by leave—I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate to clarify whether the government intends again to seek leave to recommit the vote on general business notice of motion 1270, relating to the inquiry into the ABC and SBS complaints handing process.
by leave—I advise the Senate that following matters that were raised in the Senate late in proceedings yesterday I have had discussion with the relevant whips and other parties involved in the division that was questioned in Senate proceedings just prior to adjournment yesterday. As a result of those discussions I do not believe that there is an adequate example of misadventure for the Senate to seek to have the vote recommitted. The government will not be seeking to have that vote recommitted.
More broadly, I would like to acknowledge the very important role that pairing arrangements play in this place. One of the things that distinguishes this chamber from the other place is, indeed, the upholding of conventions, particularly those around pairing in this place, to ensure that the will of the chamber is adequately reflected at all times, noting that for many very legitimate reasons senators will from time to time be unable to participate in the proceedings. That has not always been the case in the other place, and I believe it has been to its detriment in terms of the operation of that chamber compared with this chamber. I take very seriously the importance of such conventions and practices because I know they enable all senators of all political persuasions to exercise their duties in this place as well as their duties outside of this place, both professional and personal obligations, from time to time.
Mr President, I want to assure you and through you the Senate that when matters were raised yesterday I did take steps to look into them, and that the government at all times will seek to be ensuring that all government senators, where pairs are requested, are recorded appropriately and reflect entirely the will of those senators. I am aware of correspondence that the opposition has sent to two government senators in particular, I believe. I understand the opposition's request to have express pairing instructions from those senators. I believe those senators are aware of that matter, and the government whip will work with the opposition whip and those senators to ensure that practices are provided and advice is provided in a manner that gives the opposition and the chamber sufficient confidence that the will of the individual senators is being accurately reflected at all times.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate take note of the statement.
I thank the Leader of the Government in the Senate for his recognition of the circumstances of misadventure that have enabled recommittal, which really, I think, wasn't demonstrated yesterday, and also for his acknowledgement of the importance of pairing arrangements, which at their heart, we need to remember, are about ensuring the will of the Senate is reflected. They're not about funny games to manage your internals; they're ultimately about whether or not the democratic will of the Senate is reflected in the outcome of a vote.
I do want to raise the issue which he averted, which is the issue of two senators on the other side—that is, Senators Antic and Rennick—who have made public comments that they will withhold their vote. I will refer to Senator Rennick, who said:
This evening I sent the following letter to the Prime Minister advising him that I will withhold my vote from the Coalition until a number of issues are dealt with.
He goes to the lifting of vaccine mandates—obviously, it hasn't occurred—compensation for people who've been injured, and a whole range of issues about testing which were a bit confusing. Anyway, that's a matter for him. My point is that the convention in this place that the whip of a major party, or actually of any party, can advise of who is being paired is predicated on the assumption that the whip speaks for the senators. That's the basis on which we grant pairs, and the basis on which pairs are granted in order to reflect the will of the Senate.
The Senate yesterday, really, was in a position where a senator who said his vote was being withheld until the Prime Minister dealt with a few things was actually paired as a coalition vote. He then rocked up to the chamber and said he wanted it recommitted because actually he wanted to vote for it. So it was 'My vote's been withheld until the PM does what I want on vaccine mandates. Actually, my vote will be counted, but I'll be paired. Actually, no, please recommit it, because I think I want to be there.' I could talk about the shambles that that was last night, but we were all here. I think we all saw. The more important point is that, in circumstances where two senators have made repeated public assertions that they will not be voting with the government, I make it clear to the government, as has been outlined in Senator Urquhart's letter, which was copied to Senator Smith, we do not feel we can simply accept the whips' advice that they have their votes for the purpose of granting pairs. It is an unprecedented situation. To keep faith with the pairing arrangements, Senator Urquhart has written to Senators Rennick and Antic—and may I say I think it's a very responsible thing that she has done—and said:
To ensure the will of the Senate is reflected in remaining votes in this Parliamentary session and in light of your public statements, I ask that you communicate, in writing, your intention to support, oppose or abstain on each vote to all whips. This is consistent—
this requirement—
with the requirement for independent senators when they are absent from the chamber and minor parties when they are not representing in the chamber.
So it's the same standard we expect of Senators Hanson and Roberts when they're not here, Senator Lambie when she's not here, Senator Griff when he's not here and Senator Patrick when he's not here. We are not asking for this on a whim. We're asking for this because their senators, these two senators, have said, 'We're not voting with them,' but they still are—or we're told they still are, sometimes.
I seek leave to table the documents from which I've just quoted, which are the letters from Senator Urquhart to Senators Rennick and Antic.
Leave granted.
I thank the Senate. And I would ask the government, after this discussion has concluded, to make a commitment in the chamber that, in order to ensure that the pairing arrangement remains both intact and beyond reproach, the arrangements sought in these letters are complied with.
I rise as the Australian Greens Whip to make a contribution to this debate. Let's be really clear about what happened last night first. Senator Rennick came into this chamber and placed on the record that there had been, to use his words, 'confusion over the pairing arrangements' and asked for a vote to be recommitted. Now the government have come in this morning and informed the Senate that they would not be proceeding with any attempt to have that vote recommitted.
This raises significant questions about what Senator Rennick said last night, whether that was in fact accurate, whether there was in fact confusion over the pairing arrangements or whether that was a cover for something else. I want to make something really clear. In the view of the Australian Greens, recommittals are not mulligans. They're not like a second shot you get in golf because you shanked the first one out of play. They are for genuine misadventure where a senator genuinely couldn't make it to the chamber before the bells stopped ringing or when there was genuine confusion over the pairing arrangements. That's what recommittals are for. They're not just some free kick to have a vote recommitted to buy time to put pressure on senators to change their voting position. That's not what recommittals are for.
As we said last night, the Greens have been very happy to consider a recommittal if in fact there was genuine confusion over the pairing arrangements, but that case was not made last night by the government. Simply asserting that there has been confusion over the pairing arrangements is not enough of an argument for the Senate to recommit a vote. For clarity, we would have needed to know, or sought to know, information, including exactly what the confusion was. What was the chain of events that led to this asserted confusion over pairing arrangements? Was Senator Rennick actually paired? If so, how was he paired and how did he communicate his position on that vote and to whom did he communicate his position on that vote? These are questions that not only all senators but the Australian people deserve answers to and not just with regard to the vote that the government last night sought to have recommitted but in fact on all votes that are taken in this Senate.
This episode, along with other recent events, has exposed a genuine weakness in the pairing system in this place, including a lack of transparency and a lack of rigour. This transparency and this rigour are needed not just so that we can all have confidence in the pairing arrangements. This is where we make the laws of the country. Legislation in the current Senate has often passed or failed to pass by a single vote. It goes on to either become law or not to become law as a result. Senator Hanson-Young last night raised the potential for a High Court challenge to laws on the basis they were not made in accordance with the Constitution. These are incredibly serious matters. There is a very strong argument for the pairing arrangements to be considered in detail and at length by a committee—for example, the Procedure Committee.
I thank Senator Wong for placing before the Senate the letters that Senator Urquhart has written, I understand, to Senators Rennick and Antic. The questions that were contained in those letters that Senator Wong has tabled are extremely important questions for those senators to answer. However, it's not just Senators Rennick and Antic that the Australian Greens have concerns about. We also have concerns about the voting positions of all members when they are engaged in the pairing system, as well as how they communicate that position and to whom. We've seen, for example, One Nation vote differently in the past on particular matters that come before the Senate. Our view is that the episodes of last night and this morning have raised significant questions about the robustness and transparency of the pairing system, and our very strong view remains that these matters need to be considered very carefully and at length because they are incredibly serious issues. It is the view of the Greens that the Procedure Committee would be the correct place for that to occur. There may be some further discussion about that this morning. If not, I simply inform the Senate that the Greens will take under consideration a referral to the Privileges Committee on these issues.
STON (—) (): There have been a number of assertions and comments made in this place in relation to the pairing arrangements, particularly in relation to the pairing arrangements of two government senators. I want to absolutely assure the Senate that the pairing arrangements that have been reflected in the votes of the last few days are absolutely consistent with the wishes of those senators, and, in the interests of transparency, I would like to read into the record the positions of those two senators.
Senator Alex Antic has written to the whips, and he has sought to be paired with the government on all non-legislative votes conducted in the Senate chamber. I also refer to correspondence that's been received by Senator Gerard Rennick. He has also sought to be paired with the government on all non-legislative votes. To be very clear: this is absolutely consistent with the position that has been taken; it is reflected in the whips' arrangements of the previous two days and will be reflected in the whips' positions in coming days. I just want to be very clear that we are absolutely consistent with the position of those two senators and have been so during the time that they have been seeking those pairs.
What a shambles this chamber has become under the Morrison-Joyce government's management. For the past two weeks we have been hearing threat after threat from Senator Rennick and Senator Antic to withhold their vote from the government unless they got their way. Let's be clear: this is not in the tradition of the Liberal and National parties saying, 'We can cross the floor on an issue if we want to.' This was an absolute threat to withhold the vote on everything in order to hold the government to ransom. This goes against the individual-conscience approach that the Liberals and Nationals like to crow about. It was an absolute strike. They went on strike. They threatened it and they threatened it, which is how we got to the shambles of last night. There we had the empty threats laid bare, after Senator Rennick told the media he was not for turning. He told his constituents in Queensland that he was absolute. He told this chamber and he told everyone on Facebook—and we know about Senator Rennick's Facebook, don't we?
But that's not the subject of the speech. The subject of the speech is that Senator Rennick has been telling everyone up hill and down dale that he is not for turning; he will not back the government unless the government overturns vaccine mandates—unless Scott Morrison personally stands up and opposes vaccine mandates. What did we see last night? We saw a somewhat ashen faced, embarrassed, dishevelled and dissembling Senator Rennick stand up, unable to even articulate why he hadn't voted, what his position was and whether he was trying to recommit a vote or not. It was an absolute omnishambles from a government that is splintering in the Senate before our very eyes.
We saw it on Monday, with five government senators crossing the floor to vote against their own government. We saw it again last night, with Senator Rennick going to water, crumbling before our very eyes, showing he does not have the courage of his convictions, just seeking to recommit a vote. Then we have the same thing with Senator Antic. Senator Antic has been telling everyone: 'I'm not with the government; I'm not with the government. I'm standing firm on vaccine mandates. I'm not for turning. I'm not going to back down—until I do.' There he was, Chamberlain with his paper—Chamberlain with his email, really—capitulating to the Liberal and National whips. There they were, signing away their individual right to cross the floor by committing themselves to pair with the government on all non-legislative votes. Give me a break! Either these senators have the courage of their convictions or these senators do not.
What are we seeing here today? Now it's getting a little more conditional. With all the conditions they're putting on their supposed protest against their own government, now Senator Rennick and Senator Antic are going to vote with the government on all nine legislative matters. Come on! Meanwhile, we have a government that is unwilling to bring on a vote on a legislative matter. How many speakers from the government side did this chamber hear speak yesterday on pieces of national security legislation that clearly had the support of the chamber? It could have been brought on, dealt with and moved on—critical infrastructure; high-risk terrorist offenders. Come on! They talked these out because they didn't know where their own senators would line up when it came to the legislative vote.
I'll make a prediction to the chamber. We're going to have another day of talking out legislation that is not controversial, legislation that could pass this chamber today. Why? Because this government doesn't have the courage to bring on a national anticorruption commission bill. They promised it over a thousand days ago; they're not bringing it on. This government does not have the courage to bring on its religious discrimination bill. The Prime Minister is going to make a big song and dance in the other place when personally introducing it, but he can't even guarantee that his own team backs it. This is a government that is dissembling before our very eyes. This goes to the debate we are having here today.
I thank those senators who have participated and those who may well participate. The fact that we have now been provided with the two emails from Senators Antic and Rennick saying they're backing down, dissembling and calling off their general strike against their own government just goes to show why we need clarity about pairing arrangements. How can this chamber vote in good conscience without knowing the pairing arrangements? How can the crossbench participate in these votes without knowing the pairing arrangements? How can the public understand the voting intentions and how decisions were arrived at in this chamber if the voting arrangements are not transparent? Get your act together, over there.
Last night was embarrassing. There was Senator Bragg and his misadventure in striking off on his own to have an inquiry into the ABC's complaint-handling process, leading to Ita Buttrose, the chair of the ABC, asking this chamber to suspend or cancel that inquiry until the ABC had a chance to do its own work. That was an extraordinary move—almost unprecedented, I imagine.
The chair of the ABC asked this chamber to take a decision. We took it yesterday. I acknowledge that Senator Hanson-Young and Senator Gallagher moved a motion. It was supported by this chamber. Then what did we have? The government, which are always intent on attacking the ABC, decided last night that they would have one more go at attacking the ABC, that they would have one more go at disregarding their own hand-picked chair of the ABC, Ita Buttrose, that they would ignore her, that they would try to recommit a vote, that they would try to bring it on, that they would try to allow Senator Bragg to continue on his lark of attacking the ABC. Let's be clear: you cannot trust the Morrison government with the ABC. You cannot trust the cuts to the ABC and the political attacks on the ABC, the most trusted source of information in this country. And what do the most distrustful government we have seen and a prime minister who can't tell the truth do? They go about last night in a shambles of an event, trying to recommit this vote and reignite their attack on the ABC. You cannot trust them with the ABC. You cannot trust them with pairing arrangements. You cannot trust Senator Antic or Senator Rennick when they say they are going on strike. You cannot even trust the government to get their whipping arrangements right.
Let's have some transparency, let's have some visibility and let's rebuild some trust in the system, here in the chamber. Mr President, I implore you, as the new President, to ensure that we have that transparency. I implore the chamber to ensure that we have the transparency. Nothing less than our democracy depends on it.
I want to take note of the statement made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate today, which is in stark contrast to the shambles that we saw here last night, only minutes before this chamber was meant to adjourn. We saw the government, in all chaos, having to march Senator Rennick into the chamber, have him grovel to the chamber, asking for a recommittal of a vote that he says he is still confused about. It was like watching a hostage video! This is what is going on on that side of the chamber—a government in chaos, a Prime Minister untrustworthy, trying to find everyone else to blame.
The renegades can't even get their show in order. They don't know who they're after. But the Prime Minister has, and his government continues to have, the ABC in their sights. Well, this chamber didn't accept that yesterday. The Senate did what we should do, and that is to allow an independent process to continue and to not do the bidding of politicians who don't like what journalists report. That's what was going on here. This chamber last night was about to be asked to set up a witch-hunt into the ABC because the Prime Minister doesn't like what the broadcaster reports. On the eve of an election, Mr Scott Morrison and his untrustworthy ways did not want our public broadcaster to report on what his government is up to. If he can't win an election in his own right, well, bad luck!
This government has had the ABC in their sights from day dot. From the moment that he was elected as Prime Minister, Mr Abbott was found out to be misleading, untrustworthy, after having said on the eve of the election in 2013, 'We won't cut the ABC's budget,' only to then cut and slash and burn—over $700 million cut from our public broadcaster, the service that tells Australians what's going on in the midst of the bushfires, the news service that is most trusted when it comes to information about COVID-19. The ABC, our public broadcaster, is the most trusted public institution in this country. It's not the ABC that Australians have a problem with. It's the Prime Minister, Mr Scott Morrison, who can't be trusted and has a problem with the truth.
So I welcome the about-face of the Leader of the Government in the Senate today, as he came in and confirmed that they won't recommit this vote, because, in doing so, they've exposed just what a shambles the government is in and what a plaything they consider pairing in this place to be. Now we hear that there is going to be a commitment to at least recording paired votes in the Hansard. Heavens above! The Australian people might be able to know how senators in this place have exercised their influence, power and vote! It beggars belief that we're in 2021 and it's a breakthrough to have that element of transparency, because it's been forced on them as they've been exposed for trying to manipulate and be sneaky. It's right up there with the characteristics of the Prime Minister, isn't it?
We do need to sort out the pairing arrangements in this place, and we do need to make sure there is better transparency and accountability. I look forward to seeing those reforms come forward. But, make no mistake, the government wanted this done last night, to continue to attack the ABC, to continue their witch-hunt, because the only thing going for the Prime Minister right now is more cover-up of his untruths and his inability to lie straight in bed.
I just want to make it crystal clear to the government and the chamber that, on the basis of the letters the chamber has now received from Senators Antic and Rennick, which indicate an ongoing pair on non-legislative matters, the opposition will not grant pairs for those two senators for legislation in the absence of written instructions.
Just in response, the reason that Senator Ruston read those pair instructions into the record in the Senate following their provision to the Chief Government Whip as well as to the Opposition Whip was to ensure that that was transparent and clear, in the interests of all senators and the interests of the two senators involved.
by leave—I just want to put on the record that, in my view, this is not just about Senator Rennick and Senator Antic. There is just a general masking of senators' intentions. There are different ways in which we can influence the outcome of a vote. One of them is to sit in the chamber on the yes or no side. Another way is to absent yourself. Another way is to pair yourself. All of that influences the outcome of a vote, and it is the pairing that masks the absentee; it is the pairing that masks other voters. For example—this is not a criticism—Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts are not in the chamber, so it's impossible to see how they are exercising their vote through a pair unless you go and ask the whips. Over the last couple of days, I've had journalists call me and ask, 'How did Senator Hanson vote?' And I say, 'Actually I don't even know.' We just have to be transparent. We have to find a mechanism to enable that to happen. I do understand that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Leader of the Government in the Senate are now engaging in a bit of background discussion to work out how that should happen, and Senator Waters and I will also seek to have whatever is agreed informally formalised through the Procedure Committee.
I now put the question on the motion that the Senate take note of the response from Senator Birmingham.
Question agreed to.
I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of general business notice of motion No. 1269 as circulated in the chamber.
Leave not granted.
Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of Senator Wong, I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion to provide that general business notice of motion No. 1269 be called upon immediately, take precedence over all other government business and if not considered finally by midday the question shall be put and determined without amendment.
In seeking to debate this motion today, I am calling for true leadership from the Prime Minister and the government he supposedly leads. I call for everyone in this parliament, both in this place and in the other chamber, to urgently and without qualification condemn the violence that we are seeing in Australia. What we have seen at protests over the last few weeks has been shocking. It has been utterly appalling. It has been without precedent in modern times in this country. A swift rebuke of these violent threats should be easy.
That's not what we have seen from Mr Morrison. What we've seen is a bet each way—a Prime Minister talking out of both sides of his mouth, because the Prime Minister is, at heart, just an ad man who wants nothing more than to sell a product, and that product is himself. There are few limits that Mr Morrison will place on his own ambition to keep his own job. He's pandered to violent extremists because he sees value in their vote and he relies on the support of their proxies in this parliament to hold up his government. It's not enough to clinically cloak your words in the democratic language of debate, protest, choice and truth, while those around you are playing and braying with violent threats, parading gallows through the streets, threatening murder and violence.
Peaceful protest, considered and informed debate, and a free and fair media are all, of course, important and cherished pillars of our democracy. These are core tenets of our society and they must be protected. But, instead, they're being sold up the river by a small group in this parliament who seek to undermine them in the violence being described, encouraged and threatened that I encourage us all to condemn today, and the frenzied abuse that has been hurled at health workers and experts, reporters, elected representatives, their staff and their families.
I move that we condemn the graphic threats of violence encouraged by the comments on social media posts by government MPs who do nothing to remove or dissuade these threats. Two days in a row, I have asked the leader of the government in this chamber what the government is doing about specific threats that are being made in response to Mr Christensen's social media posts, and, two days in a row, I have had no answer.
This is more than negligence. This is more than irresponsible. It is actually dangerous. Anger is virulent, in person and online. And we in Australia, as a democracy, are learning in real time that disinformation, fear and anger can create a potent rage. There are those here, sadly, unfortunately, in this parliament, elected MPs, who have stoked anger and rage because they know it yields them attention and relevance and profit at the ballot box. But at what cost to our democracy? Fear and rage mixed together creates something toxic in a democracy.
Let us remember all that is at stake here. In January, in the United States, we saw that protest can spontaneously combust and become deadly. Our parliamentary colleagues in the United Kingdom know only too well that they are made vulnerable by their public accessibility, two of their members having been murdered by extremists. Our Senate colleague Senator Lambie said that we all have freedom to make choices but not freedom for choices to be without consequences. And so what are the consequences of creating fear and fury and your followers deploying tactics of fear and intimidation?
In our service to the people of Australia, we have a responsibility as elected representatives, and that is to make clear the boundaries of responsible debate and discourse. It is to refuse to associate with extremists who peddle falsehoods and intimidation. It is to draw back from this moment, to urge calm and to restore respect before it is too late. We need, in this moment, true leadership, not political spin. The Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, has shown none of that. He has only condemned with qualification, where he seeks to wink and nod and show sympathy to the violent protesters.
Let us be clear: in this place of democracy we must give an unequivocal condemnation and we must unite this country in order to protect it.
Just yesterday I stood in this chamber in question time and asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether he or the Prime Minister would condemn far-Right extremism. What I got was the usual waffle, the usual sitting on the fence: 'Yes. Sure. We condemn all kinds of extremism.' That is absolute rubbish. That is bullshit. You are putting people's lives in danger. That's what you are doing. And do you know what? This is nothing new. On the weekend, we saw the far-Right extremists on the streets again. They have embedded themselves in antilockdown and antivaccination organising.
Far-Right extremism in this country is not new. There are people of colour, especially women of colour, who have faced this abuse, these threats and this violence for a very long time—people like Senator Thorpe, Senator Cox and me, and there are others as well—yet there is such a reluctance from this government to even utter the words 'far-Right extremism'. Well, it exists, and you saw it blatantly on the streets on the weekend. But it has been blatant in social media, through people's emails, for a very long time.
You can't even utter the word 'antiracism'. That's how terrible you are in stoking division and fear within communities. All you want out of this is to harvest votes to stay in power and keep doing the crap that you have been doing for years now. That is the truth. Right-wing politicians in this place have fuelled far-Right extremism. They have fuelled racism and have created an environment that is ripe for even further growth of the far Right by mainstreaming their dangerous ideologies and enabling far-Right groups to recruit more members.
We know now that up to 50 per cent of ASIO's domestic counterterrorism case load relates to what you like to call 'ideologically motivated violent extremism'. You can't bring yourself to say 'far-Right extremism'. There was a big report, 'Nazis Next Door', published by the Nine newspapers just a few months ago, which alerted us to the really terrible truths about the growing threat of far-Right extremism and white supremacy. The report was shocking, but it was not entirely surprising to those of us who have followed the rise of the far Right closely and are impacted by its deadly consequences. We have seen those deadly consequences in Christchurch, where 51 innocent Muslims were brutally murdered by an Australian man, because you refuse to stand up and condemn far-Right extremism. Develop a backbone. Do the right thing and condemn far-Right extremism today.
I rise to make a contribution on behalf of government senators to Senator Keneally's motion and I do so wearing a couple of different relevant hats. The first is as the chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, currently leading an inquiry into extremism and radicalism. It is an issue which I and I know all members of the PJCIS take very seriously. We have worked very closely with our intelligence, security and law enforcement agencies on what is unfortunately a growing and serious threat to the safety, freedom and security of all Australians. I look forward to—hopefully, in a bipartisan way—handing down a report that makes constructive suggestions as to how we can all tackle this threat together. But I don't think it's fair to besmirch the government's intentions or the seriousness with which it takes these issues, as Senator Keneally and others have done in this debate. The government earlier this year for the first time listed a far-right organisation, the Sonnenkrieg Division, as a terrorist organisation under our Criminal Code, as it should. When handing down that report in this chamber I called upon the government to carefully consider whether any other far-right organisations met the threshold for terrorist listing, and I look forward to further developments in that space very soon.
The second relevant hat that I wear for this debate is as deputy chair of the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19. As we know, much of the protest, much of the anxiety, much of the heat around this debate has been related to the pandemic and the public health restrictions that have been brought in to combat the pandemic and vaccinations. In that role I have consistently supported the vaccine rollout and encouraged Australians to come forward as soon as possible to be vaccinated with the vaccine that they are eligible for. Unlike some other people in this place, who have sought to disparage certain brands of vaccines to undermine the vaccine rollout, I have consistently supported it.
But the third and most important hat that I wear in contributing to this debate is as a senator for Victoria. As a senator for Victoria I represent Australia's and the world's most locked down city. The 250 days of hard lockdown in Melbourne have had an enormous impact on the people of Victoria and the people of Melbourne, and we should not lightly dismiss the impact that that has had on people's wellbeing, on their mental health, on the more than 200 days of schooling that young people have missed, on the employment opportunities people have missed out on, on the small businesses that have closed. In the context of that lockdown it is not surprising that there are many Victorians from all walks of life who are anxious about the Victorian state government's pandemic bill and the powers that it grants that state government. It's not surprising that more than 60 leading QCs, the law institute and other eminent bodies in Victoria have raised profound and serious concerns with that law and the impact that it would have on civil liberties. It's not surprising that many Victorians, in response to that law and the way in which the Andrews government is trying to ram it through the parliament, have taken to the streets in protest to put forward their concerns.
Let me be very clear: it is totally and utterly unacceptable to ever threaten political violence. It is never an acceptable tactic, and I wish Senator Keneally was right when she said that it is without precedent. But, unfortunately, it is not without precedent in this country. There have been other threats of violence in the pursuit of political goals in the not too distant past. I wish that it was only in the context of the COVID pandemic and mandatory vaccination and other issues that members of parliament, senators, their staff and their families had been threatened, had been harassed, had been bullied, had been stalked. But we know that it isn't the only context in which these threats have happened.
You only have to ask Nicolle Flint, the member for Boothby, about her experience at the last election. A man was charged with stalking her in that election, her office was vandalised, her staff were threatened and they were made to feel unsafe doing their work for a member parliament. Unfortunately, this is not without precedent. Unfortunately, when those incidents have happened in the past, they have not been condemned in an unqualified way by people in this chamber. Perhaps the most galling contribution made so far is that of Senator Faruqi, given the association of the Greens political party with Extinction Rebellion, who not only vandalised this building, set a pram on fire at the front of it and vandalised the Lodge but regularly make threats against members of parliament and their staff and make them feel unsafe.
Seriously, what a complete disgrace the Morrison government is, sowing distrust in our country today and sowing division in our country today. In challenging times, when so much has been asked of Australians to get through this crisis, at a time when so many Australians have pulled together and done the right thing to keep this community safe, what we actually need is real leadership. At times like this, what we actually need is real leadership from our national government. We need clear leadership. We need unequivocal leadership. Instead, what we have is Prime Minister Morrison and his doublespeak. We have today a Prime Minister who is actively sowing distrust. We have a Prime Minister who is actively fomenting division in our country today. We have a Prime Minister who is flirting with the violent protesters in Melbourne. Our own Prime Minister today is giving comfort to protesters who are threatening violence to our political leaders in Victoria, in Melbourne, and he is doing that with his doublespeak. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. Out of one side of his mouth he condemns the violent protesters. From the other side of his mouth he uses their very words and projects them onto the national stage, giving those violent protesters comfort. He is telling everyone what they are saying—that it's time for government to get out of people's lives. He is using the words of the protesters themselves. He is sympathising with their frustration, sympathising with them that over the last couple of years governments have gone too far in telling Australians what to do. He's using their words, projecting them onto the national stage, as the Prime Minister of this country. What a complete disgrace!
Let's talk about exactly what is going on in Victoria today, because it is real. What is going on in Victoria today is affecting real people. It is affecting our political leaders. It is also affecting our essential workers, because these protesters are the people who, during the pandemic, went to health clinics, went to the nurses who were vaccinating people, vaccinating homeless people in Melbourne, and spat on them. They spat on them for doing their job of vaccinating people to keep them safe. These were nurses in Melbourne's CBD. What a complete disgrace! These protesters have now gone the next step. They have stood out the front of our parliament in Victoria with gallows. They've stood out the front of our parliament in Victoria with fake nooses, chanting: 'Hang Dan Andrews! Hang Dan Andrews!' Premier Dan Andrews and Premier McGowan have both received death threats. The families of parliamentarians have been targeted.
