up so nicely, and I wonder what breadcrumbs you had to offer One Nation to get their support for this. It seems you don't actually need to proffer much for them; they are very happy to do the bidding of the government. It may well be that the opposition is content to pass this through as well. Nothing surprises me anymore. I will wait to see if we have any opposition from the opposition benches. We would welcome that in this and many other contexts, as the rest of the country would too. This is a desperate flurry to clear the decks from a government that paradoxically actually doesn't have much of an agenda. So I don't quite understand why you have had to move so many hours motions, because much of this legislation is flimsy at best.
But there is some sting in the tail tonight. I personally can't wait for the broadcasting bill, because your government has had to backtrack on delivering for Murdoch by actually trying to gut your own bill to say that Fox does in fact have to contain Australian content in its broadcast services, so that is one pleasing thing that will happen in that series of bills tonight. Other than that, it is a blancmange of either bland or damaging legislation, and we will see some of the even nastier bills, no doubt, gagged and rammed through tomorrow, and we will object at that stage as well. Either with the complacency and complicity of the opposition or with the pandering of One Nation, once again, the Senate will be treated like dirt, and executive power will be used and abused as per usual. I cannot wait for the election and I cannot wait to be seeing you guys sitting on that side.
I will just make a few comments on this. The opposition will be supporting this motion and we do so for a number of reasons. We agree with the comments that have been made about the government's inability to manage their program but we also agree there are a number of bills, not just these listed but probably another 13 or so that the government have on the draft program, that are on some level time critical. Even if we don't agree with them, there are a number of bills that have to be dealt with by the end of this financial year.
Labor have tried to bring a reasonable approach to this. We don't think it's reasonable to sit all night on Thursday, as has happened in the past; we don't think that is fair. We have had a long sitting fortnight. We already had extended hours last week to ram through the super bills. We did have a view that we should try and manage some of those time-critical bills in a more reasonable way. There are a number of hours tonight. We've already started well into fuel security. It can be managed so that people's representations, contributions and amendments can be put within the time frame allowed, if we all accept that. We on this side certainly do. We're not wanting to lengthen debate on any bills any so that anyone can't speak on any other bill. The debates can be managed tonight. My understanding is there are 13 or so bills the government would like passed this week in addition to these. Our request to the government was that there is not another late-night sitting of the Senate, that the program is managed in a reasonable way. But part of doing that requires us to pass some legislation at some point this sitting fortnight. These bills, we agree with the government, can be dealt with tonight in the time allowed.
But we would also request the government get in place a better way of managing their program so that we are not constantly put in the position of having to consider hours motions for senators in this place and that we can have debates as long as they need to be on pieces of important legislation.
I'd just like to say that I don't mind if you want to do late sittings; we get paid more than enough. But if you gag something and say, 'Get it done by 9.15,' you're starting to become like a dictator, to be honest. If this needs us to take until two or three o'clock in the morning before we get up, well, welcome to real life out in the real world. As I said, we get paid more than enough. Just saying, 'If we don't get these through by 9.15, we are going to ram them through,' is going way too far. I'm not very happy about that at all. This is not the way to run a country at all. If everyone has to stay up all night to get these bills through—there's very little resilience here—trust me, you'll get them done eventually. But putting a finish line so early, at 9.15—I didn't realise that people went to bed so early up here—is absolutely crossing the line. I'm not real keen on it. If this is going to continue, it'll just make us look like we have a really bad standard here—that we cannot manage a chamber. So I have to ask, and I'm sure millions of other people are asking: how are you actually managing the country? Seriously. Anyway, the next election is on you guys, I guess, so good luck with that.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to the following senators for personal reasons:
(a) Senator McAllister for 21 June 2021; and
(b) Senator Chisholm for 23 and 24 June 2021.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Henderson for today, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
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 19 August 2021.
The question is that business of the Senate matter No. 3, moved by Senator Waters, be agreed to.
Senators, I want to make an observation on the matter we have just dealt with. I understand that yesterday a similar motion was dealt with, albeit the date in the motion was different to the one that was considered by the Senate just now. I give senators notice that at some point in the future I will be deeming the substantive part of this motion, being the referral. Simply changing a date and resubmitting it on a daily basis, I will consider to be dealing with the same question. That can be debated at the time. I'm just being fair to senators in giving them notice that at some point that will be my ruling from the chair.
I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1149 be taken as formal.
Is there any objection to it being taken as formal?
An honourable senator: Yes.
There is an objection.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Australia's international border has been closed for fifteen months, with the necessary speed of the closure resulting in many families becoming separated, including:
(A) partners of Australian citizens and permanent residents that hold Prospective Marriage (subclass 300) visas, and
(B) partners and dependent children of temporary visa holders across a range of visa classes, many of whom have lived in Australia for many years and have significant ties to Australia,
(ii) ongoing family separations are causing immense trauma and pain, with no end in sight, and
(iii) holders of Business Innovation and Investment (subclass 188) visas are automatically exempt from Australia's international travel ban, and over 6,000 people have been granted this visa since the border closed, without requiring any pre-existing ties to Australia; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) make holders of Prospective Marriage (subclass 300) visas automatically exempt from Australia's inbound travel ban, bringing this visa class into line with all other partner visa classes that are already exempt, and
(ii) create new criteria that would allow the granting of an exemption from the inbound travel ban for partners and dependent children on temporary visas that are separated from their onshore partner or parent by the border closure.
Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government will not be supporting the motion. Whilst the government acknowledges the concerns of some temporary visa holders, decisions to grant exemptions must be balanced against the government's need to ensure Australia's health and security through Australia's border closure measures during the pandemic. Exemption requests are considered on a case-by-case basis. These measures are temporary and are reviewed regularly. Each exemption application is assessed on its own merits. The government has introduced changes to support prospective marriage visa holders, former visa holders and visa applicants unable to enter Australia due to COVID-19 travel restrictions.
I ask that the question be put separately for part (b)(ii), if that is agreeable.
The question is that all parts of general business notice of motion other than clause (b)(ii) be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The question now is that clause (b)(ii) be agreed to.
I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1151, standing in my name and the names of Senators Dean Smith, Ciccone, Lines, Pratt, Dodson and Sterle, 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 the Senate—
(a) acknowledges that community television services Channel 31 Melbourne and Geelong and Channel 44 Adelaide provide valuable programs and services to the community, including:
(i) local news,
(ii) grassroots multicultural, sporting and arts activities,
(iii) training opportunities for journalists and screen practitioners, including in partnership with universities,
(iv) support for small businesses and not-for-profits, and
(v) live to air broadcasts of religious services for older audiences without internet access;
(b) recognises that, consistent with the objects of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, community television:
(i) plays an important role in reflecting Australian identity, character and cultural diversity,
(ii) provides program material that is locally significant, and
(iii) contributes to the diversity of broadcasting services available to the Australian public;
(c) further recognises that, consistent with the objects of the Radiocommunications Act 1992, community television assists to:
(i) maximise the overall public benefit derived from using the radiofrequency spectrum, and
(ii) ensure the efficient allocation and use of the spectrum;
(d) notes that there is no planned alternative use for the spectrum until 2025 at the earliest; and
(e) calls on the Federal Government to extend the licences so Channel 31 and Channel 44 may remain on air.
Question agreed to.
I inform the chamber that Senator Duniam will be sponsoring the motion as well. I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1154 be taken as a formal motion.
Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?
Honourable senators: Yes.
There is an objection.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Attorney-General, the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the Minister for International Development and the Pacific, the Assistant Minister for Women and 17 other members of the Government recently voted in support of a motion to deny transgender young people access to medical care,
(ii) Liberal and National senators voted in support of an earlier transphobic motion that would prevent government agencies from using inclusive language, and
(iii) it is still legal for schools to expel students and sack staff because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity despite the commitment of the Prime Minister in 2018 to end discrimination against same sex attracted and gender diverse young people; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) ensure that the rights of LGBTIQ+ people are protected, including through changes to anti-discrimination law, rather than adopting positions that undermine the rights of LGBTIQ+ people, and
(ii) commit to consulting with LGBTIQ+ people, women, disability groups, minority religious groups and all others impacted, in the process of further redrafting its proposed legislation on religious discrimination.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The coalition government abhors discrimination and is committed to ensuring the safety and wellbeing of every young Australian. The clinical treatment of children experiencing gender dysphoria is a complex and evolving field, and state and territory governments are being encouraged to work to develop a nationally consistent approach to best practice treatment with appropriate safeguards. The government has acknowledged the diversity of perspectives that senators in the broader community bring to this debate in good faith. This was reflected in the decision to allow coalition senators a conscience vote on an earlier motion.
The government believes schools should be not be permitted to discriminate against students or staff on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The government has stated that any changes to the Sex Discrimination Act should make clear that discrimination against students and staff is unacceptable while ensuring religious educational institutions can teach in a manner consistent with the tenets of their faith.
The government will engage with LGBTIQ groups and will undertake thorough consultation ahead of any future reforms of Australia's antidiscrimination laws. Assertions that the rights of LGBTIQ Australians have been or will be undermined or wound back are without foundation. It is the view of coalition senators— (Time expired)
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
One Nation does not support this motion, as it misrepresents the intentions behind One Nation's stance on protecting our children. All children, including those who present with gender dysphoria, have a right to therapeutic and medical care. Therapeutic care is underutilised for children presenting with gender dysphoria. Children should not be put on a medical pathway with irreversible outcomes. It is not helpful to all children who need support to label everyone who disagrees with Senator Rice's world view as being transphobic. That will never address the anguish that these children and parents face. It will suppress alternative views. It is subtle censorship based on trying to shame people whose views differ. One Nation supports an inclusive approach because we do not carve out special groups to protect at the expense of others. Inclusiveness starts with a state of mind, and a thousand variations on a man and a woman will never include everyone as long as there are those who choose to identify as a victim first.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Rice be agreed to.
I move:
That the Ministerial Suitability Commission of Inquiry Bill 2021 may proceed without formalities and now be read a first time.
Before the Senate votes on this, I would like to draw senators' attention to standing order 86(1), which reads as follows:
A question shall not be proposed if it is the same in substance as any question which has been determined during the same session, unless the order, resolution, or vote on such question was determined more than 6 months previously or has been rescinded.
I inform the Senate that last week, when this motion was negatived on the first reading, it was following a motion passed to introduce the bill. I allowed this reconsideration of the first reading because the bill has subsequently been published and senators have had an opportunity to view it, which they did not have upon the motion last week. The consequence of this motion being negatived is that I will not entertain a motion for the first reading of the same bill in the immediate future, because that would be in breach of standing order 86(1). I just think I should inform senators of that before I put the motion. The question is the motion moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.
I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1157, about superannuation, 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, and also on behalf of Senator Steele-John, move:
(1) That the Senate—
(a) notes that, on budget night, the Great Hall of Parliament was booked by the New South Wales Liberal Party who paid $67,700 to hire the venue for a political fundraising event, with the Treasurer and Finance Minister in attendance for several billionaires and rich-listers, company executives and directors to get personalised insights and briefings on the budget;
(b) acknowledges that the Parliament is owned by the Australian people and that it represents 'The People's House' and, as such, should not be used for private political fundraising activities; and
(c) instructs the Presiding Officers to amend the 'Use of Parliament House facilities for events' to no longer permit the use of any part of Parliament House for private, political fundraising activities, so that it aligns with the rules prohibiting electorate offices being used for such purposes.
(2) That this resolution be transmitted to the House of Representatives for concurrence.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave granted.
Labor won't be supporting this motion. We think it's an area for reform and we are willing to engage in discussions in good faith with all parties, but we do not believe it should be transacted through a motion in the Senate which doesn't allow for any of those discussions. We've been clear and consistent on our policies for accountability and transparency on political donations. However, we believe any change, if we are after serious change, requires more consideration than a motion in a part of a program where it can't be discussed.
Given the motion seeks to direct me, I'm going to seek leave to make a short statement too.
Leave granted.
Events at Parliament House described by this motion, including venue hire, catering and security, are provided on a strictly commercial basis. There is no subsidy provided whatsoever. In fact, prohibiting such venue hire would prove detrimental to the operations of Parliament House through the loss of revenue such events bring in. Furthermore, the application of such a policy change is not immediately clear cut, as 'private political fundraising activities' can apply much more widely than simply to political parties—for example, to organisations that undertake disclosable political expenditure and activities while not formally standing candidates for election.
The question is that motion No. 1158 be agreed to.
I seek leave to move general business notices of motion Nos 1149, 1154 and 1157 together and that they be determined without amendment or debate.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent general business notices of motion Nos 1149, 1154 and 1157 being moved together immediately and determined without amendment or debate.
The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.
I move general business notices of motion Nos 1149, 1154 and 1157 and I ask that the question be put separately on No. 1149:
GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1149
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Morrison Government has published almost 1,000 changes to the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS), to be implemented in less than a month,
(ii) the Australian Medical Association (AMA) has described the changes as 'wilful incompetence' and noted on social media that:
'The release of the changes by government so close to the implementation date, has left the private health sector scrambling to prepare for the changes, and patients potentially out of pocket for hip, shoulder, hand, cardiac and other surgeries by thousands of dollars in some cases', and
(iii) the AMA has further warned that the changes will put the health system and patients at risk; and
(b) recognises that the proposed changes represent the biggest attack on Medicare in decades, snuck out in the middle of a pandemic; and
(c) condemns the Australian Government for their failure to consult with stakeholders about massive changes to the MBS and for their savage attacks on Medicare—the public health insurance system that Labor built and which has protected Australians' health for decades.
GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1154
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges and congratulates the 25 worthy Tasmanians who were recipients of the 2021 Queen's Birthday Honours on 14 June 2021 for their outstanding achievement and services to Tasmania, and Australia more broadly; and
(b) further acknowledges and congratulates:
(i) Companion of the Order of Australia (AC) recipient, Ms Barbara Baker,
(ii) Officer of the Order of Australia (AO) recipients: Dr Stephen Rintoul and Group Captain Paul Willmot,
(iii) Member of the Order of Australia (AM) recipients: Mr Noel Anthony Beven, Mr Howard Michael Blake, Mrs Robyn Barbara Moore and the Honourable David James Porter,
(iv) Australian Police Medal (APM) recipient, Assistant Commissioner Adrian Paul Bodnar,
(v) Medal of the Order of Australia (OAM) recipients: Mr Trevor Harold Duniam, Mr Rodney Alleric Fraser, Mr John Gibson, Mr Michael Macpherson Hocking, Mr Graham Barry Kent, Captain Edgar James McDermott, Mrs Rosanne Elizabeth McKeand, Mrs Alison Elizabeth Monk, Ms Diane Lesley Nailon, Mr Robert Thomas Orr, Dr John David Paull, Mrs Pauline Mary Samson, Mrs Pauline Beryl Sedivka, Mr Roxley Carl Snare, Mr James Edward Wilcox and Dr Eric Woehler; and
(vi) Conspicuous Service Medal (CSM) recipient: Lance Corporal Michael Coulson.
GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1157
That the Senate does not agree with Senator Rennick's statement in the Senate on Wednesday, 16 June 2021, that '… it's time to kill superannuation stone, cold dead'.
I table government statements relating to the motions we are considering.
The question is that general business notices of motion Nos 1154 and 1157 be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I will now put the question on general business notice of motion No. 1149.
by leave—I table a short statement.
by leave—I table a short statement.
The question is that motion No. 1149 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. 1151 relating to Italian Republic Day being moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.
Those of that opinion, say aye; to the contrary, no. The ayes have it? The noes have it? Division required. Ring the bells for one minute. Senator Abetz?
Mr President, I think you might find that the second 'no' was called from outside the actual chamber.
If that was the case—I will ask again. I know the two voices, but I didn't spot them. Was one of the noes called from outside the well of the chamber? I would ask senators to own up, because I can check the video.
An honourable senator interjecting—
In that case, the division is cancelled. One needs to be within the chamber, even with our COVID rules. The only place you can't be is in the advisers boxes or behind that rail. Anywhere else in the chamber, I would deem the chamber, and the Senate has concurred for COVID safety. Given the contentious nature of this period of debate, I will apply the rules quite strictly. Senator Duniam, the motion was carried. You can move motion No. 1151.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges that Western Australia's Italian community celebrated 'Festa della Repubblica' or Italian Republic Day on 2 June 2021;
(b) notes that Italian Republic Day commemorates the institutional referendum held by universal suffrage in 1946, in which the Italian people voted to become a republic following the end of World War II and the fall of Fascism;
(c) recognises the significant contribution members of the Italian community have made to the state of Western Australia; and
(d) further notes that:
(i) since the Australian Census of 1911, the Western Australian Italian community has expanded from approximately 2,300 to more than 120,000, and
(ii) the WA Italian Club Inc was established in 1934 to support Italian migrants starting a new life in Western Australia and has since become a cultural institution for residents of Italian heritage.
Question agreed to.
I inform 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 McKim proposing a matter of urgency was chosen:
There is a housing crisis in Australia and the Morrison Government is refusing to fix it.
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the senate, I will ask the clerks to set the clocks accordingly. Senator Faruqi?
I move:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
There is a housing crisis in Australia and the Morrison Government is refusing to fix it.
There is a housing crisis in Australia and the Morrison government is refusing to fix it. In fact, there is a very deliberate strategy by the coalition to appear to be doing something about the housing crisis, while ignoring the very policy settings that have brought us to this point.
In the middle of the pandemic the government announced grants and schemes that would even further exacerbate the housing crisis. Instead of making real change, you lot keep coming up with harebrained schemes, like the granite benchtop renovation grants. The grants were for home renovations that could cost between $150,000 to $750,000. What a joke! And this is all happening while there are people living without heating in public housing around the country and there are people who have been waiting for months to get urgent repairs to their homes. Is this housing crisis a joke to you all?
What an affront that is to people who can't make the rent or save a deposit and those who are sleeping rough. But you don't really care about them. All you care about are the billionaires and the corporations—your mates.
The so-called Family Home Guarantee that you have established is just a government debt trap and a loan guarantee for the big banks. It seems the minister wakes up in the morning, possibly after wining and dining with the slick lobbyists from the big lenders, and comes up with these rubbish schemes that benefit no-one but the very top end of town. Housing policy in this country has seen some of the most craven collapses to your mates.
Much has been written about the mess that is housing. One recent article asked, 'There is a housing crisis in Australia, so how is the coalition going to fix it?' The answer is that they are not. They are not going to fix it. They are not interested in fixing it. The coalition are too close to their donors, their mates, in the big banks, the big developers and investors, those who made out like bandits during the pandemic. COVID-19 has not stopped the homelessness or housing affordability crisis. As we emerge from the pandemic, we should be doing everything we can to make sure that everyone has a roof over their head.
Unfair tax rules like negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount make it easier for someone to buy their fifth investment property than a first home to live in. This has to be dismantled so people looking for a first home can actually afford it. There has been radio silence on negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount from the Liberals, and Labor have completely backflipped on it. These concessions to the wealthy are the reason we are in this housing crisis. The Greens want to wind back negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount so we can put downward pressure on house prices.
The average property price in Sydney has now hit $1.3 million. People who have been able to enter the housing market have been staring down the barrel of a massive mortgage which they will be paying off for decades, while most can't even think of buying a property in Sydney. In parts of regional New South Wales the vacancy rate has fallen below one per cent. Crisis accommodation is at capacity and rental vacancies are virtually nonexistent. There are reports of families living in tents and vans while sending their kids off to stay with relatives. The rates of homelessness have pushed domestic violence and homelessness groups in New South Wales to say that we are on the brink of a humanitarian crisis.
We have such a severe shortage of social housing in this country that over 100,000 people were counted as sleeping rough in the last census. These people are invisible to the privileged members of the coalition. These people, time and time again, are completely left behind by the government, who have decided to pass the buck on social housing to states and territories. We need massive investment from the federal government to build a million new sustainable public and community homes so people can have a secure and permanent base to call home. Everyone has a right to a safe and secure home. The government is responsible for making sure that this happens, so do your bloody job!
It's a great pleasure to rise and discuss homelessness and housing affordability because my party, the Liberal Party, has for more than 75 years been a champion of homeownership. To see that you have only to go back to our party's founder, Robert Menzies, who in the lead-up to the creation of the Liberal Party was, in the early 1940s, talking vigorously about the value of homeownership. The value of homeownership transcends money because people who have a home have a greater stake in society. I think that's something that we can all agree on. At the end of the Menzies era, homeownership sat at about 70 per cent, which is a high number when you consider homeownership figures around the world. So it's always been part of the fabric of the Liberal Party's DNA that we support homeownership. Of course we do. That is something that we have been pursuing in more recent years, including during the Morrison government's tenure. We have established NHFIC, the organisation designed to drive social housing and community housing. And I should say at this juncture that everyone's got an important job. Every worker is an essential worker, but there have been instances where people who are working in the services, whether as police or ambos, have not been able to access the housing market in inner-city Melbourne and Sydney. One of the things NHFIC has been doing is establishing community housing.
I've had the pleasure of meeting with some of these organisations throughout Sydney, where NHFIC has invested public money to ensure that people who are working in the services are able to access houses in the inner city. Over the few years that NHFIC has already been in operation it has delivered $2.5 billion in approved loans, for 4,600 new dwellings and 8,300 existing dwellings. That is a tangible example of a program established under the Morrison government that has been driving higher levels of social and community housing, thereby building on that Menzian legacy of our overriding generational commitment to homeownership, because without homeownership people have a lower level of buy-in to our society.
One of the interesting parts of this debate is that the Labor Party is obsessed with superannuation, for various political and economic reasons. It's great to come in here and be lectured by the Greens about how apparently we are corrupt. But the most corrupting element that has been a feature of Australian economic policy over the past 30 years has been superannuation, because the superannuation funds and the unions have bought the Labor Party's policy advocacy lock, stock and barrel. It is true that homeownership has reduced significantly over the past 30 years. What also happened 30 years ago? The superannuation schemes started. There is no doubt that, among low-income workers, people have to choose between the super guarantee and a deposit for a first home. I have had people write to me saying that basically because of their super contribution they won't be able to pull together a deposit for a first home. That is a depressing consequence of super.
And not everything needs to be boiled down to talking points, written by a central office. The reality is that super is actually quite a good idea. There is no question that self-provision is a good idea, especially if we face undesirable demography. Next week we'll see the Intergenerational report. When that is released on Monday, it will give us a snapshot of Australia's future. Again, that will highlight the need for Australia to save more. Those of us on our side of the house are not hostile to super, but we would like to see it work better. The laws that were passed last week will finally put in place a system that will ensure that super will work for the workers, as opposed to working for the unions and the banks.
But super could do more to drive homeownership. Throughout the course of this period in office, the Liberal Party has deployed some changes to the super scheme that will allow super to be used for a first home. In the last budget we expanded the First Home Super Saver Scheme so that people can pull out up to $50,000 from their super to use for a first home. That is an entirely reasonable proposition. But it is a proposition that is available to people who are putting in discretionary contributions, above and beyond the super guarantee. Most Australians don't have the means to do that.
So I still think there is merit in our looking, in the longer term, at circumstances in which people could use their super guarantee contributions to purchase a first home. I think it is mean to deny people access to their own money for the purposes of homeownership, and that is something I hope we return to in the future.
Of course, the super funds have their own plan here. The super funds have been lobbying down here in Canberra and they want to get special tax treatment so they can acquire or get access to what they call 'build to rent' dwellings. Effectively, this is where they would own the buildings and then rent them out to the super fund members—thereby, the funds own the building. The members pay the funds to rent their flats or apartments or houses to the super funds. That embeds a loss of homeownership for all time, because the super funds own it. They are motivated by profit, not by any altruistic purpose.
