I move:
That intervening business be postponed until after consideration of government business notices of motion Nos 1 and 3.
And I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the question be now put.
Question agreed to.
The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Ruston be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That on Wednesday, 25 August 2021 consideration of the business before the Senate be interrupted at approximately 5 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable senators to make valedictory statements relating to Senator Siewert.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Counting, Scrutiny and Operational Efficiencies) Bill 2021
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Offences and Preventing Multiple Voting) Bill 2021
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Party Registration Integrity) Bill 2021.
[by video link] I rise to speak on what is once again an abuse of democratic process. The government—sadly, with the full support of the opposition—is proposing to ram through three electoral bills in the shadow of an election, in a feeble attempt to shore up its own grip on power. There's a reason the votes for the big parties are the lowest in history. It's because the community are sick of being put last after the interests of the big corporate donors that seem to run the show in both the Liberal and National parties and the Labor Party.
What we have here is a proposal to ram through electoral legislation that hasn't even passed the House yet and to exempt it from the cut-off order, meaning the Senate would have to consider and deliberate on these bills in almost record time, with very little chance of scrutiny and debate. It's not surprising that the two big parties have ganged up to ram through this antidemocratic legislation, because the effect of one of these bills would be to make it harder for smaller political parties, particularly new political parties, to even nominate to make themselves available to be voted for at an election. Rather than having a contest of ideas and having the two big parties put themselves at the mercy of the public with some decent policies—which mightn't be a bad idea—the two big parties are ganging up to lock out new entrants to the political system.
As I said, it's no wonder that the votes for the two big parties are so low these days—they are at historic lows. Frankly, it's hard to tell them apart most of the time. Everybody knows that they don't put the interests of the public first. They put the interests of their donors and their future employers in various vested interest sectors first. It's not surprising, but it is still an absolute abomination that the two big parties are ganging up once again—like they so often do—to try to stitch up our electoral laws to shore up their own power. The bills they want to ram through without proper scrutiny, without a proper inquiry and without a proper debate—with a minuscule speakers list in the lower house, I understand—would restrict the ability of new parties to put themselves forward to be voted for. One of the reasons the government say they want to do this is that they want to make sure that small parties have the support of Australians. The way to check for support from Australians is at the ballot box. The fact that you want to eliminate other people even putting themselves forward just shows how feeble your grip on power is. Frankly, you should take a look at your own policy platform and the priorities that you put to the voting public if you're worried about your diminishing vote.
We will be opposing this exemption from the cut-off order. It is bad process, and it is bad process that is in aid of entrenching the two-party system—which I think, sadly, everybody's used to these days, but that still doesn't make it acceptable. You can't just treat the Senate and the parliament as a plaything. This is meant to be a house of review. We are meant to be doing a job to scrutinise legislation. The Greens and the crossbench want to do that job, but the Liberal and Labor parties are ganging up to ram through this legislation—legislation that conveniently will make it harder for competitors at the ballot box. I think this is rigging the rules in favour of the two big parties, who are clinging to diminishing power rather than actually revisiting their own priorities and putting the community, climate science and public interest first. Instead they want to lock out new parties and increase the number of members that have to belong to a political party. They don't want anyone using any name that even vaguely resembles anybody else's name. They just can't handle competition, because they know that their policy platforms are so mediocre that that's why their vote is diminishing. So the Greens will be opposing this exemption from the cut-off order. We don't believe that legislation should ever be rammed through—certainly not legislation that would benefit and entrench the two parties and diminish democracy right in the shadow of an upcoming election.
Honestly, just when you think it couldn't be any less safe to go in the water, this government and the flaccid opposition that seems to forget that it is an opposition once again deliver the goods.
I move:
That the question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Senator Siewert, would you like to have the Greens' opposition recorded?
Yes. I was waiting for you to call it.
The Greens' position in opposition to that procedural motion is recorded.
I now put government business motion No. 3, moved by Senator Ruston.
Question agreed to.
Can you please record the Greens' position opposing that motion?
So recorded. Senator Patrick, you can't vote, but you'd like Hansard to record your opposition to government business motion No. 3?
That's correct.
So recorded in Hansard.
Me too.
I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The Government's first priority is ensuring the safety and security of all Australians. It is vital that our law enforcement agencies have effective tools to protect the Australian community.
The Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 will enhance the powers of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) to help combat serious crimes perpetrated online, particularly activity by criminals who seek to use encryption and anonymising technology to evade law enforcement.
Multiple layers of technologies that conceal the identities, IP addresses, jurisdictions, locations and activities of criminals are increasingly hampering investigations into serious crimes. This includes child sexual abuse, terrorism and the trafficking of firearms and illicit drugs.
The arrest of more than 220 criminals as part of Operation Ironside earlier this year was a testament to the dedication and hard work of our law enforcement agencies. But it also demonstrated the persistent and ever evolving threat of transnational, serious and organised crime. And their increasing tendency to seek out and use technology, often operated exclusively for the criminal market, to conceal their offending.
In the case of Operation Ironside, ingenuity and world-class capability gave our law enforcement an edge. This Bill is just one more step the Government is taking to ensure our agencies maintain that edge.
Overview of Bill
Specifically, the Bill provides the AFP and ACIC with three new powers to identify and disrupt serious crime online.
First, the Bill will allow agencies to disrupt criminal activity where they see it occurring online through the use of data disruption warrants. This will enable agencies to modify data belonging to individuals suspected of criminal activity in order to frustrate the commission of serious offences. For example, investigators who become aware of child abuse images being shared online, will be able to modify or delete that material to prevent its further spread. This will halt the further victimisation of children in the images while police work to bring their abusers to justice.
These powers will be accompanied by robust safeguards to ensure they are exercised with due care and that there is consideration of the impact on third parties, including the impact on the privacy of individuals. Oversight of the disruption activities will be conducted by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. This is consistent with the general oversight arrangements for the activities of these agencies under similar computer access powers.
Second, the Bill provides a new power to collect intelligence through access to online criminal networks – known as a network activity warrant. This power will allow investigators to identify offenders and the scope of their offending online, including on the dark web. This warrant will be available where the members' identities are unknown to authorities, allowing the suspects' online identifying information to be collected as the first step in an investigation.
As this is an intelligence collection power, any information collected using these warrants will not be admissible in criminal proceedings. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS) will ensure rigorous oversight over this power. This is appropriate given this power is limited to the collection of intelligence rather than evidence.
Finally, the Bill will allow agencies to take control of a person's online account for the purpose of gathering evidence to expose online criminality – known as an account takeover warrant. This power will allow law enforcement to uncover identities of individuals operating online and identify potential victims. `
Through the new account takeover warrant, the AFP and ACIC will be authorised to take control of a person's online account to gather evidence leading to prosecutions of a serious offence. For example, current powers enable an AFP officer to obtain a password to a forum account that can be accessed through a device if the device is suspected to be used to distribute child abuse material. This does not allow taking full control of their online account. The account takeover power will enable an officer to obtain exclusive control of the online account and prevent the person's continued access to a forum and the further dissemination of child abuse material.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman will provide oversight of the AFP and ACIC's use of the account takeover powers.
Agencies will also be required to provide statistics relating to the use of data disruption warrants, network activity warrants and account takeover warrants in annual reports to the Minister, which are required to be tabled in Parliament.
Government amendments
The Bill has been extensively reviewed by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (the Committee), with a report tabled by the Committee on 5 August 2021. The Government thanks the Committee for its review of these important reforms. The Government moved 60 amendments to the Bill to strengthen and clarify the scope of the Bill's operation, in line with the Committee's recommendations, which were agreed to by the House of Representatives. The amendments:
Conclusion
These key new powers are critical in enabling law enforcement to tackle the fundamental shift in how serious criminality is occurring online. This Bill demonstrates the Government's commitment to equipping the AFP and ACIC with modern powers that ensure serious criminality targeting Australians is identified and disrupted as resolutely in the online space as it is in the physical world.
I commend the Bill to the Chamber.
I rise to speak on the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020. The identify-and-disrupt bill serves as another example of how seriously Labor takes its commitment to constructive, bipartisan cooperation on national security legislation in the national interest, another example of how seriously we take balancing the needs of law enforcement agencies with the protection of privacy and civil liberties.
One way that Labor does this is through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Labor committee members work diligently and carefully to weigh the significant powers being introduced, the operational needs explained to us by our law enforcement agencies and the views raised by industry experts and community groups. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security made 33 substantial recommendations, and I note that the government has accepted and sought to incorporate the vast majority of these in this bill. This bill is a better bill because of these amendments, and, as such, Labor will be supporting this bill today.
I will shortly turn to the amendments. However, let me first note that there is a perennial tension between how quickly criminals can adapt their trade craft and how long it takes to properly scrutinise and introduce the legislation required to counteract and disrupt criminal activity, and that tension is certainly laid bare in this bill. Technology is constantly changing the threat environment, creating new places for crimes to take place and new methods to disguise and hide identities and locations. Cybercriminals are increasingly taking advantage of accessible, easy-to-use and cheap technology to obscure their activities. In this environment, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission have found that the tools afforded to them by the existing electronic surveillance powers are lacking in the fight against serious and organised crime. As the AFP commissioner told the committee during our hearings, it's like fighting crime with one hand tied behind your back.
It is to address this problem and this technology that the identify-and-disrupt bill will amend the Surveillance Devices Act 2004, the Crimes Act 1914 and associated legislation. It introduces new law enforcement powers to enhance the AFP's and the ACIC's ability to combat serious and organised crime that is facilitated by the dark web and other anonymising technologies.
We often hear discussion of the shadowy world of cybercrime, but it's really worth understanding what it is that we're talking about here, because these definitions are key to understanding the intent of this bill. Anonymising technology is a technology that disguises a person's activity, location and true identity. Many people use this technology to protect their personal information for very legitimate reasons. The dark web refers to those parts of the internet which cannot be accessed without special browsers—like tunnels running below ground. Then there are the dedicated encrypted communication platforms, devices designed for and marketed to criminals to use to avoid law enforcement detection.
There are three powers being granted to the AFP and the ACIC by this bill. Firstly, data disruption warrants will enable the AFP and the ACIC to disrupt data by modifying, adding, copying or deleting data. They might do this to frustrate or prevent a crime as an alternative course of action if prosecution is not necessarily the most expedient or effective outcome. This could be particularly valuable for preventing access to child exploitation material. If the identity and the location of participants is unknown, a data disruption warrant could at least enable authorities to remove the content.
Secondly, network activity warrants will permit access to the devices and networks used to facilitate criminal activity, allowing agencies to reveal the scope of criminal operations and the identities of those involved.
Thirdly, account takeover warrants will provide the AFP and the ACIC with the ability to take control of a person's online account for the purposes of gathering evidence to further a criminal investigation. Currently, agencies can only take over a person's account with that person's consent. This power facilitates covert enforced takeovers. The bill also proposes an expanded oversight remit for the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to cover the AFP and the ACIC activities under network activity warrants.
I now want to turn to the amendments proposed by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and the government's response. The government has implemented, wholly or substantially, 23 of the PJCIS's 33 recommendations, through legislative amendments or changes to the explanatory memorandum to this bill. Significantly, these changes include strengthening the issuing criteria for warrants, including considerations for privacy, public interest, privileged and journalistic information, and financial impacts; reviews by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and the PJCIS; sunset powers in five years; and good-faith immunity provisions for assistance orders. These are significant recommendations, made in a bipartisan fashion by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and I am pleased that the government has taken them up in the form of legislative amendments to this bill.
Of the other 10 PJCIS recommendations, four have been accepted by the government and will be incorporated into its response to the comprehensive review of the national intelligence community conducted by Dennis Richardson; these are that the Ombudsman's powers be expanded to cover the AFP and the ACIC. The government has noted this was recommended by the Richardson review and accepted by the government and will be implemented as part of the government's electronic surveillance reforms. The committee also recommended that the issuing authority for these warrants should be a superior court judge or an eligible judge. These are extraordinary powers, and committee members felt that they required a higher level of authorisation.
The government has noted that the Richardson review recommended a comprehensive reform of all the surveillance laws to bring consistency, avoid duplication and avoid ad hoc amendments across several acts, including the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act, the ASIO Act, the Surveillance Devices Act and the Crimes Act. This includes issuing authorities, which Richardson observed were inconsistently applied across these powers. The government has confirmed to me that it has initiated this review and that the SLAID Bill will be included in this review and the government will be consulting publicly as part of this process.
The committee also recommended that the government review the definition of 'serious offence', again noting that there were inconsistent applications of that term across several acts. The government has confirmed to me that the Richardson review recommended that serious offences will be defined consistently across all legislation as crimes with a sentence of a minimum of five years. The government has accepted that recommendation. The committee also recommended that the post-warrant concealment powers must be exercised within 28 days unless approved by a superior court judge. The government noted in its briefings with me—and the minister has confirmed—that this is an issue in other legislation, including TOLA, and that the Richardson review recommended the comprehensive reform of all electronic surveillance laws to bring that consistency, avoid duplication and ad hoc amendments across the various acts. The government confirms it has initiated this review and that SLAID will be included in it and the government will be consulting publicly as part of this process.
Another recommendation that the government has accepted but is not progressing with this bill but as part of another process is the committee's recommendation that a public interest advocate must be appointed when warrants are being sought in relation to journalists or media organisations. The minister has confirmed to me that the government notes and accepts this recommendation, noting that it is responding to this recommendation as part of its response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's report on the impact of the exercise of law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the press.
I note that three of the recommendations were rejected, in essence, by the government that go to the expansion of the PJCIS oversight of the intelligence functions of the ACIC and the AFP, as well as the expansion of the IGIS oversight of the intelligence functions of the AFP. The government takes the view that parliamentary oversight exists through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Integrity and it notes that the Richardson review did not endorse expanding the IGIS's oversight to the intelligence functions of the AFP. While Labor acknowledges that this is the government's position, I would nonetheless like to make clear that Labor in government would implement all of the PJCIS's recommendations to the SLAID Bill.
I would like to publicly thank the Minister for Home Affairs, Karen Andrews, and the Department of Home Affairs for their readiness to provide briefings and advice to my office in our consideration of this bill and particularly in understanding the government's response to the PJCIS report. I acknowledge that the Minister for Home Affairs, since taking the role, has sought at various times to work constructively with the opposition, in the national interest, to deliver much-needed reforms and powers to enable our agencies to keep up with the changes in technology and protect the Australian community.
I will note that the government has added two amendments such that, when a national emergency has been declared, the minister's power to modify administrative arrangements does not apply to account takeover warrants, bringing the bill into conformity with the Surveillance Devices Act and the Crimes Act and aligning the periods for reporting to the Ombudsman with those of other agencies, as recommended by the PJCIS. I acknowledge those amendments and advise that we are pleased to see them.
These are extraordinary powers. In reviewing its support for the bill and in its committee considerations, Labor accorded the highest priority to ensuring that the government had provided the strongest case that these powers were absolutely necessary and proportional. The explanatory memorandum sets out that these powers apply to the most serious of crimes, including child abuse and exploitation; terrorism; the sale of illicit drugs; human trafficking; identity theft and fraud; assassinations; and the distribution of weapons. Those calling for these powers embed their justification in the context of these most appalling and chilling crimes. In many ways they're right to do this, for, dismayingly, this is how the worst of criminals think. We must also be alert, though, to any surveillance creep. It's obviously much easier to justify the introduction of extraordinary powers by focusing on only the most serious crime, especially crimes like child abuse, exploitation and terrorism. But it is incumbent on the government and its agencies to engage in the more difficult task of justifying the introduction of extraordinary powers by reference to how the powers could actually be used.
Labor is concerned that the definition of 'relevant offences' under the Surveillance Devices Act includes all offences against the law of the Commonwealth that are punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of three years or more. That does include the types of crimes that I have listed above—like terrorism and child exploitation—but it also includes tax offences, trademark infringement and a range of other offences which objectively do not fall within the categories of child abuse and exploitation, terrorism, the sale of illicit drugs, human trafficking, identity fraud and theft, assassinations and the distribution of weapons. The intelligence and security committee heard concerns from experts that this is too broad a focus for these powers, encompassing too many minor offences. That's why Labor members added additional comments to see that this bill is tied to serious offences. It would be an important constraint on the use of these new warrant powers and it would limit their application to offences that carry a maximum of at least seven years in jail and to other specified offences. As I noted, however, the government is progressing the recommendations of the Richardson review, which will go some way to addressing this concern.
Labor does not play politics with national security legislation. Our committee work and our negotiation on amendments regarding the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill testify to that, which is why I cannot conclude my remarks today without noting that we were very disheartened when, in June, Mr Morrison tried to blame Labor for somehow delaying this bill. The amended bill only passed the House yesterday. It only came out of the committee very recently. Yet almost three months ago, apparently—or so Mr Morrison said—Labor was blocking its passage. Three months ago the bipartisan intelligence and security committee, chaired by my colleague Senator Paterson, was still conducting its hearings and drafting its report. We were still doing the work of scrutiny that the Australian public would hope its elected officials do and take seriously. We were doing that together on the committee, constructively, in a bipartisan way and in the national interest, and I acknowledge my Liberal colleagues on the committee for that commitment that they bring. It is cause for dismay that Mr Morrison would publicly seek to undermine that bipartisan cooperation, and it is cause for dismay that Mr Morrison simply flat out lied on an issue of national security.
Labor's goal in supporting this bill is to ensure that our agencies have the tip of the spear when confronting the most serious cyber-enabled crimes and that the AFP and the ACIC have the settings appropriate to a crime landscape that is forever changing with technological advances. It is a more robust bill as a result of the PJCIS's recommendations, and, as a result, Labor will be supporting it. It is vital we continue to work constructively in the interests of national security.
[by video link] I rise to speak on the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020. Unsurprisingly, the two major parties are in complete lock step with each other and they are leading us down the road to a surveillance state. The bill proposes to amend the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and the Crimes Act 1914 to give three new powers to the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, or ACIC.
The first are data disruption warrants to allow offensive data-disruption powers to stop the suspected commission of an offence using a computer. These warrants can also be given with compulsory assistance orders. These orders compel any person with relevant knowledge or expertise to help the AFP or the ACIC to disrupt data. If they don't help, they could be landed with 10 years imprisonment. The second are network activity warrants. These enable the ACIC or the AFP to monitor the computer related activities of criminal groups to collect intelligence, instead of, say, investigating an offence to obtain evidence. The third are account takeover warrants, which authorise the AFP or ACIC to take control of online accounts that are suspected of being used to commit an offence to enable an investigation.
The Greens are the ones who led the push to get this legislation reviewed by the committee when the government—with the help of the opposition, mind you—tried to push this through the parliament. We tried to refer this bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; however, this failed and it was referred to the closed shop, Labor-and-Liberal PJCIS. So the Greens aren't allowed onto that committee to make decisions or contribute to those decisions and neither is anybody else. It's a closed shop between Liberal and Labor, who may as well join as one and forget the rest.
In effect, this bill would allow spy agencies to modify, add, copy or delete your data with a data disruption warrant or collect intelligence on your online activities with a network activity warrant. Also, they could take over your social media and other online accounts and profiles with an account takeover warrant. What's worse is that the data disruption and network activity warrants could be issued by a member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Really? It is outrageous that these warrants won't come from a judge of a superior court appointed on their personal capacity. The bill also limits court oversight in decisions concerning the issuing of these warrants when criminal proceedings have already started.
It is not clear that these powers are needed. The Richardson review recommended that law enforcement agencies not be given specific cyberdisruption powers like those in this bill. The Richardson review concluded there was not a material gap in existing investigative powers which could justify effectively placing the AFP or ACIC in the position of judge, jury and executioner. The proposal to give specific intelligence collection powers to the AFP and ACIC under network activity warrants does not clearly identify a gap in existing powers. They're not telling us everything. They're expecting us to make decisions without real, genuine, informed consent.
The scope of the new powers is disproportionate compared to the threats of serious and organised cybercrime to which they are directed. There is a lack of evidence justifying the need for warrants of this nature beyond those already available to the AFP and ACIC. No other country in the Five Eyes alliance has conferred the powers on its law enforcement agencies that this bill will. What's more, the government moved 60 amendments in the other place, as a block, at the last moment, and now we're all here, expected to jump through hoops, without the time to scrutinise the legislation properly.
I foreshadow a second reading amendment in my name and further substantive amendments that would go some way to improving this terribly flawed, problematic legislation. This country lacks a robust human rights framework that would provide adequate protection against the abuse of powers contained in this bill. In the absence of those safeguards, the Australian Greens cannot endorse the expansion of the already considerable powers possessed by the Australian Federal Police and the ACIC to intrude into the privacy of everyday, law-abiding people.
[by video link] The Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2021 is a series of amendments to the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. The intention of the bill is to broaden the existing powers of the Australian Federal Police to pursue cybercrime and, in particular, serious offences relating to child exploitation, terrorism and dark-web criminal syndicates. That's all laudable. The intention of this legislation is to give the Australian Federal Police more power to spy on those they deem to be terrorists and criminals. The difference between the existing acts and the amending legislation is the ability to damage criminal data without an arrest or a prosecution and without knowing the identity of an offender. These two aspects of the bill open the door to unexpected consequences and undesired applications of these new powers. A well-drafted bill, on the other hand, would not suffer from these shortcomings.
A major reason for the bill is the increasing use of encrypted apps, including Tor. The Tor network is an encrypted platform that cannot be accessed by third parties, including law enforcement. The only way to get to a Tor site that is, for instance, disseminating child porn, instructions on terrorism and such like is to take over the server and intercept users accessing the site and uploading material. This bill allows the government to add a tracking routine to an image or video. Then, when the video is played or the image opened, it dials home to the Federal Police to advise the location of the user. That sounds reasonable. That entails the government posing, though, as a user and uploading tagged material. This legislation gives the Australian Federal Police immunity for uploading illegal content in this manner. That is acceptable. However, the checks and balances on how that will work are deficient. They are not adequate. If those planning freedom rallies, for instance, are classified by the Federal Police as terrorists, then the government will have the ability to upload tracking tags that will identify people whose only crime is exercising their right to freedom of protest. This legislation could, in one action, be used to roll up entire organisations that are simply critics of the government, if, as in the case of COVID protesters, their activity was deemed illegal.
The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills remained concerned with the authorisation of coercive powers and a general lack of consistency with the justification for the issuing of these warrants. It also raised concerns about the use of emergency circumstances to conceal things done to execute a warrant. These are also my concerns. It's clear from the sheer volume of objections and recommendations that this bill has privacy and human rights issues to iron out before it can reasonably be passed to the satisfaction of industry partners and associated private sector companies who handle the data being surveilled.
Twitter, for example, has an unresolved concern that the scope of these powers may leave them in breach of international laws that apply where their servers are housed. This focuses on privacy during the takeover warrant. They wish to amend the bill to reflect practices that are consistent with established norms of privacy, free expression and the rule of law. I know it's hard to imagine Twitter arguing for free expression and the rule of law, because it doesn't provide free expression itself, but nonetheless we need to take note of what was just said. Amazon Web Services has made a specific recommendation for good-faith immunity to cover digital providers during the execution of account takeover warrants. Various recommendations have been made for the bill to be withdrawn by the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties, Liberty Victoria, Electronic Frontiers Australia and the Australian Privacy Foundation.
There is no inherent problem with increasing police powers to hunt down anonymous perpetrators of serious crime online. However, these measures do not afford innocent parties enough protection from being mistakenly targeted by increased police power and political power. The haste with which this bill has been ushered through parliament is a disgrace. It looks like it's another dodgy deal by the Lib-Lab uni party. Is it that Senator Wong and Senator Birmingham behind closed doors are the government, and the Senate is their rubber stamp? This parliament no longer allows the principles that comprise the foundations of our democracy, and that brings shame on the Liberal Party, the Nationals and the Labor Party.
I want to take note of some points that I have from notes we've been given in our briefing. There are considerable objections being raised by committees, third-party digital platforms and other independent groups. So, while we recognise the basic need for this, there are still severe objections. Let me go through some of them. There are criticisms cited by committee recommendations relating to the increase of police powers in relation to privacy laws and inadequately stated definitions regarding their application. It may be worth proposing a further amendment to ensure that these powers of surveillance and interference are strictly contained, rather than implied, to matters of particular criminal offences. Perhaps a deliberate exclusion may be used to ensure that they are not invoked for what may be considered political crimes. We're giving police enormous powers to intrude into the lives of people, and that needs to be very carefully managed. It is doubtful, for example, that the original act would have allowed privacy violations or the takeover or disruption of data in pursuit of political protestors or those with online accounts that speak out against the government. A direct exclusion may be the easiest way of clarifying. If it is refused then the amendment switches from being perfectly sensible to potentially dangerous.
The bill was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Twenty-three submissions have been published to date. There was also a public hearing held on 10 March 2021. I read from my notes: 'The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has not formed a final view. It has asked for further, and received, advice from the minister to which questions still remain regarding safeguards.' In essence, it wants an amendment to ensure proportionality and oversight. Recognise that the bill will not only promote some human rights in relation to liberating the victims of cyber based crime but also limit other rights related to privacy. It was also among those concerned about adequate safeguards.
The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills also submitted a report, on 29 January 2021. This committee noted a concern that the increased warrant powers have the potential to unduly trespass on personal rights and liberties, and insisted that, given the scope of these powers, efforts should be made to tighten their application. The minister's response made a minor clarification regarding who can issue warrants, and sought to justify the 90-day period for the warrant. The committee remained concerned with the authorisation of coercive power and a general lack of consistency with justification for the issuing of these warrants. It also raised concerns about the use of emergency circumstances to conceal things done to execute the warrant. Further committee concerns exist regarding the infringement of rights for third parties caught up in the execution of these warrants, particularly during a search of the target premises, to which the minister reiterated that 'criminal network of individuals' needs to remain broad enough to cover any unwitting third parties.
It is clear from the sheer volume of objections and recommendations that this bill has privacy and human rights issues to iron out before it could be reasonably passed to the satisfaction of industry partners and associated private-sector companies who handle the data being surveilled. They all agree, as I would suggest we look at, that there is no inherent problem with increasing police powers to hunt down anonymous perpetrators of serious crime online, especially against children and for sex offences. This bill, though, highlights previous failures in Australian law which do not afford innocent parties enough protection from being mistakenly targeted by increased police power. These recommendations highlight and recognise that the system has a poor record when it comes to regulating itself. It just seems that this has had far too little work done and ignores some fundamentals.
Before finishing, I would like the Senate to note that One Nation did not support the exemption of four electoral bills earlier from committee consideration. We did not support those bills being exempted, and we have grave concerns about this bill now before the Senate.
[by video link] Thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to speak on this bill, the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2021. I must say I am very concerned that it has been dropped on the Senate. In the very last minutes or hours, we found out that this bill is on. That has caused some difficulty for me because there are some amendments to this bill that I intend to move, and I foreshadow that I intend to move an amendment in the committee of the whole. This bill seeks to broaden powers in relation to the AFP. In principle, I support what the government is trying to do, but this bill gives further powers to our police force. These powers are used in secret and are quite coercive, and they require the appropriate checks and balances. I note that Senator Roberts raised some concerns in this area as well, noting that these powers can potentially be abused.
I intend, in Committee of the Whole, to move an amendment—it's an amendment that I've moved before—that seeks to expand the powers of the PJCIS to look at matters that are operational and go to information gathering by our intelligence services. The importance of this is something that I raised in my first speech, basically pointing out that the parliament of course has the power to conduct oversight of our intelligence agencies but it simply doesn't, because it has carved out that ability in the Intelligence Services Act. The parliament has censored itself or prevented itself from conducting intelligence oversight. That is an aberration amongst our Five Eyes nations. We see very strong oversight from the US in the Senate. It's the same in the UK. We are effectively not doing our job properly. I have on several occasions sought to remedy this. I mentioned it in my first speech. On 7 December 2017, I gave much greater detail. I moved an amendment on 9 May 2018 to the Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill 2018.
I moved an amendment on 26 June 2018 to the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill 2018. I also moved a private member's bill in relation to this. I moved a similar amendment in relation to the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019. I did that on 29 July 2019. On 3 September 2019 I moved an amendment in relation to the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Cessation) Bill 2019. On 10 December I moved an amendment to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020.
I have consistently sought to move an amendment to increase the ability to balance out the powers with some appropriate checks and balances. I might point out that, on each occasion I've done this, Labor has committed from an intent perspective. They've said they recognise the intent—in fact, they have their own bill that does exactly this. People might recall that in the last sitting week I moved a motion in relation to a referral to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in relation to the operation that grounds the claims that are before the ACT court in relation to Bernard Collaery and witness K, who has now been dealt with by the court. Labor stood up at this time and said, 'We will investigate this. We will move a referral when we get into government after we have amended the Intelligence Services Act to permit the PJCIS to conduct these sorts of investigations.' Well, Labor, money where your mouth is: I'm going to move this amendment in the Committee of the Whole and I anticipate that you will support it. You keep saying that you want to have the PJCIS conduct oversight, as it should, but consistently you [inaudible].
I apologise for the delay in circulating this late amendment, but that was caused by the fact that the government brought this legislation on this morning basically unannounced. As crossbenchers, we work with the government on legislation making sure that we understand what it is we are voting on and making sure that we can contribute by way of amendments. We don't need to have a blitzkrieg of bills where we don't have an opportunity to participate in our democracy and to put forward amendments. I thank very much the clerks and the drafting office for assisting me this morning in getting this amendment circulated as quickly as possible. Again, the government has not done democracy any favours this morning.
I rise to sum up debate on the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2021. In the first instance I would like to thank my colleagues for their contributions to the debate. I'd also like to reaffirm that the Morrison government's first priority is ensuring the safety and the security of all Australians. We make absolutely no excuses for that. It is therefore vital that our law enforcement agencies have effective tools to protect the Australian community. This bill is one part of the government's response to the challenges posed by anonymising technologies and cyberenabled crime, such as offending perpetrated on the dark web. What we are now seeing and what we are aware of is the increasing use of the dark web and anonymising technologies has significantly degraded agencies' ability to identify and disrupt serious crime occurring online. I do note the comments made by the Australian Greens, by Senator Patrick and by Senator Roberts on behalf of One Nation, but let's make sure we are putting this bill into perspective.
This bill introduces three measures to enhance the ability of the Australian Federal Police and the ACIC to identify and disrupt serious crime online. Data disruption warrants authorise the deletion or modification of data. We are going to refer here to child exploitation material—that is what they are looking at—to frustrate the commission of serious offences online. On any analysis, I would say that child exploitation material is an absolute disgrace. Network activity warrants enable the AFP and the ACIC to collect intelligence on criminal networks operating online. And account takeover warrants allow law enforcement to take control of online accounts, in order to gather evidence about a person's online criminality and the activity of their associates. What these reforms will do is equip agencies with the tools and powers they need to protect the Australian community from serious criminals operating online. Again, I would like to highlight the types of behaviour we are addressing, including terrorists, organised crime and those who seek to harm our children.
The bill is also supported by strong safeguards and oversight to protect the privacy of Australians and ensure that the powers are only used where necessary, proportionate and reasonable. The bill will substantially boost the capacity of the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission to identify and disrupt serious criminal activity occurring online, particularly activity by criminals who seek to use the dark web and other platforms to evade law enforcement. That is what they are doing. They are utilising these technologies, the dark web and other platforms, to evade law enforcement.
The arrest of more than 290 criminals as part of Operation Ironside earlier this year was a testament to the dedication and hard work of our law enforcement agencies, but what it also demonstrated is the persistent and ever-evolving threat of transnational, serious and organised crime, and their increasing tendency to seek out and use technology often operated exclusively for the criminal market to conceal their offending. In the case of Operation Ironside, ingenuity and world-class capability gave our law enforcement an edge. That is a good thing, when you look at what we are now confronted with in 2021.
This bill is just one more step the government is taking—and we make no apology for protecting Australians—to ensure that our agencies maintain that edge. The bill has been extensively reviewed by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, with a report tabled by the committee on 5 August 2021, and the government thanks the committee for its review of these important reforms. Let me make it clear: the Morrison government does not accept serious crime in our communities and neither should we accept it online. Our laws must keep pace with technology if our agencies are to continue to do the job that we expect of them. That job is consistent with the Morrison government's first priority, to ensure the safety and security of all Australians. With those brief comments, I commend the bill to the Senate.
The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Hanson-Young on behalf of Senator Thorpe be agreed to.
Question negatived.
by leave—In the spirit of not calling divisions, could we just please have the Greens' vote in relation to this recorded.
That is so noted.
by leave—I will just put on the record Senator Griff's position supporting this amendment as well.
The question is that the bill be read a second time.
Original question agreed to.
Again, could we have the Greens' opposition to this bill recorded, please, and any others who may need to have theirs articulated as well.
Senator Roberts, are you seeking the call? We will come back to you. We will take it that you are seeking to record your vote against—we will come back to you.
Bill read a second time.
[by video link] by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1412 together:
(1) Schedule 3A, page 153 (before line 17), before item 3, insert:
3A Paragraph 29(1)(a)
After "to review the", insert "activities,".
(2) Schedule 3A, page 153 (after line 24), at the end of the Schedule, add:
4 Subsection 29(3)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(3) The functions of the Committee do not include:
(a) reviewing information provided by, or by an agency of, a foreign government where that government does not consent to the disclosure of the information; or
(b) conducting inquiries into individual complaints about the activities of ASIO, ASIS, AGO, DIO, ASD, ONI, AFP or the Immigration and Border Protection Department.
5 After section 29
Insert:
29A Ceasing or suspending review of agency activities
(1) If:
(a) the Committee undertakes a review under section 29 of an activity by ASIO, ASIS, AGO, DIO, ASD or ONI; and
(b) the relevant responsible Minister is of the opinion that:
(i) the activity is an ongoing operation; and
(ii) the review would interfere with the proper performance by the relevant body of its functions or otherwise prejudice Australia's national security or the conduct of Australia's foreign relations;
the Minister may give to the Committee a certificate in relation to the matter stating the Minister's opinion and the reasons for it.
(2) A decision of the Minister under subsection (1) must not be questioned in any court or tribunal.
(3) Where the Minister gives a certificate under subsection (1) in relation to a review, the Committee must cease or suspend the review.
(4) If the Minister:
(a) becomes aware that the activity is no longer ongoing; or
(b) is no longer of the opinion that the review would interfere with the proper performance by the relevant body of its functions or otherwise prejudice Australia's national security or the conduct of Australia's foreign relations;
the Minister must, within 28 days after becoming aware of the fact or forming the view:
(c) revoke the certificate; and
(d) inform the Committee in writing.
(5) If the Minister revokes a certificate in accordance with subsection (4), the Committee may proceed with the review, or commence a new review into the activity.
These are amendments that the chamber has seen a number of times. What they seek to do is undo the censoring of our parliament, or the restraint on our own parliament, from conducting oversight of intelligence operations and associated information gathering. These are important amendments that basically seek to provide a check and balance against the powers that are being proposed by the government. As I said, in principle I support what the government is doing. I do share some of Senator Roberts's concerns. These sorts of concerns could be addressed if the PJCIS were able to examine those operations. There is a safety mechanism in these amendments to make sure that, if there is something that is extremely sensitive going on, the PJCIS could be prevented from looking into the operation until after it has commenced, so it has appropriate safeguards. These are good amendments. They are oversight amendments. This is something that Labor indicated on several occasions it will support, but it has failed to do so. I commend the amendments to the committee.
The government does not support the amendments moved by Senator Patrick. The government's view is that the remit of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security should not be expanded to include oversight of agencies' operational activities. We consider it remains appropriate for ministers to primarily oversee operations and be accountable to the parliament. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security already has extensive powers to oversee and inquire into the legality and propriety of National Intelligence Community operations, publishes an unclassified version of reports and appears before the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on non-operational matters. We consider that existing arrangements appropriately balance accountability with the need to protect sensitive operations and capabilities and that further oversight by the committee is not necessary.
I rise to indicate that the Greens will be supporting Senator Patrick's amendments as circulated and to raise similar concerns to Senator Patrick's in relation to the rushing of this particular piece of legislation. I want to let you know there is another amendment being circulated, in the name of Senator Thorpe, which we will also need to deal with today.
Thank you for advising the chamber of that.
Is this an appropriate time to record One Nation's position on the previous motion?
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The advice I have from the Clerk is that it would be useful to do that.
I just want to record that the One Nation party was voting against it.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Just to clarify—this was on the second reading?
On the second reading.
I would like to say a few words about Senator Patrick's amendment before we vote.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: You may.
I just want to acknowledge that Senator Patrick, who I am sure has the best of intentions, moves this amendment at every national security bill. Every time he moves it, we make clear once again our view that it is not an appropriate mechanism by which to deal with his question. I note again, for the record, that Senator McAllister has a private senator's bill before the parliament that deals with these very questions. Labor would prefer to take a holistic and systemic approach to this question and not deal with it in a piecemeal fashion as we see that Senator Patrick's amendment does. In the interests of time, and my desire to see this bill pass this chamber this week, I just wanted to put on the record our view on this amendment.
[by video link] I will respond to Senator Keneally. I note it looks like she might have run from her office to get there, and I appreciate her doing that to make some comments. It is a ruse to suggest that you won't vote on an amendment to a government bill that basically includes the provisions of a private member's bill. We need to understand that a private member's bill might get voted on in the Senate, go to the House and never be seen again. The only way to give effect to change is to put amendments to government bills that the government has to deal with in the House. Senator Keneally knows that, and so it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that this is an inappropriate way to do it—that a private member's bill is a much better way.
I'm disappointed that Labor is again voting on an amendment that gives effect to its own policies. I invite Senator Keneally—if you don't quite like what my amendment does—to have the Labor Party introduce a similar amendment the next time a security bill goes through the parliament. I put that on the record, and we'll see next time around how serious the Labor Party really is. We do have these sorts of bills going through on a semiregular basis, which is part of the problem: more and more powers get made without the right checks and balances. There's an opportunity here. I put the challenge to Senator Keneally, and we'll talk about this the next time an intelligence bill goes through the chamber. You are simply so weak on giving effect to change as bills go through this place. You simply stand up and talk, but you never actually do anything. That's a significant problem, and Labor ought to reflect on this. They're not serving the public well. They are, in effect, dudding their own policy. There's a way in which these things can be done and, sadly, you're not up to the task.
[by video link] I'll be supporting Senator Patrick's amendment as well. I would like that noted. I also have a question for the minister, if I may.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: You may.
Minister, I'm not sure if people out there know this, but there are people who work in your parliamentary office who can walk out with whatever they want when they leave as staff—and that would include files and personal files—and then use that material against you on social platforms. Would this be able to fix that issue, without any charges or anything being laid? Will this fix any of that?
Senator Lambie, I couldn't quite properly hear what you were saying. I'll take you through what the purpose of the bill is, and that may well answer the question that you have posed. This is all about, as I said, part of the government's response to the challenges posed by anonymising technologies and cyber-enabled crime such as offending perpetrated on the dark web. I'll briefly summarise what the bill does, in three parts. It enhances the ability of the AFP and the ACIC to identify and disrupt. It's all about serious crime online. In that regard, data disruption warrants authorise the deletion or modification of data—the examples that I previously gave were things such as child exploitation material—to frustrate the commission of serious offences online. Network activity warrants enable the AFP and the ACIC to collect intelligence on criminal networks operating online. Account takeover warrants allow law enforcement to take control of online accounts in order to gather evidence about a person's online criminality and the activity of their associates. This bill is very much in relation to the challenges posed by anonymising technologies and cyber-enabled crime. The most obvious example that people understand is offending perpetrated on the dark web.
[by video link] What exactly are you talking about with 'serious offences'? Is there a list? What constitutes 'serious offences'?
I am just getting for you the list of serious offences. I'm sure the advisers are looking for me, to ensure that I do have them. In particular, I will look at exactly what we're looking at targeting. As you'd know, the 'dark web' refers to areas of the internet which are intentionally hidden and cannot be accessed without using specialised browsers. I think you'd also know that, because of the nature of the dark web, this area of the internet is not indexed by ordinary search engines. 'Anonymising technology' refers to technology which can be used to disguise a person's activity, location and true identity. The types of 'serious crimes' include child abuse and exploitation, terrorism, and the sale of illicit drugs and weapons. We're referring to that there. Warrants can only be sought in relation to what is called a relevant offence. This is a federal offence or a state offence that has a federal aspect punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of three years or more. That criterion is consistent with existing thresholds for warrant powers as set out in the Surveillance Devices Act 2004.
I have some further information for you: amendments have been made to the issuing criteria for warrants to ensure that, when considering whether to issue a warrant, issuing authorities give extra weight to the most serious types of cyber-enabled crime, which is what you were referring to. This reflects the purposes of the bill and the PJCIS's intent to focus the use of these powers—and I go back to the original answer that I was giving to you—on the most serious crimes perpetrated on the dark web and through the use of anonymising technologies. Again, as I've referred to previously, this includes child exploitation, terrorism, cybercrime, money laundering and drugs and firearm trafficking.
[by video link] As to that list of serious offences, who decides what's going to be a serious offence? Is that taken off someone else's blueprint somewhere, or was that just decided within the committee itself? Obviously, if you're going to go through a court, it's got to come under one of those serious offences, whatever you've dictated the serious offences would be. Who lists those serious offences?
I am instructed that the bill itself shows what is the issuing authority.
[by video link] No, I understand the authority, but how did they come up with a list and decide that they were the only serious offences? Is that just because that's in the bill? There are other serious offences out there, but obviously these are the ones you're concentrating on in this bill—yes?
If you look at the previous answer I gave to you—and I will just read it out to you as well—it was that the bill covers all offences. Warrants can only be sought in relation to a relevant offence, which is a federal offence, or a state offence that has a federal aspect, punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of three years or more.
[by video link] Thank you.
I understand that Senator Thorpe has some questions, if she could have the call.
On the Patrick amendment?
Generally in the committee stage.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Okay.
[by video link] Minister, this bill rejects a core recommendation of the Richardson review: that law enforcement agencies should not be given specific cyberdisruption powers such as would apply under the proposed data disruption warrant regime. Why are you rejecting this specific conclusion of the Richardson review?
Consistent with recommendation 161 of the Richardson review, this bill does not extend the ASD's cybercrime function to apply onshore. Any technical assistance provided by the ASD in support of the new powers would be consistent with the ASD's existing statutory powers to assist Commonwealth agencies. The bill is consistent with recommendation 162 of the Richardson review to the extent that the review recommended that the AFP should be responsible for fighting cybercrime and undertaking disruption activities onshore. However, the bill recognises that the ACIC, drawing on its specialist criminal intelligence capabilities, also plays a vital role in discovering serious and organised criminal activity.
[by video link] Thank you, Minister. The Richardson review also observed that there is much the AFP can do under its existing powers, and it was unconvinced that a more specific disruption mandate or additional powers are needed. Why are you so committed to giving the AFP these powers that they do not need?
The government agrees that the Australian Federal Police and the ACIC should fully utilise existing powers to combat cyber-enabled crime. However, those powers are increasingly ineffective against large-scale incidents of cyber-enabled crime. The government considers that legislative reform is necessary to enhance the ability of the AFP and the ACIC to discover and disrupt serious criminality online—in the first instance, through the powers in the bill, including data disruption warrants. Data disruption warrants were developed after careful consideration of the potential practical and principled issues in relation to disruption, as identified by the Richardson review.
[by video link] Minister:
8. The Law Council also notes that the supporting justification for the proposal to confer specific intelligence-collection powers on the AFP and ACIC under network activity warrants does not clearly identify a gap in existing powers.
Can you tell me what gaps exist in the powers the AFP has that justify the powers in this bill, please?
I would refer you to my summing-up speech in relation to this debate. It clearly articulated why the government believe this bill is necessary and why we have the support of the Australian Labor Party.
[by video link] Why is it that superior court judges of courts of record, appointed in their personal capacity—unlike AAT members—aren't the sole issuing authority for these warrants?
I can advise that network activity warrants and data disruption warrants can be issued by an eligible judge or a nominated AAT member. This is consistent with who can issue existing warrants, such as computer access warrants, in the Surveillance Devices Act 2004. It is anticipated that these warrants will be used to complement other powers available to agencies. Account takeover warrants can be issued by a magistrate, as this is consistent with other powers, such as search powers in the Crimes Act.
[by video link] What safeguards are in place to protect innocent people out there—for example, people organising a Black Lives Matter rally? How are those people going to be protected in this bill? Can you please articulate how that will be safeguarded? I understand that the bill is about very serious offences. The Australian Greens will support it, in terms of keeping children safe and keeping our country safe, but there are innocent people who could be targeted through this bill. Can you articulate how those safeguards are going to be in place so that doesn't happen?
I can advise that a data disruption warrant cannot authorise causing any material loss or damage to data unless the issuing authority considers it reasonably necessary and proportionate to the offences targeted. For example, reasonably necessary and proportionate loss or damage may involve a loss incurred as a result of taking action against a large group of individuals committing a particularly serious offence. Whether the disruption of data is reasonably necessary and proportionate will be determined by the issuing authority on a case-by-case basis. There may be circumstances in which it would be reasonably necessary and proportionate to cause loss or damage to the data of third parties. For example, it may be reasonably necessary and proportionate for an agency to shut down an online site hosting the live streaming of child exploitation material. I'll just say that again: for example, it may be reasonably necessary and proportionate for an agency to shut down an online site hosting the live streaming of child exploitation material, despite the owner or administrator of that site not necessarily being suspected of this type of criminality. However, it may not be reasonably necessary and proportionate if an agency were to delete all of the data on a third-party computer that was used to access a dark-web forum advertising illicit drugs.
I can also advise a person's account may only be taken over when taking control of that account is likely to substantially assist in enabling the collection of evidence relating to serious criminal offences. An account takeover warrant cannot authorise material interfering with a person's lawful use of a computer unless absolutely necessary to facilitate the collection of evidence, and account takeover warrant cannot under any circumstances authorise causing material loss or damage to any person lawfully using a computer. An account takeover warrant cannot be executed in a manner that causes a person the loss of money, digital currency or property other than data. When considering whether to issue an account takeover warrant, the magistrate must take into account the extent to which the privacy of any person is likely to be affected. Also, I can advise that the Commonwealth Ombudsman will provide robust oversight of the use of the account takeover power by the AFP and the ACIC.
[by video link] This is my final question. Minister, in terms of the safeguard, the AFP can come in and take over somebody's account. They can, as I understand it, go into that account without that person even knowing. If that individual who's had their account taken over needs to use any of the information from their account in a court of law after the AFP have been in there, what legal ramifications does that have for that individual whose social media account has been infiltrated by an AFP officer or an AAT officer? What safeguard do they have to be able to use that information in a court of law when it's already been hacked or spied on in information gathering by an AFP officer and so basically the evidence has been tampered with by one of those officers?
Senator Thorpe, I don't believe that you've properly articulated what is occurring, but I understand the basic premise of the question that you are raising. The AFP and the ACIC will have systems in place to preserve the evidence whilst taking action to frustrate criminal activity by modifying the data. Such practices and systems include copying data for evidence or taking screenshots of content whilst performing disruptive data modification. Court processes will continue to involve testing of evidence and its admissibility. Evidence obtained whilst disrupting criminal activity will be subject to the same rules and requirements as evidence obtained through more traditional means.