This is not our way. The Australian Prime Minister, our elected leader—the holder of the highest office in our land—must be clear and must be unequivocal. He must give no comfort to this form of political violence. But he has not been clear. He has flirted with these protesters. He has given comfort to these protesters.
This cannot be how you win a political debate in Australia today. There are no grey lines here. There is no room for speaking out of both sides of your mouth. The Prime Minister needs to lead from the front and from the top of this country. He needs to condemn these violent protesters unequivocally and without reservation. This is wrong. It must be condemned, and it must be condemned clearly and unequivocally, by the Prime Minister. All of this—all of the distrust, division and chaos—is happening at a time when Australians are overwhelmingly doing the right thing, when Australians have stood together and protected each other, when they deserve a brighter future and a better Prime Minister.
While Senator Cormann was the Leader of the Government in the Senate, quite often I would attend citizenship ceremonies and I would point out what a terrific thing it was in our country that both the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate were born overseas yet came to this country and managed to reach two of the highest political positions in this country. I would use that as an example of what a special country we are. You can come from all over the world, from places where political violence is endemic, where people are discriminated against, persecuted and put in jail simply for their political beliefs.
Yet, from those who are moving this motion here today, who are 'seeking to unite'—that's what they say they're doing—all we hear is a torrent of abuse, questioning of our Prime Minister's motives and general reflections upon all government members. Is that how you seek to unite? If you were bona fide about uniting the people of this country, would you do it by attacking in a very personal way the Prime Minister of this country? No, you would not.
We didn't hear, from Senator Keneally, Lincoln's first inaugural speech, appealing to the 'better angels' of our character—absolutely not. We heard a torrent of personal abuse directed against our Prime Minister. That's what we heard from Senator Keneally. Senator Keneally is not seeking to unite Australians. She's seeking to leverage off a straw man she's constructed in order to attack our Prime Minister. That is what she's doing through the course of this motion. She's not seeking to unite Australians.
Senator Faruqi—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—I'm extraordinarily disappointed with the broad-ranging assertions you cast upon all government members. Can I say to you: I've attended mosques which have been graffitied and which have been attacked. I've attended those mosques with other people of my party and stood with those people in the face of discrimination and in the face of persecution. It is very, very disappointing that, again, in seeking to unite us, you come in here and seek to tar everyone on this side of the chamber with the same brush. This is how you seek to unite?
Listen to it now. Listen to the interjections from Senator Thorpe. Is that how you seek to unite, Senator Thorpe? You're bringing us together with your considered interjections!
Senator McKim, you're going to seek to unite us as well by attacking me, as I draw to this place's attention the fact that, by the very motion you're seeking to unite us with, you are dividing us. You are dividing us. You are playing politics. You've constructed a straw man and then you've sought to conflate—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Here they are. They're uniting us!
Order!
Look at them, Mr Acting Deputy President. Here they are, uniting us, bringing us all together—binding our wounds, as President Lincoln said in his second inaugural speech! You're binding our wounds, are you? No, you're playing politics—base politics. You're not seeking to unite us; you're seeking to divide us with this motion. We would expect better of you, Senator Keneally, as someone who was a premier of the great state of New South Wales. You are seeking to divide us and conflating our Prime Minister with despicable extremists. You should know better. Senator Faruqi, please reflect on the fact that members of the government don't fit your caricature—
Honourable senators interjecting—
We're uniting, everyone, are we? We're uniting! Listen to it. Senator Keneally, is this what you wanted? Of course it's what you wanted, because you wanted to divide. You didn't seek to exercise good faith in terms of your assessment of our Prime Minister. You sought to use this for partisan political processes.
You're uniting us, are you, Senator Thorpe?
Order! Senator Scarr, please direct your questions through the chair.
Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, is Senator Thorpe uniting us with her consistent interjections? I wouldn't have thought so.
It's because we don't want racists killing us anymore.
Here we are, with the usual moderate language in Senator Thorpe's interjections. 'Uniting all Australians'? I don't think so. This motion, which was calling for unity, was actually all about division.
by leave—Senator Scarr ascribed several motives to my reason for bringing this motion before the chamber today. I'd like to advise Senator Scarr before he leaves the chamber that I brought this motion before the parliament today in part because I personally am the subject of threats from—
You're not alone, Senator Keneally.
Honourable senators interjecting—
This has been confirmed by the ASIO director-general. Those types of threats towards me, towards, I know, other members of this chamber, towards elected premiers, towards elected representatives and towards our health workers, our media and our community as demonstrated by the threats in those Melbourne protests worry me. I am concerned that somebody in this chamber, either on their side, our side or any side is going to be attacked, and if we don't have a condemnation from the Prime Minister that's what's at risk.
[by video link] Leadership is about setting expectations and setting boundaries. It's about bringing people with you in a process of change. It's about clearly articulating beliefs and the importance of working together to achieve change. In a political context it is fundamentally about representing and championing those expectations and boundaries on behalf of community in critical decision-making spaces and bringing community along in a process of change all the while being incredibly conscious of the cultural implications of actions. If you are in a decision-making space that is empowered by the community to shape lives and outcomes for people and planet, the way that you act in that space has a cultural impact beyond that space.
In the last eight years of this government's time in office, we have seen again and again the Liberal Party, when given the opportunity to show leadership, to exercise power and when given the choice to exercise that power in the effort, in the project, of calling out racism, of calling out violence, of calling out political methods and political discourses in the community, either remain silent or indeed give conscious or unconscious permission to those discourses and actions which are causing harm to people. So many times in the life of this government—particularly in relation to the comments of far-right individuals that have ended up in this place or have been contributing either in the national decision-making spaces or in state based decision-making spaces—when the opportunity has been given to them to demonstrate that they are willing to reflect community expectation that these actions, this racism, this absolutely repulsive, violent rhetoric be rejected, they've either kept their mouths shut or given permission to it.
We have seen in relation to this latest wave—and this is not the first: during their time in government, there has been, from Fraser Anning onwards, time and time again where racism of the vilest nature, often directed towards my colleagues, often directed towards Senators Thorpe, Senator Faruqi and Senator Cox, goes uncalled out by this government. I know all too well from my conversations with my colleagues the absolute and abhorrent violence that they are subjected to every single day. When the Prime Minister or members of this government speak in this place or, indeed, fail to speak in this place, the result is that members of our community are put in harm's way.
Over the last few weeks, we have seen the result of months of build-up in organising by the far Right in the community—it has been well reported on by those investigating it—as individuals have sought to exploit members of the community to justify and build their political ends which are, ultimately, racist in nature.
The Prime Minister was given an opportunity over the last few weeks to finally break that pattern of permission and to clearly call it out, and he has failed to do that. The result of that failure is that nurses—the people on the front line of this pandemic—and people in the decision-making spaces of this nation are now being subjected to abuse. (Time expired)
The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.
The committee is considering the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Amendment Bill 2021 and amendments on sheet 1424 moved by Senator Patrick by leave.
I want to refresh people as to what the amendment is about. We have had a series of reports coming from INSLM, whether it be the former Senator Rennick SC, the one prior to that, basically suggesting it is no good having INSLM conduct a review, do a report, it goes to government and government doesn't respond. There needs to be a continuous feedback process such that we have a progression in respect of his recommendations.
What my amendment does is require the government simply to respond within a timely period, and it gives the mechanism for the government to respond in a classified way, and also in an unclassified way back through the parliament. Those are the fundamentals of my amendment. It seems quite absurd to have a situation where the government receives a report and then sits on it and does nothing. If you go back through all the previous annual reports of INSLM, it's a request by INSLM to have their reports dealt with by a government response, and it is proper for the parliament to see those responses, accepting that there may be the need for a classified version. I commend my amendment to the chamber.
Labor will not be supporting Senator Patrick's amendment to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Amendment Bill 2021. It's very important that reports by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor are considered and responded to by governments. Far too often, the current government has not responded to reports and recommendations by the monitor, either not in a timely manner or, sometimes, not at all. The monitor has been tasked by this parliament with reviewing the operation, effectiveness, and implications of Australia's counterterrorism and national security legislation, so when the monitor makes a recommendation it is no small thing and it warrants a response. In his Comprehensive review of the legal framework of the national intelligence community, former ASIO director-general Dennis Richardson recommended that:
As a matter of good practice, the Government should provide a publicly available response to the INSLM’s recommendations within 12 months of the INSLM’s report being tabled in Parliament.
However, it is important to note that Mr Richardson fell short of recommending that this requirement be legislated.
While Labor has a lot of sympathy for Senator Patrick's amendment, we are not persuaded that the departure from Mr Richardson's recommendation is warranted. I should also add that the government has indicated that it does not support Senator Patrick's amendment. What that means is that even if this amendment were to pass the Senate today it would be rejected by the House of Representatives, and the passage of this important bill would be further delayed. Labor supports this bill and the government's amendments, all of which were suggested by Labor and, following negotiations, agreed to by the government. We would like to see the bill passed as soon as possible.
The government doesn't support the amendments to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Amendment Bill 2021 that have been circulated by Senator Patrick. The government endeavours to respond to reports and recommendations made by the monitor as soon as it is practicable to do so. Reports of the monitor can raise really complex policy and legal questions that require and, indeed, deserve detailed consideration, consultation and review. Where that's the case, it often takes more than 12 months for the government to formally work through and respond to those matters, given that recommendations can affect agencies right across the national intelligence community and their portfolio departments. It's not a small thing to do, but even done with diligence that can take some time.
This position is consistent with that taken in response to recommendations made by the former monitor in his annual reports and also by the Comprehensive review of the legal framework of the national intelligence community. That said, the government does appreciate the intent of these amendments and will continue to advise parliament of its response to recommendations that are made by the monitor as soon as possible. We will also continue to review formal reporting time frames into the future to make sure that this is something in which we are always driving for better and better performance.
I'm quite disappointed, particularly with Labor, for not supporting this. You say that Dennis Richardson has recommended against this and therefore you're not going to support it. Let me tell you, Dennis Richardson has also suggested that the PJCIS not look into operational matters, but you've got a bill in place that suggests that ought to happen. And I support that. It's just duplicitous. You stand up and say, 'We are sympathetic to the view,' but this is not my view; this is the view of the monitor. It's the persistent view of the monitor. In fact, the Law Council basically started off with this recommendation, because they could see problems with it. And again we see the Labor Party standing up and saying, 'We're not going to support this, because it's going to go back to the other place, they won't support it there and then it will have to come back.' You know what? When it comes back we'll reject it. If the government really care about national security, they'll end up supporting the motion. It's that classic game that the Liberal Party play with the Labor Party: it is called chicken, and Labor always swerves. It just shows you exactly what not being a strong opposition is all about.
I think you're probably going to get elected, but it's not going to be through your strength; it's going to be because, on the other side of the chamber, things are just so much worse. And that may well be your strategy. But the Labor Party ought to stand up and recognise this. You say you're sympathetic to it. It is a recommendation of the monitor himself. It's just very disappointing. That's all I can say.
The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question negatived.
I'd like to indicate, obviously, that I was supporting my own amendment.
Can I have the Australian Greens' position as supporting Senator Patrick's amendment.
Bill 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.
In August 2012 the Gillard Labor government introduced the Dental Health Reform Package to the Australian people. A key part of this package was the Child Dental Benefits Schedule, delivering means tested financial support for dental services for children between two and 17 years of age. Families that have children between two and 17 years old and receive benefits such as family tax benefit part A, the parenting payment, the double orphan pension, a carer payment and other benefits are eligible for the child dental benefit. It provides more than $1,000, over a two-year period, to cover dental services such as examinations, routine cleaning, fillings and root canals.
Since Labor introduced this reform, it has provided over $2.3 billion in benefits and delivered more than 38 million services to over three million Australian children. Thanks to this program, three million Australian children have avoided worsening physical and mental health impacts from untreated dental conditions, with massive flow-on benefits for their families, their communities and the broader Australian society—including the government's bottom line—from avoided downstream medical costs.
This was a great reform—under the Gillard government, and led by the member for Sydney who was then the health minister—and it's delivering great health outcomes to millions of children and teenagers across Australia. It was informed by a great amount of evidence presented by the dental advisory group that was chaired by the formidable former public servant Mary Murnane. It was also informed by some very disturbing evidence from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare—a great institution, the AIHW—which showed that as many as 42 per cent of five-year-olds had decay in their baby teeth, 61 per cent of nine-year-olds had decay in their baby teeth and, as a permanent feature of poor oral health, as many as 58 per cent of 14-year-olds had decay in their adult teeth.
The reform is a great demonstration of what a government focused on working to make Australians' lives easier can achieve. This bill represents an important extension of a great Labor legacy. But this is a legacy which, over eight long years of this government, has been threatened repeatedly by a Liberal Party that has never fully supported this reform. That threat is consistent with years of the Liberal Party's opposition to Labor's introduction of Medibank and then Medicare. The child dental benefits scheme was not immune from the Liberal Party's attempts to cut health services for Australians.
It remains in place due to the efforts of Labor—in particular, the member for Ballarat for having consistently fought attempts by this government over their eight long years to abolish or cut the scheme. It was when the current Prime Minister was Treasurer that the government intended to cut the scheme entirely. Labor successfully opposed that attempt to abolish the scheme. The Liberal government then brought before the parliament a proposal to cut, by 30 per cent, the payments that would be received by children and teenagers under the scheme. Rather than the $1,000 payment the scheme provides for, it was proposed by the current Prime Minister, who was Treasurer at the time, that this payment be cut to just $700. It's unbelievable. This attack on the dental benefits scheme was also successfully opposed by Labor, led by the shadow health minister, the member for Ballarat, Ms King. We are very glad the government hasn't persisted in attempts to cut or abolish this scheme and has now been converted to expanding its scope.
This bill represents a welcome reform to the Child Dental Benefits Schedule and Labor supports it as an extension of Labor's legacy. The bill extends coverage of the schedule to children from birth to 17 years of age, removing the lower age limit on eligibility. It is well known and accepted by parents that promoting and practising good oral hygiene with children from a young age will aid in the prevention of more serious dental decay and associated health impacts as they grow up. The bill will help deliver a positive initial dental experience for more Australian kids and help curb the unfortunate negative stigma around dental practitioners and oral hygiene.
As a result of this change, each year an additional 300,000 Australian children aged between zero and two will become eligible for the Child Dental Benefits Schedule. From 1 January 2022 it is estimated that each year 15 per cent of children in this newly eligible age group, 45,000 children per year, will now be able to and will access the Child Dental Benefits Schedule. That is 45,000 kids with better oral health and better physical and mental health as a result. It means up to 45,000 families will have fewer worries about being able to pay for the dental care their kids need. And it means 45,000 kids will have a better relationship, experience and view of dentists, having been exposed to a dentist early in life, with benefits flowing through the rest of their lives. That is why Labor supports this bill and commends it to the Senate.
[by video link] The Greens support this bill, the Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2021; however, we believe that this bill could go much further to enable more members of our community to access dental care under Medicare. I want to flag at the outset of my contribution that we will be moving an amendment to this bill which seeks to expand access to the Child Dental Benefits Scheme. Our amendment would remove eligibility criteria and allow children and adults to access free dental care when and where they need it.
Before I go any further, it's really important to place the legislation before us in its proper context: the scheme that it seeks to modify and the overall question of publicly funded dental care. The 'Denticare' scheme, as it is commonly known in the community, is a proud Greens achievement. It is a legacy of a period of power-sharing between 2010 and 2013, and it is a program that I am really proud of personally and that I know has done so much good for members of our community. It seeks to address at its core one of the great gaps in our publicly funded medical system. We can be really proud of the Medicare system here in Australia. It is one of the better public health systems in the world BUT it suffers from a really nonsensical gap, which is to say that it looks at the human body and takes into account the fact that most human beings will need some kind of publicly funded health support for most parts of our bodies, including our mental health. And yet, when it comes to the teeth, our publicly funded medical system suddenly doesn't seem to register the existence of the mouth on the human body—it doesn't cover it in any great or meaningful way. That is a disconnect that means that many in our community are not able to get the support they need for a basic, ongoing medical need—that is, good, high-quality dental care.
The Denticare scheme which currently exists gives people an ability to access publicly-funded dental care between the ages of two and 18. The amendment we are moving before the Senate today seeks to change the eligibility criteria to enable people between the ages of zero and 18 to access publicly-funded dental treatment. And that is a good thing: people should be able to use their Medicare card to go to the dentist, just like they can for so many other vital procedures and health based supports. But we can't stop there. The reality is that the teeth are not things that spring into existence between the ages of two and 18 and then vanish for the rest of people's lives! Dental care and dental based supports are things which are needed through the entirety of someone's life. That is the reality, and our policy settings should meet that reality. We should enable all people to access affordable dental care under the Medicare system. They should be properly funded and supported to get that work, that support and those services, because we know the transformational impacts for people who have access to those supports and, conversely, the terrible impact of not being able to access those supports. And that is so much the case for so many in our community.
To drill down in a little bit more detail on this, there's been a recent survey in the electorate of Griffith where people have had the opportunity to share the impact that the currently very constricted system has on them—basically, what impact does the absence of publicly funded dental care under Medicare have on people's lives? The results are really quite stark, and I think they paint a clear picture of the problem here and the impact on people.
Some 86 per cent of respondents had delayed seeing a dentist because of cost. The average amount that people spent just on their most recent dental bill was $809. That is the best part of $1,000. That is not money that most people just have lying around. It has a real financial impact on individuals, families and communities. In this survey, the longest period that a respondent had skipped seeing a dentist because of cost was some 20 years. Can you imagine what it feels like to sit in agony with an unresolved dental issue for two decades?
It is beyond belief that, in 2021, in Australia, with all of its riches that are so effectively siphoned off by corporate Australia and the billionaire class, we have a publicly funded healthcare system which does not recognise the basic reality that people have teeth which need to be cared for. It is an absolute disgrace that this is the reality in 2021.
The amendment offered by the Greens today gives both sides of politics, Labor and the Liberal Party, the opportunity to join with the Greens to correct this problem—to give people access to the support that they need and to make sure that nobody has to endure the terrible pain and discomfort that comes from poor dental health—so that every child, every teenager, adult and older Australian is able to get access to dental support and dental care when and where they need it, without having to worry about whether they have enough money saved in the bank to enable them to do it.
We know that this will have so many good, positive effects on our community. We know that it will support people being active in the community. We know that it will support people pursuing different career paths and goals, doing different types of work, being active members of their community and living life free of pain, which should be the basic expectation of all people in our community.
These changes can be so easily funded by making the big corporate entities that have made billions, if not tens of billions, through the course of this pandemic pay their fair share of tax. At the same time, we can make sure that we do not waste tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions, of dollars on unnecessary defence expenditures and on tax measures which seek to put more money in the hands of people like Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer. All these things are possible.
The amendment before the Senate today enables the Labor and Liberal parties to get on board with the position which the Greens have been advocating for decades which is that Medicare should cover your mouth. You should be able to get support for your dental health through Medicare regardless of your age. You should be able to do so in a way that enables you to think solely about the medical support you need, not what the current balance of your bank account is. I commend the amendment to the Senate.
I rise today to make a brief contribution in support of the Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2021, which was introduced to the House of Representatives on 4 August this year. The Dental Benefits Amendment Bill amends the Dental Benefits Act 2008 to allow eligible children to access the Child Dental Benefits Schedule from birth. It delivers on the government's 2021-22 budget commitment to lower the age eligibility restrictions in the Child Dental Benefits Schedule and is based on recommendations from the Report on the Fourth Review of the Dental Benefits Act 2008 as well as extensive stakeholder feedback.
While this amendment is minor, it will allow any eligible child aged under 18 years to access dental care. As a parent and now recently a grandparent, I appreciate how important this amendment is and know it will allow children to start a positive relationship with dental health professionals earlier in their lives. Positive dental experiences for children early on would instil the importance of good oral hygiene at a young age. It would also stop the negative stigma around dental practitioners, which could be reinforced if initial dental experiences required serious treatments.
Healthy teeth, mouth and gums are all important aspects for a person's general health and wellbeing. Good dental health means you can eat, drink and speak without pain or discomfort. Dental health has been something that successive Australian governments made a focus over the past three decades. Adding fluoride to drinking water has helped reduce tooth decay in both children and adults, but statistics from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare show we can still improve. For example, in Australia three in 10 people delay or avoid seeing a dentist because of the cost, one in four children aged between five and 10 years have untreated decay in baby teeth, and one in 25 people aged 15 and over have no natural teeth left.
The Commonwealth works with state and territory governments to fund dental services like the Child Dental Benefits Schedule to improve dental health. Each of these governments has agreed to the National Oral Health Plan 2015-2024, with the goal of improving health and wellbeing across the Australian population by improving oral health status and reducing the burden of poor oral health. This plan sets out six foundation areas: oral health promotion, which covers a range of initiatives to reduce the occurrence and impact of oral disease, such as community water fluoridation; accessibility of oral health services—and I note that, in my home state of Tasmania, Oral Health Services Tasmania services 29 clinics across the state; systems alignment and integration of oral and general health systems supplied by public, private and non-government organisations to improve effectiveness and health outcomes; safety and equality, with the National Oral Health Plan arguing for stronger consumer engagement in developing performance standards and collaboration of outcomes; workforce and the capacity to meet the community's needs for prevention and treatment of poor oral health now and in future, including in locations where oral health services are needed; and, finally, research and evaluation to inform the development of appropriate, effective and sustainable oral health services.
The National Oral Health Plan shows that oral conditions are the third-highest reason for acute preventable hospital admissions in Australia. More than 63,000 Australians are hospitalised because of oral conditions each year, with many of these requiring dental treatments under general anaesthetic. These cases include young children with high levels of dental disease and adults with complex medical conditions. The Dental Benefits Amendment Bill increases access to prevention and treatment services for children, which supports parental promotion and modelling of good oral hygiene from a young age. All this helps to prevent serious dental decay as children develop their full adult teeth and also promotes healthy dental habits into adulthood.
The Child Dental Benefits Schedule provides initial dental benefits, such as examinations, X-rays, cleaning, fillings, root canals and tooth extractions. It was established in 2014 and has delivered more than 38 million services to over three million children. This represents more than $2.3 billion in benefits over seven years. When the indexation rate is updated on 1 January 2022 the benefit will increase from $1,013 to $1,026 per eligible child, applied over two calendar years. The scheme is available in both the public and the private sector to support the broadest range of services, provider choices and locations. The Dental Benefits Amendment Bill will add an extra 300,000 children to the scheme and will cost $5.4 million over four years. This is a significant contribution that supports dental access for children from a very young age. The Australian government will continue to work with public and private providers to improve the delivery of dental services to our children. I commend this bill to the Senate.
Getting dental care for kids into Medicare is something that we, the Greens, achieved when we were in balance of power in the Gillard government in 2010. And getting dental care for everyone, for adults as well as children, is something that the Greens are continuing to campaign for, continuing to push for. Indeed, as Senator Askew's contribution just told us in great detail, the benefits of everybody being able to access dental treatment under Medicare are outlined there—huge benefits. It just makes sense.
Getting dental care for kids included under Medicare in 2010 shows the fundamental change you can see when you put a genuinely progressive party into balance of power. We know that that achievement has stood the test of time; hence this bill today that is extending free dental care for kids now down to the age of zero. In fact, what is very clear is exactly the same arguments as to why dental care should be included under Medicare, should be available for free for kids, hold for adults. The impact of poor dental care has massive impacts on people's health and on their ability to contribute to society. When we talk about our platform of putting dental care under Medicare, being able to go to the dentist with your Medicare card and get your dental treatment, when we talk to people out in the streets or on the doors, they say, 'That just makes sense, yes; that's what we need to do,' because people realise that the impacts on their lives by not being able to afford dental care are significant.
I remember when I was a councillor in the City of Maribyrnong working, supporting and representing a lot of people who were really doing it tough, living on income support, living in public housing. One woman I remember in particular. We got to know each other quite well, she talked to me about the issues she was facing and I was there advocating for her on council. Every time she talked to me she would hold her hand over her mouth like this because she was incredibly embarrassed about the fact that she didn't have any teeth anymore and couldn't afford to get dentures. She couldn't afford to go to the dentist. She was on a waiting list for public dental treatment, but it was going to be years off. The impact on her life was a feeling of embarrassment every time she was out in the street. She couldn't actually participate and feel proud of the way that she looked. She felt she had to cover her mouth like this every time she spoke, and that really got to me.
I have another friend who is long-term unemployed: a man in his late 50s. He told me he has just managed to get to the dentist and have a tooth removed, which has been aching and giving him the most amount of pain for well over 10 years. The waiting lists at the moment for public dental care are extraordinary. In fact, he saved up his money, living on JobSeeker, which is a really difficult thing to do, in order to afford to get a private dentist to remove his tooth. This is the impact that poor dental care has on people.
This bill we're talking about today is great; it's extending dental care for kids down to zero from two. But we need to be going far further. We need to be genuinely looking after the health and wellbeing of people, and that's what the Greens are fighting for, to actually say, 'Yes, if you are concerned about the wellbeing of ordinary people, we need to have measures like getting dental care included under Medicare.' The reality is doing that would actually fit into a broader push for social justice, for fighting poverty, and that's what the Greens will always be fighting for. It is why we are calling for the government to lift income support payments above the poverty line so that people don't need to be struggling, caught up in a world full of poverty. We saw what happened in the experiment during the COVID outbreak last year, when JobSeeker was doubled and suddenly people realised that they could afford to spend things on what the rest of us just consider the basics. They could afford to put food on the table for three meals a day, they could afford to put shoes on the feet of their children and they could afford to have the kids to go off on school excursions, so the need for government action is more urgent than ever to be not just extending dental care for kids down to the age of zero but to be taking real action on lifting people above poverty, real action on giving people the basic building blocks so that they can be living happy, successful, meaningful lives.
On the issue of the broader need for income support, I want to highlight a number of figures from a recent report from the Australian Council of Social Service, which puts so starkly the situation that so many in our community are currently in. Their report, Faces of unemployment 2021, finds that 80 per cent of people receiving JobSeeker payments, a record high of 826,000 people, have had to rely on income support for more than a year. The current figure is more than double the previous peak of 350,000, after the 1991 recession, which prompted a billion dollar investment in employment assistance, including wage subsidies and training. Among people on income support for more than two years, over half have a disability and almost half are over 55, underscoring widespread discrimination in the labour market against people with disability and older people. People's chance of securing full-time paid employment within the next year falls from over 50 per cent when they are unemployed for less than three months to less than 25 per cent once they're unemployed for over two years.
We have an inequality crisis in this country. That inequality crisis is something that can be fixed, because poverty is a political choice. Just as we could be making the political choice now to put dental care into Medicare so that you could get free dental treatment by showing your Medicare card, like you use your Medicare card at the doctors, we could be choosing to lift people out of poverty. We could be choosing to raise income support so that people aren't struggling like they currently are. We could be choosing, as our inquiry into the disability support pension has shown, to support people with a disability to get the support they need to live a good life. As the inquiry is showing, the government at the moment is leaving people behind. It's leaving behind people on the DSP, who are facing enormous challenges. Rather the trying to enable people with a disability to get onto the DSP, the government is actively trying to force them off it. These actions by this heartless, cruel and callous governments, leaving people in poverty, have a devastating impact. As Anglicare's Asking those who know report shows, what that means is not just that people can't afford dental treatment; it means that 44 per cent—almost half—of people on JobSeeker reported skipping seven or more meals a week and only 38 per cent said they felt supported by their government.
This is horrifying. It's not the Australia that I want to live in. It's not the Australia that most Australians want to live in. We can make that choice. We can choose to support people across the country, to lift income support above the poverty line and to put dental care into Medicare for everyone. These are the choices that we should be making. Instead of spending billions of dollars on subsidies to fossil fuel companies, cutting corporate tax rates and allowing billionaires to get off without paying any tax at all, we could be making a difference to the lives of ordinary Australians, allowing them to live a decent life, rather than having people in the desperate straits of living in poverty.
