I remind senators that the question may be put at the request of any senator.
I thank senators who have contributed to this debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (COVID-19 Economic Response No. 2) Bill 2021.
As senators are aware, schedule 1 to the bill amends the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act to allow the Treasurer to make rules for economic response payments to provide support to an entity where they are adversely affected by restrictions imposed by a state or territory to control COVID-19. This measure gives effect to the government's commitment to assist any state that is unable to administer its own business support payments in the event of a significant lockdown imposed by that state or territory between 1 July this year and 31 December next year.
Schedule 2 to the bill amends the information-sharing provisions of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to allow the Australian Taxation Office to share data with Australian government agencies for the purpose of administering a relevant COVID-19 business support program. Relevant business support programs are those that have been included in a declaration by the Treasurer for this purpose. The Treasurer can make this declaration by legislative instrument if satisfied that the program responds to the economic impacts of COVID-19 and supports businesses who have had their operations impacted by public health orders.
Schedule 3 to the bill introduces a new power in the income tax laws that enables, by legislative instrument, eligible Commonwealth COVID-19 business grants to be declared free from income tax. States and territories are also able to apply the same tax treatment where they have grant programs focused on supporting small and medium businesses facing similarly exceptional circumstances related to COVID-19.
Schedule 4 to the bill extends the operation of a temporary mechanism introduced in 2020 which permits responsible ministers to allow for electronic signature for relevant documents in response to the challenges posed by the coronavirus pandemic.
Finally, schedule 5 to the bill makes COVID-19 disaster payments received by individuals from the 2020-21 income year onwards free from income tax.
This bill continues the adaptive response to the COVID-19 pandemic that Australia has applied right throughout the pandemic. It enables governments to continue to respond as necessary to the economic challenges created by COVID-19 that they face, particularly as a result of restrictions put in place at different state or territory levels. As we've worked our way through the pandemic, our ability to respond in ways that are more directly applicable to local circumstances has been enhanced. The measures in this bill enable us to ensure that we can have effective administration and tax-free treatment of the COVID-19 disaster payments, which are applied on a case-by-case basis to different areas as they are affected by lockdowns.
The bill enables us to ensure that we can respond with economic support measures for businesses where states and territories need, noting that, to date, states and territories, as they too have enhanced their capability, are showing an ability to deliver those measures themselves, but it's important that we have the flexibility and ability to do that where they find necessary. It maintains other important, flexible measures to get us through the uncertain period that lies ahead. What the advent of the delta variant in particular has taught us is that the uncertainties of COVID continue to exist and that none of us can pretend to predict with absolute confidence what the future will hold. These measures will enable Australia, and particularly the government, to work with state and territory partners, with business and with Australian families, households and individuals to help them as they have done to continue to respond successfully to the COVID-19 pandemic. I commend the bill to the chamber.
The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.
On behalf of the Australian Greens, I move the second reading amendment on sheet 1359 that I foreshadowed in my second reading speech:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Treasurer to ensure that rules regarding payments providing financial support to entities prevent payments being made to, or include a mechanism to recover payments from, large companies that are profitable or pay executive bonuses in the same financial year that they receive a payment".
The question is that the second reading amendment on sheet 1359, moved by Senator McKim, be agreed to.
At the request of Senator Siewert, I move the second reading amendment on sheet 1361:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate is of the opinion that:
(a) people on income support payments, including Jobseeker Payment, Youth Allowance, Disability Support Pension and Carer Payment, continue to be ignored and miss out on additional support during lockdowns;
(b) this bill does nothing to support the estimated 350,000 people (including 50,000 children) in Greater Sydney who are denied access to Covid-19 Disaster Payments despite living on income support of as little as $44 a day;
(c) if we want people to be able to afford to stay home, Covid-19 Disaster Payments must be immediately extended to all people on income support payments;
(d) people who have lost less than 8 hours a week of work continue to be excluded from the Covid-19 Disaster Payment; and
(e) all income support payments should be increased above the poverty line and everyone who has lost work should be given adequate support with access to the full JobKeeper payment rate so that everyone is supported through the pandemic".
The question is that the motion be agreed to.
The question now is that the bill be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I move amendment (1) on sheet 1352:
(1) Page 9 (after line 17), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 6 — Publication of information about COVID 19 payment recipients
Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020
1 Section 6
Insert:
annual turnover of an entity for a financial year is the total of the following that is earned in the year in the course of the entity's business:
(a) the proceeds of sales of goods and/or services;
(b) commission income;
(c) repair and service income;
(d) rent, leasing and hiring income;
(e) government bounties and subsidies;
(f) interest, royalties and dividends;
(g) other operating income.
If the entity is a non-profit body (within the meaning of section 23-15 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999), treat the operations or activities carried out by the body as the business of the body.
jobkeeper payment means a payment under the jobkeeper scheme.
jobkeeper scheme means the scheme for the Coronavirus economic response payment known as the jobkeeper payment provided for in rules made for the purposes of subsection 7(1) in relation to the period 1 March 2020 to 28 March 2021.
2 After section 19
Insert:
19A Commissioner must publish information about entities that received jobkeeper payments
(1) The Commissioner must publish the following information about each entity covered by subsection (2) that has received a jobkeeper payment:
(a) the name of the entity;
(b) the number of individuals for whom the entity received a jobkeeper payment;
(c) the total amount of jobkeeper payments received by the entity;
(d) whether the entity has voluntarily paid to the Commonwealth an amount equal to all or part of the amount referred to in paragraph (c), and if so, the amount of the payment.
(2) An entity is covered by this subsection if the annual turnover of the entity for a financial year in which the entity received a jobkeeper payment is more than $10 million.
(3) The information must be published as soon as practicable after the commencement of this section on a publicly available website maintained by the Commissioner.
19B Commissioner must publish information about entities that received certain Coronavirus economic response payments
(1) The Commissioner must publish the following information about each entity covered by subsection (2) that has received a Coronavirus economic response payment provided for in rules made for the purposes of subsection 7(1B):
(a) the name of the entity;
(b) the total amount of such payments received by the entity;
(c) whether the entity has voluntarily paid to the Commonwealth an amount equal to all or part of the amount referred to in paragraph (b), and if so, the amount of the payment.
(2) An entity is covered by this subsection if the annual turnover of the entity for a financial year in which the entity received such a payment is more than $10 million.
(3) The information must be published as soon as practicable after the commencement of this section on a publicly available website maintained by the Commissioner.
(4) Information published under this section must be kept up to date.
I want to make it clear to everyone what this amendment does—I misled the chamber the other day, because I was working off a draft amendment. This amendment allows for the disclosure of companies that have received JobKeeper in the past and any other measures that are proposed in this bill that the Treasurer may wish to use to assist companies.
JobKeeper is really important for businesses and no-one begrudges them using it. But there have been a number of companies that, in effect, have abused the JobKeeper scheme. In New Zealand, for every company that gets assistance such as this from the taxpayer, they disclose how much the company received, for how many employees they received that money and how much they have paid back. In Australia, only 0.28 per cent of money from the JobKeeper scheme has been paid back. In New Zealand, just through having transparency so that people can look at what companies received and what they have returned, it's five per cent. My amendment seeks only to replicate what has been done in New Zealand. It's not private company information that we're asking for. We're asking for disclosure of what the taxpayer has given these companies and what that has been for.
Just to be very clear, all this bill seeks to do is disclose four things: the name of the entity, the number of individuals for whom the entity received a JobKeeper payment, the total amount of JobKeeper payments received by the entity, and whether or not the company has voluntarily paid to the Commonwealth an amount equal to all or part of the amount received. Obviously, the bill also seeks to have a similar regime for any future funds received by companies. Again, it's not a shame to be helped; we just don't want to have people abusing the JobKeeper scheme or, indeed, any other scheme where the taxpayer is helping a company, so I ask the Senate to support this bill.
I indicate to the Senate that the Greens will be supporting Senator Patrick's amendment. What we know already is that at least $12½ billion in JobKeeper payments went to businesses and other entities that didn't actually need that money. We also know that the final number will likely be higher, because there is the publication of some figures, which we are awaiting, that will likely make that number higher.
I've tabled a bill on behalf of the Australian Greens, the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Amendment (Ending Jobkeeper Profiteering) Bill 2021. That is currently under inquiry as we have this debate today. That bill would withhold tax input credits equal to the value of JobKeeper payments made to large companies that ended up being profitable or that paid executive bonuses. It would also establish a public register of large companies that received JobKeeper, which is almost identical to what Senator Patrick is proposing in his amendment to this bill. Far too many big corporations have rorted JobKeeper, and a little bit of the disinfectant of the shining of sunlight on the whole process by including transparency provisions such as those proposed by Senator Patrick in this amendment would go a long way to forcing companies to pay that money back.
The government does not support Senator Patrick's amendment. In responding to the amendment, I want to speak a little about the JobKeeper program, and then we'll go to the particular content of the amendment.
What we see is that the JobKeeper program was one of the most successful economic responses to a time of crisis in Australia's history and, right around the world, it was one of the most successful economic responses applied to the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the Reserve Bank of Australia's research, JobKeeper saved at least 700,000 jobs over the period April to July 2020. The RBA has also said that, from its analysis, JobKeeper was far more cost effective than similar schemes in other countries. Estimates are that JobKeeper had a cost of around $100,000 for each job saved, compared with some $224,000 for similar attempts at such programs in the United States. This was consistent with Treasury's own three-month review, which found that the program was at that stage well targeted, with payments going to businesses that had experienced an average decline in turnover of 37 per cent, as well as a doubling in their job separation rate just before JobKeeper was introduced. In comparison, other businesses had had a four per cent decline in turnover, and businesses that were not claiming JobKeeper had had no change in job separation rate.
The success of the JobKeeper program meant that businesses across Australia performed better than expected. That, along with Australia's success in the suppression of COVID-19, has underpinned Australia's rapid economic recovery. It has also meant that some businesses within the JobKeeper program that were entirely eligible under the rules established at the time of making claims ultimately performed better than expected because the economy reopened faster and grew more strongly and because we saw the recovery come back more strongly. The combination of those factors helped to see our unemployment rate decrease for eight consecutive months and fall to 4.9 per cent in June, prior to the recent challenges of additional lockdowns occurring. Australia was the first economy to see both GDP—the size of our nation's economy—and the level of employment across Australia surpass pre-COVID levels, ahead of other advanced economies. We also saw business, with the strength it had as a result of programs like JobKeeper, able to invest in new machinery and equipment and to grow at its fastest rate since March 2003, increasing by 8½ per cent in the December quarter and 10.3 per cent in the March quarter, to be 7.2 per cent higher over the year.
These measures show the economic dividend that has accrued from good management, including programs like JobKeeper, as well as the particularly targeted saving of individual jobs at the time. It was so successful because JobKeeper provided firms with certainty and confidence at a time of great uncertainty. JobKeeper was put in place quickly, with broad eligibility criteria, and was easy to access, because at that time we were seeing lockdowns occurring across every state and territory. At that time we were seeing public-facing businesses, particularly, right across the country, including some of the retail businesses whose names I hear used quite frequently, being told they had to shut their doors. It is a good thing that they were able to reopen their doors earlier than anticipated. It is a good thing that they were able to grow faster than anticipated. It is a good thing that they have been able not only to maintain the jobs they had but, in some instances, for some of these businesses, to employ more Australians as a result of the economic dividend that flowed from the management through the pandemic.
As a government, we hear the calls that are made now to try to go back and retrospectively change the terms of eligibility for JobKeeper. The government does not believe that we should be retrospectively changing those rules. We adapted—
Senator Patrick interjecting—
Senator Patrick says this doesn't do that. He's right. The amendment itself does not, but the motivations for the amendment are clearly about continually going after certain businesses, trying to demonise them and imply or suggest they did the wrong thing. Businesses who did the wrong thing, who claimed what they were not eligible for under the rules of the program at the time, are subject to all the enforcement provisions of the ATO, but businesses who claimed what they were eligible for at the time weren't doing the wrong thing don't deserve to be targeted, to be demonised or otherwise. The government welcomes and encourages those who choose to make voluntary repayments. That is a welcome and honourable thing undertaken by those businesses. But other Australian businesses who have made profits during the course of the year have been in a position to reinvest, as I said, driving investments in Australia to higher levels; to create more jobs, driving employment in Australia to higher levels; and to pay dividends, often flowing into the superannuation accounts of many Australians. These are all of the things you expect to see in a stronger economy, and it is a good thing that JobKeeper, as structured, helped to achieve a stronger economy.
I note that the Greens in the remarks made and, indeed, Senator Patrick's amendment only seek to target businesses above a certain threshold. We know that just as there would be and are businesses above that threshold who ended up doing better than expected, so too would there be many small Australian businesses, many small traders—sole traders—across Australia and many not-for-profit organisations across Australia. Again, it is a good thing that they all did better than anticipated at the start of JobKeeper.
Today we have new programs in place, new measures that are able to be better targeted, better focused, in the way in which they are applied. We are working with states and territories in the delivery of assistance to businesses that is targeted for the duration of lockdown and focused very clearly on businesses affected during those lockdowns. That's because over time we've been able both to learn about how we as a country can respond to COVID-19 and the changing circumstances, particularly those brought about by the delta variant, and to appreciate and understand how we as a nation can make sure that we provide targeted assistance geographically, locally and to people most affected at the time. Back when JobKeeper was born, that wasn't an option. It was nationwide, it was urgent and it was in the face of great national uncertainty. The rules were written then to deal with the circumstances at the time, and we don't support putting in place measures today that are about furthering some sort of argument that we should go back and retrospectively change the rules or the expectations for businesses.
Labor will be supporting this amendment. We think there are good arguments to be put in place around increasing transparency for entities that are receiving payments from the Commonwealth. I was waiting to hear the Leader of the Government in the Senate's arguments opposing this amendment, but other than his giving a historical rundown on JobKeeper and the reasons we had it it wasn't clear to me why the government was prepared to oppose it. Considering the length of the pandemic, the fact that it has been ongoing and the fact that we have had such enormous amounts of money going out the door, it wasn't clear why there is an argument against being transparent around where those payments are going. There was a criticism about it covering only businesses or firms where the annual turnover is more than $10 million, but I didn't understand whether that was an argument that it should cover the field. It doesn't seem to me that there is a strong argument against this.
Labor agree that JobKeeper was important. That's why we suggested a wage subsidy program back in the day. Remember that the government was opposed to a wage subsidy program and actually said it was dangerous. We were arguing for it. We saw the merits. We argued for it because of what it achieved—700,000 jobs saved. The successful rollout of a wage subsidy scheme is something that we were always supportive of, as well as the very significant suppression of the virus, which contributed to our economic recovery. I don't think there are any arguments around that at all.
We did have concerns about the lack of transparency once we got through the crisis stage. We did think there was merit behind reporting, and New Zealand has shown how that is done. We were also concerned—and I think we raised it at the time—about how some people who were earning considerably less than they got on the JobKeeper program received that money as well. We think there were elements of the program that could have been better managed by the government to make sure that every dollar spent in this crisis was targeted to where it was needed the most.
Now, with the opportunity we've had, with some of the work the PBO and others have done, and as we enter reporting season for firms, we can see that billions of dollars went to large companies that did very well through the pandemic. There were massive executive bonuses and returns to shareholders, and taxpayers were footing the bill for that. I think people who have done it tough through this pandemic look at that and think that it does not sound fair at all. I congratulate those firms that have returned JobKeeper money. They understand that the reason behind the JobKeeper program was not for firms to increase their profits but to keep people connected to jobs. That was the main reason behind it. So where firms have been in the position to repay it and have done so, I say, 'Good on them.' We just wish there were a few more of them who would follow that lead. Sometimes you change behaviour by shining a light on things. That's where transparency like this is needed and is probably expected by the Australian community.
We support this. I don't think the government has a very strong argument against it. I don't want to hold up this bill passing. My understanding was the government wanted this bill dealt with this week. We were ready to deal with it last night so that, if this amendment passed, it could go to the House. We want to make sure that we are not slowing this bill down, and we absolutely have not been doing that. We were trying to work with the government last night to make sure this bill was passed. With our colleagues in the Greens we amended our speeches and made sure we were in a position to deal with this bill. I don't want to delay it any further. I think it is important that this passes at the earliest opportunity, but this is an important amendment and we're happy to support it.
I thank Labor and the Greens for their support. I understand One Nation will also be supporting this amendment. I have to take the Minister for Finance to task on some of the things that he said. This is important because you cannot rewrite history, Senator Birmingham. We need to go back to what this program was about. I'm going to read from the ATO website, which says:
The JobKeeper Payment scheme was a subsidy for businesses significantly affected by coronavirus (COVID-19).
The JobKeeper payment supported businesses significantly affected by coronavirus. It's the first principle of this bill. So don't you come in here and tell us that it is a bill for economic stimulus. If you'd come to us in the middle of a pandemic and said, 'I want to give a whole bunch of companies taxpayer money so they can go off and profit,' it would not have passed this chamber. Please do not rewrite history.
You've got companies like Harvey Norman, who almost proudly are saying they took $22 million of JobKeeper money from the Australian public and then doubled their profits. 'We took money from taxpayers and we funnelled it into dividends and executive bonuses.' Do you really think that's fair, Senator Birmingham? Is that what the people of South Australia want, their money funnelled from their wallets to big business? That is not right. That is absolutely inappropriate. Gerry Harvey must be laughing at everyone right now. Every morning, people can see ads in the papers and the tabloids where he's selling his wares, knowing full well those ads are paid for by the taxpayer. Every time we see the Olympic Games—I was up in the press gallery yesterday, and Channel 7 are very happy with their ratings in relation to the Olympic Games—and see a Harvey Norman ad, every taxpayer needs to understand that they're paying for that ad. It's their money that's paying for the ad, and the government thinks that that's okay.
I went onto the New Zealand website while you were talking, Minister. I had a look at how much Harvey Norman were paid in New Zealand's wage subsidy: $12,700,622.40. That's what New Zealand tells us about Harvey Norman, but you're trying to protect Australians from being able to see that very information. Everyone in New Zealand can see how their money was spent. I'm not saying that every single company abused the JobKeeper scheme; I'm not saying that at all. I'm not suggesting that the program shouldn't have been implemented. But transparency in New Zealand has caused a much greater return of money that didn't meet the objective of the program, where companies have decided: 'You know what? I don't want to take money from the taxpayer and use it in a way for which it was not intended.' All Australians can do now in relation to JobKeeper is look at those Harvey Norman ads and increase their resilience and resolve to not shop at Harvey Norman, because it's ripping off Australians.
The accomplice alongside them is the Liberal Party. In particular, we have the finance minister supporting this. Most South Australians would be most unhappy with Senator Birmingham. He's allowing a rort to take place. I limit this to the companies that made greater profits in the period over which they claimed JobKeeper than those in the previous year. I'm not saying all companies were bad.
This bill does not seek to retrospectively do anything. All it does is say, 'Please lay out what taxpayers gave to companies to assist them.' That's all it's doing. There can be no excuse for not supporting this. Even in the amendment where we're saying that, as you pay money to companies moving forward, there ought to be disclosure about that money, I don't see you trying to carve out that part of the amendment and supporting it.
Progress reported.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and pursuant to standing order 78(1), I give notice of the committee's intention, at the giving of notices on the next sitting day, to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in the committee's name for 11 August 2021, proposing the disallowance of the Social Security (Parenting Payment Participation Requirements—Class of Persons) Instrument 2021, made under the Social Security Act 1991. On behalf of Senator Dodson and pursuant to standing order 78(3), I advise that Senator Dodson objects to the withdrawal of the notice of motion and asks that the notice stands in his name.
Pursuant to that advice and notification, the motion now stands in the name of Senator Dodson.
On behalf of Senator Dodson, I also give notice of his intention to amend the notice of motion proposing the disallowance of the Social Security (Parenting Payment Participation Requirements—Class of Persons) Instrument 2021 as follows:
After "That", insert "sections 4 and 6 of"
I also seek leave to make a short statement, of less than a minute, on behalf of Senator Dodson in relation to this matter.
Leave granted.
For the information of senators, Senator Dodson intends to amend the notice of the disallowance motion so that it relates to sections 4 and 6 of the instrument rather than the entire instrument. Sections 4 and 6 prescribe the class of persons subject to compulsory participation in ParentsNext. The remainder of the instrument repeals an earlier instrument that prescribed a slightly different class of persons. Senator Dodson intends to amend the notice to ensure that those parts of the instrument that repeal that earlier instrument remain in force so that no class of persons are prescribed as being subject to compulsory participation. Senator Dodson will move the notice, as amended, on 11 August 2021. This notification is to enable any other senator to take over the remaining provisions of the disallowance notice.
I present the eighth report of 2021 of the Selection of Bills Committee and seek leave to have the report incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The report read as follows—
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 8 OF 2021
5 August 2021
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Senator Dean Smith (Government Whip, Chair)
Senator Perin Davey (The Nationals Whip)
Senator Stirling Griff (Centre Alliance Whip)
Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip)
Senator Rachel Siewert (Australian Greens Whip)
Senator Anne Urquhart (Opposition Whip)
Senator Raff Ciccone
Senator Katy Gallagher
Senator Jacqui Lambie
Senator the Hon James McGrath
Senator Rex Patrick
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston
Secretary: Tim Bryant ph: 6277 3020
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 8 OF 2021
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 4 August 2021 at 7.12 pm.
2. The committee recommends that—
(a) the Ensuring Northern Territory Rights Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 6 October 2021 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(b) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 5) Bill 2021 be referred for inquiry and report by 20 August 2021 but was unable to reach agreement on a committee (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral).
(c) the provisions of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Equity Investments and Other Measures) Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 August 2021 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:
Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Amendment Bill 2021
Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Cost Recovery and Other Measures) Bill 2021
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Amendment Bill 2021
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
Customs Tariff Amendment (2022 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2021
(Dean Smith)
Chair
5 August 2021
Appendix 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Ensuring Northern Territory Rights Bill 2021
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
1. How this bill will align Commonwealth involvement with laws of the Northern Territory similar to the Commonwealth's involvement with laws of Australian states.
2. The benefits that will be delivered to Northern Territorians through having legal rights that are equivalent to residents of Australian states.
3. Outcomes that may be achieved through the removal of: (a)limitations applying to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly pertaining to the acquisition of property on just terms, (b) Laws that limit the ability of the Northern Legislative Assembly to legislate for voluntary assisted dying if the Legislative Assembly chooses to do so, and (c) Limitations on the ability of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly to make laws conferring powers in relation to the hearing and determination of employment disputes.
4. Referring this bill will allow broad consultation with a range of stakeholders to ensure all have opportunity to provide input so as to gain the greatest understanding of issues that this bill seeks to address, and how the bill, if passed, will do so.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Legal & Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): September 2021
Possible reporting date:
06 October 2021
(signed)
Senator Dr Sam McMahon
Appendix 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 5) Bill 2021
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
This bill makes a number of complex changes to taxation offsets which have been in place for many years. It's important they be properly analysed.
The government have given no rationale for the changes, and also not detailed the costings associated.
People in the screen industry deserve to be beard - they have already been severely impacted by COVID, it's important to know how they will be impacted by this.
Possible submissions or evidence from
Screen producers, screen industry bodies, creative industry bodies, ATO, Treasury, Office for the Arts
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Environment & Communications Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Friday 13 August 2021
Monday 16 August 2021
Possible reporting date:
Friday 20 August 2021
(signed)
Senator Anne Urquhart
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 5) Bill 2021
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Consider the impact this will have on the wider screen sector
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Peak bodies for screen producers, documentary makers and other industry bodies
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Week of the 16th
Possible reporting date:
August 25th
(signed)
Nick McKim
Appendix 3
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Equity Investments and Other Measures) Bill 2021
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Risk of liability for stranded assets where government makes equity investment in fossil fuel infrastructure projects.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
EFIC
IEFFA
DFAT
The Australia Institute
The Grattan Institute
APSI
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Economics Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
September 2021
Possible reporting date:
October 2021
(signed)
Senator Nick McKim
I move:
That the report be adopted.
I just want to clarify that the Treasury amendment bill is going to the environment and communications committee, because I haven't got a copy of the amended reference.
That is correct.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That—
(a) the National Health Amendment (Decisions under the Continence Aids Payment Scheme) Bill 2021 be considered from 12.15 pm today;
(b) government business then be called on and considered till not later than 1.30 pm;
(c) general business notice of motion no. 1203 standing in the name of Senator Gallagher relating to the establishment an anti-corruption commission be considered during general business today; and
(d) the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Waiver of Debt and Act of Grace Payments) Bill 2019 be considered at the time for private senators' bills on Monday, 9 August 2021.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator O'Neill for today, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
I remind senators that question may be put at the request of any senator. There being none, so notified and we will proceed.
At the request of Senator Watt, I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, by no later than 10 am on Monday, 9 August 2021, the ACIL Allen report on the Industry Growth Centres.
Question agreed.
At the request of Senator Keneally, I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Fair Work Act 2009 in relation to paid parental leave, and for related purposes. Fair Work Amendment (Improving Paid Parental Leave for Parents of Stillborn Babies) Bill 2021.
I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.
Leave granted.
I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard and to continue my remarks.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The Fair Work Amendment (Improving Paid Parental Leave for Parents of Stillborn Babies) Bill 2021is an important reform to equalise Australia's paid parental leave (PPL) scheme.
This Bill will amend the Fair Work Act 2009 to ensure that the parents of stillborn babies can access the same quantum of employer-paid PPL that they would be entitled to regardless of whether the pregnancy ended in stillbirth or with a live birth.
At the core of this Bill is the understanding that parents of stillborn children are parents too.