In order to drive more homeownership, we have as well introduced measures to allow people to downsize, so people can sell their family home and put that money into super. Equally, we have increased the CGT discount. On the question of taxes, I've never seen a higher tax burden create more homes. At the last election, Labor had a policy that would have reduced the CGT discount and, thereby, increase the tax burden on houses. As we pointed out during the election campaign, increasing housing taxes will mean you have fewer houses—so Labor appears now to have run away from that policy. Let's see what they do in the coming election. My sense is that they will adopt a small target strategy. That may be politically advantageous but, as we know, with Labor there's always a hidden high tax somewhere.
Ultimately, the choice here is pretty simple. We will always pursue targeted policies to try to drive homeownership, because that is what we've done since the Menzies era. Over the last year, as a result of our policies—through NHFIC, in particular—you have seen the highest level of homeownership for first home buyers since 2009. More than 155,000 people who are first home buyers have entered the market in the year to March 2021, according to the ABS. Our policies are driving a high level of homeownership, and it is a social, moral and economic good for us to be driving homeownership.
At the end of the Menzies era you had 70 per cent of people in homes. That is a high figure and a figure we should try and maintain, over the long run, because people who have a home, people who live in a home, have a greater stake in society. There is more value to a home than the words that were uttered in The Castle. A home is a place to build a family and there will always be a great value in that, which is why we have pursued a multitude of measures. That's why we've established NHFIC. That's why we've tried to drive community and social housing. We want to see people who are coppers and ambos and nurses get access to inner city housing. It is an important part of the social fabric.
Homeownership is heading in the right direction under us. Labor Party solutions are just to have more super for their mates in the unions. Unfortunately, the super guarantee increase will eat the wages increase that is built into the budget, over the forward estimates, but Labor don't care about that. They would rather see all the money go to the super funds, ultimately, through to the unions and, subsequently, through to the Labor Party so they can use it for campaigning purposes. It is a regrettable situation. But there will be more homes under us.
I too rise to make a contribution on this urgency motion. There is a housing crisis in Australia and the Morrison government is refusing to fix it. We had that very clearly articulated by the good senator who's leaving the chamber now. He has no idea, no understanding, how difficult it is in the Australian community to get into the housing market, to afford to pay rent. What we heard from his contribution was, once again, that it's all the fault of the Labor Party, all the fault of the unions and superannuation.
We should be encouraging people to save for their retirement. That's what superannuation's all about. But it's in their DNA. They've got to blame the unions. They've got to knock superannuation. In reality, in my home state of Tasmania, it is critical that we put some attention on resolving the housing crisis, because what we have seen in recent years is homeownership in Tasmania being out of the reach of ordinary Tasmanians. There has been a 40 per cent increase in rent in my home city of Launceston in the last few years; that's a lot of money. We see firsthand the effects of what happens when people don't have a secure roof over their heads and aren't able to house their families. We know the devastation that that causes to families and individuals. But, in the past year, the Tasmanian property prices outside of Hobart have risen a staggering 18 per cent. I've been shocked at how quickly houses are being gobbled up and sold in Launceston and in Hobart.
There is also a real struggle for people trying to get into the rental market. We know that, if a person is paying more than 30 per cent of their income in rent, they are at a much higher risk of ending up being homeless. I've seen it by going out with support organisations who help feed and accommodate people who are doing it tough. It is extremely difficult. We know that the growing cohort of homeless people are older women who haven't necessarily had the opportunity to put money away in their superannuation. Their relationships break down and they find themselves without a family home. We know the demographics that are there every single day. If you open your eyes when you are driving around the cities and the streets of where you live, people are now on the street, living in their cars, couch surfing, moving from one friend's or one family's accommodation to the other.
We can do something about this, and Labor has a plan to address housing affordability in this country and to expand access to social housing, because every Australian deserves to have a roof over their head. But have we had any of those issues addressed in the contributions thus far from the government? No, we haven't. If elected, a Labor government will have a housing future fund that will build 30,000 social houses in the first five years. But we shouldn't have to wait for an election because those on that side of the chamber could already take a leaf out of our book and actually address social housing in this country.
They could also scrap the cap on the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme. We have been repeatedly calling for the government to take action there. What we should be doing is taking whatever steps—working with the states, removing stamp duty—so people can get into their first home. Those people on that side of the chamber have been in government for eight long years, and, under their watch, being able to rent or buy a home in this country is becoming increasingly more expensive and out of reach for people. Labor won't stop raising these issues and speaking up for people who find themselves on the streets and homeless. Let's be frank: anyone can find themselves in that circumstance. We do need to also provide training to ensure that we have the capacity to build the homes of the future, and we need to ensure that there's land released through the state governments to ensure that there is social housing so that housing affordability becomes a real achievable goal for all Australians.
Housing is a human right and it should not be treated like a commodity. Just like the rest of the nation, Queensland is in a housing and homelessness crisis. Over the last few months, I've met with organisations right around the state, like the North Queensland Domestic Violence Resource Service in Townsville, the Women's Centre FNQ in Cairns and the Cairns Homelessness Services Hub. Every single support service I met with told me the same story: they are doing everything they can, but there is no crisis housing, there is no transitional housing and there is no long-term public or private housing to send people to.
These services are relying on miniscule budgets to put people up in hotel accommodation. Budgets that were meant to last for a whole year are running out by the end of February. There are 47,000 people on the social housing waiting list in Queensland, and almost 9,000 of them are children. The average wait time is two years, but many people wait far longer than that. While they wait, they move from insecure accommodation to insecure accommodation, or they stay in abusive relationships because they've got nowhere else to go, or they sleep in cars, or they risk losing work and regular attendance at school or university, because they cannot find a home.
It's even harder for people with disability who are looking for homes that they can safely access. For First Nations people or people from CALD communities, for whom navigating a complex social housing system is overwhelming, it's harder again. A woman in Yarrabah rang my office about an hour ago saying that she's been on the social housing waiting list for 23 years. She now has three kids who need a roof over their heads, too. I spoke to a woman on the Sunshine Coast who's living on the age pension. She was facing eviction into homelessness after her rent was increased by $80 a week by a profiteering landlord looking to cash in on the influx of people moving up from Melbourne and Sydney to avoid lockdowns. There are no other suitable, affordable homes for her on the market. Her experience is similar to that of so many other older women, which is why older women are the fastest-growing demographic of homeless folk in this nation.
Another young woman was given crisis accommodation during the first COVID lockdown measures in April 2020, but once that was no longer available she had to sleep in her car. My office managed to advocate for her and helped her find appropriate housing through a local provider, but those local providers are overstretched and under-resourced. It shouldn't take individual lobbying for every Queenslander to find a safe, accessible and affordable home. Towns in Queensland are facing a chronic undersupply of public and private housing. This is a national crisis. But the Liberal, National and Labor parties continue to accept massive donations from the property development industry, to the tune of almost $30 million since 2012. So, their policies benefit developers, investors and the banks and those policies stay in place. Under this government, it's cheaper to buy your fifth or sixth home than your first. It is a national disgrace. Everyone deserves a home.
This is a crucial and important issue to every Australian. I agree with the previous speaker that every Australian deserves to have a house and a home. There are obviously people who are in very unfortunate circumstances from time to time, and it's not always possible for governments to solve every particular problem. But I don't think there's been a Commonwealth government with more housing policies than this one. A raft of assistance is being provided to get people into a home and, most importantly, to allow them to own their own home. They are the programs that we took to the last election and have a mandate to roll out, programs that we put in place during the coronavirus pandemic as a key way of securing Australia's economic recovery. They've been very successful programs.
Clearly, given the nature of this motion and the fact that it comes from the non-government side of this chamber, there are complaints that these programs aren't doing what they want. I think there is a values difference here that needs to be exposed first, before we go further here. We, on this side of the chamber, unashamedly want to help people to own their own home. I listened to the individual examples given by Senator Waters, which are touching and tragic for those involved but ultimately come down to the fact that those individuals—I'm sure for a variety of reasons outside their control—did not own their own home. They were then reliant on landlords, perhaps on body corporates, and that is not a position I'd like to see most Australians in.
I want to see Australians being able to afford their own home so they've got their own security and can take charge of their own lives and not be beholden to a corporation or some property developer. Yet most of the proposals I've heard from the other side while listening to this debate would perpetuate such a dependence. They'd perpetuate dependence on a landlord or on rental payments, rather than give people the security and equity of their own asset, their own home to look after—one that they can't be unfairly kicked out of at any minute.
That is why this government is focused on policies that can help people achieve the goal of owning their own home. As I've said, we have a raft of these policies. I don't know if a government has done more, in recent times at least—perhaps in the immediate postwar period, when there was a real push by the Menzies government to get people into housing. I want to pay credit to the minister responsible here, Minister Michael Sukkar. I know how focused he is on giving people that dream of owning their own home. He is very passionate about a variety of these programs.
Before the last election, we announced the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme. I don't think the opposition announced a housing policy; they certainly did not announce a policy to help people own their own home. The opposition just ignored that. There were no mechanisms provided by the opposition to help people own their own home. But Scott Morrison and Michael Sukkar announced a great policy before the last election to help people get their deposits together to buy their own home. This program is helping support 30,000 first home buyers to enter the market sooner. It will help an additional 20,000 people from 1 July next year. It will also offer a pathway to ownership for single parents, people who obviously would find it very difficult to save a deposit for their own home. But 10,000 single parents will be able to access a government family home guarantee that will help them unlock a loan and a deposit, or a no-deposit loan, to help them buy their own home.
The scheme has been very successful. As I said, it was opened up to 30,000 places, and, by January 2020, already 19,000 first home buyers had accessed the scheme to buy their first home sooner. Another 1,000 are at the preapproval stage to do so. As part of the budget, we're expanding this scheme to establish those 10,000 places for single parents. That will mean they will need a deposit of only two per cent. When my wife and I were struggling to save up for our deposit, we got to about 10 per cent. It was tough, but we had two people to do it. Obviously if you're a single parent it's very difficult, but two per cent is a very reasonable approach, and the government guarantee will help unlock that private sector finance for these people to own their own home, and then they won't be subject to the vagaries of a landlord or of the housing market.
The HomeBuilder scheme has been massively successful as well. It's pretty hard to get a tradie right now, partly because of the work that's been unlocked through the HomeBuilder scheme. That has provided funding for people to build their own home. It was of course a key measure in seeking to keep Australians in work during the coronavirus pandemic, and it has been incredibly successful. It's made sure that our construction industry has continued to go very strongly through a global pandemic, and it is building the housing stock, which will make for more housing supply and ease some pressures.
I want to recognise some of the points that have been made here. Given how successful our economy has been in the last year, given how many expats are coming home to Australia because this is perhaps the best place in the world to be right now—it normally is, but it's very much the best place to be right now, and we've got a lot of people coming home—that is putting a lot of pressure on our housing market. It is seeing massive record price increases, especially in our capital cities but also in regional areas like where I am. Vacancy rates in regional Queensland are very low—under one per cent in most towns—so it is very difficult for those who do not have secure housing. I recognise that.
The provision of social housing to those who can't afford their own home is principally a responsibility of the state governments, but the federal government does support their initiatives. We provide $1.6 billion each year under the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement to improve housing and homeless outcomes and improve social housing. We also provide $5½ billion a year through Commonwealth rent assistance to those who must be in the rental market. We have expanded these measures as well, with $23 million for new and expanded emergency accommodation for women and children escaping family and domestic violence, under the Safe Places Emergency Accommodation initiative. We've also invested $19 million to deliver more than 100 social and affordable homes as part of the Hobart City Deal. We are working in unison with other governments to do what we can to support, with the increase in prices and lower availability of supply that we've seen, but, ultimately, providing more housing options to people—more housing supply—is going to require us to build more houses. That's what we need to do. It's a good thing that we have this economic activity and that we're victims of our success, to some extent, with our successful and burgeoning property markets, but what we need to see is that supply response. We need to see developments occur. We need to see new housing being built. But the red tape that now exists, especially at a local planning level, is so high that it makes it very hard for supply responses to occur.
Right now, we have thousands of Australians wanting to move to regional Queensland. We've been desperately trying to market and sell the benefits of living in country areas for decades, Finally people are wanting to do that, but there's not enough housing available. There's plenty of land. There's good infrastructure—it probably needs a few upgrades, but there are no massive tunnels or any of the things you get in the cities. We can withstand more people in Rockhampton. We can take more people in Townsville and Emerald. But we need to get the housing developments approved, or else people won't come. People will not come to live on the side of the street. And if people move out to the regions, to a new home, that will free up the housing that we already have in the cities, and that will help all of us. I hope that we not only have specific programs to build more housing in this country but that we also tackle the red tape that stops more homes being built and, therefore, more people having a roof over their head.
That was a very interesting contribution by the previous speaker. What he failed to acknowledge in that contribution is that, after eight long years of the Liberals being in government, housing affordability right across the country has gotten worse and worse. There are more homeless Australians than ever before. It's harder to rent than ever before, and it's harder to buy a home than ever before. This crisis is hitting Australians from so many different walks of life. In the last year, Tasmanian property prices, outside Hobart, have risen by a staggering 18 per cent. At the same time, across Australia, 10,000 mums and kids trying to escape domestic violence were turned away from refuges because there wasn't a bed.
There is a pathway forward to begin tackling Australia's housing crisis, despite the Morrison government steadfastly refusing to do anything of substance to fix this increasingly dire and desperate situation, and that is through an Albanese Labor government. A Labor government would make real strides towards tackling our nation's housing crisis. An Albanese Labor government would create jobs, build homes and change lives, through initiatives such as our proposed $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. Over the first five years, Labor's fund will build 20,000 new social housing properties, including 4,000 homes for women and children fleeing domestic violence and for older women on low incomes who are at risk of homelessness. It will build 10,000 affordable homes for frontline workers, like police, nurses and cleaners. It will directly support 21½ thousand full-time jobs per year, over five years, across the construction industry and the broader economy. Importantly, one in 10 direct workers on site will be apprentices. The fund will provide $200 million for the repair, maintenance and improvement of housing in remote Indigenous communities, where some of the worst housing standards in the world are endured by our First Nations people. It will invest $100 million in crisis and transitional housing for women and children fleeing domestic and family violence, and it will invest $30 million to build housing and fund specialist services for veterans experiencing, or at risk of, homelessness.
This commitment from Labor has been well received. In fact, Labor's policy has received a seemingly endless series of accolades from right across the housing sector. This includes the Australian Council of Social Service, the Community Housing Industry Association, Urban Development Institute of Australia, Homelessness Australia, Everybody's Home, the Property Council, National Shelter, St Vincent de Paul, Master Builders, PowerHousing Australia, Mission Australia and the Real Estate Institute.
Let me quote just a couple of the responses and reactions to Labor's Housing Australia Future Fund commitment. Mr Jack de Groot, the CEO of St Vincent de Paul in New South Wales said:
It will work. We really welcome this announcement of the Housing Australia Future Fund … We have a crisis, we need investment and I think this future fund is about a partnership between federal and state governments, as well as community sector organisations to actually build and then make sure this housing is available for those on low incomes.
Michele Adair, CEO of Housing Trust and chair of the Community Housing Industry Association, said, 'The Housing Trust and the community housing sector, along with all our homelessness peak bodies, are applauding this announcement by Labor federally.' This is just one of the things that Labor has put forward.
Sadly, this government works only in the margins. We've seen that with their Family Home Guarantee program, which was a complete flop until, pressured by the community and Labor, they sought to change the price cap on the guarantee. That was exposed by a reporter at the Launceston Examiner, who had the gumption to expose the fact that there were only two houses in Launceston that would have come under the Liberals' Family Home Guarantee. It's not good enough. (Time expired)
Australia's housing market is totally and utterly cooked. Rather than a home being considered as a human right—something that everyone should have secure access to—housing has been turned, through the deliberate choices of the neoliberal parties in this place, into a game of speculation. As a result, across the country the cost of a home is much more than it should be. Houses are too expensive and rents, as a consequence, are far, far too high. That's because over decades the market has been rigged in favour of the speculators and the banks, who profit from ever higher levels of household debt and ever higher rents.
None of this is an accident. It has come from a range of things, from tax policy to tenancy laws, from banking regulation to decades of underinvestment in social housing and, of course, the Reserve Bank having printed hundreds of billions of dollars of cash and pumping it into the banking system. The banks, of course, have turned around and lent it out on mortgages, which has driven house prices up. The system is designed to make homes more expensive, which is just what the government likes.
Just last Friday, the Treasurer, Mr Frydenberg, said, 'Overall it's a good thing for the economy when house prices go up as opposed to going down.' Mr Frydenberg, tell that to the over one-third of Australians who do not own their own home and are forced to rent, to rely on relatives or friends or, ultimately, to become homeless. It's worth noting that over the last 20 years house prices have increased at nearly twice the rate that wages have in this country. So, when the Treasurer says that it's a good thing for house prices to go up, what he means is that it's a good thing for investors. But it's not a good thing for new home owners, who have to borrow more than ever or not get into the market, and it's a terrible thing for the one-third of Australians who rent and have to use more and more of their income to pay their landlord's mortgage. That's just the way the Liberals want it, because this government is all for property speculation and all for helping out its mates who benefit from it, be they developers, the banks or their rank and file, who lord over massive property investment portfolios.
You wouldn't know this from Senator Canavan's remarks, but there is, in fact, a housing crisis in regional Australia. In the country towns that the National Party bludges off throughout regional Australia there is a housing crisis of immense proportions. In the past year, rents in regional cities have been increasing at three times the rate of rents in capital cities. Low-income families who previously moved to the regions to avoid high housing costs have been caught. In the Richmond-Tweed region, rents have risen by 17.6 per cent in the last year. In the Southern Highlands and Shoalhaven, rents have risen by 13.2 per cent. On the Mid North Coast, rent is up by 12.7 per cent.
The Northern Star reported this week about the effect this is having on ordinary people in the northern rivers, such as a pregnant woman looking for a secure home before she gives birth and an older woman living in a caravan because she can't find a rental. There are no properties in that area available to single parents on JobSeeker—none. Meanwhile, there are record-low vacancy rates across regional New South Wales. Families in the Riverina, South Coast and south-east New South Wales are struggling to find a place to live. They're living in caravans, under bridges, in parks and in tents. Some of them are living in tents with their primary-school-aged children. The answer, of course, is simple. We need more housing stock and we need more public, social and affordable housing across regional New South Wales.
If you look at the areas that have the worst housing stress in the nation and the areas where there is the biggest gap between the people who have housing and property portfolios and the people who can't get housing, they have one thing in common: they are the areas that are represented in this place by the National Party. They are the areas where there is the strongest contest between the National Party, who, as I say, bludge off those areas, and the Labor Party, who seek to represent those areas.
This government has managed to rack up $1 trillion in debt, most of it before the COVID-19 crisis. They've built nothing—nothing in infrastructure and certainly nothing in social housing. Where is the National Party, the self-appointed party of regional Australia, on these questions? What has been occupying their attention over the course of the last week? Well, of course, over the course of the last couple of years the National Party has disappeared up its own fundament in an orgy of self-interest, recriminations and back-biting and a passion for their own naked self-interest.
What were the things that brought them to this shameful position? Was it their failure to respond to the housing crisis in regional New South Wales? No. It never gets a mention. Was it their complete absence while the mouse plague was tearing apart regional communities? No, we haven't heard boo from them on that question. Was it the failed vaccine rollout in regional Australia? Some of them are vaccine deniers, but there's been nothing from them on that question. Is it the endemic labour market problem in regional Australia? Is it the systematic underpayment of agricultural workers, the gutting of regional TAFEs, the decline of regional apprenticeships or the labour hire rorts that ripped money out of regional communities and sent it to big city shareholders? It was none of these things. Was it a question of the future for agricultural exporters who are losing key markets to our European and United States competitors? No—haven't heard boo about that either. Was it their failure to introduce a biosecurity levy that would properly fund the biosecurity system that our farmers rely upon? No. Was it their failure to support drought affected communities during the longest and deepest drought in recent history? Didn't hear much from them on that question either. Was it their failure to support bushfire affected communities? No. Flood affected communities? Zip.
There is no shortage of reasons why the National Party, in a rare moment of introspection, might reach the conclusion that they are letting down the people of regional Australia. They are a junior part of this coalition government, a doormat for Scott Morrison, with no plan for agriculture, no plan for the agriculture sector, no plan for jobs in country towns, and no plan to deal with the deep inequality that's reflected in the urgency motion before the Senate and make sure that working people in country towns have access to housing. It used to be a basic right in a country town that, no matter what your income, everybody had a home. And public housing in country towns was a great thing. It meant that low-income families could secure a home, but it also meant that moderate-income families and people like schoolteachers had easy access to housing and that there was some equality in country towns. But it's gone. For most people, housing is inaccessible, particularly for young people.
So what was the point of this squabble this week? Was it a road-to-Damascus moment for the National Party—the dregs of the squattocracy, what remains of the Australian bunyip aristocracy? No, it was about the only thing these characters have ever cared about: their own interests, their own jobs—because, after all of this, has the new National Party leadership mentioned any of the serious issues facing rural and regional Australia? It wouldn't occur to them. It's definitely not front of mind. Their press conferences yesterday didn't talk about farmers or housing or wages or health care. It was only about themselves. They talked about the member for New England's personal sense of manifest destiny—his burning, overreaching desire for gratification and personal advancement. Has the phrase 'born to rule' ever more appropriately described a man's approach to public life? Has anyone so perfectly balanced shamelessness with such an astonishingly absent grasp of what his duty is to his electorate and to his constituents?
This man, Mr Joyce, has now risen not once but twice to the position of Deputy Prime Minister. The member for Riverina's leadership never amounted to much, but at least he looked like he cared about the people that he represented. He got a standing ovation from the House of Representatives yesterday. The member for New England's last departure from the office of Deputy Prime Minister was much more ignominious. Mr McCormack might not have done anything about the housing crisis in regional New South Wales, and I don't doubt that if he'd stayed he would have continued to do nothing about it. But at least he theoretically might have had the basic self-awareness to recognise it as a problem.
Instead, what the people of Australia got yesterday was the co-host of the world's worst, most boring, self-aggrandising podcast, the old Weatherboard and Iron. There's somebody in my office who is forced to listen to it from time to time, and I'm not sure, out of Mr Joyce and Senator Canavan, which one of them is 'weatherboard' and which one of them is 'iron'. No doubt this podcast won't be able to continue. It's not really befitting for someone with the high office of Deputy Prime Minister to be running mad, right-wing podcasts. It remains to be seen whether Weatherboard and Iron continues. It has certainly, over its short life, put the 'bored' into 'weatherboard'.
A key part of addressing mental ill health is addressing the social determinants of mental ill health. That starts with addressing the issue of housing and taking a housing-first approach to addressing mental ill health. Insecure housing and homelessness have an incredibly negative impact on people's mental health and wellbeing. It is basically impossible to access services and get long-term treatment if you are homeless or in insecure housing. Suitable housing that is secure, affordable, of reasonable quality and of enduring tenure is a particularly important factor in preventing mental ill health and a first step to promoting the long-term recovery of people experiencing mental illness.