I rise today to provide a short contribution to this piece of legislation, the Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2021. I think it's an important step forward to make sure that we are expanding the number of people—children from zero to 18—that have access to good-quality dental health care. Being able to use your Medicare card when you go to the dentist is something that should be available for everyone. We've seen throughout COVID-19 just how important universal health care has been, and we know, if we listen to the doctor, that dental health is an extremely important part of making sure the rest of our body is healthy. But, of course, there is a disparity between what is accessible under our universal health system and what isn't. If you've broken your jaw, you can use your Medicare card to go to the doctor but not to go to the dentist to get the tooth fixed. That is just bonkers. It's time for Australia to move forward and to ensure that we properly fund dental health care for everybody.
The Australian Dental Association has a look each year at the average cost of dental health care and totals it up. For a regular check-up for a regular Australian, the average cost of going to the dentist to get an examination, a scale and clean, and some fluoride treatment is $215 a pop—$215 a pop to make sure you stay healthy so that the rest of your body doesn't start to deteriorate. It is just crazy that under our wonderful Medicare and healthcare system in Australia we don't allow dental to be included. So it's $215 on average—some are more than that, of course, depending on what dentist you choose—just to go and have a check-up and make sure everything is okay. If things aren't okay and you need a filling, it might cost you an extra $250 on top of that. If you need a tooth extraction, we're talking about another $200. If you need root canal, we're talking $425 on average. The bills keep going up and up. By the time you get out of the dentist, you might be paying $700, $800 or $900.
Australians deserve better than that. We have a tax system and a system of universal health care in this country. It is time for dentistry to be included. You should be able to go to the dentist, whip out your Medicare card and have your dental health covered. You can go to the doctor with your Medicare card. You should be able to go to the dentist. It's as simple as that. It's important that we do this for children, of course, but every Australian deserves to be able to use their Medicare card to go to the dentist and keep their teeth and their mouths healthy. And you wouldn't want to be in a situation of emergency, because, if you need a crown, the average cost for a crown is $1,500. You can't put that on Medicare. You can't write that off on tax. That comes straight out of your pocket, and, as we know, there are many, many Australians in this country who simply can't afford that. So what happens? You don't go to the dentist, and your teeth get worse, which starts to have other health implications, or you do go to the dentist and have to go into debt.
The Greens have been arguing for a long time that we need to put dental health into Medicare. You should be able to use your Medicare card at the dentist just as you can at the doctor. Everyone knows it makes sense. We just have to get it done.
CASH (—) (): I thank all senators for their contributions to the debate and I commend the Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2021 to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
[by video link] I move:
That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:
(1) Schedule 1, items 1 and 2, page 3 (lines 4 to 11), omit the items, substitute:
1 Section 4 (definition of ABSTUDY scheme )
Repeal the definition.
2 Section 4 (definition of FTB(A) person )
Repeal the definition.
3 Section 4 (definition of satisfies the means test )
Repeal the definition.
4 Section 4 (definition of youth allowance )
Repeal the definition.
5 Subsection 5(1)
Omit "(1)".
6 Subsection 5(2)
Repeal the subsection.
7 Section 22
Omit:
• A person qualifies for a voucher for a calendar year if he or she is aged between 2 and 18 years at any time during the calendar year, is an eligible person and satisfies the means test.
• The Dental Benefit Rules may also provide that an eligible person qualifies for a voucher for a calendar year.
substitute:
• A person qualifies for a voucher for a calendar year if the person is an eligible person.
• The Dental Benefit Rules may provide for certain matters relating to vouchers.
8 Section 23
Repeal the section, substitute:
23 Qualification for a voucher
Persons to whom this section applies
(1) This section applies to a person, in relation to a calendar year, if the person is an eligible person.
Point in time at which person qualifies for a voucher
(2) The person qualifies for a voucher for the calendar year, in relation to a dental service specified in the Dental Benefits Rules for the purposes of this section, at the first time in the calendar year when the person is an eligible person.
9 Section 24
Repeal the section.
10 Section 25
Repeal the section.
11 Section 29
Before "The Dental Benefit Rules", insert "(1)".
12 At the end of section 29
Insert:
(2) Subsection (1) is subject to section 32AA.
13 After section 32
Insert:
32AA Dental Benefits Rules must not impos e certain eligibility requirements
The Dental Benefits Rules must not impose the following requirements relating to the eligibility of a person for a voucher:
(a) an age-based eligibility requirement;
(b) a means test.
14 Subsection 41(1)
Omit "(1)".
15 Subparagraphs 41(1)(c)(iii) to (v)
Repeal the subparagraphs.
16 Subsection 41(2)
Repeal the subsection.
_____
Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000
Amendment (1)
Amendment (1) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to expand the eligibility requirements for dental vouchers. The effect of the amendment is to: remove the requirement for a person to be of a certain age to be eligible for a dental voucher; remove the requirement for a person to satisfy a means test to be eligible for a dental voucher; and prevent the Dental Benefits Rules from prescribing such eligibility requirements.
As the amendment is intended to increase the number of individuals that would be eligible to receive a dental voucher, it will increase the amount of expenditure under the appropriation in section 65 of the Dental Benefits Act 2008.
Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000
Amendment (1)
If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 65 of the Dental Benefits Act 2008 , then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.
As we've heard in some of the contributions from my colleagues, particularly Senator Rice and Senator Hanson-Young, there are so many members of our community who are really struggling because of the impact of the absence of public funding for dental care under the Medicare scheme. We've heard, as representatives of our particular communities, from so many community members that their inability to get the dental healthcare support they need—the barriers—means a life of pain and suffering. That's sometimes year upon year and decade after decade.
The amendment before the Senate that I bring today on behalf of the Greens reflects our movement's commitment to the achievement of universal dental care under the public health system: dental care for what you need when you need it, for every person. That would support so many members of our community who, right now, as Senator Rice referenced, are doing that almost herculean task not only of surviving on JobSeeker but also of trying to put some money aside in order to see a dentist because the current waitlist on the public dental service, as patchy as it is throughout the states and territories, is simply too long.
The opportunity that we have in supporting the Greens amendments as put to the Senate today is to end the pain and the suffering of so many members of our community. While they struggle with the many very terrible effects of trying to make ends meet, this government stands by and supports policies that force people to struggle so much in economic hardship. Whilst they have to do that they also have to deal with an infected tooth, or an abscess, or a wisdom tooth that needs removing, or gum disease that needs treating or the complex procedures that will enable them to speak properly.
Worse than that, there are so many more who know the great value of preventive dental health care: the value of regular check-ups, the value of regular cleanings, the value of fillings and the value of being able to say: 'Do you know what? That feels a bit odd—that hurts, that throbs. Let's get that checked before it escalates into something that means I have to take a week off work, or 10 days off work and I lose my job, and can't pay my mortgage.' That's the practical impact of not being able to get dental health care.
That's to say nothing of the mental health implications of having an unresolved dental illness. When you have chronic pain of the type that comes with untreated dental issues there's very little else you can do with your day, it is such an all-consuming feeling. I suspect that many members of the major parties who right now are weighing up whether or not to support the Greens proposed amendments to expand all the eligibility criteria to enable adults and children to get access to publicly funded dental care under Medicare know the pain of unresolved dental issues. I suspect they have had a wisdom tooth that needs removing, a filling that has gone wrong or a cracked tooth. I suspect that all members of the Liberal and Labor parties, consciously or subconsciously, know the value of preventive dental care. I suspect they very regularly get themselves to their local dentists—probably overwhelmingly private dentists—to get work done. That's because they know the value of it; they know the value of going and getting something sorted when something doesn't feel right.
The opportunity that sits before the Liberal and Labor parties today is to extend the ability they have, the privilege they have, to the rest of their communities and make dental care accessible under Medicare to enable people to go to the dentist as easily as they go to the doctor. That is the chance they now have. That is what this amendment would enable.
I hope not to hear in response to this proposal any carping, moaning or handwringing from either side of politics in relation to cost, because the community all know that, when the big corporations rock up to this place with their shiny-shoed lobbyists and ask for tax cuts that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars over a decade and that when defence manufacturers and arms dealers rock up wanting to sell the government yet another project that by the time it is built will be totally obsolete, the government and the opposition line up next to each other and say: 'Thank you very much. Where do we sign?' So I hope to hear none of those nonsensical contributions from the major parties.
Let us put aside the idea that there are not the resources in our community to address something so basic as universal dental care to free all members of our community from the pain of untreated dental issues and to enable people to eat, drink and talk without pain and suffering. There are enough resources to do that. There is simply a need for the major parties to grow a spine and be willing to make the choices necessary to make that a reality for people—to extend the privilege and the ease enjoyed by so many members of this place on both sides of politics when it comes to getting dental issues treated.
Let us do that now. Let us get it done now. Let the legacy of this parliamentary sitting before Christmas be that we recognise the basic medical reality that the mouth is part of the face and the face is part of the body and if you have pain you should be able to get it treated and you should be able to take the preventative steps that so many people know are necessary to prevent the worsening of dental medical issues. That is the opportunity before the chamber today. Let us take it up with gusto.
We know the Australian people support it. It is something the Greens have always championed. We have the beginning of the program that we need from the 2010-13 power-sharing arrangement. I'm not sure what planet members of the Labor Party are on when they talk about this scheme as it stands being a legacy of the Labor government. This wasn't anywhere near their legislative agenda before 2010. It is a direct result of the Gillard government having to sit down with the Greens after the 2010 election. That is what came out of it. That's why the Child Dental Benefits Schedule exists. People voted for the Greens and we went into those negotiations with the ALP and said, 'This is one of the things our community wants to happen.' That's what created this scheme. On the back of that we continue now to champion the creation of universal dental care in Australia. Every member of our community should be able to expect their government to take action to ensure that such a scheme and such support exists, particularly in the context of the full knowledge of the failed and broken nature of our current publicly funded dental system, with waiting lists that are utterly beyond belief.
Let us turn words into actions and turn passion into program. Let's vote for this amendment today and get this done for our communities. I thank the chamber for its time.
Well, yet another delusional rewriting of history from the Greens political party. I can recall, in 1998, the first occasion where I played some sort of leadership role in a local campaign, campaigning on dental. Labor has always been clear that dental and public dental is immensely important for the people that we represent. Dental health makes an enormous difference to people's overall health. It is ludicrous to argue, as Senator Steele-John has just done, that this is somehow owned by the Greens. 'We did it'—another one for the Facebook page of the Greens. 'We achieved something,' notwithstanding the fact that they were not in government. By now everybody surely understands that the only way to get progress on social justice is in fact to elect a Labor government. The endless attempts by the Australian Greens political party to undermine the Labor Party for their own narrow political and electoral interests does not serve them well.
Labor won't be supporting this amendment from the Greens. Yet again we have a situation where the Greens are coming up with an amendment that would have a significant cost and, for the reasons I just explained, stands no chance of passing in the other place. Do you know why? Because what we need for real reform is a Labor government. We need a Labor majority. This is another Greens stunt that has no realistic chance of ever becoming law. As my colleague mentioned in the second reading contributions, Labor supports this bill as an extension of Labor's legacy. We are glad that the government came around from its previous attempts to cut or abolish the scheme and are now proposing to expand it. We shouldn't stand in the way. We shouldn't delay this welcome reform of the Child Dental Benefits Schedule by supporting something that has no chance.
The government will also not be supporting the amendment moved by the Australian Greens. The Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2021 that we're currently debating will seek to provide access to the Child Dental Benefits Schedule for eligible children from birth, which is zero years of age. This is, in other words, designed to support the delivery of essential child oral health services. The proposed amendment moved by the Australian Greens seeks to remove all age limitations and means testing requirements. This would therefore completely change the parameters of the program and it would no longer be a specific program targeted at children, which is what it is.
We're dealing with request 1 on sheet 1389, and the question is, as moved by Senator Steele-John, that the request for an amendment be agreed to.
I move:
That these bills be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Labor supports the Crimes Amendment (Remissions of Sentences) Bill 2021. It would amend the Commonwealth's Crimes Act. For starters, it would repeal section 19AA of the Crimes Act, which applies remissions granted under state or territory laws to head sentences for Commonwealth offences. For clarity, a remission is a reduction in the term of a prison sentence. By way of example, a state or territory law may provide that a prisoner's head sentence can or should be reduced if the person's time in prison is harsher than had been anticipated at the time of sentencing, such as where a person is detained in his or her cell for longer than usual because of a fire or other emergency situation, or because of an industrial dispute. More recently, the requirements for lockdowns as a consequence of COVID-19 have resulted in prisoners detained in cells for long periods without the usual access to exercise yards and other activities outside their cells. The upshot of section 19AA in the Crimes Act is that any such reduction under a state or territory law is applied automatically to the head sentences of individuals who have been convicted of Commonwealth offences. The laws in the states and territories vary in this area. That means that individuals who are handed the same sentence in different states may ultimately end up having a different term of imprisonment depending on the state or territory in which he or she is sentenced.
The other aspects of section 19AA of the Crimes Act—subsections (2) and (3)—would also be repealed. Subsection 19AA(2) applies any state or territory law crediting clean street time as a reduction of a federal offender's sentence, in the same way as clean street time would apply to reduce the sentence of a state or territory offender in the same jurisdiction. Subsection 19AA(3) ensures that clean street time is taken into account where an offender breaches their parole in a state or territory that does not provide for reductions in sentences based on clean street time. Clean street time is the period between when an offender is released on parole up to the time when their parole order is revoked because of noncompliance with an order. In most states or territories clean street time is taken into account in determining consequences for an offender who has breached his or her parole order. The bill would replace subsections 19AA(2) and (3) with a new subsection, in a different part of the Crimes Act. The upshot of these amendments would be that courts could still consider clean street time when dealing with federal offenders who have breached parole conditions, but state and territory laws in relation to clean street time would no longer automatically apply to federal offenders.
As a number of those opposite have noted in the debate, this bill was prompted by some recent high-profile examples of federal offenders being granted emergency management days in Victoria with the effect that their sentences were substantially reduced. It is disappointing, but perhaps not surprising, that some in the Morrison government have sought to politicise this bill by pretending that emergency management days are a new thing. As I've already mentioned, under Victoria's Corrections Act, the corrections commissioner may reduce a prisoner's sentence if the individual demonstrates good behaviour while suffering disruption or deprivation during an industrial dispute, an emergency or other circumstances of a special or unforeseen nature.
These reductions are referred to as emergency management days, and they are not new. The current Victorian regime, in relation to emergency management days, was introduced in 1992. Every Commonwealth government, including the current government, has been aware of those arrangements ever since. So it's a bit rich and more than a little concerning that those opposite feign surprise over the fact that emergency management days have been applied by the Victorian corrections commissioner in recent times. Australians are entitled to expect their federal government to be on top of these matters.
This bill was the subject of inquiry by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The primary concern raised by submitters was that the measures in the bill would apply retrospectively, with the effect that reductions in sentences that had been already applied under Victorian law, in particular, would be removed by the bill. In response to that concern, the Attorney-General's Department submitted that remissions and reductions are not an entitlement and it is not unreasonable to expect that changes may be made, from time to time, to discretionary benefits such as these, while also noting that the changes in the bill would not impose any additional punishments or change the sentence imposed by the sentencing court.
Labor understands and takes seriously the concerns raised by submitters about this aspect of the bill. However, on balance, we do not think those concerns outweigh the clear advantages associated with ensuring greater certainty and consistency when it comes to the length of federal sentences and the interests of community safety.
I rise to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Remissions of Sentences) Bill 2021. The Australian Greens will definitely not be supporting this bill, and I'm sure it comes as no surprise. It takes away people's human rights, which is what this government is very clever at. The bill seeks to amend the Crimes Act to repeal section 19AA, which applies remissions or reductions granted under state or territory laws to federal sentences.
Remissions or reductions in sentences are usually granted in recognition of restrictions placed on imprisoned people that are necessary in emergency circumstances. Usually, remissions are automatically applied to reduce the federal offender's head sentence as soon as they have been granted. Victoria is the only jurisdiction with laws providing significant remissions or reductions that apply to an imprisoned person under a federal offence. In Victoria, these remissions are known as emergency management days, EMDs.
This bill would repeal section 19AA of the Crimes Act 1914—so old—so that it would no longer apply reductions or remissions in sentences granted to imprisoned people serving periods of imprisonment for federal offences. It would apply to people imprisoned for a federal sentence who are serving that sentence in a state or territory jail immediately before the date of commencement. However, this bill would be retrospective and take away remissions or reductions to people who have already received them. Therefore, any remissions or reductions they had already been granted are taken to be of no effect.
As of June 2021, 1,151 people were imprisoned for federal offences around this country. Of these, 317 are imprisoned in Victoria. In Victoria, emergency management days are granted to reduce the sentence of imprisoned people for good behaviour or to imprisoned people who suffer a disruption or deprivation during an emergency, or an industrial dispute in the jail where the sentence is being served, as well as for other unforeseen circumstances—like COVID-19. Generally, emergency management days provide an incentive—hello, an incentive!—for imprisoned people to maintain good behaviour. But you don't want that; you want to cause riots. This could or would result in these people being further deprived of their liberties. So, they'll get punished for being on good behaviour. It makes a lot of sense, right! But this incentive in turn helps to maintain security and good order in prisons.
Secondly, emergency management days compensate imprisoned people for the impacts of increased deprivation and disruption during their imprisonment. This has been really important during the current COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in even greater restrictions and deprivation of liberties in jails—not to mention that many of these jails didn't even do the minimum to prevent COVID infections; some didn't even have soap. When this country was running around telling everyone to wash their hands, prisons didn't even have soap for people to wash their hands with. So, 'minimum protection' for prisoners really means minimum. And now this government wants to kick imprisoned people even further with this bill that would apply retrospectively. The prisoners are told, 'Because of the COVID-19 lockdown, although we said that you're going to get out earlier and we were going to compensate you for that time, actually, no, we're not going to do that anymore.' Tell me how you'd feel if you were locked up.
The Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, in Scrutiny Digest 15 of 2021, reported:
The committee has a long-standing scrutiny concern about provisions that have the effect of applying retrospectively as it challenges a basic value of the rule of law—
To the lawyers: do you hear that? The rule of law—I'm not a lawyer; you should know better—
that, in general, laws should only operate prospectively (not retrospectively)—
Don't go backwards!
The committee has a particular concern if the legislation will, or might, have a detrimental effect on individuals.
In its scrutiny report of the bill, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights noted:
Questions remain as to whether the measure is arbitrary, noting that it does not only apply prospectively to ensure future grants of remissions will not apply to federal offenders, but also applies retrospectively so that those who have already had remissions applied will no longer receive them.
This government is as committed to not upholding basic human rights as they are to not being accountable for their many, many failures. We see what this government is doing—trying to ram through these nonsense law and order bills so that the country won't see how dysfunctional they really are.
This bill should not proceed. Instead, the government should enact a human rights charter. But they're too scared to do that: we don't want people in this country to have human rights, do we?—because you want to keep abusing them! We need a charter of human rights in this country to ensure that no-one is blocked from asserting their rights and dignities—for example, by preventing the retrospective enacting of laws. All you've done all week is bring incredibly problematic legislation. Talk about unity in this country! You're bringing disgusting, racist, punitive legislation that ain't gonna win you votes at the next election. You're kidding yourselves. You've got half of your bench and half of your party absolutely disgusted by some of your behaviour. They are quietly saying, 'I know it's really bad, you know?'
As I said, instead of bringing in incredibly problematic legislation, have a look at its serious impact on people's human rights and dignity. Because you care about that in your lives. You walk around free, privileged—very privileged, I might add—and you make up laws that hurt people and discriminate against people. That's what you're doing. How do you sleep at night knowing that? How do you sleep at night knowing that a person in prison has been locked down because the prison went on strike? The prison went on strike because you didn't give any favours to your mates running the private prisons, like Serco. You're in bed with them too. How do you sleep at night being buddies with Serco, which is hurting people in prison and detention centres—black, refugees? It's a horrible thought.
You can sleep well at night in your privileged little bed while that prisoner gets locked down because the prison went on strike last week. What happens with this bill? That prisoner thinks that they are getting out. They've been on good behaviour, they've been doing all the right things and they're looking forward to getting out a bit earlier because the prison went on strike. But, no, this government is saying: 'Well, sorry, we've changed our mind. We're going to introduce some legislation that takes all your rights away now. We know that you've been on good behaviour but we're going to take them away anyway. Bad luck, buddy!' Imagine if that were your family member—and I know you live in a privileged bubble; they're all protected—who got told that the government had just made a decision that takes away their rights even though they've been doing the right thing. We've just made a decision that's going to screw up their life even more.
We just want to keep you locked up so you stay away from my little white privileged family so I can live our perfect little life and not believe in climate change, not believe in working for the people who really, really need help and not worry about people's human rights. We're going to make decisions because we're so privileged that we don't care about those people. We don't care about blackfellas; we don't care about people in prisons; we don't care about refugees; we don't care about climate change; we don't even care about people voting for us anymore, because we're—I can't say the word—pretty 'effed'.
Senator Thorpe, I'd ask you to withdraw that.
I didn't say the actual word.
No, but it's implied, so please withdraw.
I withdraw that but I think you get the sentiment. It's absolutely disgusting what you people are doing to normal people out there that don't have your privilege. You haven't struggled in this country like these people have but you continue to make laws that hurt people and keep them locked up and torture them. You talk about mental health but you're happy to take someone's dignity and liberties away. How do you think that affects someone's mental health?
How dare they do this to people imprisoned in this country? How dare they backdate this decision? I hope that the minister responsible delivers that message personally to every prisoner who has been on good behaviour, doing the right thing, who they decided: 'You're just a pleb to me, because I'm so privileged and I don't have to care about people like you in my world. My world is so plastic and privileged, I don't really care about anybody else. Because I'm a politician, I'm right; I've been here for a decade or so. I've got my mansion. I've got my white privilege. Why should I care about people that are in jail? Why should I care about people in detention? Why should I care about this so called climate thing that I keep denying?'
What do they actually care about beside themselves—seriously? They prance around here so privileged—so privileged!—that they don't even know it. I urge those opposite to get rid of this bill and, while they're doing that, to check their privilege. Instead of giving me little smirks and raising eyebrows, which is what privileged white people do to black people like me, they should check their privilege, get rid of this bill and give people their human rights and dignity. (Time expired)
The need for this Crimes Amendment (Remissions of Sentences) Bill 2021 can be best summarised in relation to a case study which the Australian Federal Police provided as its submission to part of the review of this bill in relation to the sentencing of Mr Adam Brookman:
On 23 June 2021, Mr Brookman was sentenced to 6 years and 8 months imprisonment, with a nonparole period of 5 years, after pleading guilty to the charge of performing services in Syria in support or promotion of the commission of an offence against the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978 (Cth). But for his guilty plea, Mr Brookman would have been sentenced to imprisonment for 8 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 7 years. At the time of sentencing, Mr Brookman was expected to serve an additional 9 months in custody (noting he had been in custody on remand for 5 years and 11 months).
Note that this is an individual charged with respect to performing services in Syria in relation to committing offences under the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act. The submission also said:
It is important to note that the sentencing judge, in her remarks, already considered and accounted for hardship caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
What happened in the case of Mr Brookman? The submission states:
On 23 June 2021, the same day Mr Brookman was sentenced, the AFP was advised that Mr Brookman had been granted a total of 342 EMDs pursuant to s 58E of the Corrections Act 1986 (VIC), resulting in a reduction of Mr Brookman's overall sentence and his release into the community—
This is a person who went to Syria and was convicted under the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act—
… resulting in a reduction of Mr Brookman's overall sentence and his release into the community late on the evening of 23 June 2021.
Note the date, Madam Deputy President: it's the same date that he was sentenced. On the same day that he was sentenced, and within a matter of hours, because of this extraordinary grant of 342 EMDs he was released. As the AFP said:
The time between sentencing and Mr Brookman's release was a matter of hours. As a high risk terrorist offender, Mr Brookman was a risk to community safety …From the time of his release till 6 July 2021, when an interim control order application was determined by the Federal Court of Australia, there was a short period of time—
Count the days: 23 June 2021 through to 6 July 2021—
There was a short period of time where a control order was not in place against Mr Brookman.
That was a direct result of the fact that the extraordinary total of 342 EMDs had been granted and Mr Brookman's sentence had to be reduced by that amount. If nothing else, it draws into stark relief—
The time for this debate has now expired. Senator Scarr, you will be in continuation. We'll now move to senators' statements.
Today I want to talk about Autism: What Next? It's a website that's recently been launched to assist families who are going through an autism diagnosis or have received an autism diagnosis and also to assist adults who have received an autism diagnosis. It might seem strange that, for something that is as prevalent as autism, a resource like this has not existed in the past. In the past, families and adults were very much left to their own devices after a diagnosis, all too often falling into the trap of consulting 'Dr Google'. We all are aware that, on the web, there is a lot of misinformation and pseudoscience that can confuse parents and place them in danger of perhaps looking at therapy options that are not evidence based or that are not based in science and that will end up having either a detrimental effect or, at best, no effect whatsoever.
This website, Autism: What Next?, has been made possible by an ILC grant to Autism Awareness Australia funded by DSS. Autism Awareness Australia is a parent-run organisation that has well over 15 years experience around autism. That is reflected in the quality of this website and the advice that is available for parents to help them navigate what can be an incredibly tricky and devastating time for families. The website itself, though, it is important to remember, is put together by individuals with autism and families of children with autism. This is real lived experience, and it's backed up by clinicians and therapists who provide evidence based therapy for these families and also for adults who are diagnosed later in life.
The guide to best-practice therapies says that it's really important that we see children begin a pathway as soon as possible with evidence based therapies. It's those evidence based therapies that are going to give the best outcomes for that child and that family in the long run. The guide provides information for families that emphasises the importance of it never being too early to start, and emphasises that there should be therapies that are effective and intensive and that the sooner you can get on to those the better. Including the information in there is also helping parents understand that therapy is not just to be conducted in a clinical setting. It's not enough to go to a speech therapist, sit across the desk, have a session and move on. These therapies need to be conducted across a range of environments, and this allows the child to generalise those skills that they're learning so they can use them at home, at preschool and at school, so that they can start to generalise and move more into the community.
We know that the best therapy types for children will ensure that that child's communication skills are developed, but we also know that they're play based. The child starts to understand the importance of turn-taking and playing games. For neurotypical children, these skills come very, very easily. Children move from parallel playing next to each other to engaging with each other. A lot of children with autism need to be taught this skill. It doesn't come innately to them to learn how to take turns. So it is important that we start looking at these things through a play based environment. It's probably something that could be taken as a lesson in this place sometimes: turn-taking is a very big part of conversations. You wait for the other person to stop speaking before you start your own contribution and start saying what you want to say.
One of the things that I think demonstrates how needed this resource is across Australia is that, within the first three weeks of it being launched, there were over 7,000 users of this site. I have no doubt that, as the awareness of this site gets out there, that figure will continue to grow and parents and families will start to utilise more and more of the resources on the site. Those resources—in addition to a lovely photo of me with my beautiful Freddo in one of the sections—include over 75 videos of people with autism or parents and carers of a child with autism to share real-life experience and to share what autism means and how parents and families can be best supported and access those resources. So it is such a great initiative. It's great to see that this website has been rolled out, that families will be able to get access to information when they need it and that the information is in a centralised place. It has been endorsed by clinicians and experts in the field.
Hopefully, as we move forward we'll see fewer and fewer families being seduced by the charlatans and snake-oil salesmen who, far too often, operate in this space. They take advantage of families at a time when they are most vulnerable.
This site is a free resource, and no part of it is trying to sell families anything. There is no direction to particular clinics. There is no direction to particular providers. So families are provided with information. They can use that information to make effective choices, find good centres around them and understand better how they can support their child and put them on a pathway.
Coming back to autistic adults, for adults who are diagnosed later in life—and we're seeing this happen more and more, as we better understand how autism presents itself, particularly in women, and what it looks like—it is important that they receive support. On this site there is a great level of information and support for those diagnosed and what their next steps are, because it's very difficult sometimes for people to understand where to turn, what to look for and where those supports are available.