Minister, in relation to AAT members granting warrants, can you just clarify which warrants can be approved by AAT members?
What I will advise you, Senator Patrick, is that network activity warrants and data disruption warrants can be issued by an eligible judge or a nominated AAT member. As I've previously advised in answers to other questions, this is consistent with who can issue the existing warrants under the Surveillance Devices Act 2004, such as computer access warrants. It is anticipated that these warrants will be used to complement other powers available to agencies. Account takeover warrants can be issued by a magistrate, as this is consistent with other powers, such as search powers in the Crimes Act.
I am just looking at whether or not I can provide you with further information. I can also advise in relation to recommendation 9 of the PJCIS report—and this may be what you were alluding to—that removing the ability for AAT members to issue warrants would have a significant impact on Australia's current electronic surveillance framework and would be a departure from longstanding government policy. The inability to obtain AAT approval would likely result in operational delays in obtaining these warrants. For example, the AFP currently experiences delays obtaining warrants from state and territory magistrates. I am informed that there can actually be up to a three-day wait in some jurisdictions. Given these potentially wide-ranging implications and the desire for consistency—and I do stress that, Senator Patrick—across other warrant powers, the government will consider this issue further as part of the holistic review of Australia's electronic surveillance framework, which is currently underway. I can also advise that a 'nominated AAT member is a person who is either the deputy president, senior member or member of the AAT' who has been nominated by the Attorney-General to issue warrants under the Surveillance Devices Act.
[by video link] Just to clarify, and this may help you understand where I'm going, I want to understood who is nominated. Is it a particular class of AAT member, like a deputy president or a presidential member? There is a rank structure inside the AAT. This really goes to experience and competence in relation to these sorts of instruments. Is there any guidance you can give me on who can be nominated?
Thank you, Senator Patrick. You may not have heard, given that we are doing this via technology. I did state that a 'nominated AAT member is a person who is either the deputy president, senior member or member of the AAT' and has been nominated to issue warrants under the Surveillance Devices Act.
[by video link] Thank you. I want to put on record my concern in relation to this. Normally, a presidential member is a judicial member as well, and I have no issue with a judicial member doing this. Some of the deputy presidents are former QCs, for example. When you start getting down to senior members and members, they can be all sorts of appointees—I know you'll understand this; I'm not trying to be political here—including appointees of both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party under the provisions of the AAT Act that allow a person to be appointed if they have a particular experience that is needed by the AAT. That means that we have seen the appointment—to be fair, both Liberal Party and Labor Party appointees—of former staffers, advisers and so forth. My concern is that this is a power that would normally—you'd normally want someone who has a strong legal background so as to ensure that there is not any abuse. You might recall that during the media raids we had difficulties with warrants being issued and there was a subsequent High Court matter. I just want to understand whether or not, because it is one of the requirements in the AAT Act for one class of member to have a law degree, anyone is likely to be nominated to carry out these particular functions if they don't have suitable legal qualifications.
In response to your question, I can advise that AAT members must be legal practitioners with at least five years experience—I previously took you through that they would be nominated—to be nominated by the Attorney-General. I believe that directly answers the issue that you have just articulated.
[by video link] I just want to be clear about it. I think you're being very helpful, Minister. There are members who can be appointed without legal qualification under one of the provisions of the AAT Act. There is another cohort that must have legal qualifications. If I heard you correctly, your good self will not be appointing or nominating those members who don't have the legal qualifications that are mentioned in the second cohort's provision of the act.
I will repeat because we're doing this via technology. As instructed, AAT members must be legal practitioners with at least five years experience to be nominated by the Attorney-General. That directly goes to the point you made.
[by video link] Thank you. I think that clarifies what I was after. I appreciate your answer, Minister.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) and (2) moved by Senator Patrick on sheet 1412 be agreed to.
Question negatived.
by leave—Could I have the Greens' support for Senator Patrick's amendments recorded. I can see Senator Patrick putting his hand up. I assume he's asking for his support to be recorded as well.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: It is so noted.
[by video link] Thank you.
by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (3) to (9) on sheet 1410 together:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item.
(3) Schedule 2, page 49 (after line 17), after item 3, insert:
3A Subsection 6(1) (definition of eligible judge )
Repeal the definition, substitute:
eligible Judge means:
(a) in relation to a network activity warrant—an eligible Judge within the meaning of section 12A.
(b) otherwise—an eligible Judge within the meaning of section 12.
3B Subsection 6(1) (definition of relevant offence )
Repeal the definition, substitute:
relevant offence means:
(a) in relation to a network activity warrant or an account takeover warrant:
(i) an indictable offence against a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory; or
(ii) an offence that is punishable by imprisonment for life or for a period, or maximum period, of at least 7 years; or
(iii) an offence against Chapter 5 of the Criminal Code (security of the Commonwealth); or
(iv) an offence against Chapter 8 of the Criminal Code (offences against humanity); or
(v) an offence against Chapter 9 of the Criminal Code (dangers to the community); or
(vi) an offence against Part 10.2 of the Criminal Code (money laundering); or
(vii) an offence against Part 10.7 of the Criminal Code (computer offences); or
(b) otherwise:
(i) an offence against the law of the Commonwealth that is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 3 years or more or for life; or
(ii) an offence against a law of a State that has a federal aspect and that is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 3 years or more or for life; or
(iii) an offence against section 15 of the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988; or
(iv) an offence against section 53, 59, 139, 140 or 141 of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006; or
(v) an offence against section 100, 100A, 100B, 101, 101A or 101AA of the Fisheries Management Act 1991; or
(vi) an offence against section 46A, 46C, 46D, 49A or 51A of the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984; or
(vii) if a surveillance device warrant, a computer access warrant, or a tracking device authorisation, is issued or given (or is sought) for the purposes of an integrity operation in relation to a suspected offence against the law of the Commonwealth, or of a State or Territory, that is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 12 months or more or for life—that offence; or
(viii) an offence that is prescribed by the regulations.
(4) Schedule 2, page 51 (after line 2), at the end of section 7A, add:
(3) In this section, relevant offence means:
(a) an indictable offence against a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory; or
(b) an offence that is punishable by imprisonment for life or for a period, or maximum period, of at least 7 years; or
(c) an offence against Chapter 5 of the Criminal Code (security of the Commonwealth); or
(d) an offence against Chapter 8 of the Criminal Code (offences against humanity); or
(e) an offence against Chapter 9 of the Criminal Code (dangers to the community); or
(f) an offence against Part 10.2 of the Criminal Code (money laundering); or
(g) an offence against Part 10.7 of the Criminal Code (computer offences).
(5) Schedule 2, page 51 (before line 3), before item 9, insert:
8A Section 11
Repeal the section, substitute:
11 Who may issue warrants?
(1) Any warrant under this Part, other than a network activity warrant, may be issued by an eligible Judge or by a nominated AAT member.
(2) A network activity warrant may only be issued by an eligible Judge.
8B Section 12 (heading)
After "Judges", insert "—general".
8C Subsection 12(3)
Omit "this Act", substitute "this section".
8D After section 12
Insert:
12A Eligible Judges — network activity warrants
(1) In this section, unless the contrary intention appears:
eligible Judge means a person in relation to whom a consent under subsection (2) and a declaration under subsection (3) are in force.
Judge means a person who is a Judge of:
(a) a court created by the Parliament; or
(b) the Supreme Court of a State or Territory.
(2) A Judge may, by writing, consent to be declared an eligible Judge under subsection (3) by the Minister referred to in that subsection.
(3) The Minister administering the Judiciary Act 1903 may, by writing, declare Judges in relation to whom consents are in force under subsection (2) to be eligible Judges for the purposes of this section.
(4) Any function or power conferred on the Judge under this Act is so conferred only in a personal capacity and not as a court or a member of a court.
(5) An eligible Judge has, in relation to the performance or exercise of a function or power conferred on an eligible Judge by this Act, the same protection and immunity as a Justice of the High Court has in relation to proceedings in the High Court.
(6) An instrument declaring a Judge to be an eligible Judge is not a legislative instrument.
(6) Schedule 2, page 65 (after line 10), at the end of Division 6 of Part 2, add:
27KU Public Interest Advocates
(1) The Prime Minister shall declare, in writing, one or more persons to be Public Interest Advocates.
(2) The Prime Minister must not declare a person to be a Public Interest Advocate unless the person:
(a) has served as a judge in one or more superior courts for a period of at least 5 years, and no longer holds a commission as a judge of a superior court; or
(b) is a Queen's Counsel or a Senior Counsel.
(3) A person must be appointed as a Public Interest Advocate for at least 5 years.
(4) A Public Interest Advocate may make submissions to an eligible Judge or a nominated AAT member about matters relevant to an application for a network activity warrant made under this Division to that Judge or member.
(5) The regulations may prescribe matters relating to the performance of the role of a Public Interest Advocate.
(6) A declaration under subsection (1) is not a legislative instrument.
(7) In this section:
superior court means:
(a) the High Court; or
(b) a court created by the Parliament; or
(c) the Supreme Court of a State or Territory.
(7) Schedule 3, page 113 (lines 6 and 7), omit subparagraph (a)(iii) of the definition of law enforcement officer, substitute:
(iii) an AFP employee (within the meaning of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979) who holds or performs the duties of an Executive Level 2 position, or an equivalent or higher position; or
(8) Schedule 3, page 113 (line 14), omit subparagraph (b)(ii) of the definition of law enforcement officer, substitute:
(iii) a member of the staff of the ACC who holds or performs the duties of an Executive Level 2 position, or an equivalent or higher position.
(9) Schedule 3, page 113 (lines 31 to 33), omit the definition of relevant offence.
The Greens also oppose schedule 1 in the following terms:
(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 1) to page 47 (line 2), to be opposed.
Senator Thorpe has articulated the concerns we have with this bill. These amendments address those. I think we can get on with voting on them.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the Australian Greens amendments (1) and (3) to (9) on sheet 1410 be agreed to.
Question negatived.
by leave—I would like the Greens' vote recorded. Considering we haven't had a response from the government or the opposition in relation to these amendments on the record, I would like that clarified as well.
I believe in answering the questions that were asked of me in the committee stage I have adequately addressed that.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that schedule 1 stand as printed.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I would like the Greens' position to be recorded and for it to be noted how the Labor Party and the government voted.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Your vote has been recorded.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.
I move:
That these bills be now read a third time.
by leave—Acting Deputy President, under the standing orders I ask that the Greens' opposition to the final bill be recorded as a strong no.
Bill read a third time.
Labor supports the Royal Commissions Amendment (Protection of Information) Bill 2021, and we support the government's amendments. For some months Senator Steele-John, Labor and the government have been engaged in negotiations in relation to this bill. Those negotiations have been constructive and conducted in good faith. I would particularly like to acknowledge the efforts of Senator Steele-John and his office. This bill would amend the Royal Commissions Act 1902 and make consequential amendments to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to ensure ongoing confidentiality protections for people giving evidence to the disability royal commission.
Prior to this bill coming on for debate, earlier this year a number of disability organisations and advocates raised concerns that the bill did not adequately protect the privacy of witnesses making allegations about systemic failings in the disability sector, including whistleblowers. The government has agreed to move amendments to further improve the protections offered by the bill. Labor supports them. Moreover, we understand that the Attorney-General has asked her department to commence a review of the Royal Commissions Act to examine any issues or impediments to people coming forward and sharing information with a royal commission. Labor also supports that review and thanks the Attorney-General for initiating it.
It is absolutely critical to the success of the disability royal commission that people feel confident about coming forward to give evidence. The royal commission must, of course, hear directly from people with disability about their experience of violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation. But it must also hear from others who may have witnessed or know about the neglect, abuse and exploitation of people with disability, including, or perhaps especially, when that neglect, abuse and exploitation is or has been systemic. The protections in this bill and in the amendments are designed to ensure that the people the royal commission needs to hear from have the confidence to come forward. I commend the bill to the Senate.
[by video link] After years of raising the reality and the alarm that the privacy protections in the royal commission were insufficient, today the disability community and the Greens have succeeded in bringing forward an amendment bill that will ensure that people are able to give information to the royal commission and to come forward to that investigation with trust. It is with an incredible range of emotions from pride and happiness in the effort of the community over that time alongside the Greens to achieve this and with a solemnity borne of the knowledge of the seriousness of the evidence that will now be taken by the commission that I speak to this absolutely important bill today.
The changes before the Senate will ensure that evidence that is confidential which is given to the commission will remain confidential after the commission ends, at the moment along a timeline of 2023. Initially, it has stronger whistleblower protections for those who bravely come forward and give evidence in relation to, and blowing whistle upon, the failings of governmental departments, of corporations or, indeed, of institutions.
With the passage of this legislation, we encourage everyone to come forward and share with the commission their experience of violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation. This bill will now ensure that, in sharing an experience with the commission, the experience and the evidence is included, and that the commission are able to hear the information needed from all of us to gain a total picture of what violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation is occurring, the settings in which it is occurring and the nature of the abuses perpetrated all across the country. It is vital to ensuring that this investigation is able to do its work.
In the context of the passage of this bill, I am also reminded of the many other investigations that have preceded it in relation to vital issues, from Aboriginal deaths in custody to the bushfires to aged care. It has been said to me, and it occurs to me very strongly at this moment, that often these investigations result in recommendations which are very slowly enacted, if at all. It will be so vital, when recommendations come from this investigation, that those recommendations are championed in the parliament and that they are swiftly and comprehensively implemented in the next term of parliament if that is when they are delivered.
To that end, I am very hopeful and I am very excited about the prospect of an increase in the Greens' representation post the next election, which would deliver us to a balance-of-power situation whereby we would be able to continue the work with the community to see those recommendations swiftly translated into comprehensive legislative reforms and the changes that we need to end violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation wherever it exists; to hold perpetrators, whether they be individuals or organisations, to account; and, on behalf of survivors, to achieve the compensation that is needed and the recognition that is needed. Doing all of these things and ensuring that programs like the NDIS function in the way that people need them to, so that they are able to access these programs and supports, will be a key priority of the Greens, going forward, as we understand it is the most vital need of the disability community. And doing all of these things in the context of an investigation that is able to hear people's evidence and to guarantee them protection, security and privacy in that process is the opportunity that is now before the community.
In summing up, I really do thank all senators for their contributions to this debate on the Royal Commissions Amendment (Protection of Information) Bill 2021. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the work that I have been able to do with Senator Steele-John.
The government well and truly takes violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with disability very seriously. I think what this bill shows—again, working with Senator Steele-John, who has brought me firsthand experience on behalf of other people—is that the government has listened, particularly to the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse and Exploitation of People with Disability. We've also listened—and Senator Steele-John, as I've said, has brought me a number of examples—to people with disability, their families and their carers, and the broader Australian public about the importance of this. And key for this bill and what we all agree with, and, in fact, but for some amendments that the government have agreed we will move to improve the bill, this bill would have gone through as a non-contro bill because we are united in this purpose, is the importance of ensuring that people have the confidence to come forward and tell their story. As a result, the bill provides confidentiality protections for certain sensitive information that is given to the disability royal commission, by strengthening and expanding the existing protections under the Royal Commissions Act to remove any doubt about the safeguarding of confidential information beyond the life of the inquiry.
It also expands existing protections in the Royal Commissions Act to provide clarity for people that a broad range of sensitive information given to the disability royal commission will be fully protected. The bill amends the act to ensure the confidentiality of certain information given by—importantly, as I've discussed with Senator Steele-John—or on behalf of individuals to the disability royal commission is protected. The use and disclosure of information given by individuals to the commission about their or others' experiences of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation will be limited where that information was given for purposes other than a private session and the information was treated as confidential by the commission at all times. The amendments will provide that this category of confidential information is not admissible in evidence against a person in any civil or criminal proceedings in any court of the Commonwealth, a state or a territory. Further, a provision of any law of the Commonwealth, a state or a territory would have no effect to the extent that it would otherwise require or authorise a person to make a record of, use or disclose the information. In addition, it will be an offence to disclose or use this confidential information without authority.
The bill provides that these protections will apply in circumstances where information is given on behalf of another person—for example, a carer or parent giving information on behalf of a person with disability—and also extends to cover accounts of systemic forms of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with disability, and not just individual accounts, as I discussed with Senator Steele-John. Records of the confidential information will be held securely by the custodian, the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department, when the inquiry ends. Just like private session information, a court will be unable to compel the department to disclose this information. It will not be admissible in court proceedings, and third parties will be unable to seek this information under freedom of information regimes.
I say again that the government has given careful consideration to the development of this bill. We have also—and I do acknowledge this—consulted with the disability royal commission. As I've said, I've worked constructively with the Australian Greens and Senator Steele-John to ensure that this bill provides comprehensive protections for sensitive information. I will be moving some amendments, as I've alluded to, in the committee stage to improve the bill. Again, on behalf of the government, I do thank the Senate for the comprehensive support of this important piece of legislation and I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (7) on sheet SV119 together:
(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 5), after item 5, insert:
5A After section 6OE(1)
Insert:
(1A) The following are also not admissible in evidence against a natural person in any civil or criminal proceedings in any court of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory:
(a) a statement or disclosure made on behalf of the person at a private session;
(b) the production of a document or other thing on behalf of the person at a private session;
(c) a statement or disclosure made on behalf of the person to a member, or member of the staff, of a Royal Commission for the purposes of a private session (whether or not a private session was, or is to be, held for the Commission).
5B Subsection 6OE(2)
Omit "Subsection (1) does not", substitute "Subsections (1) and (1A) do not".
(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (lines 14 to 16), omit paragraph 6OP(1)(b), substitute:
(b) the information contains any of the following:
(i) an account of the natural person's, or another person's, experiences of violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation;
(ii) an account of the natural person's, or another person's, experiences of systemic violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation; and
(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 17), after "information", insert "directly or indirectly".
(4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (lines 23 to 25), omit subsection 6OP(2), substitute:
(2) Section 6OE applies:
(a) in all cases—in relation to the natural person who gave the information to the Commission, as if the information were a statement or disclosure made by that person at a private session for the Commission; and
(b) if the information was given to the Commission on behalf of another natural person—in relation to the other natural person as if the information were a statement or disclosure made on behalf of that other person at a private session for the Commission.
(5) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (after line 28), after subsection 6OP(3), insert:
(3A) Section 6OJ applies in relation to the information as if it were information obtained at a private session for the Commission.
(6) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (after line 31), at the end of section 6OP, add:
(5) A reference in subparagraph (1)(b)(ii) to experiences of systemic violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation is a reference to experiences, or an awareness, of a policy, procedure, practice, act or omission that contributed, or may have contributed, to a natural person experiencing violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation.
(7) Schedule 1, item 8, page 5 (after line 10), after subitem (1), insert:
(1A) Section 6OE of the Royal Commissions Act 1902, as amended by this Schedule, applies in relation to a statement or disclosure made, or a document or other thing produced:
(a) on or after the commencement of this item, at, or for the purposes of, a private session for a Royal Commission that is established on or after that commencement; or
(b) before, on or after the commencement of this item, at, or for the purposes of, a private session for a Royal Commission that:
(i) is established before that commencement; and
(ii) conducts all or part of an inquiry after that commencement.
I will very briefly just talk to the amendments and I know that Senator Steele-John will also briefly speak to them. As I've said, the amendments in detail show that we are committed to ensuring that the disability royal commission instituted by the government is able to thoroughly investigate violence against and abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with disabilities and that there are appropriate protections of confidential and sensitive information. What we are doing with these amendments that the government is introducing is to ensure that they directly respond to feedback received whilst the bill has actually been before the parliament. The amendments to the bill will extend existing protections for the confidentiality of certain information provided to the disability royal commission. The amendments will ensure that all persons wishing to engage with the disability royal commission can be confident that they can tell their stories or provide information in a way that protects the confidentiality of their sensitive information and protects them against potential adverse consequences. Again, I thank the Senate for what I am advised is the support of these amendments.
[by video link] I want to clarify something I said in my concluding remarks in the section before. What I meant to say was that the opportunity to pass these amendments is now before the Senate. If it were before the community, we probably would have done this in 2019. It is now indeed before the Senate.
In relation to these particular amendments, I want to contextualise them briefly and ask the minister a clarifying question. Of course, one of the major thrusts of these amendments is to ensure that information given in relation to systemic violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation is fully and comprehensively covered by the aspects of the broader bill. Ensuring this is of great concern to the disability community because we understand, through lived experience, that it is often systems, institutions and policy processes that either are actively involved in violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation or form the context in which we experience those things.
As to asking people to come forward and giving people the protections required to come forward to disclose these types of abuse and exploitation, if you are an individual within a government department, an institution or a private entity, it is quite an intimidating prospect to do that brave piece and blow the whistle. First of all, I want to ask the minister whether she is able to offer an assurance to the parliament and to the community as to the legal consequences that face anybody who attempts to dissuade or, in any way, cause a negative outcome for somebody who blows the whistle. Secondly, is she able to offer encouragement to people, particularly within a government department—state or federal—that it is the desire of the government to see individuals with information disclose it to the commission so that we can have that information included within recommendations?
In relation to the second part of your question, Senator Steele-John, absolutely, the government is committed to ensuring that the disability royal commission it has instituted is able to thoroughly investigate violence against and abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with disabilities and that there are appropriate protections of confidential and sensitive information. You are right. I would encourage people—and I hope this bill provides that encouragement—to now come forward and provide their accounts to the royal commission.
As you and I have discussed and as I have already referred to, the amendments the government is introducing directly respond to the feedback received whilst this bill has been before the parliament. As you and I have discussed, the amendments will apply limitations on the use and disclosure of information given by individuals to the royal commission about their experiences of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. To go directly to the question that you have posed, the amendments would ensure that systemic accounts are covered by the legislation and—further answering your question, particularly the latter part—that people can engage with the royal commission without fear of further disclosures. I have to say—and you and I have discussed this, Senator Steele-John—it was always intended by the government to protect accounts of a systemic nature. To go to the second part of your question, what we are doing by moving this amendment is making it absolutely clear and explicit, on the face of this legislation, so people understand that it was always intended that accounts of a systemic nature would be protected. So the bill will be passed by the Senate and, yes, I encourage people to come forward, with the assurances that they will now get within this particular piece of legislation.
I will add for thoroughness, though, that the amendments ensure that sensitive information provided to the royal commission outside private sessions will be accorded the same confidentiality as material obtained for the purposes of a private session. The provisions are not confined to an individual account and could be applied more broadly to systemic accounts relating to policies, procedures or practices, or to acts or omissions which have contributed to experiences of violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation. The protections would apply to certain information given to the royal commission when it commenced its operations on 4 April 2019. The amendments will protect individuals in organisations who have observed failures in the implementation of policies that put people with disability at risk. Senator Steele-John, I hope that now does comprehensively put on the record the answers to your question.
Labor supports these amendments. The bill extends the confidentiality protections under the Royal Commissions Act to certain information given to the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability—specifically, to the information given by individuals to the commission about their experiences of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. As the minister has made clear, those protections apply equally to accounts of a systemic nature. In other words, the confidentiality protections would not only apply to individual accounts but also to accounts of systemic violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. This is an important clarification and Labor thanks the government for moving these amendments.
[via video link] I have a subsequent question for the Attorney-General. I thank you for those comments; they are clarifying. For the community's confidence, could you briefly outline again what you understand to be the legal penalties that would be faced by anybody who were to attempt to cause anybody some negative consequence for blowing the whistle and for giving information to the commission? You and I both understand that those legal consequences can be quite severe, but I think, for the community following this debate, it would be great if you could just step them out briefly.
I will very quickly table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved in relation to this bill. Senator Steele-John, I do now have in front of me a copy of the legislation, the Royal Commissions Act 1902. Part 3 of this act actually deals with what are referred to as the offences. There are a number of offences, commencing with 6H. I will go through them. For example, I will give you 6M, injury to witness, which states:
Any person who uses, causes or inflicts, any violence, punishment, damage, loss, or disadvantage to any person for or on account of:
(a) the person having appeared as a witness before any Royal Commission; or
(b) any evidence given by him or her before any Royal Commission; or
(c) the person having produced a document or thing, or given information or a statement, pursuant to a summons, requirement or notice under section 2;
commits an indictable offence.
The penalty can include imprisonment for one year. It's very serious, as you and I both know. I will give you another example so it's properly articulated on the record. Again, it is in part 3, offences. Clause 6N, dismissal of employers of witness, states:
(1) Any employer who dismisses any employee from his or her employment, or prejudices any employee in his or her employment, for or on account of the employee having:
(a) appeared as a witness before a Royal Commission; or
(b) given evidence before a Royal Commission; or
(c) produced a document or thing, or given information or a statement, pursuant to a summons, requirement or notice under section 2;
commits an indictable offence.
Again, the penalty can include imprisonment for a year. I'm also happy to read out all of the relevant sections under 'PART 3—OFFENCES'. They include: 6H, 'False or misleading evidence'; 6I, 'Bribery of witness'; 6J, 'Fraud on witness'; 6K, 'Destroying documents or other things'; and 6L, 'Preventing witness from attending'. Section 6L(1) states:
Any person who intentionally prevents any person who has been summoned to attend as a witness before any Royal Commission from attending as a witness or from producing anything in evidence pursuant to the summons to attend commits an indictable offence.
Again, the penalty is imprisonment for a year. Senator Steele-John, it should give comfort to people that, within the Royal Commissions Act itself, there is an actual section in relation to offences. They are serious offences, because they are indictable offences, and they can include a penalty of a year's imprisonment.
I thank everybody who has been involved in pulling this piece of legislation together for listening to the community and their concerns and for working with the Greens to make it a reality today. I would like to ask a final question of the minister in relation to the review that the department has committed to undertaking. Minister, could you step out for the record the purview of that review and the time line for its completion?
I do not have available to me the letter that I provided to you. But the review is clearly set out there, and I've signed off that it is a commitment.
I'll just read it to you for the record and then you can confirm that it meets your recollection. It says: 'The department will immediately commence a review of the act to examine any issues or impediments to people coming forward and sharing information with a royal commission—in particular, to consider the effectiveness of mechanisms in the act, inclusive of the bill's amendments, for safeguarding the identities of people making confidential disclosures to the royal commission and other protections for witnesses giving evidence to royal commissions—and consult with the office of the disability royal commission and have it consider the matters you have raised within the ambit of the royal commission's terms of reference.' Is that your correct recollection of the letter you've sent us?
If you have correctly read out the letter I sent you, yes it is.
Absolutely fantastic. That gives the community additional assurance that, should any further changes be required to the relevant acts to further protect individuals giving evidence, there will be an opportunity for those to be considered in full. With thanks again, and with great excitement and happiness in me, that's it. Thanks, Chair.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Noting I did speak on this last night, I'm just focusing on the amendment that will be moved by both Labor and me that seeks to direct the tax commissioner to disclose the amount of JobKeeper that has been paid to companies that have a turnover of more than $10 million not just retrospectively in terms of companies that have received it but also in relation to companies that will receive additional payments under the coronavirus measures passed in the previous sitting week. I did mention—and I wanted to clarify this from my contribution yesterday—that in terms of companies that have received JobKeeper that didn't meet the prerequisites of a 30 per cent or a 50 per cent fall in revenue, that equates, according to the PBO, to about $12.5 billion.
Again, I'm not in any way disturbed by companies that made a projection that they would lose 30 per cent and didn't quite lose that amount but received JobKeeper. I have no issue with that. I have a difficulty with the egregious behaviour of companies who took JobKeeper and then did much better than they have done in previous quarters, and that amount equates to $4.6 billion of taxpayers' money. That is money that can be used for other things. Again, I don't say that companies have engaged in anything unlawful; they simply complied with the rules. But they all know that they have taken taxpayers' money for something for which it was never intended. So I thank Mr Leigh in the other place for the work he has done on this with the PBO, through his speeches and also publicly. It's a very important issue.
When we get to the committee stage, the Senate will, I think, have two opportunities to vote in favour of disclosure of this information. I think every Australian wants it to be disclosed. We might see that we have a much greater return from companies that have been in receipt of JobKeeper and didn't actually need it.
I rise today to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No.2) Bill 2021. I have been listening to the debate on this bill over the last few days. It has been a great opportunity, with the amendments, to come into this place and talk about all of the hard work and important policies that have been developed by this government to guide Australia through the economic crisis that has resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic and is still impacting on communities across the country.
One of the words that we hear thrown around so much regarding this pandemic is 'unprecedented'. Certainly we know that it's been a good century or so since Australia last had to deal with a pandemic illness of this nature, and, when we are dealing with an unprecedented situation, the economic response obviously has to evolve over time. I have quite regularly come into this place and spoken about the unprecedented nature of the pandemic and the unprecedented nature of the government's response to it. It has changed over time, quite markedly—from January and February last year, when we were first recording cases on the mainland, to understanding what impact border closures and lockdowns were going to have on our community and on our economy. Of course, coming into this year we had a brief moment of opening up again and a brief moment of hope before being plunged back into lockdowns due to the delta strain, which, again, has been something that we have had to learn about and quickly adapt our policies to. I know that the way the government has responded, particularly on the economic front, has been very well received.
We understand that Australians facing lockdowns are asking questions about their incomes and the weeks ahead and what the pathway back to normal life looks like. I've certainly sensed that within the Australian community, particularly within the Tasmanian community. It's perhaps not well understood by the mainland states that have been dealing with lockdowns, but in Tasmania, where we haven't had lockdowns—at least not since the really early days of the pandemic, back at the start of 2020—our businesses are still hurting incredibly as a result of the lockdowns on the mainland, particularly our tourism businesses. I've had the opportunity to speak to a number of operators in the last little while to understand the struggles that they are facing without having the visitation, particularly from Victoria and New South Wales, that we otherwise would have had. Those businesses are hurting, and that is why the Morrison government has worked with the Gutwein state Liberal government in Tasmania to deliver a $20 million business support package for local businesses in our state. This package will give much-needed relief to Tasmanian businesses struggling with the ongoing impacts of border closures to our biggest visitor markets. The support will target businesses operating in the tourism, hospitality, arts, events, seafood and transport sectors, as well as those that have been impacted directly by reduced interstate visitation. For those businesses, financial support of between $2,000 and $10,000 will be available if they have suffered a 30 per cent decline in their turnover. I'm certainly hearing from some businesses that, as a result of the lockdowns on the mainland, there have been incredibly drastic downturns in the consumer business that they had enjoyed in the last little while.
As a government we know that there is more to be done to support our businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Like I said, our approach has had to continually change and pivot and evolve, just as the virus has continued to change and pivot and evolve. We will continue to monitor the situation and we will continue to provide support to the businesses, in particular, that need it. But I think it is important to note and echo the words of the Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, and indeed the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, that we can't stay in lockdown forever. Our businesses can't survive if we stay in lockdown forever, and there will come a point where we come out of lockdowns and see the end of these border restrictions. It is absolutely contingent on our vaccination rollout, and that is, again, something I've spoken about in this chamber many times before. I urge all Australians to go out and get vaccinated once they become eligible. It is that which will stop the lockdowns and the border restrictions. The plan has been agreed to and set by the national cabinet, and I, along with so many Australians, am looking forward to enjoying a little bit more freedom, hopefully by the end of 2021.
I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No.2) Bill 2021. This bill makes a number of important changes to laws to implement reforms to the administration and oversight of organisations that have deductible gift recipient, or DGR, status, and it also delivers on the Morrison government's commitment to amend Australia's offshore banking unit regime to address concerns raised by the OECD Forum on Harmful Tax Practices.
The bill is made up of two schedules. Schedule 1 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to require non-government entities to seek endorsement as deductible gift recipients to be a charity registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, the ACNC, or operated by a registered charity. Ancillary funds and specifically listed entities will be exempt from this requirement. The requirement to be a charity already applies to the majority of the general DGR categories, and this measure will amend the special conditions applying to the remaining general DGR categories. The majority of the general DGR categories currently have a special condition requiring that the fund authority or institution be a registered charity or an Australian government agency or to be operated by a registered charity or an Australian government agency.
For the remaining 11 general DGR categories, these requirements do not need to be satisfied for the fund authority or institution to be entitled to DGR endorsement. These categories can include organisations on the Register of Environmental Organisations and the Register of Cultural Organisations. As charity registration is not a precondition for DGR endorsement for these categories, there can be inconsistent governance and reporting requirements for these DGRs. Making charity registration a precondition for DGR endorsement across the general DGR categories will improve the consistency of regulation, governance and oversight of DGRs whilst also reducing unnecessary compliance.
Fewer than 2,000 entities are expected to be affected by the changes. These amendments do not affect ancillary funds or funds specifically listed by name as DGRs. When the amendments take effect, DGR applicants generally must register as a charity with the ACNC before applying for DGR endorsement. In practice, there will be a streamlined process to allow DGR applicants to lodge a single application with the ACNC seeking charity registration and indicating their intention to be endorsed as a DGR. Once the ACNC is satisfied that the applicant is entitled to be registered as a charity, the ACNC will pass on the necessary information to the Australian tax office to assess the applicant's entitlement to DGR endorsement.
To be eligible for registration as a charity with the ACNC, the entity must: have an Australian business number, an ABN; be able to demonstrate its charitable purpose and not-for-profit character through governing documents or other means; provide the details of people responsible for the governing entity; have only charitable purposes or purposes ancillary to charitable purposes; provide other relevant information periodically such as financial information; be able to demonstrate compliance with the government's standards and external conduct standards if applicable; and, importantly, not be covered by a decision in writing made by an Australian government agency under an Australian law that provides for it to be characterised on the basis of it engaging in or supporting terrorist or other criminal activities. The schedule also amends the definition of 'environmental organisation' and 'cultural organisation'. These amendments provide that a fund, authority or institution must be registered to be listed on the Register of Environmental Organisations or the Register of Cultural Organisations.
Schedule 2, as I said earlier, looks at the offshore banking units regime. It addresses the concerns of OECD and European Union countries about offshore banking or the OBU regime. Action to amend the OBU regime to remove the effective concessional tax rate is necessary to avoid future sanctions that would have adverse outcomes for Australian financial markets. The existing OBUs can continue to access the concessional tax rate for the next two income years to ensure a smooth transition process. The OBU regime is closed to new entrants.
I commend the bill to the Senate.
I rise to contribute to the debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021, and I do so having circulated an amendment to this bill. This is at a time when we are talking about what this place and the government need to be doing to help in relation to COVID for businesses and individuals, including workers who are struggling under the restrictions that have obviously been put in place for health reasons but that are nonetheless having an impact on particular sectors.
One of those sectors, of course, as we've known for a long time—in fact, since the very beginning of when COVID hit here in Australia—is our live performance, music and arts sector—our entertainment sector. Those in this sector were the first to be hit by the restrictions of COVID. They were shut down overnight. One day they had scheduled shows, festivals and events, and the next day they were told that the limits on numbers and venues meant that they would have to shut down. That was over 12 months ago—in fact, it was 18 months ago—yet we've still seen very little coming forward from this government to help this sector.
One of the main issues, as we go through these various different phases and stages of dealing with COVID and managing the various different restrictions—the border restrictions and the different types of lockdowns—is, of course, the boom-bust nature of events that are being organised. It is still the fact today that event organisers—whether in the music industry or in other forms of entertainment; whether they're festivals big, small or in between; and whether they're suburban, metropolitan or the many, many festivals that bring light, culture and a buzz to our regional areas—have found it very difficult to exist without much certainty.
One of the biggest problems, of course, is planning. If you can't access any type of insurance, it's very difficult to plan anything into the future. What we're now hearing from the music and entertainment industry in particular is that, even in trying to plan for things in stage B or when Australians reach those crucial vaccination targets where things hopefully—fingers crossed—will be able to be opened up again safely, they're finding it very difficult to plan without access to proper insurance. Time and time again, events are being shut down overnight, and the cost of that is being left mostly to small businesses that have been wrecked and smashed over the last 18 months. It's very difficult for them to have any capital to rely upon. So what we are facing is a sector that is already smashed, that is struggling and that still can't plan. We've got big insurance companies making it near impossible for small businesses and those involved with events, whether they're musicians or entertainment promoters, to access insurance, with huge price-gouging premiums which simply cannot be afforded, if indeed that type of insurance is available.
I know we've debated these issues many times in this parliament. But, again, 18 months on, the government has not addressed the very dire need for it to address this issue. That is why the amendment that I foreshadow I will move in the committee stage addresses this issue. The amendment directs the minister to put in place an insurance guarantee. This isn't going to cost the taxpayer any money—in fact, it probably won't even cost the government money and it might actually make the government some money. The government will simply act as an underwriter of an insurance scheme because we can't trust the big insurance companies. They are screwing these small businesses to the wall, and these businesses simply don't have any access to affordable insurance. It's not the fault of the small business or the music promoter that they organise an event and it gets shut down overnight with all costs laid at their feet because a state government decides to close its borders, or indeed an outbreak of COVID happens and the health restrictions kick in. These costs shouldn't be borne by those individual small businesses. These costs should be something for which, if government's not going to cover them directly as compensation, at least the government will put in place an insurance scheme. That's all the sector is asking for. It doesn't cost the taxpayer anything; it doesn't cost the government anything. It is just asking the government to address what is clearly a market failure. I look forward to debating these issues when we get to the committee stage and I commend the bill, with these amendments, to the Senate.
[by video link] I wish to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021 and I indicate that the Greens do support this bill. Of course we support measures to improve the integrity around eligibility for status as a deductible gift recipient and we also support the measures to remove the concessional treatment of offshore banking units, which is one very small step towards making our tax system something other than a playground for multinational tax avoiders. I indicate to the Senate that I will make a contribution in the Committee of the Whole in regard to the amendment on sheet 1387 foreshadowed by Senator McAllister. I can indicate now that we will be supporting that amendment, but we will have some comments that I will make in regard to both that amendment and Senator Patrick's amendment.
There is lots to talk about in the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021. People who are listening to the Senate's proceedings might be a little bit confused because, when you hear some of the contributions from Labor senators and from crossbench senators, you might think one of two things. The first thing you might think is that the JobKeeper program has been unsuccessful. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I'll talk about that in a moment. The second thing you might think is that the government's doing nothing in regard to tackling multinational tax avoidance. Of course, again, nothing could be further from the truth.
As we move through the pandemic and as we move further and further away from the beginning of the pandemic, it won't be a surprise for people to understand, to come to an appreciation, that certain myths and mistruths will start to be generated about the success of the government's initial economic responses to the pandemic. I think any fair minded person would understand that the government's early economic response was timely, it was effective and, of course, it was very, very necessary. I think the JobKeeper program stands out as a beacon to that timeliness, that success and that precision in regard to the government's economic initiative. I think it's worth putting on the record the success of the JobKeeper program and to dispel some of the commentary that we've heard in and around this particular debate.
Let me begin by reinforcing the fact that any fair minded person, any fair minded senator, would understand and appreciate that the JobKeeper program has been a vital, and some might even argue the most vital, economic lifeline for many millions of Australians as they entered the pandemic—3.8 million Australians and around one million businesses were supported by the JobKeeper initiative. Small- and medium-sized businesses represented 98 per cent of all JobKeeper recipients. That's an important statistic for a party like ours, like the government, that prides itself on being quick to support small- and medium-sized businesses in our country, particularly when so many of them are family run and family owned.
I think it's also important to draw to people's attention that 90 per cent of JobKeeper recipients were microbusinesses with turnovers of under $2 million, eight per cent went to small- to medium-sized enterprises with a turnover of between $2 million and $250 million, and only 0.2 per cent went to large businesses—that is, with turnovers of greater than $250 million. According to the Reserve Bank of Australia, JobKeeper has saved at least 700,000 jobs in the period April to July 2020. Of course we reflect on lives lost, tragically as a result of the pandemic. As we watch it unfold not just in this country but internationally, I think it's important to recognise that the JobKeeper program saved 700,000 jobs and put the minds of many Australians and their families at ease.
It's also worth re-emphasising that Treasury's three-month review found that the program was 'well targeted'. I might just read, for the sake of the Senate and to put this into proper context, some of the contributions that we've heard in this debate thus far. The JobKeeper payment three-month review said—and you can see it for yourself at page 7:
the payment went to businesses that experienced an average decline in turnover in April of 37 per cent against the same month a year previous (compared with a 4 per cent decline for other businesses) ); and it went to businesses at which the job separation rate had doubled following the introduction of operating restrictions just before JobKeeper was introduced (compared with no change in other businesses).
Clearly it was a successful program. But it's worth emphasising again what the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia said. He said:
I think the JobKeeper program is really about keeping people in jobs, isn't it? It's done a remarkably good job at that.
So, as we move through the pandemic and as the government calibrates its economic and other responses, I think it's important that we don't revise the history in a way that seeks to unnecessarily distort what has been a necessary and effective response from this government in the early stages of the pandemic.
It's worth restating that Australia was the first advanced economy to return to pre-COVID employment and activity levels. Australia recorded an unemployment rate of just 4.6 per cent in July 2020, the lowest level in over a decade. Notwithstanding this success, Labor's Shadow Treasurer is obsessed with wanting to find fault and error with the JobKeeper program. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister 'have been sprung' sending JobKeeper money to 'dead people', the Shadow Treasurer said. These are 'humiliating revelations' about JobKeeper, Josh Frydenberg and Scott Morrison, Labor's shadow Treasurer said. Labor's shadow Treasurer said on 29 January 2021:
They are humiliating revelations because Morrison and Frydenberg have spent much of the last 10 years banging on about cheques for dead people during the global financial crisis, so they have a lot of explaining to do.
Labor's shadow Treasurer has been constantly refuted. On 30 January 2021, just a day after Mr Chalmers made those comments, the ATO released an official statement, which can be found on its website, to clarify what it called recent media commentary about incorrect JobKeeper payments. Let me share with the Senate what the ATO's statement said. First it said, 'The ATO is not aware of any ultimately successful claim for deceased or other fictitious employees.' Second the ATO media statement said, 'Where claims including fictitious employees are identified, no JobKeeper payments are or have been made.'
Where else can we look to find evidence that Mr Chalmers's comments are false? We can look at the Australian National Audit Office. The Australian National Audit Office reports get used very regularly in this place by Labor senators and other senators to try to undermine confidence in much of what the government is doing, so let's look at what the Australian National Audit Office said in regard to the JobKeeper program. The Australian National Audit Office report on the ATO's management of risks related to the rapid implementation of COVID-19 measures, which was released on 14 December 2020, found three important things.
Firstly it found, 'The ATO has been effective in managing risks related to the rapid implementation of COVID-19 economic response measures.' The Australian National Audit Office found that the ATO had managed 'fraud and other integrity risks on a progressive basis'. Finally, the Auditor-General did not find it necessary to make any further recommendations. That is good news for the management of the JobKeeper program and is a clear rebuttal of the comments Labor's shadow Treasurer made on 29 January this year in seeking to undermine public confidence in what has been a very important and very necessary economic measure—one that has been applauded in many other places around this country and internationally. Mr Chalmers, Labor senators and crossbench senators should have the decency to recognise that it came at a very significant time early in the pandemic and brought considerable relief—some 700,000 jobs were saved and, importantly, businesses were given a lifeline.
If time allows, I will refer to another point that has been made—and I think Senator O'Neill might have made this contribution; certainly crossbench senators made this contribution—in relation to multinational tax avoidance. If you listened only to the contributions of crossbench senators and Labor senators, you would think that the government was doing nothing in tackling multinational tax avoidance. Nothing could be further from the truth. Australia is a global leader in the international fight against corporate and multinational tax avoidance. Since 1 July 2016 till 30 April of this year the ATO has raised around $21.5 billion in tax liabilities against large public groups, multinational corporations, wealthy individuals and associated groups. Of this, around $13.5 billion in liabilities was raised from multinationals and large companies. The suggestion that often gets made in this place and outside it that the government is doing nothing to tackle multinational tax avoidance, that no multinationals pay tax in this country, is clearly untrue. This has thus far generated cash collections of around $12½ billion.
I could go on, but I think it's important, as we bring this debate to a conclusion, that senators in this place and people that are listening to the contributions understand that the JobKeeper program has been tremendously successful; it came at exactly the right time as an economic lifeline for our country. The suggestion that is often made in this place that the government is doing nothing to tackle multinational tax avoidance and is raising no taxes from multinationals is absolutely false.
I would first like to thank those senators who have contributed to this debate today and yesterday as well.
Schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, referred to as the 1997 tax law, to require a non-government entity seeking endorsement as a DGR to be a charity that's registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, or to be operated by a registered charity. Ancillary funds and specifically listed entities will be exempt from this requirement. The requirement to be a charity already applies to the majority of the general DGR categories in subdivision 30-B of the 1997 tax law. This measure will amend the special conditions applying to the remaining general DGR categories requiring non-government entities to maintain charity registration in order to retain their eligibility for DGR endorsement. These amendments include a 12-month transition period, which will provide non-charity DGRs with the time to meet the requirements for charity registration without losing their DGR status. Eligible DGRs may also have access to an additional three-year transition period. This measure will improve the consistency of regulation, governance and oversight of deductible gift recipients, in turn helping to support the continued confidence in the sector and, of course, public support for DGR entities.
Schedule 2 of this bill contains amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 that remove the preferential tax treatment provided for offshore banking units, commonly known as OBUs, and provide transitional arrangements for existing OBUs. In October 2018, the OECD's Forum on Harmful Tax Practices found that Australia's OBU regime contained some harmful features. As a result, the Treasurer announced, on 26 October 2018, that the government would seek to address those concerns of the OECD, and the OBU regime has been closed to new entrants since the Treasurer's announcement. Passing this bill will allow the OECD to confirm that Australia has amended the OBU regime to ensure that it is not what is known as a 'harmful tax practice'. This is consistent with the Morrison government's ongoing support for international tax integrity, and it will protect Australia from potential reputational damage and other possible consequences. Most importantly, this bill provides for two years of transitional arrangements to assist existing OBUs to transition away from the regime.
I note that there is a second reading amendment that has been tabled by the opposition. I should make it very clear that the government, of course, will be opposing the opposition's second reading amendment. That amendment has two components. One is essentially irrelevant: it refers to issues in the charity sector that are well outside the scope of this particular bill and is simply a pious amendment. The other element of that second reading amendment is simply about multinational tax measures, which I think my colleague and the whip described particularly well. The amendment suggests that the government has failed to curtail the use of tax havens and tax avoidance schemes by multinationals, but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, we are a global leader in the international fight against corporate and multinational tax avoidance, and, since July 2016, the ATO has in fact raised around $21.5 billion in tax liabilities against large public groups and multinational corporations.
Minister, it now being 12:15, the debate is interrupted, and you will be in continuation.
On Friday 20 August 2021, I had the honour of meeting with members of the Australian Afghan community in my home state of Queensland. On that occasion, I met a wonderful girl by the name of Nooria. This is a message from Nooria, who is 16 years old:
With all the respect I have for the generous government of Australia, I am writing this to ask for help. Help for my birth country, Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is where I was born and learned to be grateful for each of my breaths.
I have learned to never ask for more.
Today however, my country, my motherland is being taken by the cruel group of Taliban.
This is when I speak and ask for more – for more than what is given just to me.