Sixteen per cent of people with mental ill health live in unsuitable accommodation, meaning they are homeless, live in overcrowded accommodation or housing of substandard quality or are at risk of eviction. The Productivity Commission's report on mental health found:
One quarter of all people admitted to acute mental health services are homeless prior to admission and most are discharged back into homelessness … Not only is an individual's recovery challenged by unstable accommodation, but follow-up care after discharge is more difficult (which, in turn, can lead to a cycling of people back through hospital EDs).
To address this vicious cycle, the Productivity Commission recommended the following:
As a priority reform, each Government should commit to, monitor and report on, a nationally consistent policy of not discharging people with mental illness from hospitals, correctional facilities and institutional care into a situation of homelessness.
But that means we actually need a supply of affordable housing for people to go into. In my home state of WA, like in the rest of Australia, we have a housing crisis. The rental vacancy rate is at one per cent, which is a 40-year low. In Perth, we have a median rent of 460 bucks a week. How is that affordable? That is not even close to being affordable for anybody who is trying to survive on, for example, income support payments of $44 a day or on a low income. It is very clear that we need to address this housing crisis for everybody in Australia, particularly those who are excluded from the housing market. If this country says it's going to address mental ill health, a key part of that is addressing the housing affordability crisis and making sure nobody with poor mental health has to be homeless and live on the streets. This is a travesty in a country as wealthy as Australia. (Time expired)
There is a significant lack of accessible housing in Australia. In the last 10 years, less than five per cent of housing, both public and private, has been built to an accessible standard. This is quite simply unacceptable. Disabled people have a right to live in a safe place and have somewhere to call home, just like everyone else.
There is so little accessible housing in this country right now that there are hundreds of disabled people who are under the age of 65 living in nursing homes. One of the reasons for this is the absence of accessible housing options. At the national meeting of building ministers on 30 April this year, the states and territories agreed to include a minimum accessibility standard for rental housing and apartments in the 2022 National Construction Code. The standard is based on the silver standard of the Livable Housing Design Guidelines. This reform to the National Construction Code, which will require all new homes across Australia to be built to a minimum accessibility standard, was brought about by none other than Rebecca Vassarotti, the ACT Greens Minister for Sustainable Building and Construction. This is a major breakthrough, for which the minister should be congratulated.
In Queensland, the Liberal-National opposition housing minister wants to block these important changes, changes that will ensure that more disabled people have an accessible home to live in. That's right. The Liberals right now, in Queensland, want to make it so that there is no need to implement the standards in that state. It's an absolutely unacceptable position taken on behalf of their mates in the construction industry that don't want to do the work. The standards set out in the construction guidelines should be the baseline and not the ceiling, but it is an excellent start for which the minister should be congratulated.
Let's go back to the beginning of colonisation and understand—or try to understand, for those who refuse to accept the true history of this country—that the first people of this country were thrown off their land. They were forced off their land. They were murdered and massacred for their land. They were pushed into what we now call homelessness.
The squatters came in and illegally occupied our lands. What did the squatters receive for illegally taking our homelands? They received wealth. They built their wealth from stolen land that saw the desecration of First Nations people 200 years ago. That's where it began, with colonisation—colonisation being the evil that still exists in this country and that creates so much harm.
Today we have a situation where Aboriginal people are living on the streets, disconnected from their country, their families, their communities. We have a party over here—the Labor Party—that is selling off public housing in Victoria quicker than a fire sale. And we have a Liberal government over here that couldn't care less about the poor people in these communities and that drive past in their million dollar vehicles and see people sleeping on the street. This is a crisis, and we need action. (Time expired)
When I was a young adult, there were no people sleeping rough on the streets of our capital cities. My wife and I were able to buy a home in inner city Melbourne on 1½ average incomes. It could be like this still. The huge change in the last 30 years is because of government policies: housing policies that favour the wealthy and leave the less well-off to struggle big time. They treat housing as a get-rich-quick scheme rather than a human right.
Australia is in a housing crisis. We need to make housing more affordable and to build more houses to provide more public and social housing. The Greens' policy is to build a million public, social and community homes. All of this is possible, but this government doesn't want to act. I want to particularly highlight the situation facing the LGBTIQ-plus community. Just today, the LGBTIQ-plus Health Alliance presented data to parliamentarians on health issues facing LGBTIQ-plus people. Homelessness was recognised as a big factor in poor health, because it is hard to be healthy when you are homeless. Almost a quarter of LGBTIQ-plus people have experienced homelessness in their lifetimes, while 11½ per cent have experienced homelessness in the last year. Trans men and trans women were most likely to have reported experience in homelessness, with almost one-in-five trans people experiencing some form of homelessness in the last year. With discrimination and violence being much more likely against trans and non-binary people, homelessness brings even greater risks for them than other people on the streets.
The government has sat on its hands for too long. They refuse to act to change the policies that make their mates and themselves richer. We must do more. The government should stop sitting on their hands and take urgent action or, much more likely, the community should turf them out.
Question agreed to.
I present the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, Review of the re-listing of Hizballah's External Security Organisation as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code. I seek leave to speak to the report.
Leave granted.
I thank the Senate and, in particular, the whips for facilitating the committee's statutory requirement to table this report within the 15-day disallowance period. The committee's review examines the minister's decision to list this organisation. Section 102.1A of the Criminal Code provides that the committee may review a regulation which lists or relists an organisation as a terrorist organisation and report to both houses of parliament before the end of the applicable 15-day sitting disallowance period. The report I am presenting today serves this purpose and is being presented within the required period. Hizballah's external security organisation has been listed as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code since 2003. Regulations that specify an organisation as a terrorist organisation cease to have effect on the third anniversary of the day which they take effect. Organisations can be relisted, provided that the minister is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the organisation is directly or indirectly engaged in, preparing, planning, assisting in or fostering the doing of a terrorist act, or advocates the doing of a terrorist act.
Hizballah's ESO has been relisted six times since 2003, and this will be the seventh time. Each time the relisting of Hizballah's ESO has been reviewed, it has been supported by the committee, as it has been in this case. In examining the evidence that has been provided, the committee is satisfied with the listing processes and consider that they have been followed appropriately for this organisation. There is a long history of attacks around the world attributed to the ESO, including the 2012 bombing of an Israeli tourist bus in Bulgaria, which killed six people. Last September, a dual Australian-Lebanese citizen was convicted in absentia for his role in this attack. Given this, the committee is in no doubt that the government's decision to relist the ESO under division 102 of the Criminal Code is appropriate and finds no reason to disallow the regulations.
However, the committee was concerned by the decision to, at this stage, only relist Hizballah's ESO. In its last review of the relisting of Hizballah, in 2018, the committee recommended that the government consider extending the listing to include the military wing of Hizballah. In this report, the committee goes a step further. We recommend that the government consider listing Hizballah in its entirety as a terrorist organisation. We do so based on the expert evidence received by the committee that the distinction that we currently draw between Hizballah's ESO and the rest of Hizballah is arbitrary.
Dr Matthew Levitt, a world-renowned expert on Hizballah, told the committee that there is no plausible intellectual case to distinguish between the ESO and the rest of Hizballah, who he described as a 'singular, unitary organisation'. As he noted, it is a distinction that Hizballah itself explicitly rejects. In his submission, Dr Levitt quoted Naim Qassem, the Deputy Secretary of Hizballah:
Hezbollah has one single leadership, and its name is the Decision-Making Shura Council. It manages the political activity, the Jihad activity, the cultural and the social activities...Hezbollah’s Secretary General is the head of the Shura Council and also the head of the Jihad Council, and this means that we have one leadership, with one administration.
Australia's position listing only the ESO as a terrorist organisation is increasingly isolated internationally. Twenty-two countries and two regional organisations list them in their entirety, including: our Five Eyes allies, such as the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada; like-minded countries, such as Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Japan; and Arab countries and groupings, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, the Gulf Cooperation Council and the Arab League. Other like-minded jurisdictions, such as the European Union, France and New Zealand, at least extend their listing beyond the ESO to include the military wing.
The military wing has in the past provided training and operational support for other organisations prescribed as terrorist entities by Australia, such as the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas' al-Qassam Brigades. Given this evidence, the question for the committee was: should Australia continue to persist with the fiction that the ESO is a discrete entity within Hizballah? There are practical reasons that we should not. One case of concern to the committee was that of Ali Haidar, a New South Wales man convicted of violent offences who escaped being classified as a high-risk terrorist offender, as sought by police, because a judge said it was not clear that his express support for Hizballah was for the External Security Organisation or simply the political wing. Justice Davies noted:
The Commonwealth accepts that Hezbollah maintains a militia and that it had deployed forces in Syria to assist the Syrian regime. Notwithstanding, the Commonwealth did not list Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation. In my opinion, it would introduce confusion into the area of anti-terrorism if the Court were to reach a different conclusion …
As the deputy commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Ian McCartney, told the committee, if an organisation is not listed as a terrorist entity by the federal government it does make it more difficult for them to investigate and prosecute someone for terrorism offences, because they are also required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an organisation is a terrorist organisation.
The committee does acknowledge that if its recommendation to broaden the listing of Hizballah is accepted by government there will be practical implications for some agencies. We do not lightly dismiss the evidence we received about these challenges, including in a classified hearing. However, based on the evidence we received in both classified and public hearings, we believe that these challenges can be mitigated if carefully implemented. In particular, the committee was comforted by the statement by ASIO director-general Mike Burgess at our public hearing that 'listing the entire organisation would not impact ASIO's ability to do its job'.
The committee was also informed by the experience of the United Kingdom in its listing process for Hizballah. Like Australia, for many years the UK listed only the External Security Organisation. But in 2008 it widened its listing to include the military wing, and in 2019 it did so to all of Hizballah. The UK home secretary who made that decision, Sajid Javid, said at the time:
There have long been calls to ban the whole group with the distinction between the two factions derided as smoke and mirrors.
Hezbollah itself has laughed off the suggestion that there is a difference. I have carefully considered the evidence and I am satisfied that they are one and the same, with the entire organisation being linked to terrorism.
… … …
This Government have continued to call on Hezbollah to end its armed status; it has not listened. Indeed, its behaviour has escalated; the distinction between its political and military wings is now untenable. It is right that we act now to proscribe this entire organisation.
Crucially, in evaluating the UK's decision to do so in retrospect in 2020 Javid also said:
The relationship with Lebanon is as strong as ever. The international development program we have, we had to recalibrate some of them, stop one or two of them and invest in others, that work continues.
Having carefully considered all the evidence presented to it, the committee has recommended that the Australian government extend the listing of the ESO to the entire organisation of Hizballah. The committee has also recommended that the Department of Home Affairs and other relevant agencies provide the committee with a classified briefing on its response to this recommendation within three months of the tabling of this report. This is to ensure that the three-year listing period does not elapse before further investigation of this matter.
Finally, the committee would like to thank members of the community and international experts who made submissions to this inquiry and gave evidence at a public hearing. The evidence they provided was compelling and was very helpful in guiding the committee's decision in this matter. I would also like to thank my fellow members of the committee for the diligent and considered way they approached this inquiry on a tight deadline. The PJCIS is rightly recognised for its bipartisan approach to national security issues, and this inquiry is a perfect example of how powerful that can be in the service of the national interest. I commend the report to the Senate and seek leave to continue my remarks later.
I seek leave of the Senate to make a short statement of five minutes on the relisting of Hizballah, as a member of the PJCIS.
Leave is granted.
I note Senator Paterson's remarks and endorse them and associate myself with them. For those who may be following this discussion, I note that the report that we are tabling here is being tabled in a somewhat unusual circumstance, given the hours motion that is before the Senate today. So I'll keep my remarks short, and I do appreciate that Senator Paterson sought leave to continue, because I imagine that other members of our Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security may also wish to speak. But I feel, given that we are tabling the report here today, that it's appropriate that the Senate and the public take note that the report that is being tabled today is bipartisan and unanimously supported by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
I particularly note the two aspects of the report that Senator Paterson has pointed out: (1) to endorse the relisting of Hizballah's External Security Organisation as a terrorist organisation, and that was supported by the committee, and (2) the two recommendations to the government in the second chapter of the report that in particular go to the very question Senator Paterson was just examining, and that is whether or not there is any distinction between Hizballah's External Security Organisation and the other wings of the organisation. Again, I make clear that this is a bipartisan report, unanimously supported. In recommendation 1, the committee recommends that the Australian government give consideration to extending the listing of Hizballah's ESO as a terrorist organisation to the entirety of Hizballah, noting the position of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, the Arab League, the Gulf Cooperation Council and the United Arab Emirates.
I know that Senator Paterson made mention of this. But I think it's important to recognise the evidence we received from Dr Matthew Levitt, particularly in the context that, if the government does seek to accept this recommendation and consider extending the listing of Hizballah to the entirety of the organisation, it would be important to have outreach to the Lebanese diaspora community in Australia. This is an important tool that the Australian government could use to help this community understand the impact of any change in the listing of Hizballah. Dr Levitt told us that he didn't know of any country that had done anything like that in advance, and it would be really useful. He went on to say that it would mean having a plan in advance to be able to explain specifically why we are doing this and how it is that this is not against all of Lebanon, all Lebanese or, very importantly, all Shia people. I note that the committee chose to include that in their report. It's also noted in the report that the Department of Home Affairs has advised the committee that the engagement that it's had with the Australian Lebanese community has not, to date, included a discussion of the implications of listing Hizballah's ESO as a terrorist organisation. I would just note that the committee would certainly encourage and welcome that, if Home Affairs were to take that step and take on board Dr Levitt's advice.
Lastly, I would like to observe that the committee was concerned that the Minister for Home Affairs's submission to the inquiry made no mention of the committee's previous recommendations from the 2018 report and did not provide adequate evidence as to why only the ESO should continue to be listed. Hence, the importance, the committee believes, of the parliament, through the PJCIS, being briefed on the outcomes of their recommendations in this report, providing a fundamental accountability mechanism, particularly given the weight of evidence we heard from submitters in terms of both our national security agencies and members of the community, particularly the Australian Jewish community. So, in doing so, I thank Senator Paterson for his leadership, particularly on his careful consideration of this difficult issue. It is important that we act in the national interest in a bipartisan way to keep Australians safe. With the careful consideration of this report, I believe, we have come to an appropriate set of recommendations. I encourage all in the parliament and the community to consider the recommendations. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I, and on behalf of Senator McAllister, move business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 1 and 2 together:
That the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Amendment (2020-21 Budget Programs) Regulations 2021, made under the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act 2011, be disallowed [F2021L00590].
That the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Amendment (2020-21 Budget Programs) Regulations 2021, made under the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act 2011, be disallowed [F2021L00590].
For anyone who may be listening outside of this godforsaken building, the government is seeking to spend yet more public money to prop up fossil fuels. Sadly, we're sensing a bit of a theme with this government, which loves to splash around taxpayer money to its big donors who make those generous contributions and exact policy outcomes that suit their corporate bottom lines and now exact yet more public support. So tonight we're seeking to disallow the government from giving yet more money to the fossil fuel sector.
It gets more laughable because the vehicle through which the government is seeking to dish out yet more taxpayer money to their big corporate mates in the oil and gas sectors is the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. They want it to fund this new dirty energy. The clue is in the name, guys: Australian Renewable Energy Agency. But, no, this government doesn't mind so much about renewable energy; it wants to allow the Renewable Energy Agency to instead fund what it calls low-emissions technology but, when you look at the fine print, is carbon capture and storage and hydrogen powered not by clean energy, which the Greens support, but by dirty energy. It's yet more support for the fossil fuel sector.
This government has already spent about $1 billion trying to make carbon capture and storage a thing. It hasn't gotten anywhere yet. The private sector have been trying to make carbon capture and storage work somewhere for more than a decade. They haven't succeeded yet, either. This mythical creature of carbon capture and storage has not yet been shown to work anywhere. It is a unicorn. It is a myth. Yet this government wants to spend precious taxpayer dollars on it and has the hide to want the Australian Renewable Energy Agency to dish out those dollars to big oil, big gas and big coal for this carbon capture and storage and dirty hydrogen. What an absolute affront this is to anyone who wants a safe climate and all those tens of thousands of renewable energy jobs and investment. The hide of this government never ceases to amaze me. They are so desperate to give public money to their gas donors that they're even willing to break the law to do it.
That's why we are moving to disallow this instrument today. It's because the government want to hand over the money of the Australian people to their coal and gas donors through a renewable energy agency which, by legal definition, cannot fund coal or gas projects. The Greens were in the room when the original legislation to set up ARENA was first discussed and negotiated back in 2011. Martin Ferguson was the responsible minister at the time. That was before he left parliament to become the chair of the gas industry lobby. The Greens weren't going to give him an inch, so we made sure that the legislation was tightly drafted. That's why the government are back here today, and that's why this regulation that they're seeking to put through, and that we are seeking to disallow, is a textbook example of what's known as ultra vires—beyond power. They're trying to make a renewable energy agency set up by a renewable energy act invest in dirty energy. It's not going to fly. A regulation, as the procedure nerds would know, can't operate on a subject matter that's beyond the scope of its parent act. You learn that in the first year of law school. I would think that people intuitively understand that the Renewable Energy Agency probably should just be funding renewable energy. Spoiler alert: this government wants it to do all of those dirty projects and fund the nonsense that is carbon capture and storage and dirty hydrogen.
Sections 3 and 8 of ARENA's act list the objects and functions of ARENA. As I said before, it's confined to supporting renewable energy technologies. Only in the coalition's alternate reality can carbon capture and storage and hydrogen made from gas or coal be considered renewable. This is why the regulation stretches the bounds of legality and, frankly, stretches the bounds of credulity. The government's own scrutiny of delegated legislation committee has said that this regulation appears beyond power. The Parliamentary Library can also not see any way in which this regulation is within power. If this disallowance fails, this regulation will be taken to court, because you cannot fund dirty energy through a piece of legislation that limits your money to renewable energy. It's a pretty straightforward concept, and the lawyers think it will be a slam dunk. Barristers are briefed and the litigation is ready to go to strike down this regulation.
If our disallowance is not successful—and we will wait to see whether One Nation will once again vote with the government, as they so often do—and One Nation do the government's bidding and facilitate this public money going to dirty energy rather than renewable energy then perhaps they will be held responsible for the needless legal costs of the government, who will seek to argue the indefensible in court. So this vote on the disallowance really determines whether further taxpayer money will be wasted on lawyers' bills.
ARENA is an absolute success story; the Renewable Energy Agency has worked. This is what happens when the Greens are in shared power. ARENA has driven down the cost of renewables in this country—in particular, through its solar auctions. It has funded the research and the jobs for how Australia is going to succeed in this world where there is no place for coal or oil or gas. It has worked hand in glove with the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to drive investment in renewables and innovation that has led to emissions coming down despite the awful and non-existent policies of this government, who will do everything they can to boost their fossil fuel donors. So perhaps the greatest example and the greatest indicator of ARENA's importance and success is the unrelenting attacks that this government keeps throwing at it. This government has cut the ARENA budget twice—first with the help of Mr Clive Palmer and then, sadly, with the help of the Labor Party, who, to their eternal shame, voted to cut ARENA's funding in half.
We welcome that Labor appear to be standing firm on backing in the remit of the Renewable Energy Agency just to renewables; that's a very welcome stance by them. But it comes down to the fact that this government will just do everything it can to hand out public money to the fossil fuel sector. They're fiscal conservatives when it comes to funding Medicare, when it comes to making sure that people can get dental health treatment. They're absolutely stingy people when it comes to increasing JobSeeker. They're suddenly broke when it comes to funding social housing so we can end homelessness in this nation. But when it comes to fossil fuels, they are awash with taxpayers' dollars to dole out to the very same folk who both donate to their political election campaigns and very often give them jobs when they leave this place. It's a very cosy arrangement by big oil, big coal and big gas. They once again have their hand out for yet more public money to spend on carbon capture and storage—which is totally unproven and which has not been shown to work anywhere—despite $1 billion of public money already being pumped into it and probably many dollars by the private sector, who are so desperate to make this work in fear of a possible carbon policy from this government. I imagine they're not so keen to move on that one—and nor will The Nationals let them now that the new guy is in charge.
So the government now want to retrofit the Renewable Energy Agency to fund their fossil fuel donors, with dirty hydrogen, not clean hydrogen, which would be great, and carbon capture and storage. I'm pleased that on this issue we have the Labor Party's support. It remains to be seen what One Nation's position will be on whether workers deserve support and transition out of fossil fuel sectors—retraining where that's required and new long-term sustainable jobs that will last, where they won't be replaced by a robot, as our coalminers are if they are injured at work, as so many of them are. I note that there have been so many unacceptable deaths on coalmine sites in Queensland already.
So the government won't be spending that money on transitioning those workers out of fossil fuels and won't be spending public money on bolstering Medicare and extending it to dental and mental health like the Greens will do. If we hold the balance of power after the next election we will push the next government to go further and faster on protecting Medicare, on delivering housing for people, on investing in renewable energy. No, this government doesn't want to fix the level of poverty in this nation. It doesn't want to fix homelessness. It doesn't want to boost Medicare. It doesn't want to invest in renewables; it wants to invest in dirty coal, oil and gas. The Greens are seeking to disallow the government from using the Renewable Energy Agency to do that tonight. Whether we have the numbers remains to be seen.
The balance of power is really important in the Senate. It's not just on this issue that One Nation has had the deciding vote; it has been on so many other issues that affect so many people's lives. They inevitably back in the government and vote to boost the big corporations and the billionaires. Never mind what ordinary Australians need or deserve. So much for backing in the battlers! Well, they're just backing in the billionaires and their mates in the government. Budgets are about choices. This government is spending money on coal, oil and gas rather than on ordinary Australians. The Greens are seeking to disallow them. If One Nation again votes with the government, we'll see you in court—and I think we're going to win.
We're debating motions Nos. 1 and 2 together. Of course, the Labor Party also has sought to disallow these regulations. The Prime Minister says that he supports a 'technology, not taxes' approach to reducing Australia's carbon emissions. The problem with that, of course, is that large swathes of this government are completely opposed to, and are attacking, the technology which the market is telling us is required to deal with Australia's carbon emissions. I'm talking about renewables. As a result, the government has not invested in electric vehicles, in battery storage or in green hydrogen. These things are all off the table. Instead, we have a relentless campaign to, in fact, undermine those parts of Australia's architecture that support the development of renewable technologies.
Back when he was trying to win over voters in his electorate, Mr Dave Sharma in the other place said:
We've allowed something that should really be a conventional policy challenge to become a kind of culture and values issue. It shouldn't be the third rail of Australian politics.
And yet here we are again, with a Deputy Prime Minister who is on the record criticising what he described as an 'insane lemming-like desire to go to renewables'. The simple truth is this: Australia would have cheaper energy and lower emissions if this government showed half as much enthusiasm for funding renewables as it does for funding unsustainable fossil fuel generation that the market believes is unnecessary, uneconomical and unwanted. The only way to fix this is to vote this government out. This parliament has passed motions, introduced private members' bills and held press conferences, but the best efforts of opposition and crossbenchers are not enough. As this regulation shows, there are some things you can only do from government.
Over the course of this term, this government has tried to slip more and more policy in through regulation. And, in part, that is deliberately to avoid the scrutiny that comes from parliament—to avoid Senate inquiries, parliamentary debate and questions in this chamber. Stakeholders have suggested that might have been the case with this regulation. It smells like a cynical attempt to circumvent the parliament through regulation, and it follows the failure of similar legislation on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the internal coalition divisions. The government knows that these changes would attract legitimate and unavoidable criticism if they were made by legislation—hence the retreat to regulation.