So it's a fantastic free resource. It's exactly what the ILC grants were set up to do. They're about providing that tier 2 support and providing information to the community, and Autism: What Next? is absolutely one of the best resources to do this that I've ever seen. We are very lucky to have it here, centred in Australia, supporting Australian families through that journey. Obviously this is still based around diagnosis and the early stages. I sincerely hope that in future we get to a stage where we have resources that help parents through the different stages of autism.
Here I particularly shout out to Nicole Rogerson, the CEO of Autism Awareness Australia, who does an outstanding job for this community. Honestly, I can say that without Nicole and her clinic, the Lizard Centre, my family would not be in the position it is today, which is that Freddo went off to his high school induction day yesterday. Freddo had a great day. I'm not sure mum is coping as well as Freddo! But, from all reports, he had a great day. The cafeteria was the highlight. And, as only Freddo could pull, he met a classmate who has a PlayStation, which was a good thing, but also found out he had a pet blue-tongue lizard, which Fred decided was a hard 'no' on becoming possible friends!
So, if anyone can work out some of these things, hopefully when Autism Awareness start to do some more work for the next stages it'll help those of us who, as parents, are now looking to tackle all the joyous things that we do for all our children, including puberty—which, when you put it in an autism frame, certainly makes for a very interesting family life.
Also on the website is information provided by Andrew Whitehouse, a leading expert in autism recognised globally. He has recently released a study, which I think has significant impacts for the autism community, showing that gut health issues do not cause autism. We do know that kids with autism can be very picky eaters and that can create problems for them when it comes to their gut health and gut bacteria, but we also know that that does not cause autism and it's not a linkage for which we need to keep providing funding and supports. Again, it's a pseudoscientific claim that's been around—'If you fix the gut health, you fix the autism.' That's absolutely ridiculous. Hopefully, we can start to see the end of those claims being made. Some of the therapies around are, quite frankly, just dangerous, and it's good to see that this very strong research has been done to assist families and make sure that those pseudosciences aren't supported and that children aren't being subjected to these horrific kinds of therapies.
I'll also just take the opportunity, in the last minute, to say thank you to Ryan Norn, who started working with us when he was at the Lizard Centre and is still with us 10 years later. He has been Fred's shadow at school and is now working with him to teach daily living skills. If, at the beginning of our autism journey, I'd had a resource that could have mapped out a pathway for me, it would have been just such a relief, because you really don't know where to go, and, more importantly, you don't know what the future holds. Our kids can achieve so much. Fred cooked dinner last night, after peeling potatoes begrudgingly. These are skills that are important to learn, and it's important that they are taught in the right way. Without the intensive early intervention that we received, we would never be where we are at the moment.
I rise today to speak on one of the motivations which drives me most to be here in this position representing South Australians: the importance of supporting, uplifting and standing side by side with South Australian families, of advancing their aspirations for themselves and for their children.
Family is everything. For most of us, it is the most important thread that runs through our lives, whether it's the family that we are born into or the family that we choose for ourselves and build for ourselves. Building, protecting, growing and providing for family—of whatever size, shape and make-up—is what drives all the South Australians that I speak to. Because, for these South Australians, family is everything. But when family is broken, strained or under pressure, we find that family failure becomes the source of what goes wrong for too many in our communities, for too many individuals and for our society.
Today I want to talk about an issue that is putting many Australians under strain and that has, for many families, worsened during this pandemic: the challenge of balancing work, care and family responsibilities. But, before I do, I want to acknowledge that the Australian family unit has changed drastically in recent decades. Blended families and stepfamilies are more common, as are extended households where more than two generations live under the same roof. This is sometimes in order to address a lack of access to care for younger ones or the elderly; at other times it's to facilitate better care of those in need, those with disability or those who need extra support. In this place we should be aware of the way the family unit is constantly changing and evolving and how that impacts and interacts with how we craft policy responses to these changes. We should take into account the needs of all people, of all families, when it comes to balancing work and care.
Today I especially want to speak, with a particular focus, about the work, family and care situation of workers in an industry about which I am very passionate: retail, fast food and warehousing. Over the past two years, we have found that these workers—along with, of course, doctors, nurses and other hospital staff, among many others—are truly essential. During lockdowns they went to work. They fronted up each day. Many endured the most vile abuse and were expected to manage crowd control on top of their usual duties. Some were expected, amongst all of this stress and pressure, during times when their communities were locked down, to somehow manage additional caring responsibilities. Those caring responsibilities didn't go away when schools were closed, but these workers still had to turn up to work. Cobbling together a mix of formal and informal care was an incredible strain and put pressure on many of these families. Many worked in locked-down parts of our country without having access to vaccines, in part because of the government's appallingly slow rollout.
Despite these sacrifices—which we know were so great—from these workers, they were given the recognition they deserved, as essential workers, far too late. They were given the support they needed far too late. Too often, our retail workers, our fast food workers and those working in warehousing haven't been rewarded for their heroic contribution during this pandemic, and they certainly haven't been rewarded when it comes to their wages. They aren't being recognised when it comes to managing the competing demands of family responsibilities, caring responsibilities and essential work.
In a recent UNSW Social Policy Research Centre study into the work, family and caring responsibilities of workers in these sectors, 55 per cent of participants said they regularly provide some form of care to another person. That could be in the form of caring for a child, a grandchild, an older person, a person with disability or a person with long-term health conditions. This rate is much higher than for the broader population. Indeed, ABS stats of the broader population suggest that one in nine Australians, or 11 per cent, provide unpaid care to people with a disability and older Australians. This report of members of the union representing these workers, the SDA, found that 24 per cent of workers were in this field. The report finds that many workers in retail, fast food and warehousing are struggling to balance the responsibilities of work, care and families.
We need to drastically rethink the way we think about care in Australia and the way that we make and deliver policy about care, because care, whether for a child, the elderly, those with disability or others, cannot be an afterthought in the design of either social or economic policy. Providing care is one of the most important jobs a person can have. Those in formal care work should be recognised accordingly, with good wages, good conditions and real security in the work that they do, and we must do more to value and recognise informal care—the care that our parents, friends, aunties, uncles and, for an increasing number of Australians, grandparents do, particularly to raise children. It is clearly an emotionally rewarding experience for many, and I feel that in our family very deeply. But it can be exhausting. Many will call it the hardest job they've ever had.
There are things government can do to make life easier for Australians who are supporting our society, supporting those in the workforce and supporting our essential workers. For our essential workers, we can help give them better choice when it comes to their care arrangements and how they are managed around their employment, and we can ensure that the benefits that come from the now-celebrated increased flexibility in workplace arrangements are felt not just by employers but by employees, who deserve and are entitled to balance in their life outside of work and to manage and maintain their responsibilities outside of work. We can also minimise the number of workers, in these industries and in the caring industries, who are kept on rolling contracts for years, by giving them security and a stronger hand when negotiating rosters.
The UNSW report I referred to earlier highlights a number of key findings when it comes to managing work and caring responsibilities, the first—and this will come as no surprise to anyone paying attention to this sector—being that access to formal early education and care is one of the most significant barriers. Of course, this matters not just in terms of supporting care arrangements but also in terms of supporting the early development of children, which I have spoken about extensively in this place. But, when it comes to supporting care arrangements to enable parents to participate in essential work, they are hampered by the cost of child care, which is preventing too many families from participating. Childcare fees have skyrocketed under this government. In fact, they've gone up by almost 40 per cent since the Liberals were elected. For many families, this is holding back their aspirations and their opportunities in work. Of those surveyed in the UNSW report, 43 per cent of mothers and 35 per cent of fathers with children under 12 wanted to work more hours but were unable to because they couldn't access care. Many reported turning down shifts—care was so expensive they were better off staying at home. This is a crucial point to consider when we hear about labour shortages, as we have in recent weeks, and yet, knowing all of this, the Morrison government has proposed a childcare policy which doesn't go nearly far enough. It rips any extra support away from families with two children in care, once the older child goes to school, and completely leaves out parents with one child in care, which is 74 per cent of families.
Australian families pay some of the highest rates of child care in the world, and that's why Labor has a plan to relieve this pressure. We have a plan to increase the childcare subsidy rate for every Australian family earning less than $530,000. Beyond the issue of access to child care, we know too that, while so many workers have benefitted from Labor's nation-changing reform of paid parental leave, there is still more work to do in this project. We know that the fact that superannuation is not paid on parental leave payments contributes to the super gap and to the fact that women in their older age are part of the fastest-growing cohort of people experiencing homelessness and poverty. There are things we can do about that .There are policy choices we can make to fix that and to enhance it, just as there are in care.
We owe our essential workers, who have endured so much during this pandemic, who not only have taken on the additional burdens of the stress of this work during these difficult times but have still had to manage and balance their care and family responsibilities with their work and have felt so unsupported in doing so. These workers deserve better. They deserve a clearer look at our policy levers to make sure they are supported, and they deserve acknowledgement not just in thanks but in their pay, their conditions and the support we give them.
[by video link] It has been nearly 10 years since I gave my first senator's statement in this chamber. The most important thing I talked about that day was one of the key reasons I came into parliament, which was to tackle what I think is one of the largest pollution issues on the planet—plastic in our oceans. Throughout the last 10 years, we've made great progress right around the country at a state level and at a federal level. I was actually the first person, according to Hansard, to speak in the Senate about plastic pollution, which is quite extraordinary when you think about what a big issue it is now. Unfortunately, we've still got a long way to go. It is almost exactly a year ago today that this chamber had a colossal debate about fixing the waste crisis, when the government brought their waste reduction bill to the Senate. The Greens proposed two significant amendments to that waste reduction bill, which the government claimed was the biggest reform to waste policy in this country in a generation.
The Greens amendments were based on two very big Senate inquiries, each of which ran for about 18 months. The first one was to ban single-use plastics, and the second one was to mandate packaging targets for the big packaging companies around the country. Under the Australian Packaging Covenant over many, many years in its various forms, voluntary targets were set and, of course, were never met. In fact, the Packaging Covenant failed miserably to increase recycling rates, compostability or recycling content—a number of key things that we need if we are to address the waste crisis.
The Greens worked with environmental groups, social groups and a whole range of other stakeholders around the country. We had nearly two million Australians lobbying their local MPs last year to support the Greens amendments in this chamber. It was a very significant campaign to actually take some solid steps to fix the waste crisis in this country. Our message was very clear. We said: 'The time for voluntary targets for big packaging companies is over. This is a significant opportunity to mandate the kinds of recycling targets that we want to see if we're actually going to fix the waste crisis in this country.'
We'd had a short, sharp Senate inquiry into a Greens bill prior to that, which our amendments were based on. We received evidence from the Packaging Covenant Organisation, from companies like the big retailers, like Woolworths, and from the Australian Food and Grocery Council that they were confident that they would meet their 2025 targets and that they didn't need mandatory targets. I thought we had the Senate's support to amend the government's legislation and send it back to the House, but, as they so often do, One Nation backflipped at the last minute. It was a tied vote, and our amendments went down.
One year later, I could say, 'I told you so.' Just in the last week we've received a report from APCO, entitled APCO Collective Impact Report, which revealed their progress towards their 2025 targets. I was hoping to talk with APCO this morning before this speech, but for technical reasons I was unable to. I plan to speak to them in the next few days. What is very clear is that APCO is struggling to meet its 2025 targets under the current voluntary arrangements. APCO is part of a collective approach to managing packaging through the covenant. These 2025 targets were set some time ago. This 2021 report has highlighted a lack of progress in some very significant areas and some very significant challenges. APCO themselves clearly state:
There are still significant gaps to achieve the 2025 Targets for recovery and recycled content.
… … …
The current trajectory indicates that without further intervention, not all of the 2025 Targets are achievable by 31 December 2025.
We're not clear what that further intervention actually is.
Some of the specific gaps they identified in their 2025 targets include: uncertainties about the compatibility of packaging items with current and future recovery systems; recyclable materials that are lost in the sorting system due to size or format type; loss of recyclable materials due to poor source separation by households and businesses; inconsistent state definitions, policies and product scope undermining investment confidence; and capital costs of new processing equipment when changing materials. Part of the government's overall approach to their waste reduction bill was to introduce a number of funding platforms to try to solve these problems, but clearly progress hasn't been made, which is very disappointing.
APCO do put this down to a rise in consumption during COVID in 2019-20, especially with takeaway containers; however, while they don't explicitly obviously call for a mandatory program in the future—because remember APCO and others lobbied very hard not to get mandatory schemes put in place—they have raised the prospect of limited mandatory targets if industry fails to achieve targets through voluntary commitments.
The Boomerang Alliance, who I've worked with over many years—and I know you have too, Acting Deputy President Faruqi—represent over 50 community organisations around the country. They issued a very strong statement. Jeff Angel wrote:
The report is a shocking indictment of the voluntary nature of the targets which are to be met by 2025 and reinforces our call for mandatory targets. This is the only rational response to the revelations that recovery of plastic packaging will miss the 70% goal by a large amount; and recycled content of plastic packaging is 3%, way below the 20% target—
which is what these companies had set themselves.
The Australian Marine Conservation Society also issued a statement. They said:
The evidence is clear, voluntary targets are not working. Without real incentives and clear penalties, it is too easy for companies to put this in the too hard basket.
APCO were a little more upbeat, as you would expect. They said:
The core message of this report is clear—if we are going to achieve the 2025 National Packaging Targets, we all need to do more and the time to act is now. We have seen fantastic progress so far towards the Targets, but we must accelerate our efforts if we are to be successful by 2025.
I found out at the last Senate estimates that APCO have applied to be voluntary product stewardship scheme accredited under the new act. Once they become accredited—and I'm hoping to follow up that progress with them and with the department—the minister, which in this case is Minister Evans, can put them on a priority product list if they're not achieving their voluntary targets. Once they have been on that priority list the minister can then legally implement mandatory product stewardship schemes to make sure that they do meet their targets and, if they don't, they will face severe penalties.
There has been over 20 years of collective failure under this plastic-packaging covenant. Some of the biggest companies and corporations on the planet that make very significant profits have failed to come anywhere near their promises for recycling. This is a significant matter of public interest. Only the parliament can solve this problem. Every time I talk to people about any environmental problem I say to them, 'First and foremost it's a political problem,' because only parliaments can actually fix these systemic issues.
We have a lot of Australians out there trying to do the right thing and putting all sorts of packaging in their kerbside bins at home. We have states now rolling out container deposit schemes—and I'm very optimistic that my home state of Tasmania will have a container deposit scheme legislated by the end of this week, if state Labor stop playing political games with it and get behind the community and the environment. We're also seeing bans on single-use plastics at a state level. A lot of this leadership has come from this Senate and from the Greens in the Senate working with community over the recent decades. I'm very proud of what we've achieved so far, but we can't fall at this final hurdle. Without mandatory product stewardship schemes that hold big packaging companies to account—especially those packaging companies that are free riders, or other companies that are doing the right thing within the covenant—without strong incentives from government, without strong regulation and penalties we will never fix the waste crisis in this country. I think that would be letting down the millions of Australians who deeply care about this issue. We have got a long way to go. The Greens will be bringing legislation before this parliament to fix the crisis if the minister won't do this.
I'm pleased to speak today about one of Australia's traditional strengths and that's the forestry industry, an industry we as a country should be very, very proud of with regard to the men and women right across this country that work so hard, so honestly and at the cutting edge of innovation and technology. It's an industry we need to do more to support, I think, to ensure that it has the bright future I believe it can have. As they say: wood is good, and it's the ultimate renewable. Trees grow. You cut them down, you use them for beautiful products like the ones that adorn this chamber, another tree is planted in its place and the cycle continues. Along the way, of course, it abates carbon. It absorbs carbon. It is a big part of the answer to the issue we as a globe face, as a planet, and that is offsetting our emissions. The forestry industry will play a huge role as we move forward, and that is on top of the fact that we produce these quality products and, of course, in this country, we do it to world's best standards—something I will come back to a little bit later on.
For context, here we are in 2021 with unprecedented demand for timber products, for housing and construction, for appearance grade products, for furniture. For all manner of timber products we have got unprecedented demand, in part because of that fantastic scheme, the HomeBuilder program that was announced during the pandemic to stimulate the housing and construction sector and, boy, has it done its job. That demand is set to quadruple by the year 2050. That is something we need to cater for and plan for and that is what we are in the process of doing.
As a government we contributed $150 million to support this industry, that's on top of what industry itself has done and what state and territory government have done with regard to that need to grow and plan this great industry. Federally we've removed impediments when it comes to accessing carbon credits for new plantations through the Emissions Reduction Fund, by amending the water rule. We've provided support for industries that were hit by the bushfires. We've backed in the regional forestry hubs, which are doing a great job of focusing that industry in parts of Australia where it thrives, where the right conditions exist, where we have processing capacity and also logistic support for the industry. To keep ourselves at the cutting edge—a space where a lot more work can be done—we invest heavily in research and development and we'll continue to do that into the future.
Obviously, though, we face significant challenges in this industry. In terms of growing the plantation estate we compete against other land users. Farmers, graziers, recreational pursuits, urban development—all of these things compete for that finite resource, which is acreage to be able to plant out trees. The bushfires of 2019-20, the Black Summer bushfires, had a massive impact on the forest estate, both plantation and native, putting further pressure on our capacity to meet demand.
There are also some things that are in the power of lawmakers across this country that have contributed to the challenges. The decisions by both the Victorian and Western Australian Labor governments are what I'm talking about here. In both those states they've made a decision to end native forest harvesting, to put an end to that industry. That's a decision I've declared is a bad one. It is a bad one because it is not based on science; it is one that is based on politics. Those who have made the decision know that. The problem is, when we draw a line under such an industry demand for the products that come out of that industry will continue. Timber, like the timber we are surrounded by here in this chamber, comes out of native forests. We need to continue to supply it. Consumers still want to buy it and they will be able to.
The only difference is, as a result of the decisions of both the Victorian and Western Australian Labor governments, people will be sourcing this material from markets that don't have world's best forestry standards. We'll be importing this timber from places offshore, overseas, where, frankly, they don't care about the environment and where standards of environmental protection are not important and where deforestation occurs—something our government, along with over 100 other countries, declared should stop. They will contribute to the deforestation problem this world has. That is the net result of decisions by these governments.
For what it's worth, though, in Australia we conduct DNA testing—and have done recently—of imported timber, to determine whether it meets the claims being made by retailers and importers. It is alarming to see the amount of wood being sold as a certain type from a certain location but is not actually that type of timber from that location and, perhaps, is illegal. Retailers should expect more of this to come. It is upon us to make sure that we source only responsibly and sustainably grown timber, just like Australian producers manufacture and provide to market here.
The Western Australian government, less than two years ago, talked up how important the native forestry sector is. On 3 December 2019 forestry minister Dave Kelly said, in reference to this industry:
The native forestry sector is an important employer and economic contributor that supplies our community with sustainable, renewable building materials and other timber products.
He went on to say:
The native forestry industry injects $220 million into the Western Australian economy each year and supports more than 800 jobs …
If we fast-forward the clock two years, apparently this stuff that was said doesn't matter. How can an industry so proud, so sustainable, bank on anything the Western Australian Labor government says?
Then we move across to Victoria, where we're in the middle of negotiating renewal of the regional forestry agreement, the agreement between the Commonwealth and state that governs how we manage this industry. Without notice—without even a hint of an announcement coming down the pipeline—they announced that they too would be phasing out this industry.
I've written to both ministers, in each of those jurisdictions, and asked them to provide me with the science that they're basing their decisions on. I've given them until this Friday. They've had a couple of weeks to provide it. It shouldn't be hard. It was there to take to cabinet, to make the decision. If it doesn't come to my desk, if it's not returned to me and I don't have that as a basis to refer to, I can only assume that there was no science behind this decision. I have a fair hunch that that is actually the case.
In terms of science and evidence, I point to the work of Responsible Wood. They are a group that are absolutely concerned. They are custodians of our forests, they certify our native forests and they have highlighted some of the concerns we have with regard to decisions being made. They make the point that all of Australia's public native wood production forests in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia are independently certified as complying with the Responsible Wood forest management standard. This means that natural and cultural values are identified and protected, with independent audits conducted annually. This is a practice we've seen in other parts of the world where they continue to harvest native forests.
Responsible Wood also point out that when it comes to carbon emissions the 4th assessment report of the UN IPCC states:
… a sustainable forest management strategy aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks, while producing an annual sustained yield of timber, fibre or energy from the forest, will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit.
So scientists, the people who assess the numbers, who look at the facts, who do the work to understand forests, are saying that we should back this industry in.
I want to applaud one of my Labor colleagues, from Victoria, Senator Raff Ciccone. In this place, last night, he talked up the need for that industry to be backed. He made the point that in Victoria they need to reverse the decision. That is something I agree with him on: reverse the decision undermining the native forest industry. He concluded his contribution to the Senate by saying: 'I look forward to continuing to support timber workers and their communities because federal Labor is on their side.'
One senator does not make an opposition. One senator does not make an entire party. I look forward to seeing what the federal opposition say about native forestry, and forestry more broadly, in the lead-up to the next election. It's a challenge for them. In Tasmania they have form: they shut it down under the last Labor-Greens government. And we know that at the next election the only pathway to the treasury benches for the Labor Party is if they do deals with the Greens, as they did after the 2010 federal election. Heaven help us if that happens again.
So I challenge the shadow minister for agriculture, Ms Julie Collins—who has responsibility, who is a Tasmanian—to commit today to supporting forestry in all its forms, plantation and native, and to call on her state counterparts in the Labor governments in Victoria and Western Australia to reverse their decision. If she does not, it means they do not stand behind this industry. Raff Ciccone is on the right side of history, and I hope his colleagues follow him—but I doubt they will.
[by video link] Recently I met with Hobart based flight attendants who have been stood down without pay, and I'd like to really thank those workers for coming to speak with me. We all know that the border restrictions introduced as a result of the COVID pandemic have substantially reduced domestic travel, and this has had a dramatic impact on airlines and their staff. One of the big concerns is whether, when border restrictions are eased and previously cancelled flights resume, the airlines will have the capacity to deliver those services. A great deal of time and expense is involved in recruiting and training new staff, so it's important that the airlines be supported to retain staff so they can quickly resume flights when needed.
The Morrison government have introduced two grant programs to help the airlines retain their staff. But, as with many COVID support measures introduced by this government, a number of people have fallen through the cracks, including the flight attendants I met with. The grant assists only those staff who are directly employed by the airlines; 28 flight attendants in Tasmania and hundreds more across Australia receive no support, because they are employed under a labour hire arrangement. This makes absolutely no sense. These flight attendants do the same job as their directly employed colleagues and wear the same uniform. If the purpose of the government's grant program is to retain trained staff and the airline's capacity to fly, why does it matter what the employment arrangements of those staff are?
Another program that the Hobart based flight attendants have looked into for support is the $750 per fortnight COVID disaster payment. This payment is available to workers who lose income because of a state or territory public health order. But you have to be working in the state that is subject to the order to receive this payment. So people working in Tasmania could not receive the payment when they were financially impacted by lockdowns in Victoria and New South Wales. The Hobart flight attendants did have some minor relief through this payment when Tasmania went into lockdown for a few days. But for most of the time they've been stood down they haven't been able to access the disaster payment, even though they've been just as heavily impacted by the pandemic as their colleagues in the other states. These workers are struggling to pay rents or mortgages and to put petrol in their cars and food on their tables. It's unconscionable that the financial relief from the Morrison-Joyce government has not come close to covering their financial losses. If relief does not come soon, that is going to put a significant financial and emotional dampener on their and their families' Christmas celebrations.
One of the flight attendants I spoke to had been in the industry for 20 years. Surely they deserve better treatment than this. I understand the need for state and territory governments to put in place the restrictions needed to keep the public safe from COVID, including border restrictions. We know that the economic impact could have been far worse had these governments not responded and simply allowed the virus to spread. My criticism today is squarely aimed at the Morrison-Joyce government and its design of economic support programs where people fall through the cracks. Not only do people suffer financially as a result of these decisions but also, if people are not supported financially to follow public health measures, it undermines the effectiveness of those measures.
Do you remember the refrain when the Treasurer, Mr Frydenberg, introduced the JobKeeper bills into parliament? I do. He said: 'Australians know that their government has their back.' Well, those words rang hollow for the one million casual employees not covered by the scheme, and they ring hollow now for the hundreds of flight attendants not covered by the current schemes. The consequences of the government's lack of support fall not just on the flight attendants but on their employing airlines as well. If any of these flight attendants can get other employment but are forced to leave the industry to do so, I'm sure they will take up that option rather than continue to suffer financially. Given the considerable time it takes airlines to recruit staff and the further time it takes to train them, the airlines may struggle to meet the demands for flights when border restrictions ease.
The airline that employs these flight attendants has written to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, Mr Barnaby Joyce, calling on him to fix this problem, which he could do with the stroke of a pen. There have also been representations to Mr Joyce from the union, the Flight Attendants Association of Australia, and from my federal parliamentary Labor colleagues Senator Carol Brown; the member for Franklin, Julie Collins; and the member for Lyons, Brian Mitchell. A few weeks ago I had an opinion piece published in the Mercury which also called on Mr Joyce to act. But all of these calls have fallen on deaf ears.
I once again call on Mr Joyce to act immediately to extend Commonwealth support to all flight attendants impacted by the pandemic. And if Mr Joyce won't do it, then the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, should direct him to. I urge them to act for the sake of these workers and their livelihoods. I urge them to act for the sake of the travelling public who will need access to flights when border restrictions ease. Furthermore, I urge them to act for the sake of all the businesses that rely on travel, and for the broader Australian economy. This financial support is particularly needed for the tourism industry in my home state of Tasmania. Tasmania has suffered greatly through the COVID pandemic, and we will need interstate visitors to arrive as soon as they possibly and safely can. We are supposed to all be in this together, yet, once again, we have a federal government that continuously and consistently leaves people behind.
I also want to talk briefly about an issue that has been raised with me by medical specialists in Hobart—and, trust me, I've seen a few over the past 12 months. There are three magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, scanners in Hobart eligible for Medicare benefits. All three of these scanners have a magnetic strength of three tesla, or 3T. While modern 3T scanners are the best option for many patients, some patients need access to a 1.5T scanner for safety or medical reasons. This includes patients who have shrapnel in their bodies and patients who have certain medical implants, such as an aneurism clip or spinal metalware. Unfortunately, a 3T scanner cannot be adjusted to provide the magnetic strength of a 1.5T scanner. I'm aware of at least one 1.5T scanner in Hobart. The scanner is safe and it's effective, and around 15 to 20 patients access it every day. But, because of the lack of licences for Medicare-eligible MRI scanners, the patients who access this scanner don't receive any Medicare benefits. Hobart patients who need a 1.5T scanner can end up hundreds of dollars out of pocket, and their only other option is to travel to Launceston, Burnie or Devonport, a round trip of 400 kilometres and possibly up to 650 kilometres. This is especially challenging, as you can understand, Acting Deputy President Faruqi, for patients with mobility issues, and it will substantially increase patient transport costs for the Tasmanian government. Even if patients can get to a 1.5T scanner in Northern Tasmania, this will of course feed into demand for these scanners and increase MRI waiting times for patients in Northern Tasmania.
Demand is already high for Medicare-subsidised MRI scans in Hobart. The Royal Hobart Hospital's medical imaging department has recently written to referring doctors to advise that it is placing a cap on bookings in some specialist imaging modalities. So I am fairly concerned; in fact, I'm extremely concerned that MRI cost and access barriers could lead to delays in diagnosis for some Hobart patients. And, of course, delays in diagnosis can lead to delays in treatment, increasing the burden of disease in Tasmania and adding cost to a health system which is already under strain. Given that MRIs are often used to diagnose serious illness such as cancer, for some patients delays in getting a scan could literally be a matter of life or death.