Young children disappear in Afghanistan overnight, men lose their daughters and wives because now they are forcibly married to one of the Taliban.
Afghanistan was a country where freedom was defined in people’s smiles and their faces. Yet now, it has become a country where little children have nothing to say to the media but to cry.
My people in Afghanistan believe their tears are seen by other people, they still believe in hope.
This piece of land is a mother to all the people in Afghanistan. A small country with 37 million people living in it cannot and should not be given to cruel and unworthy groups like the Taliban.
When I first came to Australia in 2018 and until this day everything that the Australian government has done inspired me.
Today I want to see the Australian government inspire me one more time.
One more time, I want my words to be heard by Government and the people of Australia, as my words are the only way to ask for help.
I want freedom for my land, Afghanistan!
Those are the words of 16-year-old Nooria in my home state of Queensland. Nooria, your plea is now on the record of our nation's parliament.
In considering Nooria's plea, we should consider the special bond between Australia and Afghanistan. It is a special bond born of the sacrifice of the members of our Australian Defence Force who have served in Afghanistan, including the 41 who died, the hundreds who were wounded, their families and all of those who served who now carry the sacrifices that they made during that time. It is a special bond arising from the common values between Australia and the people of Afghanistan who fought the Taliban and worked for a better future for themselves and their people. Those values are listed on form 842, which I've become very familiar with over the course of the last two weeks—the application for an offshore humanitarian visa. Those Australian values are shared by those people in Afghanistan who were fighting for their freedom and for a better life for themselves and their families. They include respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual; freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of association; commitment to the rule of law; parliamentary democracy; equality of opportunity, including for girls and women; a 'fair go' for all that embraces mutual respect, tolerance, compassion for those in need and equality of opportunity for all. Those are the values Australia shares with the people in Afghanistan who've been fighting for freedom, and it's one of the reasons we have that special bond.
It is a special bond born from the vibrant Australian Afghan community, the diaspora, who have contributed so much to Australia, who are now part of our Australian story and who have carried themselves with such dignity and grace in the most difficult of circumstances. It is a special bond which is a deep bond, an irrevocable bond and an unbreakable bond. And that special bond leads to a deep moral obligation—a moral obligation to provide a safe haven for those, and for the families of those, who put their own safety at risk by serving alongside our ADF and by working with representatives of our civic society to help build a democratic civic society in Afghanistan; and a moral obligation to work with the Australian Afghani diaspora, as we have all been doing over the past few weeks, to provide a home for those Afghanis who have a connection with Australia through family, education or community or through fighting for our common values.
All of us—all of us—would have experienced communication and discussions with people who share those values, whether they are women journalists who were part of creating opportunity not only for themselves but also for women and young girls in Afghanistan; whether they are political leaders, some of whom who had received asylum in Australia in the early 2000s, had gone back to Afghanistan and become part of civic society in Afghanistan in the modern day, and are now seeking refuge again; or whether they are Afghanis who were educated in Australia—received higher education and opportunities through Australia—and returned to their home country and who are now suffering persecution. We have a moral obligation to work with the Australian Afghani diaspora, as we have been doing and as we are currently doing at Kabul international airport, to provide safety for those people. And we have a moral obligation to do whatever else we can to help the people of Afghanistan through urgent humanitarian assistance, including assistance needed as a result of drought, for the upcoming winter or for emergency housing for those who have been displaced by the violence which has occurred in Afghanistan.
I salute our ADF personnel, the personnel at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the personnel at the Department of Home Affairs—all those people, part of our Australian community, who in many cases are putting their own lives at risk in Afghanistan today at Kabul international airport to help people in need. I salute every single one of them and their families and I salute all of those who have served either through the ADF or through other community or government organisations in Afghanistan. I salute every single one of them, because in discharging their duties they're not just doing what they need to do to discharge their duty; they are also discharging our moral obligation, a moral obligation which arises from Australia's special bond with Afghanistan and its people.
[by video link] I am very pleased today to be joining the Senate from Far North Queensland. I'm keen to talk to you today about National Skills Week. We know that it is National Skills Week this week. The government has cut funding to TAFE and training over the last eight years, which has led to a desperate situation where we have a skills crisis in North Queensland, which is putting our recovery at risk.
Before that though, I want to talk briefly about Senator Cash's self-congratulatory comments yesterday in question time. Yesterday Senator Cash took a dixer on notice about National Skills Week and she responded with what were supposedly the wonderful things that the Morrison government has been doing for our vocational education system. It is very interesting to hear the author of the PaTH program talk so glowingly about what they've done. But the truth is that what she failed to mention is the systematic and ongoing massive cuts to training during the last eight years of this government. It must have been slightly confusing for Senator Cash to be talking about the decent skills training in this country, because the first two minutes of her answer yesterday were directly ripped off from the front page of the National Skills Week website. I'm not joking. You can go and check Hansard and then compare that to the nationalskillsweek.com.au website, where you'll find the first half of Senator Cash's response right there on the front page.
The reason I raise this is that it shows how serious the Morrison government are when it comes to investing in skills and understanding the skills crisis. The fact is they're not serious at all. They don't think about it. They copy and paste. They think TAFE is for basket weaving. They would rather exploit overseas workers than invest in local jobs. Cutting government services rather than investing in working Australians, and then having to write speeches about them as if you support them, must be a fairly familiar feeling, but investing in skills and training has to be so important to the foundation of our strong and vibrant economy. Why then has the Morrison government spent the last eight years destroying what once was one of the greatest training and skills programs in the world, our TAFE education system? Let's not forget that before the pandemic the federal LNP, right across Australia, cut $3 million from traineeship, apprentices and TAFE.
In regional Queensland we are suffering from a massive skills shortage thanks to eight long years of funding cuts by the LNP. Everywhere I go, every business I speak to has the same complaint. They want and need good skilled workers, but the government isn't delivering skilled workers fast enough or in the right professions. I've travelled throughout regional Queensland. I've spent some time in other electorates and in other states as part of Labor's postpandemic recovery jobs task force, and I hear the same story over and over again. The government will deny that it is the case, and they'll talk about some of the programs that they have funded, but what we know when we look at the results of those programs is that they don't deliver. The Morrison government's own data shows this terrible decline in skills. Data from the Department of Education, Skills and Employment has revealed that, on the LNP's watch—in the nearly eight years they have been in government—from 2013 to September 2020 they have overseen a fall by 33 per cent in the number of trainee apprentices in North Queensland. We have lost a third of apprentices and trainees in North Queensland under the LNP. In Far North Queensland that means that we've got 1,000 fewer training opportunities for locals. In Townsville it equates to 1,259 trainees and apprentices. In Mackay and the Whitsundays region it means we have lost 1,470 local opportunities. And in Capricornia, covered by the Central Queensland areas of Rockhampton and out to Maryborough, we know that we have lost a whopping 1,523 apprentices and trainees under the Liberal-National government.
I need to remind you that in May 2020, when we were facing this pandemic but looking at what we would need to recover, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said that he saw skills as the key to Australia's economic recovery, which is an extraordinary statement from a Prime Minister who has been the Treasurer and the Prime Minister of a party that has cut skills and has watched a 33 per cent decline in North Queensland. This is a region that supported Scott Morrison at the last election, but when they need him, he goes missing. No wonder local businesses are facing a skills crisis now.
It needs to be said that there is no-one who considers that we wouldn't need some sort of skills migration program in the future. Of course those opportunities should be there. But we need to understand why the federal government, the Morrison government, under Scott Morrison's leadership, would choose to introduce programs like the designated area migration agreement to a place like Cairns, which has a skills shortage, but not to invest further in TAFE and apprenticeship training schemes. We've got local people here who want to work and get the right skills, and they want to get those skills in the industries of the future, but unfortunately, under this Prime Minister we've got businesses that are desperate for skills and workers who are desperate for jobs. We know that businesses across North Queensland are desperate for skills right now. It's time that the Morrison government started investing properly in vocational training or handed over to someone who will.
We also know that this pandemic has exacerbated the skills crisis. But it's not a new phenomenon; this was happening before COVID. COVID has made it worse. What we need to understand is what the plan will be. We know that the government hasn't got a plan to recover in our regions, not a plan that includes skilled workers from our local areas. It concerns me that we are now also looking at losing skilled workers in places like Cairns because the federal government is failing to deliver any type of income or wage support to areas that are locked out but not locked down. The big issue that we saw last year was the risk of losing skilled people in industries like tourism and hospitality in an area that can barely afford to lose any skilled workers at all. We need a wage subsidy scheme in Far North Queensland right now so that we can keep the skilled workers that we have. Senator Cash stood up in question time yesterday and talked about National Skills Week, but we are losing skilled workers right now in Far North Queensland. If the government wants to help skilled workers and if the government wants to make sure that we've got the skills we need when we want to recover, then the very first thing they should be doing this week—during National Skills Week—is delivering a national wage subsidy scheme for places like Far North Queensland, which are locked out but not locked down.
When it comes to delivering the recovery that we know we need in the regions, we need a very big plan, and skills have to be at the centre of it. Federal Labor has a plan to deliver this. We've talked about bringing manufacturing back home to regional Queensland. We have talked about the fact that we will, through the national reconstruction scheme, make sure that we deliver $15 billion of funding to manufacturing. A really big part of that is skilling our young kids so that they have a career and a future in manufacturing for the rest of their lives and that they can live and work in regional Queensland without needing to leave.
We know that we've got a plan to deliver manufacturing skills for regional Queensland that will transform and recover our regions so that we're not dependent on one single industry. More industries and more jobs—that's what the Labor Party is going to do after the next election. I want to make sure that every kid who wants to get a job or go to TAFE in Far North Queensland, Townsville or Central Queensland has the opportunity. I am worried that, if the Morrison government gets its way at the next election, we will lose another generation of young, skilled people who want to work in industries like manufacturing but will never get the opportunity.
I rise today to make some comments in relation to an issue that is very important for the people of South Australia. That is, of course, the issue of climate change and the devastating impact that our changing climate is having on our community, our environment, our agriculture and our water supply.
When you look around the world and take into consideration the huge impact that climate change is having on extreme weather right now, it is just enormous. We've seen flash flooding in places like Germany and Belgium in the last month, with over 220 deaths, 700 injuries and widespread damage to infrastructure. We've seen flooding in China, resulting in more rain in two days than in an entire year in some regions. We've seen flooding in India that has created a huge number of deaths and massive damage to infrastructure. We've seen landslides. Then, of course, you only need to go to the United States to see the huge climate fires that have devastated those communities in recent weeks and months. There are the heatwaves, the wildfires, the death and destruction and the fear of this extreme weather. Of course, we know the world's best scientists have delivered a damning warning to leaders, governments and nations right across the globe that, unless we do more to drastically cut carbon pollution in the next decade, we are only going to see more of these devastating weather events and extreme activities.
In South Australia, of course, we live at the bottom end of the Murray-Darling Basin, at the end of the River Murray, and if we don't get climate change in check, if we don't start to reduce carbon pollution, if drought takes hold, we simply won't have access to the clean water supply that we are used to. In fact, it won't just be devastating for South Australia; it is going to be devastating for everyone who lives throughout the Murray-Darling Basin and everybody else who relies on the Murray-Darling Basin as our nation's food bowl. It is going to have a huge impact on our agricultural industries. What have we got in relation to solutions from this government when faced with these facts, these warnings from the science? We have a Prime Minister who is steadfast in his refusal to step up Australia's commitments to reducing carbon pollution and to address the dangerous warning signs that scientists have given us in relation to stopping the expansion of fossil fuels and moving to clean, green renewable energy and energy production.
Australia isn't just under pressure from the weather itself and from the people here in the Australian community. On the global stage, we're now seeing other leaders stand up and call out Prime Minister Morrison's lazy response to climate change. We're seeing big pressure come from some of our closest allies, the United States and the United Kingdom. The US President's envoy on climate change has called out Australia for not having a sufficient target and for not doing enough to address carbon pollution, calling on Australia to do better and to come to the global conference at the end of the year in Glasgow with a decent commitment to reducing carbon pollution and to addressing climate change.
Mr Morrison himself was on the phone to Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister of the UK, over the weekend. What did Mr Johnson say to the Prime Minister? He said, 'You better be prepared to come with a better plan to Glasgow at the end of the year,' wanting to make sure that Australia put on the table a decent commitment to reducing pollution and reaching net zero carbon, at least at some point. This Prime Minister has been absolutely stubborn, refusing to put in place a commitment to net zero. Some of our best and closest trading partners, Japan, South Korea and even China, have put in targets for net zero well before Australia has even bothered to put anything on the table. Australia's going to go to this conference and it's going to be under huge pressure. If we don't step up our commitment, if we don't step up our ambition and if we don't put in place a proper plan to reduce pollution, we won't just be the laughing stock of the world; we'll be condemning our own communities and our own industries to the dust bowl.
We've got Australian producers who are now facing the impacts of tariffs because other countries are putting in place carbon adjustment mechanisms, which means that if Australia isn't going to price carbon they'll do it for us. What is the Prime Minister's response to Australian producers who are going to be faced with these tariffs simply because the government didn't do enough? What is the excuse from the Prime Minister in relation to these issues? Why is he being so stubborn? Is it because he doesn't accept the science? Is it because he can't take on the lunatics on his backbench, the tinfoil hat brigade? Or is it simply because he doesn't actually care, because he thinks it's somewhere way beyond, out in the never-never?
We're running out of time. It's crystal clear that this decade to come is the decade we have to use to take action. If we don't reduce carbon pollution and don't transition away and out of coal, oil and gas—those dirty fossil fuel energy sources—we are not going to be able to arrest climate change, and the worst fears of extreme weather and temperature rise will be impossible to reverse. We're here for another couple of days and this parliament's going to be sitting next week. It's time for the Prime Minister to be upfront and honest with the Australian people as to what he will do when he goes to Glasgow at the end of the year. So I ask the Prime Minister: will he continue to make Australia a pariah on the global stage, condemning our producers, our communities and our environment here in Australia to the dust bowl, or will he stand up for proper climate action not just in his own party room but around the rest of the world?
There's an election not too far away. It'll be sometime in the next six months. The Australian people are seeing through this antiscience, anticlimate, antiplanet Prime Minister and his government. Those in South Australia who care deeply about protecting the environment and our clean, green industries and want to provide a future for our kids which guarantees clean water, a living Murray and clean air can't vote for the Morrison government. The only people you can honestly trust at this next election to take on the big polluters, the companies who make a lot of profit out of polluting and the antiscience, antiplanet agenda of the Morrison government are, of course, the Greens, because we will never bow to the pressure of the coal lobby, the gas lobby or the oil lobby. We will always stand by what the science says and stand up for what the planet needs.
So, as people get ready for the election and think about what they want for the future of their communities and the future of their kids, they must make sure they send a strong green voice to Canberra to stand up for them, for the future of their children and for the protection of their environment—our environment. Protect our planet, because you can't trust the Morrison government or the cronies who continue to take donations from the coal, oil and gas lobby. They have no interest in protecting the environment or your kids' future or in making sure we have clean air and clean water in the years to come.
Last week my home state of Victoria hit a tragic milestone. For over 200 days the doors of businesses have been shut and Victorians have been confined to their homes. On top of this, the restrictions that dwell long after the lockdowns are finished have had devastating impacts on many, many industries and businesses. These devastating impacts on the social, emotional and financial state of Victorians are effects we cannot ignore. Businesses are struggling. People are struggling. Doctors are having to put young girls on antidepressants in record numbers. What Victorian businesses are going through is a never-ending night with little hope of reaching the day. Businesses in Victoria need to see a light. They need proper support from their state government. What is currently being offered by the state government in Victoria is simply not enough. At the moment, the current lockdown is to be extended to 2 September, making a total of 214 days during which Victoria will have been in lockdown, and we have no doubt that it will be extended from there.
What has occurred in New South Wales has shown us that the delta variant is much harder to control and that these lockdowns may extend for much longer than we may hope. Make no mistake; businesses are closing. Every day I hear of family businesses that are in trouble. The hopes and dreams of thousands of hardworking Victorians are being crushed before our eyes. Years of hard work, sacrifice and dedication to build a viable and sustainable business are slipping through the tips of their fingers through no fault of their own. We must stand with them.
Yesterday, I spoke with Rick Jamieson, who runs Australia's biggest event company, Harry the hirer. That company is an icon in Victoria. The events industry in Victoria, and probably in Australia, wouldn't exist—it couldn't exist—without that company. Lockdowns have taken away the jobs of a thousand people who work for Rick. He has been using his own savings to keep the company going. Without the grand final, the Caulfield Cup or the Spring Racing Carnival, Rick says he may have to close his doors forever. He is doing everything in his power not to. The IP and the knowledge that he has within that corporation is what fundamentally underpins the events industry in Victoria. Just so we're clear, if Harry the hirer closed its doors, so would the whole of the Victorian events industry. I would ask the events minister, Martin Pakula, whether he knows or cares about what that means for our great state. That is not just no events this year; this means no more events for years to come. Events, I think every Victorian would agree, are the colourful fabric of Victorian life and this would be truly devastating.
Times like this call for all levels of government to step up and support the people when they need it. We, the Morrison government, have supported Victoria more than any other state on a per capita basis. Since the pandemic began, the Morrison government has supported Victorian individuals and households with over $45 billion of direct support. However, the Commonwealth government cannot do this on our own. So I call on the Victorian Labor government. Now is the time that they need to step up. Now is the time that they need to support businesses when they need them the most.
Unfortunately, this is not something we are seeing. We are not seeing the Victorian government step up. This is not good enough. When New South Wales went into lockdown, the state government quickly came to the Morrison government to implement the JobSaver program, which is funded in a fifty-fifty split by the Commonwealth and state governments. Importantly, this program is providing an adequate level of support for more than 400,000 businesses and over 3.3 million workers. In comparison, the Victorian government scheme is complicated and businesses are only eligible to apply for a non-ongoing, one-off grant which provides an inadequate level of support. Yes, it has been given more than once, but business don't know when it is going to come and if they're going to get it or not. Surely in the amount of time that the Victorian government has placed its population in lockdown they would have figured out the level of support that businesses need? Surely with all their experience as the lockdown leaders of Australia they would have some understanding of the pain that many businesses are feeling? When businesses are hurting most, the last thing they need is uncertainty on whether or not they will continue to receive the support they require just simply to survive.
Recently, I spoke to a local business owner from Frankston who has been forced to sell one of his factories and scrap half of his machinery and equipment and has even had to refinance his family home to pay for business costs and staff wages. Despite all of this, they were recently rejected from receiving payment from the Victorian government's Business Costs Assistance Program. This is just another example of good, hardworking Victorian business being let down by the Andrews government. This lack of support is truly heartbreaking. With Premier Andrews's inability to clearly commit to ending lockdowns once high vaccination rates have been achieved, I truly don't know how businesses are supposed to look out and see a future in the state of Victoria.
Premier Andrews has never worked anywhere but Spring Street or for the Labor Party. He wouldn't know a business if he tripped over one. How could he? He's never experienced it. Those opposite me here today who cruised in here on the back of working for unions have at least had to sit opposite a business and have at least had to see a business up close, even if they've never run one or even worked in one. Listening to the stories is heartbreaking. I would encourage Premier Andrews to speak to some of these people so he can understand the pain they are going through. Maybe, just maybe, it might convince him to come to the table.
As the support provided to New South Wales businesses shows, the Morrison government is ready and willing to work with state governments to provide business with the support they need. We want to see businesses come out of this with more than their heads barely above water. The Victorian government must step up before it's too late. We are waiting and the people are waiting. Time, however, is not on our side. The future of our society cannot be predicted on an uncertain future and with success or failure held in the hands of a few state premiers whose vision does not extend beyond a closed society. Yes, we must vaccinate—and I encourage everyone to go and get their jab—and we must open up. We can no longer live in fear of a virus which has already done so much harm. Once we have achieved the level of vaccination already agreed upon by states and territories, we must begin to open up so that businesses can begin to operate and individuals can once again enjoy the freedoms they so long for.
So, please, Premier Andrews, don't give up on our events industry. Let the fully vaccinated go to live events like the Granny. We did in 1919, when the Spanish flu pandemic was running through Australia. My great side, the Collingwood Football Club, won the premiership in 1919. Why, when we didn't have vaccinations against the Spanish flu, aren't we letting Victorians go to the grand final this year? Why are you, again, giving an event away to another state? The Melbourne Cup was run in 1919—I can't remember the horse that won that year. But we have done this before; we let people go to the Melbourne Cup in 1919, in the middle of the Spanish flu pandemic. We need to open up our events, we need to open up Victoria, we need to let people live their lives and we need to support more business. Mr Andrews, the rest is up to you.
[by video link] What we've just seen from Senator Van is an example of the hyperpartisanship and ideological undermining of state governments by coalition senators that has done so much to undermine the role of the states in dealing with this emergency. The truth is that people went to events in 1919, while the Spanish flu raged around the country, because there was no vaccine. We have the prospect of a vaccination program that would mean that the economy could open up and that Australians could return to normal, and the only thing standing in the way of that has been the failure of this Prime Minister to deliver vaccine supply to Australia.
The coronavirus outbreak in New South Wales, and, in particular, in regional New South Wales, is a national emergency. It's an emergency composed of many smaller emergencies, and one of those is occurring in the beautiful township of Wilcannia. It's a place where the Paakantyi people lived long before Europeans arrived. Once our third-largest inland port, it's now a place where the gap between outcomes for us in the city and those for Indigenous Australians has never been more stark. The life expectancy in Wilcannia before the pandemic arrived was just 40—just 40. When I last travelled there, the Darling River—the Baaka, in the local language—was dry. The people who'd lived by the river for thousands of years were having to bring bottled water in from Broken Hill.
There are now 43 COVID cases in Wilcannia, spreading through overcrowded houses among an unvaccinated and vulnerable population. Slow testing times and limitations on health services mean that the spread of the virus is much more likely to be larger than current statistics show. There are now over 350 active cases in western New South Wales, overwhelmingly among our First Australians. The majority of those are in Dubbo, but there are positive cases in Bourke, Walgett, Narromine, Parkes, Broken Hill, Brewarrina, Gilgandra and Wellington. Many of these cases are occurring in communities where the only health services that are available are from the Royal Flying Doctor Service, and it is hours and hours by ambulance to the nearest ICU facilities. Walgett hospital has four beds, none of them ICU.
As of Monday, there were 109 active cases amongst First Nations people in Sydney, and there are cases in the Indigenous community on the Mid North Coast, in Kempsey and Nambucca. We have always known that Indigenous Australians are more vulnerable to this virus. The government's emergency response plan for the coronavirus says:
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are at a higher risk from morbidity and mortality during a pandemic and for more rapid spread of disease, particularly within discrete communities.
But we have failed to address the social determinants of health for these communities: overcrowding, poor housing and a lack of adequate access to clean water. These failings matter, and no more so than when facing a deadly pandemic. It's why protecting Indigenous Australians from coronavirus was a priority from the start of the pandemic. Yet in every state except Victoria there are lower rates of vaccination for Indigenous Australians, with just 12.1 per cent of First Nations people in New South Wales being fully vaccinated. In western New South Wales the difference is even more stark. In the far west and Orana district 13.4 per cent of Australians are vaccinated, but among Indigenous people it's just over eight per cent and in some communities it's two per cent. Six months into the vaccine rollout and the Morrison-Joyce government has forgotten to vaccinate its most vulnerable communities. They are playing catch-up now.
I want to acknowledge the efforts of the local leaders, the Aboriginal community controlled health organisations and the local health service in western New South Wales that are doing their best to deliver a surge in vaccinations. But it's not what the government promised Indigenous Australians. On 14 February a joint media release from then ministers McCormack and Coulton said:
Every person living in regional, rural, and remote Australia can rest assured they will have access to safe, effective COVID-19 vaccines at the same time as their city cousins.
What smug complacency. Mr Coulton's electorate covers the Orana far west health district, which has one of the lowest vaccination rates in the country and 300 positive cases. On 8 March a joint media release from ministers Hunt and Wyatt said:
A comprehensive vaccine implementation plan … has been developed in consultation with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health sector …
And yet months later here we are. Where did we go wrong? Who should be held accountable for this abject failure? Who is responsible? A table outlining the responsibilities of the federal government says very clearly on pages 5 and 6 of the COVID-19 vaccination implementation plan for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people that the federal government will:
Failure.
Failed.
Failed.
There's no evidence of that whatsoever. The Morrison-Joyce government has failed either partly or completely on each of those criteria. They were the federal government's responsibilities to Aboriginal people, clearly outlined in their own implementation plan. They promised, they failed and now First Nations people are filling the Dubbo hospital.
At the same time the outbreak occurred, the Morrison-Joyce government was congratulating itself for protecting First Nations people from COVID-19. At the Closing the Gap press conference on 5 August the Prime Minister said:
… one of our greatest concerns, if not our greatest concern at the outset of this pandemic, was the potential harm it would do in Indigenous communities. And, to date, we have been successful in preventing that harm in Indigenous communities.
Those are just words from this Prime Minister: words that have no relationship to facts, words that have no relationship to what the government has or hasn't done. It's regional Australians who are paying the price and it's Aboriginal Australians who are paying the price because the Morrison-Joyce government forgets about towns like Walgett. They forget about west Dubbo. They forgot about Wilcannia in the cruel way that places like Wilcannia are always forgotten by people in the Morrison-Joyce government.
A friend of mine in Dubbo has a daughter who's tested COVID positive. She's a single mum with toddlers, and one of the little ones is also COVID positive. He said to me this morning, 'This is such a strange time,' as his voice was breaking. He can't provide support to that mother and her kids. He's terrified about what's going to happen to them, and this failure of the government to provide vaccines in western New South Wales has real human consequences for people in the bush in New South Wales.
It is likely that in western New South Wales there will be terrible days and weeks ahead of us. There are things that should be resolved now. Some of these towns now have no access to fresh food because they can't access the shops. They are in big households; if somebody is infected, the whole household is quarantined. They have no access to fresh food and supplies. There are mums who can't access nappies, baby wipes, bottles or formula. Where is the federal government on these issues? Many of these communities are so far away from the hospital services that are required that they are relying upon the hardworking Royal Flying Doctor Service in the event of an emergency.
I say to the Morrison-Joyce government: if, according to the Doherty plan and the national cabinet modelling that's been provided, we are going to open up when the 70 to 80 per cent level is achieved in the cities, let's make sure we've got adequate protection for our bush communities as well, particularly our First Nations communities.
[by video link] Earlier this month in my flag speech I spoke of parliament's duty to serve the people. Today I'm asking: who does this parliament really serve? I'll review the Morrison government's actions and this parliament's actions that carry the stench of cronyism and corruption.
I'll start with changes to water policy that Malcolm Turnbull and John Howard introduced in 2007. Those changes turned ownership and the trading of water rights into a $20 billion industry. Large corporate interests, trade union bosses controlling industry super funds and National Party powerbrokers have rushed to take advantage of this new wealth. And by taking advantage, I really mean make out like bandits at the expense of family farms that can no longer afford water for their crops. I'm raising this issue first up because it illustrates how things are done in federal parliament.
The Water Act requires a transparent water-trading register. The government tried to introduce one in 2012, stuffed it up and then gave up. I thought asking the government to take another run at it—to reveal who was lining their pockets with the proceeds of water speculation—would be straightforward. How naive was that! My amendment was opposed. The same parties, the Liberals and Nationals, that passed the legislation in the first place requiring a water-trading register, opposed my amendment that sought to ensure compliance with the parliament's legislation. The Senate, with Labor's support, passed my amendment. It proceeded to the lower house, where Labor rejected it. What happened in the 100 metres between the Senate and the House of Representatives? The fix happened—the fix to protect corporate water traders. Labor agreed to cover for its Liberal and Nationals mates and they returned the favour. That's how this parliament works. Cronyism is an art form.
The same pattern of immoral behaviour occurred with the legislation One Nation introduced to stop banks bailing-in depositors' funds to save banks in a crisis, stealing customers' hard earned deposits. In 2018, parliament passed legislation to allow a bail-in as part of emergency financial measures. The Labor, Liberal, and National parties teamed up to oppose my bill and justified that action with a complete lie: that the emergency provisions did not give APRA the power to order a bail-in. My legislation to protect the one trillion dollars in bank deposits of everyday Australians was defeated, despite the Treasury admitting, in a briefing to my face, that those emergency provisions do allow a bail-in. The Liberal-National and Labor duopoly lied so their donors in the major banks can keep the right to steal your money to save themselves.
The same cronyism was in place over the Christine Holgate watch scandal at Australia Post. As we now know, those watches were given to management as a reward for completing a very profitable deal for Australia Post. Australia Post executives accepted the watches and agreed to forgo much larger bonuses. Why would the Prime Minister and the parliament misrepresent a measure that saved Australia Post money? It's because Christine Holgate had negotiated a fee with the banks of $20 million a year for the provision of banking services through licensed post offices, but the banks wanted a bigger share of those profits. Christine Holgate made the mistake of costing the big four banks money, and an example had to be made of her. What a show Scott Morrison put on! After Ms Holgate was sacked, and Australia Post was placed back into the hands of friendlies, the deal was renegotiated. The banks are now only paying half that, $10 million per year, and 4,000 licensed post office franchisees got screwed. How much did it cost the banks to get the outcome they wanted from this parliament?
In the last election cycle Australian banks donated $500,000 to the Liberal and National parties and $400,000 to the Labor Party.
There's more. The Australian people can see that cronyism extends to pharmaceuticals. Most people don't know who funds the body that approves pharmaceuticals in Australia—the Therapeutic Goods Administration, known as the TGA. The big pharmaceutical companies applying for approvals themselves fund the TGA. The expert committees that advise the TGA on what to approve are comprised largely of university academics, whose departments receive funding from pharmaceutical companies. That doesn't pass the pub test, nor does this. In the last election cycle the pharmaceutical industry donated $276,000 to Labor and $400,000 to the Liberals and Nationals.
Earlier this year One Nation combined with the Greens to extend the licences of community TV stations C31 in Melbourne and Channel 44 in Adelaide, after Malcolm Turnbull in 2012 confiscated those free-to-air transmission rights to force viewers back to commercial TV owned by his mates. C31 and Channel 44 survived on the back of large public campaigns. Why was it so hard to get an extension for community TV to use a spectrum that's not needed until 2024? Could it be because the commercial stations, through Free TV Australia, donated $17,000 to Labor and $13,000 to the Liberals? That, of course, is the problem.
Yesterday in the Senate the Liberals-Nationals and Labor duopoly teamed up to stop the measures that One Nation and Senator Rex Patrick jointly proposed to make Woodside Petroleum pay for the $2 billion cost of cleaning up their environmental damage in the Timor Sea. Woodside easily evaded its responsibilities to the people of Australia. It simply sold the little bit of extraction left in the gas field, including its clean-up liability, to a small company for a few million dollars. That company was then wound up. Taxpayers are now on the hook for the clean-up. One Nation's amendment would have restored the liability on Woodside. The crossbench supported that. Labor and the Liberals and Nationals opposed it. Then I discovered that Woodside donated $135,000 to Labor and $148,000 to the Liberals and Nationals. What a surprise!
Then there's the Beetaloo basin. It's in the news this week because the government passed legislation to allow cash payments to its mining mates to frack the Beetaloo basin. Guess who funds the cost of the exploration—some $7 million per well? Taxpayers via a grant, yet the gas extraction company owns the well and keeps the profits from the extraction. This little earner is called socialising the risk and the costs while privatising the profits. The first recipient of this cronyism was Empire Energy, a Liberal Party donor. But you didn't hear this from the opposition, because Empire Energy donated $25,000 to the Labor Party. In echoing Senator Hanson's repeated calls, Senator Patrick rightly pointed out that the oil and gas industry exported $62 billion in 2018-19 and paid taxpayers just $1 billion in royalties. The taxpayers are getting royally screwed by this crony capitalist approach to government.
One Nation support free enterprise; we do not support cronyism. Earlier this year One Nation introduced a motion to refer to a Senate inquiry the misuse of federal government disaster relief funds. Millions, possibly billions, of dollars are being misappropriated, with no suitable work being conducted. The Liberals-Nationals and Labor duopoly rode to the rescue of their mates and voted down our motion—no inquiry.
The car park scandal has seen the Morrison government give $420 million of taxpayer money for commuter car parks in areas that don't need commuter car parks, including three in the Treasurer's electorate and one for a train station that's closing. I assume that even this government is not stupid enough to build a car park at a train station that is not there anymore, so I wait to see which of the government's mates just got free car parks.
The sports rorts scandal, the Inland Rail infrastructure grants, the Kimba radioactive waste dump, the Murray-Darling Basin's upwater program and 'watergate' are all corruption scandals that a federal corruption commission, if we had one, would have dealt with. Parliament rubberstamps decisions and policies, costing the people trillions of dollars so mates can feed off taxpayers, bludge off taxpayers and transfer wealth from taxpayers. The people are rightly angry. Decisions taken in the parliament must not only be honest, they must be seen to be honest and be justified with hard, solid data.
Australian voters will shortly be asked to pass judgement on this sorry parliament. Make no mistake, voting for the Liberal Party with their sellout sidekicks, the Nationals, or voting for Labor and their ticket to power, the Greens, will represent business as usual for the Liberal-Labor duopoly that has ruled this parliament for decades. It's now time, at the next election, to break this cycle of abuse. Stop repeatedly alternating Liberal-Nationals with Labor and expecting anything to change. It's now time to change the parliament.
There are many third parties putting their hands up in this election, and none have a track record of achievement greater than One Nation. I'm very proud of the contribution Senator Hanson, Mark Latham, Steve Andrew, Rob Roberts and I have made and are making to restore governance to Australia. Despite the Liberal, Labor and Nationals parties' many dishonest attempts to destroy her, for 25 years Senator Pauline Hanson and One Nation have remained true to the Australian people, and we will continue to be so.
In conclusion, I make an observation regarding the perspex security screen that now protects the Leader of the Government in the Senate from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and vice versa. This screen sends a powerful message to the Australian people: the Senate chamber now resembles a visitation centre at one of Her Majesty's prisons. How very appropriate! This is not a parliament; it's a crime scene.
I rise in the Senate this afternoon to make some remarks about small business. When Robert Menzies established the Liberal Party some 76 years ago, Menzies thought very carefully about the sorts of people that the Liberal Party would be wanting to represent in the future. He talked at length about the concept of the forgotten people, and the forgotten people were the small-business people, skilled artisans and the like. I think one of the real risks we run as we endure this economic and health shock is that the people that are going to be most affected are those people, those forgotten people—people who work in small business, people who don't work for the government, people who don't work for big business.
Perhaps the most important thing you can do as a representative in a democracy is to be engaged with the people. I have done my best over these past few months, as my state has been locked down, to listen carefully to people who are working in wholly different small-business sectors. I've listened carefully, and I want to do my best over these next few months to represent your interests.
One of the common features of many of the affected small businesses is that they are sitting on top of ancient regulatory frameworks in the industrial relations space and in the skills and training space, and often they are held back by, again, quite ancient and arcane migration laws and arrangements. And all the legal complexities which Canberra and the states have put in place over the decades really have made the impact of the lockdowns much worse. I want to step through a few of these sectors.
The first one is the fitness sector. People would think of that as their local gym, perhaps. They might think of it as a personal trainer. They might think of it as some outdoor activity. Before the pandemic, around 140,000 people were employed in this sector, according to the industry, and some 80,000 jobs have been shed. Personal training is available in some states. It is available in New South Wales if it is on a one-on-one basis, but that does not and cannot be seen as a way of replacing the day-to-day business the normal gym would be able to receive through memberships and through casual visits. I've spoken to gym owners. I understand it takes years and years to build up a good local business through marketing and through word of mouth and engagement with the community wherever the gym is. I'm very aware that gyms were the first to close and they'll be the last to reopen.
One of the lessons we should be taking from this pandemic is that health is good. Health and fitness is a good thing. We should be looking to incentivise people to get engaged with their health as best they can. One very regrettable campaign that is being run by the Lord Mayor of Sydney at the moment is to close down the Moore Park golf course. They want to cut it in half and destroy it. It's been there for more than 100 years, and it's a very important institution that is available to all people across the social spectrum. Moore Park public course is available to anyone, and I encourage people to go there. You will see that there are a broad range of people visiting it, learning how to play golf and being active. It is a public golf course. Frankly, we can't all be silvertails. The collapse of these public golf courses will mean golf becomes something that is out of reach for the average worker, who can't afford to purchase a $50,000 membership to go and play at Royal Sydney.
I use this opportunity to remind people in New South Wales that the Lord Mayor of Sydney's plan to collapse public golf is not in the interests of the community; it's certainly not in the interests of peoples' health. What we need to do after the lockdowns are ended is look at ways to incentivise people to go to the gym, to get fit. It's a good idea and we should be doing more of it and have a very open mind to supporting the fitness industry. Hairdressers and barbers are equally affected. They can't open. They can't earn any revenue, because they're in the personal care sector. Beauticians are in the same boat.
As I mentioned at the start of my contribution, the lockdowns come on top of very complicated labour law arrangements and very complicated migration arrangements. In terms of barbers and hairdressers, these are some of the hardest skills to fill, particularly in metropolitan areas, where trying to get a barber is virtually impossible. Many of these small businesses will spend $5,000 or 10,000 to bring someone out, often from Europe. Some of the current arrangements barbers and hairdressers are facing are very troubling. They are looking at losing these skills, because they're on the deletion list. I think we should be looking to ensure that people who are running these shops, who have put their savings on the line, should be able to attract and keep the skills they need to run their businesses, especially after the pandemic. Having provided a lifeline to some of the businesses to keep them going on the smell of an oily rag, the last thing we want to see is that, when they emerge from the lockdown, all their staff disappear. We have to be very, very open to making further changes to support barbers and hairdressers.
Travel agents, as people would know, have been heavily affected—basically 18 months in limbo. Many people have left this sector because it's not seen as an attractive place to work because of the uncertainty. I've spoken to travel agents around Sydney who say they don't even think they would be able to secure a tenancy in Sydney—because why would a person who owns a retail shop want to let it out to a travel agent given the uncertainty that this sector has faced? One of the most concerning factors that I think is facing any industry is the prospect of having negative revenue. We are 18 months into the pandemic, and travel agents haven't been able to earn any new revenue. All they're doing is processing refunds. According to the industry, they are processing $4 billion worth of refunds. So we need to have a very open mind to providing more financial support to this sector at the end of the lockdowns.
The broader travel industry, which already has some financial support, is suffering under the very low caps for entry into Australia. A whole lot of humanitarian reasons that are happening right now determine the use of some of those caps but we really need to be getting those caps up to a much higher level. I think we should be getting very close to setting some dates alongside the national plan because these sectors have put up with enough rot—and that's why it's important that the state premiers do the right thing and stick by the national plan.
Finally, many hospitality businesses are down by 95 per cent. Many businesses cannot transition to 'come and get a coffee while you're out on your walk with your mask'. They can't do that. So they haven't been able to open and they haven't been able to employ their staff. Some of these matters will be up to the states. If there is going to be a 'four square metres rule', which is effectively unviable for many restaurants and cafes, they won't reopen and they won't be back; the risks are too great. So as we get closer towards the fourth phase of this plan we need to provide some incentives, perhaps through the states, to ensure that when these businesses open they're allowed to open properly for the vaccinated Australians, that they're allowed to open and service people and get back to business.
The hospitality sector has publicly flagged that they would like to see changes to fringe benefits tax to incentivise the use of their services. No doubt the budget is under great pressure, and I'm sure that the Treasury would be against any changes to fringe benefits tax. But I think we should at least consider the idea of giving a one-year holiday so that people can frequent bars and restaurants for the next 12 months to help restaurants, cafes and the hospitality sector get back in business. A one-year holiday from FBT could be a very effective way to try and make up some of the extensive lost revenue.
Finally, I would just make this point: we don't want to see, at the end of this crisis, more big government and more big business. There's nothing wrong with big business, but we want to see a thriving small-business sector, which is something that my party has been prepared to speak up for over the past 76 years. I think we've done a good job so far, but we should be prepared to open the taxpayer wallet again and support sectors with unique problems through having been smashed by the pandemic. It will not be a good outcome if we finish the pandemic with more big government and more big business and a much smaller private sector in terms of small business.
We are witnessing a failure of leadership from the Morrison government, which is impacting many Tasmanian workers and families, who are struggling to pay bills and feed their families. These Tasmanians have been plunged into uncertainty and disruption because of a leaky quarantine system and a slow vaccine rollout. They are not getting assistance from the Morrison government, because they are not in lockdown, even though the New South Wales and Victorian lockdowns are having a massive impact on the Tasmanian tourism industry. While businesses in those states can receive federal financial support, Tasmanian tourism operators and their employees currently receive nothing from the Morrison government to help them survive. Tourism directly contributes $1.49 billion, or about 4.9 per cent, to Tasmania's gross product and, directly and indirectly, supports around 42,000 jobs. That's about 17.2 per cent of the total Tasmanian employment—higher than the national average and the highest in the country.
In 2020, as borders closed to contain COVID-19, demand in the tourism, hospitality and events sectors basically dried up overnight. Tasmanians rallied. As soon as they could travel they explored their home town and their home state and tried to spend money at home. Despite that, tourism operators and events are facing severe reductions in income as a result of travel restrictions and physical distancing measures, with some delaying their reopening or limiting their offering and others potentially closing permanently. Ongoing travel restrictions have led to the cancellation of hundreds of flights in and out of the state. At Tasmanian airports, boards are lit up with cancelled flights, or they're not even open at all. One worker at Hobart airport said:
We are now looking at around 80 to 90 staff that have been stood down with no pay or support from anyone.
My understanding is, because they are on standdown, they are not able to get any support at all as they have not been terminated.
I am sort of lucky at the moment and have 15 hours work but, with all the late cancellations, I won't receive our next roster until Friday with the chance of being stood down like the others.
I have been working at Hobart airport for nearly 20 years.
I have never felt so unsure as to how I am going to survive this with no help.
When I travel from Devonport and Launceston airports, which I do frequently, workers there tell me the same story. A business that I know in north-west Tasmania has invested thousands of dollars recruiting and training a new workforce, but those workers also are now in limbo. The Tasmanian Tourism Industry Council recently stated:
The hard truth is some 18 months since borders first closed, we are today looking at the most uncertain conditions we've had yet—with COVID seemingly out of control in NSW, no absolute certainty of when borders might again open to our main markets in NSW and Victoria, and No JobKeeper to secure our workforce and provide an industry safety net.
The Tasmanian state government has introduced some short-term measures to support the industry, but there has been no support from the Morrison government. Prime Minister Morrison and his government have failed, and Tasmanian workers and their families are paying the price of his failures. He has betrayed every Tasmanian worker who is currently stood down or forced to accept hours so low they can't pay their bills. He has betrayed every one of the 1,776 Tasmanian tourism businesses, businesses which have shown remarkable resilience in the face of bleak prospects and exhausted financial reserves. The very least that Prime Minister Morrison could do is provide some support while the delta variant runs riot down the eastern seaboard.
Mr Morrison's failure to take responsibility is playing out in the lives of tens of thousands of Tasmanians who are struggling. The Prime Minister was dragged kicking and screaming to provide wage support in 2020. Then he ended the JobKeeper scheme too early. Then he allowed businesses to keep massive JobKeeper overpayments—millions of Australian taxpayers' dollars to millionaire CEOs and billionaire shareholders. Imagine what even a tiny bit of that money could do for those workers around the Tasmanian airports. Workers in the travel industry have been crying out for help. That call has fallen on deaf ears. The words of that worker who raised those issues from Hobart Airport should be ringing in Mr Morrison's ears: 'I have never felt so unsure as to how I'm going to survive this with no help.'
I'm very concerned about reports that have emerged today of the Prime Minister doing what he does best, which is to blame other people for his own failures. Today, yet again, it's Queenslanders that the Prime Minister wants to blame for his own failures when it comes to the vaccine rollout. The Prime Minister has been in the media today blaming Queenslanders and saying that they're not showing enough urgency when it comes to getting vaccinated against COVID-19. The only person in this country who has not shown a sense of urgency when it comes to the vaccination rollout is the Prime Minister himself. This is the man who, month after month, told us that the vaccine rollout is not a race and not a competition. How many times did we hear that from the Prime Minister when Labor and many other people were calling on him to speed up the vaccine rollout and do more deals with pharmaceutical companies? But he refused to do so, assuring us time after time after time that it was not a race. Now he has the hide to turn around and blame Queenslanders for any shortfall in our vaccination rollout. That is the kind of disgusting anti-Queensland attitude that we have seen from this Prime Minister throughout this entire pandemic.
Let's be very clear: the vaccine rollout is Prime Minister Scott Morrison's job. It is his job to get the vaccine rollout working. It was always his job to get the vaccine rollout working, and, if it's not going to his satisfaction, rather than blaming Queenslanders he should have a good look in the mirror and see who's actually responsible for this. If there is any reluctance among Queenslanders to go and get vaccinated now that vaccines are finally starting to roll in, it is the Prime Minister's job to put on a decent public information campaign that convinces people to get out there and get vaccinated quickly. It is particularly the Prime Minister's job to do this public information campaign when he's allowing his own members of parliament—like the member for Dawson, George Christensen; Senator Canavan; and Senator Rennick—to run wild, spreading all sorts of antivaccine, antilockdown, antimask attitudes within the community and discouraging people from following the government's own health advice.
So let's be clear: if the Prime Minister has a concern about the level of vaccination that's occurring in Queensland, that is on him. It is his job to get the vaccine rollout working. It is his job to get a public information campaign working, not anyone else's, and he should stop trying to spread blame towards other people, particularly my Queensland compatriots. He should actually, for once, take responsibility and do his own job.
This continues the pattern we have seen from Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister, throughout this pandemic. Yesterday, he referred to people in Queensland and Western Australia as cavepeople. We have senators from New South Wales, like Senator Bragg, referring to Queensland and other places as hermit kingdoms. That is the kind of anti-Queensland attitude that we continue to see from members of this government right up to the Prime Minister.
The situation has got even worse today because the Queensland government has been forced to put a pause on hotel quarantine due to people travelling from interstate hotspots. What is the reason for that? It is because, in 18 months, this Prime Minister has not been able to build one quarantine station to take the pressure off in Queensland. Do your job.
It is now 13.30. We shall now proceed to two-minute statements.
Thirty-nine thousand Australians put their lives on the line serving in Afghanistan. Forty-one of our finest Australians gave their lives, something which we will always remember and honour. Our diggers went to Afghanistan to find and defeat those responsible for supporting the 11 September terrorist attacks and, together with our allies, they did that job admirably. But we asked them to stay and to do even more to provide a semblance of security and hope for the future to Afghanis who would otherwise be subject to the barbaric rule of the Taliban and their evil ideology. They did that job, too. For two decades, their presence gave women and girls in Afghanistan the chance of an education, the chance to work, the chance to leave their own home without permission. Their presence helped keep many women and girls alive and prevented them from having to endure what they would have been subjected to under Taliban rule—rape, forced marriage, public beatings, murder. Despite the lies and propaganda of the Taliban, this is what Afghan women and girls once again face the prospect of. Now that our soldiers are no longer in Afghanistan, we must step up and protect those who they were protecting for the last 20 years. Australia can and Australia should continue the legacy of our soldiers and our veterans by making an increased commitment to rescuing thousands of Afghan women and girls from the brutality of the Taliban.