They have responsibilities to their child, including making decisions surrounding autopsy, attending follow-up medicals appointments, selecting gravesites or cremation, and arranging funerals and services. Parents also need time to recover after birth, both physically - the same as any other parent - but also psychologically, given the extreme trauma and grief of stillbirth.
It is worth repeating that, in Australia, 6 babies are lost to stillbirth each day - or approximately 2,200 babies every year. The rate of death from stillbirth is higher than the national road toll, and stillbirth is the number one cause of death for infants in our country.
The Commonwealth's Parental Leave Pay already recognises these facts and provides for parents of a stillborn baby to receive the same government-paid PPL entitlements as the parents of a baby born live under the scheme.
However, a key issued raised by witnesses to the Senate Select Committee on Stillbirth Research and Education was the inequality of employer-paid PPL schemes for parents whose baby is born still.
In addition to the government-paid aspect of the PPL scheme, employers can also elect to provide additional employer-paid entitlements, such as topping-up the government-paid entitlement to reflect their normal wages, allowing annual leave or long-service leave to be accessed outside of the normal regulations, or continuing payment of superannuation contributions, to their employees who become parents. These entitlements are typically outlined in an employment contract, registered agreement or a workplace policy.
However, in the private sector, these contracts and agreements often do not consider the circumstances of a stillbirth. Without explicit entitlements for employees who have experienced a stillbirth in these agreements, often it is left to a manager or direct supervisor to make the significant decision as to whether or not parents of a stillborn baby are entitled to the same employer-paid entitlements as if the baby was born live.
The Committee heard evidence that the ambiguity existing in employer-paid PPL was most likely through oversight or misunderstanding of stillbirth, rather than ill-intent.
Regardless, this oversight and ambiguity can have an enormous impact on the decisions that parents make while recovering and grieving the stillbirth of a child.
In one case, a mother gave evidence to the Committee that she was forced to return to work by her manager just 11 days after her baby's stillbirth.
A report by Price Waterhouse Coopers has found that mothers who returned to work for financial reasons following a stillbirth had a productivity rate of just 26% of their normal rate after 30 days.
Given this evidence, the first recommendation of the bipartisan, unanimous report of the Committee was that:
"… the Australian government reviews and amends the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and provisions relating to stillbirth in the National Employment Standards (NES) to ensure that:
As such, this Bill will complement a previous Bill introduced by the Government, the Fair Work Amendment (Improving Unpaid Parental Leave for Parents of Stillborn Babies and Other Measures) Bill 2020, which improved access to unpaid parental arrangements for parents of stillborn babies, but failed to consider issues surrounding employer-paid parental leave entitlements, per the Committee's recommendation.
This Bill will guarantee that employees can access the same quantum of entitlement to employer-paid PPL regardless of whether the pregnancy ended in stillbirth or with a live birth.
For parents of stillborn babies, this Bill will explicitly preserve their entitlement to employer-paid PPL regardless of whether the entitlement is legislative or one arising under an industrial instrument.
The Bill further outlines the standard evidentiary requirements for accessing said leave, the requirements for an employee to alter or cancel their leave, in full or in part, and ensures that an employer cannot cancel paid parental leave, in full or in part, in the event of an employee experiencing a stillbirth.
In sum, this Bill will make access to employer-paid PPL entitlements equal and unambiguous for all Australian parents.
On that basis, I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Debate adjourned.
The chamber is considering the question that Senator Patrick's amendment be agreed to.
I want to finalise my remarks. I'm really disappointed with the finance minister in regard to this. We need to understand that all of the money that has been funnelled from the taxpayer to the pockets of executives, to the wallets of investors or to the advertising companies that are engaged by Harvey Norman is money that wasn't sitting in a bank and ready to spend. This is deficit money, this is money that is to be paid for by my children and, indeed, your children, Senator Birmingham, and every senator's children and every Australian's children. That is where this money is coming from. Again, I don't begrudge any company having received JobKeeper. This bill does not seek to take any money back. It does call for the disclosure of what taxpayer money companies did receive. There will be many in the community that will look to see if there are any anomalies, and that may help in the recovery of money for our children.
I just wish to make one point clear. Anybody who listened to Senator Patrick's entire contribution, prior to the slight interruption to debate, would perhaps forget that it was a requirement of the operation of the JobKeeper program that every dollar paid under that program was paid to employees.
Senator Patrick interjecting—
Senator Patrick, I don't think I interrupted you once. I'm pointing out the facts as to how the program operated and the fact it was a requirement. Indeed, many part-time or casual employees potentially received payments in excess of what their normal wages would be. That was a requirement of the operation of the program. It's a fact, as I acknowledged, that economic conditions in some sectors recovered faster than had been anticipated at the time, but I think the way in which Senator Patrick framed a number of his remarks simply proves the point that this amendment is about being able to pursue a pattern of attacking and vilifying certain companies and, in doing so, attacking those who are providing jobs and opportunities for many Australians and who have helped in our economic recovery, which is so important to the economic future of the nation.
In the Senate, we have the responsibility for looking after the review of the parliament. I would like to ask some questions generally, in addition to supporting Senator Patrick in his desire for accountability and transparency. How long do you expect to keep these JobKeeper payments in place? You've sought in this legislation to extend it to 31 December 2022.
JobKeeper itself is no longer in operation. What is in operation now is two particular streams of support. One is the COVID-19 disaster payments, which are triggered by a range of conditions being met—the Commonwealth hotspot definition being in place and restrictions by a state or territory being in place. Those conditions then result in individuals who have lost more than eight hours of work, as a result of those restrictions, being eligible for payments.
The other stream of payments is the business support payments, which at this stage are being delivered by states and territories. This bill provides a legislative underpinning for the Commonwealth to be able to deliver those payments if a state or territory has difficulty administratively being able to do so. At this stage we don't anticipate needing to do that; however, we think it is prudent to have the terms there.
The bill provides the contingency for these arrangements to operate through the remainder of this year and next year. It is not be the government's expectation that such programs would be necessary throughout that duration, but we think that it is prudent, given the uncertainties we've seen with the advent of the delta strain, to have those contingencies in place. Noting also the practical consideration of parliament being interrupted for an election at some point next year, it is logical for the timing to run for that period of time. Equally, we note that these are extraordinary measures and provisions, which is why having a clear sunset there was an important principle to bring to the legislation.
How much in total do you think will be spent from now until 31 December 2022?
That is something that is very hard to estimate. I'm not in a position to put a figure on it. It does depend upon the extent to which lockdowns, or other such restrictions that trigger these sorts of payments, ultimately end up being necessary. Our hope is that they will be minimised as much as possible. The modelling work of the Doherty Institute and the evidence and science that the government is seeking to follow seek to put Australia in a position where we're able to continue to save lives and protect Australians whilst minimising the need for those restrictions as much as possible over that time line and to progressively get to a point where the restrictions that would trigger these payments become less and less likely.
The devastation economically since March last year has not been due to the COVID virus; it has been due to government restrictions. They have been capricious and arbitrary and devastating and, at times, inhuman. Why is the federal government propping these up—because the minister just mentioned a minute ago that the total spending will depend upon lockdowns. Lockdowns in the United States, where there are 50 states, show that, between those states that have had lockdowns and those that haven't had lockdowns, there's barely any difference in COVID performance. In fact, the Governor of Florida, Governor DeSantis, apologised to the citizens of Florida after the first lockdown ended, and he ended it quickly and he hasn't had one since—and Florida is packed with aged people.
We've also seen New South Wales Deputy Premier John Barilaro, within the last week, admit that he doesn't know what the hell is happening in his government or in New South Wales with regard to lockdowns. The World Health Organization has come out and said that lockdowns are 'a blunt instrument' that needs to be used carefully and only initially to get control of the virus. Does that mean, Minister, that state governments using lockdowns are not in control of their state? It certainly appears that way.
Thanks, Senator Roberts, for the questions. While I may disagree with some of the analysis underpinning his questions, they're views that are held in parts of the community and it's important that there's the ability to ask those questions openly.
Analysis shows that Australia's approach to managing the COVID-19 pandemic has saved the lives of around 30,000 Australians, relative to the way it's been managed in other parts of the world. As a government we think that saving Australian lives has been worthwhile and does justify the extraordinary steps that have been taken. We know those steps have involved sacrifices by many people—sacrifices by individuals, by families, by households, by businesses—right across the country, and they have come at an enormous cost, particularly a fiscal cost. The economic cost in Australia has been real but, in part, subdued by the success of fiscal, monetary and other policy measures that have helped businesses and households through the pandemic. But the fiscal cost is real and will have a legacy to be dealt with in years to come. We acknowledge all of those realities.
Of course, in dealing with a global pandemic, we've also had to deal with the continuous uncertainty associated with that. We as a government do not know what necessarily comes next at every stage. COVID-19 was unheard of until the pandemic struck, and the delta variant was unspoken of until it was struck this year. These are different variables that we have had to respond to and that the states and territories have had to respond to as well.
But, Senator Roberts, we believe the Australian approach, at its heart, has enabled us as a country to save the lives of an estimated 30,000 Australians. Despite the difficulties felt in different parts of the country, particularly New South Wales at present, as you referenced, it is an approach that is continuing to save lives whilst vaccines are distributed across the country. The Doherty Institute modelling provides a road map that enables us to see how the progression of that vaccine rollout will get us to a position where we can, with less economically and socially harmful restrictions, manage the pandemic in the future in a way that still saves lives but doesn't have the same costs as those being felt today.
I want to make it very clear that One Nation wholeheartedly endorses the saving of lives. We also want to make it perfectly clear that One Nation is about data-based, evidence-driven policy. We don't see that, and we haven't seen it in the last 18 months.
Senator Birmingham rightly pointed out that, when COVID arrived in this country, there was a lot of uncertainty. We all accepted that. I stood in this place, in this chair, on Monday 23 March 2020, and said we acknowledged the uncertainty. We'd seen tens of thousands of people dying in China, France, Italy, Spain. We knew there was uncertainty, therefore, we would wave it all through. We waved JobSeeker through; then we waved JobKeeper through. We did that. What we've seen is state governments on rampant, capricious lockdowns for political purposes, because they don't know what they're doing.
I want to highlight Taiwan. I raised Taiwan on Monday 23 March 2020. I pointed to Taiwan and said it had a fabulous testing, tracing and quarantining process. They don't lockdown everyone; they lock down the sick and the vulnerable to protect the sick and the vulnerable. Up until a few months ago, Taiwan, which has a population roughly the same as ours—24 million, not our 25 million—on a tiny island, close to China, and which had an earlier ingress of the virus, had lost seven lives. The significant thing is not only the health of their people but that their economy bubbled along without any interruption. Since then, they've had a major breakdown in quarantine and they've lost hundreds of lives, but still fewer than Australia. They've recovered very quickly. They had a quick blip, and then it went back down again. Taiwan is managing the virus; the virus is managing Australia.
The federal government is abandoning competitive federalism and now introducing, or reinforcing—it's already here—competitive welfarism. States are acting capriciously, sometimes for electoral advantage prior to an election, as was shown in Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. As Mr Barilaro has admitted, they don't know what they're doing in New South Wales. We've had accusations all over the country that Premier Dan Andrews doesn't know what he's doing. Why is the federal government continuing to just spend money and let these premiers behave irresponsibly?
I'd like to get a few things on the record for the Australian Greens. I can see what the government is trying to do here. It's trying to take some credit for something that they've done in the last 18 months. Because of the vaccine rollout fiasco that this country has had to endure, those opposite are trying to claim some credit. I want to get it on the record that this government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to bring in JobKeeper in the first place. Those opposite significantly resisted providing the payments that we're debating today to people in lockdowns around the country. It wasn't their first inclination to protect the vulnerable; they had to be coerced into providing these payments.
Labor have put it on record that they were early proponents of a living wage. So were the Greens. I remember Senator Cormann's very first response when the stimulus package occurred. The Greens were very vocal, saying it wasn't enough and that we needed a living-wage-style arrangement such as we've seen in other countries.
I also want to get it on record that it was the union movement, working with chambers of commerce and a number of other business groups around the country, with the Greens and with Labor, that got JobKeeper in the first place. So claim all the credit you like, and good on the government for eventually listening and bringing in this much-needed scheme. Good on you for doing that. But don't come in here and claim credit for it when you didn't want to do it and you had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, there in the first place.
In relation to exemptions or changes to these payments to make sure they are not rorted, may I also say that the Greens, in the very first COVID hearings we had and in significant correspondence to Treasury, were the first to say that we wanted to see a scheme that didn't allow for share buybacks, CEO bonuses being paid or dividends being paid by big companies that were taking JobKeeper. That was also being looked at by other countries very early on in the piece. So this is not a novel idea. This is something we've been fighting for since day one when JobKeeper was brought in. I think that's also very important to point out.
In relation to Senator Birmingham's confusing messaging here today around small businesses also being beneficiaries of JobKeeper, asking, 'Do you want to see their payments disclosed?' there's a very important reason why in the legislation we've brought forward the Greens haven't wanted to include small business. That is that partners in and owners of very small businesses often don't take a wage. They often don't take a salary or, if they do, it's very low. They rely on getting to the end of their year, if they're lucky, and making a profit and then paying themselves out of that by the end of their terms or the end of their financial year. That's why it would be very difficult and probably patently unfair to include small businesses in these payments. So I just wanted to get that on the record. This is a very important factor.
Senator Roberts is right about one thing—
An honourable senator: Just one thing.
just one thing—and that is that these JobKeeper payments and the payments we've seen today have been brought in because of lockdowns. But, unlike Senator Roberts, the Greens feel that having lockdowns quickly and rapidly is currently the best solution we have in getting on top of the pandemic and protecting the lives of all Australians. So we need to continue with this.
Australians want to see their politicians in this place working together to their advantage. They want to see us getting on top of the vaccine rollout. They want to see us getting on top of stimulus payments so they can pay their bills and pay their rent in times of hardship. They want to see this parliament acting on the homelessness crisis. They want to see this parliament acting on public housing. They want to see this parliament acting on the frightening increase that we've seen in house prices around this country during this pandemic. That's been caused by a lot of reasons. There are so many Australians out there, especially young and low-income Australians, that still haven't been able to get into the housing market. We've got, I believe, an obligation to those Australians, just like we do to everyone else in this country, to tackle inequality and try and make this a fair place to live.
I have a further question on accountability in the Senate and in parliament. On Monday 23 March 2020, I said One Nation would be waving it through. I said we'd be supporting the government because we had a lot of uncertainty facing the country. But I also said we would hold the government accountable. We expected the government to share data and come up with a detailed comprehensive plan, from start to end. We have not seen the data and we have not seen that comprehensive detailed plan.
In Senate estimates, I asked for some data and that data was given to me afterwards. I asked if the Chief Medical Officer and the Secretary of the Department of Health could verify seven components that would make up strategies for a comprehensive plan. They endorsed the seven components I listed. They endorsed all seven and said there was nothing missing and nothing there that shouldn't be there. Yet we have seen the federal government act in only one area and the state governments acting in only one area, a different area. We have seen the federal government funding that destructive action of the state governments.
Why is there no data on the virus's severity, mortality and transmissibility shared with the public? Why is it that the Chief Medical Officer and the Secretary of the Department of Health can provide me with the data that shows the COVID virus has high transmissibility but ranges from low to moderate severity? I asked them to compare it with other viruses in the past. It's low to moderate severity. Why is it that the public is not given that data? Why is it that the government is not making sure that people have doses of ivermectin, which has been proven effective already? We are talking about Australia lagging now. Other countries, like India, in the state of Uttar Pradesh, have had remarkable success with ivermectin. It's been proven effective in South America and in European countries. It has been recognised here in this country as safe. The Therapeutic Goods Administration approved it in 2013 for other diseases. We know now, from medical and scientific papers, that it is successful in treating COVID. It is cheap, it is highly successful, it is safe and it is effective. Why is the federal government not doing that? We need to stop this waste of money on lockdowns. We need to recognise there are seven major strategies for a plan, a comprehensive plan, and the federal government is blowing money on one.
Furthermore, why is the federal government not putting out data on the breakdown of the small group of people who are vulnerable? We are told it's mainly the aged. We know that this virus kills. We know that some people, including Senator Patrick here, don't even know they have it because they're asymptomatic. We know that for many people it's like a dose of the flu or a cold. We know for others it can be lingering; we know for some it can kill. But this needs a tailored approach based on data. We're not seeing that, we're just seeing buckets of money being shovelled out there. We're seeing small businesses in Queensland shut and multinationals making out like bandits because of these lockdowns. We need to see a measured response from the government, a simple, comprehensive plan with at least seven strategies.
I now come to my question on data sharing. The tax office administers this scheme. Minister, can you advise under what circumstances other government departments would need to receive this information?
To deal with the question at the end of Senator Roberts' contribution, the administration of business grants is, as I said in earlier remarks, currently being undertaken by different state and territory departments. In other circumstances, it's possible that administration or payment could be made through the different grants hubs—the industry grants hub or the grant and payment functions of Services Australia. So, as I described, the business grants provisions of this legislation are a contingency; they're there to enable the Commonwealth to step in, effectively. The sharing of ATO information is about ensuring that there's a level of integrity applied where such grants or payments are being potentially administered by other agencies.
Minister, is it the intention of the government to maintain the administrative function at the Australian Taxation Office, or are you moving this scheme to another department? If so, will the Senate have scrutiny of the move should it occur?
I refer Senator Roberts to the answer I just gave. The JobKeeper program has finished and, at this point in time, the Commonwealth are not paying business support grants directly from Commonwealth agencies to businesses. We are undertaking business support payments in a fifty-fifty cost-sharing arrangement with certain states and territories, but the distribution of those grant payments is being undertaken by those states and territories. This legislation provides a contingency, but also provides the capacity for us to help with the integrity arrangements around those payments by states and territories.
Minister, will this data be shared with the Department of Health to deploy a rule that recipients must be vaccinated to receive a benefit? Will you rule out tying COVID income support to vaccination status?
The government have no intentions in relation to such linkages at present. We're delivering income support for people affected under the terms that I've outlined, and those eligibility criteria are publicly available. There is no intention to tie those income supports for COVID disruptions to vaccination status. Our message in relation to vaccines is that people should get vaccinated, first and foremost, because it could save their lives and because it could save the lives of their loved ones or the lives of their fellow Australians.
I do support this bill. I do not support the lockdowns, but, having locked down, we do need to provide people with assistance. I don't want to delay the passage of this bill, but I want to ask the minister a couple of quick questions. Firstly, has the government calculated the cost of each life saved from lockdowns? If so, what is that cost? How does it compare to the guidance note that is on the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet's website on the value of statistical life. That guidance note says:
Willingness to pay is the appropriate way to estimate the value of reductions in the risk of physical harm—known as the value of statistical life.
That value is around $5 million. I realise it's hard to reduce things to a single number, but if we didn't do this from time to time we'd all be driving Volvos. Secondly, what is the case fatality rate of the delta outbreak in New South Wales and how does that compare to the case fatality rate of the outbreaks last year in Australia?
I thank Senator Canavan. I'm not aware of modelling that attributes a cost per life lost or life saved in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia to date. As indicated before, there are incredible estimates that around 30,000 lives have been saved as a result of the approach that Australia has taken in successfully suppressing the spread of COVID relative to many other countries in the world.
I note that loss of life is not the only health impact of COVID-19. There are studies indicating longer term or ongoing health impacts for people, particularly those who have had more serious cases of COVID-19. That would add to the associated economic cost. I also note that various studies have been undertaken indicating that, in parts of the world where COVID-19 has been allowed to spread without government restrictions or the like in place, there has still been a very significant economic cost as individuals have undertaken behavioural change due to the heightened risk of COVID-19 and the threat and spread they've seen in their communities. So it shouldn't be assumed—and I know that you wouldn't, Senator Canavan—that it is the path of government restrictions imposing economic cost or no restrictions and, therefore, everything is as it would have been had COVID not existed. There are still associated costs beyond the loss of life accrued due to the spread of COVID because of those other health impacts and the behavioural changes.
In terms of comparisons of the severe health impacts and loss of life from the current spread of the delta strain in New South Wales and the Victorian outbreak of last year, it may be a little early to be able to draw accurate comparisons in that regard. I note though that the Victorian outbreak saw COVID-19 spread to aged-care facilities and resulted in significant and tragic loss of life in some of those facilities. Despite the fact that there have been some cases associated with aged-care facilities in the New South Wales outbreak to date, we're not seeing a similar pattern occur. That would seem to back international studies showing the effectiveness and efficacy of the vaccination that has occurred in those residential aged-care facilities. Vaccination appears to be providing protection against loss of life there and more generally, particularly across senior Australians. Some 80 per cent of those over the age of 70 have already had their first vaccination.
As I said, I don't want to delay the committee and I thank the minister for that insightful answer. I did just want to put on the record here, in fairness to the government, this government, the federal government, is not the one imposing the lockdowns. But it is an indictment of state governments that they have not been transparent about simple calculations about how much this is actually costing the Australian people, especially those poorer than most of us in this place, who have just had their income smashed, their ability to pay their bills gone, their mortgages at risk and sometimes their relationships destroyed. There's an enormous cost to these things. It's not being properly accounted for in the decision-making.
I can only do rough estimates, because the modelling and transparency is not there, but the Burnett Institute this week—I know, a group who were in favour of lockdowns—estimated that the lockdowns in Sydney have prevented 4,000 coronavirus cases. The fatality rate in Sydney has stabilised at about 0.4 per cent of cases in the last few weeks. That would mean that these lockdowns have so far prevented 16 deaths. AMP estimate the lockdowns are costing $150 million a day. At the time of the Burnett Institute modelling, the lockdown had been going on for 35 days, so AMP puts the cost at $5.3 billion for avoiding 16 deaths. The cost of lives saved is $330 million on those calculations. That is 66 times the figure that the federal government accrues to the value of statistical life in this country.
As I said before, it's very hard to reduce these things to numbers but, as someone who lives in a country area, where we do not have the same health services as everywhere else, I understand very closely how we have to sometimes make trade-offs. We have, where I live, a five-year-lower life expectancy in Central Queensland than people born in Sydney, but I realise we can't have a tier-1 hospital in Emerald and we can't have cancer units all over remote Australia. We have to make choices about how we spend and allocate public resources to health outcomes. We have to make choices. Right now, we're ignoring these hard choices at great cost, especially those of us who do have the luxury of a guaranteed income despite a lockdown occurring or not. That is a complete abrogation of our duty and of what we should be doing through this crisis, especially given we don't have to bear any of the costs of these lockdowns at all.
My final point is on fatality rates. I thank the minister; he's absolutely right about the effectiveness of the vaccines. They have clearly been effective through this latest outbreak, because that fatality rate in Sydney is running at 0.4 per cent. It has stabilised in the last few weeks; it is not increasing. It looks to be about level and consistent with fatality rates for the delta strain in other countries where vaccines are available.
Last year, of all coronavirus infections, 3.2 per cent of Australians who got infected died, so last year the case fatally rate was 3.2 per cent. During this last Sydney outbreak, it's 0.4 per cent. We hear a lot about the delta strain being more transmissible—we should run for the hills, apparently. I do not question that. This is a much more transmissible variant and it is tough to deal with for state governments. But clearly, we should also let the Australian people know that the risk of dying from this strain now is much lower. It's not the strain. I just want to be careful. It is probably not the strain; we don't really know. The epidemiologists have not made conclusions yet about the exact fatality rates of the delta strain. But now what is happening, as the minister outlined, now that our most vulnerable are vaccinated—almost everybody in aged-care homes is vaccinated—we're not seeing the same fatal outcomes as we did last year. The delta strain is different because it's killing 90 per cent fewer people than the alpha and the original Wuhan strain did last year. With that difference, why are we deciding on the same costly policy decisions as we did last year? What we're doing is fighting the last war. It's a common mistake of all governments, that we always look back and go, 'Well, that worked last time; let's do it again.'
I was supportive of the lockdowns last year; they did work. They were the right thing to do at the time. But it's a different war now, and we're applying the same costly responses despite the information and facts on the ground being totally different. We're just ignoring them because we're going along with the sheep, and the public are wanting to obsess about coronavirus cases, not leading and saying, 'This is what's happening on the ground.' And we need to make sure we do not impose undue costs, especially on people who do not have the flexibility and option that those of us have—the luxury to work from home.
I just want to say I was a bit confused by Senator Canavan's contribution there. He, of course, talks about the obvious costs of lockdown, which we all acknowledge. I don't think any of us in this place don't want to get out of lockdowns as quickly as we can. I think all Australians would agree with that. He also talked about the effectiveness of the vaccine in reducing the death rates, yet I did not hear him say in here today, 'I encourage all Australians to go out and get vaccinated.' I didn't hear him say that at all in here today. But surely that is the logical thing we should be talking about. We should be using this platform and the privilege we have as senators to encourage all Australians to go out there and get their vaccines.
If Senator Canavan wants to talk about numbers, I would refer him to both the Doherty institute report this week and the Grattan Institute report this week, which clearly modelled in extensive detail the number of deaths we would likely see in this country, even with higher vaccination rates, across different age cohorts, even outside of the most vulnerable—tens of thousands of deaths, even at 70 to 80 per cent vaccination rates. Senator Canavan might not care about those people, but I do, the Greens do and I think most senators in here do.
It's fine to come in here and talk about lockdowns. We all agree we want to get out of them as quickly as possible. The pathway is before us: get as many Australians vaccinated as possible so we can move beyond this bloody mess that is COVID and try to get back to a semblance of normality in this country. The pathway is there. Let's all get on it and do what the Australian people want us to do: do our job and be leaders.