I've been corresponding with the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Mr Greg Hunt, over this issue, and I have yet to receive a response to my latest letter, which was sent over two months ago. I remain extremely concerned about the health consequences for Tasmanian patients being forced to choose between being hundreds of dollars out of pocket and having timely access to MRI scans when they need them. I'm also very concerned about whether similar issues are faced by MRI patients in other parts of the country, and the consequences for the health systems of those states and territories. Minister Hunt and the Morrison government need to take this issue very seriously. (Time expired)
HANSON (—) (): [by video link] I want to talk today about a few facts that need to be cleared up. Yesterday on the floor of parliament Senator Jacqui Lambie made comments in her speech with regard to the vaccination, saying that One Nation is doing things for money and power. This is as far from the truth as it possibly could be. Our stance is about the rights of the Australian people to have a choice of whether they get the vaccination or not. Many Australians are being forced to have this vaccination against their will in order to keep their jobs. That is a fact. Also, Senator Roberts and I are highly regarded for our integrity and our honesty.
Senator Lambie also made a statement yesterday that One Nation's Senator Roberts released her phone number. Let me just state the facts, because the media aren't prepared to do it. It was stated that we released her private number—that's not the case. You see, that number was put out on a letterhead in 2014. That number was used in a Facebook post on 17 and 19 April. It was posted by her on her Facebook, calling for people to contact her on that number in order to put signage up in their yards. That was a public number. It was a number that she used to tell a constituent that she totally opposed COVID vaccinations and that it was a matter of choice. Well, what a flip-flop she's done! That's not exactly what she said on the floor of parliament yesterday. She's telling her constituents in Tasmania something different to what she says in the Canberra bubble. I believe that Senator Lambie has misled parliament, and I won't wear it because I will not be accused, or allow Senator Roberts to be accused, or for an untruth to be told. I expect the media to get their act together, print the truth and tell the people exactly what happened. I of all people understand the privacy of a phone number because I have been through a hell of a lot more over the years than Senator Jacqui Lambie has. I see this as nothing but crocodile tears and having a go at One Nation again, and I won't stand for it.
I'm disgusted with Senator Wong and Senator Birmingham because I believe that yesterday they colluded to allow her the time to make her statement. We had no idea what was happening, and they tried to deny us access to respond to what was stated on the floor of parliament—although I've got to say that Senator Birmingham did allow it, and he got the case across for Senator Roberts to have a say. But that's not what they wanted. They wanted to try to discredit us.
Let me also now go to COVID. Yesterday the public saw the rantings of—I've got to say, going back to Senator Lambie, it's very important for people to know that she put her speech up on her Facebook page. She's had over 17½ thousand comments, and isn't it interesting that 85 to 90 per cent of the people are absolutely disgusted and call her statement 'unhinged' and 'childish'. Those aren't my words; those are their words—but I can't disagree with them. Then again, one post said: 'Absolutely saddened by your display today, Senator Jacqui Lambie. You just showed how divisive, hypocritical and prejudiced you really are.' And that was only one post. I suggest that people go and have a look at the posts, because people are absolutely furious about their rights being taken away from them.
I would say that the person who doesn't understand this whole debate is Senator Jacqui Lambie, when she talks about choice. I will inform her that people are not given a choice. People are denied the right to work. They're losing their jobs and losing their businesses. They can't go into the health profession. These are the heroes of last year who were patted on the back for the work they did—unvaccinated, mind you—but now they can't.
Let me now go to a medical health centre in South Australia. It says, 'We'll continue to offer our services to patients who are fully vaccinated.' But it says that those patients who are not vaccinated will need to book a phone consult and pay a gap of $20. So it doesn't matter what your health issue is; you possibly need to see a doctor but, 'Don't come near us; you're not vaccinated!' This is divisive in our society.
Let me also go to the fact that I would like to congratulate and thank those senators who supported my bill on the floor of parliament: Senator Sam McMahon, Senator Connie Fierravanti-Wells, Senator Rennick, Senator Antic and Senator Matt Canavan. Thank you very much for your support, for your common sense and for standing up for the rights of the Australian people. Let me also tell you now about Senator Keneally's rant that went on before parliament. She carried on. Guess what? She didn't even vote; there was no vote recorded. She didn't put her money where her mouth was, did she? And I'd also like to tell Queenslanders that Senator Amanda Stoker and Senator James McGrath were there and they didn't vote. What is their stance on this? They're both up for re-election.
Senator Rennick made a statement in his speech that doctors are being told that they can't talk about anything that's divisive or antivaxxer whatsoever. He was ridiculed in a Brisbane Times article by AHPRA chief, Martin Fletcher, stating that it wasn't really true. He said that the agency did not have the power to deregister health professionals and he added that its vaccine stance was in line with that of the government. That may be true, but, then again, if you read their paperwork, which I have here, it states:
… practitioners must be careful not to discourage their patient or client from seeking vaccination. Practitioners authorised to prescribe and/or administer the vaccine but who have a conscientious objection must ensure appropriate referral options are provided for vaccination.
So if you can't give it then give it to someone else who is going to give it to them, regardless of doctor-patient. It then goes on to say:
Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence—
From who? What scientist? Are we listening to all science? No we're not, because they're shut down—
or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign—
This is what the politicians want for you—
(including via social media) is not supported by National Boards and may be in breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action.
It's stating they will actually be fined or in fear of losing their licences. Why do we think these doctors are in fear of coming out? They will tell us personally, behind the scenes, but they don't want to lose their licences which they've worked so hard for in order to work in the best interests of the public. They're shut down from having an opinion on this. It's disgraceful that this is allowed to happen; it's covering up. Let the true science be said.
I would now like to read a short thing that Nick Cater put in. He was talking about the number of people infected in the past four months of the pandemic in Victoria being four times larger than the number of infections in the last 14 months, and he also said:
Neither have vaccines provided the immunity from infection we were led to expect. It provides personal protection against severe illness but will not slow the spread or remove the risk of death altogether. Victorian health authorities remain coy about how many of the 330 people in intensive care were double vaccinated, but the data from more open jurisdictions such as Britain suggests many of them are. The same data also suggests vaccinated people are more likely to spread the virus than the unvaccinated because they might be asymptomatic and not know they have it. The exclusion of the unvaccinated from public places is untenable on public health grounds unless the object is deterrence through humiliation.
That's what we're up against, and I say to the members of parliament: go and get your facts, know what you're talking about and stand up for the rights of the Australian people. We have to find the answers, but don't deny them the right to their freedoms to choose and don't stop them from working in this nation, wanting to open up the borders to allow millions to come into the country to take their jobs.
In my maiden speech I called for the introduction of the Australian Defence Veterans Covenant, which I was extremely proud to see introduced by this government in 2019. I've spoken in the Senate before about the significance of such legislation in ensuring recognition and thanks for the men and women who serve this country. Recognition is one thing; action is another. The Australian Defence Veterans Covenant states in part:
We undertake … to support all military veterans as respected and valued members of our community.
All Australians should be reassured that the government not only says what it will do but also will do what it says. There is no greater expectation than in defence and veterans affairs.
Many times the Australian government, on behalf of the Australian people, has sent Australian men and women into combat to fight for our freedoms and the freedom of other countries and other people. We sleep safely in our beds at night because of these men and women who give their all. Meanwhile, too many times, governments and bureaucrats have dismissed genuine claims by veterans for rightful recognition.
The men and families of Rifle Company Butterworth Review Group have been tirelessly representing the men and women who served at the Butterworth RAAF base in Malaysia before and during the communist insurgency war from 1968 to 1989. Australia took responsibility jointly with the Malaysians for the defence of the air base from 1970 to 1989. For decades the review group has fought for the rightful recognition of the service and sacrifice they have rendered this great nation. I'm deeply concerned at the likely cost the taxpayer has paid for successive governments and bureaucrats—behind computers—to dispute their claims. Rather than give fair attention to the nature of the claim, the attitude by some has been to assume that the claim is invalid before even beginning to consider the alternative.
Military service is not the pursuit of someone seeking to amass a fortune in funds or other resources. Many of our veterans are doing it tough because they put aside pursuits that may have been more rewarding in favour of serving our country. Too many gave their lives and too many have given their physical and mental health in that endeavour. It is moral that that service should be recognised.
Australia's history has been forged on hard work and sacrifice, no more than through the blood of our Anzacs at Gallipoli and every defence involvement since. Right beside us have been our New Zealand brothers and sisters. When the need has arisen to defend our way of life, our values and our customs, we have fought side by side with New Zealanders.
Australia paid a terrible price in World War I, with 62,000 killed and over 156,000 wounded out of a population at the time of just under five million. That is a substantial proportion. Since then, Australia has never missed an international call for help, sending troops and accepting refugees at a per capita rate that is amongst the highest in the world.
We are a moral people. We are seen by others as being good, decent people from a peaceful country. We have good laws and we believe in a fair go for all. Our veterans continue to acquit themselves in all endeavours regardless of the risks required of them or the threat we expose them to. We don't know them all but we owe them all. It is time to formally recognise Rifle Company Butterworth. The members who served between 1970 and 1989 made a pivotal contribution towards protecting the air base. Their deployment provided such a deterrent that the communist terrorists preferred softer targets than the air base at Butterworth. They knew the retaliation expected on them by the rifle company in defence of the air base would have been both substantial and significant. Many times these communists planned to attack the air base but, equally as many times, they did not. Incidents took place, but no substantial attack was ever launched. People in the surrounding areas slept soundly in their beds because our troops stood watch over them. Previously secret and top-secret documents reveal the intention of the communists. Those documents were sourced from the intelligence resources of Australia and our allies and subsequently located by Australian veterans from the National Archives.
Don't forget: we trained these men to prevail in times of adversity and we should be rightly proud of their efforts. In the first week of November of this year the government of New Zealand, following an independent investigation, determined that their veterans' service at Butterworth was indeed warlike in nature. They cited the volumes of empirical evidence collected by the Rifle Company Butterworth review group and shared with their New Zealand counterparts in a spirit of brotherhood and support for a common cause. At this point, the question is obvious: If the Malaysian government is grateful for the service of our RAAF and Army personnel, including New Zealanders, and considers their service in defence of the air base as warlike, and the New Zealand government is grateful to its veterans for their service and considers that service as warlike, then what are we doing here in Australia? Is this what is meant in the covenant when we say, 'Support all military veterans as respected and valued members of our community?'
Sadly, historically, governments of Australia have ignored those veterans, denying them a voice, sometimes not willing to meet with them to hear of their claim, even going so far as to create a deception to cover up the denial of the warlike nature of the service at Butterworth. Is that moral? At their own expense, the veterans of the Rifle Company Butterworth review group commissioned an independent ethicist to examine their claim. That ethicist group's findings support the claim and purports a breach by the Australian government and the Australian Public Service in denying this recognition. This breach has spanned decades, denying our diggers what is rightfully theirs. The effort applied to denying their claim has been far greater than the claim.
Sadly, a great many of the veterans who served at Butterworth during the period 1970 to 1989 have passed away, and the remaining number is fewer than 2,000 who served for the period of the communist insurgency war. The Morrison government is in the prime position to do what many governments should have taken the opportunity to do so previously. It is time to recognise Rifle Company Butterworth. Not only do the RCB members deserve it but it is the right thing to do; it is the moral thing to do. Again, I will restate my cause for the government to correct a wrong that has been perpetrated on our veterans for over 50 years.
I thank the members of RCB for their service. I thank and honour the service of all Defence Force personnel past, present and future. I would also like to commend the devotion of the Rifle Company Butterworth review group and their families for their tireless advocacy. Wouldn't it be great if those surviving veterans could proudly wear medals in recognition of their warlike service next Anzac Day? The brothers across the ditch will be, as will those who now call Australia home. Now that will be a moral and just outcome.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation really has been taken over by a cabal of locusts who are in an axis of power-sharing with first-nighters who love going to the opera. I think it is time for there to be a review not just of the ABC and the SBS but of the future of public broadcasting in Australia. We have a $1.1 billion woke corporation that is out of control, that has sneered at mainstream Australia and that has failed to understand where the quiet Australians are at. We have a chair of the ABC who believes the ABC is a country apart from Australia. It is time for a commission of inquiry into our public broadcaster. (Time expired)
McCARTHY (—) (): [by video link] I'd like to update the Senate on the developing COVID outbreak here in the Northern Territory. While other parts of Australia, hopefully, start to come out at the other end of this pandemic, the Northern Territory is facing its biggest threat since the pandemic began.
We've just heard news of 11 new cases here in the Northern Territory, bringing the number of cases to over 50. On Saturday, the remote bush community of Binjari, with a population of around just 190 people, recorded nine new cases of the virus. We're now seeing the consequences of the Morrison government's failure to roll out the vaccine in the Territory and to provide appropriate information to vulnerable communities in the time that he had promised he would. As a result, misinformation is absolutely rampant on social media, and I condemn these dangerous, dangerous lies that are taking place across social media. The vaccine is safe, and no-one here in the Northern Territory has died from the vaccine. I need to reiterate that: no-one here in the Northern Territory has died from taking the vaccine, and it's important that our communities, in particular, are aware of that. In fact, the vaccine has saved many lives.
I'm frustrated also with the failure of the Morrison government to ensure that priority groups were sufficiently vaccinated here in the Northern Territory and elsewhere. More work needs to be done to combat the dangerous misinformation on vaccines. Indigenous people were meant to be a priority. We were supposed to be one of the first groups to be vaccinated, and here we are, near Christmas, with a major pandemic on our hands and, largely, First Nations people who are infected. The Morrison government failed in achieving its own target. It must be said—and it must be realised—that that failure leaves us where we are today. Yes, we should certainly celebrate achieving broad vaccination targets across Australia as a whole, but the Morrison government should be ashamed that some of our most vulnerable communities here in the Territory have double-dose vaccination rates as low as 20 per cent.
The government has dragged its heels on providing effective communication strategies to educate and encourage Indigenous people to protect themselves, their community and the wider Territory by getting the vaccine. The government took months to listen to community groups and provide funding to First Nations Media Australia, in particular, to produce and distribute culturally appropriate messaging in language. Unfortunately, for some it is too late, as this vacuum has been filled with dangerous misinformation on vaccines, which is reinforced by some of the Prime Minister's own backbenchers. It's embarrassing to see coalition members turn their backs on science, truth, and the life-saving work of our nurses and doctors. We're already at 41 degrees in the Northern Territory today, and we have health workers out there in heavy PPE gear trying to protect our most vulnerable. They are out there in the Top End humidity of the wet season and in 41 degree heat. These people need our support, not our condemnation.
I'm incredibly grateful for the tireless work of our Territory healthcare staff, who are bearing the brunt of this pandemic. Many nurses and doctors are working far away from their families. We've seen millions of people overseas die from COVID. We've seen hundreds of people die here in Australia—in Victoria and New South Wales. We do not want to see the same disaster unfold here in the Northern Territory. (Time expired)
As the last two years of rolling lockdowns across Australia have shown, access to a reliable, high-quality internet connection is essential. It's not a luxury; it's a utility. It's important that we get it right in this country, yet what we have seen from the government is failure after failure. As is so often the case, the coalition is neglecting regional areas, which have been impacted the worst.
There is no getting away from the fact that the Liberal and National parties have left behind regional Australia, where over 1.8 million homes have been dudded with copper-based fibre to the node. For instance, in Warrnambool, in the electorate of Wannon, just over 400 homes enjoy a fibre-to-the-premises connection. That compares to the over 15,000 homes that are on the government's low-rent fibre-to-the-node scheme. In Hamilton, a nearby town, not a single home has fibre to the premises—not even one.
While the Morrison-Joyce government continues to leave regional Australians behind, Labor has a plan to deliver regional Australia the same high-quality internet access that those who live in metropolitan areas often take for granted. Our plan will deliver regional Australians the broadband they deserve and need, providing full fibre access to almost two million homes by 2025. This is a significant investment in the future growth potential and network resilience of our regions, as well as for small businesses. It is an investment that will deliver 12,000 jobs for construction workers, engineers and project managers in our regions and in our suburbs. It is clear the Liberals and Nationals cannot be trusted when it comes to modern technology.
For some time now, the University of Tasmania, with its own funds and extra taxpayer funding and support from the three tiers of government—local, state and federal—has been transferring from an idyllic park-like Sandy Bay campus into the inner city of Hobart. Whilst initially generally agnostic, if not slightly favourable to the proposal, I admit that I am beginning to harbour some real doubts.
The cost of the move, at hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars, is concerning. The aesthetics and surrounds of the move from the park-like campus to an asphalt, concrete inner-city site makes it less attractive. In recognition of this glaring deficiency, there is now talk about greening up aspects of the city. Again, it is right to ask at what cost and why, when a perfectly good site is already inhabited. During the term, with students in the city, there will be a rich coffee and McDonald's fast food economy. During the vacation, one assumes, the city will be a ghost town. The move into the city has seen the purchase of hotels for student accommodation, which will impact tourism accommodation, which in turn will see the conversion of rental properties into B&Bs, which will put extra pressure on our housing market.
One of the reasons for the move is to provide equity or ease of access to the campus by those from the northern suburbs. It is a very worthy concern, but would an enhanced public transport system help overcome that issue at a lot lower cost? For students from the south of the city, access will be commensurately more difficult. The Sandy Bay site and buildings are dated, but I am advised they are basically functional and capable of being retrofitted and upgraded. In raising these doubts I remain to be convinced and suggest a genuine, independent analysis be undertaken as to the effectiveness and appropriateness of the move. (Time expired)
I am concerned about the recent attempts by the minister for education to incite a culture war over the draft national curriculum created by the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, or ACARA, as they're known. I find his comments on the draft curriculum offensive, pathetic and ahistorical. They should be challenged by everyone who cares about the integrity of our education system.
As part of the changes, students will be asked to debate the difference between commemorating and celebrating Anzac Day. Minister Tudge claims that this would present Anzac Day as a contested idea that could lead to students being taught a negative view of our history.
The minister has also criticised the emphasis on invasion theory in relation to 26 January. To him, First Nations perspectives should be included but not at the expense of dishonouring our Western heritage. Minister Tudge claims he wants students to learn a proper, accurate version of our history. To him, this means a curriculum that doesn't allow students to question the idea of our society, which might not be as free, egalitarian and tolerant as he likes to think. He wants students to never think about Australia's history as full of injustices. He doesn't want students to be given the full facts so they can come to their own conclusions. He obviously doesn't think that students should be taught critical-thinking skills.
We should all be very concerned. Minister Tudge's gloves-off approach to pushing an overly nationalistic, sanitised version of Australian history will undermine the quality of education in this country, and we shouldn't stand for his attempt to whitewash the history of this country.
[by video link] I'm very pleased to be joining the Senate today from Cairns and to talk about the wages of workers in Queensland. What we know is that real wages are going backwards under the Morrison government—it is built into their budget predictions that wages will not increase—and we know that wages have been stagnant for many years under this government, not just through the pandemic but well before the pandemic started. Real wages are going down, and yet the cost of living is going up. People are seeing childcare costs go up. They're seeing petrol prices go up. Insurance costs, in North Queensland particularly, are increasing year on year. And yet real wages are staying the same.
One way that a Labor government—an Anthony Albanese Labor government—will fix this issue is by introducing legislation to make sure that if you work the same job then you get the same pay. I'm very pleased to see that Anthony Albanese introduced this bill in the House of Representatives this week. This is a bill that can't wait until the election, as this issue is so important.
We need to put a stop to dodgy labour-hire companies being used by big companies in Central Queensland, in regional Queensland, to undercut the wages of working people. We know that this leads to more casual work, more insecure work—insecurity in our regional communities. We know that this leads to safety issues on site, where people are afraid to speak up when they see a safety issue. We need to put a stop to these bad practices, and only a Labor government will do that.
It is not surprising to have already learnt that some government members have said that they won't support this legislation. Phil Thompson, the member for Herbert, has outright refused to support this legislation, and I'm sure that we'll see the same from those like George Christensen and Warren Entsch throughout regional Queensland— (Time expired)
[by video link] Yesterday, Senator Lambie falsely claimed under parliamentary privilege that I had leaked her private personal phone number. Senators Birmingham and Wong falsely implied that I had published private information. This ambush was coordinated for the start of question time, in front of journalists, with no warning, so that I could not fully address the false claims and ask Senators Lambie, Birmingham and Wong to withdraw them, as I now do.
The phone number in question was not private. Senator Lambie herself had posted the number to her Facebook page multiple times, as far back as 2019. It's already available on the internet in letters and posts Senator Lambie had previously published.
The criticisms made yesterday were based on the claim that this number was private and confidential. This is evidently not the case. The phone number was already in the public domain and remains so. It's not possible to leak a phone number already in the public domain and nor is it private. The phone number was in the periphery of a post that I'd reposted and that focused on a reversal of Senator Lambie's stance against injection mandates to now supporting injection mandates. The post did not emphasise the phone number nor call on anyone to contact Senator Lambie. Senator Lambie's own Facebook followers condemned her speech against Senator Hanson's bill on Monday. Senator Lambie needs to take responsibility for her own comments and those of her Facebook followers and for repeatedly posting her phone number.
Breaches of privacy should be condemned. Senator Lambie's phone number was not leaked. It was not private. It was already in the public domain. I ask that Senators Lambie, Wong and Birmingham withdraw any comments accusing me of leaking a private number and apologise for them. Both Senate leaders showed yet again that decisions, policies and legislation in the Senate are all too often based on opinions and hearsay, not data and facts. Sadly, for that the people of Australia pay needlessly, heavily, repeatedly, every day.
After months of dealing with snap lockdowns and border restrictions, Queensland is finally set to reopen on 17 December. This will come as a huge relief to many, but it is a source of great anxiety for hundreds of thousands of Queenslanders. That's because 17 December will trigger the introduction of the Palaszczuk government's harsh new restrictions on the basic freedoms of unvaccinated Queenslanders. People who remain unvaccinated after this date will be banned from all hospitality, cultural and entertainment venues. They'll be banned from restaurants, cafes, pubs, stadiums, museums, libraries, public transport and almost every other public place. On top of this, the Palaszczuk government's mandates will see around 100,000 Queenslanders lose their jobs. This isn't just workers in high-risk occupations dealing with vulnerable people. It includes around 31,000 retail workers, 23,000 hospitality workers and 16,000 transport and postal workers—all losing their jobs just before Christmas.
Let me be clear: vaccination is incredibly important. It's the best thing individuals can do to protect themselves from the serious health consequences that COVID can cause. It's also our pathway to living safely with the virus. But there are some people who, for their own reasons, choose not to get vaccinated, and that's inevitable with human choice. People who make this decision voluntarily accept the increased health risks that come with catching the virus. How we treat these people is a mark of our society. We might not agree with their decision, but it is simply wrong to relegate them to the status of second-class citizens. It's callous and divisive, and it will push many to the fringes of our society, feeding the extremism that Labor and the Greens claim to— (Time expired)
RIFF () (): I was very pleased when the Australian government recently threw its weight behind protecting generic Australian names that could be registered by US corporations. Australian Leather is a manufacturer who sold a dozen ugg boots to American buyers. In doing so, they violated a US trademark owned by American conglomerate Deckers. Incredibly, Deckers own the rights to the word 'ugg' and claim that it's theirs to use exclusively around the world. For selling just a dozen uggs, the Australian Leather company is facing millions of dollars in penalties and legal fees. The fight continues, and it is now headed to the US Supreme Court. I'm very proud to say that it is now headed there with the backing of the Australian government.
The case turns on a legal anomaly. In the US, you cannot trademark generic terms in a foreign language, but you can trademark generic English terms. Go figure! This is an inconsistency, but it also cuts against the whole rationale for trademarks. They exist to prevent confusion between real brands and imitators. They should not exist to give conglomerates an exclusive right to use common words and prevent competitors from being able to describe their products. This is the very definition of unfair competition.
It's great that government understands why this matters to Australian businesses with a quality product that some will also hope to export. Nobody should be able to stand in the way of that at all. So it's absolutely appropriate the Australian government fight to protect that right, and I sincerely thank the Attorney-General for doing so.
I rise to speak in support of thousands of FedEx workers and their families. Their livelihoods are being put at risk by the ideological and callous actions of their employer at a time when delivery companies like FedEx have made record profits. FedEx reported a record profit of US$5 billion in June, yet they're refusing to come to the table in Australia. FedEx workers presented a very reasonable offer to provide their families with basic financial security. FedEx have not only refused to consider that offer but have also begun to lock their own workers out of their workplace.
This government—and I'm looking at Ministers Fletcher, Hume and Stoker—loves to get up in this place and talk about union thuggery and worker thuggery, but here's your thuggery right here. Thuggery is a multibillion dollar multinational company refusing to negotiate in good faith with its workers and locking them out for engaging in legal and protected industrial action. When a multibillion dollar multinational company attacks Australian workers and the Australian government refuses to say a word about it, the Australian government is complicit in that thuggery. When is the Morrison government going to give a damn about and stand by Australian workers and stop taking the side of thugs like FedEx, Amazon and Qantas?
In September 2020, I asked the Minister for Finance and his department about infrastructure projects being scoped and packaged so their value meant that only tier 1 contractors could bid for the work. Then and now, there were no Australian tier 1 contractors. That means Australian businesses are unable to be considered for these projects: Australian companies are locked out of bidding for Australian government contracts. This continues to be the case here in Australia and, of course, it's a great disadvantage to those businesses. We see foreign companies squeeze the supply chain and then transfer money to their home jurisdiction, paying very little tax.
The department's position was that there was no requirement under the procurement rules that projects be of a certain size or delivered by a certain type of company. They also pointed out that they're often delivered through states and territories. That's a cop-out. The Commonwealth rules should apply to all Commonwealth monies. We should test the economic benefit that flows from the expenditure of taxpayers' money. That involves Australian jobs, Australian investment and Australian supply chain activity.
I note that Snowy Hydro is a government owned GBE and has the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction and the Minister for Finance on the board. They're now scoping packages of steel fabrication on Snowy 2.0 which rule out Australian suppliers. More than 70 per cent of Snowy Hydro steel will be produced overseas. That is a tragedy and nothing like the nation-building project of Snowy 1.0. (Time expired)
[by video link] Whether the major parties like it or not, people choose to use drugs. It is up to the people in decision-making spaces to decide how we manage that reality and to craft policy that meets that reality, not to ignore it. The Greens believe it is time to take a health based approach to drugs policy. What this looks like in practice is, first of all, the full legalisation, regulation and taxation of cannabis; the federal funding of pill-testing facilities across Australia so that, when people make a decision to take a pill, they have the opportunity to know what is in it; and a doubling of the national funding for alcohol and other drug rehabilitation services.
All these elements are at the centre of the Greens' health based approach to drugs policy that I was very proud to launch a couple of weeks ago. This meets the reality of where the community is at and focuses on getting people the help and the contact with health professionals that they need when they use drugs—when they make that choice. This policy clearly and proudly rejects and moves away from the old idea of prohibition that has been championed by the major parties relentlessly for decades, in the face of all evidence to the contrary. This policy is supported by medical experts across the board as well as by people that work in law enforcement institutions because so many of us know— (Time expired)
[by video link] I'd like to speak about a book launched recently called Writing in the Sand by Matt Garrick. It's the story of Yothu Yindi. It was a wonderful and significant moment when this launch took place because they had current and former band members of Yothu Yindi who were there in force along with their families. The famous band, so well known and loved, achieved what no-one had ever done before them, and I want to talk a little bit about them.
Through music that combined traditional manikay, bilma and yidakiwith contemporary rock and roll, they shared the stories, language and culture of Yolngu from north-east Arnhem Land, right across Australia and the world. Yothu Yindi started as a bunch of Yolngu and balanda playing rock and roll together in the Top End in the mid-eighties. They ended up touring this country and the world. They were inducted into the Aria Hall of Fame, won many awards and became a household name both here and overseas.