[by video link] Huon Aquaculture, an industrial salmon farming business in Tasmania, is on the market. Its owners can no doubt see the writing on the wall and are getting out while the going is good, or rather when the going is good for businesses with extremely bad environmental impacts. Don't believe the glossy corporate spin. Big salmon is trashing the Tasmanian marine environment, it is trashing downstream industries and it is trashing the amenities of people who use or live on them. And it's also an animal welfare disaster. Who would take on a business in an industry that is so on the nose? Currently leading the charge is Brazilian corporate meat giant JBS. JBS has a disgraceful record of environmental destruction, animal cruelty, civil rights abuses and exploitation of slave labour. This is the same JBS that has purchased and run down abattoirs in Tasmania, leaving employees and communities high and dry. JBS sees an opportunity here because the Tasmanian government, disgracefully, is trying to double inshore salmon production in Tasmania's beautiful waterways and double it at any cost. Big salmon has captured its so-called regulators in Tasmania, it has captured the major political party of Tasmania and it is the Tasmanian people and the Tasmanian marine environment that are paying the price. The Greens are proud to stand with people and communities calling for Mr Josh Frydenberg to reject the proposed takeover of Huon Aquaculture by JBS.
[by video link] There are 15,000 hardworking owner-driver and employee truck drivers across the country at Toll, Linfox, StarTrack and FedEx preparing to take industrial action over the coming weeks. This is one of Australia's most deadly industries. Truck drivers have worked around the clock through COVID-19 outbreaks and lockdowns to keep Australia moving. Retailers, like Amazon and Aldi, have seen their profits boom during the pandemic. Amazon's profits increased by 224 per cent to $11 billion in just the last quarter—yet they have turned around and are now trying to squeeze the rates of the very workers delivering their products. When those at the top of the supply chain, like Amazon, squeeze rates, transport companies like Toll try to recover that money by cutting the pay and conditions of their drivers and general workers. More than 15,000 truck drivers in the Transport Workers Union have said, 'Enough is enough.' They have said, 'Enough,' to companies like Amazon and Aldi squeezing the transport sector and destroying middle-class jobs. They've said, 'Enough,' to those at the top of the chain—the big retailers, manufacturers and oil companies—knocking the floor out of the industry.
The transport companies continue to put profits over safety even as we face down the worst health crisis in generations. A worker on the morning shift at one of the Sydney depots tested positive for COVID-19 last week. FedEx allowed the shift changeover to take place as normal one-hour later without having appropriate cleaning and the workers not being put in danger. One worker said, 'They just want to keep going at all costs.' The attack on the rights and pay of the Australian middle-class is being felt across the economy.
[by video link] We have the Premier in Queensland at it again. As of midday today, she's shut down the borders to all of Queensland for anyone who wants to come in from New South Wales, Victoria and also the ACT. So you have to apply to get here. They see that all of the quarantine hotels are full, so no-one can come back into Queensland. You can apply for an exemption if you are lucky. We've seen the closure of the borders. We've seen people can't get across. Essential workers and teachers—those people could not come across. Then they were forced to have the first shot of vaccination and they must prove they've had that. We've got people that live on the Tweed border who rely on crossing the border for doing shopping, going to facilities and getting medical attention. But, no, that's all stopped now because we're shutting down again because we have this person who wants to control Queenslanders.
It's about time the Prime Minister stepped up to the mark because this is what people want. You're saying you have an agreement with the states that once we get to 70 per cent vaccination restrictions will be eased and then by 80 per cent there will be no more lockdowns. How can you give us that guarantee when you know that there are premiers of the states which are determined to do their own thing? You're not giving the people the hope that they need that you are in control of this country. I have a suggestion to you now. You should start legal proceedings in the High Court to challenge this state under the Constitution on the right of freedom of movement of people to cross the borders. That's what needs to happen. You know this is going to go on because the final vaccination rate of hopefully 80 per cent, as you are indicating, is going to be at the end of November. People want assurances on what is going to happen at Christmas time so they can see their loved ones and their families. Step up to the mark, Prime Minister. Call the premiers into line. We are one nation and should be united in this.
The Prime Minister had two jobs this year: a speedy rollout of COVID-19 vaccines and fixing quarantine. He's failed at both. Australia's vaccination rate is 35th out of the 38 OECD countries, and Australia has some of the highest vaccine hesitancy in the world because of the confused messaging over the AstraZeneca vaccine. Mr Morrison's absolute failure to secure vaccine doses has slowed the rollout to a crawl. He's given up setting vaccine targets because he misses every single target he sets. His government is just starting to bring pharmacies on board now. He should have done it months ago. He's starting to do it now with the rollout but months too late. We've seen 27 leaks from hotel quarantine, yet he refuses to step up and deliver fit-for-purpose quarantine facilities.
I will remind people: quarantine is a Commonwealth responsibility under the Constitution. The government's own hand picked adviser, Ms Jane Halton, told the government to develop a national quarantine system many months ago. But, instead of taking any action, the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, handballed the problem back to the states. Mr Morrison and his government have attacked Labor states for their COVID restrictions, undermining efforts to stop the spread. But, when his Liberal mates in New South Wales went into lockdown, Mr Morrison suddenly decided that lockdowns were okay. Previously, though, he praised Ms Berejiklian for resisting a lockdown, and we all know that it was clearly needed. Adding to Mr Morrison's failure is his refusal to pull into line backbenchers like Mr Christensen, Senator Canavan and Senator Rennick, who seem to be given free rein— (Time expired)
I rise to speak of the plight of zoos and aquaria in the Northern Territory. In the Northern Territory, we don't have what you would call traditional zoos and huge aquaria, but we do have several very unique attractions. Their tourism value is far outstripped by their ecological and educational value. Some of them are doing it extremely hard at the moment. We know that when down south sneezes the Northern Territory catches a cold. That is in fact what is happening. These attractions rely on interstate tourists and large tours of schoolchildren that come through in buses, which they're not getting at the moment. We have provided assistance to them, and that's fantastic, but they're still doing it extremely hard and are on the brink of, or are in fact, closing.
I'll talk about the Alice Springs Reptile Centre, owned by Rex Neindorf. It has a fantastic, unique collection of reptiles, many of which are found exclusively in Central Australia. It has fantastic educational and ecological value. Another attraction, up in Darwin, is Indo Pacific Marine, owned by Jon and Helene, which has in fact closed. They had been there for 50 years. They have whole-reef living ecosystems in aquariums. Have they closed because of COVID? No. They've certainly been impacted by COVID, but they have closed because the Northern Territory government has kicked them out of the premises that they lease. They were kicked out and not provided any alternative premises. They're not looking for a handout, they don't want anything free and they're happy to pay rent, but they have been left with nowhere to go. This is an incredibly unique attraction, and it is now lost to the Territory.
[by video link] Today I pay tribute to someone who made an enormous and lasting contribution to the Senate: Senator Rachel Siewert, who will give her valedictory tonight after an incredible 16 years of service. I particularly acknowledge her service to the Senate community affairs committees since 2008. More than many, she is someone who truly does the work; someone who makes a real and worthy contribution; someone with a burning passion for supporting people, especially those who endure disadvantage; and someone who deploys her incredible breadth of knowledge to raise awareness and very much drive change. Even after years of working together on many inquiries, I am still awed by her. She is absolutely a legend of the Senate.
She has set impossibly high standards in everything she does: in committees, as a whip, in the chamber and, of course, in her advocacy and representation. All senators should aspire to meet those same standards. We should all aspire to show the same respect and care that she shows to others no matter who they are. I'm sure every one of us has benefited from her expertise, her experience and her kindness. I am deeply grateful for everything Senator Siewert has given. I wish I could be there later on today to personally thank her for her outstanding service to the Senate and to the Australian community. I sincerely wish Senator Siewert the very best for the future. I know without doubt she will continue to inspire and support those in need.
Recently, several published reports have pointed to women as the big losers coming out of COVID and the consequent recession and continuing lockdowns. Last year, eight per cent of Australian women lost their jobs, and women's total hours worked were down by 12 per cent. The figures for men were four and seven per cent. A report from the Grattan Institute shows that in November 2020 there were 40,000 fewer women with bachelors' degrees employed than at the start of that year, while trends for men went in the opposite direction, and that when university qualified women regain employment it's at a lower rate of pay. The responsibility for caring for and homeschooling children falls mostly to women, and, during lockdown, rates of domestic violence increase dramatically. There's no doubt that the effects of COVID and the subsequent recession have negatively impacted women's earnings and economic security.
Some of the Morrison government's decisions have adversely impacted women, such as carving out universities, a sector whose workforce is 59 per cent female, from JobKeeper. Early childhood educators, an almost 100 per cent female workforce, won't forget that Mr Morrison slashed their JobKeeper subsidy first, leaving some of Australia's lowest paid without anything. Finally, just a few days ago, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency reported that the gender pay gap has widened to 14.2 per cent. These are all structural issues the government can do something about. But, whether it's sexual abuse, the allegations of rape in this parliament, their male focused budget or the government's failure to respond in a timely manner to the Respect@Work report, we have a Prime Minister with a tin ear when it comes to women. He sees women not in their own right but as someone's mother, daughter, sister or aunt, and women voters, 51 per cent— (Time expired)
We are in a climate crisis, yet, instead of taking the action that our community demands and needs, the major parties are joining together to support fossil-fuel-loving corporations because they are the ones who donate to them. In the heart of the Northern Territory is one of the biggest gas reserves ever discovered in this country. If the Liberals, Labor and big gas corporations get their way, this beautiful part of First Nations land will be opened up for fracking. This part of our country is called the Beetaloo basin, and, if the Liberals, Labor and the gas corporations eyeing it up all get their way, fracking the Beetaloo basin will emit roughly 34 billion tonnes of pollution. To put that in perspective, that is four times as polluting as burning all the coal in the proposed Adani Carmichael mine. The Morrison government, sadly supported by Labor, has committed $240 million of our public money to gas corporations to support this project going ahead.
The Greens and the community know we need to stop all new coal, oil and gas projects now. We are in a critical decade for climate action. We must take this step and support communities to transition. The Beetaloo gas project will contribute to destroying our climate. It is not too late, and I urge Labor to join with the Greens, with the community and with community members on the ground—organisers like Aiya Goodrich Carttling and Billee McGinley, who are members of the community and of the Northern Territory Greens—in opposing this project. The Greens will always fight to stop the Beetaloo gas project.
[by video link] Three weeks ago, I highlighted the impending relevance of being able to prove vaccination status and the weakness in the system being relied upon by government for such proof. In the intervening time, I have met with ministers and, like every Australian, have watched the situation develop. I note the premiers of Western Australia and Queensland have announced that entry into their states will require a permit which is dependent on being able to provide vaccination status. I note employers announcing that COVID vaccination will be compulsory for certain work, as it is for aged-care workers, some transport providers, childcare workers and quarantine facility workers. Over the same period, the vaccination program has delivered 4.4 million doses, with almost 290,000 doses being added every day. We need to verify vaccination, and, while demand for that is climbing, the problem is getting bigger. The systems we're relying on are flawed and could undermine efforts to open up our economy and ease lockdowns.
I also note there's an information vacuum regarding the government's solution. COVIDSafe was the worst software application ever developed. It's only got one happy user, and that's Mr Stuart Robert. We cannot afford to have a COVIDSafe 2.0. People are dying. People are losing their livelihoods. We have a proven solution onshore which could have been implemented in the three weeks since I first demonstrated it to ministers. The government needs to act.
I rise to speak on the very concerning and escalating crisis that is engulfing the people of Dubbo and the western part of New South Wales. As we speak, we know that there are 400 positive cases and that not only Dubbo but the towns of Goodooga and Wilcannia, and other towns along the Darling, are beginning to be severely impacted by COVID in their community. At this stage, 85 per cent of those positive cases are Aboriginal people. This is a massive crisis in the making. We might have felt previously that there was protection in isolation; that is no longer the case.
In my contribution today, I call on the Minister for Health for New South Wales and the minister for health federally, along with the Premier, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence, to have a look at this first massive break into our First Nations community. There is a capacity problem with Dubbo hospital. Narromine hospital nearby has been set up as a site for the reception of people from all over the western part of New South Wales. That will overflow very, very quickly. The Dubbo hospital is at risk of being swamped by this illness very, very quickly. In terms of a prescient response now, at this point in time, I call on those ministers that I have named to set up a field hospital close to Dubbo hospital, to provide triage and proper management and to also engage in delivering a proper retrieval and movement system—to make sure that people who have COVID get triaged properly and looked after where they are and transported to the level of care that they need.
We also really desperately need to build up capacity in this part of New South Wales. Are there doctors out there who can intubate? Is there sufficient oxygen? Do we have enough PPE? Do we have people who are properly trained in PPE and its use? What are the transport systems like? We cannot wait for this to get out of the gate. We need the ADF in there— (Time expired)
[by video link] We are in a critical time for climate action, and the Liberals are busy giving handouts to their political donors, for gas giants to frack the Beetaloo basin and plunge us further into a climate emergency. Labor's capitulation on this dodgy, climate-destroying project is yet another terrible decision from the so-called opposition. The Beetaloo slush fund stinks of corruption. It will be deadly for our climate.
This gas rort has already given millions to Minister Taylor's mates. Empire Energy was handed $21 million to drill at three sites in the Beetaloo, despite still waiting on environmental approvals from the Northern Territory government. Beetaloo basin's traditional owners have condemned the Morrison government for handing out millions to gas companies to frack their land. The Kurri Kurri gas plant and the Pilliga-Narrabri coal seam gas wells in New South Wales need to be abandoned right now. The First Nations people of Coonabarabran want to know why their Gamilaraay land, their culture and heritage, is being destroyed for this dangerous and irrelevant industry. These projects are just plain reckless. The Morrison government have used the cover of this pandemic to help their donors in the coal and gas lobby to stockpile even more profits while they pollute the water and the very air that we all breathe. No matter how these climate criminals spin it, we know gas is as dirty as coal.
Unlike Labor, the Greens will not stand by and watch the Liberal-Nationals destroy country and plunge us faster into a climate emergency. I really hope, though, that Labor listen to traditional owners on whose very land we all live, and change their minds to protect it, rather than be partners in its destruction.
We see daily evidence of why these cruel, inequitable, selfish and hypocritical lockdowns must end. Lockdowns have long since gone past their use-by date. This week more small businesses have gone to the wall because we have made it a crime for people to work for themselves. A good mate of mine, Michael Trout, lost a brilliant tourism business in Cairns. A cafe owner in Sydney was locked out of his own business because he could not pay the rent, and there are many more heartbreaking stories. Lockdowns have been a boon for big online businesses, but they are the death knell for the small family-run businesses that are the bedrock of our society. Vaccine passports are now being imposed on our health, construction and service workers, while white-collar highly paid professionals have no mandates imposed on them and they get paid the same while working from home. This is the way lockdowns work. The rich wrap themselves in cottonwool and retreat to homes with swimming pools, backyards, gyms and gardens. In the western suburbs a single mum is jailed inside a two-bedroom home while trying to keep her three kids occupied and losing her job and income. Today we learnt at a press conference, attended by about 10 not especially socially distanced journalists, that police are monitoring online church services, presumably in case the delta variant starts to spread on the interwebs. Yet tapings of the reality TV show The Voice have got the green light to go ahead. And, according to the science, the delta variant cannot spread among politicians and the media.
The state has no role in a free society to monitor people's religious activities. Our military should be defending our external borders, not patrolling our internal state boundaries. Every Australian child has the right to go to school, and everyday Australians should not be treated like prisoners and have to be given permission by their wardens to spend one hour outside a day. There is a rebellion brewing within Australia. We have not been a penal colony since 1869, and I know the free people of Australia have no desire to go back to Australia being one.
[by video link] Australians have made it clear they are angry about Mr Morrison's failures on vaccine and quarantine. Mr Morrison knows his old pitches have fallen flat, so now he's promising to deliver on an Australia without restrictions, never mind the failures to deliver on all his old promises. He promised a COVID-normal Christmas last Christmas, and he's failed to deliver on all his other promises: that Australians would be at the front of the vaccine queue; that all aged-care workers and residents and all Australians with disability and disability-care workers would be vaccinated by Easter; that four million Australians would be vaccinated by the end of March; that everyone over 70 would be vaccinated by the start of winter; and, of course, that all Australians would be vaccinated by October. He's failed to deliver on all these old promises, so now he's just making new ones. If people have the nerve to question how he's going to deliver his new promises, he just attacks them and tells them they're the problem. He mocks people for being 'in the cave' without admitting he's the reason we're in it. He's more interested in political attacks than talking about how we get out of this safely: contact tracing that can keep up; vaccinating vulnerable communities, older Australians, those living with disability and First Nations Australians; and a plan to protect our children. He's failed to do his job, and now Mr Morrison's lockdowns are bringing us all down. Even if we're not in lockdown, we can't see loved ones who are. The last thing we all need is more promises. Mr Morrison is the one who got Australia into this mess, but he's just not the one to get us out of it.
Last year I told the Senate the story of students who were being told that they must traverse through two COVID hotspots to get from one COVID-free zone back to their homes in another COVID-free zone, all because of arbitrary rules that required these students to travel by the most bizarre route rather than the most direct route to get home. The same thing is happening again 18 months later. In term 3 this year students that are residents of New South Wales have actually given up trying to go back to school in Victoria. The last time they attempted to get home many of them had to walk across bridges from Victoria to New South Wales because their parents were banned from collecting them from the school and walking across the border was the only way to get them home reasonably. Now we have the horrific situation of 10 students being locked in New South Wales without being able to get home to their parents, unless they go through two weeks of hotel quarantine in Melbourne. It's a disgrace.
Before we go to questions, yesterday I ruled on a point of order regarding the use of the term 'dishonestly' in an answer to a question. In that context it referred to another senator. I ruled that the term 'dishonest' had not previously been considered unparliamentary but that I would look into the matter and report back. First, the term 'dishonest' is not unparliamentary and, therefore, may be used. However, the context of all language needs to be considered, particularly with respect to standing order 193(3), which prohibits, amongst other things, imputations of improper motives and personal reflections upon other senators.
The relevant precedent on this terminology is mixed and unclear. On occasions senators have been asked to withdraw it and on other occasions they have not, so to provide guidance to the chamber I will apply the following principles, consistent with the use of other contentious terms. If the word 'dishonest' is used collectively—for example, about a political party—it will not generally be out of order. If it is used specifically with respect to a senator, imputing that the person is dishonest, it will be out of order. It may be used to observe behaviour—for example, 'It is dishonest to claim'—but it should not be attributed in a personal sense—for example, 'Senator XYZ is being dishonest.' I accept this will lead to some grey areas, but in almost all circumstances it can be used appropriately in an observational sense rather than a personal one. Given I have reviewed my ruling on this matter, I'm going to ask Senator Colbeck to withdraw the imputation yesterday.
Mr President, I withdraw.
I thank Senator Colbeck and I thank the Senate.
Mr President, I thank you for preserving my integrity, for the clarity of your ruling and for observing it.
I remind senators that the standing orders are the outer limit of what is in debate. They are not necessarily a guide to how far to push it. That applies to all of us—no-one in particular.
[by video link] My question is to Senator Birmingham, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Yesterday we saw reports of hundreds of former Australian embassy guards and their families left standing in sewage for hours outside Kabul airport. Glenn Kolomeitz, a former ADF officer, now lawyer, has said that Afghans attempting to flee Kabul who have been issued Australian electronic visas are 'being turned away by ADF people because they don't have a hard copy visa in their passports'. Are reports that Afghans with Australian visas are being turned away at the airport by Australian officials true?
[by video link] I thank Senator Wong for her question. While I can't speak to every incident that is happening at Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul given the very challenging and difficult circumstances that many people across many nations are operating under there, I can assure that, in terms of people who make contact with Australian officials and have proof of contact and proof of some engagement with Australia, every effort is being made not only to process them in terms of boarding and recognising visas that may have been issued but also to ensure that those who do not have a valid visa are supported through the processes on the spot with emergency contacts being made to seek to provide them with such visas.
Of course, the security situation around Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul is incredibly challenging. There are multiple checkpoints being enforced by the Taliban and there are then clearances to access the airport perimeter itself. Were there to be incidences at any of those they may not be entirely known to all of us, but I do assure the Senate and all Australians that Australian officials on the ground are turning around visa applications, visa requests or even those without an application as quickly as they can to get them out of Kabul and to safety. That indeed is what has got us into the situation now where we've seen Australia help airlift more than 2,600 people on 22 flights out of Afghanistan. The vast majority of those are Afghan citizens who we're supporting with visas and, also importantly, Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and family members of those individuals. That's the work that our people on the ground are doing. They're doing it heroically in the most trying of circumstances, and we owe them all a huge debt of gratitude. (Time expired)
Senator Wong, a supplementary question?
[by video link] When asked why the ADF were turning people away, Mr Kolomeitz replied:
… these directions have come from DFAT—who knows where in DFAT. But, look, there's a breakdown in communications here, not just between the ADF and DFAT but between DFAT and DFAT—Canberra and Kabul—and that is going to cost lives …
Have these directions come from DFAT? If yes, who issued the directive and why?
[by video link] As I said in response to the primary question, our officials on the ground—DFAT officials working alongside Home Affairs officials who issue and process the visas—are not only doing their utmost to ensure that anybody who has any type of Australian visa is able to board and depart Kabul; they are also responding very clearly to other individuals who have connections to Australia and reasons to want to seek claim, and they are working as quickly as they can to find appropriate humanitarian visas that can be issued in emergency circumstances to be able to expedite those people's departure from Kabul. We've indeed seen 950 people uplifted overnight.
Order! Senator Keneally, on a point of order?
My point of order goes to direct relevance. It was a very specific question: have the directions come from DFAT and, if yes, who issued them and why?
I'm listening carefully to the minister's answer. You've reminded him of it. I'm reluctant to rule the material he's dealing with is not directly relevant, but I've let you remind him of it and he has 15 seconds remaining to turn to that part of the question.
[by video link] Mr President, I'm not accepting the assertion that there are directions that are turning people away. In fact, I'm making very clear that every effort is being made to accommodate people in their unique circumstances and to try to help them from Kabul as expeditiously as possible.
Senator Wong, a final supplementary question?
[by video link] How many Australian citizens, residents and visa holders remain stranded in Afghanistan?
[by video link] We know that people continue to register. It may seem a surprising thing that individuals would not have made known their presence in Afghanistan long before this last little while, but registration is something that we have seen continue during this evacuation process. What we are doing is working to move through those we can help as quickly as possible. That means helping all whom we can help of those who make it through to Hamid Karzai airport, working with the officials from the many nations, particularly the United States, who are helping with security operations, including the targeted assistance outside the airport perimeter, and making sure that, as a nation, we are lending assistance to others as we would hope they would lend assistance to us. To have had 2,650 people in the 22 flights stood up at such short notice is no mean feat. We extend all our thanks and gratitude to the officials and the personnel—
Order, Senator Birmingham! Senator Paterson.
My question is for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. Can the minister update the Senate on the progress of Australia's evacuation operation in Afghanistan?
I thank Senator Paterson for his question. The government's immediate focus is the evacuation from Kabul of Australians and their families and of Afghans with Australian visas. The scenes that we continue to see in Afghanistan are highly distressing and our thoughts are with the Afghan people. The National Security Committee of cabinet continues to meet every day on this matter. As the Leader of the Government in the Senate has indicated, our officials are working tirelessly on the evacuation, which is moving hundreds of people from Afghanistan every day. I want to thank those senators and members and advocates who are doing the same thing to support so many people in Afghanistan.
In recent days, we have been able to run about four flights per 24-hour period. Last night five Australian ADF flights carried approximately 955 people, which brings to approximately 2,650 the total number of people evacuated since 18 August. This includes Australian and New Zealand nationals, visa holders and citizens of other nations with whom we are cooperating. The government reiterates our thanks to the officials involved, including those from my Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Australian Defence Force and the Department of Home Affairs. Each person evacuated is a demonstration of their dedication.
There are very difficult scenes outside Hamid Karzai International Airport. People, including women and children, are waiting for days amongst crowds numbering in the thousands. Our officials are using every means possible to assist Australian citizens and visa holders—phoning and emailing directly, as well as providing regular updates on Smartraveller. Australia continues to work with partners across all aspects of the operation, and we thank them for their cooperation.
Senator Paterson, a supplementary question?
Can the minister update the Senate on the role of Al Minhad Air Base in this evacuation?
Australia's longstanding presence at Al Minhad Air Base, in the United Arab Emirates, has served as a vital support for our military presence in Afghanistan, and it is now serving a vital role in evacuating Australians and Afghan visa holders. I want to acknowledge and thank the government of the United Arab Emirates for their support and cooperation in this evacuation process. The ADF has deployed more than 250 personnel and five aircraft to Al Minhad to carry out the evacuation operation.
We have put significant plans in place for the health and welfare of evacuees, including the deployment of an AUSMAT team, which is due to arrive today. We are very conscious of the traumatic experiences, fear and desperation of many who are travelling to our facilities at Al Minhad.
Senator Paterson, a final supplementary question?
Can the minister update the Senate on the progress of operations to return evacuees to Australia?
I thank Senator Paterson again for this question. Al Minhad's capacity has been expanded to accommodate these evacuees ahead of their transfer to Australia. Once the evacuees have been settled and processed for immigration requirements and are ready to continue to their travel, they will be travelling on planes chartered by Defence to Australia.
I do want to thank the states and territories that are contributing to Australia's response by receiving evacuees. Last night, 148 evacuees arrived on a charter flight to Perth and Adelaide, bringing the total number returned to Australia since 18 August to 419. Over the coming days, we will have regular flights into capitals around the country as these Australians and Afghans with Australian visas arrive. Our thoughts are with them as they deal with the trauma of these experiences, and we warmly welcome them to our nation.
My question is to Senator Birmingham, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. WA Premier Mark McGowan, whose state has no local restrictions, criticised the Prime Minister for implying 'Western Australians were like cave people'. Why did Mr Morrison liken Western Australians to cave people?
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Before I call Senator Birmingham, I'm going to insist on order during the question. I'm going to insist on silence during the question. Senator Birmingham.
[by video link] I completely reject Senator Pratt's assertion and its implications. It is completely false. Indeed, it is an attempt to beat these statements up—statements that were in no way suggesting that any particular part of Australia was as Senator Pratt has suggested. This was an analogy drawn about the very important pathway out of the challenging situation Australia and, indeed, the world faces. Our plan is one focused very much on driving vaccination across Australia to support Australians, as we hit the 70 per cent and 80 per cent targets informed by the experts at the Doherty institute, to be able to move beyond widespread statewide lockdowns and restrictions—to be able to move beyond the restrictions that prohibit individuals from being able to reunite with families and loved ones or pursue business opportunities across state borders. We want to see success for Australia. As we have succeeded, relative to so many other nations, in saving lives, we want to see success on the way out of this as well. Of course, what we have from the Labor Party is no plan—no plan, no pathway. All we have are these cheap political points that we're getting, whilst the rest of the country is getting on with striving towards the plan.
Senator Watt interjecting—
Order, Senator Watt!
In stark contrast to the Labor Party, Australians are turning out in record numbers, day in, day out, getting vaccinated, driving us toward the targets we need as a nation. That's what's going to get us there—
Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—
Senator Pratt interjecting—
Order, order! Senator O'Sullivan! Senator Pratt!
not the type of cheap point scoring from Senator Pratt or whatever it is that Senator Watt, who I can't hear from here, is saying. Frankly, all of them ought to think about the national interest—it's a blessing that I can't hear him! All should think about the national interest being served by driving the vaccine targets to a point where we can actually give Australians certainty and hope for the future.
Order! Can I again ask senators across the chamber to restrain themselves when people are answering questions, particularly remotely, because I was having trouble hearing Senator Birmingham. Senator Pratt, a supplementary question?
The Morrison-Joyce government has spent more than $1 million of taxpayers' money in support of Clive Palmer's High Court challenge of WA's border restrictions. Isn't Mr Morrison's—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Order, both sides of the chamber!
likening of Western Australians to cave people just the latest in a series of attempts to undermine Western Australia?
[by video link] No, it's not. But Senator Pratt's desire to create division across Australia is absolutely a way to hurt the nation. It's a way of trying to hurt and divide. It's a way that will not help Western Australia or any other part of Australia move through the remaining stages of COVID-19 to a better place once we see those vaccination targets hit, which day by day we get closer to thanks to the record numbers of Australians being vaccinated. More than 307,000 people turned out yesterday across the country to have another vaccination dose or to have their first dose, climbing our numbers, as we've seen with our senior Australians—now more than 85 per cent of whom over the age of 70 have had that first dose and so many of them have had the second. They're setting the example, a positive example, that we want Western Australians, South Australians, Victorians, Queenslanders, Tasmanians, New South Welshmen, the Territorians all to be able to have the opportunity to reach those targets, knowing— (Time expired)
Senator Pratt, a final supplementary?
If Mr Morrison had acted like the vaccine rollout was a race and secured enough supplies, isn't it true Western Australia wouldn't need to have such tough border restrictions, and why is Mr Morrison more interested in insulting Western Australians than taking responsibility for his failures in the vaccine rollout?
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order, order! Again, on both sides of the chamber then, there were interjections during the question.
(—) (): [by video link] Senator Pratt is showing no sense or logic in recognising what is happening right around the world at present. Australia has been dealing for more than 18 months, as every other country has, with a global pandemic, a once-in-a-century pandemic. As a nation, we've saved lives far more effectively than most others. I pay tribute to and acknowledge the Western Australian government and, indeed, our other state and territory counterparts, working with us in ways that helped to save those lives. But it's a challenge writ large globally. You need only look at countries like Japan, countries like South Korea, places like Taiwan or indeed a nation like New Zealand at present to see these are difficult challenges with the delta variant. What each of us have in common is we've all managed to suppress COVID-19 to a fair degree. We've all managed to suppress it in ways that have saved lives. But, as a result, we didn't get the prioritisation that Europe or the US did in terms of some of the vaccines that were available. But we are all working hard in terms of supporting our population to continue to get— (Time expired)
I'm going to ask the indulgence of the Senate. The parliamentary photographer is here, if we all just want him to take a shot of this somewhat unique parliamentary arrangement. This was done in the House yesterday. I'll stop the clock on question time for that matter. It's appropriate the Senate gets recorded as well, not just the House. Thank you.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. Today the WA Australian Medical Association president, Mark Duncan-Smith, said:
Going with 70, 80 per cent of only eligible adults is neglecting our children and bordering on child abuse.
Minister, do you agree that opening up restrictions when only 80 per cent of the adult population is vaccinated borders on child abuse?
No, I don't. I have to say it's really disappointing that Senator Siewert comes in here and uses parliamentary privilege, in a sense, to make those sorts of accusations. Quite frankly, it's outrageous that a member of the health profession in Western Australia would actually express those sorts of views himself. Purely and simply, it's a cheap opportunity to score some political points.
As I said yesterday, the Doherty modelling does contemplate the vaccination of children, albeit at a later date—
Senator Keneally interjecting—
in accordance, Senator Keneally, with the health advice. You can be as pious as you like about this, but we're operating in this country under health advice. Our vaccination program in this country has been based on the advice from and full approval of vaccines through the TGA, whereas in the US they only got full approval for their vaccinations this week. We made sure, in this country, that the Australian community had confidence in the vaccination rollout, and the vaccines that we were using, by undertaking a full vaccination program through the TGA and providing advice to the Australian community through ATAGI.
For the Greens to come in here with a quote from a GP or a specialist in Western Australia, in an attempt to make cheap political points, to undermine public confidence in the vaccination rollout, I think is an absolute disgrace.
Senator Siewert, a supplementary question?
Yes, I certainly do. Do you admit that, if we loosen restrictions when effectively only 56 per cent of our total population are vaccinated, there is going to be a death rate among our children that, in fact, no parent will accept?
Again, the alarmist language of the Greens in respect of this is completely outrageous. It is completely and utterly outrageous. I would invite the president of the AMA—
Order! Senator Hanson-Young on a point of order?
My point of order is on misleading the chamber.
That's not a point of order.
No, this was a comment made by the president of the AMA—
Senator Hanson-Young, please resume your seat. There's the opportunity to debate the answers after question time. That is not a point of order for the chair to rule upon. Senator Colbeck.
To take the point of order, I would regard the comments of the president of the AMA in Western Australia as irresponsible. Attempting to frighten parents with respect to the impacts of COVID-19 on children is, quite frankly, outrageous. There's no question that there are risks to children from COVID-19, but let's look at the statistics. I have to say, I think it's outrageous that they're trying to undermine the work of the Doherty institute and all of the other institutions that have participated in this. The hospitalisation rate for children is about two per cent. For those over the age of 70, it's 40 to 70 per cent. There is a big difference. (Time expired)
Senator Siewert, a final supplementary question?
I'll ask the same question that I asked yesterday: when will this government include children in the national vaccination targets and acknowledge that they have to be in there?
The vaccination of children is clearly a part of the national vaccination programs. We continue to operate the vaccination rollout based on the health advice. The ATAGI advice with respect to vaccination of children is expected to be available for national cabinet this week. The Doherty institute has said that the 70 and 80 per cent numbers don't change with respect to the vaccination of children and the including of children in the targets. National cabinet—not the Liberal Party, not the Labor Party, not the Greens—has commissioned the Doherty institute to do this work. Liberal governments and Labor governments across the country—
Order! Senator Hanson-Young on a point of order?
On relevance. He still hasn't answered the question. It was about the targets. We've only got five seconds to go. Could he get to the point?
Senator Hanson-Young, with respect, Senator Colbeck was directly addressing the question. I can't direct him how to answer a question, but he was talking about the matters raised in the question—to my way of hearing, in some detail.
The government will continue to operate on the professional and health advice in supporting Australians receiving vaccinations.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. Can the minister update the Senate on how the Liberal and National government is assisting those who care for our most vulnerable to be vaccinated as part of delivering the national plan agreed by national cabinet?
Thank you to Senator Scarr for his question. Australia's COVID-19 vaccination rollout continues to expand. To date more than 17.7 million doses have been administered to Australians across the country. I'm pleased to report that first-dose vaccinations for our residential-care workforce, who are looking after our most vulnerable, are at 76 per cent today. I want to thank all the carers, nurses and in fact all those who work in aged care for turning out to get a vaccine. I urge those who haven't had their vaccine yet to take up that opportunity by 17 September. The Department of Health has been working with each residential aged-care facility to ensure plans are in place to provide support where needed, to ensure every residential aged-care worker has access to a vaccine prior to 17 September. National cabinet agreed that the COVID-19 vaccination of residential aged-care workers will become mandatory by this date. That is when residential aged-care workers must have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. We encourage aged-care providers to keep supporting their workforce. There are a number of channels open to support them to do that, including the government's in-reach services, vaccinating their own staff, and using Commonwealth and state vaccination clinics and GPs and pharmacies. All states and territories have agreed to use their public health orders to enforce vaccination for workers. Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania, the ACT and the Northern Territory have all implemented public health orders based on that advice.
Senator Scarr, a supplementary question?
When can we expect to see children vaccinated in Australia as part of the vaccine rollout?
From 9 August, around 220,000 children aged between 12 and 15 years who are at higher risk of severe illness if they contract COVID-19 have been able to receive a Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. It's children with specified medical conditions, including severe asthma, diabetes, obesity, cardiac and circulatory congenital anomalies and other serious conditions; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children; and children aged 12 to 15 years in remote communities as part of a broader community outreach vaccination program. From 25 August, 40,000 NDIS participants aged between 12 and 15 years will all be eligible for vaccination. The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation will provide further advice very soon on the use of Pfizer vaccine for the remainder of children aged 12 to 15.
Senator Scarr, a final supplementary question?
Thank you, Mr President. What are the targets in the national plan for returning to a more normal life without lockdowns and why is it so important for all governments to work together in delivering the national plan?
As the Prime Minister has said, the national plan that we've developed, and agreed, is our pathway to living with this virus. That is our goal: to live with this virus not to live in fear of it. When we reach vaccination levels of 70 and 80 per cent, we can look at easing restrictions and lockdowns and reopening borders—first state borders and, in time, national borders. The national plan is our deal with all Australians. The sacrifices they make now will get them to the next step—because if not at 70 per cent and 80 per cent then when? We should not delay reopening. We should prepare for it and we should move forward together. There is a plan out, and we are moving forward with that plan.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Colbeck. Over three months ago the USA had already administered around 600,000 COVID-19 vaccinations to children aged 12 to 15 and more than four million vaccinations to those aged under 17. Why are children still not broadly eligible for vaccination against COVID-19 in Australia?
As I've said a number of times in this chamber, the Australian government is conducting the vaccine rollout based on the health advice to us from the TGA and ATAGI. It is worth noting that the vaccines that we are using in this country have been the subject of four approval processes by the TGA. The US only got full approval of the use of Pfizer vaccine in the US this week, so they have been operating under an emergency approval process.
We unapologetically continue to work in conjunction with the health advice to make sure we retain a high level of confidence in the vaccines we are rolling out and have the best available data available to support the vaccination rollout across the country. We don't apologise for that. As I have indicated to the chamber already, we have received and implemented advice for the vaccination of children with a certain number of health conditions. That process has commenced and we expect to receive very soon advice from ATAGI in respect of the vaccination of other children in the 12 to 15 age group. We unapologetically continue to work in conjunction with the health advice from our health professionals and experts, the registration processes through the TGA and the advice from ATAGI in support of our vaccination rollout.
Senator McAllister, a supplementary question?
Thank you, Mr President. According to the UK Office for National statistics 34,000 children under the age of 17 are suffering with long COVID. What advice has the Morrison-Joyce government received about the prevalence and impact of long COVID, including in relation to children and infants?
The advice I have with respect to the utilisation of COVID-19 vaccines on children in the UK is that the advice they are working on currently sits very closely to the advice that we are operating from in respect of children with specific health deficiencies. With respect to the specifics of the senator's question, I don't have any particular research with me in relation to long COVID. I'm very happy to see what advice I can receive from my health department because I know that our officials are in very regular contact with similar organisations around the world so that they can understand not only the implications of the virus on various cohorts within the population but also what they are doing with respect to the vaccination rollout and how they are applying the vaccine to various parts of their community. So we can—
Order! Senator Colbeck, we had four seconds left, so I will allow Senator McAllister to raise her point of order.
Thank you, Mr President. It is on relevance. I asked specifically around long COVID. I understand from the minister's response that he is seeking to take it on notice. May I have him confirm that?
Senator McAllister, I can't ask a minister whether they will do that; I can only rule on whether the minister was being directly relevant. He did cover that as well as other matters, so he was being directly relevant. I'm assuming he has concluded his answer, so I will call you to ask a final supplementary question.
How many children will remain unvaccinated, unprotected and at risk when Australia reaches the 70 and 80 per cent targets for Australians aged over 16 years?
I don't accept the premise of the question because I don't accept that children will remain unprotected. Vaccinating the rest of the population does in itself provide a level of protection to the rest of the population that hasn't been vaccinated because it actually limits the transmission of the disease. That's the point of having the targets. So we will continue to follow the health advice with respect to the application of vaccines to the Australian community. And as I've said on a number of occasions today, the advice from ATAGI with respect to the availability of COVID-19 vaccinations to children between the ages of 12 and 15 will be available to the government and to the Australian community very soon.
My question is to the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister, Senator McKenzie. Can the minister please outline how our government is supporting regional Australians through the COVID-19 pandemic, including as part of the national plan agreed to by national cabinet?
Thank you, Senator Davey, for your question. Our government understands regional Australians facing lockdowns are asking immediate questions about their incomes, about the weeks ahead and about the pathway back to a normal life when we learn to live with this virus. Rural and regional Australians are feeling the ongoing impact of the pandemic, particularly the delta variant, which has forced two entire states into lockdown and seen localised lockdowns within states, and border communities particularly are feeling the effects. However, until we reach the recommended vaccination targets, lockdowns are the most effective way to stop the spread and they will still be necessary.
The government are ensuring the financial security of those who live or work in a Commonwealth hotspot through the COVID disaster payment, and we have already delivered $4 billion in support to over 1.6 million Australians. Regional Australians, like others, are doing the right thing—they are pulling up their sleeves and getting vaccinated in record numbers. We have already seen 17 million doses delivered so far, 4.6 million of those in regional Australia. We must back the science and the evidence that inform our national plan. Once we achieve our target of 70 to 80 per cent vaccinations, Australians will be able to get back to a sense of normality, restrictions will be able to be safely eased, and lockdowns will become a thing of the past. Our government is particularly committed to making that happen and to providing Australians with the necessary support so that we can learn to live with the virus, not fear it. We are assisting regional families with child care, providing gap-free waivers to relieve the burden of out-of-pocket costs when their children cannot attend care. We have also extended telehealth and NBS items. Telehealth can't replace face-to-face health services but it is critical, particularly with the mental health impacts of lockdowns that we see now.
Senator Davey, a supplementary question?
We know regional businesses are suffering through the lockdowns as much as their urban counterparts, even where there has been no COVID. What is our government doing to help manage them through the impacts of the lockdowns and the border restrictions that are currently in place?
Our government has partnered with each of the state and territory governments to roll out business support packages tailored to their specific needs. In my home state of Victoria, we've combined with the Andrews government to deliver $1.46 million to around 18,000 regional businesses doing it tough during lockdowns, to help them with those ongoing operational costs so that, when the lockdowns lift, they can get back to business and employ people as quickly as possible. We're assisting local businesses, such as childcare providers, with further support for the sector, which will benefit over 2,000 providers in regional Victoria and NSW. We've committed more than $4.9 billion to the aviation sector. Our primary producers are also supported, and we're addressing airfreight shortages and the disrupted supply chain for exports through the international freight assistance mechanisms. We've got the Agriculture Workers' Code. These measures are all vital to keeping our primary industry sector growing, harvesting and feeding not only our nation but the world.
Senator Davey, a final supplementary question?
What other supports are available for regional Australians and the communities they live in, and why is this so important to our national plan?
The Liberal and Nationals government has stood ready to assist states and territories with additional support through this pandemic. Most recently, we deployed support to regional NSW, where we've seen increasing case numbers. Around 50 ADF personnel are currently supporting NSW police in Dubbo, Bourke and Wilcannia, and an additional 70 ADF personnel are supporting the Western NSW Local Health District to provide pop-up vaccination clinics in remote and regional communities such as Walgett, Coonamble and Gilgandra.
While this support is absolutely critical right now, it won't be required when we reach the vaccination targets outlined in the national plan. Our plan is based on the best available data and science and is agreed to by all state and territory governments as part of national cabinet. I am particularly buoyed by the support of the Labor Party, with Mr Albanese finally backing Bill and Joel in getting behind the national plan as the only way to end lockdowns and get back to normal.
[by video link] My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. On global climate change negotiations last week, the US Ambassador to Australia said:
It would be really helpful to see Australia move forward with a more ambitious effort … what the science is telling us is the pathway needs to be more aggressive.
The US, the UK, the EU, Japan and South Korea have all lifted their 2030 pledges. Why is Australia turning its back on our allies and trading partners in these climate negotiations and instead siding with the petrostates of Russia and Saudi Arabia?
I absolutely reject the premise and the facile assertion at the end of the question, quite frankly. In fact, Australia is working very hard to deliver our long-term emissions reduction strategy. We will release that ahead of COP 26, as we have made very clear. We will release our updated forecasts ahead of COP 26, which are expected to show a further improvement on Australia's 2030 position. We have a strong record of meeting and exceeding our international emissions reduction targets, including overachieving on both our first Kyoto emissions target and our 2020 target. The latest data shows our emissions at 20 per cent below 2005 levels. We believe in achieving—not just talking about it, but achieving—and those achievements are records to which we can point as a nation. Our emissions are lower than in any year under the previous government, and at the lowest levels since 1990. We are strongly committed to playing our part in the global effort to combat climate change through the Paris Agreement, as set out in all of the Pacific Islands Forum declarations, the Boe declaration and the Kainaki II declaration, and we have been clear, as the Prime Minister has indicated, that we intend to reach net zero as soon as possible, and preferably by 2050.
Senator Waters, a supplementary question?
[by video link] It's easy to meet crap targets. Is the government's intention—
Sorry, Senator Waters, I couldn't hear what you said. Can I ask you to start again.
Yes. Thank you, President. I was pointing out that it's easy to meet crap targets.
Senator Waters, that's not helpful in question time. The clock is running. Continue your question.
Is it the government's intention to go into climate negotiations in Glasgow at the end of the year with Russia and Saudi Arabia as our only diplomatic allies, or is your department working on strategies to satisfy the United States and the rest of the developing world and the developed world by lifting our 2030 target?
Senator Hume interjecting—
Well said, Senator Hume. I think I outlined our next steps in terms of working to deliver on our long-term emissions reduction strategy. Our intention is to release that ahead of COP 26. Our intention is to release our updated forecasts ahead of COP 26, which are, as I said, expected to show a further improvement on Australia's 2030 position. Our budget included over $630 million worth of additional investment to support low-emissions technologies and partnerships—partnerships that we are securing with a range of international partners: with Germany, Singapore, the United Kingdom and Japan.
We share with the United States a resolute commitment to ambitious action on climate change. We want to be a partner of choice for the United States on climate and align our climate with broader objectives to strengthen economic integration and advance our shared interests in the Indo-Pacific. We're advancing practical, targeted collaboration with the United States across the broad climate agenda, including low-emissions technologies and supply chains. I've discussed with Secretary Kerry how Australia and the US can create practical momentum. (Time expired)
Senator Waters, a final supplementary question?
[by video link] The British foreign secretary asked Australia in March to stretch our climate ambitions and to match what the science requires, which is a doubling of our targets to keep within two degrees, or a tripling of them to keep within one 1½ degrees. Will you listen to our global allies or will you listen to the coal, oil and gas companies that are slowly turning Australia into an international pariah?
Once again, I absolutely reject the premise of Senator Waters's question, which is not founded in reality by any stretch of the imagination. What we are focused on is not just talking about targets but actual achievements, and that would be the difference. That would be the record on which we are prepared to stand. We are resolutely committed to Paris. We know that we're on the front line of climate change impacts. We've indicated, and I've said it again in here this afternoon, that we will reach net zero as soon as possible, and preferably by 2050, but that takes real investments in technologies that reduce emissions and stimulate economic growth. I know economic growth is a complete pariah for the Greens but it's not for us, it's not for our country and it's not for the world.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. The ACT Chief Minister and Chief Health Officer argued that people aged 12 years and above should be factored into the vaccination rate required for reopening. Given that 38 per cent of cases in the ACT are children under 17, and around 30 per cent of COVID-19 cases in NSW are people under 20, will the Morrison-Joyce government consider this?
If the ACT Chief Minister actually believed that, why did he agree to the Doherty modelling at national cabinet, which was agreed by all of the premiers, which includes vaccination and consideration of vaccination rates for proportions of the population? Of course vaccination for children is important. It is more important, Mr President. But the ACT Chief Minister sat in national cabinet and agreed to the targets in the Doherty modelling. If he wanted to change it, why didn't he do it then instead of in a press conference?