[by video link] COVID has had a huge impact on people's lives and businesses, and we've had to pick up the pieces and learn as we're going along. It's been impacting on the Australian community for the last year and a half. It's cost us hundreds of billions of dollars from the government propping up businesses and those who have lost their jobs, and it's still impacting to this day. We've seen state border closures.
The Prime Minister got up a little over a week ago and said, 'Your circumstances in your state will not change or be any worse than they are today.' Less than 24 hours later, Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk shut down the whole state. In the south-east corner, 11 local government authorities were shut down and people are in lockdown. You haven't got any cases of COVID in a lot of these areas. It is the south-east corner, mainly in Brisbane, that's been affected by it. The Prime Minister says, 'You will not be any worse off.' Well, that didn't even last 24 hours. I say that the Prime Minister has lost control of the borders here in Australia, allowing the premiers to shut down at their whim. It has been up to the taxpayers of this nation to prop up businesses, let alone what it's doing to people mentally and the impact it's having on jobs. Businesses are going under. You talk about COVID deaths. Yes, they are occurring, but we had more deaths from the flu in one year than we have had from COVID.
The government are talking about a vaccine passport, which concerns a lot of Australians. I've had a lot of calls with regard to this. People don't want to be controlled by governments and told whether they can hold a job. I have heard from people who have applied for government jobs and are denied the job if they haven't had a vaccination. The people of Australia are concerned about having vaccinations. The fact is that the government cannot give them any guarantee about the health repercussions the vaccinations will have on them in two or five years down the track. These vaccinations have been rushed into our community for fear of the spread of a pandemic. The government can't even indemnify the people who've had the vaccinations and have died from them, but we indemnify the companies who make the vaccines and the doctors who give the vaccination. But we don't care about the people.
People need assurances. I remember that when we did medicinal cannabis for production in Australia I asked the health department whether, in the interim, they would allow it to come in from Israel and Canada until we started our own production. The answer was: 'No. It's not tried and tested in Australia. We can't allow this into our community.' It had been in Israel for 20 years. It had been proven in that country that it did not have an impact on the people. We couldn't allow that into Australia, but we are giving to people of vaccine that has been out on the market for less than 12 months. We know of people who have been affected by their vaccination.
Minister, in light of the hundreds of billions of dollars that have gone out, propping up these businesses throughout the country, which is due to the premiers whim of a hat and a few cases up and down the country, at what point are you going to actually take control, rein in the premiers and stop them locking down the borders?
I'll deal with Senator Hanson's question and then quickly try to deal with one or two other matters that she raised. The question in relation to state actions around lockdowns and border controls is a reminder that we operate in a federation, where the Commonwealth and the states and territories have constitutional functions and also constitutional and legal rights. The Commonwealth has granted no additional or new rights to the states or territories during the course of the COVID 19 pandemic. They've been exercising rights that they have always held under the Constitution of Australia. Of course, those rights are subject to testing through court or other legal processes, but the Commonwealth does not act as police or a watchdog on the states and territories. They have those rights. However, through the Doherty institute modelling and the work in having that presented to national cabinet, we have sought to provide information, education and understanding and to move towards agreement and consensus around the fact that under all circumstances that are currently known and understood, as the current vaccine rollout progresses, states and territories should be able to step away from widescale lockdowns and restrictions and the use of border restrictions and move progressively to much more targeted approaches, such as the testing, tracing and isolating regimes that are envisaged in the Doherty modelling.
I will deal very quickly with the vaccine matters that Senator Hanson raised and emphasise that the vaccines approved for use in Australia—the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and the AstraZeneca vaccine—have both gone through Therapeutic Goods Administration processes in Australia—the normal TGA processes, not expedited like they were in some parts of the world—to assure Australia of safety in relation to those vaccines. The efficacy of those vaccines is proving to be very strong: having two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is estimated to reduce mortality by 92 per cent among those who contract COVID-19 and having two doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine is estimated to reduce by 90 per cent mortality in the event of contracting COVID-19. Both are highly effective vaccines, both are safe and both are vaccines that Australians should embrace and use.
In relation to indemnities provided to vaccine manufacturers and to those who administer the vaccines, those indemnities are not about providing money to the company or to the doctor. They are about ensuring that in the very rare instances of there being an adverse reaction to the vaccine the government will provide support for individuals who face those rare consequences. Rather than individuals having to go and sue the doctor or the company, the government will make sure that assistance is there.
[by video link] Regarding the rights of the residents, section 117 of the Australian Constitution says:
A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State.
Basically, how I interpret this is that people in one state are being treated totally differently to those in another. If you're in lockdown, you are being treated differently to those in other states. You state that, in the federation, the states can do what they want to do. It is the federal government's responsibility under the Constitution to allow individuals in the states freedom of movement in their states. But in another state they're being treated totally differently to any other person. You may want to respond to that. Also, these businesses have been paid a lot of money—hundreds of thousands of dollars—and they actually have been found to be not eligible for that funding. Why has the government not pursued them to refund that money? I assume that Harvey Norman has refused to actually pay back that money.
Neither you nor I is a constitutional lawyer, but my very quick interpretation of section 117—I'm not sure to what extent it's being tested by the courts—is that the Commonwealth would not impose a discrimination or disability on residents of one state that is not equally applicable across all states. The decisions in relation to lockdowns and restrictions are undertaken by independent states. They have their own sovereign rights. Their limitations, in terms of legislation, are only to the extent that the Commonwealth has power in certain areas.
I have answered a number of questions in relation to JobKeeper very similar to the one that you've asked. As I've outlined to others, JobKeeper was a highly effective program at the time. As I'm sure you would recall, at the time it was put in place there was enormous uncertainty as businesses right across Australia were being forced to close their doors in every state and territory. Businesses such as the one you mentioned were having those restrictions placed upon them, and JobKeeper was put in place to provide certainty so as to avoid the standing down of staff at the time and to provide support.
Thankfully, Australia's success meant that the economy recovered faster. Some of those restrictions were eased faster and, as a result, some of those businesses didn't suffer all of the worst consequences that had been envisaged at the time. At the time it avoided and saved going into the lockdowns. The government has subsequently, through the life of JobKeeper, tightened eligibility and requirements around its operation. Following JobKeeper, we now have an even more targeted program in place to provide economic support for Australians.
[by video link] Minister, you didn't answer my question. Yes, we paid it out to keep businesses open—those people who were actually stood down from their jobs. Harvey Norman wasn't one of them. Mr Harvey has actually boasted of the fact that his biggest year ever was during the COVID year. The fact that he was paid that is proof he had a huge amount of profit, as other companies have had. You have not pursued them for a refund to taxpayers of the money that they were overpaid. Will you be pursuing this money that's owed to taxpayers?
The companies in question were not overpaid; they were eligible under the rules of the program as they operated at the time. We tightened those rules subsequently, as I have indicated, but they were not overpaid in the terms that you put, Senator Hanson. It is correct that a number of companies have voluntarily chosen to make repayments. We welcome that. We encourage it, where it's appropriate, from companies. We think it's the honourable thing to do.
I want to follow up on a question from Senator Roberts. It was a good question about the cost of the measures under this bill. I can't imagine that Treasury has not modelled a maximum cost. I can't imagine that Treasury hasn't looked at the current lockdown statements by the New South Wales government, for example, and looked at the cost associated with that particular lockdown to at least give us a minimum. Can I confirm Treasury is actually keeping a tab on this, and what are those minimum and maximum costs?
Progress reported.
The purpose of the National Health Amendment (Decisions under the Continence Aids Payment Scheme) Bill 2021 is to provide express support for the Continence Aids Payment Scheme, CAPS, to confer review functions on the AAT. The bill amends the act to provide that a legislative instrument made under section 12 of the act may provide that applications may be made to the AAT for review of decisions made in exercise of powers conferred by the instrument. The minister may by this instrument formulate a continuance aids payment scheme under which the Commonwealth makes payments as a contribution towards the cost of buying products to help manage incontinence.
Under existing arrangements, the Continence Aids Payment Scheme, an annual or six-monthly payment, is available to people five years of age and over who suffer from permanent and severe incontinence caused by particular kinds of conditions specified in the instrument. These payments help offset the cost of purchasing continence products from the participating person's supplier of choice.
On 16 January 2021, the CAPS instrument was amended to provide that persons and organisations affected by these decisions of the secretary could apply for internal merit review or, following internal review, independent merits review of that initial review decision by the AAT. The bill amends the act to make it clear on the face of the act that the legislative instrument establishing the CAPS can provide the AAT review of decisions provided for in the instrument and that are not already covered by sections 14 and 15 of the act. It's a sensible administrative reform that should improve accountability. As such, Labor commends the bill to the Senate.
[by video link] I would like to make a short contribution to the National Health Amendment (Decisions under the Continence Aids Payment Scheme) Bill 2021. The bill makes important changes to the Continence Aids Payment Scheme, otherwise known as CAPS. CAPS is an annual or six-monthly payment available to people who suffer from permanent and severe incontinence. This bill allows people to apply for an internal review or go to the AAT for decisions made by the secretary under the scheme.
One in four people in our community are affected by incontinence. Incontinence affects women, men and children of all ages; physical ability; and background. The impacts of incontinence are far-reaching and can affect a person's physical, mental and emotional health and wellbeing. People who experience incontinence can suffer from shame, fear and anxiety. Older Australians are particularly impacted by incontinence. Incontinence is intensely and severely personal and often stigmatising condition that requires time and the right skills to manage appropriately.
The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety received a range of evidence on the prevalence and management of incontinence in residential aged-care facilities across the country. The commissioners were disturbed to hear that 71 per cent of people in residential aged care have experienced incontinence. Negative effects of incontinence can include increased risk of depression, reduced quality of life and increased risk of pressure injuries and infections. Evidence presented to the royal commission also indicated that some residential aged-care providers unintentionally contribute to incontinence by adopting flawed approaches to its management. The commissioners also heard that aged-care workers often do not have the time needed to assist residents to go to the toilet in a timely manner and incontinence pads are used to manage the workload. This is especially concerning given the number of people in residential aged care with incontinence is expected to almost double from 129,000 to over one-quarter of a million people by 2031. These factors drive up aged-care costs significantly. The estimated direct expenditure on incontinence was $1.6 billion in 2009, with 83 per cent of this on residential aged care.
It is not clear if any of the aged-care funding provided in the 2021-22 budget will be allocated to improving continence care and management as part of the government's aged-care reform agenda. The Continence Foundation of Australia has commissioned the National Ageing Research Institute to develop and test a best practice model for continence care in residential aged care.
We can improve the quality of life for people in aged care significantly and we can do it both now and into the future if people receive the best continence care. Prioritising continence care and support will improve the health, wellbeing and dignity of all people in aged care. I call on the government to implement a best practice model of continence care for residential aged care in Australia and to make sure that the funding that was allocated in this year's budget is also spent on continence care.
I thank senators for their contributions and commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The committee is considering the amendment moved by Senator Patrick.
The question is that amendment No. 1 on sheet 1352, as moved by Senator Patrick, be agreed to.
I want to get an answer to the question I asked prior to us going to non-contro. The question, to remind the minister, is: firstly, is Treasury modelling, in a dynamic sense, the events that are taking place? Have they modelled maximum and minimums? If so, what are the minimum costs associated with this bill and what are the maximum costs associated with this bill?
In terms of Senator Patrick's framing of minimums and maximums, I'm not aware that estimates have been put in those terms. I will commit to bringing to the chamber and Senator Patrick's attention any further information I can provide on that. The current estimated cost of the support for New South Wales, and the lockdown occurring in New South Wales, with the flow of COVID-19 disaster assistance payments and the business support payments, in partnership with the New South Wales government, is running at about $750 million a week. In that sense, we can see the ongoing costs there. Obviously, the costs vary significantly from state to state, as we have seen, from the duration of lockdowns. South Australia's lockdown lasted only one week, Victoria's lockdown lasted a few weeks and there is an uncertain situation in Queensland. So it is very hard to accurately put an estimate on the cost of current supports given their relationship to the uncertainty around the spread of the delta variant where there may be outbreaks and the duration that restrictions remain in place.
Thank you very much for that commitment, Minister. As you come back with the information, under the new measures, it might be this sort of number for New South Wales and that sort of number for Victoria. Whatever measures you are using internally to guide your own decision-making would be useful.
Thanks, Senator Patrick. Noted.
Minister, you have mentioned the Doherty modelling quite a few times. What is the relationship between the Doherty modelling and the UK modelling associated with Niall Ferguson? Why did all the governments initially talk about flattening the curve? We saw the modelling results from New Zealand early last year, and that showed a major peak that decreased and then subsequent peaks after that. We didn't see that with Australia; we saw a rise and a flattening—and that's it. We have since seen that the New Zealand approach is far better than what we believe is the Doherty modelling on which the government gave us those graphs. It seems that there is no costing to the Doherty models, no opportunity costing to the Doherty models, and no alternatives were considered to other strategies. This is significant when we see that lockdowns are proving to be ineffective. Is there any modelling on the health consequences for future health putting off current problems because people are afraid to travel? Is there any costing of the suicides? Is there any costing of the other health impacts and psychological impacts from the trauma being inflicted by state governments?
As always in Australia, a range of academics, think tanks and other institutions undertake modelling on all types of different scenarios. Indeed, that may include some of those that you have raised. It is our government's desire to see Australia get to the point where extensive, widespread, prolonged lockdowns and restrictions can be minimised, brought to an end and become a thing of the past. That is why we have asked for the Doherty institute modelling to help guide us—and the states and territories who have those constitutional powers in relation to the application of medical orders in their jurisdictions. That modelling has drawn on scientific knowledge and the evidence those researchers have used from the outbreaks in Australia and elsewhere around the world. It is accompanied by Treasury modelling. The Treasury modelling includes consideration of the costs of different scenarios and, as I indicated to Senator Canavan, the behavioural change we see from people where widespread outbreaks occur, even if you don't have restrictions in place, which also result in significant costs. So I draw Senator Roberts's attention to those elements of the Treasury modelling as an accompanying element to the Doherty modelling.
Thank you, Minister. I have one final question. In the absence of data, fear and rumour can run rampant. We've seen the state Labor governments—not the Berejiklian government, because it already had an election before the COVID scare—use fear to increase their vote. That's what happens under fearful circumstances: the incumbent government increases its vote. People in the constituency are asking: is the federal Liberal-National government preying on people's fear and keeping the fear alive? Is that in play right now because you are facing the next election?
Emphatically, no. Our government would like nothing more than for COVID-19, the threats it poses and the costs it imposes, to be a thing of the past—but the reality is they're not. Australians have made enormous sacrifices over the last 18 months to get us through this pandemic and to save the lives of their fellow Australians. I thank Australians—individuals, families, households, businesses, healthcare workers and service providers—right across this country who have made sacrifices that have saved the lives of an estimated 30,000 fellow Australians.
As we enter the final stages, hopefully, of managing this pandemic, as we get to the point where we're seeing some 42 per cent of Australians over the age of 16 having had at least their first dose of the vaccine and as we see around 80 per cent of Australians over 70 having had at least their first dose of vaccine, we can have confidence that Australians will undertake widespread uptake of the vaccine. Not only do we thank them; it's appropriate to reassure them that we're not going to blow the sacrifices of the last 18 months midway through the vaccination program and cause unnecessary loss of life. We are going to make sure that we see it through and get to the point where Australia, informed by evidence such as that from the Doherty institute, can reopen safely and in a way that allows us to bank those dividends that have seen Australia not only save lives but also keep our economy as one of the strongest in the world throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.
I did want to respond to that and ask another question in light of what the minister has raised. When an organisation or an entity, whether it be a charity, business, council or government, has a plan, the beauty of a plan when it's based on objective data is that if the circumstances change the plan can be changed. I already discussed earlier on and raised with the minister the seven strategies needed to be part of a comprehensive plan. This federal government has partly enacted one. It is now pinning all its hopes on another. The state governments are pinning their hopes on one, being lockdowns, and waiting for the federal government to keep propping them up. That leaves the other four strategies untouched, yet the Chief Medical Officer and the Secretary for the Department of Health have verified that those seven strategies are needed in a comprehensive plan.
The future health of Australians depends upon our economy. Taiwan has done a marvellous job. Despite one breach in quarantine, they've quickly recovered. Australia is limping along on two basic strategies, leaving another five ignored. When will we see a comprehensive plan? When will we see accountability against that plan? When will we see a real plan that says what is going to happen, who is going to be responsible, when it will be done, where it will be done, what will be done and how it will be done, rather than putting all our hopes in a vaccine? I am concerned about the future economic security of this country and the future health of Australian citizens, as well as their current health. There are better ways of looking after their current health. There are certainly better ways of looking after their future health. When will we see a comprehensive and detailed plan?
I'm not aware of the different strategies that Senator Roberts says he took health officials through last year, but I'll go back and check the Hansard to familiarise myself with those issues that he raised. As a government we have outlined a plan for the different stages of reopening. It relies not only upon the vaccines but also upon continued appropriate management strategies for COVID-19 that are designed to ensure that our shared concerns for the economy and health of Australians achieve the optimal outcomes.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I firstly thank members who spoke on these two bills during the second reading debate. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021 creates a new annual charge that will be levied on all registered higher education providers to recover the cost of TEQSA's sector-wide regulatory oversight activity. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021 amends the TEQSA Act to enable the annual charge to be collected from providers.
During the debate today, and on other days, those opposite have referred to cuts to higher education funding, which is simply not true. We are providing record funding to Australian universities: $20.4 billion in 2021. This is up 17 per cent from the $17.3 billion that was provided in 2019. This includes an additional $1 billion boost to support university research, which is flowing to universities this year. Under our Job-ready Graduates Package, more Australians are studying at our universities than ever: 802,000 this year, compared with 763,000 last year—a five per cent increase. Commencements of new students are up seven per cent. Importantly, more Australians are studying the courses that are more likely to get them a job. Commencements are up 14 per cent in science, 13 per cent in IT, 10 per cent in engineering, 14 per cent in agriculture, 11 per cent in education and eight per cent in health.
Thanks to our record investments and reforms, Australian universities are in a better-than-expected financial position. There are a number of indications that 2020 outcomes were better than anticipated 12 months ago. Universities Australia estimate total revenue reductions in 2020 compared with 2019 to have been about $1.8 billion, or about five per cent of the total 2019 revenues, which is slightly below the lower bounds of UA's 2020 estimated range of possible revenue reductions. The media has universities indicating better-than-expected results. For 2020, universities are reporting surpluses. For instance, Monash University reported a surplus of $259 million; the University of Melbourne, $178 million; the University of Queensland, $83 million; the University of Western Australia, $58 million; the University of Adelaide, $41 million; Flinders University, $35 million; Edith Cowan University, $24 million; the University of Southern Queensland, $13 million; and Western Sydney University, $13 million.
Our boost to research funding ceases in 2021-22, which accounts for the decrease in higher education funding as shown in Budget Paper No. 1. This was not a bring-forward; it was a new one-off stimulus. The figures in the budget papers include the Higher Education Loan Program—HELP—outlays and show that the government's overall funding to universities in 2021 is $20.4 billion, which is an increase of 37 per cent since 2013.
TEQSA is currently consulting stakeholders on its future cost-recovery arrangements. Following consideration of stakeholder feedback and the passage of these bills, the calculation method for the annual charge will be set by regulation. I thank all members for their contribution on this debate, and I commend the bills to the Senate.
Can you ascertain this for me, please, Acting Deputy President: I spoke to the bills substantively, but can I speak to the second reading amendment separately?
Senator Pratt, you have the call.
Thank you very much. I want to acknowledge the Labor Party's support for the Greens' amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021 and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021, because I support the fact that the Greens are putting pressure on the Morrison government in order to stave off the relentless attacks that they have made on the higher education sector. I support the sentiment that within this government there has been a significant pattern of defunding the higher education sector and shifting the costs of providing higher education away from the Commonwealth. A significant burden of the changes the government made has fallen on students, to the detriment of not only students but, indeed, many industries across Australia. I have a simple and significant example of that from conversations at the state government's recent skills summit in Western Australia. I was talking to employers who were desperately looking for engineers and technicians for the mining industry, who were also worryingly concerned about the decision of the University of Western Australia to abandon the anthropology courses it currently provides.
Universities are making rational decisions to change their composite of courses based on the Commonwealth's new funding system, so universities like UWA have made a decision to cease offering anthropology courses. I know this government likes to denigrate arts and humanities courses and sees them not as a priority; hence the massive fee increases, which they indicated should provide a 'price signal' to students to steer away from those courses. Well, it not only steers those students away from those courses; it steers away universities from even offering those courses. So in that context, we now have the University of Western Australia abandoning its anthropology course, and there are many students protesting about that.
Those people in the mining industries were telling me how critical anthropology is for their native title clearances, how it is key to resolving native title issues. Universities produce graduates who can work closely with First Nations communities to resolve Indigenous heritage issues and that is critically important. In courses like anthropology, students have received a massive fee hike; the charges have more than doubled. Students used to pay around six-and-a-bit thousand dollars and would get about the same from the Commonwealth. Now they get $1,600 or so in Commonwealth subsidies and have to pay the difference. They have to pay about 14½ thousand dollars per year in fees. That is what then leads to decisions by universities like UWA to abandon their anthropology courses. The mining industry and Indigenous communities rely on students with these qualifications to resolve complex and important issues that not only enable our country to be productive but also engender respect and integrity for Indigenous culture and heritage.
Do you know what else they went on to say? They said that, in effect, the lowering of the course price for engineering—where, yes, the government increased the contribution for courses like engineering but not as much as they cut out of the system overall—meant that students were paying less because the fees were capped. But in effect, because the government's contribution was also lower—it capped the overall funding for engineering places within institutions—universities couldn't raise extra revenue in order to fund those courses. They're expensive courses to run. What this has meant, in effect, is that, rather than a greater supply of engineers, we have seen universities cap the number of engineers that they are able to graduate and plan for. As a result, we are forecasting a shortage of engineers and engineering graduates, which are so critical to our economy. This is such a critical example of what is a worrying continuation of the government's larger pattern of defunding the higher education sector, shifting the costs of providing higher education away from the Commonwealth and onto students.
I put forward that telling example as a really important example of the problems that institutions are facing today. In this context, we see how ill-founded this legislation is, shifting the cost from the Commonwealth onto students, particularly with the COVID stresses that so many university campuses are faced with at the moment. We have seen a massive collapse in international student enrolments as a result of COVID travel restrictions, and rightly so. Again, this reinforces the fact that this is not the time to be moving the cost burden of providing higher education away from the government. Labor very much supports reasonable and practical measures to recover the costs of regulation. But, at this particular point in time, where we see the stresses that are experienced by higher education providers, who've lost some 17,000 members of their workforce, and by small education and training providers, who are affected by lockdowns, changes in class sizes and the move to providing coursework online—which creates a huge shift for them—I think it's unreasonable for the government to be shifting the cost burden onto those providers.
What we also see in this context is that this will inevitably mean a cost shift onto students. I note, significantly, that the government did a good thing in giving students a reprieve from the 20 per cent loading on debts for VET course at private institutions. That's a 20 per cent loading that, until this point in time, students have had to pay if they accessed private education and needed a loan for it. That is in effect a profit for the government. I know it's 20 per cent over the lifetime of paying it off, but, if you're going to pay it off fairly quickly, I would see it as being an unreasonable interest rate, given interest rates are so low at the moment. This is paused at the moment, which is a good thing, but this government has made no commitment to removing it altogether. What happens when a private institution has to pass the fee increases onto its students so that it can meet the costs of that regulation? Students will be paying interest on the costs of regulation, on the costs of the government regulating their course. That is manifestly unfair and unjust, and it should not be happening.
I call on the government, in the context of the cost burden they've so proactively moved onto students, to think about the 20 per cent loading currently in place for student debt, and I call on them to abandon it permanently. It is simply not compatible with the principle of cost recovery. What you are doing is not cost recovery; it is cost recovery plus. It will be cost recovery plus 20 per cent that's shifted onto the burden of student repayments. It is an appalling state of affairs that the government has been so thoughtless in subjecting the education sector in our nation and students right around the country to this.
The way that the government has shifted the cost burden onto students is nothing short of appalling. There are students at the University of Western Australia who enrolled in anthropology courses before that fee hike of more than 100 per cent took place. The fees doubled, but they thought, 'Yes, I'm really committed to doing an anthropology course,' only to find out that as a result of this government's changes their anthropology course is going to disappear altogether. The government has sucked the $14½ thousand for their enrolment this year out of those students' pockets. It has sucked it out of their pockets because universities now have to make decisions on the fly because they inherited this model of government funding after students had enrolled in their courses. For those reasons, the Labor Party is very happy to support the Greens motion.
I wish to clarify that the second reading actually completed with the minister's contribution. The ruling I made earlier—I've had advice revised that Senator Pratt should not have been allowed to speak. I let you finish Senator Pratt, as I let you start, but the debate concluded with the minister's contribution.
I seek leave to respond.
Leave not granted.
I appreciate the Senate's understanding for the whips. The question is the second reading amendment moved by Senator Faruqi be agreed to.
The question now is that the bills be read a second time.
I'd like to ask, in the context of this legislation, if the government has considered even delaying its implementation to allow a better understanding of the impact of COVID on the sector on which these fees will be imposed. If not, have you properly assessed the impact on training organisations and whether private smaller organisations might be put out of business?
We continue to assess the situation. We are in constant communication with the higher education sector. We have assured them and guaranteed them their fees until the end of calendar year 2021. After that, the situation will be reassessed, as appropriate, according to the situation we find ourselves in at that time.