The late lead singer's wife, Yalmay Yunupingu, spoke of Dr M as a builder of bridges between all races. A legend of Australian rock and roll, he was also a human rights advocate as well as a pioneer educator. As principal of Yirrkala School, he had a vision to implement Both Ways education. He always talked about balance. Balance was his universal weapon, his message of hope, truth and peace. His unique vision extended further with the establishment of the Yothu Yindi Foundation along with other clan members in 1990, and since 1999 this foundation has presented the annual Garma Festival—a significant cross-cultural event which many of us have attended and learned from. We remember those who passed, especially Dr Yunupingu, a recent death in 2017 and— (Time expired)
Let me take you on a journey to a tall, wet forest in far-eastern Victoria. Rain is falling, filtered through massive trees towering above us. Birdsong echoes around us. There's clear water in a creek nearby, and—look! —there are some small fish and freshwater crayfish holes along its banks. We're standing amongst massive tree ferns, with moss hanging from tree trunks, a thicket of shrubs hiding us away as we sit down, breathe deeply, feel at peace. Last night and tonight, gliding possums appeared, the fluffy greater gliders known as the 'clumsy possums' for their size and habits, and yellow-bellied gliders, sometimes called 'flying shovels', who are known for their piercing cries. There are far fewer of these threatened animals alive today than there were a decade ago, especially after the Black Summer fires and especially after the ongoing logging of their homes. These animals die when their homes are logged—that's the brutal truth.
This is old forest, sacred country of First Nations peoples, yet VicForests, the state government logging agency, didn't even survey this forest for the presence of these animals before beginning to clear-fell it. So it's great news that community groups Environment East Gippsland and Kinglake Friends of the Forests won an injunction against the logging this week. It has stopped for now, and I salute these brave campaigners and the forest protesters who are putting their bodies on the line to protect these special places.
We do not need to be logging our precious forests. Almost 90 per cent of the wood produced in Australia comes from plantations. We can easily shift away from native-forest logging into plantations and farm forestry. It is a political choice to do so. We must end all native-forest logging in Australia now.
I rise to make some remarks about the discussion we're about to have about religious discrimination. I think it's important that we pursue this through the lens of seeking freedom for all Australians. If this parliament is to grant Australian schools more scope to act in accordance with the ethos of the institution then I think we need to look at the long-running issue, which is that too many Australian teachers are being sacked for being gay. I think that the existing exemptions in the Sex Discrimination Act are not fit for purpose. I think that we need to separate the question of ethos from raw discrimination. I don't think that someone should be sacked for being gay. I don't think that teachers will be sacked for being Jewish or of a particular ethnicity, but I do think—and I do know—that teachers are being sacked in New South Wales for being gay.
So if we're going to go down this path of providing schools with more authority to act in accordance with their ethos, which is an entirely reasonable proposition, then we need to clean up this issue where too many teachers—and, indeed, students—are being excluded from schools. We need to align the process so this can be all dealt with at the same time. It's a very important principle and we want all Australians to have access to these institutions, free from discrimination in all forms.
I rise today to speak on the proposed Veolia waste incinerator and in support of the locals who really don't want this toxic project approved in their community. Labor has firmly stated its opposition to dirty and polluting waste in terms of energy projects. This proposed incinerator would be a disaster for the local community. It's only five kilometres away from Tarago Public School, a school that's already suffering from an epidemic of lead pollution and contaminated drinking water. This is not too far from here. Currently in that town, there is no reticulated water; all water is collected from rainwater. Can you imagine, Mr Acting Deputy President Fawcett, the effects on water of a waste incinerator belching fumes into the air in the drinking water of that particular community?
Veolia are not on the community's side. In a petulant reaction to a council motion opposing the incinerator, Veolia decided to withdraw its previously promised $2.5 million grant for the local performing arts centre, currently under construction and which the council had already borrowed against. They're absolutely not dealing in good faith with the community, not only imposing their will without adequate protection for the health of the community but using their power to destabilise the local economy and walking away from a commitment to benefit those who are interested in the performing arts. This is an appalling type of corporate citizenship and a sign of just how little this company regards that local community.
To be clear: the community doesn't want this toxic project. I'm proud to stand with local Labor candidates Jason Shepherd and Anna Worth-Crawford against the waste-to-energy incinerator and for a clean and healthy Goulburn. If only the local member would stand up for the local community instead of spending his time here. (Time expired)
The ABC are a bunch of sanctimonious hypocrites who are protected by this mob over here, who are running a protection racket with the Greens to stop examination of them!
I want to talk about the complaint-handing process. I want to mention someone who served our country with valour, good Heston Russell. Heston Russell has issues with the ABC. The ABC has treated him and his fellow veterans in an appalling manner. Heston Russell has written to the ABC and has got very poor responses from the ABC. Mr Russell has indeed said that he has asked for a live interview with the ABC to go through the issues because he distrusts the ABC so much. Sadly, Mr Russell informed me moments ago he hasn't even had a response from the ABC. And yet they're doing a review into their complaint-handling process!
This is an ABC who didn't want their review into the 2019 election; we had a vote of this Senate to have that document released. The ABC are hiding from the Australian people. It is time for there to be a royal commission into public broadcasting in this country to ensure that the ABC charter is fit for purpose, because, under Ita Buttrose, the ABC is another country—but it is not Australia. It is time that the taxpayers got value for money. It is time for the ABC to stand up for mainstream Australia.
Yesterday I undertook to review the Hansard in relation to a point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wong, and come back to the Senate. The point of order related to the requirement in standing order 72 that answers must be directly relevant to questions asked. Previous rulings make clear that a minister cannot simply answer the question at the beginning of their response and then talk about matters that are not directly relevant for the remainder of their time. Every part of an answer must be directly relevant to the question. It is my intention to continue applying those rulings, and I have done so. I've also previously observed that a glancing phrase in an answer is not going to make someone not directly relevant, but an answer that consists of simply attacking the opposition would not be directly relevant.
After points of order on the first supplementary question I brought the minister back to the question. However, the point of order I undertook to review was taken in respect of Senator Wong's second supplementary question, which asked the minister in his representative capacity his opinion on the views of his colleagues. Past rulings have indicated that, where a question is politically loaded, a minister is entitled to some wider latitude to address the terms, assertions and imputations in the question. I take the view that a question asking a minister in a representative capacity for an opinion of the views of others is also allowed similar latitude.
A point of order was also taken on the Leader of the Government in the Senate not facing the chair when answering questions. As I said at the time, there was no point of order. The requirement in the standing orders is about language, not body language, and requiring remarks to be addressed to the chair. I'm perfectly comfortable with all senators looking to the chamber while addressing their remarks to me.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Why did the Morrison-Joyce government this morning refuse to pass a motion in the Senate which noted with concern 'increasing reports of threats of violence from an extreme element of society towards health workers, health officials, premiers and other parliamentarians'?
tor BIRMINGHAM (—) (): Let me deal firstly with the specific facts in relation to the motion. Senator Wong carefully worded her question and asked why the government refused to pass the motion, not why the government opposed the motion. That is of course because the motion itself was never actually put to the chamber. The motion itself was not put to the chamber because the government, as we have consistently done since the temporary orders in relation to motions were put through this chamber, opposed an attempt to vary the order of business at the commencement of proceedings. I believe we have consistently done that each and every time there has been a move to do so since the change of those temporary orders. That is simply the government's position in relation to the way in which Senate business is managed.
Had the opposition sought by other means to raise those issues then no doubt the government would have been in a position to consider the motion on its merits. In terms of the content of the motion, I say that the government does condemn all acts of extremism and violence and the government does condemn acts that seek to incite violence in any way towards any of those engaged in our public debate, towards any of those engaged in public service and towards any Australians going about their ordinary lives in a peaceful way. Can I say on such a topic that in this place the content, the tone and the manner in which we all engage are important. Much of the debate this week seems to have centred around issues of extremism but also personal attacks around this chamber or across the parliamentary body. They do not help to elevate the debate. They do not help us to stay on the issues. (Time expired)
Senator Wong, a supplementary question?
I also say to the minister the motion that he and his party refused to pass included this:
… condemns those in public office who have, for their own political gain, sought to diminish the collective achievements of Australians by dividing the nation, stoking anger and fear, inciting violence or lending sympathy to the actions of ideologically motivated extremists.
Why did you refuse to pass that? And I invite you to indicate what will be required to enable you to support such a motion.
I do, as I did in the previous answer, condemn those who engage in violence or who incite violence, whatever walk of life they come from, be they public officials, members of parliament or, indeed, others who do so.
In relation to the motion itself, I was very clear in the primary answer that the government was simply operating with the same convention we have for any motions that have come forward at that time. The opposition has taken a different approach, sometimes supporting suspensions, sometimes not, sometimes proposing it. That's the opposition's perspective. The government's view is, when we took the motions policy reforms in this place, we ought to then also ensure we are held to a consistent approach, in that regard, and we have done so. Of course, motions put through the normal processes, the government will consider, in terms of when they come up in this chamber.
Senator Wong, a second supplementary?
Will the minister agree to, jointly, move and debate this motion next week?
I'm always happy to engage in discussions with those around the chamber in relation to matters that are progressed in good faith. I'm always happy to ensure that we can, where necessary, come together to make unifying statements on behalf of the parliament and the nation. It's important that we do that. I don't much like process that engages in stunts.
I do think it is also important, in doing so, that we work cooperatively in relation to the text of such matters. That has been the case on many, many occasions in relation to statements that are sought to be pursued in a bipartisan context. Of course, I would respond constructively if we wanted to work through that process. I think that whilst celebrating Australia's enormous achievements in relation to COVID, we need to acknowledge there have been debates around policy responses to COVID. It's legitimate to debate policy responses but never to do so in a violent way. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Women's Safety, Senator Ruston. How is the Liberal-National government boosting the capacity of frontline domestic violence services?
I thank Senator Chandler for that question. This government, the Morrison-Joyce government, is absolutely focused on making sure that we have an Australia that is free of violence. That's why in the budget this year, the 2021-22 budget, we committed the largest amount of money—a $1.1 billion package—to ensure women's safety.
This is an historic package. It is a down payment to make sure that we move towards zero violence in this country. But we know every Australian has a role to play in ending violence, and that's why we have committed a $260 million package to work with the states and territories to make sure that they are able to provide frontline services, making sure that they are providing opportunities for their frontline workers and also developing and increasing capacity in the family and domestic violence sector.
In providing this commitment as a partnership to the states and territories, this $260 million partnership over two years—that's a lot more than $153 million over four years—ensures money goes to where it needs to be on the ground. This commitment builds on the $130 million that we provided states and territories to get them through the COVID pandemic this year and enabled them to deal with the unfortunate increase in demand that we saw during the COVID pandemic. This has supported 450 frontline operations and employed hundreds of new people into this sector, to make sure that women and children across the country are receiving the services they need.
We know that the next National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children must be more than words, which is why I was disappointed this morning to hear Senator McAllister claim that the government had shown little energy or interest in this issue. That is blatantly untrue. I give you my commitment that this government will work and continue to work in a non-partisan way to make sure that we end all forms of violence against women and their children in this country. I urge you to do the same.
Senator Chandler, a supplementary question?
I thank the minister for her response. Minister, how will the government ensure accountability under the next national plan?
The next national plan will be an ambitious blueprint to end family, domestic and sexual violence and it must be more than words. That is why we are investing $22.4 million over the next five years to establish a Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission. The commission will oversee the implementation of the next national plan, with a responsibility for monitoring and reporting on accountability and making sure that we are measuring and evaluating the outcomes that we seek in this space. It will support the government in developing and fostering relationships across the whole sector, between governments of all levels—state and territory, local governments. And making sure that we are working with the sector—but most importantly that we are working with victims-survivors so that we can understand exactly what they need. It is vital to ensure that the next national plan delivers real and tangible outcomes on the ground for women and children in Australia who are the victims of this violence.
Senator Chandler, a second supplementary question?
Minister, how is the government ensuring the next National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children is inclusive for all victims of family, domestic and sexual violence?
We have embarked, over the last 18 months through the COVID pandemic, on a multilayered consultation approach to ensure all Australians have the opportunity to participate and be involved in ending violence against women and their children—in fact, ending gender based violence across Australia.
There was an inquiry conducted by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs which received over 300 submissions into their inquiry. We have conducted two public surveys, workshops and interviews with stakeholders and established the National Plan Advisory Group as well as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander advisory group. The National Summit on Women's Safety brought together—as a culmination all of these forms of consultation—representatives of over 200 organisations so that they could take part in the discussions to inform the next national plan. Most importantly, victims-survivors were invited to participate in this because their voices must be front and centre of the next national plan.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. On Monday I asked the minister about a photo posted by LNP MP George Christensen of Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews on his Telegram account inciting violent comments threatening Premier Andrews' life. These posts were drawn to the attention of the AFP. The minister took my question on notice. I asked again yesterday, but the minister still did not have an answer. Can he today advise what action Mr Morrison has taken in response to Mr Christensen's online activity?
I can certainly confirm to the Senate that the Prime Minister has discussed online activity and the need for responsibility in online activity with the member for Dawson. As it is well known, the Prime Minister has indeed, in national and public comments, urged all Australians to show responsibility in relation to their engagement online. As I understand it the types of comments that Senator Keneally refers to were posted by others in response to the member for Dawson's posts. As we all know, sadly, in maintaining social media accounts, with avenues for people to make a comment, there are times in which people make comments that they should not make. If those comments have been referred to the AFP then it is rightly a matter for the AFP to conclude the investigations that they are undertaking—if they are doing so in relation to any such comments.
Senator Keneally, a supplementary question?
First, I seek leave to table the post from the member for Dawson.
Leave granted.
Thank you. On Monday the minister said he was unaware that Mr Christensen had posted a video of Catherine King MP which incited threatening comments directed at Ms King, and that post was drawn to the attention of the AFP. I asked again yesterday, but the minister still did not have an answer. Can the minister advise whether Mr Morrison has taken any action in relation to Mr Christensen in relation to these threats against Ms King?
I would draw the senator's attention to the answer I just gave. That answer covers the posts in question, the discussions that have been had and the actions that are, rightly, in the domain of the AFP.
Senator Keneally, a second supplementary question?
Again, I seek leave to table documents relating to the issue regarding Ms King—the posts by the member for Dawson.
Leave granted.
Given that the commissioner of the Australian Federal Police revealed on Monday that he has been investigating various threats against parliamentarians and given that yesterday WA Premier Mark McGowan disclosed that threats to behead him and his family were recently made, why has it taken this minister two days to answer questions on this serious issue?
It is completely unacceptable and worthy of condemnation when threats are made against any Australian, including, of course, those of us who serve in public office and are in public life. Far too many of us have seen such threats of violent action and have had to engage with those who work so hard to help to protect us as they protect the nation through our different law enforcement agencies. I place on record my thanks and, I know, the thanks of all senators who have had to engage with the AFP, with Home Affairs or with any other agencies in relation to protection on such matters. In relation to the issues that Senator Keneally raises, as you indicated, the AFP may be looking into certain matters there. They're the right authority to do so. (Time expired)
My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Cash. Can the Attorney-General inform the Senate of how the Liberal and National government is protecting the Australian way of life and ensuring that Australians remain safe from ever-evolving threats of terrorism?
I thank Senator Molan for his question and, of course, I acknowledge his service in helping to keep our country safe. The coalition government's first priority is to keep our community safe from those who seek to do us harm. Since September 2014, when the national terrorism threat level was raised, 144 people have been charged as a result of 71 counterterrorism related operations around Australia; 21 major counterterrorism disruption operations have been undertaken in response to potential or imminent attack planning in Australia; and, sadly, nine Australians have lost their lives.
We know our law enforcement and security agencies are among the best in the world, but we have to ensure that they have the powers that they need. That is why, since 2014, our government has now passed 29 tranches of national security legislation. This legislation has, of course, been crucial in providing our law enforcement and security agencies with the framework and powers needed to identify, target and disrupt those who seek to do harm to Australia, to Australians and to our way of life. However, we now have a significant challenge that has been facing our counterterrorism efforts in recent years. Currently, there are 18 convicted terrorists who are due for release over the next five years and who can still pose a very significant risk to the Australian community. That is why our government has methodically built a world-leading framework to effectively manage those persons over the coming years.
We can't eliminate entirely the risk of terrorism any more than we can eliminate the risk of any serious crime. However, we can take appropriate action. (Time expired)
Senator Molan, a supplementary question?
To the Attorney-General again: how does the recent passage of the high risk terrorist offenders legislation build on and expand the framework that is provided to our law enforcement and security agencies to manage high risk offenders and protect Australians?
As we know from our security and law enforcement agencies, terrorist offenders are typically highly radicalised and often do not change their extremist views whilst they are in prison. Recent tragic events in New Zealand and the United Kingdom remind us of the real and present threat that these offenders do indeed pose. The high risk terrorist offenders legislation introduces extended supervision orders as another tool to keep Australians safe from terrorists. The extended supervision orders will ensure that offenders are subject to close supervision and specific conditions tailored to the level of risk that they themselves pose. These will complement the current regime of control orders and continuing detention orders that are used to ensure that the community is kept safe by managing terrorists after their jail term ends.
Senator Molan, a second supplementary question?
In addition to managing individual offenders, Attorney, what is the government doing in relation to the organisations that plan, finance and carry out terrorist acts?
The Morrison-Joyce government continues to keep Australians safe from terrorism and from violent extremism. Today we have seen Minister Andrews announce the intention to list The Base and the entirety of Hezbollah as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code. Listing The Base and Hezbollah as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code sends a clear message that the Australian government condemns the actions of groups that use terrorism to achieve their political, religious or ideological objectives.
The listings will enable the application of terrorist organisation offences to these groups and align Australia with international partners such as the United Kingdom and Canada. Listing terrorist organisations enables penalties of up to 25 years imprisonment, including if someone is a member of, training with or providing terrorist support to the organisation. (Time expired)
My question is to Senator McKenzie, representing the Minister for Agriculture and Northern Australia. In the first week of November, state and federal agriculture ministers met and considered the recommendations of the pet food working group. This meeting came a staggering four years after dozens of dogs started dying after consuming a brand of dry kibble and exactly three years after the Senate handed down the report Regulatory approaches to ensure the safety of pet food. As usual, there was no outcome from the November meeting. Apparently ministers are now going to wait on a cost-benefit analysis of some kind. Minister, why is the federal government and its state and territory counterparts not acting with greater urgency, instead acting like an errant new puppy by chewing up the paperwork, dropping the ball and running away from taking urgent action?
I thank Senator Griff for his question and for his ongoing interest in this serious issue. My advice from the minister for agriculture is that there remains a high level of community interest in the safety of pet food following the pet food incidents in 2018 and more recently in Victoria.
A pet food working group was established with the agreement of all agriculture ministers, and they welcomed the Senate inquiry into the pet food industry in 2018. That working group has developed a range of regulatory and non-regulatory options for consideration, as you said, by state and territory governments.
ABARES has also updated its 2012 report on the economic assessment of policy options to manage pet food safety in Australia. The report includes options for self-regulation, co-regulation and full government regulation. The reports of the pet food working group and ABARES were considered by agriculture senior officials on 16 September 2021 and again on 30 September 2021. It was agreed that a cost-benefit analysis of all the policy options would be undertaken before making recommendations to ministers on which options should be pursued. As you would appreciate, decisions of this nature that do go to state and territory regulatory frameworks do need to be able to assess how much it will cost, what the unseen circumstances are going to be if we go for the full regulatory option, who is going to bear the cost for that and what the implications are for state and territory ministers as they consider adopting those regulatory frameworks.
Given your usual concern about the efficient use of taxpayer spending, I'm— (Time expired)
Senator Griff, a supplementary question.
Minister, four years is a very long time to get to the point of even considering a cost-benefit analysis, and I'm not sure how a cost-benefit analysis will be accepted by people who've lost many pets over many years. Can you detail what reforms are actually on the table and what changes pet owners can expect to see?
I do recognise the grief that is caused by losing pets, particularly around this type of issue, which could be avoided. I assure you that the Commonwealth is taking its role in this very, very seriously. But, as you would appreciate, working with state and territory ministers can have its challenges in harmonising regulations across the different areas of government.
The other issue that I'm advised has been undertaken is a review of the Australian standard, Manufacturing and marketing of pet food. That was also supported by the Agriculture Senior Officials' Committee, as well as by jurisdictions, industry and other key stakeholders. I think it's important to note that this process has been conducted in a careful and considered manner and in consultation with all the relevant stakeholders, and that there hasn't been consensus on the best option for state and territory ministers to pursue. (Time expired)
Senator Griff, a second supplementary.
Minister, in your view, would any of the measures currently undergoing this cost-benefit analysis actually prevent future deaths of pets from unsafe food?
As you know, Senator Griff, I represent the minister for agriculture and I'm not the minister myself, so I'm acting on advice. But I'm confident that all ministers involved want to see a positive resolution to this.
My understanding is that the Commonwealth agriculture minister has written to state and territory ministers and asked that they consider the outcomes of that review into the Australian standards of manufacturing and consider the desire of many for a positive outcome for pets and pet owners when deciding the best way forward. He has also concluded the pet food review working group, and thanked all the members for their participation. He anticipates that the reports from that working group and ABARES will be made public by the end of this year. As responsibility for the domestic oversight for pet food sits with the jurisdictions, this will ultimately be a decision for state and territory ministers—whether to adopt a mandatory regulatory framework or to continue to operate under the current— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister, Senator McKenzie. Can the minister outline how the Liberal and Nationals government's plan is contributing to the economic security of regional and remote Australia by supporting jobs, businesses and investment?
I thank Senator McDonald for her question. As she knows, from her on-ground experience in Queensland, particularly in the north, regional Australia is experiencing a once-in-a-generation surge in economic growth. This is all while these communities are recovering from the effects of the COVID pandemic, drought and other natural disasters over the recent period. A combination of high commodity prices, strong overseas demand for our agriculture and resources, and good rainfall in most of rural Australia are factors which are contributing to a positive economic outlook, which translates into jobs and a higher standard of living for all Australians.
But while this economic recovery is good news for the people of rural and regional Australia, this success didn't just come about by accident. The Liberal and Nationals government has been investing and delivering in thousands of projects on the ground to help lay the groundwork for our farmers, fishers, foresters, miners and small businessmen and women for the great work they do in the country. We are ensuring that our economy continues to grow, with low interest rates, low taxes and higher and higher employment. We're also experiencing an unprecedented population shift from our congested capital cities to regional areas that has seen a net migration of 45,000 Australians moving to regional towns and cities. This means stronger, more-resilient and more-vibrant regional centres.
Our government's investment includes a record $110 billion in infrastructure projects, in road and rail, including 1,700 kilometres of inland rail to better connect our regional communities and shift product to capital cities, ports and overseas. We've spent $3.5 billion on building dams, pipelines and weirs so that we use our precious resources more efficiently. And we put $5 billion back into communities for drought resilience. In my own areas of responsibility, too, we as a government have made available $2.5 billion to support those communities impacted by 'black summer'. (Time expired)
Senator McDonald, a supplementary question?
Can the minister outline how this will support Australia's economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic?
We know that much of Australia's economic output is as a result of the hard work, ingenuity and commitment of the men and women who live and work in remote and regional Australia. Our investments in infrastructure, connectivity and resilience support these communities to prosper not only in the short term but for many years to come. Eight of Australia's top 10 exports are produced in regional, rural and remote areas. Ag exports alone have grown from $306 billion a year when we came to power in 2012 to $476 billion in 2019-20. Australia's resources and energy export industry has grown from $178 billion when we came to power to $310 billion in 2020-21. That represents a 74 per cent increase over this period. Sovereign manufacturing, from food manufacturing to defence manufacturing, are also growing at record levels. Our government economic management and regionalisation strategy is making a significant contribution to our economic growth. (Time expired)
Senator McDonald, a second supplementary question?
Can the minister outline any risks to our economic recovery if our regions are not supported to prosper and the impact this would have on the broader Australian economy?
Unfortunately, I can identify a risk. It is the risk of electing Anthony Albanese and the Labor Party, who, hand in hand with Adam Bandt and his Green eco-warriors, will choose to decimate not only our agriculture and our mining industries but also the ultimate renewable industry: the great Australian forest industry. The timber workers and timber processing workers right across this country have much to fear from the election of the Labor Party, led by Anthony Albanese, as well as Larissa Waters, Nick McKim, Adam Bandt and all their mates—the Greens policies that will be adopted as a result of their coalition government.
When you talk to the millions of people who live in rural and regional Australia, they say that the greatest risk to the economic recovery to the regions and indeed to the nation is that side of politics, which has no respect for the regions or the industries that underpin our economies. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Women's Safety, Senator Ruston. The Women's Safety Summit's statement was clear: affordable and accessible short- and long-term housing is fundamental so that women aren't having to choose between violence and homelessness. Commissions may be useful, but how many additional houses or crisis accommodation places will the domestic family and sexual violence commissioner, announced overnight, create? Where is the funding to put a roof over people's heads and ensure that victim-survivors have somewhere safe to go when they escape? And does the government support national tenancy protections for victim-survivors?
I thank Senator Waters for her question and for her ongoing interest in this really vital area of Australian policy. The coalition government, under which I am the Minister for Women's Safety, is absolutely committed to putting in place a range of measures to make sure we support women who are making that extraordinarily brave decision to leave a violent relationship. Obviously part of that package has to make sure that there is a safe place for them to go. So far, in both the 2021-22 budget and in the Fourth Action Plan, we have provided support to the states and territories, particularly in rural and regional Australia, including a program called Safe Places, which has provided accommodation for 6½ thousand women and children escaping violence every year so that they have a safe place to go.
In addition to that, we are also working with the states and territories around a program called Keeping Women Safe in their Homes because we need to change the dial here. Instead of making the victim-survivors the ones who suffer the pain, we need to make sure that the perpetrators are held to account, and the best way to hold a perpetrator to account, when it is safe to do so, is to make him leave the home so she and the children can stay there with the support mechanisms of their family, friends and their school and so they don't have to leave with nothing. But only when it's safe to do so.
We also announced as part of the 2021-22 budget the escaping violence payment. It's a two-year program that we're trialling to make sure we get it right. That $164 million-plus program provides $5,000 to women who are leaving a violent relationship so that they can have the necessities to be able to set up a safe new home for themselves and, when they have children, their children. One of the things we have heard very clearly is the fact that putting down a bond on a new place to be able to rent sometimes is the most important thing that women are requiring that assistance for. We will continue to work with you, Senator Waters, and everybody else to end violence against women and their children. (Time expired)
Senator Waters, a supplementary question?
The second edition of Our Watch's toolkit, Change the story, was released today. It confirms the need to address the drivers of violence against women. Will the government fund comprehensive expert-led respectful relationships programs from early childhood education onwards to dismantle the rape culture and gender stereotyping at the heart of gendered violence?
One of the fundamental things we have to do as part of the next national plan is to not just provide support for response, albeit that is an important component of what we do in addressing gender based violence, but we have to stop it before it starts. Prevention is the No. 1 thing we must do, because if we are genuinely going to end violence against women and their children we have to stop it from happening in the first place, so it's extremely important we put in place a number of programs.
To your point on consent and respectful relationships, they are the absolute fundamental underlier for making sure that we have a country that is free from violence, because, as we all know, whilst all disrespectful behaviour does not end up in violence, we can be absolutely assured that every single circumstance of domestic, family and sexual violence starts with a disrespectful action. We must address that in the next plan.
Senator Waters, a second supplementary question?
The women's safety sector have been calling for an investment of $12 billion over 12 years as part of the new national plan to meet existing demand as well as projected service demands. The government's commitments to date and overnight fall well short of that. Can the minister confirm whether the government ever intends to lift its contribution so that family, domestic and sexual violence services are not forced to turn people away when they seek help?