He can do it on Friday when national cabinet meets again. There will be further information on the Doherty modelling presented to national cabinet on Friday. That's public information, so if the Chief Minister of the ACT wanted to change the parameters of the modelling with respect to the vaccination rollout, why didn't he do it in national cabinet? Why does he do it publicly in a press conference or get Senator Keneally to ask a question in question time? He's sitting in a chair at national cabinet, which gets to make the decisions. Why doesn't he ask the questions there? Why doesn't he propose the modification of the parameters at that point in time? Why doesn't he do that? He is one of the few people that gets to sit in national cabinet. He's one of the few people that gets to be a participant in those decisions, so why doesn't he use the forum that he has available to him to actually put those inputs into that process?
Senator Keneally, a supplementary question?
The New South Wales Chief Health Officer, Kerry Chant, has said in relation to vaccines, and I quote:
I believe in targeting school-age children, in particular high school children, very quickly because we know they contribute to transmission.
The Pfizer vaccine has been approved for children as young as 12. If the Morrison government had ordered more Pfizer last year, would Australians aged 12 to 19 now be vaccinated?
Senator Keneally is right: the New South Wales CHO does actually believe in vaccination of children, and I have to say I congratulate New South Wales on the work that they have done, particularly with respect to vaccination of senior high school students, which frees them up to sit their very important examinations towards the end of the year. I congratulate the New South Wales government and the CHO on actually taking action to put in place the convictions that they clearly have. Congratulations to them on doing that. What this government has done and will continue to do is to work collaboratively with the states to deliver the national plan for the rollout of the vaccine in accordance with the health advice and of course in accordance with the national plan for opening up the Australian economy.
Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question?
Is the reason children aged 12 and above are not included in the targets that Mr Morrison did not order enough Pfizer last year to vaccinate 12- to 15-year-olds?
The reason that they're not in the targets is we actually don't have an approved vaccine for them or ATAGI advice to support the rollout of vaccine to them. The Labor Party come in here continuously putting false premises to the parliament, but they are also trying to undermine public confidence in the vaccination rollout program. We continue, as we've done all the way through, to act on the health advice. We don't yet have ATAGI advice with respect to the vaccination of children between the ages of 12 and 15. We are expecting it very soon.
Senator Watt interjecting—
Senator Watt.
We are expecting it very soon—in fact, we're expecting it to go to national cabinet this week.
Senator Keneally interjecting—
Order! Senator Keneally.
We will continue to follow the advice of the health professionals who have very well guided us—(Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator Cash. Can the minister please advise the Senate on how the national plan agreed by national cabinet is bringing confidence to small and family businesses across Australia and how the Liberal and National government is supporting these businesses to get through and recover from the COVID-19 pandemic?
I thank Senator O'Sullivan for the question. The Morrison government well and truly believes and acknowledges that small and family businesses are the backbone of the Australian economy. Since the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have provided to them and other businesses around Australia unprecedented economic and health support. What we're now seeing is Australians well and truly stepping up and backing small and family businesses around the country by backing and supporting our national framework for reopening. Australians—and you can see this every day, as Senator Colbeck tells us—are putting their arms out and getting vaccinated, and we see that reflected in the vaccination rates every day, because Australians understand that vaccination is the key to reopening and is the key, as set out by national cabinet, to ending the lockdowns and ensuring that businesses across Australia—in particular our small and family businesses—again have the confidence that they need.
In the Morrison government, we continue to put in place those policies which will help our small and family businesses. You would have seen today that we have announced that we are now providing additional support to small and medium businesses around Australia who continue to deal with the economic fallout and the economic impacts of COVID-19. What we are doing is expanding eligibility for the Small and Medium Enterprise Recovery Loan Scheme. What we are doing now is removing the requirements for SMEs to have received JobKeeper during the March quarter in 2021 or to have been flood affected in order to be eligible for this scheme. This is a good thing for those businesses, and what it shows is that we are continuing to put in place those policies that will back our businesses around Australia every step of the way.
Senator O'Sullivan, a supplementary question?
How will the new eligibility for the SME Recovery Loan Scheme assist businesses that have been impacted by lockdowns and restrictions that are currently in place?
SMEs that are dealing with the economic impacts of the coronavirus and have a turnover of less than $250 million will now be able to access loans of up to $5 million over a term of up to 10 years. Other key features of the SME Recovery Loan Scheme include that the government will guarantee 80 per cent of the loan amount; that lenders are allowed to offer borrowers a repayment holiday of up to 24 months; that loans can be used for a broad range of business purposes, including to support investment—if you can invest in yourself, we want to back you—that loans may be used to refinance any pre-existing debt of an eligible borrower, including those from the SME guarantee scheme; and that loans can also be unsecured or secured. Again, what we're doing is that the expanding scheme will enable lenders to continue supporting Australian businesses when we know they need it the most.
Senator O'Sullivan, a final supplementary question?
How can each and every Australian business and employee help ensure the delivery of the national plan so Australia can chart its way out of this pandemic?
That's exactly what we know Australians want to do: chart our way out of this pandemic. In particular, when it comes to those mum and dad small businesses around Australia, we all know that the best thing that we can do to support them at this time is to get vaccinated. Vaccinations, not lockdowns, are the answer to getting us out of the COVID-19 pandemic. We all know that by hitting the vaccination target we'll be able to reopen and we will all be able to see that light at the end of the tunnel. Small businesses, if we don't hit the vaccination targets, will close. Jobs will be lost. What we owe to every small business around Australia is to get behind the plan that has been agreed by national cabinet. That is the plan to give them the confidence they need so that they know that we're backing them every step of the way and that the country is backing them every step of the way.
My question is to the Minister for Government Services and Minister for the NDIS, Senator Reynolds. How many children with a disability in Australia have had their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine?
I thank the senator for her question. Can I just clarify: you're talking about those aged from 12 to 15? Sorry, I missed some of the question.
I think we've got really iterative, but I'll allow Senator O'Neill to clarify the question.
Yes, it's children with disability, including those aged from 12 to 15.
In relation, first of all, to the under-12 children with disability, as the senator would know, no country in the world has vaccinations yet for under-12s. In relation to 12- to 15-year-olds—
Are you raising a point of order, Senator O'Neill?
Yes. Just because there was a little lack of clarity, I'll ask the question again. It wasn't about—
No, Senator O'Neill; I'm sorry. The minister asked you to clarify. The question was, 'How many children with disability have had a first dose of the vaccine?' The minister is being directly relevant by answering the question in the form she is. I can't instruct her how to answer. It's not long till the debate on questions after question time.
Thank you very much, Mr President. That's why I sought the clarification, because, obviously, there are different cohorts of children's ages. However, if the senator is referring to 12- to 15-year-olds, I can confirm that this week I confirmed publicly that all participants aged 12 to 15, of whom there are 48,308, were now eligible for the Pfizer vaccination nationwide. Since that announcement—it opened yesterday—we have had already over 1,056 participants in this cohort receive a vaccination.
Senator O'Neill, a supplementary question?
Sydney mother Heike Fabig, whose son Bodhi lives with multiple disabilities, including neuropathy, has said:
It took me eight attempts and eight dead ends before by pure sheer coincidence, I found somewhere that would vaccinate my child.
Why has the Morrison-Joyce government left it up to sheer luck for children with disabilities to be vaccinated?
Can I just say that is one of the most ridiculously dangerous questions to ask in this place. It is a bit reminiscent of the Greens question today. We have over 8,000 locations people can book, including several thousand in New South Wales. To give you an idea, since I've become minister we have provided new ways of getting people vaccinated. Yesterday we announced the Pfizer vaccinations, and there are over 8,000 locations, including 2,500 in New South Wales. Providing safe access to vaccinations not just for people with disability but also for their families and carers is a priority. At the moment, we're vaccinating 1.8 million people each week and we are also providing new ways. Since we started the new approach, 90,000 NDIS participants have been vaccinated. That rate has been increasing exponentially over the last few weeks. (Time expired)
Senator O'Neill, a final supplementary question?
I'm sure the mothers are listening very carefully. Sydney mother Yolande Cailly, whose 14-year-old daughter Zoe has Down syndrome, was forced in desperation to turn to Twitter to find a vaccine appointment. The risk of dying of COVID-19 for people with Down syndrome is 36 times higher than for the general population. How many children with disabilities will remain unvaccinated, unprotected and at risk when Australia reaches the 70 and 80 per cent targets for Australians over 16?
Again, I can confirm that there are thousands of ways and locations for people to get vaccinated in New South Wales at the moment, given the number of cases and the number of vaccinations that are occurring. There are two ways she can also try: through her local pharmacist and her local GP. I know many of them are giving priority to parents and children and workers in the disability sector.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
eoqt
Mr President, the government does not make public interest immunity claims lightly. We never have and we never will, and we certainly don't do it without the careful consideration of the particular harm to the public interest. I have carefully reviewed the claim. I have personally, again, carefully reviewed the claim of public interest immunity and recognise that it would not be in the public interest to disclose the information over which the claim is being reiterated in relation to legal advice and also to the deliberations of cabinet.
The government has engaged in good faith with the Senate and its committees at all times. We have provided updates and additional explanations as litigation in relation to the income compliance program has progressed. In addition, government agencies and witnesses have responded to many hundreds of questions at hearings and on notice in relation to the design and implementation of the income compliance program.
Firstly, I go to the claim for the disclosure of information relating to legal advice. It doesn't automatically follow from the Federal Court's approval of the class action settlement that there is no longer a proper basis for the government to maintain public interest immunity over the legal advice it received in connection with the income compliance program. The claim for information relating to legal advice has been made on two grounds. The first is the very, very long-held practice of claiming privilege over legal advice and associated documents obtained in the course of normal decision-making processes of government. The second ground is in relation to the possible prejudice to the Commonwealth in relation to the conduct of litigation relating to the income compliance program. The claim is grounded in the importance of government being able to obtain legal advice in relation to normal decision-making functions without the risk of the advice or the information relating to that advice being disclosed. If such a risk existed, it could prevent governments from appropriately seeking and obtaining such legal advice. The availability of frank legal advice to decision-makers within government should and must be protected as a fundamental principle of good government.
Although the class action settlement has been approved, as recognised by the Federal Court on 11 June 2021, not all potential claims arising from the income compliance program will be resolved through the class action. Disclosing the content or dates of any legal advice would obviously have the very real potential of prejudicing the Commonwealth's ability to defend the claims. To this point, I note that the Federal Court has previously found advices that are the subject of this public interest immunity interest claim to be privileged legal advice. In fact, His Honour Justice Lee upheld the Commonwealth's claim of legal professional privilege in connection with every one of the documents that was the subject of the challenge from Gordon Legal. Allow me to remind the Senate that former Labor minister Joe Ludwig told Senate estimates that he would refuse to provide the Labor government's legal advice for the very same reason. He said:
… it has been a longstanding practice of both this government and successive governments not to disclose the content of advice.
Similarly, this practice has also been previously outlined by former Hawke-Keating government Attorney-General the Hon. Gareth Evans QC, who said in this very chamber in 1995:
Nor is it the practice or has it been the practice over the years for any government to make available legal advice from its legal advisers made in the course of the normal decision making process of government, for good practical reasons associated with good government and also as a matter of fundamental principle.
Secondly, the minute disclosed deliberations of cabinet. I will now turn to the public interest immunity claims in relation to cabinet deliberations. Providing a copy of or information about the minute requested by the Senate Community Affairs References Committee would disclose or could reasonably be expected to disclose the deliberations of cabinet. It is in the public interest for the deliberations of the cabinet not to be made public. By making a public interest claim in respect of the minute, the government is doing no more than standing by a well-established right to protect the disclosure of cabinet deliberations, in the same way as has been done by successive past governments. In interlocutory hearings in the class action, the Federal Court upheld claims of public interest immunity in relation to cabinet materials, including this minute. Further, as recently as 4 August 2021, the freedom of information division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal found that this document was properly the subject of cabinet exemption under the Freedom of Information Act.
In closing, the letter from me setting out a detailed explanation about the basis of the public interest immunity claim has been provided to the chair of the Community Affairs References Committee.
I rise to take note of the minister's response to the resolution of this place and the comments that she has just made in the chamber. I reject the basis on which the government are claiming public interest immunity. I put it that they're actually claiming government interest immunity, because this is about protecting the government and trying to make sure that the community does not get access to the information that the community affairs committee has, I will note, repeatedly asked for. I will remind this place, as I did yesterday—and, in fact, as Senator Pratt was just commenting on—that it has never been accepted by the Senate nor in any other comparable representative assembly that legal professional privilege provides grounds for a refusal of information in a parliamentary forum. What we have here is a system that illegally claimed debts from people who had received income support, and it made people pay $1.7 billion to the government. On top of refunding the $1.7 billion to all those hundreds of thousands of people that were affected deeply by this scheme, the government also had to pay $112 million to cover interest. That's not compensation. That's just paying back the debts. But nobody could ever, I would argue, fully repay and compensate the people that were affected by this scheme, because it caused untold damage.
What this government is saying is that other people who weren't covered by the class action may in the future want to bring action against the government. The government wants to protect itself against Australians who consider that their debt was also raised illegally. That's what the government is saying here. The sorts of things that we are asking about I don't think are unreasonable. Did the government get legal advice? If it did, when did it get it? Who provided it? As I said, I don't think that these requests are unreasonable.
As we know, this Senate inquiry is ongoing. We had a hearing on 19 August and we had Mr Grech from Gordon Legal, as mentioned yesterday, present evidence to us, and he made a number of observations when I asked about the ongoing case and issues around the claim of public interest immunity. Mr Grech went through a number of these specific issues and that the court upheld the government's claim of public interest immunity. But that is not how I understood the evidence that Mr Grech gave us yesterday. He said that some documents, the judge agreed, were covered by public interest immunity but others were not. He said in answers to questions from me:
Having said that, I must say that one of the concerns we had throughout the conduct of the proceeding was what we considered to be the Commonwealth making quite spurious claims of legal professional privilege and parliamentary privilege in respect of documents. The record will show that there were very extensive court processes involved in persuading, and at times it required judges to make orders to coerce the Commonwealth to abandon some of the claims it made. I think it is a quite concerning feature, increasingly, of the way the Commonwealth litigates disputes—that it tends to claim both legal professional privilege and parliamentary privilege over a very, very wide array of documents.
He then went on to say, amongst other things:
… there is a deep concern that we have—and I know it's been expressed in academic circles as well—of how those privileges are being abused.
He went on:
When governments abuse those privileges, it brings the whole system into disrepute and creates an enormous undermining of public confidence in the way our governments operate and, in particular, in the relationship between our public servants and the government.
I support very strongly what Mr Grech said during this inquiry. We expect the government to be model litigants. Mr Grech elsewhere talked about the fact that that's what the government should in fact be, and yet they are claiming in this case parliamentary privilege over a very, very wide array of documents. He said, I reiterate, that it creates an enormous undermining of public confidence.
The government has already undermined confidence in it and the way it operates our social security system by the very fact that robodebt happened in the first place. It caused such distress. The government further undermined confidence in governments by the fact that they now seek to hide it, because that is what they are doing. Let's make no bones about it. They are seeking, repeatedly, to hide very, very important details about this whole sorry saga. Unless we actually identify what went wrong, the Australian community has no guarantee that this sort of thing will not happen again. Saying you're sorry, which is sort of what happened with robodebt—there was a sort of sorry—should mean that you mean it and that it won't happen again. As I just said, we have no guarantee that this won't happen again if the government doesn't come clean.
By seeking to perpetually claim public interest immunity, the government build further the case for a royal commission on this issue. I can tell you that all the people who contact me about robodebt express complete lack of confidence in the government and the way they handled robodebt. These people continue to feel upset that they were hounded—with debt collectors at the door in some instances, or on the phone, making them feel intimidated, scared, like they'd done something wrong. I had pensioners crying in the hearing—literally with tears streaming down their face—unable to speak because they were so choked up because they thought that the government and the community thought they had stolen money, thought they had cheated the Commonwealth, and they had done no such thing. That causes deep psychological distress.
We don't want to see that happening again in this country, but we are at risk of seeing that happen again if this government continues to hide behind public interest immunity. I hope that this place will continue to try and hold this government to account, to get access to this information, information that the Australians affected by this deserve to know. I urge the government to reconsider and not just—with all due respect—cut and paste, yet again, their excuses for not presenting the information that the committee is after. We are after whether legal advice was sought, whether the advice was provided internally or externally and the dates when the legal advice was sought and provided. The minister has not articulated how the release of this information could possibly prejudice ongoing court proceedings.
Senator O'Neill interjecting—
Exactly, Senator O'Neill. You just claim it; you don't explain it. It's not good enough for our community. We expect better, particularly in the face of how outrageous this robodebt scheme was.
[by video link] I wish to follow up on some of the things that Senator Siewert said. Firstly, I wish to make it very clear that, if the government were to table legal advice in this chamber, that advice would be protected by parliamentary privilege and could not be used in a court, in the same way that legal advice is otherwise protected through the normal doctrine of legal professional privilege. I'm very glad that the Attorney is sitting there. She will be aware of the case of Egan v Chadwick, in the New South Wales Court of Appeal, where three justices made a unanimous ruling that legal professional privilege is not an exemption that can apply in relation to a request by a house of parliament. The court ruled that it is quite within the rights of a house of parliament to gain access to the advice upon which governments made their decision. That's part of the oversight process. It's disingenuous for the minister to walk into the chamber and suggest that it's okay to do so because the court upheld legal professional privilege. The whole point of legal professional privilege is not to keep things secret; it's to make sure that discussions between lawyers and their clients cannot be used in a court. That's the only case where the protection applies. So it's quite incorrect to try and roll out the fact that a justice may have upheld that claim and use that as a reason for not tabling something in this chamber. Again, the relevant case is Egan v Chadwick.
I'm sick of ministers standing up, as attorneys-general have done repeatedly in this chamber, and saying something that suggests legal professional privilege documents shouldn't be tabled. It is wrong. It is wrong in law, and it's wrong for attorneys to make that sort of assertion. I acknowledge that this assertion was made by Minister Reynolds and not the Attorney, but the Attorney must always seek to uphold the law, not only outside this building but also inside it, and recognise the jurisdiction of the courts. In relation to claims that somehow documents shouldn't be tabled here because they're legally privileged and the AAT upheld it, again, the AAT is an environment in which the same rules don't apply in terms of the ability to look at legally privileged documents.
I'll now move to cabinet claims. I've got a bit of a background in cabinet claims, having won a few of these matters before the Information Commissioner and, indeed, in the AAT. Again, the Senate has never accepted that just because something is a cabinet document it can't be ordered for production. That is not true of deliberations of cabinet, but there has been a ruling in our courts that the deliberations of cabinet are the actual discussions that take place between cabinet ministers, as recorded in the notebooks. The notebooks that are associated with cabinet are very special in that, even under the Archives Act, they have an additional 10 years over cabinet documents. Cabinet documents are released after 20 years; cabinet notebooks, still, are only released after 30 years, recognising that is where deliberations are recorded. In the minutes of cabinet, only a record of the decisions is made. Which recommendations are accepted and what actions might need to be taken are actually recorded. It's long been accepted that, in exceptional circumstances—and, to make sure I'm not misleading the chamber, I will state that they have to be exceptional—either the courts or the Senate can seek access to cabinet documents. That ruling was made in Commonwealth v Northern Land Council, in the High Court, basically making it very clear that, if the interests of justice required it, in fact cabinet documents could be required to be produced in a court.
In relation to the Senate, I encourage senators to go and have a look at a lecture that was given by Bret Walker SC as part of the parliamentary series, which stated the same claim as exists in the court—that ultimately the Senate can seek these sorts of documents. Again, the burden is high. I don't necessarily suggest that the burden in this instance would warrant it in relation to the cabinet documents, but a minister should not walk into this chamber and mislead by suggesting that these documents can't be provided. They would be much better off simply saying that the burden hasn't been met. We need to make sure that, inside this chamber, when we're dealing with matters of oversight, when we're exercising our role in relation to oversight of government, things are done properly and in accordance with the judgements of courts. You might think that the courts don't have application or don't have jurisdiction to examine whether or not the Senate does or doesn't have a power. It was found in the case of Egan v Willis that the court can make a determination as to whether or not the Senate has a particular power. It can't just then decide on the use of that power. We must respect the court's views on this. It's inappropriate that ministers wander in here and simply quote that previous people have said that this doesn't need to happen and that, therefore, it's right, because it's not right. It's wrong and it's unlawful.
Here we go again—it's Groundhog Day once again. We've been here before, and those opposite are using the valuable time of this chamber to make their political points again. Minister Reynolds has made a claim for public interest immunity in respect of the deliberations of cabinet and the disclosure of legal advice in relation to the Centrelink income compliance program. As has been said in this chamber every time this topic has raised its head—and despite what those on the other side might say—it has been a longstanding practice of successive Australian governments, of both political persuasions, not to disclose the fact or content of privileged legal advice. We have heard previously, even today, that Labor minister Senator Joe Ludwig told Senate estimates in 2011 that he would refuse to provide the Labor government's legal advice for the same exact reason. As we also heard earlier, it was confirmed by another Labor luminary, the Hon. Gareth Evans QC, in 1995. Furthermore, we all know that successive governments have upheld that deliberations of cabinet and its committees should be conducted in secret. This ensures the freedoms of cabinet deliberations can be preserved, as it is not in the public interest to disclose those deliberations. I reiterate: this is a long-established basis for a public interest immunity claim.
As the minister stated in the order-for-production letter, even though the class action has resolved and was recognised by the Federal Court on 11 June 2021, not all potential claims arising out of the income compliance program will be resolved through the class action. This is because a significant number of class members opted out of the class action and are free to bring their own individual claim should they wish to. As everybody in this chamber knows, the income compliance program has been subject to extensive scrutiny already, including by the Commonwealth Ombudsman and within parliamentary inquiries, including through the Community Affairs References Committee. As you are aware, the Community Affairs References Committee recently tabled its fourth interim report and has already held nine public hearings on it. This committee will be holding another hearing, the 10th, later this week. The process has also been subject to decisions of the Federal Court.
As announced in November 2019, the agency no longer raises debts by averaging ATO income information, without other information, on the basis that it is not sufficient. This relates to the sufficiency or adequacy of information used in making an administrative decision—specifically, whether or not there is enough information to make that decision. The government respects the decision of the court, including the finding of His Honour Justice Murphy that the settlement agreement proposed was fair and reasonable, and has approved the settlement. Group members who objected to the settlement will be given a further opportunity to opt out of the class action by 17 September 2021. Information about the opt-out process has been sent to objecting group members from 26 July this year. Once this process is complete, further information will be sent to class action group members on whether they are eligible for a settlement payment. And I note that a web portal and telephone line will be established so class action members can review their information and raise a query or a dispute.
Importantly, in the class action settlement agreement, Gordon Legal and the Commonwealth acknowledged that the settlement is not an admission of liability by the Commonwealth and it does not reflect an acceptance by the Commonwealth of the allegations that the Commonwealth or any of its officers had any knowledge of the unlawfulness associated with the income compliance program. The Federal Court similarly found that there is little in the materials placed before the court that could have sustained such an allegation.
Once it became clear that the basis upon which the debts were being raised—through the sole use of average ATO income data—was insufficient, Services Australia paused in-scope debts as they were identified. As at 20 August this year, about $736.6 million has been refunded, which is about 98.1 per cent of the estimated total of $751 million. Around 423,000 people have had their debts refunded and/or reduced to zero. Everyone who has responded has either been refunded or is in the process of being refunded. In cases where people haven't responded, their eligibility for a refund will remain on their record but Services Australia is unable to pay them until they provide up-to-date details so the transaction can be processed.
The government is focused on ensuring that the settlement agreement is implemented. The continued rhetoric from the opposition and crossbench that the government is not assisting those who need assistance is a falsehood. It is typical of their political games that have so frequently been used to scare the most vulnerable in our community. Frankly, it is no different than 'Mediscare'. Within the social service space, the Morrison government is focused on supporting all Australians as the economy recovers from the coronavirus pandemic. From 1 April this year, working-age payment rates, including JobSeeker payments, were increased by $50 and the income-free threshold was increased to $150 a fortnight. This was done to support jobseekers as they secure employment and re-enter the workforce. This reform has been the single biggest year-on-year increase to the rate of unemployment benefits since 1986 and represents an increase of 9.7 per cent between 1 April 2020 and 2021.
While the opposition has claimed otherwise, the truth is that our social security system has served Australians very well. Prior to the global COVID-19 crisis, we saw the proportion of working-age Australians reliant on welfare payments drop to just 13.5 per cent, the lowest level recorded in more than 30 years. No government has done more for Australians doing it tough than the Morrison government. At the height of the pandemic, we provided $32 billion in emergency support payments. This was on top of the previously mentioned increases in welfare payments. The Morrison government's key focus is creating jobs and getting people back into work. We know that getting a job is the best way to improve the living standards of people and their families. And it's not just about the money; it's about self-respect too; providing for your family promotes self-respect. The conduct of the opposition and crossbench is frankly appalling.
Finally, I would like the Senate to note that, as outlined in our dissenting comments on the interim report, during the interlocutory hearings in the class action the Australian Federal Court upheld claims of public interest immunity in relation to documents such as cabinet materials. This includes the executive minute to the Minister for Social Services dated 12 February 2015. Thank you.
I rise to respond to this gross failure to actually tell the truth, to come clean and to give to Australians who had robodebt inflicted upon them access to the information they need about what the government knew and how they organised this terrible experience of public policy that has seen the government have to pay back to its own citizens $1.8 billion that it illegally charged them through robodebt. They sent you a bill you should never have received, and, if you didn't cough up without question, they chased you. They chased you and chased you.
I don ' t care what names the people on the other side of this chamber call me, because I ' m going to keep coming in here and raising this on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of Australians who had a debt inflicted on them by their own government. We have the minister claiming that hundreds of questions were answered by public servants. This government has claimed public interest immunity in those hearings over and over, and said it is against the public interest for them to know the truth about how Mr Morrison cooked up this scheme — how he oversaw it with Minister Robert, Minister Tudge and now Minister Reynolds . They are continuing to try to hide from the Australians what they did and how they decided to make this historic mistake. They refuse to provide that information . It ' s just not good enough. Going forward, this has got to be fixed.
We ' ve got Senator Reynolds coming in and saying : ' Oh, on this occasion, no, the government didn ' t give any response. When it was a Labor government, you didn ' t give a response. ' Let me give you a few back. In 2007, the then Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Kevin Andrews, released advice in relation to the power to cancel the visa of Dr Han ee f. So, b efore you try to convince people that you don ' t have to fess up and don ' t have to give these documents , because that has never been done, let ' s tell the truth here for a change, shall we? Of course governments hand it over if they have any integrity, and that ' s what Minister Andrews did. In 2011, Prime Minister Julia Gillard advised the House of Representatives that she had made available to the Leader of the Opposition, who was then Mr Abbott, the advice of the Solicitor-General on asylum seekers and offshore processing. Yes, legal advice is handed over. Even Christian Porter handed over information about the eligibility of Mr Dutton. This claim that no documents about legal information get handed over ha s to be put to bed once and for all.
I ' ve got a feeling we ' re going to be back here debating this , because I can tell you I will not let this rest. I will not leave all those people who were attacked by their own government hanging in the wind with this litany of lies . The government come forward and they start talking all th is gobbledegook —legal professional privilege and public immunity claims—as if they can snow the Australian people under with this professional language. But the Australian people , especially those who were impacted by robodebt , are onto this government. They know what was said so clearly by one of our witnesses last week, who described what the Australian government had done to its own people as a shakedown. That ' s how they d escribed what happened to them.
We ' ve heard from amazing witnesses who told us that this problem is actually continuing. Ms Eagle came and spoke to the committee. She spoke about the problem that happened with robodebt continuing today, and that ' s why it ' s so important that we get these documents. The government cannot continue to hide behind the smokescreen that it ' s against the public interest to tell us how you got this so wrong. The public deserve to know. You should be coughing up these documents. You should not be able to again do to the Austr alian public what you did then.
Ms Eagle says this is how it rolls at the moment:
A client receives a call from a private number, perhaps on a Saturday, and they ' re told they need to make an arrangement to repay a Centrelink debt. This is the first contact they ' ve had. They ask what the debt is about. They ' re told they have to look on myGov or at the app. So the client checks, and there ' s no letter there that explains how the debt arose.
It goes on and on. The litany of failures and the abuse of artificial intelligence against human rights being perpetrated by this government on its own citizens continues. That is why the mistake of robodebt has not yet been acknowledged by this government. Despite the fact they paid $1.8 billion back, they still need to come in here and cough up the documents.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Birmingham), the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services (Senator Colbeck) and the Minister for Government Services (Senator Reynolds) to questions without notice asked by Senators McAllister, Keneally, O ' Neill and Pratt today relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.
What a question time!
We have a Prime Minister who this week called Western Australians cave people. The gall of our Prime Minister, who wants to drag WA into the COVID mess of New South Wales! He called Western Australians cave people.
Honourable senators interjecting—
That's right—cave people.
Honourable senators interjecting—
'It's an analogy,' they said. Yes, it is an analogy. It is an analogy for a lack of evolution and living in a cave. It's time this Prime Minister remembered that he governs for the entire country and not just for New South Wales. The people of WA don't believe we have a Prime Minister who governs for Western Australia. This Prime Minister wants to differentiate himself as a champion for freedom in these difficult political times that he has no doubt very clearly created for himself. Well, there is no freedom when you live in fear of COVID—in fear of shortages of hospital beds, in fear of getting sick and in fear of bringing disease home to your family. This bloke has no idea. What we've had from him for the last three years is nothing but blame shifting over and over again. He blames Western Australia because we won't open up. He blames the states for leaks in quarantine—quarantine that this government is constitutionally responsible for.
He said that the Doherty institute says that 80 per cent means we can open up. Well, I'm sorry, but that is not what the Doherty institute modelling says. He has blamed the states for the vaccine rollout, when the states had no supply—the Premier said so yesterday. Besides, our Prime Minister said it's not a race anyway. Now our Prime Minister has the gall to whack Western Australians and tell us to get out of our cave.
We know that Scott Morrison hasn't supported lockdowns in Western Australia. We know he tried to gang up with Clive Palmer to tear down our border restrictions. This Prime Minister may not like it and this government may not like it. You may choose to sneer at Western Australia, but Western Australia's COVID strategy has worked. We don't want to be like New South Wales. We in Western Australia have a truckload of freedom right now, a lot more freedom than other parts of the country. Short, sharp lockdowns have worked for us. Locking COVID out of the state has worked for us. Keeping the state working hard with exports has worked for us, and it has certainly worked for the country. We are the freest in the country, perhaps the freest in the world.
Australia is a lot bigger than New South Wales, and it's time that Scott Morrison, our Prime Minister, realised that. Western Australia is a very different place. We don't have the spread of the coronavirus. We are the most successful economy and community in Australia. We are providing the export revenue and tax revenue that is supporting the rest of the country.
Western Australia is right to continue to be cautious. The national plan does allow WA to keep COVID out, including by managing the border. Mark McGowan insisted on this when the plan was agreed. The real issue isn't what's happening in Western Australia right now or what will be happening in Western Australia in a few months time; the real issue is what's happening in New South Wales. This Prime Minister is trying to deflect attention from the messes of his own making.
We know that we will need to remain vigilant in relation to COVID. Areas right around the world reliant on mining have been taken down by COVID and lost production, whereas Western Australia has not. It might surprise our Prime Minister to know that WA industries staying open is the only reason the government can afford to offer financial assistance to other states that need it. Right now WA is one of the safest places, if not the safest place, in the world. If that's a cave, I'm going to stick in it.
There you go. That was an effort, let's just put it that way. That's about as much as I could—
Honourable senators interjecting—
It was an effort.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Senator Watt!
In those five minutes of ranting from the other side, thankfully—help me out here; five times 200, that's 1,000—a thousand extra people went and got vaccinated, just in the last five minutes. That's despite the efforts of those on the other side, who just want to run down the program that is seeing Australians getting protected from the coronavirus. Thank goodness that Australians are stepping up and doing that, in spite of the rubbish that comes from those opposite. It's absolutely outrageous.
Frankly, after spending these three weeks or so here in Canberra, I just can't wait to get home. I can't wait to get home, back to Western Australia, because it is the best place in the world to live and you really wouldn't want to be anywhere else. It's absolutely fantastic. And the way that Western Australians have stepped up to deal with the coronavirus pandemic is phenomenal. But let's just deal with some facts and the reality here. The last delta case that came across the border into Western Australia occurred when a woman came from Bondi over to Perth—she worked as a physio or something like that in a gym—and it spread to just a couple of people that she was in close contact with, and those people isolated. Those people appropriately isolated and they tested positive. Cases emerged out of those few people who were in isolation due to being in those COVID hotspots. It was at that point, 48 hours after the index case was known, that the state government, appropriately, locked down the state because we just didn't know how far it had spread across Perth and the metropolitan area. But, as it turned out, there was no further transmission—no transmission apart from those who were in those initial close-contact areas. Thank goodness for that, because it meant that we didn't have to have an enduring lockdown, like we're seeing here in the ACT and, certainly, what they're seeing in New South Wales.
Contrast that with what's happened here in the ACT. The Chief Minister immediately locked it down. We all recall the press conference that was held at about 12.15 in the afternoon. By 5 pm that day, it was already locked down. That was about two days earlier than the Premier of Western Australia locked down Western Australia when the last outbreak occurred. So this notion that the Chief Minister crushed and killed the virus is an absolute outrage. What you're seeing here in the ACT is a situation where the virus is spreading, but there's a huge amount of compliance—ACT people are very compliant—and there's a huge effort being made by the authorities and by health professionals to ensure that this virus doesn't spread. Now, I drove home from here the other night—I've hired a car to be able to get to and from my apartment because I was here all last week. There are New South Wales numberplates on my hire car, and I was pulled over by the police. The police asked me, 'Where have you been and where are you going?' Obviously, I complied and told them exactly what I'd been doing. I'd been at work and I was going straight home, as per what we're allowed to do. They're taking it very seriously here—very, very seriously—but there is still an element of COVID spreading.
So for Senator Pratt to come in here and pretend there's this miraculous thing going on in WA, just because we're Western Australians—and I sympathise with that; we are very special people over there. That's very true. But it's just outrageous to think that we're somehow immune from this. Western Australia is just as prone to having an outbreak as anywhere else. We have hundreds of trucks coming across the border. The question is: are we actually ready; is our health system ready? The Deputy Premier, the health minister over there, blamed Western Australians for the rise in health issues when he said that they weren't presenting because of the COVID issues last year. It's just outrageous. We've got to make sure that we're actually ready for when there is an outbreak. The best thing that Western Australians can do is go and get themselves vaccinated. But we've got to also make sure that the health system is set up and ready, and I'm concerned about whether or not Western Australia is actually ready and the health system is ready—
Order, Senator O'Sullivan.
I rise to take note of the as usual and, sadly, utterly inadequate answers from those opposite to questions concerning vaccines for children, which is such an important issue. As with every single other aspect of the vaccine rollout, the Morrison-Joyce government has botched the landing on this. They've missed every deadline, they've missed every goalpost that they set themselves, and Australians are paying the price. Yet their failure is more egregious when we consider the at-risk communities that they have not only failed but long ignored. The disability royal commission heard evidence last year that there was a glaring lack of pandemic planning for children and young people with disability, yet nothing has been done to effectively prepare for this new stage of the rollout. I read in an ABC article from yesterday that Bodhi, a young man with neuropathy, was forced to make eight separate attempts to get vaccinated in Sydney. His mother rightly asked:
I understand we are in an unprecedented pandemic but really does it have to be this hard?
Yet, in her response to my question today, Minister Reynolds denied that mother's lived reality. It was dismissed out of hand by the minister. That reveals the failure to actually deal with the crushing reality of parents trying to get access to the vaccination rollout for a disabled child. 'It really didn't have to be this hard,' I say to Bodhi's mum, 'but it is because of the ineptitude of this government.' Bodhi's condition means he has difficulty managing his lung function and, were he to get COVID, he would have much greater difficulty breathing than if you or I got COVID. Tragically, his older brother had a similar condition, and that poor family is suffering the grief of losing Bodhi's brother, who died of pneumonia three years ago. We've got to make access to vaccines for kids with disability as easy as possible. It hasn't been on the to-do list for Prime Minister Morrison and Minister Reynolds. In the US, they've managed to get around 600,000 vaccines out the door for children aged 12 to 15, and more than four million of those under 17 have been vaccinated. Yet Scott Morrison's ruled out including children in our vaccine targets before opening up.
We all want to open up. We all want to be with our families. We all want some sense of normal. We all want businesses to get back up and running, if they can. We want to get back to work, but no-one in those groups wants to trigger an attack by this illness on our children. No-one wants to trigger the deaths of children because the vaccine rollout hasn't been properly planned. Modelling by epidemiologists from ANU has warned that excluding children from our vaccination targets could result in thousands more deaths across this community, with those children who are most vulnerable caught up in the outbreak of delta, which is highly transmissible to children. This is also going to be particularly worrying for populations that are disproportionately young, like Aboriginal populations in western New South Wales. I'm advised that ABC Central West NSW has reported that only 6.3 per cent of Aboriginal people in western New South Wales are vaccinated at this stage. That's where there's a massive outbreak, about which I made a contribution just before question time.
This government's appalling mismanagement of the rollout has left Indigenous communities without the recommended Pfizer vaccine. Remember, Mr Morrison was offered 40 million doses by Pfizer in June 2020. He squibbed it; he didn't get those vaccines. Because he made that choice, this is where we are, without adequate doses of Pfizer. People on lists are waiting desperately for it, but they can't get it, and it all comes back to the Prime Minister's decision to reject those 40 million Pfizer vaccines. With only eight per cent of the First Nations population fully vaccinated across the country, words fail me. I cannot think of what's going to happen in remote communities that will be infected with the delta strain very, very soon. These communities have been chronically underserviced by successive Liberal-National governments, particularly in New South Wales. People in those communities have been forced to stay away from members of their community, lest they contract this deadly disease and have to leave country for indefinite periods. But that is what's happening right now in the central west of New South Wales. This government is failing the people of Australia.
Let's just start with a fact, shall we? For those opposite, a fact is something based in truth. So when we talk about vaccinating children and suggest that we should be looking at children under 12—there is actually not a vaccine approved for them, globally. So let's just stop with that little piece of fallacy, shall we? Perhaps you want those of us with children under 12 to offer them up as guinea pigs? I can assure you that won't be happening. But I do note, as the parent of a 12-year-old boy who is an NDIS participant, I'm thrilled that from today my beautiful boy is now eligible to get the Pfizer vaccine. What I also know is that, had I been in Sydney, we would have been able to get an appointment tomorrow morning, at 7.30 am, at the hospital that is less than 250 metres from my apartment—250 metres from my apartment at 7.30 tomorrow morning I could have got him his first Pfizer jab—and there were multiple other options available across New South Wales. Unfortunately, I'm not in Sydney; I'm not there to be able to take it up but, had I been there, we would have been able to get our first dose tomorrow morning of Pfizer for a 12-year-old boy who's an NDIS participant.
I do accept, though, that sometimes families can struggle to find this information to figure out where they can get a booking, because they are available in health hubs, in pharmacies, through GPs. For those opposite who might actually be interested in assisting people, perhaps you'd like to direct them to my website, hollyhughes.com.au. My staff have put together a fantastic COVID page, collating all the information from federal, state and private sites to let people know where they can book a vaccine, what vaccines are available and how long it will take for them to get in.
In recognition of all NDIS participants over 12 now—as of yesterday—being eligible for a vaccine, Tom in my office really went over and above. He's put together a page specifically for people with a disability. Not only have we included information on where people can go and get a vaccine; we've actually put information in there containing social stories. Because we understand that, for a lot of people with a disability, doing something new—something a bit scary, something that you don't really understand—can be challenging, we've included links to social stories. For those of you who don't understand what they are, they're very simple stories with language and pictures that help families and carers explain to the person with a disability what's going to happen—what it means, how they might have to wait, what they're going to have to do when they get to their appointment. This is because some of us actually understand the challenges of having a child with a disability and what that means when coming to get a vaccine. We've gone out of our way—in fact, not even out of our way, just doing what we do—to include information to assist these families.
I would also like to acknowledge David in my office. He got a couple of phone calls last week from parents of children with disabilities who were struggling to find where to get a vaccine. For one family in particular, he pointed them in the right direction on our website and they managed to find one themselves. But, for another family that was still struggling, he went out of his way and made the phone calls for them, and that child received their very first dose of vaccine this week. I saw the letter yesterday from that parent, thanking him for his assistance and for going over and above what was required.
So next time Senator O'Neill gets a phone call from someone like Bodhi's mum, rather than using Bodhi as an opportunity to score a political point, perhaps Senator O'Neill and her office might like to go to some effort to actually assist the family, to actually work with them through this issue, not use them as a political pointscoring exercise. It is absolutely disgraceful. To all of those opposite sitting there, casting those stones, throwing those barbs but not really ever helping anybody, let me give you some advice: perhaps you'd like to find some real information, perhaps make it available to your constituents, perhaps ensure that people know where to go to find information, rather than fearmongering and running scare campaigns. Rather than offending and patronising parents with a disability, maybe try and help us.
At 4 pm, in about 15 seconds, we are interrupting debate to go to a disallowance motion, so we will return to taking note after that, rather than interrupt someone 15 seconds into a speech. It being 4 pm, we will go to the motion in the name of Senator Waters.
At the request of Senator Waters, I move:
That the Industry Research and Development (Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program) Instrument 2021, made under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, be disallowed
I know Senator Waters is sitting there ready to make a great contribution.
[by video link] I note that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 has been moved. It is to disallow the Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program grant. I want to start by saying clearly what this vote is about. In the middle of a climate crisis, at a time when the International Energy Agency, the G7 and the IPCC are all saying, 'Stop funding coal, oil and gas,' the Morrison government is gifting $50 million of public money to the fossil fuel industry to frack for gas in the Beetaloo basin in the Northern Territory. It's doing so against the wishes of First Nations communities and before key environmental baseline studies have been completed.
Twenty-one million dollars of that slush fund has already gone to the first applicants, Imperial Oil and Gas, a wholly owned subsidiary of Empire Energy, a company that is linked to major Liberal Party donors and life members and has been lobbying relevant ministers for months. There is absolutely no requirement for the company to repay any of that largesse if they go on to make millions from exploiting a public resource. There is no assurance that the companies will not spend the money offshore and avoid paying tax locally.
Today the Senate has the chance to stop this misuse of public funds, to stop the rorting, to listen to First Nations communities, to listen to the climate science, to protect precious groundwater and to save $50 million that could be better spent on housing, education or increasing JobSeeker. We have the chance to stop it. But yesterday the Labor Party said that they won't. We beg them to change their minds, because there is so much at stake here—firstly, for the climate. The Beetaloo basin holds 34 billion tonnes of gas, which is the equivalent of 68 years of Australia's current pollution level. It alone would increase Australia's annual emissions by six per cent. It is a climate bomb. Opening up the basin would completely blow our chance of meeting our already weak Paris targets. The IPCC advice could not be clearer on this: we have until 2030 to halve the world's climate pollution if we want to have any chance of staving off chain reactions that will lead to runaway climate breakdown. This is a critical decade, and even conservative bodies like the International Energy Agency recognise that and have urged governments to stop subsidising climate-wrecking fossil fuel projects. Yet this government wants to hand out more public money to its fossil fuel mates, and it seems the Labor Party are going to let it do it.
But it's not just climate impacts. Our precious groundwater is also at risk from fracking. The independent review of fracking in the Northern Territory, the Pepper review, noted significant environmental, social and economic risks from fracking the Territory. The review made 135 recommendations and it said only the full implementation of all of those recommendations could provide any assurances that those risks could be managed. But fewer than half of those recommendations have been implemented, the Senate inquiry that the Greens initiated into this insane proposal was told. The federal grants program that we're seeking to disallow would actively fly in the face of at least three of those Pepper recommendations. Environmental baseline studies won't be completed before the drilling expedited by these grants would be done, there's no requirement for carbon offset arrangements to be locked in before the drilling commences, and the federal government has no plans to extend the water trigger under the EPBC Act to assess the impact of shale gas extraction on water, as amendments that I moved in 2013 would have achieved had they not been voted down by both big parties.
Perhaps most importantly, the justice of our nation is at stake. The Senate inquiry heard from traditional owners right across the Territory, who were deeply concerned about fracking the Beetaloo basin. First Nations countries are worried for their country, their water, their kids and their access to cultural practices. They are furious that this government is handing out millions of dollars to its donor mates and offshore shareholders while kids can't get a decent education and towns like Borroloola don't have footpaths or safe water and houses are poorly built and overcrowded. These traditional owners told the Senate inquiry that they have not been consulted in any meaningful way by this government or by the companies that are so keen to pillage their country and their groundwater. There's been no scientific explanation of the work being undertaken or information provided to those traditional owners about the long-term impacts and risks. Their questions have gone unanswered and their concerns have been ignored. Traditional owners despair as their wishes and their responsibilities as custodians of this country continue to be ignored.
Yesterday, Senator McMahon shamefully dismissed the views of First Nations community members who gave evidence to the inquiry. Her comments were so typical of the attitude of this government and their approach to consultation: if you don't like what you hear, dismiss it, belittle it, ignore it. First Nations communities have spoken loudly and clearly in opposing fracking in the Beetaloo basin. This Senate must listen.
Even if you were to overlook the climate impacts, groundwater risks and the opposition of First Nations communities, these grants should be stopped, because the program is yet another dodgy Liberal slush fund for Liberal Party mates. The rogues gallery of applicants for the grants includes Sweetpea Petroleum, a company registered in a tax haven that is connected to a Russian oligarch who is currently on a US sanctions list. It includes Tamboran Resources, which is registered in a tax haven and is so opaque that we don't know who actually owns it. Santos, Australia's 11th-biggest polluting company and a regular political donor to both of the big parties, is also in the mix. There is Empire Energy, a company with extensive links and lots of financial support to the Liberal Party, one of whose main shareholders is a man with an outstanding arrest warrant from Hong Kong for insider trading.
Yesterday, Senator Watt, for the Labor Party, in his contribution to debate on the interim report of the Senate Environment and Communications Committee's inquiry into fracking in the Beetaloo, went through the shocking list of everything that is wrong this program. There were the meetings between Empire Energy and Minister Taylor, at which Minister Taylor says the grants programs weren't discussed, something that is contradicted by emails from the company disclosed under FOI. There was the Empire Energy funded joy flight for Minister Taylor; Liberal donors; half of Minister Taylor's fundraising arm, the Hume Forum; a Nine News journalist; and Senator McMahon and her then staff member, who, incidentally, was recently preselected by the CLP for the Daly by-election and, if elected, could vote on future NT government decisions regarding Empire Energy's fracking operations. Thirdly, there is the coincidence of Empire meeting with Minister Taylor just days before the first-in, first-served grant guidelines were released, and then happening to be the first application and, so far, the only one to be served. We know that Minister Taylor isn't the Minister for Resources and Water, as Senator McMahon so helpfully pointed out yesterday. But he does represent resources in the cabinet. Empire Energy was pretty keen to talk to him and for his help to get them a meeting with Minister Pitt.