This bill is for cost recovery. Are you saying that, even though we're purportedly voting on cost recovery today, the government is not going to implement the provisions of the bill? I'm somewhat confused.
The intention is that the bills will begin in January 2022, but we will continue to monitor from that time.
In monitoring the situation at the beginning of 2022, will it be cost recovery at commencement?
Yes, it will be. However, we have staged the fee recovery by 20 per cent in the first year and 50 per cent in the second year, and then full fees will be paid by 2024.
How is that consistent with monitoring if that is already set out in the schedule of the legislation as the government's approach? We can see that that will have a substantial impact on smaller providers in particular. What is the approximate calculation of that fee for, for example, a small training institute with 100 students—a culinary school or something like that? Can you give me some cost estimates of what the current fees are and what the fees are projected to be for each of those years, by the type of course and the size of the student cohort?
That's not information I have in front of me. I will take that on notice. But what I can say is that the structure of the fees is set in regulations, so it can be changed as needed in response to the situation at the time.
I'd like to ask the minister to clarify directly as to whether the government has done a deal with Senator Griff over this bill, because we understand he was paired to support the government on this. I think as a South Australian and South Australian parents and students and universities and university workers deserve to know what deal Senator Griff has done to get this legislation passed. Be up-front about it. What has he given you? Because, if he's given you his vote for nothing, then what a dud deal that is.
Thank you, Senator Hanson-Young, for that contribution that was worthy of the broadcasting sign! As you know, as happens in every bill we pass through this place, we will always speak to the crossbench in good faith. We take suggestions from them in good faith if we need to. In this case, Senator Griff is supporting the government's legislation.
I'm a little bit confused. There's clearly been a last minute change, and I apologise I didn't pick up exactly on what you were saying. You're saying that the fees will now be introduced over a longer period of time? I request your indulgence: can you just repeat what it is you say that you're changing?
The fees will be introduced over a period of three years.
I want to make sure: Is that spelt out in the primary bill? Is that implemented through regulation? Is it consistent with the explanatory memorandum that has been tabled by the government?
That's set out in regulations. The proposed new annual charge covers the cost of delivering six regulatory activities: concern management and resolution; stakeholder communications and engagement; risk assessment of providers; inquiries from providers; business support to TEQSA's regulatory activities; and guidance notes for providers.
For item 1, it's proposed the cost will be divided amongst providers proportional to each provider's size by student enrolments. This is because the more students a provider has the more likely it is that a student will raise an issue or make a complaint for TEQSA to consider. This element costs $269,000 out of the $5.7 million total for all six activities.
For items 2 to 6, TEQSA estimates the cost of delivery is the same regardless of the provider size. For example, risk assessment is a data based process that takes the same effort for a provider that has 20 students as a large university with 40,000 students. This cost, $4.5 million, is therefore proposed to be evenly split across all 186 registered providers as at 2 June 2021. The annual charge will be phased in over three years, commencing on 1 July 2022. From 1 January 2022, 20 per cent of these costs will be recovered, rising to 50 per cent of the costs in 2023 and 100 per cent of cost recovery from 1 January 2024.
I was asking the minister, please, for an example of those fees and what they would actually look like. I'm really keen to properly understand the likely costs that each institution will face and, indeed, the prospective costs that might be passed on to students. I understand this phasing is not new, but I still think it is far too significant in these uncertain times, noting that it would be full cost recovery from 2024 and 50 per cent in 2023, when we know that there is a very uncertain future for institutions in this period of time.
It depends on the number of courses that a provider provides. The accreditation fees are paid once every four to seven years. The fees average around $15,000 to $80,000 per provider.
So, in the context of small providers, is that $15,000 per annum or for the overall period?
That's when you average the fee out, so it's a per-annum fee averaged over the entire period.
Over the entire period, so it's a one-off payment for that whole period of time. If that's the average payment—and this is what led Labor to oppose this legislation in significant part—what does it mean in the context of a small provider where you may only have 100 students or so at a cooking school or for other trade qualifications?
Once again, it depends on the number of courses that the provider has. If there are fewer students and fewer courses, it would be less.
I think, Minister, you're making this difficult for yourself. If you've got 100 students, there's not likely to be a huge diversity of courses. I can see the logic that you are trying to pursue here; nevertheless, if $15,000 is an average, what is the size of fees over the spectrum for smaller institutions?
Please clarify your question for me a little further.
Using the average you gave of between $15,000 and $80,000, how much less than the $15,000 will small institutions have to pay? You must have data around that.
The $15,000 is at the bottom end, so it won't be lower than that.
It won't be lower than that. Would the government recognise that, at that level of fee structure, that would, for a smaller institution where you've only got a small number of students—ten, 20, 50—threaten the viability of some providers, as Labor's been told? What assessment have you done of this issue? Do you reject that assertion, or do you agree that this is an existential threat to some providers?
The question that essentially you're asking, Senator Pratt, is: is it for small higher education providers that a disproportionate share of TEQSA's new cost-recovery arrangement is? Can I clarify that that's what you're asking? The Australian government charging framework requires that all fees and charges be directly linked to the regulatory effort attributable to the activity. The majority of TEQSA's regulatory assessments are done to assist smaller non-university providers that do not yet have authority to self-accredit their courses. The government is extremely mindful of this impact and has adopted several measures to address this, so course accreditation fees will be reduced for all providers with fewer than 5,000 student enrolments—that is, equivalent full-time students—and this will reduce the financial barrier to innovation and new course development.
Progress reported.
Yesterday, Scott Morrison sent women and survivors of sexual assault in Australia a damning message. He sent them a message that he simply doesn't care. Yesterday the Prime Minister appointed Minister Porter, a man around whom allegations of horrific behaviour have swirled, to one of the highest positions of power, Acting Leader of the House of Representatives. This was a stunning move by Scott Morrison, our Prime Minister.
Minister Porter is a man who had the Respect@Work report on his desk for over a year, and he did nothing—nothing!—to address the report's very serious revelations that women are not safe in their workplaces and its recommendations on how the government must act to rectify this. Minister Porter simply sat on this report. Minister Porter never even opened the Respect@Work report. It took a slew of sexual assault allegations in this place, and a reshuffle that sent Porter out of the Attorney-General's portfolio, to even get the government to open the report.
At a time when the Prime Minister is out spraying the media with his so-called support for women and sexual assault survivors, the very least he could do would be to allow an independent inquiry into the allegations against Minister Porter. But he's quashed it instead. The Prime Minister, when he stands up in this place, should be setting a standard. The standard he is setting is that women and sexual assault survivors won't be listened to until it's by force. As Grace Tame wrote, Minister Porter's circumstances are 'steeped in the protective privileges of a patriarchal parliament'. This is not a standard that Labor is willing to accept. (Time expired)
I rise to speak briefly on the fantastic and wonderful Great Barrier Reef. I'm one of only a few senators in this place who lives near or in the Great Barrier Reef catchment area—I think there might only be three of us; hopefully I'm not missing anybody—and I can report on how great the reef is going.
Tourism is through the roof, with lots of people, locked in Australia, coming and visiting the reef for the first time. If borders allow you to, come up and see it because it is in a fantastic state. This was confirmed two weeks ago, I think, when a report from the Australian Institute of Marine Science showed that coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef is now at near-record levels. Indeed, in my part of the world, the central part of the Great Barrier Reef, it's basically at a record level. In the southern part, it's at a near-record level. The northern part is back up to where it was a couple of decades ago. So don't believe the doomsayers. There are a whole lot of people who don't live near the reef, and some of them have never visited it, who like to talk it down and say it's dead. This makes it a very tough life for small businesses that rely on tourism in North Queensland.
The reality on the ground is, yes, it has been a tough decade for the reef because of major cyclones and some bleaching events and crown-of-thorns starfish. But these are natural events, and the reef has recovered. It is a little alarming that these new figures only just came out before a UNESCO meeting that was deciding whether the reef was in danger. Where have these figures been? Where were those figures last year, when the Queensland government were putting crushing new regulations on farmers in North Queensland, regulations that are costing them $60,000 a year on the Queensland government's figures? We need to get to the bottom of why there has been a cover-up on the coral cover of the reef and its real state. We know the facts now, and the facts are that the reef is looking fantastic and it has never been better.
[by video link] It's Homelessness Week this week and Australia is in an affordable housing crisis. In a wealthy nation like ours, no-one should be without a roof over their heads. In Queensland we have 47,000 people who are on a waiting list for social housing. Some of them have been waiting for more than two years. I went up and down the coast of Queensland before lockdown, and we've got a huge problem right across our state. There are 5,000 on the waiting list in Cairns, there are almost a thousand in Rockhampton and there are almost 3,000 on the Sunshine Coast. Locals are being priced out of the private market, and they can't find anywhere to go.
We know that before COVID the fastest-growing cohort of people who were facing homelessness was older women. That's still the case, and it's gotten worse. Women over 45 years of age are the fastest growing cohort at risk of homelessness. There are 405,000 older women who are on the brink of homelessness. We can do so much better. We should have a massive housing build. The Greens would like to see a million homes built right across this country over the next 20 years because no-one should be without a home. That would create construction jobs and solve homelessness and the housing crisis. We need to change the tax settings that make it easier to own your fifth or sixth home than to buy your first home. That's why it was really sad to see the Labor Party backflip on their negative gearing and capital gains tax commitments—wrong way, go back. We need to work together to make sure that everyone can afford a roof over their head so we can generate that economic stimulus from a big housing build and stop subsidising people who don't need the help. The Greens in the balance of power will work with the next government—hopefully, a Labor one—to fix homelessness and the housing crisis that is plaguing our nation.
[by video link] Tara is a small town in the Darling Downs in Queensland, with a population of around 2,000 people. It has a school, a hospital and a library, and it has one aged-care facility, the Tarcoola Aged Care Facility, which is home to 30 residents and 40 staff. Last month, council made a decision to close the Tarcoola based on alleged staffing shortages. This means that residents will have to move away from their home town and their families. The decision came as a shock to staff, and there are genuine questions about whether this was a justifiable reason to close the home. An audit of the facility in March found that the facility met each quality standard, including that the workforce was sufficient, skilled and qualified. Whatever the case may be, the federal government and the local MP, David Littleproud, were fully aware of this impending decision of council but gave the council no guarantees of a fix for the staffing shortage.
Today I have written to the aged-care minister and the council demanding answers. I've asked the council to reverse its decision and save Tarcoola. If any level of government could come up with a single project that would create 40 local, permanent, secure jobs in a town of 2,000 people they would jump at the chance and would fund it in a second. But instead of doing that, the Morrison government shrugs its shoulders and passes the buck.
The closure of aged-care homes is happening in rural and regional towns right across the country because the Morrison government has failed aged-care residents and workers and their communities. This is a government that will spend $600 million to win inner-city Liberal seats with a car park rort but won't lift a finger to save aged-care homes in regional Queensland. We need to save Tarcoola and we need to fix aged care now.
[by video link] Despite every effort to close the gap between First Nations descendants and Australians of all colours and creeds, we continue to entrench their victim status with endless cash handouts and infinite apologies. I stand here as an elected add member of this parliament, as a voice for Queenslanders and Australians. Any suggestion to legislate or change our Constitution to incorporate a voice to parliament will strongly be opposed by One Nation.
As my friend, and granddaughter of Paddy Uluru has repeatedly said, 'How can you have Indigenous people in parliament and advising parliament who have never lived an Aboriginal life?' She calls these people, people like Marcia Langton, and Tom Calma, 'bitumen blacks'. There is no incentive to close the gap, because there are so many businesses and bureaucrats whose livelihoods solely depend on division. In other words, sustaining the gap is big business.
I find the words of Scott Morrison's Closing the Gap speech today completely disingenuous. The Prime Minister's remarks are as hollow as the eucalypt limbs used to produce the didgeridoo. We must put a stop to entrenching the victim status of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The majority are not victims; they are capable, resilient and valuable Australians who should be encouraged to participate in Australia's optimistic future. Our nation's history is not perfect; we know that. But we will only close the gap when we treat all Australians equally and on the basis of individual needs, not race.
Down in Tasmania, we normally like to take a team approach—'Team Tasmania', as many colleagues call it. Just yesterday some great news came out of Tasmania, and that was that 50 per cent of the eligible population have received their first dose of the COVID vaccine—a fantastic milestone—and 25 per cent are fully vaccinated.
Senator McDonald interjecting—
Thank you, Senator Macdonald, This is a great piece of news but I was surprised that a couple of senators in this place from Tasmania—not from my party, I might add—wanted to run down this good news. Instead of giving encouragement to Tasmanian who've done the right thing and rolled up their sleeves and got the jab, instead of encouraging more Tasmanians to do the same thing, they just sat there and found holes and problems—not one word of encouragement, which is bitterly disappointing. We need to remember that this is about encouraging those who do the right thing and encouraging more Tasmanians to do the right thing. It is not about whipping up politics and finding division. This is not a political game. This is a life-and-death matter for many. So I encourage my Tasmanian colleagues to get on board, stop running down Tasmanians, stop running down our state and acknowledge the good work our state has done. The people of Tasmania, with 50 per cent vaccination, are leading the nation. Get on board. Join Team Tasmania.
[by video link] This week is National Homelessness Week, the theme being 'everybody needs a home'. I think most of us would agree that, during this pandemic, our homes have never felt more important to us. Our homes should be the places that make us feel the safest, that make us feel secure. They should be the centre of family life, memories and happy times. They should give us a sense of security, permanency and a place in our community.
For too many Australians, home is not a safe place, not a stable place. Too many Australians are living in unstable accommodation, insecure accommodation or transiently, and far too many Australians are sleeping rough. For all these Australians who don't experience what they should from the home, who indeed experience homelessness or rough sleeping, it is past time for our parliament to commit to change, to commit to do better. Homelessness, like so many policy failures that we see in this place, is preventable, it is solvable—with the right commitment, the right investment and the right commitment to solving that challenge. It is incumbent on all of us to remember that in the work we do in this place—not just in National Homelessness Week but every week.
I'm deeply proud to be part of a political party that is committed to meaningful change. Anthony Albanese has committed to building 20,000 additional social housing properties through a Housing Australia Future Fund, and 4,000 of those properties would be reserved for women and children fleeing family violence and for older women, who are at greater risk of homelessness. We know this is one of the greatest cohorts of people in our community at risk of homelessness. These are the sort of policies we need to tackle homelessness. But they are just the beginning. Together, I hope we can do more.
I want all the parents out there who have kids who are going through officer training to pull them out immediately. I'm not mucking around. Get them out of there. They are dangerous to your children. Kids who are doing a gap year with the Australian Army Reserve are being bullied and abused at the hands of Australian Regular Army officers. The Sydney University Regiment is an officer training regiment. Young people go there and live on base. That is part of the one-year program to become an Army Reserve officer.
Most of them are 18- or 19-year-old recruits, and they should be having the time of their lives. They've just left home, they're right out of school and they're meeting new people. But their gap year is turning into a nightmare from hell. The problems are bubbling over. There are illegal room searches going on. There are allegations of sexual abuse. There is rape going on. There is bullying going on. You name it—that is what's happening at our Sydney University Regiment. Come out and try and deny it! Just try me today!
I'm doing everything I can to get it fixed. I've raised it with the Chief of Army, I've raised it with the Minister for Defence, and I'm asking both of them: for the sake of our children and for the future of our military, go in there and make sure our kids are safe. We are now at the point where they need to delay the start date of the new recruits, like I've just said. Let's be clear here. The Army has a duty of care—and you're not living up to the expectations of the standard one's supposed to walk past. You are bloody shameful. You are absolutely shameful. I've asked the minister whether he was confident that 18- and 19-year-old recruits would be safe from abuse. Guess what? He has not directly answered my question.
That is where we are at. We can't guarantee that those kids will be safe. I'm ex-military police. I am asking you, from one military police person to another, get in there and do your job, and call them out! Get in there and use that training! We've got problems—they're abusing our kids at the Sydney University Regiment. Get in there!
[by video link] From the team who brought you the pink batts scandal and $900 cheques to people who'd passed away, now we have Labor's 'cash for jabs'. We shouldn't be surprised to learn, though, that Labor's proposal will divert money from where it's most needed and do very little to increase Australia's vaccination rate.
Labor say it's their policy to use $300 payments as an incentive for people to get vaccinated—it's a copy and paste, though, of the policy announced by US President Biden just a few days earlier—which would come at a cost to Australians of up to $6 billion. It's another mindless imitation by Albanese's Labor, who so often play copycat to former UK leader Corbyn and Mr Biden. And this comes at a time when state driven lockdowns continue to buffer the budget. And, cost apart, the international evidence suggests it would do little to actually encourage people to get vaccinated. The Australian government's behavioural economics team has found that financial incentives are 'unlikely' to drive vaccine uptake in Australia. Indeed, for anyone who might find the payment a driver of behaviour, it would likely—counterproductively—encourage them to delay vaccination until after the next election, hoping that Labor might win.
By far the best incentive to get vaccinated is to protect your health. On the best evidence we have, getting vaccinated will lower your chances of getting COVID, it will lower the severity of the illness if you do and it will protect your family members, friends, colleagues and community. But close behind is the end of the justification for the cycle of lockdowns that Australians have endured so patiently, and regaining the freedoms we once took for granted and the can-do, optimistic culture that comes with it.
Deaths, loss of jobs, businesses closing, $300 billion plus of public expenditure, border closures, lockdowns: COVID has had the biggest effect on Australian life since World War II. It has also involved some of the biggest public policy decisions ever undertaken in terms of the quantum of money spent. Some things in the pandemic have gone well; some things have not. Nearly 20 months since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Australia is paying a heavy price for massive public policy failure on international quarantine and the procurement and distribution of vaccines.
Those who do not learn from the past are often doomed to repeat it. A royal commission inquiry is needed to establish precisely how Australia got into the position in which we find ourselves and to learn all the lessons we can from COVID-19 and the response to it. Only a royal commission would have the authority to cover the breadth of issues and actions of both the federal and state governments. Only an independent, non-partisan and fully empowered inquiry can cut through government spin and secrecy to get the truth. A royal commission should call for the so-called records of not only the national cabinet but other cabinets, both state and federal, even national security claims. Only a royal commission can extract the truth from reluctant ministers and bureaucrats. Only a royal commission can deliver authoritative findings to serve as a guide for future policy. It is an essential part of our COVID-19 response.
[by video link] Yesterday the High Court ruled and delivered a judgement in the WorkPac v Rossato case. Let's make no mistake: it is a victory for labour hire companies and the Morrison government against hardworking Australians. The government and multinational labour hire companies, over the last two years, have worked hand in hand to crush the rights of casual labour hire workers in mines. The Morrison government chose to intervene in this case not on the side of hardworking Australians but on the side of multinational, multibillion-dollar labour hire companies. The Morrison government spent almost $300,000 of public money on legal fees in this case to keep the labour hire rort alive. That shows what side the Morrison government is on.
Legal experts are warning that the Rossato precedent could be used to uphold sham contracting arrangements and attack the Australian middle class. It could stop workers of Uber, who have been paid as little as $6.70 an hour, with no workers' comp, no leave entitlements, no unfair dismissal rights and no collective bargaining rights, from fighting for the minimum wage. From the University of Adelaide, Andrew Stewart said:
It's an open invitation to businesses to hire workers as independent contractors rather than employees—meaning they don't just miss out on annual leave, but minimum wages, limits on working hours, the right to complain of unfair dismissal, and maybe super and workers' compensation as well.
Rather than spending taxpayer money to uphold exploitation, the Morrison government should be legislating for the rights of all workers, whether employees or contractors.
[by video link] Today the do-nothing, 'I don't hold a hose, mate' Prime Minister stood up in the other place to again highlight the failures of the government he leads with regard to First Nations people in this country. The Morrison government yet again is showing us that it is not serious about ending systemic inequality between First Nations and non-Indigenous people in this country. Mr Morrison isn't just failing to close the gap; in his leadership vacuum, things are getting worse. Over the last eight years of the Liberal government, most key indicators have gone backwards, despite First Nations communities demanding action. First Nations people are not the problem. The do-nothing Morrison government and the system that is deliberately stacked against First Nations people are the problem.
The 2021 Closing the gap report is yet another shameful reminder that more First Nations babies are being stolen from their families, more First Nations people are dying by suicide and more First Nations people are being imprisoned. This report clearly demonstrates that the Morrison government has no idea. The Prime Minister is standing in the way of the solutions our people have always had to the problems we have been pushed to experience as a result of colonisation and land dispossession. Grassroots First Nations people need to be in the driver's seat when it comes to making decisions that affect our lives. Self-determination means giving us the right, the resources and the power to determine our own destiny. Imagine that! Grassroots First Nations leadership is the only way forward— (Time expired)
The care a community provides for its elders is a mark of that community, and I rise to give due respect and hearty congratulations to volunteers and staff at aged-care facilities, particularly those in our regions and smaller towns. I recently had the pleasure of attending the Warrina aged-care facility in Innisfail, just south of Cairns, where I opened the site's new 64-bed See Poy Roberts building. Warrina Innisfail started operations in 1970 and has a stellar reputation for providing quality, dignified care, and this new building is outstanding in its comfort and care for residents and improved workplace safety for staff.
As announced in the recent federal budget, the Morrison government will deliver a $17.7 million package of support and once-in-a-generation reform to aged care to deliver respect and dignity to our senior Australians. Also, as part of the 2021-22 budget, the Morrison government is investing $125.7 billion in Medicare over the next four years, an increase of over $6 billion from last year's budget. There's an election coming soon and if anyone says the Morrison Government is cutting Medicare it's just not true. Senior Australians built our nation. They're our parents and grandparents, our founders and protectors, and they have contributed so much to our communities.
I always make a point of visiting aged-care facilities because of the tireless work by staff and volunteers, such as that of Warrina patron Claire Richardson. I'm glad to represent the Liberal National Party, which realises the importance of regional aged care and walks the walk when it comes to providing funding and training to the sector. It is so important, because regional aged care allows families to stay in the regions. Well done to Warrina Innisfail president Chris Kahler, the board of directors, staff and volunteers.
We've all come across that person—the bloke who wants the title, the big contract, the money or the glory but doesn't really want to do the job that goes with it; the middle manager from hell; the dodgy contractor who leaves his customers in the lurch and ends up on A Current Affair. When we come across these people in our day-to-day lives, it causes a lot stress and often costs us a lot of money. But when that person is supposed to lead our country through a pandemic, when that person is a prime minister, it's a crisis for us all.
Mr Morrison revealed his character during the bushfires, when he left Australians in the lurch and nicked off to Hawaii, and now he's done it again. He spent all last year telling premiers they shouldn't lock down. He said that not locking down was the gold standard. When Melbourne had a delta outbreak in June, he said he wanted to see the restrictions lifted as quickly as possible. That's what he said. Then, when this current delta outbreak started in Bondi, he said, 'I commend Premier Berejiklian for resisting going into a full lockdown.' Since he urged no lockdown for the Bondi cluster, it spread, causing lockdowns across Sydney, Victoria and South Australia, and today the Hunter has gone into seven days of lockdown. The cost in lives is tragic. The cost to jobs and the economy is reckless.
But now, like the dodgy contractor, he wants you to forget what he told you before. Now Mr Morrison says that the only way to deal with outbreaks is lockdowns. Isn't that amazing! Now he says that he supports lockdowns strongly. He has changed his tune, but he doesn't want you to notice that he has. This bloke's story changes every week, and Australians can't rely on anything he says. He's always ducking and weaving. He's always ducking responsibility. And do you know what? He's always blaming someone else, and it's Australians who are left in the lurch.
Recently workers at McCain Foods in Smithton, through their union, the AMWU, notified the company, in accordance with the law, that they'd be taking industrial action in support of claims for their enterprise agreement. They've been attempting to negotiate with the company for the past six months. The company locked them out on two occasions. A delegate on the site recently posted a message on social media. She said:
Ah McCain, you've done it again!
… I'm a proud Tasmanian. I was born and bred in Smithton. I've been a quality assessor at McCain Foods here in Smithton … for seven years, and a delegate for five. My mother used to do the same work I do and that makes me proud.
Our bosses at McCain Foods have just shut us out of our workplace this morning because they're refusing to agree to decent pay and conditions.
We're essential food workers in Tasmania, we're the ones that have kept food on the table during a pandemic but our bosses refuse to recognise this. We've taken lower pay increases in the past to help the company out during harder times, but now they're set for a record tonnage.
It's totally unfair because workers at McCain Foods on the mainland are earning up to 15% more than us for the same work. And, again … just down the road at Simplot, food workers earn about 15% more for doing the same work.
… … …
We've bargained with McCain in good faith, but now they have locked us out of the workplace as a bargaining tactic.
Order! It being 2 pm, we will move to questions without notice.
[by video link] My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Colbeck. In an article in today's Sydney Morning Herald entitled 'NSW pharmacists stuck in waiting game for vaccines' Mario Barone, a pharmacist in Western Sydney's hotspot suburb of Fairfield reported that, despite placing a second order for AstraZeneca doses on Monday, the vaccines won't arrive for nearly three weeks. He said: 'These vaccines are in a fridge somewhere, but they aren't in pharmacy fridges.' Given that there have been, tragically, five more deaths from COVID-19 recorded in New South Wales today, why are pharmacists in the hotspot of Fairfield waiting almost three weeks for AstraZeneca vaccines to arrive?