But sometimes regulation is not an attempt to avoid criticism from the opposition. Sometimes this government makes changes through regulation because it's not sure of even getting support for its own policy from its own party room, and that is because of the climate activism of the National Party and parts of the Queensland LNP. Last week, the National Party threatened to vote against superannuation legislation because they were worried it would give a future Treasurer the power to prevent superannuation funds from investing in fossil fuel projects. The government was forced to backflip and withdraw that part of the bill. We happen to think that that was the right decision for a variety of other reasons, but it goes to show the power that is being exerted inside the coalition by the climate reactionaries. We can only imagine what it is going to look like with Deputy Prime Minister Joyce in the ascendancy.
The truth is that moderate Liberals—modern Liberals, as some of them styled themselves in their last campaign—are absolutely nowhere to be seen on this issue.
So many Liberals from progressive areas were elected on the understanding that they would drag their party to do better on climate. Yet here we are with the same paralysis on energy policy and the same insipid targets that they had before. Dr Katie Allen promised to be a strong voice on climate change within the party room. What impact has that had? Mr Sharma said that Australia needs to be acting with a higher level of ambition. Where is it? Mr Trent Zimmerman said that Australians want the government looking at what we can do to reduce our emissions further. Well, why is the government still stuck on the inadequate targets that they agreed to in Paris? The truth is that these moderate Liberals—like Senator Hume, Senator Payne, Senator Paterson, Senator Bragg, Senator Birmingham, Mr Jason Falinski, Mr Tim Wilson, Mr Trevor Evans and Ms Celia Hammond—are nowhere to be seen on climate. The evidence for that lies in this regulation. We oppose this regulation. It is a bad policy done by a bad process.
First, the regulations appear to be in breach of the ARENA Act 2011, because they seek to expand the agency's remit beyond that of the act. The object of the ARENA Act, and therefore of the agency, is only to improve the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies and to increase the supply of renewable energy in Australia. Regardless of the merits of ARENA's expanded functions, they go beyond this object and, therefore, appear to be in breach of the act. The government has provided no credible advice to dispute this.
Second, the regulations expand ARENA's remit to include non-renewable technologies. This could allow the government to force ARENA to fund projects in carbon capture, utilisation and storage as well as in blue hydrogen. These aren't renewable technologies. They may be technologies of interest, but any Commonwealth support for them should not be via ARENA. There may well be room for government to provide further support. It's possible they may have a role in the overall technology mix, and Australia does need to transition to a lower emissions economy over time, but investment in this technology should not come at the expense of renewables, and that is precisely what these regulations would mean. The Prime Minister has said 'technology not taxes' but, at the same time, he is making regulations that defund investments in renewable technologies. That is the practical effect of the regulations before us this evening.
Third, the regulations give the government wide discretion to add other technologies to ARENA's remit over time. The explanatory memorandum says that the regulations are intentionally broad to enable ARENA to provide financial assistance to new and emerging technologies under future low-emission technology statements. Low-emission technologies, you say? It's defined pretty broadly. It's defined to mean:
… technologies that substantially reduce the emission of greenhouse gases relative to a baseline of the average emissions produced by the relevant activity or sector.
You've just got to get marginally below the average of current performance and you're in line for support, under these arrangements.
This government has repeatedly tried to abolish or water down the integrity of agencies such as ARENA—created by Labor in government—and these regulations raise the prospect that the government will use ARENA funds, at whim, far beyond the remit of the act. This government has acted in bad faith on ARENA, on every opportunity that's been presented to them, and they can't be trusted. Each Prime Minister has brought their own unique style to the project of hacking on ARENA. The Abbott government tried to abolish it, and it was only stopped thanks to Labor with the support of the crossbench in the Senate. Then the Turnbull government tried to defund ARENA entirely, only settling in the end for a sizeable reduction to its budget. This is just the latest salvo in the Liberal-National coalition's war and, as befits this particular Prime Minister, it is an attack that involves spin over substance. If they can't defund the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, why not just make it spend money on things that are not renewable?
This government needs to be stopped. The moderates in the Liberal Party have proven themselves entirely ineffectual. Either they don't care enough to stop the nonsense that emanates from their party room or they are too weak to make a difference. Either way, it doesn't really matter, does it? How can Senator Hume or Senator Payne or Senator Paterson or Senator Bragg or any of the others I mentioned go back and look their electors in the eye, after voting time and time again for climate change apathy?
The great tragedy is that Australia's economic and environmental interests are aligned. Investment in clean technology will create good, well-paying jobs. It will drive growth in key national industries and reduce our emissions. That's why Labor announced our policy to support the take-up of electric vehicles in Australia and to fund battery storage and solar. It's why we're committed to real action on climate change. It's why we've moved to disallow these regulations. But Australia should not have to rely on the opposition or the crossbench. It is time for the moderates in the Liberal Party room to come down here to Canberra and do in their party room what they promised back in their electorates. If not, what are they here for?
If successful, this motion will rip funding out of ARENA for next-generation clean technologies that will drive emissions reductions without costing jobs or damaging Australian industries. This is additional funding that will support projects such as EV charging infrastructure, healthier soils, energy efficiency, energy storage, green aluminium and steel production, carbon capture and storage, and hydrogen. ARENA has welcomed this funding, and there has been extensive support from industry and climate organisations, including Ai Group, the Business Council of Australia, the National Farmers Federation, the National Irrigators Council, the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network, the Investor Group on Climate Change, the Minerals Council, the Energy Users Association of Australia, Santos, the Australian Hydrogen Council, ClimateWorks, the Carbon Market Institute, APPEA, the Clean Energy Council, the Citizens' Climate Lobby and the Australian Council of Social Service. A move to strip ARENA of this funding is bad for jobs and bad for emissions reduction, and it's bad policy.
This disallowance is yet another attack on jobs, another attack on energy security and another attack on emissions reduction from those opposite. It's the latest demonstration of the Labor and Greens hypocrisy when it comes to both energy and emissions reduction policy. This is about deciding whether or not the Labor Party's climate policy—not just their party room policy but that which they adopted at their national conference on 31 March this year—combined with that of the Australian Greens, represents a retreat from Australian jobs, a retreat from energy efficiency, a retreat from hydrogen and a retreat from electric vehicles. By voting for this disallowance, every member of the Labor Party will have voted against their own national policy platform and, in the process, chosen to threaten $192 million of funding for ARENA and the almost 1,400 jobs that will flow from the programs that the agency will undertake. This new funding includes nearly $72 million to support electric-vehicle and hydrogen-vehicle infrastructure in Australia, some $52 million for microgrids in regional Australia and more than $20 million to look at how we can make heavy vehicles more fuel efficient and adopt new technologies, with $47 million to help heavy industry become more competitive and reduce energy consumption in Australia. Any senator who votes for this disallowance is voting for higher emissions, less funding for ARENA and fewer Australian jobs.
Positive stakeholder feedback on this policy has come from the Business Council of Australia, the National Farmers Federation, Ai Group, ClimateWorks, the Investor Group on Climate Change, the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network, the IPCC and the IEA. Labor themselves have previously advocated for this position. Whether it's short-sightedness or sleepwalking, the Labor Party certainly don't know where they are going on technology or on jobs, and they certainly don't know where the interests of Australian workers lie. Make no mistake: if this motion succeeds it means fewer jobs for Australians and higher emissions. By contrast, our approach is driven by technology, not taxes, and an expanded mandate for ARENA, and these investments in new technologies are essential to that.
But, instead, Labor and the Greens have decided to back environmental activists over those Australian workers when it comes to their jobs and the taxes that they pay. Senator Waters referred to, I guess, the fact that she might like to see the government in court over this. But, with the greatest of respect, the department has provided hours of answers over the legality of this regulation at Senate estimates. I remind Senator Waters of Senate estimates from 25 May:
Senator WATERS: Are you confident that the regs would survive a legal challenge?
Ms Evans: Yes.
Senator WATERS: Is there an estimate of how much it would cost the department to defend the case if it did go to court?
Ms Evans: No, we haven't made an estimate of that because we're very confident that the regulation is quite proper.
Let's call this what it is: it's the Labor Party lining up with the Greens. For all their talk about supporting coal, supporting gas, supporting jobs in our resources industry and supporting carbon capture and storage, it's just that: talk. When it comes to action, they are lining up with the Greens to vote against all of those things.
The question is that business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 1 and 2 in the names of Senators Waters and McAllister be agreed to.
Pursuant to the order adopted earlier today, we will now be moving to the consideration of certain bills.
I've got some relatively simple questions in relation to the $200 million grant program that is associated with the Fuel Security Bill 2021. I'm wondering what the status of that particular grant program is. When are we likely to see decisions made by the minister, and contributions or grants being made to companies?
The Boosting Australia's Diesel Storage Program received a range of high-quality applications, with the program guidelines focused on fuel security benefits, strategic regional locations and good job opportunities for Australia. Applications for the program were considered by a committee of officials at the department of industry, and the committee has provided advice on the different scenarios to the minister. The minister is considering a range of issues in the guidelines and will continue to engage with that committee in the department of industry as needed. The minister will make a decision in due course, as the government is keen for the construction projects to commence soon to meet the 2024 time line for the increased diesel stockholding obligation. Following the decision, the department will contact applicants directly to negotiate the grant agreements.
So within the month or two you're likely to see some applicants receive notification of success?
The minister is considering a range of issues in the guidelines and will make decisions in due course.
It's not an unreasonable question, to at least get a rough time frame for that. Is it expected that these grants will come this year? Or will it be next year? Will it be within the next couple of months? I'm trying to get a feel for what the process is. We could wander through and ask questions about what the process is from here on in. I don't want to waste our time; I just want an indication of the rough time frame.
As I indicated, there are some processes the minister is still going through. But I think the key point in the information I gave you is that the minister and the government are keen for the construction projects to commence soon, to meet the 2024 time line for the stockholding obligations.
Does that go to the geographical location or spread of the grants? There was some information in the guidelines about geographical spread. Obviously you wouldn't want all your storage in one location. I'm particularly interested in whether or not there's consideration of storage in South Australia.
The information I have here doesn't provide state-specific information, but it does indicate that the program guidelines are focused on fuel security benefits, strategic regional locations and job opportunities.
I wonder if you might take that question on notice, just to see whether or not you can give more details. You would understand I'm particularly interested in South Australia. I just have a couple more questions.
I will take that on notice.
Thank you. I have a couple more questions. I understand it involves approximately 780 megalitres of fuel storage generation. I'm trying to understand what that quantum is in the context of the entirety of our storage capabilities. Is it another quarter? Is it another half? Is it another 10 per cent? I would like a rough order of magnitude of what that quantum is in relation to existing fuel storage.
My advice is it represents a 40 per cent increase in our diesel stockholdings as of now.
I have a final question in relation to the grants. I looked to see in the guidelines the requirements for an Australian company with its substantive operations here. The guidelines don't talk about parent companies. I am wondering: Is it the intention of the minister to examine whether or not grant applicants have parent companies domiciled in tax havens in places like the Cayman Islands or Guernsey? Is that one of the checks the minister will conduct in respect of the grant applications?
Submitters will be assessed based on general reputation and capacity to deliver the grants.
On the jobs created by this package, the Prime Minister's media release speaks of 1,750 jobs created during construction. I'm interested in some more details of what that estimate is based on—what types of jobs they are likely to be and how long those jobs are expected to last for.
Sorry. I just changed over with Senator Colbeck, so I might, with your indulgence, ask if you could ask that question again.
The Prime Minister's media release speaks of 1,750 jobs being created during construction as part of this package. I want to know some more details about that estimate. What are those 1,750 jobs—in what sorts of areas—and how long are each of those jobs expected to last for?
I understand that those 1,750 jobs referred to are in construction and they would happen in, I think, the lead-up to 2024.
Construction of what, specifically?
That would be for the major refinery upgrades that are needed to deliver the low-sulphur fuel.
Can you tell me a bit more about what those major refinery upgrades are? What needs to be constructed that's going to create those 1,750 jobs?
Some of that detail will be determined on a refinery-by-refinery basis, but it will be for the technical upgrades that are needed.
Are we talking about just the two refineries? Is there any assessment, then, as to those 1,750 jobs? There must be some background to that estimate. Are they split equally between both refineries? What is that estimate based on?
It's based on information provided by the refineries.
Are you able to share that information with us?
I don't know that there's much more I can add to the answers that I've already given.
Can you give us more detail on notice? If there's an estimate down to 1,750 jobs, there must be some background information to determine that level of jobs, which you clearly have information about. It would be valuable for the Senate to know about. It's the sort of information that would have been tabled in an inquiry, if we'd had one into this bill.
I can take that on notice and see what additional information can come back, obviously subject to things such as commercial-in-confidence.
Also in the minister's speech we were told that this package of the fuel security services payment is going to support 1,250 jobs that exist in the refineries. Is there any expectation that employment is going to change in the two refineries over the period this package is in place?
We would broadly anticipate that the employment in the refineries themselves would remain relatively stable, with the additional jobs coming in the construction phase.
The minister's second reading speech in the other place also refers to another 1,000 direct jobs. Can you tell me what those jobs are.
Those are construction jobs from the $200 million diesel storage program.
So they're not part of the fuel security payment; they're part of the $200 million as per the conversation that Senator Patrick was just having with you. What is that estimate of 1,000 jobs sourced from?
I am advised it's based on Treasury estimates and applications that went into the program.
But it's a grants program, and you just told Senator Patrick that the grants haven't been awarded yet. So it's applications that went into the program? Have you already got a short list of programs that are likely to receive money?
I am advised that what I was referring to was coming from a prior request for information.
Can you tell me some more details about what information you got through that prior request for information? How many companies came forward with their proposals as to what they could do with some money to construct diesel storage?
I'll take that on notice.
The explanatory memorandum says, on page 4, that the measures in the bill associated with the fuel security services payment are expected to have a financial impact of $2.047 billion over nine years from 2021-22. What's the amount of money expected to go out in this financial year?
I am advised that the $2.04 billion is a worst-case scenario based on historical amounts, so there isn't a figure for each individual year.
We've got about 10 days left of the 2021-22 financial year, and we have had regulations in place for money to potentially go out up until now. Has any money been expended up until now? What's your expectation of how much money would be expended under the program in the last 10 days of this financial year?
It doesn't start until 1 July 2021.
But there has been a regulation in place for money to be able to be expended before 1 July 2021. Has any money been expended under that regulation up until now?
I might just get you to clarify. I think you might be referring to a different program rather than this particular piece of legislation.
My understanding was that there was a regulation that has already gone through that was allowing payments to be made.
That's a separate grants program from this legislation. I understood your question to refer to this particular legislation. But I am advised—if I understand the question correctly—that up to $83.5 million could be paid out under that grants program. It's based on actual production levels, and those haven't yet been reported to us.
Do you have an expectation that you will be paying out that $83.5 million in this financial year?
That's the maximum that we would pay out, but we expect to receive the report soon and then we will obviously know how much of the $83.5 million would need to be paid out under the scheme.
You said that's a maximum, and you've just said the $2.047 billion is a maximum. Do you have any expectation or any estimate you can give the Senate as to how much is expected to be paid out in the next financial year, in 2021-22?
It would depend on the level of production and the refining margins at the time.
That's not very helpful. There must be somebody in the department who's got an estimate. Given we are about to start that financial year in eight days time, there must be some estimate given current oil costs. I know that the cost is dependent upon production. I know it's dependent upon the price of oil. But what is the expected amount in this coming financial year?
I don't really have anything that I can add to those previous answers.
So we're just basically here with no clarity whatsoever. What about subsequent years? You said that $2.047 billion is the worst-case scenario. What is the expected cost over 10 years?
As I indicated earlier, the appropriation of up to $2.04 billion is based on the worst-case scenario if both refineries were paid the highest amount over the entire period, which is obviously highly unlikely. So it is a worst-case scenario. For example, this would assume COVID-19-like economic conditions on an ongoing basis to 2030. Actual payments are expected to be less, as refinery margins have already improved from 2020.
Is there a lower cost that the government is budgeting for?
The lowest cost would be zero.
What's it expected to be?
I don't know, with respect, that it's possible to answer in that kind of granularity. It's based on all of those factors that have been outlined. Obviously that's the range.
by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1295 together:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1, column 2), omit the cell, substitute:
(2) Clause 71, page 62 (after line 8), after the paragraph beginning "This Part also", insert:
Finally, this Part deals with the review of this Act by the Productivity Commission every two years.
(3) Page 71 (after line 2), at the end of Division 3, add:
85 Report by Productivity Commission
(a) the 2-year period following the commencement of this Act;
(b) each successive 2-year period.
(a) the measures implemented by this Act to improve security and confidence in Australia's fuel supplies including employment generated;
(b) the impact of the manufacture and sale of electric vehicles on fuel security, economic activity and employment generated by the following:
(i) electric vehicle and electric vehicle component manufacturing;
(ii) battery manufacturing and commodity value-adding;
(iii) investment in fast charging network infrastructure;
(iv) the purchase and use of electric vehicles in Australia;
(v) any related matters;
(c) other forms of zero emissions transport including zero emissions fuels such as clean hydrogen and the impact of zero emissions transport on fuel security, economic activity and employment generated.
These amendments basically have two parts. One is essentially that this legislation shouldn't proceed until we've also got an electric vehicles strategy and we've also got something else going on other than ongoing dependence on fossil fuels. The second part of these amendments is that there should be a review of this act by the Productivity Commission to see whether the way the money being spent is the best way to spend the money. Specifically, it would amend the bill to ensure that it doesn't commence until the passage of the Electric Vehicles Accountability Bill 2021. That's the private senator's bill that I am putting forward.
We think it's exceedingly reasonable that you should not be handing out $2 billion to fossil fuel refineries until, as part of a package, you also have an electric vehicles strategy. We think it so reasonable that we would happily submit it to the pub test right around the country. We would love nothing more than for the punters in every pub, cafe, restaurant and other dining establishment in the country, no matter whether they are eating goat's cheese or having a beer, to be asking: if the Liberal Party wants to be giving $2 billion to fuel refineries for fuel security, shouldn't they also be having a strategy for electric vehicles? If you're really serious about fuel security, surely a part of the equation is reducing your reliance on oil? You can do that. Other countries around the world are doing that incredibly successfully by increasing their number of electric vehicles. Basically, the reality is that, if you submitted that to the pub test, it would pass, because people get it. The government wants to accuse us of pulling stunts, but this is very basic and very reasonable. If you want to hand over billions of dollars to fossil fuel companies, have an electric vehicle strategy.
This is a very simple and very fair amendment. We think that the Senate should support it. It's a way of getting this government to be accountable. We have had a proposal for an electric vehicle strategy for a number of years now, and it has just been put off into the never-never. That electric vehicle strategy transformed itself into a 'future fuels discussion paper', which does nothing at all to encourage electric vehicles. Meanwhile, we have states that have to go it alone to work out what they are going to be doing with electric vehicles. We saw some very good proposals from the New South Wales government in the last week. On the other hand, we have the Victorian government putting in place a discriminatory tax against electric vehicles.
Having these two linked together is a very good and appropriate way of dealing with the issue of fuel security. Not only should you be considering, as this government is, 'How do you prop up aging oil refineries?', but at the same time, 'How do you deal with the climate crisis? How do you reduce our reliance on fossil fuels?' That is the only thing that will work in the long term. What the government is doing at the moment, saying, 'Here's $2 billion for your fossil fuel mates', is completely out of step with what is needed, and it is completely out of step with what the rest of the world is doing: reducing the amount of oil, gas and coal that is being burnt and reducing our reliance on that. So we think it is a very reasonable thing to do.
As I said in my tabled speech on the Electric Vehicles Accountability Bill, this bill is a very reasonable and measured approach. It simply requires the government to provide a regular statement outlining their approach to electric vehicles. It would also require a report by the Productivity Commission on how Australia's approach compares with that of the rest of the world. We know Australia has been left behind due to the Liberal Party's inaction. But, rather than obfuscation, ducking and weaving and avoiding accountability, this bill would simply require them to be up-front with Australians about what they're doing, or failing to do, and how far we are lagging behind the rest of the world. I commend my amendment to the Senate, and I really hope that it has the support of the government and the Labor Party.
I'm not sure what kind of pubs you're frequenting, Senator Rice, that they would meet the Greens' pub test. I drink at the Chisholm Tavern, and I don't think they would believe a word of what was just said, or in fact in 99 per cent of the pubs in this country. I suspect that in these pubs you refer to, which have goat cheese—and I'm all for goat's cheese; I think goat cheese is delicious—they might be consuming more than just alcohol in order to accept the pub test you have just put forward.
On the amendments, the government doesn't support either amendment. The first amendment moved considers matters outside the scope of the bill. The amendment would introduce risk and uncertainty to the commencement and delivery of these important measures. The measures in this bill are needed now. We can't afford delays. The bill must come into effect on 1 July 2021, otherwise there is a real risk that both refineries will withdraw from their in-principle agreement and cease operations. The bill will immediately protect the 1,250 jobs at our local refineries and protect our workers in fuel dependent industries, like our truckies, tradies and farmers. This is critically important.
The government does not support the second amendment moved either. This amendment seeks to enable Productivity Commission reviews on matters unrelated to the vital fuel security measures in the bill. In line with regulatory best practice, the government will closely monitor the impacts of these measures on the market and on Australia's fuel security. The government is already committed to a milestone report after two years, which has been agreed to by both refineries.
This is referenced on page 60 of the EM. It will ensure that the fuel security service payments are working as intended and are appropriate to market conditions. It will consider how the implementation of the minimum stock holding obligation is progressing, and will assess the implementation of the fuel standards aromatics review.
I rise to place Labor's voting position on the record. I do want to observe that, in the debate that occurred just before this one, I recalled the remarks of Mr Sharma in the other place, who warned about the problems that arise when people insist on turning sensible debate about climate change into a silly culture war. The contribution from Senator Seselja just now, rambling on about goat's cheese, is exactly a classic in the genre. This is unnecessary and unhelpful.
The government's response on electric vehicles over time is incredibly disappointing. It's why Labor has announced its own electric car discount, to make electric cars cheaper so that more families can afford them and to reduce emissions. But, as we've made clear over the course of the debate, we do think that these bills are vital. We note that they are well overdue. We don't think holding them hostage to a separate set of ideas as proposed by the Greens is a sensible way to proceed. It's on those grounds that we won't be supporting the amendment before us.
I just want to respond to the issue that having to wait for the Electric Vehicles Accountability Bill 2021 to pass would delay payments to oil refineries. As we've already seen, there has been a date—1 July—put on this, but the government is already getting money out the door. You have already approved payments of up to $83.5 million by regulation. If this was delayed beyond 1 July, it would be completely within the power of the government to extend getting money out the door through regulation. This is not holding it up. This is just allowing us to have a sensible debate. It's allowing us to consider the issue of giving $2 billion to a fossil fuel company, given the fact that we are in a climate crisis and given the context of the absolute necessity to address our carbon pollution by shifting to zero carbon transport.
I'm here today wearing a scarf, which I was given yesterday morning by a Christian organisation called Common Grace. This scarf represents how global temperatures have risen over the last 100 years from dark blue here, in 1919. You can see the Black Summer of 2019 here. This is the crisis that we are facing shown here. We are facing a climate crisis. There is no time to continue on. This government does not have even half-hearted measures, not even an electric vehicles strategy or a future fuels strategy, but it actively undermines action on climate change. It's actually going against what the rest of the world is doing. The G7 acknowledged that we need to at least halve our carbon pollution by 2030 and stop giving subsidies to fossil fuel companies. This government is just completely out of step. You are being climate criminals by continuing this sort of action and these subsidies, continuing the pollution that is the destroying our future. We are told that we can't even send a bill off to a Senate inquiry. We can't even have the opportunity to have debate. We can't link it with issues that would do something constructive by shifting a lot of the transport that currently needs petrol and diesel to much cleaner alternatives.