Applicants for grants under the Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program are required to declare conflicts of interest. Where no conflicts are declared, no further questions are asked. Being a massive donor to the Liberal Party apparently isn't a conflict. Having a meeting with the relevant minister just prior to the guidelines being announced apparently isn't a conflict either. The whole program is so dodgy that the Labor Party want to refer it the ANAO. Why not just stop it now?
Senator Watt says that if people want to know where Labor stands, they should look at their policy platform. I think people will look at Labor's voting record. Right now, Labor has a chance to actually avoid another sports rorts or park-and-ride style abuse of public funds. Rather than give the program a catchy name and then be outraged when the ANAO finds that it was a really bad idea, you could just vote to stop it now. The community will remember that Labor had the chance to stop public money going to climate-wrecking projects that First Nations communities have said they do not want. Labor have decided they will just step aside and let the Liberal government do the bidding of their fossil fuel donor mates.
This grant program is a bad one. The evidence of the inquiry was clear: the criteria don't require climate risks to be considered, won't consider the adequacy of consultation with First Nations groups and aren't interested in the environmental history or the tax-avoiding behaviour of applicants or conflicts of interests. The only relevant criterion seems to be whether you are a friend of the Liberal Party.
Australia should not be spending public funds on fossil fuel projects when we know that we have less than a decade to prevent climate catastrophe. Health, education, increasing JobSeeker—there are so many better ways to spend $50 million in the Northern Territory. Granting public money to party donors for a climate-wrecking project that no-one wants is unethical, wasteful and a danger to our children's future. I urge the Senate to disallow this program.
This instrument should not be disallowed. The Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program will unlock new gas potential and accelerate exploration and development in the important Beetaloo basin in the Northern Territory. The basin is a new, world-class gas province, with an estimated 200,000 petajoules or more of gas. The Australian government's $50 million accelerated drilling program is designed to realise the benefits of gas development as soon as possible for all Australians, including the traditional owners in the basin.
I rise to make a contribution on behalf of Labor in this debate, and I'll make clear at the outset that Labor will not be supporting this disallowance motion. I think it's really important to be clear as to what this motion is about. It seeks to disallow a funding program in its entirety. It seeks to disallow and to effectively abolish the funding that the government has decided to allocate for exploration activities in the Beetaloo basin. This motion is not, as the Greens suggest, about trying to stop a grant to Empire Energy. It goes beyond that. It's not just about Empire Energy; it seeks to abolish the entire funding program from which grants to Empire Energy have been made. Labor do not support disallowing this entire funding program. That's why we will not be supporting this disallowance motion. The motion is not to disallow or to stop grants to Empire Energy. The motion promoted by the Greens is to disallow an entire funding program from which the grants have been made.
The reason we are not supporting the disallowance motion and the reason that we do not support getting rid of this funding program altogether is that our platform, which I have directed people to already, says that we support:
… new gas projects and associated infrastructure, subject to independent approval processes to ensure legitimate community concerns are heard and addressed.
Labor will ensure the industry assesses and manages environmental and other impacts, including on water reserves and co-existence with other agricultural activities, and engages constructively with landholders.
That is the balanced position that Labor came to at our national conference and that is our position on all matters to do with gas. So supporting this disallowance motion would be in conflict with our policy position and that's why we are not supporting it.
We do, however, have serious concerns about the grants that have been made to date from this program. As I outlined yesterday in my contribution on the Senate inquiry report, we have particular concerns about evidence received in the Senate inquiry about the adequacy of consultation with traditional owners and First Nations people generally in relation to proposed gas developments. We also have serious concerns about what have become clear are the close links between certain ministers in the government and the only beneficiaries of this grants program to date. Because of those concerns, we were part of a majority report in the Senate inquiry into this matter and we supported the recommendations of that committee inquiry. It's because of these concerns that, unlike other parties in this chamber, we are in the process of referring this grants program to the Auditor-General. There are serious concerns about conflicts of interest between Liberal Party ministers involved in this program and Liberal Party donors who have benefited from this program. That is the appropriate way to deal with these sorts of concerns about particular grants. It's also because of these concerns that we are moving an order to produce documents seeking further documentation about the latest scandal involving Minister Angus Taylor, and it's why we're pursuing other remedies as well.
This motion doesn't do any of those things that Labor has already put into action. This motion doesn't do anything about trying to tackle the conflicts between Minister Taylor, in particular, and the beneficiary of this grants program, which includes a number of significant Liberal Party donors. Labor has a very strong record of trying to fight this government's rorts. It's why, for some time now, we have consistently called for an anticorruption commission. It's why we led the charge on sports rorts. It's why we led the charge on car park rorts. But I might point out that, while we have taken up big issues and big complaints about sports rorts and car park rorts involving this government, we have never called for those particular funding programs to be abolished. What we did was refer matters to the Auditor-General for investigation, and we have taken up the charge on them ever since. That's the appropriate way to deal with issues involving particular grants that have been made. That's what Labor's doing. But going beyond that and disallowing the funding program in its entirety would be akin to disallowing sports programs, which were rorted by this government. It would be akin to abolishing car parking funding programs, which were rorted by this government. We didn't do that in those cases, and we don't intend to do it now.
I rise to speak to this disallowance motion and add my voice to those comments already made so eloquently by Senator Waters in relation to this issue. But I do want to point out the sheer hypocrisy of the Labor Party in relation to this and the hypocrisy of the government who, on one hand, say that they care about climate change and, on the other, spend public money making climate change worse.
Let's just be honest here: the Morrison government, the Liberal Party and the neoliberals of this government pretend that they are the best economic managers around, yet what we have is public money being handed over to a bunch of fossil-fuel polluting gas companies for an industry that we're apparently going to have to spend more money to try to clean up after in years to come. That is not good economic management. It's certainly not good environmental management, and it is not good for the planet. No wonder this government is being embarrassed on the world stage by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, by many of our closest trading partners, and even by the US in relation to their commitments to climate change. Even China, for heaven's sake, are saying that they have some targets to reduce carbon pollution and have a net zero ambition. This government has none of that. Instead, they're handing over public money to make climate change worse.
Now, if this industry is worthwhile and stands on its own, where's the free market? Why isn't it able to do it on its own? This Prime Minister has said that, out of the COVID crisis, we will have a gas led recovery. I can tell you that that's not going to go down very well when the Prime Minister and his bureaucrats get to Glasgow at the end of this year, because the rest of the world knows that we have to get out of fossil fuels and we have to get out of making climate change worse. That means reducing pollution, not making it harder to reduce it. That's before we even get into how dodgy the deals to hand over this initial $21 million have been. Can you imagine where that money would be better spent? It might be spent on housing First Nations peoples in the Northern Territory, on health services, on education or perhaps on clean renewable energy sources that are going to be there for the future. This government is pouring more and more public money into propping up an industry that is making our job to tackle climate change even harder. There is no way we're going to be able to reach the targets that we need to if this gas field is opened up, propped up and subsidised by the public purse.
It is just extraordinary that the Labor Party is now lining up with the Morrison government to say: 'You know what? Go for it. Drill for as much gas as you want. We don't care about the impact that that's going to make on the environment and on our pollution and on climate change'! Well, it's pretty damn clear today, hearing the comments from the government and from the Labor Party, that both of these major parties are in the pockets of the gas and the fossil fuel industry, because otherwise why would it be that the Labor Party are refusing to stop this dodgy rort from going ahead? They admit that we've got all the evidence that this money shouldn't have been handed over. They admit that this is just a rort for the Liberal Party mates. They admit that there's been no due diligence done, so much so they've written to the Auditor-General to ask him to have a look at it. But when it comes to actually being able to do something about it, they're refusing, and they're refusing because they don't want to upset their other mates, their Labor mates in the gas industry and in the fossil fuel industry. The Labor Party also got some election donations from Empire Energy. Did you know that? So is it any surprise that they've come in here all guns blazing but actually can't deliver when it's needed. All sizzle, no sausage, is what we've got from the Labor Party on this, and Senator Watt in particular.
This government is making climate change worse, and they're spending your money, public money, taxpayers' money, propping up an industry that is going to condemn the future of this planet and our environment to a dust bowl, making climate change worse. That's what's going on here. It's like asking McDonald's to run the school canteen, paying them to do the school lunches while you're trying to fight child obesity. There is no logic here. If we want to stop climate change, we have to stop polluting. If you want to stop polluting, you have to stop subsidising those who are polluting, those who are making money out of making climate change worse. This parliament should be doing that, and it's sad today that we see the Labor Party rolling over into bed with the Morrison government and satisfying, both of them, their big fossil fuel mates and fossil fuel donors.
[by video link] I would like to share the words of Ms Joni Wilson, Yanyuwa Garawa woman from Borroloola:
Country is important to me because it's my life; it is a part of my body, my soul and my spirit. It provides food, medicine, water and healing. It's important for my cultural connection to the land and my language, and the identity of who I am through my skin name. My skin determines how I fit into my clan. Country is important because I live off the land, like my ancestors did. It's my responsibility as a jungai, protector for country, as a traditional owner, to protect it with my people for the next generation to come. I want my kids to be able to practise, teach and learn on country, like I did and like my people did before me. Without our land and water, we are nothing and we are nobody.
Ms Joni Wilson is a strong Yanyuwa Garawa woman from Borroloola. She said this in her evidence to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee inquiry into oil and gas exploration and production in the Beetaloo basin, an inquiry that would not be happening without the support of Labor. And I do recall, as we do, all of us, that it is because of Labor that we're having this Senate inquiry at all.
It is traditional owners like Ms Wilson and many others who are able to tell their story, voices that have not been heard for way too long—for many, many years. They are traditional owners who have not had that opportunity to speak directly to the Senate, to the Australian parliament, to talk about the importance of protecting country and culture, that this is just as valuable and important as protecting industry interests.
Labor will continue to advocate for ongoing and meaningful consultation with traditional owners by both government and industry and for the cultural heritage that is so critical to our people as First Nations people, across the Northern Territory and Australia, and for the environment as well. It's because of the support of Labor that we are uncovering the story of how these grants are being made. It is enormously difficult, as any politician can tell, and it certainly is for me, a Yanyuwa Garawa woman in the Australian parliament trying to pursue, as best I can, through the many ways of navigating your Westminster system—to find the voices of our people. I do that as a Labor senator for the Northern Territory, as difficult as often that may be, in terms of its complex and oftentimes contradictory nature. But I firmly believe we are in this position due to the support of my colleagues in this inquiry.
We have a way to go and I will not give up ensuring that we persevere, most genuinely, to find out what is going on in the Beetaloo. I look forward to working diligently over the coming months, as a member of this Senate committee inquiry, to examine the grants process further. I am pleased that Labor has referred the grants process to the Auditor-General to examine the potential conflicts of interest, and I certainly will be pursuing that most vigorously as well. I am aware that Labor will be using every strategy at its disposal to continue to prosecute this work, to shine a light on the probity of this grants process and the conduct of particular ministers in handing out public money to their mates.
This message I give now is to the First Nations people of the Beetaloo region: I will not give up fighting for the rights of country. I will not give up. I will not walk away from what is so critical to all people of the Northern Territory. We must have a fair and just process in going forward, in understanding how it is that millions and millions of dollars can be so easily granted.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson-Young on behalf of Senator Waters be agreed to.
[by video link] by leave—I would like to have it recorded that I supported the motion moved by Senator Waters.
Senator Roberts, you're seeking the call? I can't hear you. You're either frozen or on mute. Were you trying to record your vote with respect to the previous motion?
[by video link] Mr President, I can hear Senator Roberts, and he wishes to be recorded as being in favour of the disallowance.
Senator Roberts, I will ask you to nod if that is the correct interpretation. You are in favour of the disallowance, Senator Roberts? Yes, he is.
[by video link] In question time today what we heard from the ministers—and what we continue to hear from the Prime Minister—was an attempt to misconstrue the facts and avoid scrutiny on some very important issues relating to the vaccine rollout. We know that the vaccine rollout is the responsibility of the federal government and the Prime Minister, and yet when we ask these questions they continue to ignore the answers and not contribute to what we need to know and what families need to know about what we will see over the next couple of months.
We know that there is an agreed national plan. We know that we need to reach 80 per cent of people vaccinated to see restrictions start to be pulled away. But we also know that reaching 80 per cent won't mean that every restriction will be minimised. That is what the national plan says. It's a document that is freely, publicly available, and yet we seem to have this idea from ministers and from the Prime Minister that there is a magic solution. We need to understand how we're going to reach that magic 80 per cent mark and how many people in vulnerable cohorts will be vaccinated. That is why Labor asked these really important questions today. We need to understand how children will be vaccinated. We need to understand how children with a disability will be vaccinated. We were asking questions about how many people will be vaccinated from First Nations groups. These are questions that need to be answered, and yet the government continues to avoid these questions.
It seems to me that the government wants to move forward in a way that avoids any scrutiny of what is happening right now. That is very convenient for them, we understand. They've got their talking notes and they're out there pushing this idea, picking fights with premiers and trying to talk about something that will happen five or six months in the future. Where we are headed is incredibly important, but how we get there is important as well. Right now we are not even close to this target. Right now half of the country is in lockdown. Right now only 13 per cent of Indigenous Australians are vaccinated. And right now only one in five aged-care homes across the country are ready to have staff fully vaccinated when they need to be. Right now where I live, in Cairns, there are two aged-care homes that have only 10 per cent of their workers fully vaccinated. So of course these questions need to be asked and of course they need to be answered.
We want to understand how we got into this mess in the first place, because not committing to vaccinate these vulnerable cohorts will get us into a mess no matter what happens with our targets. The Prime Minister wants to pick a fight with our premiers about what might happen later on, and that's because he is trying to distract from what is happening right now and his responsibility for this mess. We know that, in the last 18 months of this pandemic, the Prime Minister has failed to build a single national quarantine facility. Right now, sadly, we've had to close interstate arrivals in Queensland because the Morrison government failed to help us build the quarantine facilities that we needed. We know that, right now, vulnerable Australians are not vaccinated. Groups that need to be and that were a priority under this government's plan—its own plan—have not been vaccinated yet. We also know that that is because Scott Morrison failed to get enough vaccines.
Finally, with the last minute that I have to discuss this very important issue, I just want to respond to some comments from the government, from senators opposite, accusing Labor of running down this vaccine program. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was an incredibly difficult decision for me as a pregnant woman to decide to get vaccinated. I did that freely as soon as I possibly could and I made sure that that information was public. I encouraged other pregnant women to be vaccinated. I posted a photo with a needle in my arm. There is no-one on the Labor side who is not encouraging people in this country to go and get vaccinated. What we have on the other side of politics are MPs who are making sure that they're flirting with the antivaxxers out there—anti-lockdowns, anti-masks. If there is someone undermining this program, it is the government, it is the MPs, it is Scott Morrison.
Question agreed to.
I understand Senator Waters would like to take note of the answers to a question from—
I will take it you're moving a motion to take note of the answers to the question from Senator Waters?
Yes. At the request of Senator Waters, I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Payne) to a question without notice asked by Senator Waters today relating to climate change.
[by video link] I rise to take note of the response given by the to my question of her today about Australia being an international climate pariah and when are we going to stop hanging out with petro states like Russia and Saudi Arabia rather than looking to the actions of the US, the UK, the EU, South Korea, Japan, all of the other nations that have said that they will increase their 2030 targets? I put to the foreign minister: what are we going to do about the criticism that Australia has recently received from the US ambassador—a country on whose coat-tails we generally seem to sit without question, not so much in this matter? I put to her that Australia needs to have a more aggressive pathway and a more ambitious effort on climate. I'm afraid I didn't get a very satisfactory answer. I got the bizarre statement that the government believe in achievements, not targets, which is somewhat bemusing.
I made the point that it's very easy to meet very weak targets. I'm afraid meeting our Kyoto target, which was a plus eight, an increase in our carbon emissions, is really nothing to crow about. And attempting to meet really, really low 2030 targets that are one-third of where they should be if we are to have any chance of meeting 1½ degrees is nothing to write home about. Unfortunately, the minister then took the opportunity to crow about how the government is funding—I am getting interruption on the audio here. I suggest, after Senator Abetz's action on my speech yesterday, that people on remote go on mute when they're not talking, thanks very much.
The foreign minister referenced the fact that the government is supporting so-called clean technology to the tune of $630 million but what she didn't mention was the $11 billion in subsidies to the fossil fuel sector that the most recent budget dished out, which somewhat makes $630 million pale in comparison with the handout to the fossil fuel donors that run this government. We've just seen a disallowance motion fail where we could have stopped yet more public money going to fossil fuel companies that happen to be Liberal Party donors and, again, the chamber squibbed it.
The foreign minister then quibbled with my assertion about the need for Australia's climate targets to be increased, which, again, is somewhat bemusing because the IPCC report released not two weeks ago clearly pointed out that the trajectory that Australia is on is not adequate and, by sheer mathematics, we need to at least double this government's pathetic 2030 targets to stay within a two-degree window and we need to triple them to have any chance of staying within a 1½-degree window. The difference between those two numbers is whether we have any of the Great Barrier Reef left at all and whether we are going to continue to have an agricultural sector and a tourism sector. These are not just numbers on a page. These have incredibly serious real-world consequences. But I'm afraid that, other than engaging with the science as this government should be doing, the minister simply dismissed it with that classic phrase: 'I don't accept the premise of the question.' I'm afraid that the Australian public doesn't accept the premise of your government anymore, and they want climate action.
In the final question, I again referenced the international remarks that have been increasing in severity against Australia, pointing out how weak our climate targets are. The minister then resorted to the feeble remark that the Prime Minister wants to reach net zero by 2050 'preferably', which is a sop to Mr Barnaby Joyce, who doesn't accept any of the climate science at all. The IPCC report says that 2050 is simply far too late. The critical decade is now. If we muck about with 2050, we're all stuffed. We have the chance to reduce our emissions now, and that's what's needed. The reason that the nation is not doing so is the vast dollars that flow into the re-election coffers of the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Labor Party. The mining companies are running this parliament. This government should just give up the pretense of being in charge—(Time expired)
Question agreed to.
[by video link] On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for 11 sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Bankruptcy Regulations 2021.
by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Patrick from 24 to 26 August 2021, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
I remind senators the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. Senator Ruston, you would like 1223 put to the vote. It is not a vote on the substantive motion yet. The question is whether general business notice of motion No. 1223 can be postponed.
Question negatived.
by leave—We would like to record that we voted to postpone the motion.
by leave—I also ask that the Greens vote, to postpone the motion, be recorded.
I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Crimes Act 1914, and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I table the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The Crimes Amendment (Remissions of Sentences) Bill repeals section 19AA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), which automatically applies remissions or reductions granted under state or territory laws to federal sentences.
The Australian Government's most important responsibility is to keep Australians safe. This Bill supports this by addressing the significant risks to community safety as a result of the high numbers of remissions, known as emergency management days (EMDs), that Victoria has been granting to federal offenders since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Most states and territories have abolished remissions. Victoria is the only jurisdiction with laws providing remissions or reductions that are resulting in significant discounts for federal offenders under section 19AA of the Crimes Act.
Under section 19AA of the Crimes Act, the Commonwealth has no discretion about the application of remissions and reductions to federal offenders. This situation is unacceptable, and means federal offenders are not serving the sentences handed down by the courts in recognition of their crimes.
Repealing section 19AA of the Crimes Act through this Bill is necessary to restore respect for the sentences which courts impose on federal offenders, including the careful balance struck by courts between the appropriate expiry of the non-parole period compared to the head sentence. Currently, if offenders are found suitable for release on parole after EMDs have been applied to reduce their head sentence, their rehabilitation and reintegration options may be limited or less effective during their shorter parole period, increasing the risk of reoffending. The removal of the unpredictable application of EMDs is critical to ensure community safety.
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Victoria were generally granting less than 10 EMDs per federal prisoner for restrictions in circumstances like natural disasters and staffing shortages. But since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Victoria has been handing out much higher numbers of EMDs to federal offenders in their prisons.
As a result, many federal offenders incarcerated in Victoria, including terrorists, child sex offenders and drug traffickers, are receiving substantial discounts off the sentence expiry date set by the sentencing court.
The release of high risk federal offender Adam Brookman is an example of how problematic the application of EMDs can be. In June 2021, following his guilty plea, the Supreme Court of Victoria sentenced Mr Brookman to 6 years and 8 months' imprisonment for an offence against the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978. Specifically he undertook weapons training, reconnaissance and guard duty, and provided medical services, in support of groups engaged in hostile activity in Syria. Despite the court fixing a head sentence that did not expire for a further 9 months, Mr Brookman was released on the date of his sentencing, because Victoria had granted him more than 340 days off his sentence during the period he was on remand.
There are more people charged with terrorism offences on remand in Victoria, and as the pandemic continues, they are accruing hundreds of days off their sentences in the event they are convicted. In the interim, our agencies are using the options available to mitigate against the risks posed by the early release of high risk federal offenders like Mr Brookman, including control orders. Even this has become problematic under the current framework, as sentence expiry dates for terrorists incarcerated in Victoria keep changing unpredictably as EMDs are periodically accrued. This Bill will put an end to this unacceptable situation.
Fundamentally, the current framework compromises community safety, as it allows dangerous offenders to be released much earlier than the date set by the sentencing court. This includes, for example, a high risk child sex offender with an extensive prior criminal history in three states and a history of breaching multiple community based orders. Despite being sentenced to spend three years and one month in prison for his despicable crimes, the high risk child sex offender's sentence expired in August 2021 after Victoria granted him more than 300 days off his sentence. The Bill will prevent circumstances such as these occurring, and will ensure that federal offenders like this serve the sentence handed down by the court.
Further, the Bill is necessary to ensure that federal offenders are being treated more consistently across Australia. Under the existing laws, a federal offender incarcerated in Victoria may serve a significantly lower sentence than they would if they served their sentence in any other jurisdiction. In addition, where an offender has been sentenced since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, courts have taken into account additional hardships and restrictions imposed on prisoners, so offenders are already receiving consideration of the impact of COVID-19 when being sentenced. The subsequent granting of EMDs by Victoria can lead to the impacts of COVID-19 being 'double-counted', with offenders effectively receiving two discounts off their sentence.
In the interests of community safety, remissions and reductions applied by states and territories before commencement of the Bill will be taken to have no effect. This does not apply to anyone released from prison prior to commencement of the Bill. This ensures that any offenders who are still in prison at the time the Bill commences will not receive hundreds of days off their sentences, and will instead serve the sentence that the court considered was appropriate for them.
Finally, the bill includes minor amendments to provisions relating to 'clean street time'. Existing section 19AA contains provisions relating to 'clean street time' which will also be repealed. 'Clean street time' recognition means that, where an offender's parole order is revoked, any time served on parole in compliance with conditions can be recognised as counting towards their sentence. Recognition of this time provides an incentive for offenders on parole to comply with their conditions in the community, including participating in rehabilitation programs and engaging with corrections authorities.
The Bill maintains the ability for courts to consider 'clean street time' when dealing for federal offenders for breaches of parole. However, it will remove a provision which automatically applies state and territory legislation in relation to 'clean street time'. This ensures federal offenders are subject to a consistent, Australia-wide framework for 'clean street time', which rightly places decision-making in the hands of the court.
Conclusion
This Bill addresses the significant risks to community safety as a result of the discounts that Victoria is handing out to its prisoners during the pandemic. The Bill enables the community to be satisfied that federal offenders will serve the sentence as handed down by the sentencing court regardless of the state or territory in which they are imprisoned.
Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.
I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to establish a Live Performance Federal Insurance Guarantee Fund, and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
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 the explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
I rise to support the Live Performance Federal Insurance Guarantee Bill 2021.
The COVID-19 pandemic has devastated the Australian arts and entertainment industry. When restrictions and lockdowns first came into place in early 2021, much of the industry was shut down over night.
In the almost 18 months since then, the industry has had to contend with ongoing border closures both international and domestic, lockdowns and restrictions on crowd numbers. These necessary health measures have been crippling for an industry that relies on live and in person events.
From music festivals and concerts to gallery exhibitions, comedy shows, cinemas and theatre, the arts have always been about bringing us together. Now that we are unable to gather in large numbers in most of the country, this industry that was once worth more than $112 billion to the Australian economy is struggling to stay afloat.
One of the biggest issues facing the industry is the market failure when it comes to insurance for live events. Due to the unpredictable nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, the snap border closures, lockdowns and crowd restrictions, it is impossible for live events to get insurance to cover cancellation due to COVID-19. Without insurance, it is impossible to plan for live events.
Sadly, throughout 2020 and 2021 we have seen thousands of live events cancelled. In April, the Byron Bay Bluefest was forced to shutdown just hours before the gates were due to open due to a COVID-19 outbreak in the area. Similarly, in Victoria, the Rising festival that had more than 130 events planned was shutdown at the last minute. Across every state and territory, we have seen live events big and small cancelled due to COVID-19. Without insurance, organisers of live events like these are at risk of being left millions of dollars out of pocket.
This bill requires that a Federal Insurance Guarantee Fund be established for the live performance industry. It requires the Treasurer to put in place a fund to underwrite an insurance scheme that would address the market failure in the industry. It is the role of government to step in when markets fail to protect our important industries. This isn't a handout, it's an Insurance Fund, that could be paid for by the industry, but underwritten by the government.
A Federal Insurance Guarantee is supported by a wide range of artists and peak bodies across the industry including APRA AMCOS, ARIA, PPCA, Live Performance Australia, Live Entertainment Industry Forum, Live Nation, the Australian Festival Association, Jack River, Tina Arena, Claire Bowditch, Alex Lahey.
A similar scheme has been in place for the screen industry since June 2020 and has been successful in allowing screen producers to plan and execute major film productions in Australia without the risk of serious financial impacts from COVID-19 outbreaks or restrictions.
The Morrison Government has repeatedly failed the arts and entertainment industry throughout this pandemic. They were incredibly slow to act to provide emergency funding when the lockdowns began and even slower to roll out the funding after it was announced. They the huge proportion of arts and entertainment workers who are casual and work gig to gig, high and dry when they were left out of the JobKeeper scheme. Now, they are failing to act on the call for an insurance guarantee.
This bill will provide the arts and entertainment industry some of the certainty they need to start planning for live events and a pathway to a new normal after COVID-19 lockdowns and restrictions ease.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
At the request of Senator Sheldon, I move:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee on Job Security be extended to the last sitting day in February 2022.
Question negatived.
by leave—It's obviously our motion, so we supported it. Can I have that recorded?
Yes, the opposition were all in favour of the motion.
by leave—Can I have it recorded that the Greens were in favour of the motion?
And the Greens were in favour of the motion as well.
At the request of Senator Keneally, I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, by no later than 9.30 am on 26 August 2021, the advice referred to by the Prime Minister in his statement on 22 August 2021 that 'what we've been advised by Professor McVernon is that the starting point doesn't ultimately change the ultimate conclusion point of where case numbers arrive'.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government opposes this motion. The Doherty institute modelling report for national cabinet was publicly released in full on 3 August. The Doherty institute issued a public statement on 23 August 2021 confirming that the published and widely available modelling is applicable and aligns with the national plan to manage COVID-19. The director of the Doherty institute confirmed that oral advice consistent with the public modelling was provided on the weekend 21 and 22 August. This motion is a waste of the Senate's time and should be opposed by senators who do not want to play politics with this pandemic.
Question negatived.
by leave—Obviously it's our motion. We would like it recorded that we supported it.
We'll record the opposition's position in favour.
by leave—The Greens also support this motion.
I record the Greens' wish. I thank senators for their understanding in not calling unnecessary divisions.
I have received the following letter from Senator Watt:
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The Prime Minister's statement that "It'd be very familiar, I think, to many, the reopening plan to get Australia open by Christmas of this year"—made in October 2020 in relation to Christmas 2020.
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers for today's discussion. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.
There could not be a more important day to be having this discussion on this matter of public importance. Today has been another heartbreaking day for Australia, with 919 cases in New South Wales, 45 new cases in Victoria and nine cases in the ACT. Unfortunately, these numbers have set a new record for daily COVID-19 infections in Australia to this time. It is devastating. I was up in my office a short time ago and I heard that there have been two more deaths in New South Wales. This has affected me, and I'm sure that Senator O'Neill, coming from New South Wales, would be feeling this as well. A young mother in her 30s has died and her husband is in the ICU. This is devastating for our country.
There have been too many deaths. Too many people haven't been able to have their vaccinations. We've had a government and a Prime Minister that are scathing of anyone who would scrutinise their lack of commitment and urgency, when they knew, from what was happening overseas, that there was a crisis coming to Australian shores. They did nothing to ensure that they had an adequate supply of vaccines to keep all Australians safe. We've heard in this place today, as we heard yesterday and we heard on Monday, the tragedy of those families who are trying to seek out and find access to a vaccine. It's devastating—absolutely devastating. There have been 76 deaths since this outbreak began. That's almost one person a day dying in this country as a result of failing to have access to a vaccination or, having had a vaccination, still, unfortunately, dying.
We have a Prime Minister who has demonstrated every day this week in the other place, as have government senators here, that he does not like and will not accept any scrutiny of his failures. Senators have come into this chamber day after day this week to try to justify why they should be so bolshie about the fact that so many vaccines have been rolled out in the last week or so. I'm sorry, you cannot rewrite Australian history. As Prime Minister of this country, you have fallen at the first hurdle, which was to ensure the safety and the health of every Australian. That was your first job—to protect people's health and to protect the economy. Both of those are critically important to every Australian.
But you also have failed under the Constitution. We know, and you know as well, that it was your government's responsibility to ensure that we had safe and secure quarantine for people in this country and for people coming home. We've also learnt today that, in regard to the Ruby Princess crisis, the federal government and Mr Morrison wiped their hands and took no responsibility. Don't look at the Commonwealth government! No, no, no! The report that clearly lays the blame partly on the federal government was in fact hidden away, but it's been uncovered. This is the same federal government and the same chief health adviser that, at the time when cases from the Ruby Princess broke out on the north-west coast in my home state of Tasmania—which our whip, Senator Urquhart, would remember very clearly, coming from that community—made allegations that there was an outbreak because of a party held by doctors from that very hospital, the Burnie hospital. These are the same people who come in here day after day, trying to rewrite what has really happened in this country, and that is that we've had a Prime Minister who has fallen at every single hurdle when providing security of Australians' health, security of their jobs and security of our economy.
We don't forget these things, any more than Tasmanians forget that it was their chief health adviser, now the secretary of the Department of Health, who, at the time, made those outlandish allegations about hardworking, dedicated health workers and doctors at the Burnie hospital.
You can come in here each and every day and have speaker after speaker in this debate try and rewrite history and blame the Labor Party for all the lockdowns, but what have we seen this week? The Prime Minister, who does not like any scrutiny—no scrutiny for him and no responsibility—has said: 'There's no crisis here. Look the other way.' Well, we're not going to allow that to happen because we are going to remind you each and every day of the warnings that you had from what was happening overseas and that you failed to protect older Australians in this country. We still have the same health minister, who has failed again at every hurdle to ensure the health and safety of Australians in this country. Every single issue and crisis that we have had in aged care we still have, with aged-care workers not being vaccinated. We still have a crisis in the disability sector. We still don't have workers fully vaccinated in either aged care or disability care.
We heard today from Senator O'Neill about the travesty that is happening in the western New South Wales community, which I'm very familiar with, and the crisis there with First Nations people. This is outrageous. The warnings were there. What's happened from the health minister? Absolutely nothing. It's so typical of this government to say: 'It's not our fault. We are rolling out the vaccines, so everything is alright.' Let's not worry about those people who are dying! Every day there's an Australian who is dying needlessly. It really doesn't matter how old they were—if they were in their 70s, 80s, 90s or in their 20s or 30s—these deaths could have been avoided if this government and the Prime Minister had done their job and ensured we sourced enough vaccines. That has been the fundamental problem and why we have gone into lockdowns. It's why Queensland has gone into lockdown. It's why New South Wales, the ACT and Victoria have. The mental health impact on our community will last for a long, long time. We won't see the full impact of that for some time.
We raised our concerns today in this place in relation to the lack of vaccine doses available to children from 12 upwards. These include children with disabilities. Then there are those teachers that are teaching children with severe disabilities. I know only too well of a case in Orange where the special education teacher tried to get a vaccination. What was she told all last week? She was told, 'You will have to wait until next year.' That is outrageous. We should be doing more.
The Prime Minister of this country has failed, as I said, from the outset. He's failed to take responsibility. He doesn't like to have any scrutiny. This is not going to go away. After every death that we have in this country we should be reminding ourselves and the government, particularly the Minister for Health and Aged Care and the Prime Minister himself, that we should have prevented these. We could have prevented these. We've failed in our duty of care. That's what this Prime Minister has done. He should be looking at his own performance, his own failings, instead of looking, as he normally does, to blame everyone else—'There's no crisis. I'm not taking any responsibility. If I keep saying that over and over again, I know I'm going to believe it and maybe the Australian people will believe it.' Well, I don't believe they do believe it. My office has been inundated because of the concerns about the economy in the tourism sector, hospitality and every sector. We are being hit by the fact that we've had three states in full lockdown—Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. Now the ACT is. That's having an impact on my own community in Tasmania. We feel it. We want to get out of these lockdowns. We want to get back to our Australian way of life. But that responsibility still rests with the Prime Minister, who isn't up to the job of leading this country.
I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, the Ngunawal people, and I acknowledge elders past, present and emerging. I would also like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the boodja which I live and work on, Boorlo, Perth. Boorlo is located in the country of the Whadjuk Noongar people, who have been the traditional owners of the south-west of Western Australia for at least 45,000 years. Sovereignty of this land was never ceded. This land always was and always will be Aboriginal land. First Nations peoples continue to practise their culture and strengthen their communities, despite the policies and interventions of governments over the more than two centuries that white people have been here and that Australia has been colonised. Their culture is thriving and growing and their fight for justice is gaining momentum, despite the punitive and paternalistic policies of successive governments that have sought to deny First Nations peoples their rights and their proper place at the heart of our nation. Having the longest living history and culture still thriving on this ancient continent is what helps make us uniquely Australian. It has been a great pleasure to work with First Nations peoples and organisations around this country. Thank you to all of the First Nations organisations and groups I have worked with over these 16 years. Thank you for your support and your knowledge and wisdom that you have shared. There is still so much unfinished business with many injustices that need to be put right. We still have some of the worst First Nations health, education, employment and life expectancy outcomes in the world. We have by far the highest rates of overrepresentation of Aboriginal children in our child protection system. The numbers of Aboriginal youth within our justice systems are the worst of any developed nation in the world. I am so pleased there will be two strong and determined Aboriginal women as part of our Greens team in this place to drive change.
It has been a privilege to represent the people of Western Australia in the Senate. I have always been driven by achieving better outcomes for people and planet. Just to confirm, this is my formal farewell speech. However, as I will be here for another week, provided we are sitting, it won't be my very last word. You can't expect, surely, that I will sit here silently for a week. You're spot-on. In my first speech I said:
We need to remember that we live in a community, not an economy, that our economy is one means of sustaining that community—an important part, definitely, but only one. It is one we need to get right, but it is not the be-all and end-all. Ultimately, what we all want is the opportunity to lead meaningful and fulfilling lives. If instead of striving to be richer we could strive to be more equal, everyone's wellbeing would improve and we would have healthier communities based on compassion, honesty, fairness, justice, respect and equality.
This statement is as true today as it was 16 years ago. We've seen over the last two decades what happens when we put the interests of the wealthy ahead of those of the broader community. Wealth doesn't trickle down and it doesn't float all those boats. Now more than ever it is critical that we put the people and the planet ahead of all else. The pandemic has laid bare how important a strong and inclusive community is and how important it is to look out for everyone in our community.
COVID showed us that poverty is a political choice. In a country as wealthy and prosperous as Australia, it is shameful and unacceptable that we have so many people living below the poverty line and that so many are homeless and struggle to have enough to eat. Early on in the pandemic crisis we had a small taste of what it could be like if our economy were truly designed to serve us. Briefly across the political spectrum we were all truly in it together and focused on the best community outcomes. For the first time in over two decades people on income support had enough to get by, those experiencing homelessness were given shelter and communities came together to support each other.
After having campaigned in this chamber and across the country for an increase in income support for well over a decade, I was in fact overjoyed when the government suddenly doubled the rate of the JobSeeker payment during COVID. After decades of community campaigning, we finally got to see firsthand the dramatic increase in the quality of life brought about because people who were being marginalised and excluded finally received an adequate living income. We heard firsthand the impact this made on people on income support, and I shared many of these accounts that were entrusted to me in this chamber.
The COVID crisis shone a light on how broken our social security net really is. Suddenly, a significant number of Australian householders needed to access income support for the first time in their lives. In doing so, many people discovered how complicated and punitive our social safety net has become. We saw the biggest shift in attitudes in decades everywhere across our communities, but it turns out unfortunately those attitudes towards the poor and the excluded did not shift very far in this place. For decades there has been an approach by successive governments, reinforced by our mainstream media, that seeks to undermine the character of those who are struggling to get by and seeks to blame them for the desperate circumstances they find themselves in. Our income support system seems designed to grind people down, to rob their lives of hope and meaning, rather than to assist them to find their purpose in their life, to make a contribution to society and to have a good life.
We are again seeing the government pursuing people for overpayment errors, many of them most likely by Centrelink. At the same time, our Treasurer and Prime Minister refuse to do anything to recover the hundreds of millions of dollars in JobKeeper subsidies made to billionaires and big corporations. Have we learned nothing from robodebt? Through this crisis the government has clearly shown that poverty is a political choice that we quite deliberately continue to choose to make. We have seen how they can provide our citizens who are out of work with a living wage and how effectively this stimulates local economies and improves outcomes for our community. Instead, they've chosen to entrench economic inequality by only increasing the JobSeeker payment by a mere $3 a day, keeping the payment below the poverty line. Remember, this includes single parents, people with a disability who can't get DSP, older workers being discriminated against and the ageing entering retirement in poverty. We could and should imagine a country where everyone has the opportunity to live their best life, to find and develop their talents, to follow their passions and build meaning and purpose in their lives, to be given the opportunity to make a contribution to our community and to be recognised for it.
Our role in this place should be to make these dreams possible, not to crush them. We are given a unique opportunity here to help create a better country. Now is the time for an unconditional liveable income so that nobody has to live in poverty in this country.
Now I would like to turn to the biggest crisis we all face, the one that threatens not just our health and wellbeing but the health and resilience and ongoing viability of all life on this planet. It is with a heavy heart and an immense sense of disappointment and frustration that I stand here and acknowledge that, after 16 years in this place, we as a parliament representing the Australian community have failed to achieve anything meaningful and constructive for them in the face of this existential threat of climate change. We had legislation, and it was starting to work. And it was torn up. Shame!
We are in a climate crisis. It is code red. The first duty of a government should be to keep people safe. We do have a duty of care to all our children and our future generations. In the last few years we have seen the start of a dreadful acceleration of the rate of catastrophic-climate extreme-weather events across Australia and around the world. We have faced fires on a scale and ferocity never seen before, knowing at the same time that the conditions will only get worse. Droughts, cyclones and floods continue to become more frequent and more severe. As we continue to cause more widespread damage, the resilience of our ecosystems and their ability to recover and to continue to sustain life is eroded. In turn, their degradation and loss contributes more greenhouse gases. It's a vicious cycle.
The climate crisis is damaging our vital ecosystems, all the life we share this planet with, our health, our water, our ability to grow food and the air we breathe. Climate change now threatens all species. If we fail to act quickly and comprehensively, many more species will be lost to extinction within our lifetimes. All the while, donations from fossil fuel industries continue to influence political decision-making. The latest IPCC report adds more detail to the science and more certainty to the predictions of temperature rises and habitat loss. But, fundamentally, we already knew and had known for a long time that we have to act with a sense of extreme urgency. This is a collective shame on this place, in my opinion. History will judge us very harshly because the evidence is there in black and white, in the Hansard, that we knew about this monumental threat to our community and our planet.
When the lives and livelihoods of Australians were threatened by the coronavirus, governments listened to the science and took action. It is beyond time to treat the climate crisis as the national emergency that it is and take urgent action. We are running out the clock on this crisis. We have very little time left to prevent catastrophic climate change. We already know that the last two decades of inaction have cost us and our children very dearly. Increasingly, there is a risk that things will get away from us and our effort will be too little, too late.
I would like to reflect on some of the important and often unrecognised work that we have achieved in this place. Unfortunately, parliamentarians agreeing and working together is not all that newsworthy. I think perhaps we all, including the media, should look at what we click on, and report, that reinforces conflict and controversy, and at failing to seek out and share stories of good processes delivering positive and good outcomes.
One of the ways that we can achieve outcomes is through the committee process—and it would come as no surprise to anyone in this chamber that I'm a big supporter of the committee process. I acknowledge that not all the inquiries we undertake through the committee process have us singing kumbaya and agreeing, but there have been some very good outcomes from committees and they drive change. It's been my privilege to be the chair of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee for a number of years. Working together in committees, and with communities, we've been able to shine a light on many, many issues. These include: past adoption practices; the experiences of former child migrants and forgotten Australians; hearing health; suicide prevention; violence and abuse and neglect of disabled people; indefinite detention of people with cognitive and psychiatric impairment in Australia; the aged-care workforce; out-of-home care; grandparent carers; income inequality; Lyme disease; robodebt; and so many more.
One inquiry that stands out for me is the 2012 inquiry into forced adoptions. I will never forget the trust and confidence people in the community had in the committee to share their very personal and often deeply traumatic experiences. Because of their courage, we exposed this dark chapter of our history and made immeasurable changes to the lives of those in our community who were so badly affected by this inhumane treatment. That is where this place shines. I remember so clearly the day we delivered the report: people spoke and we in this chamber all stood up and clapped for the mothers, the children and those affected by forced adoptions, who were all in the gallery. We clapped for them, and it was a day I think we can all be proud of.
During my time here, I've been supported by so many parliamentary staff. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Procedure Office, the Table Office, the Library, Hansard, the Comcar drivers and all the wonderful people who keep this place running. And where would we be without our fix from Aussies?
Thanks to the amazing and fantastic chamber attendants who keep us all on track: Stephen, Diane, Wally, Rosemary, Adrienne and Fiona. I would like to thank all the committee staff for their dedication and support during the many Senate inquiries I have chaired, referred and participated in. In particular, I'd like to thank the community affairs committee secretariat for their support and for always ensuring that we can hear the experiences and voices of the community in this place. One of the important things that I hope will continue is that we ensure that we hear the voices of the community in this place.
My work would have been greatly diminished if it had not been for the support and generosity of our deeply valued stakeholders and the community and not-for-profit sectors. I would not have been able to manage my portfolio responsibilities and campaigns without your expertise and the time you have spent over many, many years investing in various issues, campaigning and advocating for change in this place. I thank you for your invaluable help to help us raise pressure and bring the issues out here in this chamber. I think together we have made some changes to some key issues.
I would also like to thank all the staff who have worked within my office, the whip's office, the whip's clerks and the broader Greens teams over the last 16 years. I have received so much support from all of you over many years, and I could not have done the work that I've done without your dedication, expertise and patience. I would like to make a special shout-out to all my office staff over the years. It's a long list. Thanks to Rebecca, Bridget, Nicola, Scott, Fluffy, Tim, Chris, Dee, Donna, Tenille, Jo, Nadine, Georgia, Andrew, Jess, Eloise, Fernando, Claire, Harriet, Ryan, Tarek, Ogy, Elliott, Giz, Dave, Alan and my current amazing team: Rose, Lucy, Cana, Grace and Alison. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. We have truly operated as a team at all times, and I will miss you so much. I note that a lot of those staff are currently working for other Greens senators, in the Australian Greens or in the leader's office, and many have gone on to other very exciting work.
As I said in my first speech, I stand here as the fourth in a line of strong Greens women from the west. I pay tribute to Jo Vallentine, Christabel Chamarette and Dee Margetts, and I thank them for the support they have given me over the years. I know that our next WA senator, Dorinda Cox, is also a force from the west, and she is very strongly to be reckoned with. Thank you to all our volunteers at Greens WA. Your commitment to our values and your passion for making our community better mean that I have been lucky enough to be able to represent you and our beautiful state for the last 16 years.
When I started out here we were a much smaller team. In fact, there were just four of us. I want to pay tribute to Bob Brown and Christine Milne, who both guided and mentored me during the beginnings of my political career. It did take me a long time to realise I was actually a politician. I would also like to thank Richard and Adam for their support, guidance and commitment to our Greens movement, and I thank all my party room colleagues. It's such a shame you can't be here. I'm sending my love to you all. Thank you very much. I have enjoyed working with all of you, It's been a great honour. I would also like to thank, again from the bottom of my heart, all the people who have sent me such lovely messages over the last couple of days. It's very much appreciated. Senator Keneally, I'm using your trick of the tongue in the top of the mouth!
Finally, importantly, I would like to thank my family. We all in this place have the same family issues as everybody else. We have our ups and downs. We have family crises, children being sick or simply young people being teenagers. We support our parents as they age. We cope with the loss of loved ones. So often, our families have to cope with these issues without us because we are in Canberra, on the road or in a meeting. We all have missed, I'm sure, so many family occasions. My son will really hate me saying this, but I missed his school ball and seeing him in his formal suit. That can never happen again, and so many people in here have had the same.
My family's love, support and understanding have seen me through many challenges, and I'm so lucky to have you by my side. During this journey, it's been up and down and bumpy sometimes, but overall I think that we have managed to make some change. Thank you all, to my family, for being there and being on my side. I thank everybody in this place also for the support that you have shown and given to me. Thank you.
[by video link] The departure of any of our colleagues from the Senate chamber is often an occasion for a little bit of reflection, and in the departure of Senator Siewert, of Rachel, as a senator from Western Australia, I look at the fact that Rachel is now the only Greens senator to have served in the Senate longer than I have served as a senator, and made such an incredible contribution with such conviction over such a prolonged period of time.
Rachel, I want to start by just expressing how much you will be missed, I think from right across the chamber, by colleagues who respect you from right across the chamber. As we saw in the remarks you made just then, and as we've seen right throughout your career, you're a person and have been a senator of passion and of compassion. You are someone with strong convictions but also just such a thoroughly decent person in the way in which you engage and conduct yourself in a principled and thoughtful manner at all times.
Sixteen years of service in the Senate is an incredible accomplishment in anyone's terms. It's a long way from working as an agricultural scientist, digging through the fields and studying soil and salinity in Jerramungup. It's a long way from the 14 years you spent as the coordinator of the Conservation Council of Western Australia. But in 16 years you've made a real imprint not just on the institution of the Senate but, I think probably far more importantly, on the lives of many people, and you touched on that in your remarks, through the committee work and the advocacy work that you've undertaken. There must be so many thousands of Australians who are grateful for the engagements they've had with Rachel Siewert and for the advocacy they've had from Rachel Siewert, and for the passion and thoughtfulness that you have brought to that.