This government's record stands very strongly. In May this year, the 2021-22 budget made a down payment on the next plan of $1.1 billion, the largest ever investment in women's safety this country has seen and that is running in parallel to the final stages and expenditure of the fourth action plan as well as ongoing measures—for instance, 1800 RESPECT, which is an ongoing measure that is funded into the future. This government has shown a very strong commitment to making sure that the resources are available, not just as you talk about in responding to the horrible situation of domestic violence but in making sure that we deal with prevention, early intervention and also the recovery so we make sure that we are providing the resources on the whole journey that we see through domestic violence. I'd like to think, Senator Waters, that you and I were on a unity ticket to end the violence against women and their children. (Time expired)
Opposition senators interjecting—
I remind senators on my left that interjections are always disorderly.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Earlier this month, the community of Wudinna in South Australia were advised by their local doctor, Dr Scott Lewis, that he was leaving, no longer able to tolerate working in a system 'with so little respect for its frontline medical and nursing staff'. He will be relocating to Adelaide at the end of the year. What is the government doing to remedy his concerns about the lack of respect and the lack of support? What is the government doing to ensure continuity of service in Wudinna after Dr Lewis leaves? What will the cost of that continuity of service be to the government? And what is the government doing to replace Dr Lewis?
COLBECK (—) (): I thank the senator for the question and for some notice of the topic of the question, given its very local specificity. I can understand the concern of the residents of Wudinna losing their local GP. My understanding, having had a conversation with the very, very good member for Grey, Mr Ramsey, this afternoon, is that the doctor, Dr Lewis, only came for a short period to Wudinna and stayed for 15 years. He's given great service to that local community and I'm sure the community are very sad he's leaving.
The issue in relation to attracting doctors to regions is a difficult one; it's many faceted. I have to say, I'm really quite proud of the work that this government's done in support of attracting doctors into regional areas. In the 2018-19 budget we put $550 million into the Stronger Rural Health Strategy, and we followed that up in last year's budget with another $123 million supporting the implementation of that strategy.
In that particular area, I'm aware that Mr Ramsey's been very active in working with his colleagues, Minister Hunt and Minister Gillespie, to work on local solutions. I'm advised that Minister Gillespie has also had a number of direct conversations with the South Australian minister for health, Minister Wade, to see what the two governments can do together in support of providing GP services in that local area. I'm also aware that Minister Hunt, following a conversation, provided $300,000 to support a report that's being done by the Northern Eyre Peninsula Health Alliance, which will be handed to Minister Hunt very soon. (Time expired)
Senator Patrick, a supplementary question?
It sounds like a lot of talk and not a lot of action at this point. Kimba has had a doctor for only two of the last six years. Currently, they are being serviced by locums, when those locums are available. Mayor Dean Johnson tells me that they have no doctor in Kimba this week—a week when South Australia is opening up its borders to COVID. What is the government doing to remedy this situation in Kimba?
I reject the allegation made at the outset of that question. Mr Ramsey has been very actively working with his ministerial colleagues and working closely with the South Australian government. As I was saying towards the end of my answer, Mr Ramsey secured $300,000 for the Northern Eyre Peninsula Health Alliance to undertake a piece of work to see what would be the most effective things in attracting and retaining doctors, specifically in the Kimba region. He's actually out there doing the job and working hard for his constituents.
I acknowledge, Senator Patrick, your concern for the community as well; this is an important issue, but it is complex. We are working with that community, providing them with resources, to help come to solutions and facilitate the attraction of doctors into those particular communities, because we understand it's important. (Time expired)
Senator Patrick, a second supplementary?
Wudinna and Kimba, 100 kilometres apart, in the centre of the Eyre Peninsula, soon won't have a doctor in sight. Does the minister accept that there is a real potential for death to occur, from an incident or accident, and the direct inability to respond with a qualified doctor in a short time? Does the government accept that it will be responsible for deaths in these circumstances?
Senator, I think it's really unfortunate that you try to portray any tragic incident that might occur in a local community in those circumstances. There are other provisions that the government puts in place, including specific arrangements with the Royal Flying Doctor Service, which provide support to the regional areas. As I said in my two initial answers, there is direct action and activity being undertaken by the local member, with local communities, with his ministerial colleagues and the state government, in efforts to attract doctors to the region.
Dr Lewis has not left yet but has I think, quite responsibly, given the community some notice that he is going to go. It gives the community and the state, federal and local governments the opportunity to work together to see what they can do to attract additional services to the region in a very complex climate. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Why did Mr Morrison tell the March 4 Justice protesters that they were lucky not to be met with bullets but when protesters marched across Victoria threatening to hang the Premier—and one had a gallows—he spoke about how he understood their frustrations?
It is a problem in this place, in relation to the way in which questions are put and conduct occurs, when statements are taken significantly out of context. I do reject the premise of this question. In doing so I note very much that the Prime Minister at the time, if my memory is correct, was noting that in countries like Australia—
Which indeed is what makes the right of all to protest in this country a safer one and should be a safe one, unlike in so many other parts of the world so tragically. That shows in terms of the context of this question the extent to which those opposite seek to take the low road in politics. We on this side note the appalling absence of questions related to policy from those opposite.
We are proud as a government to be leading a country that has achieved some of the lowest fatality rates from COVID-19, some of the highest vaccination rates in relation to COVID-19 and some of the strongest economic outcomes in managing through this disaster and challenge. We're proud as a government to have seen some 700,000 jobs come back from the worst stages of the COVID-19 economic hit and to see record numbers of apprenticeship commencements occurring as a result of our policies. These are the types of policies those opposite could choose to ask about but don't ask about, because they choose to make it personal and they choose to take the low road. (Time expired)
Senator Wong, I am attempting to give one of the opposition's members the call and you are interjecting across the chamber. Senator Walsh, a supplementary question?
On the weekend the protesters whose frustration Mr Morrison said he understood heard from one speaker: 'Are we willing to go to the absolute end? Is it fair to say that we will go to any length necessary to rid our parliament of those traitorous politicians?' Are these the frustrations that Mr Morrison says he understands?
Honourable senators i nterjecting—
Interjections are always disorderly. I was trying to listen—
Honourable senators interjecting—
I was attempting to listen to the content of the question, which presumably you want me to do, Senator Wong. Minister, you have the call.
The comments that were quoted clearly deserve condemnation. Such comments have been condemned by the Prime Minister, by me and by many others—many times and continuously—during events since those protests occurred. Again, it's an example of the type of character destruction and the personalisation of politics those opposite are trying to undertake, all to cover up their policy vacuum. Those opposite should reflect on the fact that they are continuing to try to exacerbate and to highlight the types of problems and divisions that do not help us as a country in terms of sensibly dealing with the challenges we face. As a country, through COVID-19 we have overwhelmingly dealt with issues sensibly and successfully as a nation.
Senator Walsh, a second supplementary question?
Minister, the same speaker said at the protest, 'There is no doubt in my mind that we are winning.' Would protesters who are willing to go to any lengths necessary still think they were winning if they hadn't been backed by the Prime Minister of Australia?
Again, I reject the premise of that question. The Prime Minister was very clear in relation to his condemnation of violence and very clear in relation to the fact that it has no place in a protest or in any other such activity, nor do those seeking to provoke or promote acts of violence in any way.
For those opposite who want to keep repeating and repeating and repeating a falsehood or an assertion, it is a matter for them to explain why it is that rather than wanting to come into this place and debate the issues for Australians around their jobs, their lives and the many challenges that people face. Pleasingly, we have seen us come through COVID-19 in such a successful way, with some of the lowest fatality rates around the world in this country, some of the strongest economic outcomes and some of the highest vaccination rates. This is a testament to Australia's success.
My question is to the Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy, Senator Hume. Can the minister outline to the Senate how the government's director ID program is making it easier for a small business to engage with government as we reopen the economy?
I thank Senator Bragg for his question. Businesses large and small are at their most productive and competitive when they spend less time on paperwork and more time focused on what they do best. That's why the Morrison government's Modernising Business Registers program will deliver a single entry point to streamline how businesses register, view and maintain information with the government. This new, fast and easy-to-use platform, announced as part of the Morrison government's Digital Business Plan, will bring together more than 30 ASIC registers and the Australian Business Register onto a new modern system at the ATO.
A major component of this program is the establishment of director IDs. As of 1 November this year, Australia's 2.7 million company directors can quickly and easily apply for their new director ID online using the Australian Business Registry Services website. This unique 15-digit identifier takes only minutes to apply for but it will stay with a director for life, even as they move between roles and businesses, and even different countries. In a world of increasing identity theft and cybersecurity threats, director IDs offer far greater identity security than is currently available. More importantly, director IDs will help to level the playing field for honest businesses. They will prevent the use of fictitious directors, help regulators chase directors' relationships with companies over time and better identify director involvement in unlawful activities such as illegal phoenix activity.
To apply for a director ID, directors can very simply log on to the Australian Business Register Service online using the myGov ID app. It's free to apply and available to directors within Australia and overseas. Applications can be made by phone or by paper, for those who need it, but the online application form takes only minutes to complete and their director ID is issued instantly.
Senator Bragg, a supplementary question?
Honourable senators interjecting—
I can't hear you with the masks on. It's hard to hear the interjections.
Interjections are always disorderly, Senator Bragg!
Well, there you go.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Silence on my left!
What a tremendous time!
Honourable senators interjecting—
I can't hear that either, sorry.
Order, Senator O'Neill!
Very good, that's a good zinger!
Honourable senators interjecting—
Well done. I can't hear that either.
A government senator: Send us an email!
Honourable senators interjecting—
Isn't this your time?
I've got enough time to read the question, so it'll be okay; don't worry. Thank you, Mr President. Can the minister detail to the Senate the uptake of director IDs to date?
tor HUME (—) (): Since 1 November this year, in just the first two weeks of the rollout, we've seen more than 70,000 director IDs issued, and 96 per cent of director ID applications have been digital. The Australian Business Registry Services website has had over 500,000 unique page views since the beginning of November alone. These are extraordinary figures, especially given the rollout is still in its public beta phase. They're a testament to industry and the community's support for this particularly important program. With 96 per cent of applications made digitally and online, it highlights business's support for this government's efforts to improve the efficiency of registry service transactions in online settings. Indeed, while the opposition will talk about illegal phoenix activity, only the coalition government will actually address it.
Senator Bragg, a second supplementary question?
Can the minister advise the Senate which stakeholders have said what about the measure and how it will help secure the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic?
The Australian business community has wholeheartedly supported and embraced the director ID program as part of the Morrison government's commitment to cutting red tape for business. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said that the consolidation of business registers will simplify businesses' interactions with government and reduce duplication. Businesses need only tell government once. Similarly, the Australian Institute of Company Directors recognised the program's value as a flexible and technology-neutral modern business registry regime, and its potential to stop criminal behaviour and illegal phoenix activity. Director ID is just one of the many business focused solutions that the Morrison government is implementing to make doing business easier, fairer, faster and safer. It's part of Australia's commitment to being a leading digital economy and society by 2030.
I rise to ask a question of the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. On what date did Mr Morrison first become aware of Mr Christensen's posts which incited threats of violence against Premier Andrews and Catherine King?
A few things in relation to this question: I'm not aware of precise dates in relation to those posts. As I said earlier this week, I certainly was only aware of them when Senator Keneally asked. The next point I'd make is that I think it is important that we are clear in relation to these matters. I've not seen the comments that Senator Keneally has been asking about during the week, but these are comments that have been made on Mr Christensen's posts, not the posts themselves, in relation to acts of violence.
While I'm on my feet, I also wish to correct the record in relation to the answer I gave Senator Keneally earlier today. I understand, as I indicated at the time, that the Prime Minister has publicly urged all Australians to show responsibility in relation to social media platforms and the like in relation to conversations with the member for Dawson about responsibility on social media platforms and the like. Those conversations have been had by the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Prime Minister.
The minister has completed his answer. Do you have a supplementary question, Senator O'Neill?
I would hope that the minister might take the last question on notice, seeing as he was unable to provide an answer to a very specific question. My next question is about another date. On what date did Mr Morrison discuss these posts with Mr Christensen, and was that via telephone or face to face?
I refer to the correction to the record I just gave to Senator O'Neill. If there's any information around dates of knowledge, or the like, I'll seek to bring that to the House.
Senator O'Neill, a second supplementary question?
I'm sorry, Mr President, I actually couldn't hear Senator Birmingham's response. I was listening. I simply couldn't hear his response.
I don't want to put words into the minister's mouth, but I believe he took it on notice—if he could get you further information. Senator O'Neill, a second supplementary question?
Will Mr Morrison ask Mr Christensen to remove his incendiary posts and, if not, why not?
As members of parliament we are all responsible for our own actions and for those actions in terms of the way in which we engage. In relation to the member for Dawson, it is well known that the member for Dawson is a vocal participant in public debate. I again draw the distinction between the comments that Senator Keneally alleges have been posted—of course, I'm sure on nearly all of our different social media platforms we have had cause at times to delete comments that've been made that are completely inappropriate and that deserve condemnation. I would urge all of us, including the member for Dawson, to be so vigilant in doing so.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I just need to correct a figure that I gave to Senator Molan in relation to an answer I provided. I said nine deaths. I meant nine attacks.
I table a document relating to the order for production of documents concerning the income compliance—
I seek leave to make a personal statement in relation to comments made earlier today by Senator Scarr.
The minister was on her feet. She can continue.
I was on my feet for ages.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The minister was on her feet. Pursuant to an order of the Senate, I saw the minister on her feet before I saw Senator Faruqi. If the minister wants to yield, she can.
If it may help, Mr President, Senator Reynolds is responding to an order of the Senate and attendance at the time that was so specified, so Senator Reynolds is not doing anything wrong. Mr President, I would ask, if Senator Reynolds is willing, that you grant the call to Senator Faruqi. She had requested to make a statement at the commencement of question time. Under discussions she had agreed to do so following question time, and I appreciate that cooperation.
Thank you for that clarification. Thank you, Senator Reynolds. Senator Faruqi, you have the call.
Thank you, Mr President. What Senator Scarr did earlier today was a textbook exercise—
Sorry. Was leave granted for a short statement? Two minutes has been granted.
What Senator Scarr did this morning was a textbook exercise in gaslighting and condescension. It should be condemned and Senator Scarr should be ashamed. At a time when far-Right extremism is on the rise, when there has been a refusal by members of this government, including the Prime Minister, to unequivocally and directly condemn the far-Right racist extremists embedded in the recent protests, Senator Scarr instead chose to directly patronise me and call my motives into question. Senator Scarr's assertions and insinuations that I and we on this side are dividing the country are absolutely contemptible. But this is what usually happens when you call out far-Right extremism and racism—as if we are the problem rather than racism and far-Right extremism itself. We need to wake up to the harm that this is causing so many who live here.
Senator Scarr's assertion that bringing emotions such as this is playing politics or constructing a straw man is equally contemptible. This is an extremely serious matter. Just because white, privileged men in here don't face abuse day in and day out, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Believe me, I wish I didn't have to get up here so often to talk about my community being under attack. I wish I didn't have to get up, week in and week out, and call on the government to reject racism and extremism rather than indulging in it. I wish I didn't have to talk about the abuse I face every day because of who I am. But it is the reality of my existence, and this is the reality of what is currently being normalised and, in fact, encouraged in this country. It has to be addressed. Senator Scarr should apologise for his gaslighting and condescension, and the Leader of the Government in the Senate should show leadership and make it clear that this is not acceptable.
I table a document relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the income compliance program.
The government does not make public interest immunity claims lightly and without careful consideration of the particular harm to the public interest. As I've previously advised the Senate, I have carefully reviewed the claim of public interest immunity, and I recognise it would not be in the public interest to disclose the information over which the claim has been reiterated in relation to the legal advice and also to the deliberations of cabinet that relate to the income compliance program.
I will again summarise the basis on which this claim was made. As noted by the Federal Court, there remain individuals whose potential claims against the Commonwealth have not been extinguished. I'll say that again: their claim has not been extinguished. This may include over 5,000 people who have opted out of the class action. Disclosing the information requested would obviously have the potential to prejudice the Commonwealth's ability to defend the claims.
The claim over information relating to legal advice has been made on two grounds: firstly, the long-held practice of claiming privilege over legal advice, and associated documents, obtained in the course of normal decision-making processes of government; and, secondly, the possible prejudice to the Commonwealth in relation to its 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 the normal decision-making functions, without the risk of that advice or the information relating to that advice being disclosed. The availability of frank legal advice to decision-makers within government should be protected as a fundamental principle of good government. To this very point, I note that the Federal Court has previously found the advice that is a subject of this public interest immunity 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 those documents subject of the challenge from Gordon Legal.
Providing a copy of, or information about, the minute requested would, or could reasonably be expected to, disclose the deliberations of cabinet. By making a public interest immunity claim in respect of the minute, the government is doing no more than standing by a well-established right to protect the public disclosure of cabinet deliberations in the same way as has been done by past successive governments, including by those opposite.
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 this year, the Freedom of Information Division of the AAT found that this document was properly the subject of a 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 was provided to the chair of the Community Affairs References Committee in August. These reasons continue to apply.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
I'm sad to see that the minister has chosen to avoid scrutiny, transparency and accountability and has instead just sent another letter. That is not going to cut it. The committee did not lightly make this further request for documents. It is essential that we get to the bottom of what went on with the appalling, failed robodebt scheme that caused such damage and such harm. It is essential that the Senate sees this information. The legal advice goes to the heart of what the government knew about robodebt, what it knew about illegality and what it knew about the impact it was having on innocent Australians—this illegal robodebt, which has now been acknowledged.
I spoke yesterday, as we gave the Senate Community Affairs References Committee's fifth interim report on the robodebt debacle, about the damage it has caused so many innocent Australians. Yes, it was the fifth interim report. We are pursuing this. We are pursuing our claim and our desire to see this core information because it matters. It's important to remember why it matters. It matters because it affects people's lives. I will quote from a powerful piece on the ABC today, in which a Port Lincoln woman is calling for a royal commission into the government's unlawful robodebt bungle, in response to her brother's suicide after he repaid Centrelink payments while also experiencing financial hardship:
Jessica Webb said their mother was contacted by Centrelink this year, trying to locate Mr Webb in order to repay the Centrelink payments he made in 2017 — with the department not knowing Corey had died a few months after the repayments.
"Mum was confused, and had to go through that process to explain he'd passed away," Ms Webb said.
She said the Centrelink staff member explained that Corey had been given an illegal robodebt, and he can now be given compensation through a class action.
To Jessica Webb and her family I want to say how sorry we are to hear about your story. It is awful. It is unacceptable. It is wrong. The government must be held accountable for this. We are pursuing the government over the robodebt bungle because it matters. Ms Webb said:
"I cannot highlight it enough, it is not about money: It does not matter how much money you give us, no amount of money is going to bring my brother back," she said.
… … …
"Compared to some of the other significant amounts, the robodebt probably wasn't that much, but several thousand dollars when you have other debts is significant.
The government must be held accountable. Robodebt was appalling Liberal Party policy, and it has damaged people across Australia. That's why we are demanding answers. The minister's answer is not acceptable. It's just continuing, profound, callous and cruel indifference about the impact that robodebt had on innocent Australians.
Given that we are not able to get the information that the Senate deserves and the Australian public deserves, the Greens feel that, clearly, the only way to get to the bottom of robodebt is to have a royal commission. It seems as though a royal commission is the only way that we are going to ensure a full and independent review of the robodebt program and a forensic audit of the mess, because the government is refusing to cough up the information that we in the Senate should be able to see. Clearly, a royal commission is going to be the only way to get to the bottom of how it happened and to make sure it doesn't happen again.
This lack of transparency and lack of accountability must stop. Yet again this government is hiding information about its failures, denying the harm that its programs have caused, denying reality, covering up, trying to deceive and mislead the public and covering up the legacy of disaster and lies. We've seen this covering up over and over again in this government's operations, this ducking and weaving, this unwilling to be upfront, honest and straight with the truth. We saw it in sports rorts and in the car park rorts, the hiding of information about their corrupt misuse of taxpayers' funds and refusing to hand over information that we deserve to see. This must stop.
We will continue to try to get to the bottom of what went on with this robodebt debacle. But, critically, we need to kick out this callous, uncaring, dishonest government. We need a government that's going to support people, not a government that is just doing the business of billionaires and big corporations. We need a federal ICAC with teeth to get to the bottom of this deception. We need a government that cares for people and that gives people the ability to live meaningful lives. We need a government that's willing to support people, not attack them and then, after they do, try and cover it up and pretend that that awful cruelty that happened and that led to people's deaths was not their fault—because it was. We need change.
O'NEILL () (): I've seen the movie with the repeat and repeat and repeat pattern in it—Groundhog Day, I think it's called. Sadly, that's what it's starting to feel like here in this chamber, with a government that is so profoundly committed to misleading the Australian people and to hiding the truth of their shameful behaviour that they have the gall to show up here—now for the fifth time—and say that it is not in the interests of the Australian people to know what it was that this government found out about the laws when they concocted robodebt.
It is amazing, Senator Wong! It's hard to believe that this minister could come in here and, heartlessly, cruelly and without any care, stand up and say to the Australian people: 'You don't deserve to know. It is not in your interest. It is not in the public interest to know how we stuffed this thing up so badly.' That is despite the fact that over a million people were served with illegal debts by this government and despite the fact that people suffered unbelievably, as they were being hounded by their own government and by legal debt collectors for debts that they didn't even owe. Here we are, and it is the fifth time that this government has had the gall to stand up and say: 'You don't need to know how we concocted this scheme. You don't need to know. It doesn't matter what the legal advice was; it doesn't matter if it was good or bad. It's fine; we're through this now. Turn the page. Move on.'
There are people who aren't moving on. There are people whose lives were shattered by what this government did. There were families that broke apart under the financial pressure of debts. A debt in the amount of $18,000 arrived at the door of a family that was doing the right thing. They found themselves with a letter of debt from this government—an illegal letter—informing them of a debt found to be illegal. Such letters were received by families, and they just broke apart under financial pressure. And this minister, for the fifth time, is coming in here and saying, 'You don't have a right to know about our legal advice and how we constructed this dodgy scheme that has been found to be illegal.' It is not an argument that makes any sense. It is not an argument that holds an ounce of integrity. But it is a reveal—and it's a very powerful reveal—of a secretive, deceptive government that has a mountain of mess behind it, that's trying to cover it up and that doesn't want us to pay attention.
I've made a promise to a few people about things that I'm not going to allow to be left. This is one of them. It involves personal conversations with people this government can never repay. I'm speaking about two amazing women who spoke to me in the course of this inquiry. Their names are Kath Madgwick and Jennifer Miller. Each of them, in separate reports, reported to the newspapers that their sons—Jarrad Madgwick, who only reached the age of 22 years, and Rhys Cauzzo, who reached the ripe old age of 28 years—were so overcome by the pursuit of a false and illegal debt pushed on them by their government that they could not see a way out of it. They could not see a way forward. And those two mothers grieve their sons because their government impacts on people's lives. This isn't a game! This isn't a debating society where we come in and pretend. What we do here has real and powerful impacts on the lives of people—and, sadly, on the deaths of people.
Shamefully, this government constructed the robodebt scheme. With his hands in the Treasury, Mr Morrison decided that this was a great little scheme that he could cook up where he could get back money from the Australian people. Then he would be able to go out and make an announcement—Mr Announcement!—and say that he had saved this much money. In doing so, he chased the Australian people down illegally. This claim from the government that a public interest immunity should apply to this piece of information, the information we requested, simply cannot be allowed to stand. I alert all those senators from the government who are in here and anyone who is listening that the Senate has made its wishes clear on four occasions already. It says that it rejects the government's PII claim; it said, 'You do not have sufficient evidence and sufficient justification to avoid coming clean.'
I just want to read out a little of what happened to these people. It's from the evidence received from Victoria Legal Aid. Ms McRae said: 'I acknowledge at the outset that I'm on the land of the Wiradjuri people and I'll put on the record this comment from Letecia':
Robodebt feels like a bullying system that affects people who are the most vulnerable.
A lot of people don't know their rights or have the capacity to defend themselves when given an incorrect debt. I don't think it's right that Centrelink comes after people for debts without being sure that they owe money, especially when it's people who are in need of support who go to Centrelink in the first place.
That's the voice of people who are caught up in this.
We have pages and pages of evidence. There is evidence from teachers: a semiretired teacher who took up a bit of casual work and never, ever had any problems with the law or with government. He had never been on welfare, but he was hounded for his illegal debt, which the government actually had to undo in the end, for three years. People talk about the shame that they felt when this letter arrived. They should have the right to believe that their government would never do this to them.
So while the government makes haste to move on and while the government continues to come in here, ignore the will of the Senate and refuse to reveal the documents upon which Mr Morrison concocted this scheme, it continues to insult every Australian, to whom it should be apologising. If this government had any conscience at all it would be stepping forward and saying: 'This is where we got it wrong. This was the legal advice we had. This is what went wrong and it doesn't match with what we've found out. This must never happen again.' But that's not what we're going to hear from a government which feels it's entitled to rule, no matter how badly it does the job. And you can't get much worse than raising an illegal debt against your own people and driving people over the edge. Robodebt isn't a thing to forget, robodebt is a thing to remember. The advice that the government received—or, perhaps, even worse than that, if there was no advice and it didn't receive proper advice—needs to become known so that the mistake that was made by this government is never, ever made again.
We've had this level of refusal to respond to questions at every stage of our inquiry. In hearings, we've asked for facts, we've asked for evidence and we've asked for information, and, once the government initiated its first public interest immunity claim, it has just continued to roll out the same claim over and over again. Amongst my papers here, I actually have the latest letter that has just come in from the minister. It's not dated—because they just photocopy the same letter every time they receive a request. It's contemptuous. It's a contemptuous response to a genuine request from the Senate, on not one occasion now but five! The minister's public interest immunity claim—and, sadly, we're getting a few of these from people—is one of the worst ones that I've ever seen. It smacks of self-indulgence and a refusal to take seriously this action by the Senate to get to the bottom of this matter. And, I can say, I will not allow this to rest, because too many Australians got done over by Mr Morrison and his scam plan. We will not allow that to go uncritiqued and misunderstood. We need to know what went wrong. We will pursue this. (Time expired)
I also rise to take note of Minister Reynolds's statement. This government is at it again, refusing to be transparent, refusing to own up to its own decisions, avoiding requests of this chamber—and I see the minister is leaving the chamber now—and avoiding accountability, including accountability for their illegal robodebt scheme, a scheme that caused hurt and despair, a scheme that caused so much misery that some people, tragically, took their own lives.
I remember the story of Miranda from Melbourne, who was in hospital receiving treatment for advanced spinal cancer when she received a $4,000 robodebt notice. She was unemployed and applying for disability allowance, but Centrelink still took $40 a week from her payments—when she was literally on her back in hospital. I also remember Nathan's story. He was served with two robodebts totalling more than $6,000. He had to move back home and work 50 hours a week to pay back those debts. I remember his words, and his words are relevant to this discussion today. He said: 'I wanted to know why those ministers felt that it was appropriate to use this illegal system and to target the most vulnerable people.' He wanted to ask this government: 'Why did you think it was okay? Why did you think it was okay to take money from the poorest people without giving them the chance to argue their case?'
Years later, here we are. We are still asking the same question: why did this government think it was okay? That is what the Senate is asking this minister today, and Australians, including all the victims of robodebt, deserve an answer. They deserve a real answer from this government. It is completely unbelievable that this question is still being asked. This robodebt scheme, this tragic scheme, is still being covered up by this government, and we still can't get the answers that people deserve. Despite the record of destruction and despair caused by this government's scheme, still today no-one has been held accountable—no-one—especially not the Prime Minister, who of course, as we all know, is the original architect of the robodebt scheme, a scheme that hounded and harassed some of our most vulnerable Australians.
This is the same Prime Minister who turned a blind eye to Australia's largest companies getting billions of dollars in JobKeeper despite making rising profits—that is $20 billion to companies that had rising profits during a global pandemic. Did Prime Minister Morrison or this government hound and harass them to pay back the money? Did they force these companies to deal with the same stress and the same anxiety that they forced on those vulnerable victims of the robodebt scheme? Of course they didn't—because the Morrison government have a blatant double standard. They aren't on the side of everyday Australians. They aren't on the side of vulnerable Australians. They are on the side of keeping their own jobs, not looking after the lives and livelihoods of vulnerable Australians.