The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1295, as moved together, by leave, by Senator Rice, be agreed to.
I move my amendment No. 1 on sheet 1307:
(1) Page 69 (after line 8), after clause 80, insert:
80A National energy security strategy and plan
(1) The Minister must table in each House of the Parliament, on or before 30 June 2023, a national energy security strategy and plan.
(2) The national energy security strategy and plan must:
(a) outline how Australia's energy systems (including fuels) will be made more secure and resilient beyond 2027; and
(b) include all of the following matters:
(i) the future of Australian refineries beyond 2027;
(ii) how Australia will transition from fossil fuels to emerging energy sources;
(iii) the retirement of fossil fuels;
(iv) the development of alternative energy sources;
(v) investment in alternative energy sources;
(vi) any other investment required to implement the national energy security strategy and plan; and
(c) include an explanation of how such matters will be implemented.
(3) The Minister must publish, on the Department's website, the national energy security strategy and plan.
This is a very simple amendment but a very important one. What it does is require the minister, whoever is in government, to table in each house of parliament on or before 30 June 2023 a national energy security strategy and plan.
I don't want to cast this in any political light and I don't want to pre-empt any particular solution, but there are some minimum requirements of the plan. It ought to tell us what's going to happen in the future, beyond 2027, noting that is the date in the legislation when refineries may choose to not continue operating. So the question is: If that occurs, what are you going to do? Are you going to put in place another program to encourage them to be here? Senator Hanson has suggested we look at building our own refineries or at least owning our own refineries. This is not prescriptive about the solution. It just says that the government ought to be able to lay out what the plan is.
It would make sense, for example, if we are in a situation where we don't have a lot of fuel and there is vulnerability in supply chains, to examine how we shift away from those fuels to other fuels or other forms of energy, such as electricity—for example, electric vehicles. How do we switch to new fuels like hydrogen or ammonia? The plan calls on the government to lay out, if we're going to transition away from fossil fuels, how that will be done in a sensible fashion. It would look at things like how we shift from road to rail if that is a way of reducing dependency on fuel. How do we shift to, perhaps, coastal shipping if, indeed, that reduces our dependency on fuel?
So this amendment requires the government to lay out a plan. I think most Australians would say, 'That's a pretty sensible thing, having an energy security strategy and plan.' The Australian public would expect nothing less of the government of the day than that it be able to say, 'This is how we're going to solve our energy security problems,' and offer up perhaps some cost-benefit analysis associated with options that are put on the table. Again, this is not prescriptive about what the solutions are; it just requires the government to lay out solutions. I ask the Senate to support this very sensible amendment.
The government won't be supporting this amendment, as there are already a range of initiatives that focus on new and emerging technologies. The proposed amendments are beyond the scope and objects of the bill, which focuses on liquid fuel security. The government will continue to work closely with the refineries throughout the commitment period, to understand their ongoing pressures now and post-2027. There is already an agreed two-year review point built into the agreement with refineries. The bill and its legislative rules already consider matters beyond the initial 30 June 2027 period and provide a mechanism for refineries to extend their commitment and receive funding support until 30 June 2030.
The government is currently developing and consulting on a future fuels strategy that will set out the government's direction and actions to enable the private sector to commercially deploy low-emissions road transport technologies at scale. The government has a suite of additional policies to encourage the development of alternative energy sources, including the Future Fuels Strategy, the National Hydrogen Strategy, the Energy Security Board's post-2025 market design paper, Australia's long-term emissions reduction strategy and the Technology Investment Roadmap, which focuses on new and emerging low-emissions technologies.
I will place on record the opposition's voting position. Senator Patrick did me the courtesy of coming to speak to me about his proposal, and I thank the senator for doing so. As has just been made clear, the government will not accept this amendment here and, I gather, did not accept it in the other place. These bills are vital. As I said earlier, these initiatives are well overdue. I was part of the PJCIS committee process that examined fuel security. It came to the conclusion in early 2018 that arrangements were entirely inadequate and requested that the government undertake a review of the adequacy of our fuel supplies. But, for the sake of Australia's fuel security and the workers at our two remaining refineries, we will not support this amendment, so as to facilitate the passage of these bills.
It is unfortunate, I observe, that the government's incompetent management of its own legislative agenda means the Senate cannot amend legislation in the usual way, because the government has chosen to bring this right up against its own deadlines.
The Greens will be supporting this. The minister's response, saying that the issues in this amendment are beyond the scope of the bill, goes to the very nub of the problem, which is that you can have a bill that gives up to $2 billion to fossil fuel companies—a subsidy to fossil fuel companies—without considering the broader scope of fuel security, without having a plan, obviously without having an electric vehicle strategy, without having any plan as to how you are going to reduce your need, the demand for those fuels. It is just incompetent governance. Then for the Labor Party to say that they are not supporting this amendment, because it is going to delay the passage of this bill, is just a complete cop out. As I said earlier, the government had the ability through regulation to give payments from the time of the budget, so we could have properly considered and debated this very far-reaching and very expensive legislation. We could and we should be considering very sensible amendments to this legislation. For Labor not to be supporting them, just because they are dancing to the government's tune, is completely appalling. What is the point of having an opposition?
I'm quite disappointed at what's happened here. I sat and listened to all the speeches in the second reading debate. I listened to Senator McAllister, Senator Ayres and Senator Sheldon, who all criticised the government for its lack of organisation over the last two or three parliaments in managing our fuel security. Yet, when I put on the table a proposition that says, 'Lay out a plan,' there is no support for that concept. Senator McAllister mentioned the request of the PJCIS to look at fuel security. There is a document sitting on the minister's desk—from the Liquid Fuel Security Review—that has not been made available. That is the sort of thing that happens with this government. It is completely opaque in respect of advice that it receives and in respect of planning. Minister, if you say that all of these things are already coming together in different places, then just stick it in the one document.
And to the Labor Party: I don't buy the fact that, as you say, this holds up the bill. Just to be really clear on how this works—because clearly the opposition doesn't understand it—if you support this amendment tonight, the bill will then get passed, it will go back to the House with an amendment and then the House can debate it. In fact, Labor could stand up in the House and say: 'Do you know what? There ought to be a plan.' That could be dealt with tomorrow, and it could be back in this chamber by tomorrow afternoon. So to suggest that this amendment would hold up the legislation beyond this sitting week is actually deceptive; it's misleading. That's not how it works. Everyone needs to understand that.
The Labor Party could support this amendment. They say that in principle they agree that a plan ought to be put on the table. They know how the government will work if there's no legal requirement to do so, yet they suggest that they're not going to support this because the government won't be able to deal with it in the House tomorrow. It's just crazy, and it is disappointing. In order to be a government, you have to be a strong opposition first, and you have to realise that. Senator McAllister has engaged politely with me on this. I've also engaged with Mr Bowen in the other place.
Do you know what? Labor has to learn to stand up every once in a while—stand up and do the right thing. Don't pretend that procedurally this puts the bill at risk. It doesn't. It simply takes some courage. Anthony Albanese in this instance has failed. I didn't speak to Mr Albanese, but one presumes that this was at least discussed with him. We need to get a backbone from the opposition. We need to get the opposition standing up, being strong, supporting good legislation. This is a disgrace.
The question is that the amendment on sheet 1307, moved by Senator Patrick, be agreed to.
Question negatived.
I move my amendment on sheet 1296:
(1) Clause 46, page 37 (lines 23 to 27), omit the clause, substitute:
46 Publication of information
(1) The Minister must table in each House of the Parliament, as soon as practicable but no later than 15 sitting days after the end of each financial year, a statement relating to fuel security services payments made during that year.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the statement must include the following information:
(a) the total amount of fuel security services payment paid for quarters ending in each financial year;
(b) a list of each FSSP fuel for which a fuel security services payment was paid;
(c) for each fuel security services payment paid:
(i) the FSSP fuel for which the payment was paid; and
(ii) the amount of the fuel security services payment ; and
(iii) the number of litres of FSSP fuel refined; and
(iv) the number of cents paid per litre of FSSP fuel; and
(v) the name of the person paid;
(d) the total number of litres of each FSSP fuel for which a fuel security services payment was paid;
(e) any other information required by the rules.
(2) The Secretary must publish, on the Department's website, the Minister's statement under subsection (1).
This is really the minimal—absolutely minimal—set of accountability measures. As we've been saying, potentially up to $2 billion of taxpayers' money is being given to the oil refineries. We've got zero answers from the minister tonight, and also when I've asked questions in estimates, about the expectation of how much is going to be expended. This amendment would give at least a bit of accountability after the fact—asking for the basic figures as to how much is being handed out to the oil refineries to be tabled in parliament: a list of the fuel security service payments, when it was paid, what it was paid for, the number of litres refined, the number of cents per litre, the name of the person paid, the total number of litres of each type of fuel, and any other information. It's just a bit of basic accountability so that at least, even after the fact, we can have this basic knowledge of what our money—our subsidy to fossil fuels—is being spent on.
The government won't be supporting this Greens amendment. Provisions in the bill are sufficient to inform the Australian public about the payments made to refineries. Aggregated payment information will be published on the department's website quarterly. The bill also allows for legislative rules to include further information about these payments should it be considered appropriate. The rules will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The government will be able to ensure that only appropriate information is recorded and published and that commercially confidential information is not disclosed. There is a risk that commercial information could be disclosed through this amendment. Disaggregated data at the level proposed would likely pose commercial-in-confidence issues. It would give information about the amounts of different fuel types produced by the refineries which is not otherwise publicly available. The Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting Act, which also legally protects this information, would also require amendments, and this would potentially delay the bill's passage. It's the government's intention that, through the rules, only the aggregated amount paid quarterly to both refineries would be published. The refineries are also required to report publicly to the ASX, which would include reporting payments from the government. The refineries report to the ASX at least twice a year.
Labor will not be supporting this amendment, for the reasons that I provided earlier. The government has allowed this entire bill to run up against the clock. There is a concern that, if amendments that are not acceptable to the government are made to this bill, it will cause the bill to be bounced back to the other place and bounced back here. The Labor Party does not intend to be responsible for jeopardising payments which are intended to commence—
Senator Patrick interjecting—
Order, Senator Patrick!
I note that Senator Patrick is shouting from elsewhere than his own seat. I simply wanted to observe that the Labor Party does take responsibility for the decisions we make in this chamber. Unlike parties elsewhere, we consider ourselves a party of government, and that means actually making decisions in the national interest. We consider that it is in the national interest that this legislation be passed, in the remaining time available to us this week, to allow payments to commence.
The question is that the Australian Greens amendment on sheet 1296, in respect of the Fuel Security Bill 2021, be agreed to.
I move:
That these bills be now read a third time.
Question agreed to
Bills read a third time.
I missed a division a little bit earlier. I seek the Senate's indulgence to recommit for a vote on that and provide an explanation as to why I missed the division. It was in relation to disallowance motions Nos 1 and 2 in the name of Senator Waters and Senator McAllister.
As a courtesy to the chamber, Senator Whish-Wilson, could you please give an explanation on why you wish to see that vote recommitted?
Yes. I narrowly missed out on getting in the doors as I have a dicky hip at the moment and I couldn't run fast enough.
I will need guidance on whether leave will be granted here.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave granted.
I simply also wanted to indicate, in relation to Senator Whish-Wilson's request, that Labor had also received voting instructions from Senator Griff, who, as you know, has been accommodated in his absence over this week and last week. Those instructions were also not reflected in the votes. The government had received those as well, I understand.
I would want to take a little bit more guidance on this. We are open to it, but, what I would—
Minister, could you please seek leave.
I seek leave to make a brief statement.
Leave granted.
I would suggest that we move to the appropriations bill and have the opportunity to have a discussion out of session and see whether or not this can be accommodated.
Senator Steele-John, are you seeking the call?
I seek the call only to offer something for your guidance, Chair.
Leave granted.
On the one time that I have ever missed a division for an access reason, not dissimilar to Senator Whish-Wilson, the chamber was kind enough to allow the vote to be recommitted, so I feel there's a precedent there.
I seek leave to make a further contribution.
Leave granted.
It is my understanding that, in this place once an explanation has been provided, it is common to allow a recommittal. I appreciate that Senator Seselja may need a little bit of time to consult with his colleagues, and I note that colleagues have come into the chamber. I wonder if the Senate might give them that time and allow us to make a determination about this, because it is our understanding that this would ordinarily be acceptable.
Senator Whish-Wilson has requested leave. So unless Senator Whish-Wilson wishes to defer that to a later time—Minister?
I seek leave to make a 10-second statement.
Leave granted.
With the indulgence of the chamber, could I request that the matter be sought to be brought forward in 15 minutes time?
Why?
Because I have no idea what the situation is at the moment.
Senator McAllister interjecting—
I'm not denying that at all. Can you just give me two seconds to get my head around what is going on here?
Order! Minister, resume your seat. Let's not have a discussion across the chamber. The matter is currently that Senator Whish-Wilson has asked for leave. Unless Senator Whish-Wilson is going to withdraw that request and take this discussion out of the chamber, that will need to be decided upon. Senator Whish-Wilson, are you still asking for leave?
[inaudible]
Leave not granted.
I seek leave to make a short contribution on the procedural matter.
Leave granted.
If it assists the chamber, we would like this matter revisited. We note the request for a brief period. If perhaps that period could be expedited, perhaps while I'm on my feet, until such time as I run out of valuable contributions to make on this matter, we could perhaps deal with it as an active question before the chair. I am endeavouring to assist the chamber, as you can see; I'm very generous like that. I can continue in my generosity for as long as is required to resolve this important matter.
Senator Waters, could you please resume your seat.
Sure.
Leave has been denied. It is open for a senator to revisit this issue later on. We are moving on, as per the order of the Senate, to the matter at hand.
Yes. With leave—briefly—we are relying on the minister's—
Is leave granted?
I will just note for the chamber's benefit—
No, leave is not granted.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator Waters, resume your seat. I will just clarify the matter. Is leave granted?
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave granted.
Having listened to the contributions of Senator Waters, Senator Ruston and others, I'm confident that, should Senator Whish-Wilson seek to recommit the vote soon, the government will be in a position to accommodate that. The whips might be able to advise each other when that time is available. Then Senator Whish-Wilson might like to make his request again.
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—
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 1) 2021-2022
Today, the Government introduces the Appropriation Bills. These Bills are:
These Bills underpin the Government's expenditure decisions.
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022 seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just over $122 billion. These bills ensure there is sufficient appropriation to cover the funding needs of existing programs and for new measures announced in the Budget. This Bill is necessary to support the Government's COVID-19 recovery strategy, to get Australians back to work and to support essential services.
This Bill also proposes an Advance to the Finance Minister provision of a maximum of $2 billion, as part of a total $5 billion AFM envelope across Bills 1 and 2. This is half the level available under last year's equivalent legislation. The transparency arrangements for AFMs will be consistent with last year, including consultation with the Opposition on any extraordinarily large AFMs for $1 billion or more.
The new total AFM ceiling of $5 billion takes into consideration the evolving nature of the COVID 19 pandemic, allocations that have been made to date, the uncertainty around what may be required as part of the Government's future response to the pandemic and its economic consequences and the potential need for the Government to act quickly.
I now outline the more significant amounts provided for in this Bill.
Firstly, the Bill proposes an appropriation to the Department of Defence of $30.8 billion. The appropriation will be used to raise, train, and sustain the Australian Defence Force for the conduct of Australian military operations overseas, and the delivery of capabilities across the Land, Maritime, Air, Space, and Information and Cyber domains in defence of Australia and its national interests. The appropriation will also provide funding for support to the Australian community and civilian authorities as directed by Government including assisting with the response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Secondly, the Bill will provide an appropriation of $18.8 billion to the Department of Social Services, primarily for the National Disability Insurance Scheme which supports the improved independence and participation by Australians with a permanent and significant disability. The appropriation will also be used to continue the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children and to provide support to women experiencing family and domestic abuse.
Thirdly, the Bill will provide the Department of Health with an appropriation of nearly $16.2 billion to be used to support the best health outcomes for the Australian Community. The appropriation will support the extension of existing programs, the Government's response to COVID-19 and adopting the recommendations of the Aged Care Royal Commission. This includes more than $800 million for the COVID-19 vaccine rollout and more than $4.0 billion towards the funding boost for the Aged Care Sector.
The Bill proposes appropriations of $7.7 billion for the Department of Education, Skills and Employment primarily to support vocational education and training, the higher education and research sectors and employment services programs. This includes more than $1.5 billion to expand the Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements program to boost training and skills of workers across Australia as part of the National Economic Recovery Plan.
This Bill will provide an appropriation to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of $5.9 billion to support Australia's foreign, trade and investment, development and international security priorities. The appropriation also supports Australia's Official Development Assistance activities including $162.6 million in COVID-19 vaccines and delivery of support for our partners in the Indo-Pacific, funds for country and regional specific programs across Asia, the Pacific, the Middle East and Africa, and funds for global programs such as humanitarian, refugee and COVID-19 support. The appropriations will also support consular services for Australians who are overseas.
This Bill will provide the Department of Home Affairs with $5.2 billion for border enforcement, immigration management, settlement and migrant services and national security functions. The appropriation will also strengthen Australia's crisis coordination and the protection of nationally significant critical infrastructure.
Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedule to the Bill and the 2021-22 Portfolio Budget Statements.
Passage of the Bills through the House of Representatives and through the Senate by 30 June is required to ensure continuity of the Government's programs and the Commonwealth's ability to meet its obligations for the 2021-22 financial year.
I commend this Bill.
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 2) 2021-2022
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2021-2022, along with Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022, are the Budget Appropriation Bills for the coming financial year.
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2021-2022 seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of
$20 billion. This Bill provides a full year of appropriations for purposes that are non-ordinary annual services of Government for 2021-22, including capital works and services; payments for the States, Territories and local government authorities; and funding for new administered outcomes not previously endorsed by the Parliament.
This Bill also includes a revised Advance to the Finance Minister provision for a maximum of $3 billion. This is down from the total $6 billion that could be issued under 2020-21 AFM provision in the equivalent even-numbered Appropriation Bill and takes into consideration the evolving nature of the COVID 19 pandemic, allocations that have been made to date and the uncertainty around what may be required over 2021-22.
This Bill includes appropriations for the National Recovery and Resilience Agency, recognising that this involves a new administered outcome and consistent with the Senate-Executive compact, this should be in an even-numbered bill.
I will now outline the significant items provided for in this Bill.
The Bill proposes an appropriation to the Department of Defence of $12.7 billion. The appropriation will be used to continue delivering on the Government's commitments in improving Defence capability as set out in the 2016 Defence White Paper, as well as the 2020 Force Structure Plan and 2020 Strategic Update.
The Bill also proposes an appropriation to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications of over $3.5 billion in 2021-22 to support rail, road and aviation infrastructure throughout Australia and to support local governments deliver key community infrastructure. This Bill will provide nearly $400 million to extend the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure program.
The Bill proposes an appropriation of $600 million to the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. This includes $500 million partly for the Plantation Development Concessional Loans to be delivered by the Regional Investment Corporation.
Passage of the Bills through the House of Representatives and through the Senate by 30 June is required to ensure continuity of the Government's programs and the Commonwealth's ability to meet its obligations for the 2021-22 financial year.
I commend this Bill.
APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL (NO. 1) 2021-2022
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2021 2022 provides appropriations for 2021-22 for the operations of:
The Bill proposes total appropriations of $287.5 million. The most significant item in this Bill is for the Department of Parliamentary Services, which will receive $226.2 million for the maintenance of the Australian Parliament House, and to support the functions of Parliament and parliamentarians through the provision of professional services, advice and facilities. This Bill continues the very significant funding uplift provided in last year's Budget on an ongoing basis. It also includes funding consistent with present levels of Senate committee activity, through to the end of the current Parliament.
Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedule to the Bill and the 2021-22 Portfolio Budget Statements.
I commend the Bill.
These bills seek to appropriate funding for the operation of government for the 2021-22 financial year. A total of $122 billion is sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022, nearly $20 billion in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2021-2022 and $287.5 million in the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022. They accompany the delivery of the 2021-22 budget, which was delivered just over a month ago. Labor, of course, will be supporting the bills. But it should be made patently clear that our support for the bills does not represent blanket support for what the government is doing. It's not often $100 billion of spending can be announced and disappear without a trace. Yet, here we are, six weeks after the Treasurer stood up in the other place—and it's almost the sound of crickets. I wonder why that is the case. It could be that they're embarrassed about the hypocrisy they've shown on debt and deficit.
Labor has been consistent when it has come to this. We understand when it is necessary for fiscal policy to step in when an economic shock occurs. It's what we did when the global financial crisis hit. We put money into the economy, into the hands of Australians, and we prevented the economy going into recession, saving over 200,000 jobs.
Let's look at those opposite. It's hard to forget the phrases 'budget emergency', 'debt and deficit disaster' and 'a challenging fiscal and economic mountain'. Fast-forward to what actually transpired. When those opposite were saying there was a budget emergency, and a debt and deficit disaster, debt and deficit was far lower than what they have got to under this government. Debt doubled under this government prior to the onset of the pandemic, before they needed to spend money to save jobs. It went from $280 billion in September 2013 to $568 billion in January 2020. Despite initially promising a budget surplus every year in office, they never delivered one. The budget was in a deficit position every year they occupied the Treasury benches. Debt is set to continue to increase on the government's own projections, smashing past the trillion-dollar mark.
The budget also remains in deficit for as far as the eye can see. We've seen, between last year's budget in October and this year's budget, nearly $200 billion worth of spending. That's an astonishing amount. Maybe those opposite are a little reticent about the budget because they know, as we do, that it is a budget weighed down with rorts and waste. With the budget in the state that it is, with debt increasing to $2 trillion, it's important that every dollar spent—which is borrowed—represents quality spending. It's extremely important that it is quality spending. Unfortunately, this government, over eight long years, in office hasn't got a great record. Take the Safer Communities Fund. Ninety-one per cent, or $30 million in round 3, week 2—you guessed it—is for government-held, Independent or marginal Labor seats. The government rejected advice from community safety experts. They reduced funding for 19 projects while directing money to 53 of their own picks, ahead of projects the experts said were more important. Then there is the Building Better Regions Fund: 112 out of the 330 projects in round 3 and 49 out of the 163 projects in round 4 were approved, against departmental recommendations, by a hand-picked ministerial panel. And how can we forget the Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program, otherwise known as sports rorts? The ANAO found:
There was evidence of distribution bias in the award of grant funding.
And:
The award of funding reflected the approach documented by the Minister's Office of focusing on 'marginal' electorates held by the Coalition as well as those electorates held by other parties or independent members that were to be 'targeted' by the Coalition at the 2019 Election.
We can't forget the infamous colour coded spreadsheet as well.
Then there's the waste. When every dollar is borrowed, you would like to think that this government would be paying more attention to whether everything it's spending represents value for money. Unfortunately, you would be disappointed—but hardly surprised, given the track record of this government. There have been hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe even billions, wasted on consultants, contractors and costly labour hire, with millions paid out in JobKeeper payments to companies that made profits and paid out dividends or executive bonuses; it really isn't a good record.