You mentioned in your recollections the work on the inquiry into forced adoption as one of the many different areas that you made a mark as a senator, and particularly as chair and participant in the community affairs committee. Indeed, I remember that day, too. I remember the respect that was had across the participants in that inquiry for the senators who engaged in that inquiry, and between the senators for one another, and how strongly that extended from senators—coalition senators and Labor senators—to you and to the work that you had done as a champion and advocate in that area of such enormous sensitivity and such deep emotion for so many people, and the care that you had shown throughout.
Of course, that's not to say that you don't know how to make a point either. We've certainly all had to turn the volume down occasionally from the odd Rachel Siewert contribution in the chamber!
Sometimes, I think it's safe to say, senators come into the chamber or go into committees or elsewhere and raise their voices for perhaps a little bit of grandstanding, to get themselves noticed, to make sure that people turn and see what they're talking about, whereas I think we all know that when you decided to raise your voice to make sure we all turned around and listened and thought, 'God, what's Rachel getting so worked up about now?' it was because you really cared, it was because it was something that really mattered to you, not just because you were going after a headline or some attention at the time, and that's to your credit and it's a testament to the type of person that you are.
In your work across the committees, in your work as the Greens Whip and in all those different areas, it has been a demonstration of somebody truly committed to the service of the people of Western Australia and to the service of your supporters and those who share your convictions and your ideologies. Although we may have our points of difference, you have absolutely championed your values, your opinions and those who have elected you relentlessly, and for that you've got all of our respect. I want to thank, on behalf of the government, your family for the sacrifices they have made to lend you to the service of the nation in the Senate. They should be proud too of what you've achieved.
So, Rachel, I'm sorry that I'm not there today in person to wish you well, but we do wish you well. It's been a pleasure, for so many, to work with you. I know that's a sentiment that has been echoed, since your announcement, by government senators, by Labor senators and by others; you'll be missed. The Greens certainly need to think carefully in terms of your replacement as whip and making sure that it's someone who brings the same sense of how to get things done while standing up for your values at the same time, and getting that balance right, as you've done. Good luck, all the best, and I'm sure we'll keep hearing those passionate views of yours from outside the Senate chamber, as somebody of your beliefs will no doubt continue to do.
I rise on behalf of the opposition to acknowledge the valedictory remarks of Senator Rachel Siewert and to reflect on her contribution to the Senate. One of the longest serving current senators, first elected by Western Australia in 2004 and re-elected two further times, in 2010 and 2016, and taking her seat on 1 July 2005—at the same time as our current Senate colleagues Senator Polley and Senator Sterle—her tenure has extended beyond 16 years. At her heart an environmentalist, with a background in agriculture and conservation, as a senator she has made a particular impact in the area of social policy, where she has been a relentless advocate for some of Australia's most marginalised citizens, as well as in the management of this chamber as the Australian Greens Whip.
Now, when Senator Siewert arrived in the Senate, it wasn't the first time a Greens senator from Western Australia had occupied the benches in this place, as she noted in her first speech, and here in her almost last speech, 'as the fourth in a line of determined Green women from the west to take on the Senate and progress the Green vision'. Continuing this proud legacy of women from that state representing her party, Senator Siewert paid particular tribute to the support she'd received from Dee Margetts, who is present to witness her beginning the next chapter. It says something about the determination of Senator Siewert that she has now spent more days as a senator than her three predecessors combined, today reaching 5,900 days of service.
She joined the Senate, though, at one of the darkest times in its history, with the Howard government having secured a majority. Perhaps those on the other side don't think it was a dark time, but for those like Senator Siewert, and others, there was a frustration about the egregious exercise of power that included the abolition of half of the Senate's legislative and general purpose standing committees, the passage of the infamous Work Choices legislation and the sale of the remaining publicly owned component of Telstra among the policy missteps of the time. And it was a tough time for all non-government parties.
Senator Siewert joined three Greens colleagues—Senators Brown, Nettle and Milne—and immediately took up duties as the Australian Greens Whip in the Senate, and she has maintained her grip on the whip's role for the entirety of her 16 years as a senator—a length of time for which I'm not sure we would wish to commit anyone to the task of whipping, even a senator from the Greens! In all seriousness, we recognise the role of whips as a critical one in the management of the chamber. The Senate would not function effectively without the cooperation and the coordination between the senators who serve as whips, something that I thank Senator Siewert for her part in making happen. I will note the demands of her position have undoubtedly increased for her as the size of her party room has increased, but I'm pretty sure she's not complaining about that.
Senator Rachel Siewert really did take on the Senate, and no more so was this the case than in the area of social policy and social justice, where she has been a leader in advocating for those who are often discriminated against or on the margins of society. As she said in her first speech, she held a vision of community. She just now quoted one part of that speech, and I'd like to quote another. She said:
a community … extends beyond the borders of our neighbourhood, suburb or state; a community in which people care about each other and the future of our planet and act carefully and responsibly to ensure its ongoing success; and a community that embraces diversity and understands that people living creative, fulfilling lives are more innovative and productive and will make a greater contribution to society.
She identified the negative impact of government policies that were designed to undermine the ability of non-profit organisations, such as community advocates, to advocate and lobby. She decried cuts to government services that outsourced welfare and expected volunteers to pick up the slack. She lamented attacks on the rights of workers, especially the least advantaged in our society—young people, women, those in low-paid work, casuals and temporary workers. She promoted the work of Indigenous leaders and was disappointed in the lack of support for First Nations communities to build active cultures that foster safe and healthy family environments. It's a source of ongoing frustration and disappointment for all of us on this side of the chamber that many of these issues of social justice remain unresolved and that some of these attacks are even being reprosecuted today.
Senator Siewert has been most vocal in her advocacy for people on income support, especially with regard to the rate of Newstart and its successor payment, JobSeeker. Similarly, she has drawn the attention of the Senate time and again to the impact of social security policies on the everyday lives of many Australians, including in the areas of housing, homelessness and the cashless debit card. As Chair of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee since 2009—another substantial tenure—she has been involved in significant inquiries, such as those into past adoption practices, former child migrants, hearing health and suicide prevention. As we've heard in the Senate this week, she has joined with Labor senators in bringing to light the shame of robodebt and has continued to highlight the detrimental effect of this policy on so many Australians.
Senator Siewert similarly brought the needs of Australians with a disability to the parliament, especially through the parliamentary committees on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Just as she did in her first speech in this place, she has continued to be a consistent voice in support of First Nations people and has relentlessly called for reconciliation and for governments to address the causes of this disadvantage and empower them to improve their living conditions.
The Senate has benefited from Senator Siewert's tenacity and perseverance in always highlighting the impact of government policy on those in our community who are often battling to get a hearing or to get a fair go, and she has always been about proposing alternative pathways. Senator Siewert, you said tonight that you feel that you've made some change. I say you've made a significant change. You have given voice to the voiceless, you have given hope to many and you have made lasting change in this place.
On a personal note, when I first came to know Senator Siewert I thought of her as a firecracker—a burst of energy. She seems to have endless energy. As someone who along with Senator Siewert does frequent the gym, often very early in the morning—I won't reveal the names of the few other senators who we sometimes see there—I can say that she does have endless energy. From 6.15 am onwards, Senator Siewert never rests in order to bring a fair go to her fellow Australians. There has never been any doubt whose side Senator Siewert is on.
Senator Siewert has chosen the timing of her departure from this place. She does so having made a substantial contribution as an advocate for some of Australia's most vulnerable people. I hope she leaves satisfied with what she has been able to accomplish. I hope that, with energy and passion, she continues to advance the causes that she believes in for a fair and more just society. On behalf of the opposition, although I know many of my colleagues will wish to speak tonight as well, I acknowledge Senator Rachel Siewert's service in the Senate and wish her well for the future.
I rise on behalf of the Nationals, with great pleasure, to farewell Senator Siewert—not because she's a Green but because she has served our nation and her community in Western Australia for 16 years in this place, and that's no easy task. You have made an impressive contribution. You're well respected by all in this place, Senator Siewert, for your professionalism, for the consistency in the manner in which you conduct your politics and for the way you've represented your values, your views and your community across that time.
It should come as no surprise that the National Party and the Greens are rarely in agreement on anything. But I would like to commend Senator Siewert for bringing a particular focus and a lived experience of rural and regional Australia to this place and to all the conversations she's had inside and outside of this chamber. That passion shines through, not only for the regions—ensuring that agriculture should be rightly recognised—but also for getting yoga and strength training into the parliament gym, I recall, many, many years ago. We got that done as well!
Senator Siewert also recognises, unlike, unfortunately, some of her colleagues—obviously not another regional Australian there, Senator Hanson-Young, but on that side of the chamber—that regional Australia does deserve equitable access to health and education. You've been a champion of those issues as well because you understand that the regions are the engine room for the economy. In fact, Senator Siewert has had a long service of representing the regions in the Senate through committees. The list is a long one, but I have served alongside you in the Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs and the Rural and the Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport.
On 11 August 2005, Senator Siewert delivered her first speech and, with a Bachelor of Science in ag and a background as a research officer with the state Department of Agriculture, said, 'I am determined to ensure our rural communities can continue to survive and in fact thrive.' That is a message that the National Party obviously shares and wants to assist with. People from right across Australia have benefited from your efforts, Senator Siewert, not just those in WA, and we're grateful. There were occasions when Senator Siewert backed our farmers, and the backpacker tax was not the first time that the Nats and the Greens joined forces to support rural and regional Australia. On 13 November 2013, Senator Siewert said:
Then of course we get to GrainCorp. This is one area where I agree with the Nationals. I am very concerned about the takeover by ADM of GrainCorp and I agree with the Nationals—
I can't say it enough, but you said it first!
It does present problems for our farmers. We should restart the inquiry into this takeover. We are concerned that it will be anticompetitive, that it will have a negative impact on our farmers, and we urge the Nationals to continue their opposition to this takeover.
Well, guess what? The Nationals did, and the Treasurer at the time, Joe Hockey, made the right decision in blocking that takeover bid, so we thank you for the strong arm over there of the Greens on behalf of regional Australia. Senator Siewert, we're going to miss you, I think. That was a great example of party politics not getting in the way of doing the right thing.
As I said, I've served with Senator Siewert not only on RRAT but also on community affairs committees, and I came into that role when we were in opposition, with two other powerhouses—former Senator Susie Boyce and former Senator Claire Moore. That dynamic trio taught me a lot about this place. They focused on being collaborative, on driving consensus when possible without compromising your views and values—and I'm going to get emotional now. It was a great pleasure, as a new senator, someone who hadn't been in politics as a staffer, to come and learn from the three of you.
I do think, as you said, part of our work should be about finding common space, because that's where most Australians, who sent us all here, are. Rachel, you approached your work always seeking to find that where you could, and I think all of us could do better to find more of that space. Over the decade I've been here, that's something that I hope we're not losing. But you did. And the Senate provides us all with that unique opportunity.
The Commonwealth Contribution to Former Forced Adoption Policies and Practices inquiry was incredibly powerful and showed me what you can do from the Senate. You don't have to be in government; you don't have to be a minister; you just have to find consensus, like-minded individuals and go with the evidence. What we were all able to achieve out of that on behalf of those women and their children was quite incredible. It will stay with me my entire life as something very powerful.
I can never thank you enough for the pragmatic, grounded approach that you brought to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee as an ag scientist.
Wherever life after the Senate takes you, Senator, I know that you'll embrace it broadly, robustly, with both hands. You'll squeeze every bit of joy out of it. I wish you all the very best on behalf of my party, and also personally and on behalf of regional Australia. Thank you very much for your service. Go well.
[by video link] I rise to speak in awe of Senator Rachel Siewert. It's so sad that we can't all be there with you in person. Each of our senators will be making their own contribution, so I hope you've got enough tissues there, Rachel. Adam, of course, sends his love. I'm going to be sharing some words from him and a few of your other former colleagues in this contribution.
After 16 years of contribution to our polity, to our parliament and to society, we are going to miss you so very, very much. They are such big shoes to fill, even though you have really tiny feet and very pointy shoes! This place isn't going to be the same without you, Rach. You are held in the absolute highest regard by not only all of our party room and our party members but by everyone in this chamber, as you've just heard and as you will hear for hopefully a long while yet tonight.
Your work ethic is just phenomenal. Your integrity is unquestionable. Your honesty, the respect with which you treat others, your dedication, your tenacity and your relentlessness are legendary. The way you do politics, Rach, is a lesson in how we should all do politics, in my opinion. We are going to miss you so desperately.
You can be so proud of what you've achieved after a lifetime of service, not just in this role but in your previous careers as well in your service to the planet and service to its people. You have now well and truly earned the right to have some of your time and some of your life back. Your family needs you now and you need that time also. I think we know that you have a very exciting chapter coming up.
You're so well loved that we are going to share around some contributions, and some of your former colleagues have asked that I share some words from them to you. There are too many of them, so Senator McKim will be sharing some messages from Christine and Bob, and I've got messages from Adam, Richard and Scotty.
I will start off with Greens leader Adam Bandt who, of course, would be here, but he's in lockdown in Melbourne. Adam says: 'For 16 years Rachel has been a force of nature in the Senate and she has made an immeasurable contribution to the community, to the Greens movement and to Australian democracy. Rachel is recognised across the political spectrum as being one of the most hardworking and dedicated senators this place has seen. She is a tireless campaigner, and no matter what is thrown in her way she will keep fighting for justice for people and the planet. Her time in parliament has been shaped by her belief that when the people in parliament work for their community we can do powerful things together. Rachel has been instrumental in fighting for a fairer income support system and has humanised the experiences of people on income support, making sure their voices are heard. She has led the campaign to increase Newstart and JobSeeker in the parliament.'
He goes on: 'Rachel has been the leading voice in parliament fighting the punitive measures successive governments have imposed on some of the most vulnerable in our community, including cuts to single parenting payments, the Northern Territory Intervention, income management and the cashless debit card, Work for the Dole, the Community Development Program and the woefully low rates of income support. Rachel has campaigned alongside the community for justice for the victims of the illegal robodebt scheme and demanded the ministers responsible be held to account. Rachel chaired and referred the robodebt debacles to the Senate inquiry in 2017 and again in 2019.'
He continues: 'She has been the Chair of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee for 12 years, where she has chaired and referred issues such as past adoption practices—thank you for that—former child migrants, hearing health, suicide prevention, the violent abuse and neglect of disabled people, indefinite detention of people with cognitive and psychiatric impairment in Australia, the aged-care sector workforce, out-of-home care, grandparent carers, income inequality and robodebt. She was a driving force behind the forced adoptions inquiry and was instrumental in securing a national apology to mothers and their children—a day to be proud of indeed.'
Adam continues: 'Rachel is one of the first politicians to campaign for a royal commission into the violent abuse and neglect of disabled people, pursuing a royal commission since 2015, when it was a key recommendation of the Senate inquiry. In 2012 she made history by introducing a private member's bill into the Senate to help address petrol sniffing in the Northern Territory, which passed the parliament and became law. Rachel played a key role in the community campaign which stopped a major Woodside gas hub at James Price Point in north WA.' And he says, 'I'm sure her persistent presence at estimates will be missed by many, but perhaps not by the public servants that you have grilled over the years, Rach!'
I'll continue on with Adam's comments here: 'Rachel has been the only Greens Whip and Greens spokesperson on family and community services, First Nations issues, aging, mental health, health, healthy oceans, agriculture and industrial relations. Before being elected to the Senate in 2005, as the fourth in a long line of strong Greens women senators from the west, Rachel Siewert spent 16 years as the coordinator of the Conservation Council of WA and played a role in a number of national and state forums, tackling pressing environmental and social justice issues, including the World Heritage listing of Shark Bay.' He finishes, 'It goes without saying that Rachel's departure is a huge loss to the Senate and the Australian community.'
Another former leader of our wonderful party, dear Richard Di Natale, also wants to share this with you, Rach. Richard says: 'Rachel, a huge thankyou for fighting so hard for so long for people who don't have a voice. You will be remembered for your work to help people who are out of work live with some dignity, for your work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and for campaigns like James Price Point. I'll remember you as a friend. Good luck on the other side. I can highly recommend it!' He's doing well, as you know.
Lastly, from the senator to the senatrix, a message from Scotty, former senator Scott Ludlam. He says: 'This place has never known anyone as fierce, tenacious, smart and grounded as Senator Rachel Siewert. To say her voice will be missed in here would be an understatement because her voice has been raised for so many people sidelined and shut out of this place. From day one, for 16 years today, it's been Rach against the machine. Thank you for everything.'
Rach, your work will live on. Your 16 years in this chamber will live on for many years in the successes that you have driven and achieved. I've already detailed, through the words of our leaders and former leaders, the impact that you've had in so many policy areas. But I want to briefly reflect on how much I've valued you as a friend and a confidante in this place, and I want to remember to you some of the really wonderful experiences that we've shared in this bizarre and privileged role that we've had.
From the very early days, there was campaigning against the Traveston dam, before I had the honour of being a senator for Queensland, campaigning against that dam that was proposed for the Mary River, which we successfully stopped, Rach—in part, no doubt, because of you—and those beautiful places and the wonderful farmers that we spoke with in Gympie. To the tour throughout WA that we did opposing fracking, which sadly we will continue to have to fight for, and flying in that tiny plane out of Broome over the Canning Basin. You, Scott and I had inadvertently all worn exactly the same thing and looked somewhat like Mormons on the day. To the shared committee trips that we did on the Northern Australia committee out the back of Bourke and then some, our trips to Bundaberg and Hervey Bay opposing the cashless debit card and that beautiful, joyful day of your wedding that I was so blessed to share in the joy of with you, as did many of our colleagues. To standing with you at the press conference in Perth to support your re-election when I was actually secretly pregnant and for the first time was doing a press conference without coffee. I welcomed everyone to Cairns, and you kindly corrected me to say that no, we were in fact in Perth. To all of the wonderful chats that we've had in the chamber and on our walks home, over dinner or at coffee about terrible sci-fi, about food, about your family, about your skiing and your paddleboarding prowess and about the latest surfboard lighting design and shark-deterrent amazing paraphernalia. To your aspiration to ensure the protection of biodiversity, including the 'spiral shit fish', which I believe is incumbent upon us to have entered in the Hansard annals for history to recall.
For all of those times and more, Rach, we will miss you so very, very dearly. I actually can't imagine the place without you. Of course we'll do our best without you. The wonderful Dorinda Cox will soon be a senator for WA in your stead and fantastic Nick McKim will soon be our whip. But there's no-one like you, Rach, and our team will miss you so desperately much. We wish you all the very best and thank you so very much for everything that you've done for the wonderful party that you represent and for the values that we all share. Best of luck, and we'll miss you very much.
[by video link] Gee, Rach, while they're all going on about how hard you worked, I don't think they've called it right. Mate, let's be honest, you're like a bloody Trojan horse; I've never seen anything like it! Not even I can keep up with you—I'll be honest with you. You are going to leave a massive gap up there because having a person who knows social services right across the board like you do is absolutely amazing. You've either got to live through it or you've got to sit through a lot of committees and listen to a lot of people to get that knowledge. It is really hard to find people like you in that circle—and I don't mean to have a go at other people; I'm not doing that in a valedictory speech—but the bottom line is life experience is missing. Rachel seems to have a lot of it, whether that's because she's done her homework or because of her background or whatever, and she will be really sadly missed. You've been trying to get the voices of those millions of vulnerable Australians out there heard. I know you know that, but there are some in there that don't. There are a lot of them, and it's going to get worse, so I think your voice is going to be really deeply missed.
I'm not going to take up much time. I'm also in awe of you. It's been fabulous to have the opportunity to have you sit next to me since I've been in parliament. I have to say that I do blame Christine Milne for that. I don't want to blame myself or you, but I used to lean on her when she was there. I asked her when she left to put somebody in her seat that knows procedure. Unfortunately, you got that seat, right? So blame Christine—that's my first point. My second one is—and I ask you this before I let you go—that whoever you're going to put in that seat, can you please make sure that they know procedure? If you're expecting me to teach them procedure, I'm sure everything's going to get really ugly in there really quickly. Once again, I've worked with you on committees, and you have been fabulous. You take the politics out of politics, girlfriend. You are really going to be sadly missed and so is your knowledge. Thank you for all the help that you've given me over the years. My door's always open. You've got me on speed dial and you know that if you need anything, just call me. Thank you so much, thank you for everything.
Sixteen years as a senator travelling back and forth from Western Australia, Rachel, is pretty phenomenal. I don't think those of us who live on this side of the country recognise the additional toll that that travel takes on you. You have done it for 16 years in representing your state, and you should be absolutely commended for it. I take my hat off. I get really tired flying all the way back to South Australia. I can't imagine what it's like when you fly back to Western Australia.
In this place you've been interested in a very broad range of things. In my time, first of all in rural and regional affairs and more recently as the minister for social services, I have seen your extraordinary passion in the areas of health and aged care. You care about Indigenous Australians. You have extraordinary compassion for more vulnerable Australians—those Australians who need a little more help than other Australians. You have always been a person who has stood up for those people who haven't been able to have a voice. You've been their voice. It is extraordinary that you can take away from this place the things that you have been able to do for Australians who haven't been able to do it for themselves. I don't think any of us can estimate how many Australians have benefited from your voice.
We don't always agree, but I have to say that many Australians would be surprised by how many times we do agree. The working relationship I've had with you, particularly in these last two years, has been absolutely phenomenal. I want to mention one area where we have worked together. I'm really pleased that the culmination of much of your effort will be realised before you go, and will continue afterwards, with the National Redress Scheme. Your constant voice of wisdom and your understanding of the issue have informed the development of the scheme, which we all admit wasn't perfect in the first place. Every day we have been able to work together to improve that scheme. We're introducing legislation tomorrow that will start the first tranche of reforms of the scheme. Very importantly, there will be advanced payments for people who are elderly or, sadly, likely to die sooner than the scheme may be able to respond to them. We know that the $10,000 is really not the important bit. The important bit is that by doing that we're saying, 'We listened to you and we believe you.' I'm really pleased we have been able to do that. Agree or disagree, nobody could ever question your motivation. Your motivation has always been pure. I am not sure all of us in this place can claim to have the kind of purity of motivation you do.
One of the hallmarks of your time here is that you have always been across your brief. Your understanding of the technical detail terrified me when I first became the minister for social services. I said, 'I don't care who I get a question from, just not Rachel, because Rachel is more likely to understand way more about my portfolio than I do.' I have to say that, in my first few months in my job, my office used to say: 'Watch Rachel. She's the canary in the coalmine. If Rachel is chasing something, there's sure to be something on the other end of it.' You have taught me an awful lot about chasing something to make sure we get to the salient issue that needs to be dealt with.
Another thing—and I think Senator Birmingham raised this—is you're not somebody for a media grab or a gotcha moment. You go into everything you do, whether in a committee, this chamber or estimates, prosecuting the issue. You never play the player; you always play the ball. I think that is an absolutely commendable attribute. As I said, you've always sought to represent and project the voices of your constituents and never your own. For you to have done that and your constant commitment to doing that, as I said earlier on, have meant that so many Australians have had a voice they otherwise wouldn't have had. You've been tireless and dedicated. I don't know that we will see in this place again your advocacy on behalf of the most vulnerable, although hopefully we do.
Also there is the respectful way in which you engage with everybody in this chamber, whether it be those you disagree with or those you agree with. The respect you show the attendants and everybody else you come in contact with in this building is an absolute testament to your character and personality. I think everybody here is going to miss that and also your cheeky way of dealing with things.
You've made a huge contribution. You can leave this place knowing that you have done a lot. If all of us could leave this place having achieved as much as you have, then I think we would all have every reason to hold our heads up high and be extremely proud.
Rachel, I wish you all the best. I hope that paddleboard is all shined up and ready to go when you get back to Western Australia. I'm also equally sure that this is not the last we'll hear of Rachel Siewert. I'm sure we'll see your head popping up frequently, advocating on behalf of the people that you believe need a voice. Go with our blessings. Thank you so much for the friendship you've shown me. It has been an absolute honour to work with you. Good luck.
I have to wonder how Senator Siewert is feeling at the moment sitting there. After all the years of the slings and arrows that are part of this place, you finally hear that people think you're a pretty good person, Rachel. It must be a profoundly interesting moment to be sitting here experiencing that. I want to reflect briefly on your contribution, having heard your voice and the particular tenor of your review of your 16 years here. It was a voice thick with emotion, because you care about what you do, which has been reflected by everybody who has made a contribution so far. To have been serving in this place, about which people, sadly, have become increasingly cynical, with not a skerrick of cynicism in your voice is a testament to how resilient you are, how much integrity has been part of what you have brought to your role and what you've continued to model here for many senators and members of parliament who could well and truly take a leaf out of your book, in terms of a model of deep service to community, because that is exactly what you've given.
Of course, you did indulge yourself in a very brief record of your service, but that, again, just reveals the humility that you bring to the task that you have undertaken here. I also note that your comments tonight were somewhat tempered by a bit of a sorrowful statement about the things that were unable to be achieved—in particular, your passion for the challenge of our time: the red alert that is the climate change reality that is just so much a part of this time in which we live. I know that you care about that so much, as I do, for the next generation and about what the impact is. I also stand with you in knowing that there is capacity in this institution to make a change that is material, and you acknowledged that one period of time under the leadership of another great woman from a different party—my party, the Labor Party—the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard.
I have in my drawer the actual first document from when that legislation came in. I had it signed by the four ministers who introduced it, because, when that happened, I knew that was a day when we could make a change. It is heartbreaking sometimes to put all that effort in and get to the point of having it pulled apart. But, incrementally, even if we're sorrowful about not having achieved the goals as easily if we might have—if there wasn't such a miserly vision of that issue—you have been part of bringing to bear that pressure to move us towards a better place. I'm sure that the task will get done eventually, Rachel, and it'll be on the back of the efforts of people like you. In particular, the passion, energy and integrity you've brought to that issue is absolutely notable, and noted.
I will pick up on the remarks of Senator Waters about your work at estimates. In my entire time here in the Senate I have not seen public servants so aware that they were going to have to provide an A3 sheet profoundly densely printed with every single piece of detail about how many people had come or gone from a particular program. You've just got them so well trained—although that's probably a bit of a pejorative term. They're so well prepared for the degree of scrutiny and integrity that you're going to bring to the work that you do both in estimates and in the committee work that I've been so privileged to share with you. That is quite some achievement. It's probably not going to make the front page of a newspaper, but it's exactly the kind of thing that should, because that is the real work of the Senate—reviewing the work of government with care, kindness and compassion. Everything that you do is replete with that standard of professionalism.
I acknowledge your service to the great state of Western Australia. It is a beautiful state, and I spent quite some time there in the year that I took off with my husband. We travelled around the country before we were grey. We were nomads and we were very fit and healthy, and we had the most wonderful time in Western Australia. You've been a champion for that state and you've brought a very powerful perspective from the whole state—not just from Perth and the southern areas where you live but also from your roaming across that state. You've brought the real perspectives, and the longstanding relationships you have with people of First Nations communities across that country is absolutely known and acknowledged. You've done great work in that area.
A lot of people in this place draw attention to the points on which we disagree. Of course we disagree, but this is democracy in action. It's a choir of different voices. Sometimes we really get it right and we sound harmonious, but discord is part of our journey to understanding what that is. Where there's disagreement, that is a sign of a healthy democracy. I think that you have stood and had a strident voice when it's been required and, as many have reflected, you've found the harmonious points whenever you could. That's a remarkable character trait.
You bring to the debate in this place your passion, care, detail and information, but it's in the hearings that I've been in with you, whether you've been chairing or we've just been participants, that I've really seen who you are and how you lift and encourage into the place people so completely unfamiliar with the parliamentary processes. You have, as Senator Lambie said, a really rich and practical knowledge of the standing orders and how this place runs, but you are one of the few people who have never used that as a weapon against people who don't. In fact, your understanding of it makes you more respectful of those who don't, and that comes through in everything that you do. You're a person who lives your values, and I'm very pleased to have shared with you quite a few meals after hearings as we've been on the road in all sorts of places. To me the word 'integrity' applies to somebody who lives their values, and that is exactly what you do.
How the Greens are going to go with Senator McKim doing the job that you've been doing as whip—oh my gosh! He's going to find it incredibly difficult to do. I see you marshalling the troops over there. I'm always impressed. You do it discreetly, but you do it very powerfully. Everybody knows that they can trust your word, your direction and your insight, and that is a great tribute to you as well.
I want to reflect briefly on a mental health tour that we took. We did it in two ways. One part was in Australia, when we were looking at access to mental health services for the country. Like Senator Waters said, we were in small planes on a sort of milk run across the north of the country to see what we saw. I'm sure that you will remember some of the evidence where people had so little faith in being able to access any decent health care, because there were so many locums coming through, that they called all health professionals 'white Toyotas'. Once something like that washes over your experience, it's hard to forget. Discussing that and so many other things over dinner with you, getting to know one another—that is one of the great things about being in the Senate. Through the committee work that we do, we get to know each other's stories and find out about each other, and that helps us do our work more collegially.
I haven't checked with you, but I'm sure you won't mind me acknowledging, on behalf of the Australian people, how significant a trip our research tour was, with our colleague Andrew Wallace from the other place, who co-chairs the Parliamentary Friends of Mental Illness group. We worked together as Team Australia, and that's one of the things I'm always proud of when we get to travel overseas, as we did in the olden days and hopefully will again sometime in the near future. I have been very honoured to work with you as Team Australia—to really pick the eyes out of best practice in other contexts, to understand it, to bring it back, to try to bring it to bear in our committee work and to inform the government.
I want to acknowledge the drip-feeding of some of this pressure, particularly when I was in the role of assistant shadow minister for mental health. You and I, along with Mr Wallace, got to the point where we were able to firmly recommend that a minimum of 20 consultations was necessary to help with eating disorders. It actually did imprint, and Minister Hunt brought it in. With that as a floor, we have seen during COVID that capacity for people to access mental health services, with a minimum of 20 consultations. That was our work. It did take a minister to listen and implement, but it wouldn't have happened without the passion and energy you brought to the task. I'm so proud to have been able to help with that alongside you.
Of course, there was Centrelink compliance—a lovely name for what is really the robodebt debacle. It's been great giving a hit from the left and a hit from the right over here to the government to try to get them to pay attention to the fact that they inflicted this debt on their own people and we cannot let it continue. I've been so glad to stand with you and fight that fight. I've given you my word, and I give it here publicly, that I will not let that go. That deserves a much better response from the government than we've seen so far. Four rejections—that's just the beginning. We're going to keep pushing this, because the Australian people deserve to know. I will channel your determination and perseverance to make sure we get a good outcome on that matter.
I want to acknowledge what a family person you are and how much of a challenge it's been for your family to provide you in service of the nation—all the flights over 16 years, and everywhere you've been, and your service in the Senate of the country we're so proud to call our home. Your care and compassion for your family is absolutely reflected in what you do here. I don't know whether it is just the deep guilt of being a serving senator, or whether there is a gender dimension as well, but to be away—you talked about missing your son's end-of-school ball and seeing him in his finery. There are great sacrifices, but your family have enabled you and supported you. I acknowledge them for doing that and I acknowledge the sacrifice you have undertaken in what you've given to this place. I wish you a safe return to them after 16 years. I wish you very deep powdery snow when you resume your skiing career, and I hope it's for many more weeks than you've been able to do as you sandwiched it in between your service in this place. I wish you the very best of health into the future. Thank you.
What lovely comments and reflection on the contribution you've made in this place, Rach. It must be really weird sitting here and listening to everybody piling on their love and admiration and respect.
Firstly, I want to say that you've been a fierce whip. I've only missed three votes in the 13 years you've been whip. I want to put that on the record. I learnt very early that you don't mess up when Rachel is in charge. You have kept us running a tight ship. We are a much better party room and a much better green force in this place because of the leadership you've shown. It hasn't always been easy. We've had changes of leaders; you've had to train each one of them, and you've done it just beautifully. You've trained new senators who have come on board. Everybody's had the experience where they've shown up late to something or missed a vote or didn't jump to speak when they should have, and I think all of our colleagues know that you don't do it again. Rachel makes sure you learn your lesson—and you learn it once!
But your passion, your empathy, your strength—I think in politics we often get categorised as being either pragmatic and strong or emotional and bleeding heart. You have proven that that is utter rubbish and that you can be both empathetic and compassionate—that you can come to an issue with pure emotion and integrity but be ruthless and pragmatic about how you you're going to get it done. It's harder for women, too, to do that. You've proven time and time and time again that those stereotypes are just rubbish, so thank you. I think we have to pay testament to your leadership as a woman in this place. With the approach you bring to the debates, internally and externally, you've been an absolute role model. Over the years, when things have happened in this place—I remember you were here when Kora was thrown out of the chamber; that was a baptism of fire for me and you were right there, by my side, as a mum, and I'll never forget that. Thank you.
The testament of your approach is clearly reflected in this place tonight, with people of all sides respecting the way you engage and your commitment. We've heard the words 'honesty' and 'integrity', but you know what? I think that, more than all of those things, everyone knows you are the hardest worker in this place. Everyone knows that. You never miss. You're always across your brief. You've chaired the community affairs committee even though it has one of the biggest workloads, if not the biggest, in this place in terms of legislation coming forward. The issues that you deal with take such a toll. You have never wavered in your commitment to that work, and that is incredibly inspiring and a model for all of us.
I also want to say that we've now got Senator Thorpe as our first First Nations woman in our team and the first First Nations representative from Victoria. I don't think we would have Senator Thorpe—Lydia—in this team, necessarily, without your leadership internally in our party as well as in the chamber. The fact that you've committed so much of your life's work and your work in this place to giving First Nations a voice, and a voice for themselves, is just incredible. It's all summed up by the fact that Dorinda Cox is coming in to replace you. You were determined that a strong Aboriginal woman, a First Nations leader, would come in after you, and you've done it. Others may have aims and aspirations to do things like that, but you've actually delivered it. I think that is a wonderful testament to you, so thank you.
Others have already mentioned the adoptions inquiry. The emotion as that inquiry, which you led, did its work was incredible. The emotion in this place on the day was incredible, but, from talking to you over the months and years as the evidence was being gathered, I know the toll that that was taking—hearing people's stories, feeling them deeply and having that sense of responsibility that you had to do something with them. We can set up inquiries and have people come and tell their stories, and we can give them a sense of trust, but you took it on with the pure responsibility that you knew something had to come from it. This wasn't just about a tick-and-flick process, and I think many, many people are indebted to you because of that. On behalf of all of them, thank you.
We are going to miss you. Senator McKim has big shoes to fill, and I'll put it here first: I reckon it will be a bit rough in the beginning. I think there'll be a bit of mess as we muddle through, but that's because no-one can replace you. No-one is going to be able to do the job the way you do it. Good luck, Nick!
It's very hard to find anybody in this place who can match the care and the absolute understanding that you have for the dignity of people who are vulnerable, Rachel. You don't look down your nose, ever, at people. You've never made people feel less than they are because of the position that you hold. The parliament can be a pretty overwhelming place at times. In inviting people in to give evidence or offering support to them or saying that you're going to work in the parliament for them, you haven't just taken their stories and given them a voice; you've welcomed them into this institution with open arms. You have made that connection between us as a parliament, you as a legislator and them as the people that we are here for. This door might close, but, in your heart and your mind, it's never closed. I think that's the great service that you've brought to this place, to the people of Australia and to the most vulnerable in our community. I'm going to miss you a lot, Rachel. Thank you.
I, too, stand to pay tribute to my fellow Western Australian senator and colleague Senator Rachel Siewert. I associate myself with all of the comments that we've heard so far from right across this chamber, in what is a very fitting acknowledgement of your service to the Senate and to our nation.
I was genuinely very saddened to hear of your decision to leave after 16 years. But, conversely, I was really happy for you, after 16 years of crossing the Nullarbor. One of my first recollections of Senator Siewert was crossing the Nullarbor, time and time again, for committee hearings. You would do it twice in one day to attend a committee hearing, which is a sign not just of the dedication, compassion and commitment that you have but also of the sacrifices your family have made for everything that you've done.
Everyone in this place knows, and we've heard tonight, about your passion, your commitment and your respect for the dignity of humanity, whenever and whenever you find it. I've also greatly respected, and have sometimes been the beneficiary of, your very deep and loud honesty when holding us, now on this side of the chamber, to account. As everybody else here has said, it is absolutely clear that you have always been driven by your passion for justice and your commitment to people and what you believe in.
Like other people here, it took me about five minutes in this place to see your incredible knowledge and the width and the depth of your knowledge in social policy, whether it's in this chamber or at committees, including at estimates. I've sat, again, on the other side of the table, and I've also sat with officials who are suitably prepared because they know the level at which you always come to the table. Because of that, you speak with authority on the matters, and, when you speak, we all listen. Sometimes we have no choice but to listen, because of the passion and the volume, but we always listen to and respect you. As Minister Ruston has said, you always show us where to look, quite often before we even know that there is cause to look at particular issues.
I don't understand how you have not only the work ethic that you do but also the capacity to work, managing the multiple hearings, whipping and everything else that you do. As you've pointed out, one of the dirty secrets, which probably shouldn't be such a dirty secret, and one of the absolute joys and privileges of serving in this place is the collegiality between those on all sides of this chamber. While people wouldn't necessarily think that Senator Siewert and I have a lot in common, given our positions on things and our party positions, she really, along with the wonderful Claire Moore, showed me that we can work together and find common ground in our committee work to make a real difference for Australians, and that is one of the many powerful things about this place.
We did find, as we've heard from everyone else who's spoken, common ground on a number of issues, and I just want to highlight three. I'm incredibly grateful that you supported the very first inquiry I put forward, into young people in aged care. That inquiry made a huge difference to the lives of thousands of people with disabilities who had been consigned to life in an aged-care facility simply because they were disabled and there was nowhere else for them to go. I'm particularly proud now that I have carriage of that and I feel a great sense of responsibility for that, and I'd like to thank you for that.
We have some unfinished business in the interrupted inquiry into the plight of Australians with Lyme disease and the disgraceful way that I believe—and we share that belief—they are not heard, they are not seen and they are certainly not getting the treatment they deserve. That is still unfinished business for me, so I will be taking that forward.
Probably the one that bemused you the most—but I'm very grateful for your support as a senator for Western Australia—was the inquiry into Western Force. Again, you had faith and you said, 'Okay, we'll have a look into this.' While we couldn't change the outcome of the disgraceful behaviour from Rugby Australia that we discovered, we made a huge difference to tens of thousands of Western Australians and to the players by getting answers on what had happened to their much-beloved team.
Rachel, in conclusion, I've only ever experienced this chamber with you in it—not only with your leadership as the whip but also with your leadership in community affairs and on social policy. You have certainly inspired me and sometimes also made me want to be a better senator and a better person on a lot of these inquiries. The Senate will certainly be the lesser, and I think we'll all be the lesser, for not having you in the chamber. But, as so many people have said and I know will continue to say, you have made every single day of those 5,000-odd days that you've been serving in the Senate. I thank you very much for the dignity that you've brought to the Senate and for the contribution I think you've made to our democracy as well. So I wish you and your family well in whatever you decide to do next, on and off the paddleboard. I know you'll do it with great passion and with great commitment, and you'll do it so that everybody will hear. Rachel, thank you for everything you've done, thank you for what you've given to me in this place, and good luck.
I too rise to add my contributions on your service, Rachel, and to echo everything that's been said about you today. I was thinking earlier today of when you and I first met. You won't remember this. I was at the United Workers Union, and there was some protest in Subiaco. I want to say it was on aged care, but it was outside the council chamber, so I don't know. Maybe it was child care. It was one or the other. We had a bunch of members there, and we were protesting, and you came along. You must have just seen us there, or maybe you'd heard about the strike, and you offered your support. You know me: I'm dyed-in-the-wool Labor. I thought, 'Hm,' but I was really impressed that you'd taken the time to come along and support the members. Whether it was aged care or child care, you were there supporting us.
The next time I met you was also while I was at the union. I was the person who had responsibility for getting the Living Longer Living Better reforms through, which Mark Butler did when he was minister. It was my job to take aged-care workers to meet you and to lobby you. I didn't know what your view was, but now, knowing you many years after that, I'm sure that you did support it. You probably always supported the reforms. Nevertheless, we had a job to do, and that was to harangue you to death with aged-care workers who came to tell you their stories—on more than one occasion, I'm sure. So thank you for that.
I want to echo the other things that have been said about you. You are a woman of great humanity. Your integrity comes through in everything that you do, as do your advocacy and passion and your drive and commitment that everyone has spoken about tonight. The two areas where our lives and paths tend to cross are First Nations issues. I'm sure that secretly you're quite pleased that the Labor Party finally got there on the cashless debit card—thank goodness! I know that we've often shared platforms at protest meetings outside of the Senate, but we've also shared a lot of work on Senate committees. Senator Reynolds has just reminded me of the Western Force one. I think I had to be there reluctantly, because there wasn't very much of that committee work I enjoyed at all, but the rest of it has been good.
I think I've got to know you better this year and last year on all the SPA flights that we shared. We usually sat together and had great chats about family and all sorts of things outside of the Senate. We were just a couple of women who had a lot of interests in common. I look forward to your journey of building your house. I know we had lots of chats about that. You will be missed in the Senate—your advocacy, particularly, and your passion—but I know that you've served Australians well, and you'll continue to do that, whatever you do next. I'm sure Chris will welcome having you home. It might take a bit of time to get used to it, because sometimes our partners get used to us coming and going, even though they miss us. So that'll be an adjustment. The FIFO worker is FIFO no longer.
All the best, and thank you for your absolute commitment to this place and to ordinary Australians who do it tough.
I won't take up much of the chamber's time tonight. Rachel, I know you've got colleagues who are still waiting to speak, and I know that many people in this place have spent a lot more time here with you than I have, so I certainly want to give them the chance to speak tonight. However, I do rise to speak, because you have made such a contribution to this place, and I think it is really important that we acknowledge that.
I go back to 2006 or 2007, when I first started travelling to this place. I don't really believe you remember me, but I first met you, Senator Siewert, in my role as policy director for the Pastoralists and Graziers Association. I came to this place as a pretty green individual, in terms of the political process and politics, and I guess I had a rosy-eyed view that everyone sitting on this side—I'm not sure that it was this side; yes, it was the government side then—would be in favour of what I was advocating for and what the Pastoralists and Graziers Association was advocating for and that everybody on the other side would be opposed.
Senator Siewert, yours is one of my very clear memories of that period. You were someone who, because of your background—as a Western Australian, someone with experience in agricultural science, someone with experience out in the bush in Jerramungup in Western Australia and many other places—actually understood the issue. Not very many people in this place actually did. So my first experience of you was of completely turning on their head those green, inexperienced preconceptions about what people in this place would believe. Then I came to the point where I realised that some of the Nationals actually vigorously opposed what I was there to represent, and even many in the Liberal Party were pretty wishy-washy about it all, and that, of course, was the ending of the export monopoly of wheat—the single desk as it was called. But you had a very clear eyed view of the economics of that, and I recognised that maybe we shouldn't always come to this place with preconceptions about what people are going to think.
Then, on entering this place as a senator, on my first day on duty I was given the chair of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee and deputy chair of the Community Affairs References Committee. That says more about the lack of backbenchers in the coalition than it says about my talents and skills! But it was wonderful working with you for the year that I was on that committee. It wasn't a space I was particularly comfortable in. It wasn't a policy area where I had a great deal of knowledge. We dealt with things in the references committee such as the inquiry into transvaginal mesh and the inquiry into mitochondrial donation. Neither of those has been brought up here tonight; clearly, you've worked on a number of inquiries that had a great deal of import. But they were both inquiries where we managed, and you managed as chair of the references committee, to work through a process where we could highlight the issues, come to a unified position on a report and advance the interests of the two groups, in those two situations—and we've heard of many more tonight—who hadn't been heard, two groups whose issues needed to be much more widely ventilated. And, as a result of those two inquiries—two small things for us; two very big things for those people involved—those issues were ventilated, those people were heard and actions were taken.
So I honour you, Senator Siewert. I think you have done an amazing job in this place. I wish you, and your family, all the best for the future.
[by video link] Rach, it's so sad that so many of your colleagues can't be with you personally this evening to support you and to show you personally just how much we love you and how much we're going to miss you. I really wish we could all be there with you.
I'm going to begin by sharing some words for you from two friends of mine who are two really, really good friends of yours—firstly, these words:
Rachel is one of the most unsung heroes of progressive social action in our national parliament. She also had a big hand in freeing our Southern Hemisphere from the bloody scourge of whaling. Students of political botany looking for a flower in the swamp will do well to study the career of Greens Senator Rachel Siewert.
Those beautiful words are from former senator and former leader of the Australian Greens Bob Brown. And I'm sure you'll guess who the next words are from, pretty early on:
Rach, what can I add to all the accolades that you so deserve about your exemplary career in the Senate? We were elected together in 2004 and took up our seats when there were only four of us: Bob Brown, Kerry Nettle, you and I. You've been a relentless campaigner and a staunch, staunch advocate of the Greens and for our vision of a just world and a planet capable of sustaining life in the face of the global climate and biodiversity emergencies. Whether it's sharks or the forests or James Price Point, or the Aboriginal petroglyphs of the Burrup, you've been there advocating for protection. You've travelled the length and breadth of the country to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and secured an important milestone by addressing petrol sniffing and securing non-aromatic Opal fuel. You stood up courageously from day one against robodebt and the cashless welfare card, and you were right.
In your service to the parliament and the people of Australia, it has been so special. In an age when people are so cynical about parliamentarians, you have demonstrated what integrity, fairness and commitment mean in your role as chair of the community affairs committee and also in your role as Greens Whip. One of the moments I treasure is the day in 2013 when Prime Minister Gillard delivered the apology to the people who suffered so deeply because of forced adoption practices. Rach, you moved for and drove that inquiry and chaired it, and you were there in the Great Hall to witness how much it meant to so many people. Your compassion and commitment delivered for so many. Thank you for your service to the parliament, to the Greens and for your friendship and support during my time in the Senate.
Those words, of course, are from former senator and former leader of the Australian Greens Christine Milne. As usual, Christine and Bob are far more eloquent than I am able to be, so I will just add a few brief words of my own, Rach.
Rachel, you are genuinely one of my political heroes. I'm in awe of what you have achieved, and I'm also in awe of how you've achieved it and of how you've conducted yourself on your political journey. You've been a mighty, mighty voice and activist for First Nations people, for climate action and for nature, particularly for your beloved marine environment and even more particularly for your waters of Western Australia.
Your advocacy for people doing it tough, particularly those who have been left without work in our sometimes very brutal modern society, has been without equal in the political arena. Your participation in the campaign to increase the rate of JobKeeper helped to build a movement, and it helped give a voice to so many who at that time did not have a voice. Please be proud of what you've achieved, Rach; it's truly the most amazing record. If I have been or can be half as effective as you have been and half as passionate as you are about the issues that really matter and represent people and nature with half the integrity that you have, I will end my time in politics a very happy person.
As an aside, I know that I've got large shoes to fill as the whip for the Australian Greens, and I might say my shoes will be nowhere near as fashionable as yours have consistently been during my time in the Senate. If I can whip our colleagues, who can—I'll put it kindly—sometimes be slightly recalcitrant, half as hard and half as well as you did, Rach, I may have some small hope of keeping them in line as well as you did.