[by video link] As pharmacies undertake their onboarding process for delivery of vaccines through the national vaccination program there is a process of onboarding registration and ordering of vaccines. There is a cycle of assessment of that process, of preparing the pharmacist to ensure that the appropriate training has been undertaken so that the vaccines are handled appropriately and administered as they should be. We have seen in the past circumstances where [inaudible] appropriate training and that has led to mistakes. So as part of the onboarding process the pharmacists are registered and go through a process of assessment and training. While that process is being undertaken their orders are taken from them and deliveries are processed. It does take a couple of weeks to onboard a pharmacist into the system, but that's done deliberately so that we can ensure that the vaccination process is undertaken safely and in accordance with the appropriate processes of delivery of the vaccine to the Australian community.
Senator Keneally, a supplementary question?
[by video link] Port Macquarie based pharmacist Judy Plunkett says she's yet to receive a single vaccine dose. She said:
If pharmacies were brought on in April we could have done tens of thousands of doses by now. Every barrier has been put in front of us.
Why are pharmacists who want to vaccinate Australians against COVID-19 having every barrier put in front of them?
[by video link] I completely reject the premise of Senator Keneally's question. It has always been part of our national plan to progressively increase the number of outlets where coronavirus vaccines are available. We started with the state clinics, the Commonwealth vaccination clinics, and then we brought on GPs. The plan was always to progressively bring on pharmacies as vaccine availability increased, and that's exactly what we've done. I reject the comment that we put barriers in front of pharmacies. We have progressively built the vaccine supply and the number of outlets to ensure that Australians can get access to a vaccine wherever they are around the country and to ensure that that is done safely and progressively so that we can meet our objective of providing everyone who wants a vaccine one by the end of the year.
Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question?
[by video link] The Pharmacy Guild of Australia's New South Wales branch has criticised the Morrison government's decision to contract logistics out separately instead of using the community service obligation wholesaler network, which would have used existing cold chain lines to ensure 24-hour delivery. Does the Morrison government take responsibility for the failed logistics arrangements that are delaying vital COVID vaccines to New South Wales?
[by video link] Again, I don't accept the premise that Senator Keneally has posed in her question. All throughout this process we've put in place systems and measures to ensure the safe delivery and distribution of the coronavirus vaccines. They have to be managed in a particular way, with appropriate cold storage. It has been an unprecedented logistical exercise to ensure the distribution of the vaccine. We have successfully delivered the coronavirus vaccine to thousands of individual outlets across the country, and we will continue to ensure that we safely and properly get those deliveries out to—
Order, Senator Colbeck. Senator Dean Smith.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator Ruston. Can the minister advise the Senate how the Commonwealth's Closing the Gap Implementation Plan announced today will lead to better outcomes for Indigenous Australians across Australia?
I thank Senator Smith for his question on this very important topic. Firstly, I acknowledge the traditional owners of the lands on which we meet today—the Ngunawal people—and pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging. I also would particularly like to acknowledge Senators McCarthy, Dodson, Lambie and Thorpe in this place.
The release today of the Commonwealth's Closing the Gap Implementation Plan is a really significant milestone in achieving the targets of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, which came into effect last year. With the release of the plan we are committing more than $1 billion in new measures to support the achievement of closing the gap measures, and we're turning our commitments made under the national agreement into practical and real actions. This plan is about real reconciliation, how we get there and making sure all governments are held to account—state and federal—whether through delivering new health clinics and housing for health professionals to close the gap in relation to life expectancy, initiatives to lift participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in quality and culturally appropriate early childhood education and care services, or the Territories Stolen Generation Redress Scheme, which supports healing for Stolen Generations survivors.
We will deliver the outcomes and evidence fund to incentivise evidence based service delivery and deliver tangible and improved outcomes to support child and family safety. We are providing an additional $254.4 million for infrastructure and to better support Aboriginal community controlled health organisations so they can continue to do the critical work they have been doing very successfully over recent years. And we're investing $160 million in new funding to ensure the best start in life for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children through a range of different initiatives. Most importantly, we're doing this together. This plan is co-designed and it will be co-delivered.
Senator Smith, a supplementary question?
Can the minister explain to the Senate why working in partnership is important for closing the gap and how this is different from previous approaches?
As part of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, we've set out four priority reforms to fundamentally change how governments and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples work together. The implementation plan that was announced today details how governments will do our part in achieving these reforms. It highlights the real and practical actions to be taken across all areas of government and, most importantly, it commits funding to actions that will ensure we get there.
Importantly, all governments will work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander stakeholders with an increasing level of accountability, transparency and responsibility. This reflects the new model of working together. We'll prioritise investments so that we are all responding to the evidence and doing things that will make the most difference. The Morrison government is committed to working with Indigenous Australians to deliver the outcomes needed to close the gap.
Senator Smith, a final supplementary question?
What are the benefits of this new approach under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap?
Under the new national agreement, we've committed to work in true partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders. Like the Commonwealth, all parties are required to develop implementation plans that outline how they will deliver their parts and their commitments under the national agreement. They are required to report on their actions annually, ensuring there is a much greater level of shared accountability than under previous agreements. Increased transparency is built on data. The Morrison government have already delivered towards this priority reform this year with the release of the Closing the Gap dashboard, and we will continue to deliver on our commitments.
The implementation plan is also firmly in line with our continued commitment to working in genuine partnership with Indigenous Australians in policy development and program and service delivery. This commitment to shared decision-making will be embedded in the design, implementation and monitoring of policies and programs to improve life outcomes for all Indigenous Australians.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. In section 1.1 of the Morrison government's fourth vaccine plan released in just two months, the Morrison government lists everyone it blames for the slow COVID-19 vaccine rollout, including ATAGI, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, state and territory governments, vaccination clinics and Australians themselves. How did the Morrison government forget to list itself?
What a petty question from Senator Gallagher! What a misrepresentation of the documents and the facts! The government acknowledges that there have been challenges in relation to the vaccine rollout. We acknowledge that, and we take responsibility for it and for fixing it. We take responsibility for ensuring that, notwithstanding the challenges that have been had in terms of supply that was forecast to arrive but didn't arrive and notwithstanding changes to health advice, we continue to push on with ensuring that we have supply growth and growth in distribution points now and into the future. In doing that, we're in the best position to be able to see continued growth in relation to the vaccine rollout.
The data for the last 24 hours is just out, and some 221,859 Australians turned out in the last 24 hours to receive their latest vaccine doses. That is yet another daily record set in relation to the vaccine rollout, and I thank each and every one of those Australians who, notwithstanding the negativity elsewhere, are turning out in record numbers. It has pushed the total number of doses administered across Australia to more than 13 million now. In doing so, it sees the over-70s pass the 80 per cent threshold. That first age cohort who were prioritised under the vaccine rollout—we now have more than 80 per cent—have managed to achieve the target, and, having done so, we will no doubt see even more push on and get their second dose as those rates climb and that number grows even larger in that age cohort, as it will right across the Australian population.
Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question?
The reason the initial vaccine rollout was bungled is the Morrison government's failure to secure adequate supplies. Does Mr Morrison take responsibility for his failure to keep Australians safe?
The Morrison government procured some 195 million doses. That's before we get to the recent announcements in relation to those booster doses that were procured. The government, as I said before, absolutely accepts responsibility for the rollout, the challenges and fixing it. That's our job as a government. We don't shirk that or shy away from doing so. We are pleased to see that we have increased volume of supply. We are pleased to see that we have increased distribution points, which are able to be brought on progressively as we get that increase in supply. We are particularly pleased to see the way in which Australians are responding in record numbers to the vaccine rollout. Australians are responding in ways that don't mean they need $300 payments; they're making it clear they want the vaccine. They're making it clear they want to turn out. We are supporting them to make sure they have increasing chances to turn out, rather than the types of silly-policy thought bubbles from those opposite. (Time expired)
Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question?
In June, Mr Morrison boasted nobody in Australia had died from COVID-19 in 2021 and nobody was in intensive care. Mr Hunt boasted it was one of the most extraordinary public health achievements in Australian history. Twenty-one people have tragically died in the New South Wales outbreak, and 51 people are now in intensive care. Does Mr Morrison concede he is actually responsible for one of the most extraordinary public health failures?
No, we don't make that concession. We acknowledge that managing COVID-19, managing a global pandemic, remains incredibly challenging. Australia has done far better than the rest of the world in the management of the pandemic, but tragically 932 Australians have lost their lives from COVID-19—932 in total. Twenty-one have lost their lives during this New South Wales outbreak. Our government is determined though that Australia will continue to do the best we can in managing the pandemic according to the medical advice that we have. That's why we commissioned the Doherty Institute to undertake the modelling there. It's why we have made sure that we progress and advance the plan built on that advice and evidence. Australia's not immune from COVID-19, but we are absolutely able, as we've done, to continue to respond to the changing circumstances of the delta variant and to other challenges thrown at us but to do so in world-leading ways.
My question is to Senator Hume representing the environment minister. Minister, Australia has just successfully lobbied a UNESCO World Heritage Committee to vote against the scientific advice provided by the IUCN that the Great Barrier Reef should be listed as in danger. A report from Spanish media overnight quoted Spain's UNESCO ambassador as admitting to striking a deal with Australia, that they would support Australia's amendments to have the reef not listed as in danger if Australia backed its attempt to have two Spanish properties added to the UNESCO World Heritage List despite the committee recommending against this. We have also heard that Australia co-sponsored an amendment to list a site in Saudi Arabia despite the committee also recommending against this. Minister, can you confirm these reports and detail what other deals were done in the name of your government's political agenda?
I thank Senator Whish-Wilson for his question and for his enduring care of the Great Barrier Reef, which is shared with that of the Morrison government. The Morrison government in fact is deeply committed to protecting the World Heritage Great Barrier Reef. The tourism industry, traditional owners and reef communities rely on the Morrison government's commitment to the reef, and we will not let them down.
Our world's best management of the reef is acknowledged by many, including the World Heritage Committee, who said in this year's decision on the reef that it commends the state party, that being Australia, for the strong and continued efforts to create conditions for the implementation the reef 2050 long-term sustainability plan.
Order, Senator Hume! I have Senator Whish-Wilson on a point of order.
A point of order on relevance: did the government do any deals to win the UNESCO vote?
Senator Whish-Wilson, I appreciate the question had a very lengthy preamble. The minister was addressing the body that made the decision you are questioning about, so I believe the minister is directly relevant if she's talking about the decision made, because she's entitled to be directly relevant to all or part of a question, especially when it lengthy.
Discussions between the members of the committee will always remain private, so we make no apologies for defending Australia's reputation as the best marine park managers in the world. The minister for the environment has highlighted before that climate change is the most serious long-term threat to the health of coral reefs worldwide, and that includes the Great Barrier Reef. It also threatens 82 other World Heritage sites around the world. Rainforests, fjord-lands, glaciers—none would be better off if UNESCO succeeded in its bid to single out Australia for what is, we all agree, a global problem. That's why the World Heritage Committee unanimously struck out this year's attempt to use Australia only for its global call to action.
With only 1.3 per cent of global emissions, Australia cannot fix this problem alone. The world must do more to reduce emissions and the World Heritage Committee must find a path towards collective action and not singular punishment. The Morrison government's concern was that UNESCO sought an immediate in-danger listing without appropriate consultation, without a site visit and without all the latest information. It's clear that this process concerned not only Australia but other nations as well. So we welcome the support of an overwhelming majority of the nations at the 44th session of the World Heritage Committee. (Time expired)
Senator Whish-Wilson, a supplementary question?
Minister, UNESCO didn't strike this out; it recommitted the vote to May 2022. Your government is now being watched closely by the world. There is specific language in the recent UNESCO ruling that requires Australia to demonstrate an acceleration on key points of the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan, including by lowering emissions that are killing the reef, beyond current plans. What is your plan for accelerating emissions reduction, and how is giving money to new fossil fuel projects, including the gas-led recovery, going to accelerate emissions reductions?
Nineteen of the 21 members of the World Heritage Committee voted in support of Australia's position. The World Heritage Committee's endorsement of Australia's position will give reef managers, marine scientists and land managers the chance to demonstrate the success of the outstanding work that is taking place across the reef. We will invite representatives of UNESCO and the IUCN to visit the reef and see firsthand the work that we are doing to build the reef's resilience, and we will submit a State Party Report to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2022. We will continue to work with UNESCO and the World Heritage Committee to protect the long-term future of the reef. We're working with the Queensland government to ensure that the strategies under the reef 2050 plan are delivering the best possible outcomes for the reef. The Australian and Queensland governments are investing more than $3 billion from 2014-15 to 2023-24 to implement the reef 2050 plan. More than $2 billion of this is from the Australian government.
Senator Whish-Wilson, a final supplementary question?
The world's best science provided by the IUCN and UNESCO tells us we all face a future where one of the world's most iconic and critical natural wonders may die in our lifetime, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels and a lack of global ambition on climate change. Minister, can you put your hand on your heart in the Senate today and say you are happy that your government is doing everything possible to reduce emissions and protect the Barrier Reef for future generations?
Senator Whish-Wilson, thank you very much for your question. Hand on heart, Australia is a good citizen in the world heritage system. We have implemented all previous recommendations. But what on earth could we possibly implement on our own as a corrective measure to address global warming? We are delivering on all of our outcomes that we have committed to in the reef 2050 plan. That includes controlling outbreaks of the crown-of-thorn starfish, which eats coral; improving water quality; doubling the on-ground joint field management program; addressing plastic pollution; rehabilitating island, coastal and reef habitats; and, as reported in the 2019 Reef Water Quality Report Card, we are over halfway to the fine-sediment target and almost halfway to the dissolved inorganic nitrogen target. I reiterate that the Morrison government is deeply committed to protecting the world heritage listed Great Barrier Reef.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order. The wearing of masks makes it difficult to call senators to order because I can't see their mouths move, particularly at the rear of the chamber. I can recognise some voices at the front of the chamber.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. Can the minister advise the Senate on the latest health measures to support Closing the Gap?
[by video link] Thanks, Senator McDonald, for the opportunity to outline these important measures. I know that Senator McDonald takes a strong interest in Closing the Gap, particularly working with local communities in Far North Queensland.
In support of the first Closing the Gap Implementation Plan, the Morrison government is investing more than $300 million in health infrastructure and programs to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people can access health services when and where they need them. The government is also investing $45 million to ensure the best start in life for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children through the Healthy Mums and Healthy Bubs program.
This funding is an additional $82 million for the Connected Beginnings program, which includes funding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health services. These programs are focused on promoting healthy outcomes and healthy lifestyle choices for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and their babies. This will provide mothers with improved access to health care, including access to antenatal care, from their health providers and will provide support until their baby is one year old. These programs complement and build on the government's investment of more than $781.1 million in the 2021-22 budget to prioritise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and ageing outcomes. The Closing the Gap implementation plan sets a foundation for the Commonwealth's efforts over the next decade in achieving the targets in the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, signed by all Australian governments in July 2020.
Senator McDonald, a supplementary question?
How is the Liberal and Nationals government supporting Indigenous Australians as part of the response to COVID-19?
[by video link] Through the Commonwealth government's $1 billion investment in new Closing the Gap measures, we're investing $254.4 million in infrastructure to better support the critical work of Aboriginal community controlled health organisations, which have been a significant part of the government's response to COVID-19. [inaudible] operated by [inaudible] communities delivering comprehensive and culturally appropriate primary healthcare services, including administering COVID-19 vaccines across rural and remote Australia. We are absolutely committed to improving health services for Indigenous Australians, their families and their communities. Aboriginal community controlled health organisations have been vital in providing health support for Aboriginal communities across Australia.
Senator McDonald, a supplementary question?
What are the socioeconomic targets related to the National Agreement on Closing the Gap?
[by video link] The new National Agreement on Closing the Gap was released in July last year and represents a significant shift in the Closing the Gap framework. Seventeen national socioeconomic targets will track progress in improving life outcomes, including: closing the gap in life expectancy within a generation by 2031; increasing the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander babies with a healthy birth weight to 91 per cent by 2031; and significant and sustained reduction in suicide of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people towards zero. The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health plan is underpinning action to drive progress against these targets with a combined national focus. The Closing the Gap implementation plan has been developed by ministers, departments and agencies across our nation, with peak Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander partners, particularly the Coalition of Peaks, representing around 50 community controlled organisations. (Time expired)
[by video link] My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. If children between the ages of 12 and 16 are not included in the government's vaccination targets, the whole-of-the-population target is actually 65 per cent, not 80 per cent. If we reopen at 65 per cent, our hospitals will be overwhelmed and we will have tens of thousands of cases. As Queensland's latest outbreak shows, kids can catch and transmit COVID. Why aren't you including children above the age of 12 in the vaccination program? How many children have to catch COVID before the government includes them in its vaccination targets?
[by video link] I thank Senator Siewert for the question. In fact, children are included in the vaccination program, as announced by the health minister on Monday. We commenced with children with certain health issues, Indigenous children and children in remote communities as a part of our vaccination program. The vaccination availability and approval for children was only made by the TGA in recent times, so the health minister in fact did announce on Monday that children will become part of the vaccination program in the categories that I've outlined.
Our objective is to offer all Australians for whom a vaccine has been approved the opportunity to have one as soon as possible. We want all of those over the age of 18 to have the opportunity for a vaccine by the end of the year. As I've said a number of times, and as the health minister and the Prime Minister and many of my colleagues have said, we will continue to grow and develop the vaccine program with the availability of vaccine opening up more opportunities for Australians to access the vaccine through more outlets. It's important that as many Australians as possible get vaccinated. We've seen with the delta variant how the COVID virus has modified and changed its behaviour, so it's important that we continue to adapt to the circumstances as the virus itself adapts and creates more variants. The government will continue to do that.
Senator Siewert, a supplementary question?
[by video link] Thank you, Mr President. Minister, the government is not including all children in the target. They are not including children aged between 12 and 16 in their targets. Why isn't that occurring? Why have you only relied on the Doherty institute for advice and not listened to other experts as well, such as the Grattan Institute, who are saying children need to be included in the target, not just a program, and all children aged between 12 and 16?
[by video link] I thank Senator Siewert for the question. The government commissioned the Doherty institute to conduct research to provide us with advice on the parameters for opening up the economy. We have released that information publicly so that all Australians can understand the circumstances under which the various stages of the process to open up the economy and open up the community can be undertaken. The Doherty institute modelling was based on the advice with respect to vaccinations available at the time. As I've just indicated, children will progressively become part of the vaccination rollout program, But the vaccination program rollout has always been based on a range of priorities, and those priorities have progressed as we've had availability of additional vaccines.
Senator Siewert, a final supplementary question?
[by video link] Thank you. Minister, are you not including kids because there is not enough vaccine available and do you concede that not including children aged between 12 and 16 in the target is a much more risky approach?
[by video link] I thank Senator Siewert for the question. I've already indicated on a number of occasions that children will be part of the vaccine rollout, so I don't concede what she's indicated as part of her question. Children will be included, and already are being included, as part of the vaccine rollout.
They're not part of the target.
Order!
A point of order, Mr President.
I'm sorry, Senator Siewert, but I think the rules of engagement under remote participation don't allow points of order to be made remotely. Someone here can do it. Senator Colbeck to continue.
[by video link] Thank you, Mr President. The government commissioned the Doherty institute to undertake research to give us and all of the community an indication of the parameters that might permit the community to open up and the economy to open up. That information has been provided to all Australians so that they can understand the circumstances and the targets with which that might occur. We will continue to provide access to vaccines for all Australians as approved by the TGA. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. I refer to the answer the minister for urban infrastructure gave in the House yesterday about the commuter car park fund. Yesterday the minister claimed decisions were based on departmental advice, yet the Auditor-General found that not one of the 47 car parks was recommended by the department. Today Mr Morrison refused on nine occasions to say what involvement he had in deciding the car parks in target seats. At any point did Mr Morrison or his office see the list of top 20 marginal seats used to distribute funds?
These are valuable projects for communities around Australia that the senator is asking questions about. They will provide benefits to people in a range of different communities. As is well known, they were the subject of an ANAO report. The department's accepted the recommendations of that report and begun to implement them.
Senator Brown, a supplementary question?
Evidence on the public record makes clear the Prime Minister's office was directly involved in deciding grants under the Community Sport Infrastructure Grants Program, revising projects on the infamous colour coded spreadsheet. Can the minister outline the role the Prime Minister's office played in funding car parks for political gain?
It's not unusual for ministers and prime ministers to be lobbied and to be engaged in relation to needs in different communities across the country.
Opposition senators interjecting—
I listen to those opposite. They have their own version of history. They fail to acknowledge the fact that Labor had its own $300 million 'park and ride' fund, don't they?
Senator Wong, a point of order?
It's on direct relevance. The Prime Minister was asked this nine times and did not answer. This minister did not answer. We are asking in this chamber what role the Prime Minister or his office played in funding these car parks.
On the point of order, the minister was in order until, I think, he strayed upon alternative programs, because I believe to be directly relevant one needs to be relevant to the multiple programs that were mentioned in the question.
The question goes to rank hypocrisy, too, in terms of the approach of those opposite. The Prime Minister certainly played no greater role than I suspect the member for Maribyrnong did in announcing 24 such projects.
Senator Brown, a final supplementary question?
Today Mr Morrison claimed Australians had voted for his commuter car park fund, despite the majority of grants being approved before the election was called. This minister echoed those views recently on Insiders. Does this minister really expect Australians to accept the Morrison government using taxpayer money as Liberal Party money on the basis that rorts are okay if you're re-elected?
It seems it's okay for those on that side to throw mud about something this side of politics does in relation to funding community infrastructure and they'll call it that name. But when they were doing exactly the same thing in the lead-up to the last election it was valuable community infrastructure. It was okay for them to run around the country announcing car parks in different locations, but it's not okay for the coalition to do it!
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Before you raise a point of order, Senator Wong, you would have heard me calling for order. I couldn't hear a word that was being said. You may have better hearing than I have, but I couldn't hear a word as I was calling senators to order.
Mr President, I understand the sensitivity this minister has in defending this, but he has now on three occasions avoided answering a question and resorted simply to going about—
I ask you to resume your seat, Senator Wong. A critique of the content of an answer and whether someone asserts it is an answer or otherwise is not a matter for here. That goes to the content of an answer. Points of order are for direct relevance. I genuinely could not hear a word of Senator Birmingham's quite loud voice, as I was constantly calling senators to order. Senator Birmingham, continue.
I'm happy to come into this place and answer serious questions, well-intentioned questions, when questions come from people who hold consistency in relation to their position. On this matter, I just find it so hypocritical, so amazing, that those opposite—
Senator Wong, on a point of order?
A point of order on direct relevance: this question goes to the expenditure of public moneys. It is not directly relevant, within the standing orders, for him to simply talk about the Labor Party.
I take that point, Senator Wong, and I ruled on that point earlier. But, as I've previously ruled too, when the minister made a comment about the opposition at that point, while answering a question about his own comments that contains politically charged phrases—I think an answer of that nature is not out of order. I have consistently ruled very tightly when questions are tight, factual questions, as I did earlier this week. This was not one of those, and the minister is entitled to defend his own record and statements in a manner he sees fit when they're contained in the question.
I am simply pointing out the double standard. The coalition announced policy commitments in relation to investing in community infrastructure in car parks. The Labor Party announced pre-election policy to invest in car parks— (Time expired)
My question is to the magnificent Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Can the minister advise the Senate on the specific regional education measures that will lift outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children to support—
Senator Scarr, on a point of order?
Point of order, Mr President: there was a clear interjection from the leader of the opposition in relation to—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Sorry?
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! We could be here for quite a few weeks in a row. I'm going to ask senators in the first week to take a breath.
The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate referred to my good friend Senator McKenzie as 'the rorting minister'. I think the leader of the opposition should withdraw.
First, I didn't hear it, so I can't rule. That is not in the list of terms that I have traditionally ruled out of order, although—
Opposition senators interjecting—
If the opposition could listen to me. I am going to seek some advice from the Clerk about words that we've asked to be withdrawn before, and I will come back to the chamber if necessary, and upon reviewing the Hansard. But I will ask senators to restrain themselves. I'm not certain whether that term has been ruled unparliamentary before, but I will check. I will also urge senators that—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Can I ask senators to listen for a minute. Terms that are parliamentary when used in a general sense are sometimes unparliamentary when specifically directed at a person. That is what I will check about this term. Senator McMahon, can you restart your question, please, because I couldn't hear it.
Can the minister advise the Senate on the specific regional education measures that will lift outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children to support closing the gap?
I thank Senator McMahon for her question and for her strong representation of the Northern Territory. The Liberal and Nationals government knows that further effort is required to improve educational outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in regional and remote Australia. Indigenous kids, particularly those from remote areas, are more likely to start school behind, with the gap growing throughout their schooling life, and, if you start behind, it's incredibly hard to catch up. School attendance rates have not improved, and, despite some improvements in literacy and numeracy, about one in four Indigenous students in years 5, 7 and 9 remain below the national minimum standards in reading. We want to turn that around.
Since the national agreement was signed, the Commonwealth has taken concrete, practical steps to establish partnerships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to develop solutions that work and enable shared decision-making processes.
Everything we do under that agreement is in partnership not just with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders but with states and territories. As announced by the PM today, we're investing $250 million to ensure all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children have a strong and positive start to their learning journey to be able to access quality education that will assist closing the gap, with significant investment in evidence based programs, a lift in participation and improving literacy rates, and $280 million to support improvements in leadership capability, professional development and student outcomes through city-to-country partnerships, getting high-performing metro schools partnering with Indigenous schools. Haileybury, in my home state, is partnering with an Indigenous school in Darwin, and they're getting great improvements. You can't be what you can't see. Often, for young people, it's learning from their peers. We've seen a significant improvement in NAPLAN results as a result of that partnership. We're also investing in— (Time expired)
Senator McMahon, a supplementary question?