Labor has a better alternative to all of this. We've outlined some of our policies and we will have more to say between now and the next election—key and targeted investments in areas that have economic benefit as well as good social dividend. We have policies such as the working families childcare boost, covering 87 per cent of families and increasing workforce participation; a future made in Australia—our secure Australian jobs plan ensuring workers benefit from increased job security, better pay and a fairer industrial relations system; the reconstruction fund; the electric car discount; the community battery plan; and new energy apprentices—harnessing the opportunities provided by new energy technologies to reduce emissions and create jobs; the housing Australia fund, providing a funding source for 20,000 social housing properties. We will present a clear choice: do you want the tired old policies of a government seeking to be in office longer than John Howard or do you want policies that have the Australian people at the centre of their thinking, implemented by a party that's on your side?
I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022 and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2021-2022. The Greens will support the bills because to not do so would be to block the supply of funding to departments and halt the machinery of government. However, the budget handed down by the Treasurer, which prescribes detail of the expenditure facilitated by these bills, is an absolute dog of a budget delivered by a government that is intent on cooking the planet and warping the social fabric of our nation. As I said in my budget-in-reply speech, don't believe the Treasurer's spin.
This budget was anything but a transformative event because the budget for the next financial year, just like the last seven budgets that this government has delivered, is built on the con that is trickle-down economics. The budget makes absolutely no change to the fundamentals of our economy and makes absolutely no change to our tax and transfer system. So the planet will keep cooking, nature will continue to be under siege, young people will continue to be priced out of the housing market and house prices will continue to rise, which means that rents will continue to rise, which means that rent stress will continue to rise, which means that homelessness will continue to rise. All of those negative impacts and many, many more will keep on existing because the government that delivered this budget is a government that exists to serve its donors—the big corporations and the billionaires, who exert so much power and influence in Australia. Under this government they are the ones who are truly in control.
Nothing in this budget challenges the might of the big corporates and nothing in this budget challenges the power of the billionaires. Nothing in this budget challenges the stranglehold that the big corporates and billionaires have over our economy and over our politics. In 1938, the best part of a century ago, the 32nd President of the United States, Franklin D Roosevelt, said:
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.
He might as well have been talking about Australia in 2021. I wonder what FDR would make of Australia in 2021.
What would FDR say of this government that has given billions of dollars of public money to big corporations in the form of JobKeeper payments to profitable companies, that has allowed billionaires to grow their wealth by 20 per cent, by 50 per cent or even, in some cases, by over 100 per cent in 12 short months in the middle of a global pandemic when so many Australians are out of work and doing it tough? While this country faced its first recession in 30 years, the billionaires made off like bandits, applauded all the way by this government. What would FDR say of a government that's opening up new gas fields with public subsidies—taxpayers paying for these new gas fields—so that multinational companies, many of whom pay absolutely no tax whatsoever and therefore can afford to donate obscenely to the major parties in this place, can reap even bigger profits from publicly owned gas that they're basically being given for free at the same time that the rest of the world is warning that we simply cannot afford to open up a single new fossil fuel project anywhere on the planet if we are to have any hope of stopping runaway climate change? What would FDR say of 2021 Australia? Clearly, he would say that we're living in a fascist state, and he would be right.
There's only one explanation for a government that's so intent on such a destructive and apocalyptic policy agenda. They have ceded control to the big corporations and to the billionaires, and they exist only to serve their masters. The policy agenda of this government is to deliver wealth to the already very wealthy who are driven by greed. That's why this government is overseeing a growing divide between those who already have the most and everyone else. That's why this government is deliberately fuelling a speculative bubble in real estate while the productive capacity of our country continues to wane. That's why this government is turning Australia into an international pariah state, at odds with the rest of the international community who are trying to preserve this planet, the thing we rely on for our very lives and our very existence as a place that our children and grandchildren and their children and grandchildren might be able to survive on. That is the end game of neoliberalism.
All of the pretence of the early days of what was called economic rationalism in Australia has been stripped away. Back in the eighties and nineties, the privatisation and deregulation agenda started, or was at least turbocharged, under Mr Hawke and Mr Keating as Labor prime ministers and continued apace by the LNP. That privatisation and deregulation agenda was spun as modernising the nation by doing such things as delivering efficiency dividends. There's no talk of that now. There's nothing modern or efficient about this government, and there is nothing modern or efficient about this budget. The government doesn't even pretend that there's any more. So, unable to sustain the facade, the government has embraced the pure beating heart of neoliberalism—a corporate state serving the interests of a few and shielded by a culture of avoidance, intimidation and secrecy.
That's why this government gave $443 million to what is effectively an astroturf group to avoid UNESCO saying four years ago what UNESCO has said in the last 24 hours, that the Great Barrier Reef is officially in danger. At the same time, this government publicly subsidises new, climate-destroying, planet-cooking power stations. These are the very power stations that the market refuses to finance because the market understands they'll be stranded assets in the future. Yet this government is going to give away hard-earned taxpayer dollars to get these projects up.
That's why this government knowingly pursued an illegal robodebt campaign. It wasn't because it recovered any great sum of money for the Commonwealth or because it targeted people who'd actually done something wrong; it was because it helped keep the already marginalised in this country squarely in their place. That's why this government pursued Bernard Collaery, who it is still pursuing in a secret trial, and Witness K. It wasn't because they were any threat to national security; it was because they dared to tell the truth—the truthful story of a former Liberal government that used intelligence agencies to illegally bug the cabinet offices of a foreign power, one of the poorest countries on the face of the earth, to secure greater access to oil and gas reserves for multinational corporations at massive strategic cost to our country. Then, of course, the minister who oversaw that, Mr Downer, rolled straight out of the great revolving door in this place and walked into a massively high-paying job as a lobbyist for the corporation that benefited the most, Woodside. What an absolute scandal! What a disgrace of a government! It's a government of mercenaries. If needed, they will make small adjustments to the times, such as what looks like a temporary abandonment of the surplus fetish or their belated adoption of a wage subsidy, but their first instinct—the one they will always go back to—is to serve their corporate masters.
It doesn't have to be like this. Budgets are about choices, and the Greens have made their choice. We choose to take on the big corporations. We choose to take on and stand up to the billionaires, who wield far too much power and influence, and we choose to stand up to and take on their puppets in this government—the puppets of the big corporates and the puppets of the billionaires. The Greens have a clear plan to create a fairer and more equal society. Our plan is for truth and justice for First Nations peoples and, ultimately, a treaty or treaties for First Nations peoples. Our plan is a government led program of action to set us up for a future where the planet is burning. Our plan will establish a national jobs and income guarantee. Our plan is for 700 per cent renewable energy by exporting our clean energy to the world. Our plan is for real climate action, not the climate con perpetrated by the government, which is cooking the books to hide the fact that it is cooking the planet. Our plan would build a million affordable, accessible and high-quality accessible homes. Our plan would revitalise Australian manufacturing, including locally made vaccines. Our plan is for universal, free child care and free tertiary education. Our plan is to care for nature and to restore degraded wild places. Our plan is for the billionaires and big corporations to pay their fair share of tax so we can afford to do those things and fund the quality public services that Australians rightfully expect.
Our plan and our commitment to the Australian people is that we will fight for them every day and we will do that by standing up to the big corporations, by standing up to the billionaires and by standing up to the vested-interest puppet masters that exist in this country and pull the strings of this government and pull the strings of Treasurer Frydenberg. That is our commitment to the Australian people and that is the commitment we make to nature, to our climate, to our wilderness, to our forests and to our coastlines—all of which are under siege at the moment and being smashed up by rampant neoliberalism that cares nothing for those things and cares only about greed and profit.
During the Senate estimates process in recent times—indeed, on Monday 24 May 2021—I had occasion to ask some questions of the rural and regional affairs committee. I was asking questions about Community Chef, which was funded in 2009 under the infrastructure program. The official at the time said to me:
It sounds like a community aged-care program. Are you sure it is in the infrastructure program?
I responded by saying:
It was under Minister Albanese as minister for infrastructure. He entered a joint venture with the then health minister Dan Andrews in the state of Victoria.
I, like the official, was gobsmacked that it was somehow funded under the infrastructure program. The department, rightly, given the passage of time, took the questions on notice. The reason I asked these questions was that I had heard a whisper that there had been untoward behaviour in relation to the funding of this organisation. What we had was funding by the federal taxpayer of some $9 million towards this program which was co-funded by organisations from the state Labor government and also local government. What it was doing was, in fact, prejudicing the viability of a private firm known as I Cook Foods.
In recent times—indeed, just yesterday, 21 June—media outlets, such as the ABC and others, started to disclose some of the consequences and issues surrounding this matter. At the time that this organisation was being established, health officials in Victoria sought to close down I Cook on the basis of allegations that somehow a slug had been found in I Cook's food preparation area and that I Cook was responsible for the transportation of listeria from their food production to a lady in an aged-care facility who unfortunately later passed. The full results of listeria testing at the factory were then withheld from I Cook Foods for several weeks whilst its contracts were being bid for by a rival council operated outfit named—you've guessed it—Community Chef. I Cook were stunned by what was known about the company's innocence before such drastic action was taken. Namely, the Victorian health department closed the show down on the basis of allegations, when it is now relatively obvious on the evidence provided to us by the media that there was, in fact, no case to answer by I Cook.
Mr Cook could have done substantial jail time if he had been convicted. Indeed, the allegations in relation to I Cook show that the patient only consumed food from the hospital, with all food provided by the Knox Private Hospital's sole caterer I Cook. That was the allegation by one Professor Brett Sutton. The department of health spokesman said evidence of the parliamentary inquiry showed that four samples from I Cook had the same genetic sequence that they had found in Mrs Painter, the lady who unfortunately passed. The list goes on in relation to the evidence provided to the committee by Professor Sutton and others.
It now transpires that it appears—and I stress 'appears'; I don't make the allegation. I just make the observation that it is now being asserted that Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton signed and issued the order to close I Cook Foods, and the consequence of that order was that the government-owned, loss-making competitor to I Cook Foods, Community Chef, secured the business of food supply to aged-care homes and other facilities previously supplied by I Cook Foods. By the way, since it was set up by $9 million of federal government funding under Mr Albanese, Community Chef has run at a $30 million loss, funded by taxpayers. Previously food preparation and meals were supplied by I Cook in a private venture that did not need a $30 million subsidy from the taxpayer. But the evidence now to hand, as reported in the media—and this is vitally important—is that some hours before the closure order was issued, that very allegation upon which the closure order was issued proved to be incorrect. The elderly woman who died, allegedly as a consequence of eating food supplied by I Cook Foods, had not eaten any food supplied by I Cook Foods. Based on those facts, as reported in the media recently, it would appear that the order to close I Cook Foods may well have been illegal. From the facts currently available, there is every reason to suggest that there may have been a conspiracy conducted by health officials in Victoria to close I Cook Foods for the purpose of commercially benefitting the government-owned, loss-making enterprise Community Chef.
Given media reports that Victoria Police are now investigating corruption claims around the I Cook Foods closure, the question then arises as to whether or not the Chief Health Officer of Victoria has been interviewed and whether or not he is assisting the police in their investigations. At what point in time did Professor Sutton become aware that the closure order was based on a false allegation? This is a very serious business. A family company has been brought to bankruptcy and closed down as a result of health orders, and the department knew, on the evidence, that they should not have closed it down. So at what stage did they officially become aware that the allegations against I Cook Foods were false? At what stage did the person who signed the closure authority become aware? When should he have become aware? Why was the fact that the closure was inappropriate not acted upon immediately by the authorities?
The questions remain. Before the closure statement was signed by Brett Sutton, why did he issue the closure order? After the issue of the closure order, why did he not retract the closure order? Before the litigation of I Cook Foods in the Magistrates Court, why did he not intervene to have the litigation withdrawn? When he gave evidence to the Victorian parliamentary inquiries into the I Cook Foods matter, why did he maintain that the closure order was valid before the parliamentary committee? After Brett Sutton gave evidence to the Victorian parliamentary inquiry, why did he not advise—he still has not advised—the parliament that the closure order has proven to be invalid? One has to give the benefit of the doubt to Mr Sutton that he may not have been aware of all the factual circumstances when he signed the closure order, but he must have become aware somewhere along the way. To the best of my information, knowledge and belief, Mr Sutton has not corrected the evidence that he gave to the Victorian parliament. By now, he must be fully aware of the fact that the evidence that he gave was not necessarily as accurate as he may have believed at the time or as it should have been at the time. If Mr Sutton had been aware of the false allegation against I Cook Foods, can he explain how, as the Chief Health Officer and the person who authorised the closure, he was not made aware of that? Somebody must be responsible for this egregious offence against I Cook Foods as a business, against the family, more importantly, and against about 35 employees who lost their jobs as a result of the closure.
The I Cook Foods matter and the signing of the false and likely illegal closure by Brett Sutton goes to the very heart of the integrity of the operations of the Victorian health system and to whether or not a conspiracy existed to close I Cook Foods. In the circumstances, Mr Sutton needs to answer these questions immediately, on the public record and with absolute clarity, because without such clarity there will remain very real questions about the integrity of the evidence that was provided to him, about the evidence he provided to the parliamentary committee in Victoria and about the signing of the closure order, which I understand bears his signature.
These matters were the basis of my questions on 24 May at Senate estimates. I was clothed with some of this information at the time, seeking information from officials. Understandably, they could not provide all the information being sought, given the passage of time, but one has to ask the question: why did Mr Albanese and Mr Andrews engage on this joint venture which saw the demise of a private enterprise business? It also begs the question why the Chief Medical Officer at the time signed the closure, which, might I add, was based on evidence which was, allegedly, that a slug had been found in the food preparation area of I Cook Foods, and which is now being referred to as 'slug-gate'. It would appear as though the slug and the photograph taken of it were in fact planted and manufactured evidence. I hope that is not the case, but the allegations surrounding this are now becoming exceptionally serious.
A business has gone broke, 35 people have lost their jobs and high-up officials in the Victorian health department seem to be complicit in the demise of this business. There are a huge number of questions to be answered. These questions are fundamentally important. They go to the integrity of public administration and why a public authority would seem to be so desperate to see the demise of a private sector operator and the establishment of a public authority manufactured by Mr Dan Andrews, as health minister at the time, and Mr Anthony Albanese, as infrastructure minister at the time. They put so much effort, so much taxpayers' money, into an enterprise which has been running at a huge loss and has seen the demise of what was otherwise a profitable business. Lots of questions need to be answered, and I hope they are answered as a matter of urgency.
Firstly, I would like to thank all senators who have contributed to the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2021-2022 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022. These appropriation bills seek authority from the parliament for the expenditure of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the 2021-22 financial year. In introducing the bills, the government has already highlighted some of the more significant items provided for in these bills. The total of appropriations sought through these three appropriation bills is just over $142 billion. These bills ensure continuity of government business throughout 2021-22 and give effect to many of our budget measures, to implement our plans to suppress the spread of the coronavirus and to ensure the growth of investment, trade, jobs and living standards. Once again I thank all senators for their contribution and I commend these bills to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
As no amendments to the bills have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bills be considered in Committee of the Whole.
I move:
That these bills be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.
Madam Acting Deputy President, with the Senate's indulgence, I again seek leave to recommit the vote on business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 1 and 2, in the names of Senator Waters and Senator McAllister.
Leave granted.
Senator Whish-Wilson, are you seeking to give a personal explanation?
I have done that already, but I'm happy to do it again.
There is no need.
This is a recommittal of business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 1 and 2 from earlier this evening. The question is that those motions be agreed to.
I rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021. This bill implements a number of minor Treasury law amendments and measures from the 2021-22 budget. At the outset, I can confirm that Labor will be supporting this bill.
Schedule 1 of the bill increases the low-income threshold for the Medicare levy, changing thresholds in line with changes to the consumer price index. The Medicare levy low-income threshold, beyond which the Medicare levy is not required to be paid, is currently $22,801 for individuals. This will increase to $23,226 following the passage of the bill. These changes affect single households, pensioners, families and students and will keep the Medicare levy payment thresholds in line with inflation.
Medicare is one of Australia's greatest achievements, and it is the envy of other countries. But, once again, the Liberals have been caught trying to cut it. While the rest of us are focused on health, our communities and the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is absolutely on brand that the Liberals decided to take this opportunity to sneak through cuts to Medicare funding for vital surgery. Let's be honest about what's happening here. We're in the middle of a global pandemic, the biggest health crisis for 100 years. Sneaking through an attack on Medicare should not be their priority.
Over the past eight years, the cost of seeing a doctor has gone up and wait times are longer, especially in rural and regional Australia. I know that in the town that I grew up in on the Far North Coast sometimes it is not possible to see a GP for weeks. It is not good enough. Labor built Medicare. Defending it is in our DNA. The Liberals opposed it from the outset and cutting it is in theirs.
Schedule 2 of this bill expands the objectives of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Act 2018 to allow it to assist eligible single parents with dependents. The stated purpose of this measure is to allow the government to implement its policies in relation to support for single parents entering the housing market. Labor supports improving homeownership across all demographics, particularly single parents who have significantly lower rates of homeownership than the broader population.
We have always worked to make housing more affordable for ordinary Australians. After eight long years of this tired government, housing affordability has got worse and worse. There are more homeless Australians than ever before, and it is hard to see how the government policy we are considering this evening will do anything to address this. As my colleague in the other place, shadow minister for housing, Jason Clare, said, this policy does not go far enough. There are about one million single-parent families around Australia; this policy will help about 10,000. In other words, one in 100. I'd like to point out that the fastest growing group of homeless Australians at the moment are older women aged 54 to 65. This policy does nothing to help the growing number of older women who are experiencing poverty and homelessness in retirement. It pales in comparison with Labor's $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund to build social and affordable housing now and into the future. This policy will create jobs, build homes and change lives.
Schedule 3 of this bill will exempt eligible payments made by the Australian government to thalidomide survivors from income tax and from the social security and veterans entitlement income test. The use of thalidomide in the 1950s and sixties was a tragedy. That tragedy continues to have devastating effects for the survivors of thalidomide and their families. They continue to experience ongoing health concerns and suffer from the after effects of thalidomide.
Schedule 4 of this bill provides an income tax exemption for qualifying grants made to primary producers and small businesses affected by the February and March 2021 storms and floods. This is a small measure of assistance for those businesses. Labor welcomes it, but we note the government's ongoing shambolic response to natural disasters. We saw what happened in the 2021 bushfires. We know that money was left sitting in funds for months and months while survivors suffered and struggled. There were lots of photo ops, but very little delivery—another case of too little, too late.
Finally, schedule 5 of this bill includes several new additions to the list of deductable gift recipients in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. This is welcome.
Overall, the measures in this bill are sensible, of modest impact and measured. Labor will support them.
Schedule 2 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021 amends the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Act to include an additional objective of assisting earlier access to the housing market by eligible single parents with dependants. Of course, it is very difficult to oppose that objective, and the Greens don't oppose it; we support schedule 2 of the bill. But I will place firmly on the record what we don't support—that is, the way the government intends to give effect to schedule 2.
As outlined in the budget, the government plans to establish the so-called Family Home Guarantee by allowing up to 10,000 single parents to buy a home with as little as a two per cent deposit. This budget measure tells you everything you need to know about this government's approach to housing—it is cooked. As I said earlier today, Australia's housing market is cooked. Rather than a home being regarded as a human right that everyone should have secure access to, housing in Australia has been turned into a game of speculation. How this has come about is very clear. Negative gearing and the capital gains tax concession are public subsidies for property investors that create an uneven playing field that means that there are a lot more people who want to buy a house than there are people who actually need a house to live in. Those who don't want to live in the house that they're buying have more money than those who do want to live in the house that they want to buy, thanks to this public subsidy. It's cooking the housing market, and the people who are paying the price are the renters and the homeless of this country.
I want to turn my attention to the banks. Banks are encouraged to lend for housing because the capital they need to hold against mortgages is much less than what they need to hold against loans to businesses, which means, of course, that Australia's banks are addicted to mortgages.
Now I want to turn my attention to monetary policy. This country's monetary policy is oblivious to where the credit goes, as has been evidenced over the past 12 months, where the Reserve Bank has printed $200 billion. Basically, the cheapest money in history has done an awful lot to push up house prices and very little to improve the productive capacity of the nation. Over the ditch, in New Zealand, they've realised that their Reserve Bank can't continue to pretend that housing isn't something that monetary policy should take into account. But here in the Commonwealth of Australian real estate, we are yet to become so enlightened. As a result, winning or losing in the great Australian game of property speculation is likely to have a greater effect on your life than anything else so far as your finances are concerned. Being white- or blue-collar, your level of education and the hours you work now matter far less than how much property you own or how much you stand to inherit. Class in this country is being redefined before our very eyes, and it's being redefined in a way that looks an awful lot like feudalism, which is just the way the Liberals like it. But they have to pretend that a wage slave has a chance, so they serve up this bill and the Family Home Guarantee. Let's be clear, the Family Home Guarantee is a con. It will not help single parents who live on a wage to find a secure and affordable home, because it doesn't actually guarantee anyone a home. What it does is guarantee a loan for the banks. Both the Family Home Guarantee and the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme are government guarantees for low-deposit loans. Under both of those schemes the government insures the first 20 per cent of the loan—this is the critical bit—for the banks. That encourages banks, as a result, to lend to people who they otherwise wouldn't have lent to because the loans are too risky. The banks are encouraged to make those loans under these schemes because, if the borrower defaults, the public purse covers any loss. This, would you believe it, is the government's response to a cooked housing market and a housing crisis in this country. Basically, they want to encourage single parents to borrow more than they can afford in the most overheated housing market in history by providing that the government insures the banks against any losses. That is what the government wants to do, so we get more household debt, higher house prices and yet more public subsidies for the banks, all sold under the fallacy that people's not being able to save for a deposit is the reason they can't afford a home.
Mr Frydenberg: if houses weren't so outrageously expensive and the system wasn't so rigged in favour of the speculators and against people who actually want a home to live in, then people wouldn't need as much money to make their deposit in the first place. This government won't address the structural issues that make Australian housing amongst the most overpriced anywhere on the planet, because this government, led by a property council Prime Minister, is all for property speculation and all for helping out its mates who benefit from it—be they the property developers, the banks or their rank and file who lord over property investment portfolios and who live off the tax concessions that everybody else pays for. Instead, this government's whole response to the housing crisis is to encourage people to spend even more money on housing. What a time to be alive!
We've got an amendment on sheet 1302, circulated in my name, that would reduce this madness just a little. This amendment would make it less likely that the Family Home Guarantee would become a government-sanctioned debt trap for single parents. This amendment would establish in legislation, rather than leaving it to regulation, a minimum deposit requirement for the purchaser for all loans guaranteed by the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation. This amendment would set the minimum deposit requirement at five per cent, which is the current level set under the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme. Loans issued with less than a five per cent deposit are also tracked by APRA as an indicator of high-risk lending. By the prudential regulator's own measure, the Family Home Guarantee as proposed by the government, requiring a mere two per cent deposit for single parents, will encourage and increase higher risk spending. That illustrates that this is a reckless and irresponsible policy. It also indicates that the Family Home Guarantee has nothing to do with helping single mums find secure and affordable housing but is simply about giving the government something to say when asked the questions, which will keep on coming, about what they are doing about the housing crisis that so many Australians are facing.
The government should not be enticing people to take out a loan with less than a five per cent deposit. It certainly shouldn't be enticing single parents into a loan with less than a five per cent deposit. Does the government remember the subprime mortgage crisis? The Australian Greens certainly do.