Rach, I know for you this is not retirement from active life. It's not retirement from activism. It is simply retirement from the Senate. I have no doubt there will be so many people—and, in fact, our planet—who will have cause to thank you for your relentless advocacy and your relentless activism into the future. Please take great care of yourself. Take great care of those that you love. You and yours are always welcome back to our rustic little shack in the bush down on the Tasman Peninsula. You are, Rachel, truly the most beautiful and amazing human. All the very best.
Senator Siewert—Rachel—as whips I know that the brevity of my remarks won't be taken as disinterest, but as whips in this Senate, and no-one knows this more than you as a result of the length of service that you have given as the whip for the Australian Greens, our job is to make it work for everybody else. Often that means sacrificing the things that are important to us and sacrificing the contributions that we might like to make. I will make my comments brief in order to allow the many others that are still to make their contributions to have an opportunity.
In your contribution you talked about being disappointed and frustrated with the action on climate matters. But I think by any measure your contribution on so many issues leaves no space for disappointment, no space for frustration. I just want to reflect on one. I don't expect you to remember the time that you first met me, but I certainly remember the time that I first met you. We were in Alice Springs doing a committee inquiry into low-aromatic fuel. Your contribution in keeping young Indigenous people safe in remote communities across our country has not had the heraldry that I think it deserves. That private senator's bill that you brought to this place—and which was agreed to and which was sent to the other place and was agreed to—is one of just 30 private senators' bills or private members' bills that have made it into law in the history of this country since 1901. That is a remarkable achievement on an issue that has absolutely gone a long way to ensuring that young people, not just Indigenous but predominantly Indigenous, are kept from harm's way.
I have admired the way that you have worked and your conviction. Your integrity is a model that senators in this place and senators who are yet to come can style themselves on. You reflected quite accurately that there's not enough talk about all the things that we do agree on and all the things that we work so constructively on and that have changed the lived experience for so many people in our country. Our names will not be remembered in the future, but the legacy some of us have been able to deliver for other people will be felt. It's hard to imagine someone who has made a more lasting contribution to improving the lived experience of so many people. One of the things I have observed when working closely with you is how important it is for people to have a voice on issues and how empowering it is for those people when they get heard by senators, through the parliamentary committee process or through other means.
You drive a hard bargain as the whip, but I have always enjoyed that yesterday's challenges are not carried over to today or to tomorrow. That's a real testimony to your graciousness and your decency as a person. You mentioned that you came to this place having followed other Greens senators. As significant as their contributions were in their own way, your contribution is the force from the west. Your contribution is the one that I think many people should style themselves upon, because it has been so significant.
I've enjoyed working with you on grandparent carers. I've enjoyed working with you on the important issues around the National Redress Scheme. I've enjoyed hearing in the adjournment debates your contributions about the Kimberley, even though we might disagree on the right way to improve Indigenous disadvantage in this country and to preserve the Kimberley's wonderful environment.
Congratulations. It is a remarkable achievement. I'm sure there are more things for you to do. I look forward to supporting you in whatever way I can in the future. Congratulations to you. Best wishes to you and your family for the future.
[by video link] Rach, we're just going to miss you so much. The contributions that people have made this evening show just how loved you are and what a massive contribution and difference you have made to the people of Australia, to the other creatures that we share this planet with and to the people of the world. It is a huge contribution. You are such a role model. I have looked up to you in terms of working together collaboratively and what you can achieve by doing that. You're a combination that is so rare in this place. You're a mixture of absolutely steely determination, being on top of your game and determined to go for it, a heart of gold, love and care. I think that's at the core of what makes you and your contribution so special. It is grounded in love and care.
It's about treating genuinely everyone you have invited in and worked with. You genuinely respect them and want to see people able to achieve their best. You want everyone to have the opportunities that you know we all deserve. That's why you have achieved so much. That's why everyone respects you. You said in the beginning of your contribution tonight that you had to take a bit of time to work out whether you were really a politician. In fact, that makes you the best sort of politician. There are so few people in this place that have that genuineness, that care and that love for people, for humanity and for the planet that you bring. Every ounce of your being and every ounce of the work that you do is imbued with that love and care.
The thing that I really appreciate about you, having worked side by side with you, is that combination of being on top of your game, of having that knowledge and ability to know what has to happen, of having such determination and of having that collaborative approach. You work with people to achieve those outcomes. We know the amazing suite of work you have done in this place to make life better for people—on social services and on improving people's lot. But I know that your passion for nature is just as strong, particularly for the wonderful, beautiful environments of Western Australia—from the forests of south-west WA through to the Ningaloo Reef. You derive so much joy and support from being in nature, and that resonates so much with me as well.
The other reason it has been so wonderful to work alongside you is that we are women of a very similar age, having come through the environment movement and then the Senate, coping with the issues that go with being women of the age that we are—who aren't always treated seriously. Women in their 40s, 50s and 60s—the world can just look through you. They have to speak up and have attention paid to them. The way you have done that has been a lesson for everybody.
I agree with Senator Smith and others that your record has been understated. People don't know what you have contributed to the country and to the world, because you are so humble. I hope these valedictory speeches tonight will make people realise what a special contribution it is. It should be sung from the rooftops. It's the sort of thing people want to see in their politicians. People are cynical about their politicians because they think that they don't really care—that they're just in it for themselves—whereas your experience and your contribution has shown that that's not the case. You are here out of love. You are here out of care. You are here out of that determination to be doing good for people and the planet.
We're going to miss you. Your shoes are enormous. You absolutely are the hardest-working person in the place. It would take six senators to replace you. So we're all just going to have struggle along to get by without Rachel. I thank you for your contribution. I really wish you all the best. You'll have more time with your family and looking after your elderly mum. Juggling those family responsibilities is another thing we've got in common. You'll have a bit more time to enjoy yourself and to really enjoy the fruits of knowing that you've done what you were able to do in your time here. Thank you, Rach.
[by video link] Rach, I was thinking that you didn't deserve to be here tonight without your colleagues and a full Senate. But on reflection, I thought: there are a lot of battlers out there and a lot of Aussies doing it tough, and you've been such a champion for those people for so long that I'm sure you will be taking this in your stride. This is a time in history that it is what it is, and tonight is what it is, and we'd all love to be with you tonight and share in this moment but we can do that through this remarkable technology that we are seeing this through tonight.
There has been so much said already that I agree with. In this age of populism, the age of demagogues, which goes back to Roman days, where it's about getting short grabs on media, about getting attention and getting in the media frame, I reflect on the work you do. Kristina is absolutely right about you being an unsung hero—the amount of hours you put in. It's been talked about, your committee work and the work you've done in the Senate, but we also know the work you put into our party. To work across the states and across our national council—it's remarkable how you do that. One of the most common questions we get asked as senators is: how can you do this every day; how can you deal with the things that get thrown at you, with seeing people constantly undermining climate action, all the things we stand for? I think it takes a very remarkable person to be resilient in the face of that, to continue to chip away and never give up, to always remain optimistic and to take action. I think you are a siren song to that, as is your career.
Like me, I know you are a saltwater person. It took me a few years to wrestle the healthy oceans portfolio off you, but I just wanted to acknowledge tonight—it's been mentioned in a few contributions—your background, the work you've done for the oceans, all the work you put into the national marine parks campaign over many years before parliament and in parliament, the work you've done for Ningaloo, for sharks, for whales. You've been a great role model for me, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart for all the work you've done for the oceans.
It's an interesting reflection: people often frame the Greens as being either social justice Greens or environmental Greens, and the media love to have a field day with this, as do our detractors—but look at you as an example. You have an amazing history of working for the environment, on climate change, on oceans and on a range of issues, yet here you are with the accolades you received tonight for all the work you've done in tackling inequality and in standing up for the battlers of this country, for the underprivileged, for those doing it tough. In many ways you are the complete Green.
Watching all these speeches tonight, what a bloody great minister you would have made if the Greens had been in government. Seriously, who else has the talent pool that we have? You are a classic example. The country is missing out by not having people like you, Rachel, in ministerial positions. If you've been able to do what you've done without being a minister, imagine what this country could do with the Greens in government. I don't want to be political in this way but I really mean that. I really, really mean that.
I will be honest—I will finish up soon—I don't get intimidated by many people, being the person I am, but I've always been a little intimidated by you, Rachel. I've known my place around you. I might be one of those recalcitrant senators Nick McKim was referring to earlier, but I remember when I had my first weekend with you and Fluff down in Yallingup. Nan and I got there quite late. It was dark. You arranged for me to have a mini mal and you gave me a vest and said, 'Let's go and get some waves.' You and I and Fluff walked to the beach—Nat was reading a book. I thought to myself, 'Crikey, it's getting dark. What are we doing?' I paddled out. There was still some light. I could see a couple of waves—pretty big. I think we'd been informed there had been a white shark in the area just a few days before, and there were Fluff and I sitting out there. I got a few waves, took me maybe two or three attempts to get out, and I said to him, 'Mate, it's a bit dark. Don't you think we should be going in?' He's like, 'No, that's the whole point. The show starts when it gets dark.' He was going to turn on the lights on his board. I was out there as shark bait thinking, 'I'm caught between the devil and the deep blue sea here. I don't want to let down Rachel. I don't want to look weak but I will get eaten by a shark in the dark at Yallingup,' which is a pretty intimidating place to be. I'd also like to say that your wedding down at Yallingup was my happiest moment with the Greens party room. The way you pulled everyone together—it was such a beautiful night. In fact, it was an amazing weekend. Thank you for being a friend to me when I started. Thank you for being a mentor. Thank you for putting up with me as the whip. I look forward to working with you for many, many more years on oceans and on the issues that really matter. Good on you, Rach!
For the information of senators: at 7.20, when the adjournment is scheduled to commence, I'll be seeking leave of the Senate to continue this until 7.55, when I have one adjournment speech to turn to. So I'm going to ask senators, particularly those not from the Greens, to be considerate of their Greens colleagues who are yet to speak, because I still have a dozen speakers on the speakers list. Senator Askew.
Thank you, Mr President; I will be brief. I simply wish to associate myself with the comments made around the chamber this evening in recognition of Rachel's service to this place. As we heard earlier, Rachel has been the chair of the Community Affairs References Committee for many years. Upon my arrival here, in 2019, I became her deputy chair and chair of the legislation committee. I have had the opportunity work very closely with you since then. I cannot express more sincerely my thanks to you for your support since that time. It has been amazing.
I've really enjoyed having the opportunity to work with you in committee hearings, especially when we had the opportunity to attend hearings around the country—when we were able to travel. It gave us the opportunity to work closely and to get to know each other better. I found that you are a very genuine person. You genuinely believe in what you do and you represent your constituency faithfully. As many people have discussed already this evening, your immense capability and your capacity for workload are beyond belief. Your passion for the portfolio areas encompassed by the community affairs committee is clear evidence of your commitment to the cause and the way you undertake your role. Well done, and thank you.
Although we don't always agree on policy, we've always been able to respect each other's differing opinions and work together in a professional and collegiate manner—and most people around the chamber have mentioned similar things today. Thank you for that. I'd like to take this opportunity to genuinely wish you all the best for the future, whatever comes next, and I look forward to crossing paths with you in the future. I wish you all the best with your family. I know they have been the driving force behind your decision. I hope everything goes well with your mum and your family and that you enjoy spending more time together. Thank you for your service to this place and your caring friendship.
[by video link] In talking with Rach about this speech tonight, I repeatedly promised that I wouldn't say anything embarrassing or that would make her cry. I will endeavour to keep that promise. I have also taken the unusual step of writing most of this down—in the knowledge that, at some point during this contribution, I'm likely to start crying myself. But here we go.
Senator Rachel Siewert—or 'Rach', as anybody who has met you calls you at all times apart from committees and question time—you are one of the most impressive people I have ever met. I have been in awe of you since the first time we ever interacted in the Greens WA. You generously share your experience, your wisdom and your ability as an authentic and fearless campaigner with anybody and everybody who asks you. You are truly a master of Senate procedure. After you, nobody will ever come anywhere near having your knowledge of how the chamber works. We will do our best to fumble on in your absence. But I thank the stars that you will, I'm sure, after a break be at the end of the phone so we can ask you some questions. Your commitment to our green movement runs so deep that I swear, if you banged yourself, you would literally bleed green. Your commitment to consensus and our four pillars and your loyalty to ensuring that our members and their needs and the needs of community are centred as well as the environment are absolutely incredible. You are a true custodian of our movement. You are determined, driven and deeply passionate. You possess, from those things, incredible frustration and indignity in the face of injustice, and I think that feeling echoes the feeling of so many in our community and gives all around you the energy to continue the fight.
In thinking about how to summarise such an incredible career and the experience of working with you over the last 3½ years, the words 'determination, passion and deep commitment' spring straight to the front of my mind. A defining thread that weaves through every aspect of your work is a soul-deep commitment to centring the needs of the community who are so often shut out of this place. This commitment has shone through a number of committees inquiries that you've established, chaired and participated in. I am absolutely sure that, if the Guinness World Records folk ever decide to name and test the record for the person that has spent the most hours in committee, it will easily be you, so I suggest you take some time in your retirement to send them an email, because you'll surely get the record in the post. My goodness, the outcomes that you have achieved for the community in your time in parliament are an incredible testament to the values and the hard work that you bring. I want to name just a few of them because, if I named them all, we would be here until tomorrow morning and, as whip, you'd probably be texting me halfway through, telling me to shut up.
Your work leading the campaign to increase income support is absolutely defining. You have fought tooth and nail for your entire career not only to support people across the spectrum that need income support but also on the specific issue of increasing income support and ensuring that the robodebt scandal was called out and called up immediately. I think that you deserve the lion's share of the congratulations, alongside the community, for the work that you did in revealing the absolute scandal of robodebt. Others may well have come on board, but they swam in the wake of your courage and your fearlessness. Because of your dedication to that issue and the community that was affected, there is now an opportunity for justice and redress for the people that were affected. The same is true for your opposition to the cashless debit card and the absolutely vital work that you led for the community. You led from the front and were always fearless. As a disabled person and a member of the disability community, I feel a great sense of debt and gratitude to you for your work in the inquiry into violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of disabled people. That was in itself a historic investigation into those issues that resulted in a recommendation which ended up in the realisation of a royal commission. Just today we have seen another opportunity to strengthen that investigation, and you played an incredible role in making the case for and bringing together that investigation.
On the subject of older Australians, I will never forget the first time we had a detailed conversation about aged care. I think you spent somewhere around 30 minutes explaining to me the ACFI, the Aged Care Funding Instrument. I have never forgotten that acronym, what it means and the fact that nobody else seems to know what it is, how it works or why it's listed at the levels that it is. It was this window into this incredible cache of knowledge that you hold. And, in reflecting on this yesterday, I was triggered to think about how many times in the last three years the sentences, 'Oh, I'll ask Rach,' or, 'Rach will know', or, 'I bet Rach was around for that; I'll give her a buzz,' have gone through my head. And the anxiety induced by the reality that you are ending your time formally with us is tempered only by the knowledge that after a very good rest you will be at the end of the telephone or the end of an email if we need to know what a committee did in 2005 in relation to a detailed piece of legislation, because you will still know, I'm absolutely sure.
On the environment, and on marine parks particularly, there is nobody that I've ever seen speak with such passion and intelligence in relation to not only the need to protect our precious places in the marine environment but also the knowledge of how to actually get it done. And the work that you did in establishing that system of marine parks still stands, I think, as the model that we should now be working to get back to and to improve on. You've been a fearless champion for the natural precious places of our state of WA, and there is some good that has come from your commitment, particularly to places like James Price Point, the Kimberley generally and, indeed, to Ningaloo as well. Through the highs and lows of the last 16 years, you have always been there for us as a movement, prepared to advocate for community and our planet, always offering a way forward.
I would, in talking tonight about your incredible contribution, be remiss not to acknowledge the fabulous team that you have had over the years. To all of 'Team Rach', I'd like to thank you for your energy and your commitment to our movement. You've supported, led, managed, rescheduled, drafted and campaigned like the best of them, and I want to thank you for that, as Rachel has done too.
To Rach, my very good friend and dearest Senate colleague: I hope that your days are filled with as many peanut M&Ms as you can eat, ocean paddleboards and sunny days in the South West. You are truly one of the great, powerful women from the west of the Greens movement. I look forward to continuing to see you on the floor at every Green event, showing us all absolutely how it's done. If you haven't seen Chris and Rach hit the floor at an event, you haven't seen two people hit the floor.
As we continue our fight for people and planet, I want to thank you sincerely from the depths of my heart for your wisdom, for your encouragement and for setting an example of what it means to be a Green who advocates for our community and for our planet in this place and at all times. I will miss you, mate. I will miss you dearly, although, as I keep having to remind myself—and everyone around me, it seems—you're not actually dying, you're just going for a good rest that is damn well deserved, and then you'll be on to your next big thing.
On behalf of everyone in WA, I want to thank you for all that you have done, every moment of service and devotion and dedication, all of the weekends, all of the long weekends, all of the calls taken even though you were on holiday, all of the committee meetings chaired at four o'clock in the morning, all of the times that you've had to grit your teeth and suppress what you might have said because we hadn't turned up to the vote or we didn't know what we were doing. For your forbearance and your fearlessness, I thank you from the depths of my heart and wish you the very, very best in the next chapter of your incredible life [inaudible] our Greens movement.
I remind senators we have 35 minutes to go and a dozen speakers left, including a couple of Senator Siewert's colleagues.
Acknowledging the number of people still to speak, I will keep it brief, but I really did want to rise to say thank you to Senator Siewert. When I entered the Australian parliament in 2019, which is a very short time ago compared to Rachel, like Rachel I was thrown into the deep end, and on day one I became my party's whip in the Senate. I had no idea what the job entailed, where I needed to be or what I needed to do, and the only way I was able to learn was from my fellow cross-party whips, Senator Urquhart, Senator Dean Smith and Senator Siewert. I think together we've been a very good team. Senator Siewert has been a role model in this regard. She's been open, she's been very patient with me as I learn the ropes and she's shown a willingness to work across party lines on procedure and administrative operations in the best interests of this parliament. That allows us to focus our attention on what we are actually here to do, which is to represent our constituents. She does that to her fullest. She is proof that showing people respect does not compromise values or ideology. This reflects the kind of person she is. She is thoughtful, she is driven and she is highly, highly passionate. For that, I thank her.
One of the greatest things that any Australian can do is put their hand up for federal parliamentary office, and Senator Siewert did that in 2005. Many people before me tonight have spoken on all her achievements, and I want to let other people have a turn to say their thanks and say their piece, so I'll cut out half of what I was going to say, but I do want to highlight, Rachel, that you are one of the lucky ones in this house, in this chamber: you get to leave on your own terms, not those of the Australian voters, nor those of a party executive. That is to be commended, to be valued and to be cherished. Although most of our political views differ, one thing we do both agree on is that we both want to leave this place better than when we entered it. I certainly think that, through your work, you have achieved that over the 16 years. I congratulate you for all your efforts. I want to just say thank you, Senator Siewert. Thank you, Rachel. Thank you for your patience, your help and your support. Thank you for your kindness and for your contribution in this chamber on behalf of your constituents, your party, all of Australia and our parliament over the years. So, from whip to whip, senator to senator, person to person, I wish you all the very best in the future. Thank you.
[by video link] Rach, before I joined this Greens dream team in the Senate, I had heard about a Senator Siewert from others who had met her. I had heard about her fierce advocacy for marginalised people, the environment and oceans. The forced adoptions inquiry is one in particular that so many people and so many women I met were so thankful to you for.
But, Rach, what I had heard pales in comparison with what I actually saw. Rachel is a powerhouse full of heart, passion, and compassion. But she also does know how to crack the whip—figuratively, of course. I tell you, keeping us unruly mob in line is no easy task, but in our party room we are all scared of not following Rachel's instructions as the whip. Weirdly enough, I will really miss your whip crack.
Rachel, you are also one of the hardest-working people that I have ever come across. You must surely have a few clones running around helping you out. The depth and breadth of work that you do in the party, in parliament, in committees and with communities seems humanly impossible, yet you do it every single day.
One of the things that I've appreciated most about you, Rach, is your total no-bullshit attitude inside and outside this chamber, in the party room and outside it. This is so refreshing in a place where politicians spend so many hours honing their message that the substance often gets totally lost. I can't tell you how inspired I've been when you've just jumped to your feet and blasted the government, not just once but again and again, for their punitive policies like the cashless debit card, or their lack of support for the disadvantaged, or when you spoke out about the illegal debacle that was robodebt, which harmed so many people, or when you called the abolition of motions an act of political bastardry. There are countless examples. You are never in doubt about where you stand, Senator Siewert. I cannot tell you how much I have respected your honesty and forthrightness even when, at times, it may have been something I didn't want to hear.
It has been an absolute privilege and an honour to work with you, Rach, over the last three years. You're such a formidable force; you stop at nothing in your fight for some of the most vulnerable people. I will sorely miss you in the Senate. Sixteen years is a bloody long time to serve your community and your party so diligently and with such integrity.
In your first speech, Rachel, to this chamber, in August 2005, you described yourself as the fourth in line of determined Green women from the west. You said:
At the heart of our Green values is a vision of community—a community that extends beyond the borders of our neighbourhood, suburb or state; a community in which people care about each other and the future of our planet and act carefully and responsibly to ensure its ongoing success.
Well, Senator Siewert, you have left no stone unturned to push for this vision to become a reality. You have made us all so proud to be part of the Greens movement to change the world to be a better place for all. From the bottom of my heart, Rach, thank you, and all the very best for this new phase in your life. We love you.
[by video link] Wow! I've learned so much just hearing these incredible yarns about an incredible woman. I haven't been as fortunate as others to have spent as much time working with Rachel, but I've certainly been watching from afar for a long time.
Being a part of the Aboriginal community, I'd certainly heard a lot about Rachel Siewert across the country. The respect and admiration that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across this country have for the work, the dedication, the genuine commitment and the genuine time that you've spent with so many blackfellas around the country will never be forgotten, Rachel. I've certainly learned a lot from you in the short time that I've been here, but I continue to hear stories from blackfellas across the country about what you did for them way back then. The first time I ever heard a whole community actually speak so strongly about their love for you was in the community that was fighting the Northern Territory intervention. I was inundated with calls of support at that time, but they were very clear in saying: 'We've got Rachel Siewert in our corner. She's got our back. She's fighting hard.' They were sending me your speeches at that time and showing me what an incredible ally we truly had working in our space, being respected in our space.
Also, which doesn't happen very often, you were welcomed into our communities and you were respected and trusted by so many communities. That in itself takes a very, very long time. Our people are so used to people saying they're going to do things and they're going to call them back and follow that up, but not one person have I ever had say to me, 'Rachel, didn't follow up,' or, 'Rachel didn't get back to us.' It is always, 'Rachel has done this or done that.' They say that Nick has big shoes to fill, but I also know that I have big shoes to fill. I'm a black woman going into that space and taking on the First Nations portfolio, but inside I'm thinking, 'Oh, my gosh! I've got to do justice to this space now,' given what you have done.
I just want to say on behalf of all blackfellas across the country that have shown their dedication and respect to you that we are all truly thankful for what you've done. As previous senators have said, it has meant that you've had to take time away from your family and away from your mum. You've done that because it is just the incredible person that you are. You want to please everybody, and you do. I have been in situations with you where we're having a hard meeting and then your mum calls and you run out and then you run back in and you're straight back on the ball.
Yes, I am one of those Green senators who is quite scared of you, too. I was always frightened of missing a vote or stuffing something up, and when I did stuff things up I would think, 'Oh, gosh; Rachel is going to kill me!' But you never did. You still mentored me and you still provided guidance. You didn't make me feel like I was dumb. You are just an incredible elder, in my view, because of your wisdom and because of the respect that you have from so many people. That, in my eyes, is true eldership that you've shown. Elders fight for their families, fight for their communities and fight for country. That's what you do, too. You also look after people. So I want to say thank you for that.
I also want to say thank you for paving the way and walking the talk. I think Sarah was right in what she said. Who would have thought that a black senator was going to come into this place through the Greens and be an activist at that? It is work like you've done over these years that has created these spaces and allowed for people to wake up and realise that we need black voices in every place where decisions are being made about us.
I also want to say thank you for creating the space for Dorinda Cox and your mentorship of her. Over years, I've been told by her, you've mentored her and now this space has been created and another black senator is coming in. You walk the talk, Rach. You always have. Someone said earlier that there is basically no bullshit that comes from you. You say it how it is. Sorry for swearing, Mr President. You're just real, and we need real people representing real people. The fight that you fought for the cashless debit card, for all of our people who have been ripped off through robodebt—you made my heart bleed through the contributions you made, because they were from the people's heart and they were from the people's mouths who were suffering from all of those bad decisions. You genuinely represent the grassroots people who are fighting for a voice in that space, and I truly thank you for that.
I know there are a lot of speakers and I've only been able to work with you for not quite a year, because I haven't been in the Senate for quite a year yet, but how you run that place—I think you'd give the President a run for his money most of the time. I'm sure you eyeball one another every now and again over a certain parliamentary procedure that I have no idea about. But I can see it all working because you hold everyone to account there also.
Finally, Rach, I just want to say that I was really honoured to have you walk with me into the chamber that day. I'm sorry that I frightened you just before we walked in and said, 'I'm about to put my fist up.' You went into a panic, like, 'Oh, my god, we haven't told the President that!' I was like, 'Oh, does that mean I can be kicked out?' Rach was just explaining everything really quickly and fixed it really quickly. It was an absolute honour to have you walk me into that Senate. I'll always be not just a colleague but a friend. Whenever you need anything, I'd love an excuse to go over there. Our mob love you and thank you for everything that you've done for us. Thank you.
I'm going to transact one item of business before I go to the next speaker.
Pursuant to order and at the request of the chairs of the respective committees, I present reports from committees in respect of the examination of annual reports tabled by 30 April 2021.
Ordered that consideration of the reports be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
On behalf of Senator Polley, I present Scrutiny Digest 13 of 2021 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, dated 25 August 2021.
Ordered that consideration of the report be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
On behalf of the Chair of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, Senator Fierravanti-Wells, I present Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 13 of 2021, dated 25 August 2021.
Ordered that consideration of the report be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
I seek leave to incorporate the tabling statement into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The statement read as follows—
I appreciate this opportunity to speak to the tabling of the committee's Delegated Legislation Monitor 13 of 2021.
In the Monitor, the committee has drawn particular attention to 21 Charter of the United Nations Listings, which have been made by successive governments since 2001 but were only registered on the Federal Register of Legislation in May this year.
These listings prescribe almost 300 individuals as being subject to counter-terrorism financial sanctions.
Following correspondence from the committee, the Minister for Foreign Affairs has acknowledged that the listings, which were originally registered as exempt from disallowance, are in fact subject to disallowance.
In light of this, the Minister has indicated that her department will prepare replacement explanatory statements for the listings to reflect their status as disallowable legislative instruments.
The committee thanks the Minister for this undertaking. This outcome is a timely reminder of the importance of thorough parliamentary scrutiny of delegated legislation made by the executive.
While this clarification of the disallowance status of the instruments is welcome, the committee has further considered the listings in light of the terms of the Charter of the United Nations Amendment Bill 2021, which was introduced into the House of Representatives on 11 August 2021. If passed, the amendment bill will confirm the application and enforceability of the listings.
Noting the importance of the counter-terrorism financial sanctions regime, the committee has significant concerns about the incorrect classification of these listings as non-legislative for the past 20 years and the impact this may have on the validity of any action taken under the listings.
The committee is therefore seeking further advice from the minister as to when and how the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade became aware that it would be necessary to register the listings to ensure their enforceability.
The committee is also of the view that the explanatory statements do not adequately detail or assess the compatibility of the listings with human rights.
In this respect, the committee highlights the guidance provided by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights that statements of compatibility should be stand-alone documents. These documents are essential to the examination of human rights in the legislative process.
The introduction of the amendment bill into the Parliament also draws into question the accuracy of the explanatory statements in relation to the application of provisions of the Legislation Act 2003 to the listings.
The committee is therefore requesting that the explanatory statements be amended to include more robust statements of compatibility with human rights and to clarify the impact of the amendment bill on the operation of the instruments.
I now turn to two instruments raised in the Monitor which relate to significant matters that the committee considers are inappropriate to be included in delegated legislation.
The first is the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 1) Principles 2021.
This instrument sets out requirements relating to the use of restrictive practices in residential aged care settings. In this regard, the instrument regulates the use of chemical, physical, environmental and mechanical restraints, and the use of solitary confinement practices, on an extremely vulnerable group of people within the community.
The instrument complements changes to the Aged Care Act, which the chamber had the opportunity to consider and scrutinise earlier this year.
It is unclear to the committee why the significant matters set out in the instrument were not also included on the face of the primary legislation. Noting the importance of these measures to the protection of our elderly citizens, these matters are of a serious nature and should have come before this chamber.
The second instrument I draw attention to is the Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2021.
This instrument has the effect of extending exemptions to disallowance or sunsetting in relation to certain legislative instruments.
The committee has significant concerns about the use of delegated legislation to set out exemptions to parliamentary oversight mechanisms, such as disallowance or sunsetting.
As I have previously highlighted, exempting delegated legislation from disallowance or sunsetting is problematic because it undermines the ability of the Parliament to fulfil its constitutionally mandated role as lawmaker in chief.
Parliament should always maintain effective control over the legislative power that it has delegated to the Executive.
These concerns were most recently set out in detail in the committee's final report of its inquiry into the exemption of delegated legislation from parliamentary oversight, which was tabled in the Senate in March.
We find it deeply regrettable that the government has not yet responded to this report and consider that this instrument indicates a clear lack of engagement by the government with the committee's concerns.
It is the committee's longstanding view that laws made by the executive should be subject to stringent parliamentary oversight. The committee considers that the justifications provided in the explanatory statement do not adequately justify these exemptions, nor explain why it is appropriate to include them in delegated legislation.
The committee will correspond with the Minister for Health and Aged Care and the Attorney-General to resolve its significant technical scrutiny concerns regarding these two instruments with a view to ensuring that fundamental principles of parliamentary propriety are upheld.
Finally, I would like to mention the Bankruptcy Regulations 2021.
The committee has been corresponding with the Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General in relation to these Regulations since May this year.
The regulations include a large number of provisions which modify the operation of primary legislation.
I am pleased to advise that after correspondence from the committee, the Assistant Minister made an undertaking to conduct a review into the concerns raised by the committee. The review will assess whether the modifying provisions in the regulations may be more appropriately contained in primary legislation.
In addition, last week the Assistant Minister advised that she will progress an amendment to the regulations to provide that the modifying provisions sunset after five years.
The committee thanks the Assistant Minister for her engagement in relation to this instrument and welcomes her undertakings as this will allow for appropriate parliamentary oversight of the measures set out in the regulations.
In light of the Assistant Minister's undertakings, earlier today I gave notice of my intention to withdraw the committee's notice of motion to disallow the regulations.
With these comments, I commend the committee's Delegated Legislation Monitor 13 of 2021 to the Senate.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present Human rights scrutiny report No. 10 of 2021, dated 25 August 2021.
Ordered that consideration of the report be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
At the request of the chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, Senator Sterle, I present Without trucks Australia stops: the development of a viable, safe, sustainable and efficient road transport industry, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.
Ordered that consideration of the report be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
On behalf of the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee Corporations and Financial Services, I present the report on the 2019-20 annual reports of bodies established under the ASIC Act.
Ordered that consideration of the report be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
On behalf of the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the advisory report on the Foreign Intelligence Legislation Amendment Bill 2021.
Ordered that consideration of the report be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
I seek leave to incorporate the tabling statement into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The statement read as follows—
I rise to present the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's report Advisory Report on the Foreign Intelligence Amendment Bill 2021.
The Committee has conducted a private inquiry into this bill at the request of the government given the unique circumstances of this bill and the risk of disruption to parliamentary sittings posed by the COVID outbreak in the ACT.
The Bill amends the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (TIA Act) and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (ASIO Act) to address critical gaps in Australia's foreign intelligence warrant framework.
The proposed changes address unintended gaps in Australia's foreign intelligence collection to ensure that we have the best visibility possible of potential threats to Australia and our security. The Bill will restore intelligence agencies' ability to collect intelligence about foreign threats to Australia in line with the original intent of the parliament which has been impacted by technological change.
Schedule 1 of the Bill amends the foreign communications warrant in section 11C of the TIA Act to overcome the difficulty intelligence agencies face in distinguishing between foreign and domestic communications in the modern technological environment.
Schedule 2 of the Bill enables the Attorney-General to issue foreign intelligence warrants to collect foreign intelligence on Australians in Australia who are acting for, or on behalf of, a foreign power. These amendments respond to recommendation five of the Comprehensive Review of Intelligence by Dennis Richardson and will close a legislative gap where foreign intelligence can currently be collected offshore on an Australian working for a foreign power, but that same intelligence cannot be collected inside Australia on that Australian under a warrant.
The Committee notes that the Attorney-General must issue a mandatory written procedure under subsection 11C(6) to:
The Committee notes that before issuing or varying the mandatory procedure, the Attorney-General must:
To provide further oversight and an assurance to the Parliament and, through it, the Australian people, the Committee has recommended it be notified that a mandatory written procedure as inserted by subsection 11C(6) has been issued or varied and be provided with a briefing on the mandatory written procedure as soon as practicable.
In addition the Committee has recommended the that it may conduct a review of the amendments made by the Bill not less than five years from when the Bill receives Royal Assent.
The importance of Australia's Intelligence Community to be able to collect foreign intelligence in a legal, proportionate and timely manner cannot be understated.
The Committee appreciates the time sensitive nature of this legislation, and is grateful that despite this, the government appropriately consulted with Committee members and provided classified briefings necessary for the Committee to discharge its duties. Although required to do so quickly, the Committee has fulfilled its responsibilities to the parliament by robustly testing the rationale for the Bill and each of the provisions of the Bill.
The Committee recommends that following the implementation of its recommendations, the Bill be passed by Parliament.
I thank all members of the PJCIS for their collegiate and cooperative approach to this inquiry given the significant time constraints we were operating under.
I commend the report to the Senate.
Rachel, I too wanted to add some comments. It's fitting, given that we're of the class of 2004. I snuck in a bit before you all after that 2004 election, but, just looking at the order of seniority, there's me, there's Senator Polley, there's Senator Sterle and then there's you. So then there were three!
I just wanted to say that you've done a fabulous job here. People have mentioned you being the whip. Even though there were a small number of you, I think that at times it looked like it was a bit of an arduous task. You were a bit like the duck, paddling underneath but serene on top! Look, you and I worked very, very closely together on community affairs. I served on that committee. You chaired and you were involved in the committee. You chaired the references committee. I know that what a lot of people don't understand is that a lot of the work that we did on that committee was bipartisan. We produced some really good reports, reports that others have referred to. We always strived on that committee to ensure that what we produced was as bipartisan as it could be, as tripartisan as it could be, because we knew that that made the report stronger and that there was a greater chance that action would be taken in relation to it. When I was shadow minister for ageing and mental health, I know that for many years, 2009 to 2013, we worked very, very closely on that committee on so many different things, and also when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services.
I know that there are things that we've shared in common, particularly in aged care. Can I thank you for the work that we were able to do in so many different areas, particularly in aged care. It doesn't surprise me, Rachel, now that you've got your commitment with your mum—I too share that. I know what it's like to have ageing parents and to feel that need to be with them at this particular time.
I've always respected the passion and commitment with which you have undertaken the work that you've done, in the belief that you were standing up for your values and beliefs. They were different to my values and beliefs at times, but I respected your passion that you were doing so because that was in the best interests of the people that you were representing. I wish you and your family all the very best. I know that you are not retiring from public life. I'm sure that you will continue, in your inimitable way, to ensure that your voice is heard. I congratulate you for your many years of service to the Senate and wish you and your family all the very best in the next phase of your life.
Rachel, you are a woman of great conscience, discipline and influence, and it has been an honour to work with you in this place. Your in-depth knowledge of the Social Security Act is something that I can aspire to, but mostly that's come from the way you've listened to people and their experiences. I want to really acknowledge how you've been a good conscience in this place, calling people out. I hold you in the same esteem as I do my good friend Giz Watson. Creating a parallel between you and her for your influence and friendship is the best way, in as few words as possible, I can indicate the esteem with which I hold you and your contribution. With that, I wish you all the best. I know that you will continue to influence decisions in this place, just as the likes of Jo Vallentine, Dee Margetts and Christabel Chamarette have.
I would very much like to associate myself with the comments of so many across the chamber, not necessarily in respect of all the philosophy but to pay tribute to you, Senator Siewert—Rach—for the work that you've done. Like so many others, I crossed paths with you on and around community affairs, on the same side of the table at times but also on opposite sides. Some of the scarier moments for me, I have to say, were the number of times we were asking almost the identical question. I'm not sure whether it was from the same perspective or not, but it usually was. What we were both trying to achieve—and I think this is a hallmark of your service to the parliament and to the Australian people—was to make things better for people. We might not have always had the same solution, but we were certainly looking to achieve that.
That's something that I very much appreciate from you, in the context of our dealings through the portfolio work that I'm doing now and the things that I know that you are passionate about: the fact that I could sit down with you, and we could work through something and come to a solution. The fact that you have been able to get so many things done—which is something that's been reflected on during so many speeches tonight—is because of the way that you have gone about your business here in this place. I know that that's very much appreciated by people across the chamber, very much in the context of respect, trust and integrity. Those are really, I think, important values that you bring here. I know that I could sit down and work through a process with you and that could be seen to fruition.
Colleagues have always listened to you—perhaps not so much when you were shouting at us, but the reality is that you actually didn't need to, because you had built that respect, that trust and that integrity. You didn't have to shout at us, because, as has been said so many times, we knew you were across your stuff and we knew that you were looking for a genuine solution. I wasn't aware of the fact that, in the context of the operation of the parliament, one of 30 pieces of legislation that are private senators' bills have been passed through both houses of parliament in the history of this place. It is one of those things that, as a person who has served in this place, you can take with you as a point of moment. Because there are obviously so very few of them, it's a demonstration of the respect that you've earned and that has been expressed by so many here.
You now go on to play an important role in the family sense. That's part of your decision-making, as I understand from our private conversations, and I wish you all the very best for that. Thank you for the collegiate nature under which you've interacted with all of us in the chamber. I wish you all the very best for the family things and whatever else. Congratulations on the service that you provided not only to this place but also to Australia as part of what you came here to do, which is to make things better for people. You're certainly one of the people who has actually achieved a lot of that. Congratulations.
[by video link] Rachel, I'll be very short. I actually don't have a personal relationship with you. I spent lots of the time talking to you, and the reason I don't have a personal relationship is that you're always working. You are a machine! I say that with an engineering background—it's a compliment. You're a machine that is running on renewable energy! The Senate will be a worse place without you.
One last thing: back in the day you were in a committee room asking for a document that Services Australia claimed was cabinet-in-confidence. The matter made it to the AAT, and the moment I get that document I'm going to be giving you a phone call.
I will bring the statements to a conclusion myself, if I may. Being a senator from Western Australia and other parts poses unique challenges. The distances travelled and the time spent away from home are so much greater than for those of us who happen to reside closer to Canberra. A number of senators, and you, Senator Siewert, have commented on the unique burdens in appreciation of your family and the challenges you have faced. Those of us whom you have spoken to about it particularly acknowledge that. The burdens of serving from Western Australia, particularly with your workload over such a period, are quite extraordinary.
I would like to associate myself with other colleagues' statements but particularly make some observations from my role as President. Through all my time here, you have had a unique standing amongst the stakeholders with whom you have worked. As Senator Birmingham outlined, your passion reflected your genuine concern for those lacking a voice, who felt like they lacked a voice or who lacked someone who spoke for them in this place. You sought to represent them. As President, I acknowledge your role and contribution in making this place work. A couple of people have commented that whips have a reputation outside this place that doesn't reflect all their work. As well as being disciplinarians—as your colleagues have so graciously outlined—the whips really do so much to facilitate the operation of the Senate, and we must remember that it's the Senate that effectively decides the passage of legislation in this country. It is a hard and not fairly acknowledged role, but it is utterly integral to the work we do here. I understand that not only are you the longest-serving whip in the building but also you are the longest-serving committee chair in the building—in this place and the other place. You have been an absolutely critical cog in the machinery of the Senate, and therefore the entire parliament.
Others have rightly acknowledged your enormous contribution and your work in social, community and health policy, but as President I'd like to acknowledge your critical work in making parliament work, and offer my personal thanks for the work you've done and all the effort you've made to assist me in my role. You have always been honest, clear, trustworthy and committed to ensuring all senators can be their best and seek to strive for people as much as they can. Congratulations, Senator Siewert.
[by video link] I wish to speak this evening about Australia's bushfire preparedness. We are now in the last week of August 2021. It's worth remembering that the fire season of 2019-20 began in September and lasted until March. By the time those terrible fires subsided, some 18.6 million hectares had been burnt, 34 lives had been lost in flames and another 445 deaths had been caused by smoke. Economic losses were $103 billion.
There had been plenty of warnings. As the bushfire season approached, 23 former fire chiefs and scientists warned the Prime Minister of the looming danger and urged him to boost the nation's aerial firefighting capacity. Scott Morrison couldn't be bothered meeting with them. As other experts issued a stark warning of above-normal fire potential for south-eastern Australia, the Commonwealth government sat on its hands, afraid to acknowledge the reality of climate change. Huge areas of New South Wales and Victoria were already engulfed with flames when the PM went on a holiday to Hawaii. He sought to defend the dereliction of duty with his infamous line: 'I don't hold a hose, mate, and I don't sit in a control room.' He should have been sitting in a cabinet room. The Commonwealth did provide assistance, especially Defence Force capabilities, but that came much too late.
This year's scorching heatwaves and the wildfires of recent months across the Northern Hemisphere again tell us that climate change is having an impact across the globe. We don't know what the next Australian fire season will be like, but it's inevitable that our turn will come again sooner or later. In October 2020, the bushfire royal commission recommended that the Commonwealth, state and territory governments develop an Australian based and registered national aerial firefighting capability, to be tasked according to the greatest national need. The commission recommended that sovereign capability include large air tankers and type 1 helicopter capabilities with supporting infrastructure, as well as other surveillance, transport and logistic assets. The Morrison government offered support in principle for most of the royal commission's recommendations, but notably not for the proposal for a national aerial firefighting fleet. Instead, they indicated that it was a matter for the states and territories.
In February, in a letter tabled in the Senate, the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management, Mr Littleproud, claimed that the government still needed 'a full and evidence-based understanding of the capability actually required'. I was hugely unimpressed by that. After all, we've had multiple inquiries, investigations and reports, including the 2020 royal commission, but once again the government was kicking the can down the road, finding excuses to avoid substantial commitments. Now, in the 2020-21 budget, the government has committed to a modest $11 million per annum boost in the funding for the National Aerial Firefighting Centre, bringing the annual Commonwealth commitment to $26 million, a very small change within the overall budgetary context or within the context of the potential cost of future fires.
There's still no acceptance of the need for a sovereign aerial firefighting capability and the substantial Commonwealth commitment that must go with that. The Prime Minister just can't bring himself to admit that he should have listened to the fire chiefs. The need for a sovereign capability is ever more apparent as the fire seasons of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere get longer and increasingly overlap, limiting the availability of leased large firefighting aircraft.
I don't expect that the government will change its mind. However, as we approach the fire season, I think that the Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Senator McKenzie, or, better still, the Prime Minister should make a comprehensive statement as to the Commonwealth government's preparedness to respond to a national bushfire emergency in the 2020-21 fire season. Such a statement should cover the Commonwealth's support for aerial firefighting, the Australian Defence Force capability and readiness, and the capacity of Emergency Management Australia and all other agencies that would support bushfire response and recovery efforts. On the basis of such a statement, we could all evaluate just how ready the Commonwealth government is. More dangerous fire seasons are coming and we need to be prepared.
[by video link] Over the last two weeks we have seen alarming revelations in the media about the extent and character of far Right organising in this country. The 'Nazis Next Door' investigation conducted by the Nine papers and 60 Minutes in collaboration with antifascist researchers has revealed some dark truths about the growing threat of white supremacy and far Right extremism. The investigation was shocking but not entirely surprising for those of us who have followed the rise of the far Right closely and are impacted by racism and its deadly consequences.
The far Right is organised, security conscious and internationally connected. Alarmingly, some members are military trained and have access to weaponry. The potentially horrific consequences of this shouldn't be understated. These people, mostly men, want nothing less than a white ethno state, and violence against minorities and antiracists who seek to stand in their way. They pose an existential threat to our multicultural society. We have to deal with right-wing extremists and also the political environment in which they are emboldened and led down a path of hate. Too often racism is given a free pass in media and mainstream politics. In some situations, far Right figures are given sympathetic platforms in broadcast media and have connections to sitting MPs. The former Australian neo-Nazi leader Blair Cottrell was infamously given a very soft interview on Sky News in 2018. Earlier, Cottrell contributed to a panel discussion on the ABC. While he was subsequently banned from Sky, the channel continues to platform extremists and racists.
Right-wing politicians have fuelled racism in Australia and created an environment that is ripe for this rapid growth of the far Right through mainstreaming their dangerous ideologies and enabling far Right groups to recruit members. Some, like the member for Kennedy, Bob Katter, have been directly supportive of far Right groups. Mr Katter in 2017 made a pledge of allegiance to the Proud Boys, a far Right extremist group that has since been labelled a terrorist organisation in Canada. Former senator Fraser Anning was a member of Mr Katter's political party. Let's not forget that Mr Anning associated with neo-Nazis and white supremacists and blamed Muslim immigration for the Christchurch mosque massacre. The member for Dawson, Mr Christensen, who is a Nationals member of this government, also has longstanding and documented links to the far Right in this country. From his appearances at so-called Reclaim Australia rallies as far back as 2015 to his interviews on far Right podcasts that have also hosted neo-Nazis and white supremacists, it is impossible to deny that Mr Christiansen has contact with members of the far Right.
There is also a relationship between the youth branches of right-wing parties in this country and far Right extremists, the likes of which we saw in the Nine investigation. In 2018, the National Party in New South Wales was rocked by revelations that far Right activists had infiltrated the state branch and taken up office-bearing positions in the Young Nationals. In the Nine investigation, an identified member of the National Socialist Network shares the same name as a former office bearer of the Liberal club at a university in Victoria. Now-deleted Facebook posts show that the individual, rather terrifyingly, spoke on the affirmative side of a Liberal club debate about whether Australia should legalise the death penalty.
These connections and links go on and on and on. Honestly, I could speak at length tonight about the documented and extensive relationships between far Right extremists, mainstream media and politics. To this point, I think this aspect of the debate has largely been missed in the response to the 'Nazis Next Door' investigation. Yes, these young men are dangerous. Yes, their ideas are still considered repugnant and terrifying to the vast majority of people. But they are not so far removed from mainstream politics and media as many might expect. And the government continues its refusal to take these matters seriously. Thank you, Mr President.
Senate adjourned at 19:58