That is fantastic news for the Northern Territory. How will the Liberal and National government's new measures support effective learning and education outcomes through the development of strong literacy skills?
We know that focusing on reading and literacy will help set up Indigenous students for success in their school years and beyond. We're backing what works by providing up to $25 million to scale up evidence based programs that have already succeeded. We're putting $8 million to support the program called Making Up Lost Time in Literacy. We're going to double the number of schools that are going to be participating in that program. That is a program that focuses on a phonics based approach to literacy skills, because not everybody learns the same way. The government knows how important it is that teachers who are engaged in schools with Indigenous students have the right skills, and we will provide $5 million to the Good to Great Schools Australia program, which supports better student learning outcomes by improving teaching methods. We're also going to provide additional funding to support the expansion of the Kimberley Schools Project in the Pilbara region of WA.
Senator McMahon, a final supplementary question?
How will the government assist students in remote communities to access a quality secondary education?
We're not just investing in early childhood care and education, but, for secondary, we're wanting to make sure that parents and students have choice to determine what works best for them. In remote communities there can be few if any local secondary school options, and that's why often boarding or residential schools are an important option for so many children in your home territory, Senator. The government will invest $75 million to help meet the cost of building three new boarding schools in remote Western Australia in the NT and upgrades to a fourth in the Northern Territory. Indigenous children in regional and remote areas need to see the opportunities available to them. Together, using the evidence, we can close the gap on Indigenous education outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Yesterday the minister refused to say whether Mr Morrison agrees with coalition Senator Rennick's use of social media to undermine a TGA approved COVID vaccine which his own government is encouraging Australians to take up. Does Mr Morrison agree with Senator Rennick, yes or no? If not, what action will he take?
I can't say that I've reviewed the specific comments of Senator Rennick, and I won't always take Senator Watt's word for it. What I can confirm, well and truly, is the government's very strong support for the vaccination rollout and very strong encouragement for all Australians to get vaccinated at the earliest opportunity and for all Australians to heed the advice in relation to the safety of vaccines and the efficacy of vaccines. The evidence shows very clearly that both vaccines available in Australia, the AstraZeneca vaccine and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, reduce the rate of death when somebody acquires COVID-19 by some 92 per cent and 90 per cent respectively. That is the prime abiding reason and incentive for why anyone should get a vaccine. The number one incentive to get vaccinated in Australia: because it could save your life; because it could save the lives of family members.
Senator Watt on a point of order?
On relevance: the question is simply whether Mr Morrison agrees with Senator Rennick.
I think Senator Birmingham did address his familiarity or otherwise with that when he commenced the question. I'm reluctant to rule out this material as not directly relevant, given that he started with that point.
Mr President, obviously it was the fact I was talking about the real incentives to get a vaccine that perhaps drew the point of order from Senate Watt. The real incentives to get a vaccine being the fact it will save your life, save the lives of your family members and save the lives of your fellow Australians. You know what? Australians know that's the real reason to get a vaccine. They know that the real reason to get a vaccine is those lifesaving properties. It's why Australians participate overwhelmingly in childhood vaccination programs. It's why Australians are turning out in record numbers to participate in this vaccination program. It's why demand is very strong. That's why the Labor Party policy in relation to handing out $6 billion of cash is so horribly misplaced.
A point of order on direct relevance. It is the case that there was reference to what Senator Rennick was doing, but the question goes to whether the Prime Minister agrees, and, if not, what action he will take.
On the point of order: I believe Senator Birmingham addressed, at the commencement of the answer, his lack of intimate familiarity with the alleged comments referred to by Senator Watt in his question. I will say however that I made it clear I was reluctant to rule material about the vaccine rollout generally as being not directly relevant. I will say that I do not think that commenting on opposition policies meets the direct relevance test.
Thanks, Mr President. There was no direct quote in the question. As I said at the outset, I've not seen whatever the comments are that Senator Watt is referring to. But I'm very clear, the Prime Minister is very clear and the government is very clear in our continuous advocacy around the science, the efficacy and the encouragement of Australians to get vaccinated, as they are doing in record numbers.
Senator Watt, a supplementary question?
According to his social media, yesterday coalition member for Dawson, Mr George Christensen, told the coalition party room, and I quote, 'We should not be mandating the wearing of masks and we should not be condoning lockdowns.' Does Mr Morrison agree with Mr Christensen? If Mr Morrison won't take action against Senator Rennick, will he take action against Mr Christensen?
The Prime Minister has already said he doesn't agree. He's already said publicly that he doesn't agree. He's made that perfectly plain. I know that Senator Watt thinks there's some ability to run around with a muzzle or a gag or something to address these sorts of comments. In the end—
Opposition senators interjecting—
We are, and you're the ones who wants to keep highlighting these matters! We want to make sure what we highlight is firmly and squarely the health advice. That is precisely what we're doing. It's what we're doing in the communications campaigns this government pursues.
The member for Dawson's not seeking re-election at the next election. He will say what he's saying. The government speaks very clearly, from the Prime Minister, from the health minister, from all the ministers of the government, from the officials of the Chief Medical Officer and otherwise, to encourage Australians to get vaccinated. And they're doing so in record numbers: 42.4 per cent of all Australians over the age of 16 have now had their first dose—another record day—and we are going to keep providing them information and encourage them to keep— (Time expired)
Senator Watt, a final supplementary question?
Coalition senator Matt Canavan has criticised public health measures as, I quote: 'Doing much more damage to our love of liberty and our political system. That's the real threat to us now'. Does Mr Morrison agree with Mr Canavan? Importantly, what action will Mr Morrison take to ensure that his MPs back in the government's own public health message?
No. Indeed, in a debate only earlier today in this chamber, I responded to Senator Canavan, acknowledging that we did not agree in relation to some of those statements. We have been very clear in that regard. Senator Watt wants to ask about whether or not people agree. I would love to know whether they all agree with Mr Albanese's policy, because it didn't go to shadow cabinet, apparently. Apparently they didn't get a chance to say in their senior levels and their executive levels whether they agree. I can assure you that every member of the cabinet of this government agrees with our approach.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Senator Gallagher is on her feet with a point of order.
Opposition senators interjecting—
I can't see who's interjecting on my right, but please cease. Senator Rennick, I can see you.
Point of order, Mr President, on direct relevance: the minister is ignoring the guidance you've provided in previous rulings on commenting on opposition policy.
I think, by the time you had raised your point of order, the minister had moved on from that glancing phrase. But I take the point and I think the minister has taken the point. He sounded like he had moved on. Senator Birmingham.
Indeed, Mr President, as I was saying, to finish my sentence, every cabinet minister in our government stands very clearly for the policies of getting this rollout delivered. Our policies are consulted through the cabinet. They go through the cabinet, and we stand by them. The fact is that the vaccine rollout is seeing high and growing demand across Australia. That high and growing demand is something that we will continue to encourage. Australians are responding to that message, and we—
Order, Senator Birmingham, time for the answer has expired. Senator O'Sullivan.
You don't even know what CPR stands for!
Senator Rennick!
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator Cash. Can the minister advise the Senate how the Liberal and Nationals government is supporting Indigenous Australians to upskill and gain employment opportunities to support Closing the Gap?
I thank Senator O'Sullivan for the question and I acknowledge Senator O'Sullivan's previous role in working with the Minderoo Foundation in particular and his dedication to ensuring that Indigenous people were given every opportunity to get a job. Senator O'Sullivan clearly understands the benefits of upskilling and of re-skilling to ensure that people are equipped with what they need, those necessary skills, to move into employment. Today's release of the Closing the Gap Implementation Plan was well and truly an important moment for our nation, but it also shows the important work that all partners of this historic agreement are doing to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. In the 2021-22 budget the Morrison government delivered funding for substantial reforms to help Indigenous Australians get into quality and long-lasting jobs, both now and into the future. That is why we're delivering a $243.6 million new Indigenous skills and jobs advancement package. This is all about improving the economic, the social and the educational outcomes for Indigenous Australians. What this investment includes is around $42.8 million per annum, which will then grow to $60 million per annum in future years, for the Indigenous advancement strategy for a new skills and employment program. The program will build on the most successful elements of the current Indigenous-specific employment programs and focus, so importantly, on upskilling Indigenous Australians for in-demand jobs—we want them to get into work—and also putting in place those mechanisms to support them into employment.
Senator O'Sullivan, a supplementary question?
I thank the minister for that answer. How is the government investing in pilot programs to help Indigenous Australians looking for work?
Again, I thank Senator O'Sullivan for the question. We know that to continue to close the gap—and obviously we're all committed to closing the gap—and to empower Indigenous Australians, we need to work together with all sectors of the community and with all levels of government to improve opportunities. In the 2020-21 budget again the Morrison government committed to investing in pilot programs to ensure that employment services align to the changing job market—as we know COVID-19 has impacted that job market—and in particular the changing job market in remote Australia in order to meet the unique needs of jobseekers in remote communities. The new pilots will commence in a number of locations by the end of 2021 following, so importantly, a co-design process. Then we will progressively roll out the program in—
Order, Senator Cash. Senator O'Sullivan, a final supplementary question?
How is the government investing into Indigenous-Australian-run businesses, particularly in primary industry, to grow and prosper?
Again, as part of our plan—in particular to assist in securing Australia's recovery but also to continue to meet the Closing the Gap employment targets—we are prioritising funding from the Indigenous Advancement Strategy to support economic growth but also to ensure that we are providing jobs on country. Through the 2021-22 budget, we're delivering $10 million over the next two years to support Indigenous businesses and community organisations involved in the primary industry and land management sector to grow, to prosper and to create more jobs, particularly for Indigenous Australians. By supporting Indigenous businesses, we are working together to improve employment, economic development and social participation. Again, we know that to continue to close the gap and empower Indigenous Australians, we need to work together with all sectors of government.
Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I'm going to ask Senator Wong to withdraw the interjection directed at Senator McKenzie.
I withdraw, Mr President. Can I get guidance on your ruling?
Yes.
If we say the government are rorters, that is not to be withdrawn, but, if I say Senator McKenzie is a rorter, that is to be withdrawn—is that correct?
Thank you, yes. Could I just read something to the chamber in response to that query? This has been provided previously to others who have requested similar advice. While the word 'rort' is not itself unparliamentary, an allegation that a senator rorted a program would be considered out of order in Senate proceedings on the basis of the prohibition in standing order 193(3) against imputations of improper motives and personal reflections made against senators and members. So, going to the point I made to Senator Scarr, it is when it is directed in a personal nature.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services (Senator Colbeck) and the Minister for Finance (Senator Birmingham) to questions without notice asked by Senators Keneally and Watt today relating to COVID-19 vaccines.
We all know that Australia and the world are currently in the grip of the worst pandemic we have seen in the world for decades. Australians are being asked to make huge sacrifices right now, particularly those in lockdown areas in Sydney and South-East Queensland but also the millions of other Australians who are suffering economic, mental health and other harm as a result of the pandemic and the government's failure to do its job with vaccines and quarantine.
But, despite the fact that Australians are making huge sacrifices, day after day and night after night we see members of this government running active disinformation campaigns on various social media platforms. The chief offenders, of course, are the member for Dawson, Mr Christensen, and two senators in this chamber, Senator Canavan and Senator Rennick, who day after day and night after night are spreading anti-science, anti-mask and anti-lockdown messages—all sorts of disinformation designed to confuse Australians, to make them doubt the science and to make them doubt the public health orders and the advice that is being given. They do this completely unrestrained by any member of their own government. Earlier this year, this government encouraged the private sector to put in place a voluntary code of conduct on disinformation on social media. But, day after day and night after night, we see members of this government actively promoting disinformation about COVID on a range of social media platforms, and they do this without any action being taken by their own government, which not only has a code of conduct about disinformation on social media but is out there every day encouraging Australians to all do the right thing because we are all in this together.
In question time both today and yesterday, we quoted a couple of examples of Senator Rennick sharing articles that undermine TGA approved COVID vaccines—vaccines which his own government is encouraging Australians to take up. Mr Christensen is promoting views and arguing in social media that we should not be mandating the wearing of masks and we should not be condoning lockdowns, and day after day we see Senator Canavan arguing on social media that we should 'end the lockdowns', amongst many other things.
When these facts are put to Senator Birmingham, representing the Prime Minister, and he is asked what action the government will take, that is the one question that Senator Birmingham will not answer, because the truth is that neither he nor the Prime Minister—nor, for that matter, any member of this government—will take any action against their rogue backbenchers, who are out there running an active disinformation campaign in the Australian public. It's a campaign designed to confuse people, to make people doubt the public health advice that is being given and to run against the government's own policies.
Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Rennick?
A point of order: could Senator Watt please be more specific and point out which bit of information is actually disinformation, rather than just casting general aspersions?
Senator Rennick, points of orders need to be about the standing orders. That's a debating point. Senator Watt.
I've already done that, only about 30 seconds ago, if Senator Rennick would care to look back at it. Three times today Senator Birmingham was asked what action the Prime Minister would take about the disinformation campaign that is being run by three members of this government. Three times he wouldn't answer that question, and that is because this government is not going to take any action against any of these members who are out there spreading disinformation about COVID. How can we expect Australians to do the right thing and to follow the public health advice that this government is encouraging them to follow when the government's own members of parliament are out there spreading anti-mask, anti-lockdown, anti-science, anti-vaccine views, day after day after day, with complete impunity and with a complete lack of action from anyone in this government? So it's okay for Mr Morrison and other ministers to be out there encouraging, ordering, demanding that Australians do the right thing, but they do nothing about the fact that their own government members are out there encouraging Australians to do exactly the opposite.
Why won't this Prime Minister act on his rogue backbenchers? There are only two possible reasons. One is that he's too scared they will withdraw support for his government and not vote for the government's actions, and he's not prepared to stand up to them. The other, which is probably worse, is that this is a deliberate strategy from this government to court far-right extremist and conspiracist views while attempting to position itself in the middle ground. It's a disgrace. (Time expired)
I think it's quite remarkable for Senator Watt to stand up here and talk about a handful of examples of people who are spreading misinformation or disinformation. These people are backbenchers, whereas the chief health officer of Senator Watt's own state has been key in turning people off vaccinations. Jeannette Young has been saying of 18-year-olds—the age group that is now recognised as being superspreaders because they get minimal symptoms, they are active and they need to work—that she would rather see them get COVID than get AstraZeneca. If you want to address misinformation, how about you look in your own team as well.
For Labor to get up here today—what else has happened today? Let's just think for a minute. I'm not focused on what Mr Christensen, the member for Dawson, is putting on his social media. I'm not focused on what Senator Rennick is putting on his social media.
Senator Watt interjecting—
No-one is, so why are you concerned, Senator Watt? What I am more interested in is what else has happened today. We had a significant Closing the Gap statement this morning, but Labor are more concerned about trying to score cheap political points on the vaccination rollout than actually focusing on something significant, something that means a lot to a significant portion of our population. Maybe it's because Labor are concerned that, even though they initiated the closing the gap process, which is welcome—it is a great process, born of the best intentions—to date, the process hasn't been achieving our goals. That is why our government brought together a new 10-year agreement, signed by all Australian governments. So it is not just within the purview of the Commonwealth; the Coalition of Peaks and the Australian Local Government Association are also involved, and over 50 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations have been involved in the process. Finally, instead of a top-down approach, we are actually involving the people most impacted by this vital policy area.
Today, Labor care only about vaccinations. Well, on this remarkable day, let's talk about the vaccination of the Indigenous population. As at 4 August, we have vaccinated over 146,000 people who identify as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander. They've received at least one dose. That's 25 per cent of the eligible Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population aged 16 and over. Eleven per cent of their population have received a second dose. This is quite an achievement when you consider that, earlier on in the vaccination rollout, this population was one of the most vaccine-hesitant populations.
I commend the efforts of the Aboriginal health services, which have gone to great lengths to educate and communicate with their communities and get these vaccinations into their arms. I commend the work of the Royal Flying Doctor Service, which has been out and about in 88 of our most remote communities and has delivered nearly 10,000 doses of vaccine. However, I come back to the overall health overview for our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, because this is a very important part of closing the gap. We know that our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have worse health outcomes, but our Closing the Gap statement today is supported by more than $1 billion in targeted investment to close the gap across multiple areas, including nearly $300 million for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health services.
Let's focus on what matters. Let's focus on what's real. Let's stop focusing on backbenchers' social media and start focusing on what matters.
The pandemic is, of course, one of the great crises that have been facing our society, and I think that, internationally, it's reshaping the way in which we live. Today, when Minister Colbeck indicated that the government acknowledges that it has challenges in terms of its capacity to provide sufficient supply for what it acknowledges to be the key to finding solutions to this pandemic, in terms of supply and the logistics of vaccines, I think he was underestimating the difficulties that the government has brought upon itself. It strikes me that the government has mismanaged this crisis at every level. From the very beginning of the crisis, the government has sought, effectively, to present this as a challenge to take political advantage and has sought to play favourites with the states. It has sought to underestimate the capacity of Australians to deal with the truth in regard to this matter. It has failed to acknowledge the importance of our own manufacturing capacity. It has failed to deal, in any real way or with any understanding of the international questions, with the pharmaceutical industry. It has failed to come to grips with the basic questions of the major health crisis faced in this pandemic. In fact, we had this protracted debate about whether or not we should concentrate on the economics of the country versus the health of the country, and that has been played out through the government's attempt to blame one state over another and, of course, its attempt—and failure—to deal with the personalities involved with this matter.
I'm particularly concerned that we have not been able to develop our own manufacturing capacity. While I acknowledge how important it is for AstraZeneca, for instance, to be able to make vaccines in Australia, I find it extraordinary that the government is not able to provide us with even the most basic information on the supply contracts it engaged in on that matter, claiming, of course, that national security is involved. When under freedom of information the ABC sought details of the supply contract for AstraZeneca they were told that the provision of such contracts would present a major risk to the national security of the country, despite the fact that the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, Mexico and Brazil have taken an entirely different approach to the provision of basic public information about those supply contracts.
It doesn't excuse the failure of the government to deal with the fundamentals providing sufficient vaccines for the people of this country. We saw for instance its lackadaisical attitude to the provision of different types of vaccines and the catastrophe that emerged around the provision of the Pfizer vaccines. We saw the minister's attempt to duck and weave about his direct engagement with Pfizer. Rather than it being, as he tried to imply, just a matter of low-level public servants who were the bunglers in regard to the contract arrangements, industry sources highlighted through the ABC that the minister himself had been rude, dismissive and penny-pinching when it came to dealing with the senior management of Pfizer. A former Pfizer global president of R&D, John LaMattina, underscored this point about how unfortunate it was that Australia had failed to secure the necessary supplies of Pfizer vaccine because of the government's failure to understand basic elements of supply chains and basic elements of how the pharmaceutical industry worked globally, which was made worse by the minister's direct assault upon individuals within the company. I find it extraordinary that the government has tried to duck and weave and been unable to deal with even basic issues around the mRNA vaccine production facilities when it should have been moving much more quickly to deal with these fundamental questions.
It's not too late. There is of course still time for us to be able to develop the necessary sovereign capability to ensure that we can protect this country and we can ensure that the people of this country can enjoy the benefits of modern science and modern manufacturing processes. (Time expired)
Whilst Senator Watts had a lot to say about potential misinformation today, it's not the first time that Senator Waters focused on this. Indeed, in estimates only two months ago, the senator was giving air to an article:
… which refers to a public health England preprint study in the UK that found that both AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines were only 33 per cent effective against the Indian variant three weeks after the first dose.
So at the same time that this government was getting on with the business of rolling out the vaccine, of protecting lives and livelihoods, Senator Watt was scaremongering and undermining the effectiveness of our vaccine rollout in this parliament. Professor Kelly said she had read the article. She said she is always wary of preprint articles:
A preprint article means it has not gone through the usual peer review process that is required. We've found … all through the COVID-19 pandemic … that many of those articles have … proven to be false.
When it comes to talking, in fact, lecturing this chamber, about spreading misinformation, I won't take it from Senator Watt.
On the very real questions of sovereign vaccine manufacturing that Senator Carr raised today, this is a government that has a story to tell of which all Australians can rightfully be proud. Not only was Australia the first country in the world to close its international borders at the onset of the pandemic, it took the decision in August 2020 to ensure we had sovereign vaccine manufacturing capability in this nation.
It's worth noting that mRNA vaccines had never received widespread approval for use in humans before COVID-19 was affecting the world in 2020. mRNA vaccines are at the cutting-edge of medical science. Australia has, in fact, asked for proposals from local manufacturers to ensure that we develop this capability here in Australia. Other nations have done the same. Singapore, for instance, has started the process of developing mRNA vaccine manufacturing capability and expects it to be up and running in 2023. So, whilst we've received a dozen proposals that are in the process of being assessed, the best advice the government has is that it's between one and three years from concluding that sort of arrangement to the vaccine-manufacturing capability being a reality.
We hear lies and misinformation from those opposite. They are seeking to scare and frighten the Australian people at a time when they are seeking to do the right thing by themselves, to do the right thing by their loved ones and to do the right thing by their nation—to roll up their sleeves and get vaccinated, as we're seeing in record numbers. Just yesterday yet again there was a new record of almost 214,000 vaccines in arms of Australians. That was without trying to bribe them, as the Labor Party have sought to do, showing that they have learnt nothing from their previous errors in government when we saw cash for clunkers, pink batts, school halls and cheques to dead people. No, they have learnt nothing from that. They have learnt nothing from eight years on the opposition bench. In trying to bribe the Australian people to do what they are doing in overwhelming numbers the opposition show that they have learnt nothing from their previous mistakes and are not fit to sit on the government bench in this parliament.
The PM has acknowledged the challenges that we have faced with this unprecedented vaccine rollout. It's the first time the nation has had to confront such a challenge. It is testament, therefore, that we have a great story to tell, having protected lives and livelihoods—a death rate that is the second-lowest in the OECD. In fact, if we had the OECD average mortality rate, some 30,000 additional Australians who are currently here would not be alive. That is the cold hard fact of the success of this government in protecting lives and livelihoods throughout the pandemic. In the face of the misinformation, the lies and the scaremongering of the Labor Party we will remain resolute in continuing to deliver for Australians.
[by video link] I want to speak to the questions put to Senator Colbeck and the answers he gave. I want to speak out in support of pharmacists across New South Wales, particularly in south-west Sydney, who are pleading for support from the Morrison government. They're struggling and grappling with the Morrison government's failed vaccine rollout. Today marked yet another record number of cases and deaths in the Sydney COVID-19 outbreak. There are 262 new cases and, very tragically, five deaths.
We desperately need to increase vaccination rates in hotspots, yet the Sydney Morning Heraldreported today that the vaccine rollout through pharmacies in New South Wales has fallen desperately behind. In April, 1,250 pharmacies in New South Wales were authorised to administer AstraZeneca vaccines, yet here we are in August and in this state only 314 pharmacies are now putting jabs into arms—that is, 314 pharmacies out of the 1,250 that are authorised; that is just 25 per cent. Why haven't they been able to put shots in arms? Because the vaccines aren't there.
The government did not prepare itself for this pandemic. It had opportunities this year and last year to do it—it has been almost two years now. The Prime Minister failed to secure an adequate supply of different vaccines, the Prime Minister failed to set up an adequate national quarantine system and now the Prime Minister has failed to establish an adequate vaccination scheme through our network of pharmacies. What's happened? The Pharmacy Guild of Australia, New South Wales branch, pins the blame on the federal government rollout plans. There is an existing community service obligation wholesale network with established cold chain lines which ensures the delivery of essential medicines around Australia within just 24 hours. This existing system was entirely suitable to manage the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines to pharmacies. The Pharmacy Guild said this would have fast-tracked the rollout. It would enable pharmacies to access COVID-19 vaccines through this established system.
The Morrison government set up an entirely new parallel system. Now we have a situation where only 25 per cent of authorised pharmacies are receiving vaccines. Even those few pharmacies fortunate enough to receive vaccines are suffering lengthy delays. Pharmacist Mario Barone, in doing the brave and essential work of vaccinating Australians in Fairfield, the epicentre of the current outbreak, said it is taking more than two weeks for his AstraZeneca orders to arrive. It is communities in Fairfield, Canterbury-Bankstown, Liverpool and other parts of west and south-west Sydney have borne the brunt of this outbreak. They are some of the most marginalised and disadvantaged communities in Sydney yet they are being hit hardest by the failure of the Prime Minister's rollout.
South-west Sydney has the lowest rate of full vaccinations in Sydney with just 14.6 per cent. Outer south-west Sydney is just 17.8 per cent and the outer west is just 17.9. It is the wealthiest enclaves in Sydney where vaccination rates are highest. In the eastern and northern suburbs, rates are as high as 26.9 per cent while hardworking, middle-class Australians are again being left behind by this government.
I want to quote another pharmacist, Port Macquarie based Judy Plunkett. Ms Plunkett says she is yet to receive a single vaccine dose. She said, 'It has been singularly the most frustrating thing in all of our lives for the past six months. If pharmacies were brought on in April, we could have done tens of thousands of doses by now. Every barrier has been put in front of us. Australians are sick of this government putting barriers up. It is about time the Morrison government took responsibility and gave them a helping hand.' They should be looking at a whole series of initiatives. (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 (Senator Hume) to a question without notice he asked today relating to the Great Barrier Reef.
In my tenth year here in this chamber, I can put my hand on my heart, just like the minister did today, and honestly say that of all the cynical, unfathomable, unconscionable things that I've seen in this place by this government, the environment minister, in the middle of a worsening pandemic, at taxpayers' expense, flew around the world to lobby the 21-member UNESCO World Heritage Committee to vote against the science provided by the IUCN scientific committee to that UNESCO committee saying that they should list the Great Barrier Reef in danger because climate change, primarily, along with deteriorating water quality, threatens the World Heritage values of that property.