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I will be speaking to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021. One Nation will be supporting this bill. The first schedule indexes the starting point for the Medicare levy. Medicare must be supported. Without Medicare, everyday Australians would be held hostage to the greed of the medical establishment, which we see happening in the United States and elsewhere—and right here, given the vaccine rollout—in conditions that suit big pharma. Getting sick should not be a financial death sentence. Healing sick workers so that they can return to work as quickly as possible is the best outcome possible for the worker, for the worker's family, for the employer and for the whole economy. Medicare supports Australia's productive capacity. Indexing the Medicare threshold maintains the fairness of the system while maintaining the broadly based nature of the levy.
The family home guarantee, on the other hand, is not a great idea. The response to structural unaffordability in the housing market is not to give people handouts to afford houses. The answer is to deal with the structural unaffordability. The Prime Minister failed to take this opportunity, instead electing to go with a flashy promise that presented the opportunity for yet another announcement and another glossy brochure. We want substance. There is no domestic pressure on home prices. Median wages are going backwards. Fewer and fewer people are able to afford their own home. Immigration numbers are down to historic lows. So, where is this demand coming from? Where's the demand pressure that's fuelling double-digit growth in real estate prices?
A total of $87.8 billion flowed into the Australian real estate market from foreign buyers in the last year that we have figures for, 2018-19—later data would be nice, by the way. This did not include money being transferred from destinations like China for Australian residents to use to purchase residential properties. Anecdotally, this is a large part of the demand for residential property in the capital cities. The result is price inflation, resulting in worsening affordability for everyday Australians. The Morrison government, it seems, has decided to put housing affordability into the too-hard basket, waiting on the Prime Minister's desk for the next occupant. That's terrible governance.
This bill makes emergency flood payments tax deductible—fair enough; compensating victims of flood damage to restore our productive capacity is of course the right thing to do. Yet building dams for flood mitigation works even more effectively, and far better. Remember when we used to do that? Dams are wonderful things. They provide water for communities, water to grow food and fibre to feed and clothe the world, hydroelectricity—and yes, they mitigate floods. As our high immigration rate leads to expanding development, dam based flood mitigation must become a priority.
I want to raise something here. The Greens are either confused or hypocritical, because they oppose dams, yet dams will lead to increased irrigation, which will lead to increased green plants, and that means increased absorption of carbon dioxide. Now, we know there's no need to absorb more carbon dioxide, because nature controls that level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and our planet's climate is varying naturally. But the Greens are being either hypocritical or dishonest by saying they don't want dams but want more carbon dioxide absorbed.
This bill allows for tax deductibility for compensation payment for thalidomide victims. That's entirely appropriate. Thalidomide is a terrible chapter in the history of pharmaceuticals. The question must be asked, have we learned anything from the thalidomide disaster—the thalidomide scandal? Over the past 20 years, 104 medications and medical devices have been withdrawn from sale by the TGA following initial approval and widespread use. Not one of these withdrawals was initiated by Australia's own testing program—not one. In Australia the TGA tests around 400 product batches a year, out of 28 million prescriptions. This very low rate has not detected a single product requiring withdrawal. Every one of those 104 withdrawals has been due to overseas agencies testing and detecting critical harm.
This is not good enough. Now we have an obscene rush to introduce vaccines that are based on new and untested technologies, mRNA vaccines. They've been given provisional approval, and already people have lost confidence in the vaccines and are afraid of the vaccines. They're fearful of the vaccines. One Nation has no confidence in this process, so I expect that a future Senate will be asked to approve tax deductibility for compensation for victims of COVID vaccines. At the rate that harm is being detected here and especially overseas, that may well be in this Senate's lifetime.
I want to finish with some words about productive capacity. I've harped on about two things in the Senate. The first thing is empirical scientific evidence, the need to base policy and decisions on solid, scientific data and hard facts and observations. The second thing I've been focusing on is productive capacity. I'm so delighted to hear Senator McKim from the Greens mention productive capacity today. We know that others in the Liberal-National government have been mentioning productive capacity. We've even had the Prime Minister taking it up. But we want to see substance, not rhetoric. Don't just steal my words and take my intent; we need action to restore Australia's productive capacity. The Liberal, National and Labor parties are following the Greens policies, decimating our country's productive capacity. Yet our productive capacity is the key to our country's future. One Nation wants to restore it. We will continue working on this, because we want to bring Australia back to the point where we are No. 1 again, as we used to be, worldwide for per capita income. The key to that is what caused it in the first place: productive capacity.
Firstly, I would like to thank those senators who have contributed to this debate. Schedule 1 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021 amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986 and A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Act 1999 to increase the Medicare levy low-income threshold for singles, families, and seniors and pensioners, consistent with the increases in the consumer price index. This will ensure that low-income thresholds keep pace with increases in the costs of living. The amendments to the Medicare levy low-income thresholds apply to the 2020-21 year of income and future income years.
Schedule 2 of the bill will enable the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation to provide 10,000 family home guarantees over four years, commencing on 1 July 2021, to single parents with dependants, predominantly women, seeking to enter or re-enter the housing market sooner. The Family Home Guarantee recognises the importance of housing and providing a foundation for social, economic and emotional wellbeing. By establishing the Family Home Guarantee, the government is providing a pathway to homeownership for single parents with dependants who have struggled to save enough for a deposit while paying rent and/or restarting their lives, allowing them to purchase a modest home sooner, subject to the individual's ability to service a loan.
Schedule 3 of the bill will exempt eligible payments made by the Australian government to thalidomide survivors from income taxation and from the social security and veterans' entitlement income test. As announced in the 2020-21 budget, the Australian government will provide $44.9 million over four years and $3.9 million per year ongoing to thalidomide survivors.
Schedule 4 of the bill provides an income tax exemption for qualifying grants made to primary producers and small businesses affected by the February and March 2021 storms and floods, which had a devastating impact on communities in Australia. The schedule provides qualifying grants—category D grants—under the joint Commonwealth-state Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements of 2018, where those grants relate to the storms and floods in Australia that occurred due to rainfall events between 19 February 2021 and 31 March 2021. These include small business recovery grants of up to $50,000 and primary producer recovery grants of up to $75,000. These grants provide support in addition to other assistance that the Australian and state government have provided to assist communities as they begin to build and recover following these devastating events. Impacted small business and primary producers are encouraged to apply for these grants. Further information on disaster recovery assistance is available on the Disaster Assist website.
Schedule 5 of the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to allow members of the public who donate to the Alliance for Journalists' Freedom Ltd, the Andy Thomas Space Foundation Ltd, Youthsafe, the RAS Foundation Ltd, the Judith Neilsen Institute for Journalism and Ideas, the Great Synagogue Foundation trust, the Centre for Entrepreneurial Research and Innovation, and the Sydney Chevra Kadisha to claim a tax deduction. The government is supporting these organisations in their provision of valuable community services by granting them deductible gift recipient status.
I commend this bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1302:
(1) Schedule 2, page 5 (after line 8), at the end of the Schedule, add:
2 At the end of section 51
Add:
Limit on guarantee
(4) The Commonwealth must not guarantee a loan for which the deposit paid by the borrower or borrowers is less than 5 per cent of the value of the residential property.
I spoke about this amendment in my speech in the second reading debate.
Labor does not support the amendment proposed by the Greens. The two per cent threshold contained in this proposal is very similar to programs that have worked well for years, like Keystart in Western Australia. Borrowers will need to qualify for this program under the thresholds for bank lending and credit history to show that they do have the capacity to service the loan. Increasing the threshold would lock out those who would otherwise qualify and would have little effect on preventing mortgage stress. This measure provides a guarantee so that costly mortgage insurance is not required, and a deposit of only two per cent is required for eligible participants.
Many single parents have sound credit histories. This would reward that, ensuring they could gain access to homeownership without needing a prohibitive level of deposit. Raising this to five per cent would slow down and impede access for those people. This scheme should be expanded so that more people qualify, not fewer.
The government will also be opposing this Greens amendment. The family home guarantee will allow eligible single parents to purchase a new or existing home with a deposit of as little as two per cent, because this will establish a pathway to homeownership for single parents with dependants who have struggled to save a deposit while renting or restarting their lives following a relationship breakdown. The deposit challenge is even harder when you're on a single income and raising children, particularly if you're not eligible for first home buyer programs.
As with all home loans, regardless of the size of the deposit, a lender will only extend a loan of this nature to a borrower who has the capacity to service it. This means that credit providers, when undertaking their serviceability assessments to determine a consumer's borrowing capacity with a deposit of as little as two per cent, must consider whether the consumer can repay the loan without going into substantial hardship.
The question before the Senate is that the amendment on sheet 1302, moved by Senator McKim, be agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The opposition will be supporting the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Age of Dependants) Bill 2021. We know the scale and impacts of private health insurance cost increases under this government over the last eight very long years. Between 2013, when this government took office, and 2019 the average price of a family insurance policy increased by more than 30 per cent or, on average, by more than $1,100, while wages remained flat. That, as we all recall, was famously described by our former finance minister in this place as a 'design feature' of Liberal economic policy. Thank you, Senator Cormann! At least someone was willing to tell the truth on occasion.
Australians have seen a very serious cost-of-living squeeze on households, and the Labor Party has been loudly advocating any measure that would ease this pressure on Australians. The bill changes the way in which family private health insurance policies operate, particularly in relation to dependants, in two important ways. Firstly, it changes the definition of dependent young adults from dependants up to the age of 24 years to young adults up to 31 years of age, but it is worth noting that the young adult must still be a dependant. This is an important measure that the Labor Party support. We support this bill because it eases the squeeze on private health costs for dependent young adults in the community.
This is a growing gap in Australia because of the huge increases over the last eight long years in housing costs. This has resulted in extraordinary difficulty for young Australians who seek to break into the housing market and achieve their dream of owning a home. It means that every year we see more young Australians remain dependants rather than purchasing their own homes. Among other things, this is yet another impact of the flat wages that this government has said are a deliberate design feature of its economic policy.
Young Australians have also been disproportionately impacted by the job losses that have flowed from the recession caused by the pandemic. Industries like tourism and hospitality have an overrepresentation of young workers and have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID recession, yet help was not on hand for so many of those workers in casual roles, who were absolutely left out in the depths of the pandemic. Too many young Australians have been hit by this double whammy: ever-rising cost-of-living increases on one hand and flat wages or, worse, unemployment or underemployment on the other.
Currently when a young dependent adult turns 24, regardless of their circumstances, they are forced by the existing legislation to take out their own health insurance. Too many simply do not have the financial capacity to do so, and so they just don't. This bill will allow them to stay on their family policy until they reach 31 years of age. This is an important measure because, as a result of the growing difficulty young Australians face in owning their own home, under current arrangements those young adults become disconnected from private health insurance coverage. Because these young adults become disconnected from coverage in their late 20s, they are often not covered when they turn 30 and the lifetime health cover arrangements kick in.
Lifetime Health Cover is a policy that was introduced 20 years ago by the Howard government and it remains a policy that has bipartisan support. Through a mix of incentives, Australians from the age of 31 are encouraged to take up private health insurance if they have the capacity to do so. The bill is also a very important measure that allows dependent adult children with a disability to remain covered by their family's private health insurance policy with no age limit. Currently, on their 24th birthday, a dependent adult child with a disability would have to take out their own insurance policy, and we know that adult children with a disability have an even greater need for private health insurance coverage than young adults without disability. It means that young adults living with disability who turn 24 do not have to seek their own individual policy. Rather than taking out a new policy that would be more expensive than the proportionate share of the family policy, dependants living with disability will now be able to be covered by the family policy at a lower proportionate cost.
This bill provides a minimum definition of an adult dependent person with a disability as, effectively, someone who is a participant in the NDIS, the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This minimum definition has been the subject of substantial consultation between the government, the insurance industry and disability organisations. Labor have been talking to disability organisations and we understand that there is an appetite to push for broader coverage. We understand there are a number of Australians who, because they live with disability, are still dependent on their family and who may not be NDIS participants. While this minimum definition does not cover all Australians living with disability, we note it is a minimum definition only.
In our discussions with the insurance industry, it has become clear that industry participants hold grave concerns about the impact of an expansive minimum definition of 'disability' in the bill. An overly broad minimum definition will mean it will not be financially viable for insurance companies to offer new products that take advantage of the intent of the bill, leaving Australians living with disability without new insurance products that they can take advantage of. All senators may note that this bill does not compel insurance companies to deliver new products for market; it simply allows them to, should they be able to do so in a financially viable way.
In short, a minimum definition may seem like a worthwhile principled position to take but it poses a very serious and real risk of effectively wiping out all the benefits of the bill for all dependent Australians living with a disability. It would be a powerful example of good intentions undermining good reforms.
In our discussions with industry, it has been made clear that the industry will offer products that include coverage that go beyond this minimum definition to capture more Australians living with disability. We welcome these commitments and strongly encourage the insurance industry to work with disability organisations to ensure their new products have as broad a coverage as possible while maintaining the financial viability of the industry. To this effect, we have sought and received a commitment from the government that the bill and its effectiveness will be reviewed once it is practical to do so. This review will be open to stakeholder participation, will report publicly and it will explore the coverage provided to those living with disability. We welcome this commitment from the government in good faith and, as a result, we will not be supporting the Greens amendment seeking to both broaden the minimum definition of 'disability' to one that the insurance industry tells us is inconsistent with sustainable products being put in the market and to legislate a review of the bill made unnecessary thanks to the government's commitment to a review. Labor commends the bill to the Senate.
I rise to speak on the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Age of Dependants) Bill 2021. This bill sets a very dangerous precedent in terms of the definition of 'disability'. While the Greens will be supporting the bill, we will be moving amendments that address that particular issue because of the fact that the definition under the bill is a participant under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013. Using a threshold of an NDIS participant is problematic because it will restrict disabled people from accessing the benefits of this measure. Only 449,000 people are currently participants of NDIS, whereas the ABS estimates there are 4.4 million disabled people in Australia. Applying the definition of an NDIS participant will restrict access to these policy changes—that is, nearly four million disabled people that will be restricted from accessing the benefits of this policy. That's why the Greens will be moving the amendments. We are very disappointed that Labor won't be supporting them, because they are such important amendments.
We believe that we need a review. In fact, we have another amendment about that. Now, this bill is about to be chopped through. The minister for health, Minister Hunt, has written me a letter about the review, not supporting the legislative approach which we want, but committing to a review. I seek leave to table the document from Minister Hunt.
Leave granted.
I also seek leave to table the rest of my speech.
Leave granted.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I table a replacement explanatory memorandum relating to the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Age of Dependants) Bill 2021.
I will now deal with amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that the second reading amendments on sheets 1263 and 1240, circulated by the Greens, be agreed to.
Australian Greens' circulated amendments—
SHEET 1263
(1) Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert:
4 Review of the operation of amendments
(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act.
(2) The review must start as soon as practicable, and in any event within 1 month, after the end of 18 months after this Act commences.
(3) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months of the commencement of the review.
(4) The persons who conduct the review must consult with disability advocacy organisations, people with a disability, and other relevant stakeholders on matters considered in the review.
(5) Without limiting subsections (1) and (3), the review and report must consider:
(a) the implementation and effect of reforms made by the amendments in this Act; and
(b) the results of consultation under subsection (4); and
(c) the operation of the definition of dependent person with a disability inserted into the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 by this Act.
(6) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.
_____
SHEET 1240
(1) Schedule 1, item 20, page 5 (lines 26 to 28), omit subparagraph (b)(i) of the definition of dependent person with a disability in clause 1 of Schedule 1, substitute:
(i) a person with any limitation, restriction or impairment which restricts everyday activities and has lasted, or is likely to last, for at least six months; or
The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I will now deal with the Online Safety Bill 2021 and the Online Safety (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021. I will first deal with the second reading amendment moved by Senator Pratt in respect of the Online Safety Bill 2021 and then deal with the other circulated second reading amendments.
Opposition's circulated amendments—
At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) it has been almost three years since the October 2018 Report of the Statutory Review of the Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015 and the Review of Schedules 5 and 7 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Online Content Scheme) by Lynelle Briggs AO recommended a new Online Safety Act,
(ii) since then, the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts has repeatedly spruiked the non-existent Online Safety Act in response to concerns about online harms, including online hate speech and racism in Australia following the Christchurch terrorist atrocity and graphic online content in the wake of a self-harm video circulating on social media,
(iii) the Minister was slow in releasing the exposure draft of legislation for consultation then rushed the introduction of the bill into Parliament, eight business days after consultation on the exposure draft concluded, which undermined stakeholder confidence in the consultation process,
(iv) the Review of Australian classification regulation is delayed and has fallen out of step with the bill, and
(v) the Government still has not released the report of an expert working group, convened by the eSafety Commissioner and participated in by industry; and
(b) calls on the Government to release the report of the expert working group convened by the eSafety Commissioner so that the broad range of stakeholders supportive of online safety may have the benefit of the work".
The question is that the second reading amendment on sheet 1309, circulated by Senator Pratt, be agreed to.
The question now is that the amendment on sheet 1311, circulated by the opposition, be agreed to.
Opposition's circulated amendment—
At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) this Government cites the introduction of the Online Safety Bill 2021 as evidence of its commitment to women's safety,
(ii) the Member for Bowman, Mr Andrew Laming MP, is accused of trolling his own constituents online, and stated on 27 March 2021 that he would step down from all parliamentary roles, effective immediately, and
(iii) when asked whether the type of material the Member for Bowman posted is what the adult cyber abuse scheme is designed to cover, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications officials stated at Senate Estimates on 26 May 2021 that "absolutely the intention behind this new bill, when it's passed, is to provide an avenue for people experiencing that kind of activity—to have a pathway to make complaints and have someone able to take some action"; and
(b) calls on the Prime Minister to lead by example when it comes to keeping women safe online and ensure that the Member for Bowman is discharged from the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training immediately".
A division having been called and the bells being rung
I've been requested by the whips to change this to a four-minute bell. I give everyone fair warning that this is the last four-minute bell. We have rolling divisions now. Senators are expected to be in the chamber under the standing orders. I'll change it to a four-minute bell, but from this point forward, it is a one-minute bell.
The question now is that the second reading amendment on sheet 1236 circulated by the Australian Greens be agreed to.
I will now deal with the circulated amendments, starting with government amendments. I understand there is an addendum and a supplementary explanatory memorandum to be presented.
I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Online Safety Bill 2021. The addendum responds to concerns raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee.
I ask that the questions on all amendments on sheets as circulated be put separately, to reflect different voting intentions on these amendments. The opposition is happy for these to be put sheet by sheet and not further split, but, in addition to our own position, we've received pairing instructions from crossbench senators that reflect different positions on different sheets.
I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to the Online Safety Bill 2021.
I'll go through this and do my best to reflect your request, Senator Gallagher. If I get this wrong, please point it out to me. I will first deal with the amendments to government amendment (4) on sheet 1315 circulated by the opposition. The question is that the amendments to government amendment (4) on sheet 1315 circulated by the opposition be agreed to.
Opposition's circulated amendments—
(1) Amendment (4), before paragraph 138(2)(a), insert:
(aa) the number of objection notices given to the Commissioner under section 33 during that year;
(2) Amendment (4), after paragraph 138(2)(l), insert:
(la) the number of requests made by the Commissioner under section 95 during that year;
(3) Amendment (4), at the end of subclause 183(2), add:
; (zf) the number of applications that were received by the Commissioner under the internal review scheme (see section 220A) during that year;
(zg) the number of informal notices given, and informal requests made, by the Commissioner to a person in relation to cyber bullying material targeted at an Australian child during that year;
(zh) the number of informal notices given, and informal requests made, by the Commissioner to a person in relation to non consensual sharing of intimate images during that year;
(zi) the number of informal notices given, and informal requests made, by the Commissioner to a person in relation to cyber abuse material targeted at an Australian adult during that year;
(zj) the number of informal notices given, and informal requests made, by the Commissioner to a person in relation to material that depicts abhorrent violent conduct during that year;
(zk) the number of informal notices given, and informal requests made, by the Commissioner to a person in relation to class 1 material during that year;
(zl) the number of informal notices given, and informal requests made, by the Commissioner to a person in relation to class 2 material during that year;
(zm) the number and percentage of complaints made to the Commissioner during that year for cyber bullying material targeted at an Australian child by ground or category of harm, with such grounds or categories of harm to be determined by the Commissioner;
(zn) the number and percentage of complaints made to the Commissioner during that year for non consensual sharing of intimate images by ground or category of harm, with such grounds or categories of harm to be determined by the Commissioner;
(zo) the number and percentage of complaints made to the Commissioner during that year for cyber abuse material targeted at an Australian adult by ground or category of harm, with such grounds or categories of harm to be determined by the Commissioner;
(zp) the number and percentage of complaints made to the Commissioner during that year under the online content scheme by ground or category of harm, with such grounds or categories of harm to be determined by the Commissioner.
The question now is that government amendments on sheet SW125, as amended, be agreed to.
Government's circulated amendments—
(1) At the end of clause 181, page 146 (after line 23), add:
(4) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to a function or power conferred by subsection 220A(1) (which deals with the formulation or variation of the internal review scheme).
(2) Clause 182, page 146 (after line 32), after subclause (3), insert:
(3A) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to a function or power conferred by subsection 220A(1) (which deals with the formulation or variation of the internal review scheme).
(3B) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to a function or power conferred by the internal review scheme (see section 220A).
(3) Clause 183, page 148 (line 4), before "The Commissioner must", insert "(1)".
(4) At the end of clause 183, page 148 (after line 9), add:
(2) A report under subsection (1) relating to a financial year must set out the following:
(a) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 49 during that year;
(b) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 56 during that year;
(c) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 65 during that year;
(d) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 66 during that year;
(e) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 70 during that year;
(f) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 77 during that year;
(g) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 78 during that year;
(h) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 79 during that year;
(i) the number of directions given by the Commissioner under section 83 during that year;
(j) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 88 during that year;
(k) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 89 during that year;
(l) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 90 during that year;
(m) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 99 during that year;
(n) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 109 during that year;
(o) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 110 during that year;
(p) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 114 during that year;
(q) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 115 during that year;
(r) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 119 during that year;
(s) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 120 during that year;
(t) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 124 during that year;
(u) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 128 during that year;
(v) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 143 during that year;
(w) the number of directions given by the Commissioner under section 154 during that year;
(x) the number of applications made by the Commissioner under section 156 during that year;
(y) the number of applications made by the Commissioner under section 157 during that year;
(z) the number of applications made by the Commissioner under section 158 during that year;
(za) the number of applications made by the Commissioner under section 159 during that year;
(zb) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 194 during that year;
(zc) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 199 during that year;
(zd) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 203 during that year;
(ze) the number of decisions that were reviewed by the Commissioner under the internal review scheme (see section 220A) during that year.
(5) Heading to clause 220, page 165 (line 6), at the end of the heading, add "by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal".
(6) Heading to subclause 220(2), page 165 (line 11), omit "cyber-bulling", substitute "cyber-bullying".
(7) Subclause 220(2), page 165 (line 14), omit ", 78, 88 or 89", substitute "or 88".
(8) Subclause 220(4), page 166 (line 2), omit ", 78, 88 or 89", substitute "or 88".
(9) Paragraph 220(5) (b), page 166 (line 7), omit ", 88 or 89", substitute "or 88".
(10) Clause 220, page 167 (after line 4), after subclause (10), insert:
Removal notice—end -user
(10A) An application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of a decision of the Commissioner under section 78 or 89 to give a removal notice.