None of us in here can dodge the fact that the reef, especially in the last 10 years, has suffered catastrophic decline. There have been four mass coral bleachings in the last decade. Coral bleaching caused by warming oceans, caused by burning fossil fuels, hadn't occurred in history until 1998. In any of the records that we have there have been no incidences of these mass coral bleachings. Our best climate science models in this decade predicted it wasn't possible to get back-to-back bleachings of the Great Barrier Reef until 2050 based on emissions targets, yet that's exactly what we got in 2016 and 2017. While you deny that the reef is in danger, while you fail to act and while you prosecute a political pathway to deny, then you will fail to act. That's what this is about.
The only thing I could get out of the minister today was that, somehow, this salvaged Australia's reputation. This is not about Australia's reputation. This is about the future of the Barrier Reef and the UNESCO World Heritage Committee sending the strongest possible signal that the global community—not just Australia; the global community—needs to act on reducing emissions at least in line with the Paris Agreement. I couldn't think of a stronger possible siren call to action than for the Barrier Reef, the world's greatest natural wonder, to be listed in danger because of climate change.
Minister Ley has also in recent weeks said in a series of interviews that, somehow, her reason for lobbying against the world heritage in danger listing was 'to stop scientists from becoming depressed'. What a load of rot! I can tell you that many good scientists are thoroughly depressed at what they have seen unfold before their eyes in the last decade on the Great Barrier Reef. They've devoted their life to studying and promoting the health of the reef, and they are witnessing its decline. They are witnessing this government promoting fossil fuels and giving public money to new fossil fuel projects—to Adani, to Beetaloo and to new fossil fuel power stations. They've witnessed 80,000 square kilometres of our oceans being handed to fossil fuel companies to go out and explore for the next fossil fuel bonanza in a time of climate emergency. They have witnessed this. What could depress those scientists more than seeing a government in denial; a government deliberately peddling the interests of fossil fuel companies that, by the way, donate to this government and keep them in business? How cynical is that?
She also said that it was offensive to the reputation of First Australians. How the hell is this offensive to the reputation of First Australians? They're watching what we are doing and have done in our lifetime, in our colonial world, to the reef in just a very short period of time, after spending 40,000 to 60,000 years living in harmony with the Barrier Reef and its thousands of kilometres of ecosystems. I can't believe the Australian people are that stupid that they would buy the arguments of this environment minister, who has lobbied against climate action, lobbied directly for climate denial and lobbied to cover up the truth of the Great Barrier Reef. The only thing that will save the reef is the truth and action, because we have no choice. This is not the last you will hear of this. The committee will be revisiting this next year.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present two reports as listed at item 15 of today's order of business, together with the accompanying documents: the Human rights scrutiny report: report No. 9 of 2021 and the ParentsNext: examination of Social Security (Parenting payment participation requirements-class of persons) Instrument 2021.
Deputy President, I believe both Senator Siewert and Senator Thorpe would be seeking the call to speak to this.
I can see Senator Thorpe. Could you move to take note?
I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I rise to speak to the reports tabled by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights on its inquiry into the ParentsNext social security instrument. The instrument sets out who is required to fulfil certain participation requirements to receive the ParentsNext support payments. If people don't comply with the requirements, they risk suspension of their income payments or even cancellation altogether. During the inquiry we heard from so many women because it is overwhelmingly women who participate in this program and the support services that advocate with them. I thank them all for sharing their heartfelt stories and real stories of struggle.
The evidence we heard was overwhelming. It is not necessary to make participation in this program compulsory. In fact, it is counterproductive and often harmful. There are so many circumstances that can contribute to someone not being able to participate in the required activities. In the current system, a participant has to worry about failing to comply with program requirements or else she might not be able to meet the basic needs of her family, like putting food on the table, having a roof over their heads, paying the bills, transport or children's activities. That all goes. Once Mum's payments are taken, kids go hungry. Theoretically the system allows for exemptions in cases of family violence, but realistically there will be other priorities to address first such as ensuring the family's safety.
Dealing with the bureaucracy of social services is not another complication women need on top of what they're dealing with. Unfortunately, these cases happen all too often, with some providers stating that up to 80 per cent of their participants are affected by domestic violence. Imagine the pressure on single parents. My heart goes out to all those single mothers out there. Having been one and having the same struggles, I know what that's like and I send my love and heartfelt feelings to you. Know that I've been there, but also know that, when I speak here in this chamber, I'm speaking from experience. I hope that we try to get some kind of justice for you all out there. I know how hard it is and how much hard work it is as a single mum to have the bureaucracy and the government come down on you in this way. You don't need the government to put more pressure on when you already give everything you can.
As I said earlier, it is almost entirely women who are affected by this program—First Nations women disproportionately so. The kinship systems of our families and our women are different. Our women are burdened with more complex responsibilities and caring obligations that, unfortunately, are not understood by the bureaucratic systems that we have to deal with.
My people have to deal with sexism and racism on a regular basis. So many don't know what it's like to have the incredible burden that we carry as black women. I appear before you today as a senator because I benefited from a job employment training program 30 years ago—through Centrelink—and that set me an employment path. That program was voluntary and helped me in a very difficult time in my life to be able to rebuild my life at 17 with a three-month-old baby. It enabled me to educate myself and get further training and find a job. And what do you know? I became a Centrelink manager. I wanted to participate in the program and make the most of it, but there were also times when that would have been difficult for me.
Most women in ParentsNext want to get back into the job market or want to continue their education, but they also want to look after their children. These women know best how to deal with their individual situations and have their own educational and career objectives and aspirations. It should be up to them to choose to participate in a program and what activities are most useful to achieve those objectives. Surely that makes sense to everybody listening. The government obviously don't get it because they're so privileged in their bubble. This is what self-determination means. It means allowing people, particularly our people, to be in the driver's seat, to make our own decisions about our own lives and to be able to control our own destiny, regardless of whether we are on income support or not.
I'm very happy today that the committee's first and foremost recommendation is to abolish the targeted compliance framework and make ParentsNext participation voluntary. This could provide the support parents need and want, while at the same time ensuring participants stay motivated and, most importantly, safe. I hope that the government will hear the voices in this report and act on these recommendations. It's time to abolish the compulsory requirements of ParentsNext.
I just want to reiterate that, unless you have been there, unless you have struggled, unless you have had a mob of kids who are screaming for your attention and who sometimes get sick and you have to care for them, unless you've been in that situation, then you don't know. When Centrelink cut your payments off and you have to feed your children and you have to get your kids to their sports and all the other things your kids want to do, and you've got no money, and you have to keep your children happy at the same time as keeping your landlord happy by paying rent, how do you do that when your payments have been cut off because you couldn't get to an appointment or the ParentsNext provider rang once and you didn't answer?
I just want to say to all of those single mums, particularly, out there who have experienced this and who gave their time and their energy to bring their personal stories to this inquiry: thank you. Thank you for standing up and thank you for speaking for so many other single mums out there—and dads, because this happens to them too, but we know that women, especially black women, are most affected. I want to thank you all for participating. I hope that the government sees this as an important change to ensure that more of our people on this kind of income support get better opportunities in a way that suits them best.
[by video link] I too would like to take note of this important report, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights report on ParentsNext and the instrument that extends and changes ParentsNext. This is an issue that I have raised repeatedly in the Senate. I'm really pleased to see the recommendation that this program be made voluntary. This is a very familiar recommendation to me given that it's basically the same one that I made for the Australian Greens in our additional comments to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into the program, which I referred and chaired in 2018. I urge the government to read this report and to implement this recommendation. Rather than being supported to raise their children, women are being subjected to a mandatory program that is resulting in adverse outcomes such as having to give up work days and study to meet program requirements or losing their payment because their children's medical appointments conflict with appointments with providers.
This program is an ideological program that impacts on people on income support. It's heartbreaking to read the submissions and the points that were raised by the people that submitted to the inquiry, who, as Senator Thorpe has just outlined, are single mothers, which this program predominantly affects. It feels like deja vu, because the issues that were raised in this inquiry are the same issues that were raised, or very similar issues that were raised, during the Senate Community Affairs Committee's inquiry into this program. The issues raised in this inquiry were grouped into categories that included:
3.4 Submitters and witnesses primarily submitted that the ParentsNext program should either cease, or if it were to continue that the Targeted Compliance Framework should no longer be applied to it, and participation should be voluntary.
This program takes choice and control from women. If the government seeks to control women through this program, receiving social security in the form of a parenting payment should not call into question the quality of a recipient's parenting. This program views mothers of young children as unemployed workers, when, in fact, they are working long hours raising the next generation. Parents particularly see it—single parents should not be forced into employment.
One of the key flaws and sources of distress for sole parents is the constant threat that a payment will be suspended or cancelled and, then, how do they support their family. Studies show that people who have been subjected to harsh compliance policies experience very high levels of psychological distress which interferes with their capacity for long-term planning and effective engagement with employment. And we've heard that loud and clear through the submissions to this inquiry as well as to the Community Affairs Committee's inquiry in 2018. Children are living in poverty because this government is cutting off their parents' access to income. When a parent's payment is suspended or cancelled it is their children who face the consequences. The government shouldn't be trying at every turn to police people's lives or cut them off from their payments that are vital to their wellbeing and particularly, and most importantly, to their families' wellbeing.
This program is a dud, it hurts people and it should be cancelled. Then, the government, if the government is genuine in supporting parents that want to engage voluntarily, should develop a program in consultation with those that are being affected to find the best ways of supporting any pre-employment programs or support programs for the people that the government claims they're aiming to support. ParentsNext is a failure, it hurts people and should cease. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I present the advisory report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020, and I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
This bill introduces: a data disruption warrant, which enables the AFP and the ACIC to access data on one or more computers and perform disruption activities for the purposes of frustrating the commission of criminal activity; a network activity warrant to enable the AFP and the ACIC to collect intelligence on criminal networks operating online; an account takeover warrant to allow the AFP and the ACIC to take over a person's online account for the purposes of gathering evidence of a criminal activity; and minor amendments to the controlled operations regime to ensure controlled operations can be conducted effectively in the online environment. The bill has been introduced in response to growing technological advancement that challenges the ability of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to combat the most serious types of offending—including human trafficking, drug crime, child sexual abuse and terrorism—which are increasingly conducted on forums and in places that most Australians will never see. It is no exaggeration to state that, particularly during the COVID pandemic, online crime has reached an all-time high. Evidence from the AFP commissioner, Reece Kershaw, informed the committee that the AFP has seen a worrying rise in traffic to the dark web, including 168 per cent more child abuse material identified during the first quarter of 2020 than in the same period in 2019.
The committee supports the bill and the three new warrants it introduces. However, in its consideration of the bill, the committee has also recognised the significance of the new powers and their potential impact. The committee concluded that oversight should be increased and safeguards should be added to ensure the community has confidence that these powers are only used for their intended purpose, while remaining operationally effective.
The committee has made 34 detailed recommendations, and, given the time limitations, I'll just make a brief mention of the most significant. Recognising the novel nature of these powers and their intelligence-gathering capabilities, the committee, through recommendations 1 and 2, recommends the expansion of its oversight remit to cover the intelligence functions of the ACIC and the AFP. As those agencies take on more intelligence capabilities, we believe the intelligence committee is best placed to provide the specialised parliamentary oversight required. In recommendation 9, the committee proposes that these powers should be authorised by superior court judges, with the exception of the account takeover warrants, where we believe any eligible judge as defined by the Surveillance Devices Act is the appropriate authority, due to their inherently time sensitive nature. In recommendation 10, the committee suggests that the issuing authority be required to consider whether the types of offences are sufficiently serious and proportionate to the threat for the new warrants to be used.
The combined effect of these proposed changes would be to strengthen the issuing criteria to ensure the powers are being used only for the most serious types of offending, as outlined in the bill's explanatory memorandum. These offences include: offences against the security of the Commonwealth, per chapter 5 of the Criminal Code; offences against humanity, including child exploitation and human trafficking, in chapter 8 of the Criminal Code; serious drug, weapons and criminal associations offences, per chapter 9 of the Criminal Code; and money laundering and cybercrime offences, found in chapter 10 of the Criminal Code.
It is important that new powers such as these proposed in this bill are adequately reviewed. The committee has recommended that the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor review the powers within three years of the bill receiving royal assent. The committee has also recommended that it review the provisions of the bill not less than four years from when the bill receives royal assent, to allow the committee to take into account any report by the INSLM. Additionally, the committee has recommended that each of the new powers sunset five years from the date on which the bill receives royal assent.
I want to thank each of my colleagues on the committee for their constructive and collaborative deliberations in reaching these balanced conclusions. The committee also extends its gratitude to the officers of the AFP and the ACIC, who have taken time away from their critical daily work to ensure that all members were appropriately briefed and informed to make these recommendations on the bill. This included classified briefings to ensure the committee members had a clear understanding of the rapidly evolving and serious threat environment that officers are grappling with. We thank them for their candour and their cooperation with the committee. The committee recommends that, following the implementation of its recommendations, the bill be passed. I commend the report to the Senate and seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present the report of the committee on the operation of the Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Special Operations and Special Investigations) Act 2019, together with the accompanying documents.
I table documents relating to the orders for the production of documents concerning the Doherty Institute modelling of COVID-19 vaccination targets and COVID-19 vaccination certificates.
On behalf of the Prime Minister, I table the annual report on Closing the Gap and accompanying ministerial statement. For the information of senators, the documents will be considered next Wednesday during government business time.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on 13 December 2018 the Prime Minister and the then Attorney-General announced the Government would establish a Commonwealth Integrity Commission,
(ii) 966 days since that announcement the Government is yet to introduce legislation into the Parliament,
(iii) the Government is addicted to rorting taxpayer's money, including through the:
(A) Commuter Car Park Fund,
(B) Community Sports Infrastructure Grants, and
(C) purchase of land in the Leppington Triangle;
(iv) on 26 July 2021 the Leader of the Australian Labor Party announced Labor would establish a powerful, transparent and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission; and
(b) calls upon the Government to introduce legislation to establish a powerful, transparent and independent anti-corruption commission as an urgent priority.
Labor have brought this motion to the chamber today for debate because of the concerns we have with the behaviour of this government and the way it uses public money as though it's Liberal Party money. We have seen example after example after example of this, and it seems that after eight years this government no longer even pretends to care about having proper process and integrity in government decisions, particularly when it comes to allocating public funds. I will go through some examples of this.
I think these declining standards, this lack of integrity and this culture of rorting—and there isn't a more appropriate word for it—come right from the top of this government. When you track back and look at some of these funds, which have been very clearly used for political purposes only, and look at some of the decisions that were made, you can see they were made by Mr Morrison, when he was Treasurer, and by Mr Gaetjens, when he was advising him. Then, when they moved into being head of PM&C and being the Prime Minister, when that decision was taken, we saw an explosion in these funds.
We see a pattern with these funds. What happens is a fund is announced. Millions of dollars, sometimes billions of dollars, are placed in these funds. Those funds sit there unallocated until there's some sort of dodgy process put around them, usually in the lead-up to an election. It has been politically successful for them, so why would they want to stop? We see decisions taken on the eve of the election. We saw this with sports rorts, where projects were signed off a week before caretaker, projects were then changed and then there were discussions between offices about who would get how much of the money, where it would go and what was politically beneficial for the government. These decisions were even being made after caretaker, and nobody cared. No-one polices caretaker any more—we've been through that with Mr Gaetjens. Decisions are made and election promises are given. Executive government decisions have been made, so it's all done under government, where money has been provided in the pre-election budget update, and then these funds are used to bankroll a list of election commitments.
There's not even any pretending about it any longer. We had a department in front of us in a committee hearing not long ago. We asked them whether this dodgy allocation of money was going to continue—this was in relation to the Urban Congestion Fund—a multi-billion-dollar fund—or whether there were going to be any changes to the way funds were administered out of this fund. We asked this question because of the damning audit report done on the commuter car park projects. The department's evidence was: 'No, there will be no change. There's still a billion dollars unallocated in the Urban Congestion Fund, and there will be no change to how this is allocated.' So we will see a repeat, no doubt, of what happened in the commuter car park project funds.
We saw in this year's budget that 21 new funds and grants programs will be established to allocate money. Twenty-one—on top of the funds they've already got, which we already know have been dodgy. The community development grants, let's have a look at those. Since the last election, $2 billion in this program, including an additional $55 million in this year's budget, and 68 per cent of projects went to coalition seats. Since the last election, 66 per cent of all funding went to coalition seats.
In the female facilities and water safety program—remember that?—88 per cent of projects went to coalition seats, and 98 per cent of funding went to coalition seats. In the Community Sport Infrastructure grants—sports rorts—where the ANAO found there was evidence of distribution bias in the award of grant funding—there was more than $100 million worth of funding. By round 3, once they'd got the rorting down pat—once they'd worked out exactly how to do it, and to do it to the utmost political benefit—73 per cent of round 3 funding had not been recommended by Sport Australia, and the overwhelming majority of funding was targeted at marginal coalition seats or seats they wanted to win in the election.
The Commuter Car Park Fund—now, that's a very special fund. This fund is the quintessential way to make sure that public money can be used for private benefit, for Liberal Party benefit, and the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and several cabinet ministers were up to their eyeballs in it. It's pretty nifty, the way they did it. They allocated all this money in a fund at the budget, hoping people wouldn't really notice it. On the night the Treasurer said, 'And we are building commuter car parks around Australia,' what he didn't say was, 'We're actually only going to do it if you meet the top-20 marginal seat list that we've also created, and we're only going to invite MPs or duty senators to apply for that funding.' They didn't say that on budget night. I went back and looked at the budget address. It just said, 'We're going to have this congestion-beating Commuter Car Park Fund.' People would rightly believe, if they'd been watching that, that it was for the whole of Australia, but the fine print that the Audit Office found was that that fund was only open to MPs or duty senators from the coalition who met the top-20 marginal seat list. How dodgy is that? It is out there in plain sight. No-one's even pretending.
Then they had this process called 'canvassing', where, in order to access this $660 million, you got an invitation. First, you had to be on the top-20 marginal seat list, and then you were asked, 'Would you like a car park?' or, in the Treasurer's instance: 'Would you like four car parks? Okay, you can have four, because we're allocating this.' There was no merit base to any of the decisions. This is what the Audit Office found. There was no merit assessment and no competitive assessment. No recommendations came from the department. This is the real kicker: 81 per cent of the projects were approved by the Prime Minister himself. How sweet a deal is this? As Prime Minister and Treasurer, you get to put all this money into a fund. You don't allocate it. You tell Australia that this is a fund presumably for everybody, and then, on the eve of an election, the day before caretaker, you sign off on, I think, 27 car parks which the department didn't know about, for which nobody had been able to apply and for which there was no merit base to the decision-making. How did the Treasurer know that the four car parks in his electorate were actually going to meet the objectives of the program? Well, that's easy: because there weren't really any objectives to the program. That's another way you design a fund to make sure you can use it for your own political purposes.
This has to stop, and there is no sign it's going to stop, because they're not shamed. You lot aren't shamed by the ANAO. You don't care anymore. Instead of actually dealing with this and the recommendations from it and changing your behaviour, you go out and attack the auditor. That's the way to do it: throw a bit of mud and hope it sticks. The only way to deal with this is to have a national anticorruption commission, and where are we? We're almost a thousand days from the day when the Prime Minister said he would introduce an anticorruption body for the federal parliament. Every other jurisdiction has one, but, 1,000 days later, we do not. We know this guy has been slow. He has been slow on the vaccine rollout and slow on quarantine. But he actually has a really valid reason to be slow on putting in place some sort of integrity body in this parliament, because you know what? They might actually have a look at this and get to the bottom of it. The auditor can only look at the department side of running a program, but an anticorruption body might be a different story. So is it any surprise that we are not seeing any movement on it? Only a Labor government will actually introduce a national anticorruption body and reintroduce standards for integrity and honesty in government.
The situation as it exists now is: if you're not on this top-20 list or some other list that staffers in ministerial officers have created, bad luck. How about we govern for 151 seats, instead of the top 20 seats that you're actually after? There's an idea. How about we do that when we have funds established for sporting programs, for women's change rooms and for building better region?
I notice the Prime Minister has banged an extra $250 million into that favourite little slush fund this budget, hoping that nobody sees it in the $100 billion budget spend. Who's going to notice an extra quarter of a billion dollars going into the Building Better Regions Fund? Who's going to notice? It will just sit there, nice and pretty, waiting until the election.
Then what do we do? We've got the system down pat, don't we? We go and canvass our coalition party room colleagues and say: 'Look, guys, we've got an extra billion here. You're in a bit of trouble in your seat, and you're in a bit of trouble, too. We want to pick that seat off. What do you need? What will it cost to get that seat? Who cares if it doesn't have any merit or competitive process or any recommendations. You know what we can do? We can sign it off before we go into caretaker and try to bind another government. Then our election promises will cost nothing because we're just ripping money out of these funds that the rest of Australia thought were for everybody but are actually only for our political campaign.' That's what you guys are doing. These funds have been corrupted by the process—or the lack of process—that you have put around them, and the lack of honesty.
We got told there are maps which allocate the Urban Congestion Fund across states. These are maps which say, 'In that seat, we'll give you this much,' before any applications are made. Then we've got funds with spreadsheets that tick-tack from the minister's office. It's not just Minister McKenzie's former role. It's the Prime Minister and Minister Tudge. I think Minister Sukkar was involved. The Treasurer was clearly involved because he got four car parks! He was one of the lucky ones. Mr Sukkar got quite a few, from memory. I think Mr Wilson got a lot down there, too. How about the Commuter Car Park Fund, where certain seats in Melbourne got 2½ times more than Sydney, even though Infrastructure Australia acknowledges Sydney has the most congested roads in Australia. Then, the other kicker that makes it special is that, while the data shows the most congested roads that need fixing are in the north-west of Melbourne, the money got allocated to the south-east. How blatant does it have to be? Honestly, you guys are professional at it. You've written the rule book, and—guess what—there are no rules. The only rule is that you want to hold your seat or win a seat. That's the rule. Instead of fundraising privately for the Liberal Party campaign, you've come up with this incredibly crafty way of using public money and then allocating it for all of your election commitments. Then you pretend that you didn't do it and that people voted for it. Well, people didn't vote for it; you'd already signed it off. You'd already allocated the money. It's so dishonest. It's so dodgy. It has to stop.
The only way it will stop is through a national anticorruption body, because it seems that there is no-one the Prime Minister will change his behaviour for. Why would he when it's worked so well for him? We're calling it out and we will continue to call it out. He won't answer questions when he's asked—'What did you know? What did you do?'—but we all know that he is leading this. He's right at the top, and he rewards this behaviour. It stinks, and it should stop.
Senator Gallagher sure has a hide. She really should go back and look at history and the distribution of car park expenditure over time, rather than picking out one period, but I'll save those remarks.
I would like to make it clear, to the opposition and to all Australians listening at home, that this government will deliver an integrity commission. It's not only something that we promised to do; more importantly, it's the right thing to do. Not only that, we believe that having a robust Commonwealth integrity commission will help us ensure that our democratic functions, which we rely on so heavily, can continue to run unimpeded by crime and corruption. This government is doing the work as we speak so that legislation can be introduced before the end of the year. I can repeat that for you if you like, Senator: before the end of the year. This is, however, extremely important legislation, and it is important we get it right. Before the legislation is introduced, we must first consider the feedback that has been received from the extensive consultation process that has been undertaken. This nationwide consultation process on the legislation to establish the commission has recently been completed, with 333 written submissions received and 46 consultations, meetings and roundtables occurring during the consultation period.
We all know that it's been a long time since Labor were in government, and they may have forgotten what that's like. Let me remind them that sometimes you can't just click your fingers and make complex legislation appear out of thin air. In order to get the right outcome, you actually have to do the work in anticipation of the legislation. That is exactly that we're doing—unlike the Victorian government, which I heard reports of this morning. Their auditor-general had condemned them for going ahead and building railway lines without actually doing any planning. That's not how the Morrison government does its job.
Once the government has considered the feedback from the consultation, the legislation will be introduced. The passage of the bill will be subject to normal parliamentary processes. It will be debated here, and the commission will commence operations approximately six months after the passage of the legislation. Because this is such important legislation, we must get it right. It might do the opposition well to remember that, in the lead-up to the last election, they committed to 'continue to consult with experts on the design details'. As I've just outlined, that's exactly what the government is doing. The fact that they're now making noise about a process which they endorsed shows a lack of substance in their position on this motion. It shows they are simply making noise for the sake of making noise and trying to remain relevant.
The scale of reform occurring is immense, and getting the process right is important. We want Australians to have full confidence that the commission is doing what it's supposed to do. We've seen failed instruments like this before in other jurisdictions. Australians must be able to trust their institutions and be assured that they are getting it right. I'd like to remind the opposition that what this body sets out to do is extremely serious and the ramifications of not getting it right would be immense. This is an agency that will not only be essential to ensuring the integrity of our public sector, our government and our elected officials; it will also be essential to ensuring that the Australian public has trust in its institutions, in government and in the rule of law.
As I said, Labor may have forgotten what it's like to govern, but it is essential to the functioning of Australia's government that we are methodical, consultative and thorough in our approach to developing this legislation. Australians expect us to get this right, and that's what we're doing. It's simply far too important to get wrong; that is not a risk that we are willing to take. As I said, we've seen instances in other jurisdictions where, because they did not get the legislation right, the lives and reputations of innocent people have been dragged through the mud and destroyed. That is not something we will let happen.