(11) Page 168 (after line 29), after clause 220, insert:
220A Internal review of decisions
(1) The Commissioner:
(a) must, by notifiable instrument, formulate a scheme (the internal review scheme) for and in relation to the review by the Commissioner of decisions of a kind referred to in section 220; and
(b) may, by notifiable instrument, vary the internal review scheme.
(2) The internal review scheme may empower the Commissioner to:
(a) on application, review such a decision; and
(b) affirm, vary or revoke the decision concerned.
(3) The internal review scheme may provide that the Commissioner's decision on review of a decision has effect as if it had been made under the provision under which the original decision was made.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not limit subsection (1).
(5) The Commissioner must publish the internal review scheme on the Commissioner's website.
Question agreed to.
I will now deal with the remaining amendments circulated by the opposition, and for these sheets I have been requested to put the question sheet by sheet. The question is that amendments on sheet 1303, as circulated by the opposition, be agreed to.
Opposition's circulated amendments—
(1) Page 169 (before line 1), before clause 221, insert:
220B Review by the ACMA
(1) If a person may apply for a review of a decision under section 220, the person may also apply to the ACMA for a review of such a decision.
Review of decisions by the ACMA
(2) The ACMA may review such a decision if the ACMA thinks that it is desirable to do so.
Action by the ACMA in relation to review
(3) If, having reviewed a decision, the ACMA is satisfied that it should take action under this section to encourage the Commissioner to affirm, vary or revoke the decision concerned, the ACMA may, by notice in writing given to the Commissioner, recommend that the Commissioner take action in relation to the review and decision as is specified in the notice.
(4) The recommended action may include affirming, varying or revoking the decision concerned, or otherwise consulting in relation to such action.
ACMA may report to Minister on results of recommendation
(5) If:
(a) the ACMA has made a recommendation to the Commissioner under subsection (3); and
(b) the Commissioner does not, within 30 days after the recommendation was given, take action that the ACMA considers to be appropriate; the ACMA may give the Minister a written report on the matter.
(6) The Minister must table a copy of the report in each House of the Parliament within 7 sitting days of that House after the day on which the Minister received the report.
The question now is that the amendments on sheet 1304 circulated by the opposition be agreed to.
Opposition's circulated amendments—
(1) Page 148 (after line 9), after clause 183, insert:
183A Advisory committees
(1) The Commissioner may, by writing, establish advisory committees to assist the Commissioner in performing any of the Commissioner's functions.
(2) An advisory committee consists of such persons as the Commissioner from time to time appoints to the committee.
(3) The Commissioner may revoke a person's appointment to an advisory committee.
(4) The Commissioner may give an advisory committee written directions as to:
(a) the way in which the committee is to carry out its functions; and
(b) the procedures to be followed in relation to meetings.
(5) An appointment to an advisory committee is not a public office within the meaning of the Renumeration Tribunal Act 1973.
(2) Clause 184, page 148 (line 18), at the end of subclause (2), add:
; (c) the making available of the Consumer Consultative Forum established by the ACMA to assist the Commissioner to perform the Commissioner's functions in relation to matters affecting Australians.
(3) Clause 223, page 170 (after line 16), after paragraph (1)(a), insert:
(aa) a member of an advisory committee established under section 183A;
The question is that the amendments on sheet 1305 circulated by the opposition be agreed to.
Op position's circulated amendments—
(1) Page 97 (after line 11), at the end of Division 1, add:
108A Restricted access system—consultation
(1) Before making a legislative instrument under section 108, the Commissioner must:
(a) make a copy of the draft instrument available on a website; and
(b) publish a notice on a website:
(i) stating that the Commissioner has prepared a draft of the instrument; and
(ii) inviting written submissions from the public within a specified period; and
(c) circulate to relevant stakeholders an invitation to give written submissions about the draft instrument to the Commissioner within that period.
(2) The period specified in the notice must run for at least 30 days after the publication of the notice.
(3) A relevant stakeholder for the purpose of paragraph (1) (c) includes but is not limited to a person who made submissions in relation to the draft Online Safety Bill 2021, if:
(a) the person's submissions were published on the Department's website; and
(b) the Commissioner is reasonably able to contact the person.
Note: Submissions in relation to the draft Online Safety Bill 2021 could, in 2021, be viewed on the Department's website (http://www.communications.gov.au).
(4) If a person gives submissions in accordance with a notice or invitation under subsection (1), the Commissioner must have due regard to those submissions in making the instrument.
The question now is that the amendments on sheet 1312 circulated by the opposition be agreed to.
Opposition's circulated amendments:
(1) Page 180 (after line 5), after clause 239A, insert:
239B Review of operation of Part 7 of this Act — adult cyber abuse
(1) Within 1 year after the commencement of this section, the Minister must cause to be conducted an independent review of the operation of Part 7 of this Act.
(2) The Minister must cause to be prepared a written report of the review.
(3) The Minister must cause copies of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the report is given to the Minister.
The question is that opposition amendments on sheet 1316 be agreed to.
Opposition's circulated amendments—
(1) Page 121 (after line 9), after clause 141, insert:
141A Publication of notice where no body or association represents a section of the online industry
(1) If the Commissioner is satisfied that a particular section of the online industry is not represented by a body or association, the Commissioner may publish a notice in the Gazette:
(a) stating that, if such a body or association were to come into existence within a specified period, the Commissioner would be likely to give a notice to that body or association under subsection 141(1); and
(b) setting out the matter or matters relating to online activities that would be likely to be specified in the subsection 141(1) notice.
(2) The period specified in a notice under subsection (1) must run for at least 60 days.
(2) Clause 145, page 122 (line 12), at the end of subclause (1), add:
if:
(a) the Commissioner has made a request under section 141 in relation to the development of an industry code and one or more of the following conditions is satisfied:
(i) the request is not complied with;
(ii) if a draft code is developed by the body or association—the draft does not contain appropriate community safeguards to deal with one or more matters specified in the request;
(iii) if indicative targets for achieving progress in the development of the code were specified in the notice of request—any of those indicative targets were not met;
(iv) the request is complied with, but the Commissioner subsequently refuses to register the code; or
(b) the Commissioner has published a notice under subsection 141A(1) in relation to a particular section of the online industry that is not represented by a body or association and all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) the notice states that, if such a body or association were to come into existence within a specified period, the Commissioner would be likely to give a notice to that body or association under subsection 141(1);
(ii) the notice sets out one or more matters relating to the online activities of the participants in that section of the industry that would be specified in a notice under subsection 141(1);
(iii) no such body or association comes into existence within the period specified in the notice; or
(c) an industry code that applies to participants in a particular section of an online industry has been registered under section 140 for at least 180 days and all of the following conditions are met:
(i) the Commissioner is satisfied that the code is deficient;
(ii) the Commissioner has given the body or association that developed the code a written notice requesting that deficiencies in the code be addressed within a specified period;
(iii) the period specified under subparagraph (ii) ends and the Commissioner is satisfied that the deficiencies in the code have not been adequately addressed.
(3) Clause 145, page 122 (after line 14), after subclause (1), insert:
(1A) For the purposes of subparagraph (1)(c)(i), an industry code that applies to participants in a particular section of an online industry and deals with one or more matters relating to the online activities of those participants is deficient if:
(a) the code is not operating to provide appropriate community safeguards in relation to one or more of those matters; or
(b) the code is not otherwise operating to regulate adequately participants in that section of the online industry in relation to that matter or those matters.
(1B) The Commissioner must not determine a standard under subsection (1) that applies to participants in a particular section of the online industry unless the Commissioner is satisfied that it is necessary or convenient for the Commissioner to determine a standard in order to:
(a) provide appropriate community safeguards in relation to one or more matters relating to the online activities of those participants; or
(b) otherwise regulate adequately participants in that section of the online industry in relation to that matter or those matters.
The question now is that the amendment circulated by the opposition on sheet 1317 be agreed to.
Op position's circulated amendment
(1) Clause 148, page 123 (line 18), at the end of subclause (1), add:
and; (c) consult the Information Commissioner and Privacy Commissioner; and
(d) consult the Human Rights Commissioner; and
(e) consult at least one body or association that represents the interests of consumers; and
(f) if the Commissioner is satisfied that a body or association represents a section of the online industry to which the industry standard or variation would apply—consult the body or association.
The question is that opposition amendments on sheet 1319 be agreed to.
Opposition's circulated amendments—
(1) Clause 5, page 13 (lines 15 to 17), omit the definition of serious harm to a person's mental health, substitute:
serious harm to a person's mental health includes:
(a) serious psychological harm; and
(b) serious distress;
but does not include mere ordinary emotional reactions such as those of only distress, grief, fear or anger.
I will now deal with amendments circulated by the Australian Greens, and I'll deal with these collectively, because I haven't received any different amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. I'm about to get a request to put some separately. Senator Gallagher?
I ask that the questions on Greens amendments on sheets 1276 and 1235 be put separately from amendments on sheets 1275 and 1299, to reflect different voting intentions on these amendments.
Okay, so I will put them in two groups. The first question is that the amendments on sheet 1235 circulated by the Australian Greens be agreed to.
Greens circulated amendments—
(1) Clause 239A, page 179 (line 26) to page 180 (line 5), omit the clause, substitute:
239A Review of the operation of this Act
(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of this Act.
(2) The review must start as soon as practicable after the end of 2 years after this Act commences.
(3) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months of the commencement of the review.
(4) The Minister must cause copies of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the Minister receives the report.
The question now is that the amendments on sheet 1276 be agreed to.
Greens circulated amendments—
(1) Clause 105, page 91 (after line 23), at the end of the clause, add:
(2) Clause 106, page 93 (after line 17), after subclause (1), insert:
(1A) For the purposes of this Act, class 1 material does not include any of the following:
(a) advertising;
(b) online dating material;
(c) health promotion material;
(d) sex education and harm reduction materials for young people;
(e) sexual minority material;
(f) works of art.
(3) Clause 107, page 96 (after line 14), after subclause (1), insert:
(1A) For the purposes of this Act, class 2 material does not include any of the following:
(a) advertising;
(b) online dating material;
(c) health promotion material;
(d) sex education and harm reduction materials for young people;
(e) sexual minority material;
(f) works of art.
(4) Clause 108, page 97 (after line 6), after paragraph (4) (b), insert:
(ba) the extent to which the system may interfere with the privacy of end-users; and
(bb) the extent of any personal information (within the meaning of the Privacy Act 1988) which the system may require end-users to provide; and
(bc) the strength of any data protection mechanisms in place to protect personal information required to be provided; and
(5) Page 97 (after line 11), at the end of Division 1, add:
108A Restricted access system—consultation
(1) Before making a legislative instrument under section 108, the Commissioner must:
(a) make a copy of the draft instrument available on a website; and
(b) publish a notice on a website:
(i) stating that the Commissioner has prepared a draft of the instrument; and
(ii) inviting written submissions from the public within a specified period; and
(c) circulate to relevant stakeholders an invitation to give written submissions about the draft instrument to the Commissioner within that period.
(2) The period specified in the notice must run for at least 30 days after the publication of the notice.
(3) A relevant stakeholder for the purpose of paragraph (1) (c) includes but is not limited to a person who made submissions in relation to the draft Online Safety Bill 2021, if:
(a) the person's submissions were published on the Department's website; and
(b) the Commissioner is reasonably able to contact the person.
Note: Submissions in relation to the draft Online Safety Bill 2021 could, in 2021, be viewed in on the Department's website (http://www.communications.gov.au).
(4) If a person gives submissions in accordance with a notice or invitation under subsection (1), the Commissioner must have due regard to those submissions in making the instrument.
(6) Clause 119, page 104 (lines 10 and 11), omit "covered by paragraph 107(1) (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k) or (l)".
(7) Clause 119, page 104 (after line 27), after subclause (1), insert:
(1A) In deciding whether to give a remedial notice under subsection (1) in relation to class 2 material covered by paragraph 107(1) (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k) or (l), the Commissioner must consider:
(a) the purpose for which the material was published; and
(b) whether it would be in the public interest to give the remedial notice; and
(c) the extent to which the interests of relevant persons, including end-users, would be affected by the giving of the remedial notice.
(1B) Subsection (1A) does not limit the matters the Commissioner may consider in deciding whether to give a remedial notice under subsection (1).
(8) Clause 120, page 105 (lines 8 and 9), omit "covered by paragraph 107(1) (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k) or (l)".
(9) Clause 120, page 105 (after line 26), after subclause (1), insert:
(1A) In deciding whether to give a remedial notice under subsection (1) in relation to class 2 material covered by paragraph 107(1) (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k) or (l), the Commissioner must consider:
(a) the purpose for which the material was published; and
(b) whether it would be in the public interest to give the remedial notice; and
(c) the extent to which the interests of relevant parties and end-users would be affected by the giving of the remedial notice.
(1B) Subsection (1A) does not limit the matters the Commissioner may consider in deciding whether to give a remedial notice under subsection (1).
I'll now put the remaining two sheets of amendments, unless I have a request to put them separately. The question is that amendments on sheets 1275 and 1299 as circulated by the Australian Greens be agreed to.
Greens circulated amendments—
SHEET 1275
(1) Clause 46, page 46 (after line 32), after paragraph (1) (f), insert:
(fa) the expectation that, when meeting the expectations set out in paragraphs (a) to (f), the provider of the service will take reasonable steps to:
(i) ensure that material is not removed unnecessarily; and
(ii) ensure that access to material is not restricted unnecessarily; and
(iii) minimise the impact of meeting basic online safety expectations on freedom of expression, including expression in the form of advertising and educational materials and as part of the conduct of lawful business;
_____
SHEET 1299
(1) Clause 140, page 119 (after line 30), at the end of subparagraph (1) (e) (ii), add:
(iii) the body or association consulted with at least one body or association that represents the interests of consumers about the development of the code; and
I made a mistake in my voting intentions on sheet 1303 and seek leave to recommit for that.
Leave granted.
The question is that amendments on sheet 1303, as circulated by the opposition, be agreed to.
Question negatived.
I seek leave to table my second reading speeches for these bills and have them incorporated into Hansard.
Leave not granted.
The question is that these bills be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
The question is, referring to sheet 1325, that clause 23 stand as printed.
The Australian Greens opposed clause 23 in the following terms—
(7) Division 2, clause 23, page 15 (lines 1 to 11).
The question is that the remaining Greens amendments, on sheet 1325, be agreed to.
Australian Greens' circulated amendments—
(1) Clause 4, page 3 (line 1), omit ", the Departmental member".
(2) Clause 5, page 3 (lines 9 and 10), omit the definition of appointed member.
(3) Clause 5, page 3 (line 18), omit the definition of Departmental member.
(4) Clause 5, page 4 (line 6), omit "and the Departmental member".
(5) Clause 10, page 7 (line 8), omit paragraph (b).
(6) Clause 22, page 14 (lines 5 and 6), omit "The other member is the Secretary or the Secretary's nominee.".
(8) Heading to Division 3, page 16 (line 1), omit "Appointed members", substitute "Members".
(9) Clause 24, page 16 (line 3), omit "Appointed members", substitute "Members".
(10) Clause 24, page 16 (line 5), omit "An appointed member", substitute "A Member".
(11) Clause 24, page 16 (line 8), omit "an appointed member", substitute "a member".
(12) Clause 24, page 16 (line 15), omit "appointed".
(13) Clause 24, page 16 (line 16), omit "An appointed member", substitute "A member".
(14) Clause 25, page 16 (line 18), omit "An appointed member", substitute "A member".
(15) Clause 25, page 16 (line 20), omit "an appointed member", substitute "a member".
(16) Clause 26, page 16 (line 22) to page 17 (line 18), omit "an appointed member" (wherever occurring), substitute "a member".
(17) Clause 27, page 17 (line 20), omit "An appointed member", substitute "A member".
(18) Clause 27, page 17 (line 22), omit "appointed".
(19) Clause 27, page 17 (line 25), omit "An appointed member", substitute "A member".
(20) Clause 28, page 17 (line 30), omit "appointed".
(21) Clause 29, page 18 (line 2), omit "An appointed member", substitute "A member".
(22) Clause 30, page 18 (line 6), omit "An appointed member", substitute "A member".
(23) Clause 31, page 18 (line 10), omit "an appointed member", substitute "a member".
(24) Clause 31, page 18 (line 17), omit "appointed".
(25) Clause 32, page 18 (line 21), omit "An appointed member", substitute "A member".
(26) Clause 33, page 18 (line 26) to page 19 (line 21), omit "an appointed member" (wherever occurring), substitute "a member".
(27) Clause 48, page 29 (lines 19 to 21), omit subclause (2).
(28) Clause 50, page 30 (lines 30 to 32), omit subclause (3).
I seek leave to have my speech in the second reading debate on the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority Bill 2021 tabled and incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The document was unavailable at the time of publishing .
I will first deal with the second reading amendment circulated by the opposition. The question is that the second reading amendment on sheet 1335, circulated by the opposition, be agreed to.
Op position's circulated amendment
At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate notes that:
(a) on 6 May 2017, the Coalition Government announced "a review of Australian and children's content" to "ensure the ongoing availability of Australian and children's content to domestic and international audiences, regardless of platform", yet over four years later there is still no sign of an Australian content obligation for streaming services;
(b) the Government has already watered down Australian content obligations for commercial free-to-air television broadcasters;
(c) the Government now proposes to halve the Australian content obligation for subscription television broadcasters;
(d) on 14 September 2017, the Coalition Government first announced the $50 million Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund, yet since then only $17.48 million has been committed under three funding rounds;
(e) the reallocation of funds from the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund to the Public Interest News Gathering (PING) Program in 2020 reduced the amount of funding available for regional and small publishers; and
(f) the ongoing delay and inadequacy around government support and reform is undermining jobs and content in the screen sector and the public interest journalism industry in Australia".
Question negatived.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I will now deal with the circulated amendments to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021, starting with the amendments on sheet 1333, circulated by Senator Patrick.
I've had a request from the government to recommit the second reading amendment on sheet 1335. With the leave of the Senate, I will recommit the second reading amendment moved by the opposition on sheet 1335. The question is the second reading amendment on sheet 1335, as circulated by the opposition, be agreed to.
Given that the result of that division changes the question before the Senate for the second reading, out of an abundance of caution I'll put the question of the second reading again. The question is now that the bill be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I will now deal with the circulated amendments to the bill, starting with the amendments on sheet 1333. The question now is that the amendments circulated by Senator Patrick on sheet 1333 be agreed to.
Senator Patrick's circulated amendments—
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit "5", substitute "6".
(2) Page 14 (after line 7), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 6 — Community television
Part 1 — Amendments
Broadcasting Services Act 1992
1 At the end of subsection 81(1)
Add:
Note: See also section 96B of the Radiocommunications Act 1992, which provides that CTV licences must not be granted to new holders after 30 June 2021.
2 At the end of subsection 92C(1)
Add:
Note: See also section 96B of the Radiocommunications Act 1992, which provides that licences for television services under this Part must not be granted to new holders after 30 June 2021.
Radiocommunications Act 1992
3 After section 96
Insert:
96A Policy in relation to certain community broadcasting services and open narrowcasting television services
(1) It is the intention of the Parliament that:
(a) until 30 June 2024, access to the broadcasting services bands be available to provide the following services in a prescribed area:
(i) community broadcasting services provided under a CTV licence;
(ii) community broadcasting services that provide television programs under a licence under Part 6A of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992;
(iii) open narrowcasting television services provided for community or educational non profit purposes that are transmitted from one or more radiocommunications transmitters, the operation of which is authorised under an apparatus licence issued under section 100; but
(b) on and after 30 June 2024, all such services should be delivered using online platforms.
(2) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, prescribe an area for the purposes of paragraph (h) of the definition of prescribed area in subsection (3).
(3) In this section:
broadcasting services bands has the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.
CTV licence has the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.
prescribed area means:
(a) Adelaide; or
(b) Melbourne; or
(c) an area prescribed in an instrument under subsection (2).
96B Licences of certain kinds must not be granted to new holders after 30 June 2021
(1) This section applies to a person if, on 30 June 2021, the person did not hold one or more of the following licences:
(a) a CTV licence;
(b) a licence under Part 6A of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to provide a community broadcasting service that provides television programs;
(c) an apparatus licence issued under section 100 that:
(i) authorises the operation of one or more radiocommunications transmitters; and
(ii) includes a condition that the licence may only be used to provide a transmission in standard definition digital mode of an open narrowcasting television service for community and educational non profit purposes.
(2) Despite anything else in this Act or the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the person is not eligible to hold a licence of that kind after that day.
4 Subsection 103(2)
After "Subject to", insert "subsection (2A) and".
5 After subsection 103(2)
Insert:
(2A) An apparatus licence issued under section 100 with the licence number 1171866 does not have effect after 30 June 2024.
6 Paragraph 103(4A)(c)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(c) if the related licence is a CTV licence within the meaning of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992does not have effect after 30 June 2024.
7 Application of amendments
The amendments made by items 4 to 6 of this Schedule apply in relation to apparatus licences regardless of when the licences were issued.
Part 2 — Repeals
Australian Communications and Media Authority (Community Television) Direction 2020
8 The whole of the instrument
Repeal the instrument.
Question agreed to.
I will now deal with amendments circulated by the opposition. The first refers to sheet 1298, and the question is that schedule 1 stand as printed.
The o pposition opposed schedule 1 in the following terms—
(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 1) to page 6 (line 7), to be opposed.
A division having been called and the bells being rung—
I've had a request to cancel the division.
Question negatived.
The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 1298, circulated by the opposition, be agreed to.
Opposition's circulated amendments—
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item.
The question now is that schedule (1) stand as printed.
The opposition opposed schedule 1 in the following terms—
(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 1) to page 6 (line 7), to be opposed.
Question agreed to.
The question now is that opposition amendments on sheet 1334 be agreed to.
Opposition's circulated amendments—
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit "5", substitute "6".
(2) Page 14 (after line 7), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 6 — Community television
Part 1 — Amendments
Radiocommunications Act 1992
1 Subsection 103(2)
After "Subject to", insert "subsection (3A) and".
2 After subsection 103(3)
Insert:
(3A) Despite subsections (2) and (3), an apparatus licence issued under section 100 with the licence number 1171866 does not have effect after the later of the following dates:
(a) 30 June 2024;
(b) the date the spectrum used by the apparatus licence is refarmed or allocated for the implementation of new broadcasting technologies—whichever is the earliest;
(c) the date specified in a written determination by the Minister.
3 Paragraph 103(4A)(c)
Omit the paragraph, substitute:
(c) does not have effect after the later of the following dates, if the related licence is a CTV licence within the meaning of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992:
(i) 30 June 2024;
(ii) the date the spectrum used by the CTV licence is refarmed or allocated for the implementation of new broadcasting technologies—whichever is the earliest;
(iii) the date specified in a written determination by the Minister.
4 Subsection 103(4B)
Omit "subparagraph (4A)(c)(ii)", substitute "paragraph (3A)(c) or subparagraph (4A)(c)(iii)".
5 Application of amendments
The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to licences regardless of when the licences were issued.
Part 2 — Repeals
Australian Communications and Media Authority (Community Television) Direction 2020
6 The whole of the instrument
Repeal the instrument.
I will now turn to the amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. The first amendment is on sheet 1326. The question is that schedule 2 stand as printed.
Australian Greens ' circulated amendment
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit the table item.
Question agreed to.
The question now is that the remaining schedule to be opposed on sheet 1326 circulated by the Australian Greens be agreed to.
The Australian Greens opposed schedule 2 in the following terms
(2) Schedule 2, page 7 (line 1) to page 11 (line 19), to be opposed.
Question negatived.
The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Senate adjourned at 23:06