The point of the Commonwealth Integrity Commission is to investigate and, if crime or corruption is found to be present, act accordingly—referring prosecutions to the courts. This is why the government does not believe that public hearings are an appropriate mechanism for investigating agencies within the public sector division. As important as it is to detect and deter corruption, we must always design systems to prevent injustice and unfairness to the people being investigated and accused by the authority of the state. The Commonwealth Integrity Commission is not there to be used as some form of daytime entertainment that people can tune into to get their daily dose of drama. This is not reality TV. Nor is it there to be used as a political tool to drag others' names through the dirt or destroy their reputations. By conducting private hearings, we will avoid these potentially harmful acts from occurring. Private hearings will strike an appropriate balance between investigating criminal corruption and limiting the potential for reputational damage without any conviction. This will also ensure that the reporting of public hearings does not prevent anyone from receiving a fair trial if they are accused of criminal conduct.
This is not some made up, fanciful scenario. In my previous business, I helped a number of clients through accusations made in the New South Wales ICAC. The accusations were either disproven or shown to be of minor importance, but my clients' businesses, livelihoods and reputations were destroyed. We don't want that in the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. We saw this happen in the New South Wales Supreme Court in 2019, when the New South Wales Supreme Court had to delay the trial of two former state parliamentarians, in part because of the adverse pre-trial publicity they received in response to the public hearings by the New South Wales ICAC. The New South Wales Supreme Court found that it may have prejudiced the availability of a fair trial for the accused.
Our government's model ensures that it's the courts that make the findings of criminally corrupt conduct and it's the courts that determine a person's guilt or innocence, not political commentators, not the media, not social media. The court will be the ones to decide the guilt of a person. Natural justice is such a fundamental concept to our society and our legal system that the presumption of innocence must be upheld. It is not something that we are willing to throw away simply because those opposite stamp their feet, throw their toys across the room and give us these motions to come in and debate.
Our commitment to establishing a Commonwealth integrity commission is firm. In the 2019-20 budget, the government committed $106.7 million of new money to the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. This was in addition to the $40.7 million in funding for the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, ACLEI, which will transfer to the commission. That is a total of $147.4 million. This investment, already committed by the government, is in stark contrast to Labor, which has something called seven design principles—whatever they are. Labor thinks it will cost only $58.7 million. That's nearly $90 million less than what the government has budgeted for.
While those opposite stand there making their weak commitments that they will never have to fulfil, this government is investing the money and the time to get this done, and get it done right. Not only have we committed the $147.4 million in funding; the government has already implemented phase 1 of the Commonwealth Integrity Commission by expanding the jurisdiction of ACLEI to cover four additional agencies: the Australian Taxation Office, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. While those opposite sit there and move motions like this, the record shows that we are getting things done and that we are committed to getting them done right.
In the interim, the government has allocated $54.4 million to support this expanded jurisdiction under the first phase. This means that ACLEI's staffing levels will increase from 64 to 110 in the 2021-22 financial year to support its expanded work. What this government has is a robust, multifaceted approach to combatting corruption. We want to ensure that, when and where corruption occurs, it is dealt with appropriately. The Commonwealth Integrity Commission will further enhance our existing integrity arrangements. The Commonwealth Integrity Commission will be the lead body in Australia's successful multiagency anticorruption framework. It will enhance accountability across the public sector.
Under this framework multiple agencies have responsibility for preventing, detecting and responding to corruption. These already include: the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, which has specialist skills to arrest corruption risks that face law enforcement agencies; and the Australian Federal Police, which works with partner agencies across the Commonwealth to leverage expertise, capabilities and information holdings to respond to serious and complex corruption offences, including fraud and foreign bribery. The Commonwealth Ombudsman considers and investigates complaints where people believe they've been treated unfairly by an Australian government department, and the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority audits, advises on and reports on the work expenses of parliamentarians and their staff. Not only that, but Australia's democratic system of representative government, professional and independent judiciary, free media and active civil society all play an important role in protecting and preventing corruption by enabling and encouraging scrutiny of the public and private sectors.
There are also a few important points to remember regarding the government's model for the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. Firstly, it will have the same powers as a royal commission to investigate criminal corruption in the public sector. Like the opposition's national anticorruption commission, the Commonwealth Integrity Commission's jurisdiction will extend to a wide range of persons and entities. The Commonwealth Integrity Commission will be able to investigate private individuals and companies where this is relevant to one of its investigations. It will also be able to exercise its own motion powers in relation to law enforcement corruption issues. It will be able to look into conduct that occurred prior to its establishment, if the offence existed at the time the conduct occurred. Therefore, for the life of me, I do not see why this is something that the other side would not support. If those opposite truly cared about combatting corruption and wanted to see an anticorruption body, they would get behind the government's model 100 per cent. But, as I said earlier, it seems as though all they truly want to do is make noise for the sake of making noise in an attempt to remain relevant.
[by video link] This motion talks about the 966 days since the government announced that it would introduce legislation for the establishment of the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. The motion also says that the Labor Party announced on 26 July that it would establish a powerful, transparent and independent national anticorruption commission. But the Senate has actually already done its bit. Almost two years ago the Greens' bill for a strong, independent and properly resourced corruption commission with teeth passed this chamber. In fact, it's been 696 days since the Senate did that. The bill has been languishing in the House of Representatives on the long list, because the government doesn't want a strong anticorruption watchdog. It certainly doesn't want the version that the Senate has passed, because it has teeth and would work to clean up corruption. It's perhaps unsurprising that the government doesn't want to touch it with a barge pole, considering the litany of scandals that continue to plague it and many of its ministers. Instead, we see that the government announce almost three years ago that it's going to do its own bill—it's coming. Two years ago, it described the bill as imminent, and I think it's now been about six months since the second round of consultations was concluded. It's sham consultation, because the experts keep making suggestions to the government about how to fix the government's weak proposal, and the government keeps ignoring these suggestions because it doesn't want a strong corruption watchdog. It wants a fig leaf, so the bad behaviour can continue—and everybody knows this.
The Greens have been pushing for a federal corruption body for more than 10 years now. Our first motion to kick off this conversation was in 2009, and we've not let it drop for the succeeding 10-plus years. It's great that commitments have now been made by both of the big parties, but words are cheap. And, as I say, it's been 696 days since the Senate passed my bill, and the government's doing absolutely nothing to progress a strong version; it keeps on kicking its own weak version into the long grass. In that time, public confidence in the integrity of this place, in our democracy, has continued to decline. In fact, Australia has dropped out the top 10 in Transparency International's global anticorruption rankings, which are also known as the corruption perceptions index. People want better, they deserve better, and they can smell a rat.
In the absence of a federal corruption watchdog—and I might point out that the Commonwealth is the only government among all our state and territory governments that doesn't have a corruption watchdog; every state and territory has one or is in the process of setting one up—Australians have to rely on a patchwork of measures to find out about the dodgy dealings of this government. We've had the ANAO, the Audit Office. There have been Senate inquiries. There have been orders for the production of documents. There have been some FOI challenges. There have been the state and territory corruption watchdogs. There has been investigative journalism. Those measures have revealed an absolute dog's breakfast of scandals, a litany of scandals, in addition to the ones that are listed in the motion and that Senator Gallagher discussed in her contribution. The list is as long as your arm.
There have been overpayments to offshore companies for water licences with no water. There have been millions of dollars handed to an inexperienced business, registered to a shack on Kangaroo Island, to run offshore processing facilities—multimillion dollar contracts for those gulags that keep getting renewed despite myriad complaints, breaches of local laws and a failure to meet KPIs. There has been pork-barrelling of the Safer Communities Fund by Minister Dutton and others. There have been millions of dollars of public money handed out to gas companies headed up by Liberal Party donors. In particular, the most recent one, which we just examined in an inquiry at the start of last week, is $21 million of public money going to the company Empire Energy to open up fracking in the Beetaloo basin, against the wishes of the traditional owners, and make a dangerous experiment with our groundwater and our climate through hydraulic fracturing for shale gas. Of course that company has very close connections with the Liberal Party, and it's headed up by one of its largest donors. Perhaps it's not one of its largest donors—they have so many—but one of its significant donors. The list of scandals continues. There are so many involving Minister Angus Taylor that I would run out of time if I were to list them all.
The fact remains that there is a real dearth of transparency and integrity applying to this government, and it is at an all-time low. The Australian public are having their confidence in the institutions of our democracy damaged as a result. Centre for Public Integrity analysis released just last week found that, of the grants programs that the ANAO has audited since 2019—sports rorts, sports rorts 2, the car parks, or a bit of 'pork and ride'; the list goes on—which have dished out $10 billion in public money, every single one has been found to be flawed, with problems that have ranged from minor improvement to serious maladministration. This has gone beyond an occasional slip-up. This is now a pattern of dodgy behaviour that is shaking the confidence of the Australian public in our institutions of democracy.
Now, I don't think much of this government, as I'm sure everybody knows, but I do think that the parliament and our democracy should be held in high regard, and, as such, the people that are involved in running it on a day-to-day basis should be acting with more integrity and more transparency and to the utmost standard—the public interest. And yet we see, time and time again, ministers that would have gotten kicked out of the ministry 10 or 20 years ago are Teflon now. That minister stays in their role and often gets a promotion or, at worst, gets moved to a different ministry. So the standards of this government are lower, I think, than they have ever been before in the history of our parliament, and that saddens me greatly because the people deserve better.
What we've got is a patchwork of integrity measures to try to hold this dodgy government to account, and too many things slip through the cracks. The ANAO, which have been just fabulous, considering they run on the smell of an oily rag, have been critical in bringing dodgy behaviour to light. But very few consequences have flowed from the behaviour and misbehaviour that they've identified. Government ministers are Teflon-coated. They bluff their way from scandal to scandal. Mainly their hides are saved because the next scandal comes along to distract from the last scandal.
We won't fully understand the scale of the corruption, fraud, dishonesty and exploitation without a strong federal corruption watchdog. A few weeks ago, a group of high-profile former judges, including Mary Gaudron, Margaret White, Paul Stein, Tony Fitzgerald and Margaret McMurdo, called on the government to make good its promise to introduce a corruption watchdog bill. That promise was made almost three years ago, and a draft bill still hasn't seen the light of day. They said:
A National Integrity Commission is urgently needed to fill the gaps in our integrity system and restore trust in our democracy.
I agree with that, but imagine what we'd actually find if we had a rigorous, independent and well-resourced integrity commission with strong investigative powers. Imagine what a difference it would make if consequences actually flowed for corrupt behaviour and the findings of such. Imagine how busy a federal corruption watchdog is going to be when we finally get one. It's what Australians want and it's what they deserve.
A recent Australia Talks survey found that 89 per cent of respondents thought that most politicians in Australia will lie if they feel the truth will hurt them politically, 72 per cent of respondents strongly disagreed with the statement that politicians are usually held accountable for their actions and 88 per cent of respondents want a federal corruption watchdog.
Since the government originally said it was going to legislate this commission within 12 months of taking office, it's missed numerous deadlines. It ignored the criticisms of its original draft framework and, when an exposure draft for its proposed Commonwealth integrity commission was finally released, nothing had changed. It completely ignored all of the input from the experts in that first round of consultations. All of the same experts made all of the same criticisms of that exposure draft, because it's weak and ineffective. That's exactly what the experts described it as. The Centre for Public Integrity analysed those submissions. There were over 200 of them made by various organisations and all but two opposed the Commonwealth bill in the version that it was drafted. So 198 submitters, experts in the field, opposed the weak version of a corruption watchdog that this government is trying to fool the public with. It's nowhere to be seen and its draft principles are so weak. The experts keep saying that in repeated conversations, and the critiques and commentary keep being ignored by this government. That's because this government doesn't want a corruption watchdog and, if it's going to be dragged into having one, it's going to make it as weak, toothless and piecemeal as it possibly can. But the experts are calling the government out on that and the Australian public realise that's what's going on. They don't want a Clayton's corruption watchdog; they want a real watchdog, with teeth, that's going to start to clean up the absolute dodginess and scandal plagued incidents that this government keeps dishing up for its delectation.
Those 200 submissions that I mentioned made several points. They criticised the narrow definition of 'corrupt conduct' and the high bar to commence investigations, because making the bar so high means that most of this dodgy behaviour wouldn't be captured by the government's version of a so-called corruption watchdog, which is no doubt exactly why it was designed that way. The submitters also criticised the limited ability of the commission to act of its own volition and to act on public tip-offs. Instead, the government's version of the commission would have to wait to be asked to investigate dodgy conduct by the very same government that it would then investigate. So you can see the rub there: no government is going to dob itself in. That's exactly why the Morrison government has designed their version of the corruption watchdog to be so weak.
The experts criticised the lack of protection for whistleblowers in the government's version. They criticised the different standards for law enforcement agencies and the public sector. In fact, the police union representative has also strongly criticised this. Why have two tiers of standards? Why not hold everyone to the same high standards, including politicians? That's what Australians want. But this government is not going down that path, because it wants to protect its own.
The experts also criticised the fact that there was no power to hold public hearings or to report publicly about public sector corruption. Again, they don't want this to have any sort of reforming impact. If they keep it all secret, like this government likes doing with so many things, maybe the dodgy conduct can continue. That kind of defeats the purpose of having a corruption watchdog, as so many of the successful state anticorruption bodies have shown. An effective integrity commission would restore confidence in the political process. But the government's ineffective, weak version would not; and, worse, it would remove pressure from the government to do a decent job, and it would give the impression that action would be taken when it would really just be business as usual, behind closed doors, like the Australian public have come to expect from this dodgy government.
We need a strong, independent and well-resourced corruption watchdog. We need one that can investigate the wide range of dodgy conduct that we've seen from this government. We need it to have broad investigative powers and we need it to have public hearings so that dodgy conduct can be brought to light and a deterrent effect can occur. I'm pleased to say that the Greens National Integrity Commission Bill does all those things. It was passed by this Senate 696 days ago—coming up on two years now. If the government would just bring it on for debate, by the end of the month we could have the strong, independent national corruption watchdog that this motion calls for. Let's get on with it.
Can I say at the outset that Senator Waters, from my home state of Queensland, undermines a lot of what she says when she is so gratuitous in her use of terms and overblown in her rhetoric. I will give an example. She tried to draw an analogy between Australia's offshore detention facilities and gulags. If she really wants to understand what a gulag is, she should read Alexander Solzhenitsyn's TheGulag Archipelago. I've got the three volumes of it in my Brisbane office and in my Canberra office. If she really wants to understand what a gulag is, she should read someone who spent 10 years in a gulag and spoke the truth to the world about what was happening in the Soviet Union at that point in time. It really does undermine Senator Waters' substantive points when she draws such weak and despicable analogies.
With respect to Senator Gallagher, I couldn't help but reflect on the fact that she was talking about so many things that are actually in the public domain, that are in our newspapers, that are the subject of debate in this chamber and in the House of Representatives, with respect to policy decisions and processes undertaken by the government. It completely undermines her argument that we need a Commonwealth integrity commission when the existing checks and balances that we have in place, including the National Audit Office, are picking up on a lot of these issues and the opposition are discharging their responsibility in terms of drawing attention to them and shining a bright light on them. Where are these things in the murky underworld that aren't attracting government light? Where are these issues? The fact of the matter is Transparency International, in its latest ranking of countries across the world, ranked Australia 11 out of 180 in its corruption index.
As someone who has lived and worked in countries at the other end of the spectrum, Australia at a federal level and indeed at state levels does not have a material corruption issue. I come into this chamber and look at all of my fellow senators. I don't have any expectation that any of them would ever engage in any corrupt conduct. I believe every single one of them is serving in this place because they want to do their best for this country and they're not doing it out of personal self-interest. That's my firm view. It doesn't help the Australian people's perception of the political class and our political institution for members in this place to run our own institutions down and to tar everyone with a thickly-tarred brush. It really does not assist. Australia is incredibly fortunate that it does not suffer from the scourge of corruption to the extent that many countries around the world do. Corruption is insidious, absolutely insidious. It hurts the weakest in society, it undermines institutions and it frays the social contract.
I want to quote from an article on a New South Wales ICAC case to shine a bright light on the concerns that many of us have of the need for the legislation related to the Commonwealth Integrity Commission to be carefully drafted and carefully calibrated. I'm going to quote from an article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Michaela Whitbourn dated 16 March 2016 and it's entitled: Criminal charges dismissed against former SES Commissioner Murray Kear following ICAC probe. The article in the Sydney Morning Herald said:
Former State Emergency Service Commissioner Murray Kear has accused the state's corruption watchdog of "ruining his life" after he was cleared of criminal charges following a high-profile inquiry.
Mr Kear was charged under whistleblower protection laws with sacking his former deputy … as a "reprisal" after she made misconduct allegations …
But in another blow to the Independent Commission Against Corruption, which has come under sustained fire over its handling of the ill-fated inquiry into Crown Prosecutor Margaret Cunneen, SC, Local Court Magistrate Greg Grogin dismissed the charges on Wednesday.
There was "no element of revenge, payback or reprisal" in Mr Kear's dismissal of Ms McCarthy in May 2013, Mr Grogin said.
Mr Kear said outside court that the watchdog had "ruined my life" and "caused immense angst to my family and my friends".
He said the Inspector of the ICAC, former Supreme Court judge David Levine, QC, who has launched a blistering attack on the watchdog over the Cunneen inquiry, had "said some sensible things" about the agency.
"I think the government does have to do something [about ICAC]; it can't continue the way it's gone. I just hope logic prevails at the end of the day and that the Premier does do something with ICAC," Mr Kear said.
I will read this as well from the same article because I think this is important, absolutely important.
Asked if he wanted his job back, Mr Kear said: "I'd really love to contribute in some way to the community; if that's back in emergency services, it's too early [to say]."
That is why there are legitimate concerns. We have to ensure that we get the legislation in relation to Commonwealth Integrity Commission right. People's reputations are at stake. Through the rambling dissertation of Senator Gallagher, I'm not sure what her definition of corruption is. I'm not sure what Senator Gallagher would be referring to a Commonwealth integrity commission. Is she going to be referring political decisions? Is she going to be referring matters of political process? Is she going to be referring matters with respect to whether or not funds have been wisely spent? What is it exactly that those opposite intend to be referred to the Commonwealth integrity commission.
I must say, I'm not instilled with confidence by the actions of the shadow Attorney-General, Mr Mark Dreyfus, in the other place, who's referred nine matters to the Australian Federal Police, none of which have gone anywhere. Those opposite are not instilling confidence in those of us on this side of the chamber with respect to what they hope to achieve through the establishment of a Commonwealth integrity commission. I do hope that when a Commonwealth integrity commission is established those opposite treat it with the respect that the institution will deserve and do not abuse the institution and its processes for base political gains. I dearly hope that is the case, but I must say the rhetoric which I've heard during the course of this debate doesn't instil me with any confidence whatsoever.
The fact of the matter is that the Morrison government has committed to establishing a Commonwealth integrity commission. There were hundreds of submissions received with respect to the legislation relating to the Commonwealth integrity commission and to many of the points which have been canvassed in this debate. It takes time to give those matters sober consideration. In the meantime, ACLEI, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, is dealing very professionally and efficiently with an expanded jurisdiction which includes the ACCC, ASIC, APRA and the ATO. It has been provided with substantial additional funding in order to undertake those processes, and that funding means that it's able to undertake more investigations.
In the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act the touchstone before any investigation is to commence is whether or not there is serious or systemic corruption. So again I say to those opposite: will they reflect on what the purpose of this Commonwealth integrity commission is? Will the referrals they think should be made to the commission fall within the bailiwick of allegations of serious and systemic corruption or will its time be wasted? Will its resources be wasted in the pursuit of a political agenda? All of us in this place need to consider seriously the ramifications of such an entity being used for base political processes. All of us need to consider that very, very carefully.
The issue of public versus private hearings is one on which reasonable people can disagree. ACLEI has the power to undertake public hearings. It hasn't done so once in its whole history, because in putting the test as to whether or not it is in the public interest to hold a public hearing—considering the impact on the reputation of those who are the subject of a complaint and in soberly considering the tests and whether or not it would assist with progressing an investigation or, indeed, hamper one—it has never found the need to conduct a public hearing in 10 years. I deeply respect the integrity of all the officers and the commissioners who have served at ACLEI since its establishment, but we should seriously reflect on the fact that in its entire history it has never seen the need to conduct a single public hearing. It has the power under certain conditions to initiate a public hearing, and that is a matter on which reasonable people can have a debate, but in 10 years of serious investigations—dozens and dozens of investigations, many of which have led to public prosecutions—it has never once seen the need to undertake a public hearing. That should give everyone cause for reflection.
When this issue of public versus private hearings was considered by a select committee, which included senators from this place, there were arguments in favour of both public hearings and private hearings. Ultimately, a consensus view seemed to emerge that perhaps, yes, you could have public hearings but they must be subject to a number of tests and controls to protect against the politicisation of the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. Nothing I've heard during the course of this debate gives me any comfort whatsoever that the Commonwealth Integrity Commission will not be used for base political reasons. In fact, all of the rhetoric I've heard is to the contrary.
I go back to that case of the SES commissioner in New South Wales whose life was destroyed through the ICAC process. He had to take early retirement at the age of 55. He had to spend tens and tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs just to go through a process of public humiliation, and then be vindicated at the end of the day. Is that the sort of process those opposite are seeking to impose upon our public servants and our bureaucracy? Is it really? Can I tell you that, as chair of the Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, it actually has given me a lot of comfort in terms of the level of issues of corruption in the Australian government. Whilst ACLI only deals with law enforcement officers or members of the ATO, ACCC, APRA and ASIC who deal with law enforcement issues, the number of actual offences committed is quite minimal. And it's been quite a successful process in terms of, where those issues have occurred, shining a bright light on them and holding people to account.
So let's not run down our political institutions; there are plenty of people outside this place who will do that for us. Let's keep it in context. If we're going to have a Commonwealth Integrity Commission, which I believe we should, please do not politicise it. People's reputations and lives are at stake, and we've seen that at a state level. Nothing I've heard in the rhetoric from those opposite gives me any comfort whatsoever.
I move:
That the question be put.
I have Senator Dean Smith on a point of order.
If this motion is agreed to, would it deny Senator Roberts and me an opp ortunity to make a contribution?
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That would indeed be the case.
It would be the case?
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. You would not have the opportunity to make a contribution today. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Gallagher be now put. I t being after 4.30, my understanding is that we can't call a division. We will move that to a later date.
I was absolutely delighted to have the opportunity on 30 July 2021 to attend the Islamic Council of Queensland community leaders award s in Brisbane. It was great to see strong representation from all levels of government in attendance at the Islamic Council of Queensland community leaders awards . In attendance were my friend David Crisafulli MP, the Leader of the Liberal National Party in Queensland; Mr Mark Robinson MP ; and Councillor Kim Marx, who's a councillor for the ward of Runcorn, which has quite a large Muslim community. It was great to see all levels of government, represented by the LNP, supporting the Islamic Council of Queensland community leaders awards.
I want to make a few comments in relation to the awards. The first is: it provided an opportunity for all those people in the Muslim community who are doing such outstanding charitable work to be recognised. It was great to see the way it was organised. There was no demarcation between a special prize to X or Y. Everyone who was nominated and who got through the process got the same award. At the end of that process, the stage was absolutely packed with leaders from the Muslim community who are doing absolutely outstanding things in my state of Queensland.
The second point I want to make—the MC made this point, and it was a very good point—is to recognise that not everyone who's doing good works in the Muslim community in my home state of Queensland had the opportunity to be recognised that night. Indeed, many people in the Muslim community are doing good works without seeking any community recognition at all. They're doing it under the radar because that's what their faith tells them to do and that's what their values tell them to do, as Australian citizens. I take my hat off to each and every one of them.
What are these great works? These great works extend to all sorts of areas in terms of providing community assistance. They extend to helping farmers who were subject to drought and fires, and they extend to helping the homeless. During this time of the COVID-19 pandemic, the great works have especially included helping international students who needed support to get through the period we're currently going through. So many areas of our society are being improved by the charitable impulse that lives within the Muslim community of Queensland.
I would like to pay tribute to Dr Habib Jamal, the president of the Islamic Council of Queensland. We are so fortunate that Dr Jamal came to our country. He came from South Africa via New Zealand, and he has made his home on the Gold Coast. He has held very senior positions in the Islamic community on the Gold Coast and has now achieved the position of President of the Islamic Council of Queensland. What he brings to that position is great empathy, great respect and a quiet humility. I see Dr Jamal at many multicultural events in the south-east corner of Queensland. Dr Jamal extends his hand of friendship to people all across the country, and I really do commend Dr Jamal on the contribution which he is making to our beautiful country of Australia.
I'd also like to congratulate a good friend, Janeth Deen OAM, who made sure on the night that Dr Jamal was recognised for the great work he does. In a spirit of reciprocation, can I just say that Janeth Deen is also an ornament to our community in Queensland, and she herself does great work through the Muslim Charitable Foundation, which, amongst other things, provides emergency housing to people in need. I visited the Muslim Charitable Foundation and sat down with Janeth Deen, and I went through an exercise book where she'd written the case studies of the people who'd benefited from the emergency housing provided by the Muslim Charitable Foundation. Those people came from all sorts of backgrounds. It didn't matter whether or not they were Muslim or some other religion. It didn't matter whether they were originally from Queensland or had come to Queensland from somewhere else. The Muslim Charitable Foundation was there to help them—with food vouchers, with covering electricity bills and medical bills, and with emergency accommodation.
Lastly, can I just say that the Muslim community of Queensland represents the best of Australian values. (Time expired)
Senate adjourned at 17:04