Despite being the architect of this scheme, the Prime Minister is today saying that the role of government, apparently, is to get out of people's lives. Well, it's a bit too late for the victims of the illegal robodebt scheme. Get out of people's lives, he reckons. Can you believe it? It is hard to believe the Prime Minister when he says this, after hounding and harassing people with this illegal scheme. The architect of robodebt wants to see government out of people's lives—unless, of course, you are poor. This government are not on the side of everyday Australians; they are only on their own side, the side that avoids transparency, the side that avoids accountability, the side that avoids delivering answers to this chamber, properly requested. Australians cannot trust this Prime Minister or this government. They can't trust them to tell the truth, they can't trust them to take responsibility and they can't trust them to be on their side.
[by video link] I rise to speak on this very important PII claim and the minister's rejection of the request by the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs to table documents about robodebt, the scheme that harassed everyday Australians for debts that they did not owe. I want to speak briefly about these PII claims and about how they're being used to shield not only this minister but also other members of the government from accountability, from scrutiny, from transparency and from telling the truth to the Australian public.
What we know about robodebt is very dark indeed; it is a very dark stain on government accountability and transparency. Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister, has been out there over the last couple of days and weeks talking focus group lines about the government needing to get out of people's lives. Every time the Prime Minister said that focus group line this week—that the government needs to get out of people's lives—it brought us all the way back to robodebt, didn't it? Because we know that Scott Morrison was the social services minister, the architect of this scheme. We know that he was the Treasurer who was planning on banking the savings from this scheme. We know that, as Prime Minister, he has instructed ministers to continue to hide the details that would give so much understanding and accountability for this scheme to the Australian public. At every step of the way, as social services minister, as Treasurer and now as Prime Minister, he has evaded the truth when it comes to the robodebt scheme.
The robodebt scheme was a scheme whereby everyday Australians were sent a letter demanding payment for a debt that they did not owe. We've heard harrowing stories, as my colleagues in the Senate today have detailed, of the effects of receiving a letter like that. I can only speak from my own experience, living in North Queensland. In the aftermath of the Townsville floods that had destroyed the city, people living in Townsville received these robodebt letters. It is a stain on our democracy that this happened at a time when the government knew that this scheme was illegal. That is why we are asking for these documents today, because we need to understand what the government knew. We need to understand what advice and information they were given and how they took that advice into their considerations when deciding to continue the scheme. When it comes to the most vulnerable Australians, this government has a legacy of leaving them on their own. But it gets even worse. The legacy has now become one of taking active steps to grind vulnerable Australians into the ground; that's exactly what this scheme did. It's exactly what the cashless debit card is doing right now. It is exactly what this government will continue to do, unless we know the truth about this scheme.
The PII claims, as the government has claimed, do seek information about legal advice, but some of the information the committee is seeking from Services Australia doesn't relate to the content of that advice. The government is refusing—the minister today is refusing, again—to provide information that relates to when the advice was sought. We can't even get a date from this minister. We don't know who provided that advice, and we're not able to understand the nature of that advice or how it was taken into consideration by the executive at the time.
These are questions that need to be answered, and there is a question about whether the Senate is continually being ignored by this government. The Senate has made a decision that this information needs to be public. The Senate has decided that this information is crucial for the public to understand, and the Senate has decided that the minister has continued to not make out a public interest claim, to not sufficiently explain the harm to the public of having this information released and to not sufficiently explain how general information about when advice was sought—nothing more than a date—would harm the public. That is what the Senate has decided. Again, today, we've had the minister refusing to deliver documents and information as requested by the Senate.
It goes to show that this is a government that will do anything to avoid accountability, to avoid transparency. In a situation where the government has done something so awful to its own people, something so awful that it has meant people have been affected mentally and physically—there are stories of people having taken their own lives because of this action—something so extreme and damaging, the response needs to have utmost transparency.
The degree to which this action was taken and the effect it had means that every effort the government makes in dealing with the aftermath of this situation should be to open up the books and let us see what they knew and when they knew it. The effects of this scheme and the extreme nature of the impacts of the robodebt scheme should, in itself, tell the minister and tell the Prime Minister that this is something they need to fess up to, that they need to make sure that every single piece of information is on the public record—now. They need to make that information available to people. That's exactly why the Senate has continually rejected these PII claims.
I want to bring us back to what the Prime Minister has been saying over the last couple of weeks. He has been saying that government should get out of people's lives. When he says that, what he really means is that we should not be asking this government questions about accountability and transparency, that there shouldn't be a two-way street, that when the government asks you to pay a debt you didn't owe you don't have the same right to ask the government for all the information they knew when they asked you to pay that debt. This is a government that has placed people on a cashless debit card and told them how to spend their own money. This is a government that continually tries to tell people what to do with their own lives. Yet when it comes to what the government is prepared to do, it will not listen to the public. They will not listen to people who have been hurt and harmed by this scheme. And today they are refusing to listen to the Senate, once again.
Well, I think that they should have more respect for the Senate, for the Australian people and for the victims of this scheme, because, if they had respect for the victims, the minister would be marching in here right now and tabling those documents—tabling every piece of information available, publicly, so that we understand, finally and completely, what they knew and when they knew it. The reason that she is refusing to do that today is that Scott Morrison was the architect of this scheme, and we know that, if we have those documents tabled, we will find out that he was up to his eyeballs in this—up to his eyeballs in a scheme that destroyed people's lives.
Thank you, Senator Green, and I do remind you to refer to those in the other place by their correct title.
Really, this is such a cynical exercise. When one looks at the PII claim, one can see that this is really just a letter that has done the rounds, in fact, for years. So it doesn't just rest with this minister, whose concern for people on robodebt and the NDIS is about as sincere as the crocodile tears we have witnessed her cry in this chamber.
Going to the legal advice: one might think that they could have actually mentioned in this letter from Senator Reynolds that they're actually a model litigant. Now, these words will be really quite unfamiliar to Senator Reynolds, because she wouldn't know what a model of anything was. But they are a model litigant, and, as a model litigant, you can't just give a blanket statement in relation to the concerns that the Senate has raised.
Remember: this is taxpayers' money. We all pay—everyone out there pays; people who require assistance, in some cases, pay. This is taxpayers' money, and she has the temerity to say in this letter that: 'We can't possibly release anything at all.' Without actually looking at the request that the Senate has made, she's just given a blanket statement—a blanket denial. Remember: when this letter was written, the government was no longer facing legal action. There is no longer any court action. So, in relation to the legal advice being sought and the date, that would say that she can actually give some of that. So she could actually have a proper look at the request from the Senate. She could actually do that. I know that it might strain her—I was going to say 'two brain cells', but I'll say '1.5'. She could actually look at it and distinguish those which can be answered very easily, including the date. But, again, the date when the advice was sought is of course another cynical exercise, and the reason it is cynical is that the request for the date might actually reveal that the government received direct legal advice and that they knew the scheme was rotten.
The secretary, Ms Campbell, when she was the secretary in the relevant department—she's now gone to foreign affairs—said: 'We've talked about the fact that it was legally insufficient.' 'Legally insufficient' is a bit mealy-mouthed, but that's so much better than the minister! In our system it's the minister who is responsible, for the very good reason that, if the public does not agree with the government, they can vote them out. That is the reason that the minister is responsible, and she should start to act like it. So Ms Campbell says:
We've talked about the fact that it was legally insufficient. We have apologised for the hurt to the people on whom the debt was raised. I too apologise to staff—
because staff were very upset, as you can imagine, if they were taking phone calls, and I'll read out one of these instances:
The Robodebt has had a huge impact on fellow co-workers and myself. To read the stories of suicides and customers' distress in the news made a lot of us feel sick. I have had nights where I could not sleep thinking about conversations, I have had with customers regarding their Robodebts. Some have talked about suicide on the call. To hear a grown man crying on the phone, whose wife had died recently, and he is the carer for his young children, is heartbreaking.
What a terrible instance this is, and not only for the people who were being victimised by this scheme because they were receiving false robodebt notices. Imagine having that and knowing what the staff are going through, and still continuing with it, not actually thinking that maybe there was something rotten in the state of Denmark! But, of course, no, because we've got this minister.
Ms Campbell also said:
We've talked about the fact that it was legally insufficient—
And I hope Minister Reynolds is listening to this, because she might learn something: that her own department can be more generous about this than she would ever dream of being. Ms Campbell went on to say:
We have apologised for the hurt to the people on whom the debt was raised. I too apologise to staff, but I would note that this had been going for some time. For the staff to say, as they describe it in this letter, that robodebt was something new, unfortunately, is just not true. Staff in the agency have to deal with very difficult circumstances on many occasions.
Now, the other question, and the reason for the date when the legal advice was sought, is that of course not only might it show that the government received advice and knew that the scheme was rotten, but also it raises the possibility that the government sought no advice at all. It would be interesting to know. So—funnily enough—the Senate asked the minister who is responsible for providing answers. But she's just given this blanket statement of, 'No, you're not getting anything.' But it's taxpayers' money, and taxpayers have a right to know that their money is being spent appropriately.
Let's go to someone who might know something about the law, as opposed to the minister:
Under questioning by Labor senator Deborah O’Neill, the Gordon Legal partner Andrew Grech told a Senate inquiry on Thursday there was no reason the government couldn’t answer the committee’s questions—
I'm reading from a media report in the Guardian by Luke Henriques-Gomes—
The class-action settlement has been approved by the court, with Gordon Legal and Services Australia now working to identify and process interest payments to victims.
"It would be impossible to see how the commonwealth could legitimately sustain a claim," Grech said. "Whilst technically those proceedings are still on foot [due to the settlement scheme] it's not as if the parties can go back to court and re-litigate the issues."
So, instead of the minister paying attention to a Senate inquiry and the evidence before it, she's just issued this blanket letter saying she's not going to answer anything. It's absolute contempt. But really, what else do we expect from this minister? It is just ridiculous that she's in that cabinet. She's a terrible person.
Senator Kitching, I would ask you to—
I'll withdraw the 'She's a terrible person,' yes.
Senator Kitching, without any comment.
I withdraw.
Thank you.
The second ground she's claiming—disclosure of the deliberations of cabinet—is I think a pretty distant claim. She says she can't do it because there might be a claim in relation to any request. It would be really useful if the minister could have a look at ministerial duty in our system of democracy. I don't want to overburden her, but she might like to look at the Constitution and read a few constitutional law cases. As I said, I don't want to overburden her, because that would be far, far too much for her. But she should go and look at that and understand that in fact there is a duty of transparency and disclosure to the people who are voting for the government. That is an absolute basic fact in our democracy, yet it seems that the minister is unable to understand or pay any respect to that. So really, she should have another look at the questions that have been asked, She should take her letter and read it properly, because she probably hasn't done that; someone else has probably written it for her. And she should actually understand that she has a duty. But, you know, I'm not going to hold my breath.
Having served on the community affairs committee that examined one of the iterations of the issue we're discussing here, I accept very much that this is a very sensitive issue. I just would ask you, Madam Deputy President, to ask those who made contributions to this debate perhaps to draw a line between a minister's professional conduct and personal reflections, be they mental capacity or otherwise, perhaps to temper their remarks and, where they've gone beyond what is reasonably expected of a senator in this place, perhaps to withdraw comments such as those around brain cells et cetera.
Thank you, Senator Duniam. Senator Kitching.
Given that Senator Duniam is so reasonable, I'll withdraw the comments about mental capacity, but the reason I'm so upset about this is that, remember, there are people who have killed themselves, as Corey Webb did—
Senator Kitching, when you withdraw you simply withdraw the comment that has been made. If you could just withdraw and not make any comment, I would appreciate that. Thank you.
I'll withdraw.
Question agreed to.
I rise to seek an explanation pursuant to standing order 74(5)(a). I know the representing minister isn't in here, but the duty minister was briefed. I ask the minister representing the Minister representing the Prime Minister why question No. 4291, relating to AUKUS announcements and submarines, has not been answered.
Yes, Senator Birmingham isn't here. He has asked me to acknowledge the inquiry that Senator Patrick is making now into the status of the questions that were placed on notice just over a month ago into the sensitive matters around the AUKUS strategic partnership. Senator Birmingham has asked me to advise that he will inquire into the status of those answers and get back to you as soon as possible.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the minister’s failure to provide either an answer or an explanation.
The question is about AUKUS, so it is important in relation to issues of national security, to issues relating to South Australia and also to some issues that have been very, very public. In fact, I look at the question and I see the following questions:
(b) on what dates did the Prime Minister discuss or otherwise communicate about the Attack class submarine project with the French President; and
(c) on what date did the Prime Minister tell the French President that Australia was "pulling the plug".
I'm looking to the clerks. I'm not sure that the French President can answer a question on notice through the media. I think that's a 'no' from the clerks, so this question remains outstanding.
This is an important question. It goes to a very important national program relating to submarines. A lot of people ask me: 'Why submarines? Why are they so important?' Let me tell you. At the outset of the Falklands War, as the Argentinians invaded the Falklands, the British media reported that the British had a nuclear powered submarine down off South America in the waters around the Falkland Islands. It turned out that that wasn't true. It was false. But that's the nature of submarines. You can, if you want to, create the perception that they're somewhere they're not. They are very potent tools. 'Asymmetric' is the word that is often used when we talk about submarines. There is a whole range of things that they can do in wartime that other assets can't do as easily. They can lay mines covertly. They can insert special forces. They can conduct reconnaissance. They can fire off missiles. They can sink warships. They can do a lot of things. Of course, we never want that to happen, but it's very important that we have a strong submarine capability such that no-one ever looks at Australia and says, 'We're going to take them on,' because the cost would be too high.
In order to be able to do that, you have to have a standing submarine force that is highly capable and that people understand to be highly capable. The thing that our Navy does during peacetime is make sure that the submarine crews are practised in what they do, so they train, they develop tactics and, in the case of our submarines, they also do intelligence operations so they can go into areas and monitor exactly what is going on. That's a capability that not many other assets have. You can fly a satellite over an area of a country, you can fly an aircraft over a country, but persistence and stealth working together are extremely powerful.
If you ever listen to a police radio scanner for a couple of hours, you will find out that there might be a break and enter taking place three kilometres down the road or there could be a breathalyser being set up down the road or there could be some sort of domestic violence incident taking place. That is if you listen to a scanner for a short time. But if you listen for two or three weeks, you can work out the shifts, how many officers are on duty on a Friday night versus how many are on duty on a Wednesday night and what time they change over. After listening to a few police chases, you will work out exactly what the criteria are for calling off a police chase, what the rules of engagement are. That's what submarines can do. They can go into areas and look and see exactly what is going on in peacetime, such that you will be well prepared in the event you end up in a conflict of some sort. They are very important.
We had a submarine program in place; it was the Attack class submarine. I was one of the first people who raised significant concerns about it. I'm of the view that the Prime Minister made the correct call when he cancelled the program. The program was a very expensive program. It was running over schedule. It was not meeting expectations in industry and it wasn't, in my view, likely to deliver a regionally superior submarine. So I congratulate the coalition for cancelling the program but I don't congratulate them for the manner in which they did that.
We saw on 16 September—I hope I have that date right—the Prime Minister stand up and make an announcement, a really a big distracting announcement, utilising the US President and the UK Prime Minister, whilst he shut down a $2.4 billion program that actually started under this Liberal government and concluded under this Liberal government. There was no necessity, none whatsoever, to make an announcement about AUKUS on the same day that they cancelled the Attack class program. What should have been done is the French should have been brought in; the French should have been told exactly what was happening in the Future Submarine Program. All of the diplomacy necessary to deal with that particular issue should have taken place. The announcement could have been made to the Australian public that we were no longer continuing with that program and then, a couple of weeks later, the AUKUS arrangements could have been announced. The reality is we don't know what AUKUS is really about; there's a study going on for the next 18 months to work that out. There is no reason why those announcements had to be made together and that was a failing of the government.
My question, the question that has not been answered about communication between the Australian Prime Minister and the French President, is relevant to examining what happened in those instances and it should be responded to in a timely fashion. I have a genuine interest in understanding the answers to these questions and it is inappropriate that the Prime Minister has not answered them in the required time frame. This is the third day in a row I have had to rise to seek explanation as to why the Prime Minister is not answering questions directed at him that come from my constituents, who are entitled to know who the Prime Minister works for, who pays the Prime Minister's salary. It's a matter of respect for questions asked by senators on behalf of their constituents to be answered in a timely fashion. I would just remind the duty minister to perhaps pass that on to Senator Birmingham.
The announcement that was made is problematic in many different ways. If we go back to 2009, it was a Labor government then. A 2009 white paper announced that we were going to double our submarine force. It was going to go from six to 12, and it was going to do that within three decades. From 2009, we could have expected that by 2039 we would have 12 new, regionally superior submarines. That was the aim. What we now see with the plan on record is something quite different. If we just go with what has been announced to date—remembering that we have had the announcement saying we're going to do a 18-month study and in 2040 we're going to get a future nuclear-powered submarine—that means in 2039, when we were supposed to have 12 regionally superior submarines, we're going to have five—only five—very aged Collins-class submarines. That just seems absolutely crazy in the context of the very reason for going to AUKUS, which was the 'rising tension'. In 2009, it must have been the Rudd government that announced the 12 submarines, and they did so on the basis of concerns about where things were going geostrategically, and it looks like Defence got that right. They have actually upped the ante, but they have, basically, left us strategically vulnerable.
The Liberal Party would claim that they are strong on national security—but you're not. You've gone from an aim of 12 regionally superior submarines by 2039 to five, aged Collins-class submarines. And that's not a criticism of the Collins class submarines at all. The men and women down at Osborne do a fantastic job of maintaining those submarines. And I'm not suggesting they wouldn't be safe—because that's what people do down at Adelaide: they make sure those submarines are in tip-top shape before they let them leave Osborne, as part of their full-cycle docking program. But that's a very different thing to a submarine that is aged and asked to go into combat. It's like taking a bow and arrow into a battle with rifles. And that's the sort of problem that's created. No matter how much you try to improve the Collins class submarines, some of these brand-new submarines in our region are very highly capable submarines, and I know, because I've been on some of them. I've been to sea on the South Korean Type 214 submarines on a number of occasions—well-trained crews, very highly capable submarines. And I've worked with a number of different navies around this region. Sadly, we've ended up with a situation where the Liberal government—who claim to be strong on national security—have left us in a very vulnerable position.
The other thing that's happened with this announcement is that we've got a whole bunch of people down in Adelaide and, actually, around the country who had committed to the Attack class program. Again, I support the closing down of that program, but the manner in which it was closed down has had a harmful effect on workers down in Adelaide and around the country, and on companies. I won't name them, because Defence can be quite vindictive in relation to bad stories coming from industry, but a company that I went and visited had two to three years worth of work booked ahead on the Attack class submarine. And that work is no longer there. Now, the way companies work—for those that haven't ever had to be a business development manager or a director of a company—is that they have to work and make sure they've got an order book that runs out to a couple of years, to make sure they can plan with their workforce to be able to achieve the objectives of the company. When someone rips out a major contract, that company would not have been pursuing work because they would have known that their workload was set for the next couple of years and they didn't have capacity to do any more. So they would have been resting in terms of trying to develop further business. Suddenly that work is stripped out from underneath them, and it leaves a company, which might have 150 people, saying, 'What do we do now?'
There have been some attempts by the government to deal with individual workers but not with the companies. In my view, the response to companies has been very shallow and harmful. These are good companies. Some of these companies invested to get to the point of being able to tender for a contract to meet the requirements of Naval Group. They got to a point where they were basically ready to go and the contract was cancelled. All of that investment is lost. That is an investment that sometimes comes from the wallets of mum-and-dad company owners. Again, I don't mind the fact that we've cancelled this contract; it's about how we went about it and what we are or are not doing in respect of those companies that have been caught up in this whole thing.
I'm going to continue to ask questions on behalf of my constituents, and I don't think it's unreasonable for me to expect that those questions get answered in a timely fashion. I'm not asking for anything that's classified. I'm not asking for anything that's overly sensitive. I note the Prime Minister might be sensitive about questions about the French President, but the questions ought to be answered on time and it is disrespectful that the Prime Minister hasn't answered them.
I also rise to take note of the minister's response. On this occasion I do agree with Senator Patrick: it is not unreasonable to get an answer—a timely answer—to these questions. But it's also entirely unsurprising that we don't have an answer to Senator Patrick's questions because, when it comes to this announcement and the impact of this announcement on my state, there are many questions which remain unanswered by this government. They are questions which go to the heart of the future economic prosperity of my state—questions about local jobs and questions about local content in the new contracts. These are significant questions, and, by failing to answer them and by failing to have an open conversation with the people of South Australia, this government is creating deep anxiety in the people working on these contracts and in the people who have changed their whole lives to work on these projects, either in South Australia or, indeed, abroad. I've had families contact me from abroad who have found this incredibly stressful.
We still don't know what will be built in South Australia and we don't know when. We don't know precisely how local companies and local content will be engaged. We don't know what the future looks like. Whilst we support the AUKUS decision—we've provided bipartisanship on that, as we should—there are significant questions which remain unanswered, and they need to be answered as a matter of urgency.
South Australians are anxious about this, and it's no wonder they're anxious. Time and time again, when it comes to submarines in our state, to defence expenditure in our state or to local content requirements in our state, they have been misled by this government. They've been led down one path, fed something and then fed something else. They've been promised one thing, then had it ripped away from them. They've been promised something else, and then stepped back from that. Now we've got more than 1,100 jobs on the line that we know about, not including the people working for small businesses, the people working for businesses gearing up to tender for this work and the businesses who have spent money but do not yet have a contract in their hand.
Senator Patrick's right: it takes time, particularly for the small businesses. Not every company is a large company. Not every company can withstand this kind of uncertainty. And the workers are stressed—they are stressed and nervous and they don't trust this government to be honest with them. They don't trust this government to act with urgency. So, when Senator Patrick stands here and asks for an answer to these questions, I'm happy to stand here and support him because my state needs answers. These workers need answers. We've used estimates to do that. We're using the committee system to do that. It's reasonable that on the floor of this parliament we request all that information. We need to know urgently so that we can provide some comfort and assurance to the people in my state who are anxious.
Let me be clear: it's not just the people working directly on this program. It's not just those who are directly employed by Naval Group, although of course it is most critical for them. When there is uncertainty for this industry in my state, it affects our entire state. It affects business confidence in our state, which has a significant impact and flow-on effect on the rest of the economy, on other people's jobs and on the decisions South Australians are making for themselves, their future and their families. South Australians are already stressed around issues of brain drain. South Australians don't want their kids to go interstate for work; they want a bright future for them in our state with high-skilled jobs, secure jobs, technical jobs and jobs which will give them a long-term future in South Australia. But they need answers and they need clarity.
We need to know that this government is absolutely committed to maximising South Australian input and involvement in this. We need answers on that. The South Australian workforce that is working on these projects needs answers on that. It needs that security and that assurance, and so does every single small-business owner and employee who depends on this work in South Australia. Whilst we support the decision, we don't support the lack of clarity. We want assurances for South Australian workers. I want assurances for my state. I want to know about the future of secure and high-skilled work in my state when it comes to these defence projects.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Birmingham) to a question without notice asked by Senator Wong today relating to violence.
I rise to take note of the answer given by Senator Birmingham to the question asked by Senator Wong in relation to why government senators voted against a motion calling on political leaders to condemn, without qualification, recent examples of violent extremism directed at health workers and other groups. Unlike too many senators opposite, Labor does not engage in fantasy politics. We're not trying to nod and wink to those who see a deep-state conspiracy behind every public health measure. We're not playing footsy under the table with peddlers of quack remedies and vicious lies. While all Victorians struggled with lockdown—and I did too—despaired at the lack of connection and worried deeply about the impact of what needed to be done, not many felt the need to attack and urinate on the Shrine of Remembrance. And, fortunately, not many Liberal senators felt the need to adopt the unthinking, dangerous formulation that Senator Henderson chose to.
In September this year, in my home city of Melbourne, just metres away from the COVID wards of the Royal Melbourne Hospital, we saw an ugly, thuggish mob, having just stripped the Bunnings shelves bare of high-vis in an attempt to cosplay as construction workers, set itself upon the West Melbourne headquarters of the CFMEU. Union officials were punched and kicked and attacked with makeshift weapons. A dog was brutally kicked, and I thank the RSPCA for identifying and charging the putrid individual responsible. The union secretary had full beer bottles thrown at his head by some in the mob. Make no mistake: a full beer bottle thrown at a person's head is a prospectively lethal weapon. It is a miracle no-one was killed. But this is the context in which Senator Henderson felt it appropriate to tweet:
I condemn these violent protests but I understand why so many workers are turning against the @DanielAndrewsMP Govt.
She said, 'I condemn these violent protests but …'
If violent protesters had thrown full beer bottles at her office and the people working in her office, I would have condemned it as an act of terrorism. I would have demanded that those involved be brought to justice. I would not have indulged in social-worker-type excuse-manufacturing exploring the origin of their rage. Terrorism is terrorism, and I refer to the definition of 'terrorism' in the ASIO Act:
… acts or threats of violence or unlawful harm that are intended or likely to achieve a political objective, whether in Australia or elsewhere, including acts or threats carried on for the purpose of influencing the policy or acts of a government, whether in Australia or elsewhere …
Terrorist acts and related offences are further defined in the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995. Senator Henderson demanded I apologise for calling out her shameful 'I condemn violence but' tweet—not in one tweet in response but in about 20, but that is Senator Henderson for us. Well, I will never apologise to an apologist for those who quite literally urinate on the memory of our fallen soldiers. Protest is a vital part of democracy. When it is respectful, peaceful and passionate it can be a powerful force for moving public debate. But you will never catch me making excuses for violent protesters or rioters—not for the Black Lives Matter protesters who set fire to a police union office in Philadelphia, not for unironically violent protests that sometimes gather to oppose Australian military interventions regardless of mission, not for any unionist in any situation. Every party represented in this chamber that helps make the laws that shape our nation must fundamentally respect the rule of law and the laws themselves. In a democracy there is no excusing those who indulge in violence to advance their cause or to oppose another.
I will finish by saying that Labor and I will never sit back and say nothing in the face of violence and intimidation in our cities and in our communities. We will not, like some of those opposite, walk on the edge of a razor and talk out of both sides of our mouths in a attempt to pry off a few votes, while our nurses and healthcare workers—the literal heroes of this pandemic—cannot walk proud, holding their heads high, through their own streets without fearing that they will be attacked by those so far down the rabbit hole that I fear they are beyond redemption.
The government and everybody on this side very clearly condemn those who seek to incite violence or engage in violence, and to try to suggest otherwise is absolutely unbecoming. I believe that Senator Kitching is in fact better than what she has portrayed herself to be this afternoon. Unfortunately we have now seen her personally attack Senator Reynolds in quite a spiteful way, referring to brain cells and other things—
Senator Abetz, please resume your seat. That was dealt with at the time. Those remarks were withdrawn. It is absolutely inappropriate for you to repeat them, and I would ask that you withdraw that.
I withdraw that which is on the Hansard. Senator Kitching has engaged in personal denigration of other female senators in this place—not one of them but two of them—and of course she has also engaged in denigrating the Registered Organisations Commission officials, and the list goes on. What this contribution by Senator Kitching has been all about, unfortunately, is seeking to attack and make a point out of something which does nothing for the cohesion of Australian society.
I am sure that every senator in this place condemns those who would seek to incite violence or actually engage in violence. There is no difference between us over the aisle or across the political divide in this country, and that is why we are such a good, cohesive society. Those who seek to inflame the situation, by referring to some who engage in conduct unbecoming, do the cohesion of our nation no benefit.
This time of taking note of answers is an opportunity—especially for the opposition—to put forward to the Australian people what their vision for Australia is all about, what their plan is, what their policies are. But, instead, how do they use the time? To attack individuals. That is what happens when you've got a hapless, sad, forlorn opposition devoid of policies, devoid of a plan, devoid of a vision. What do you do? You talk about individuals. You seek to denigrate the individuals. You seek to point to some social media comment and blow it into something of great note.
The simple fact is, we on this side are committed and devoted to ensuring that Australia emerges from COVID-19 with a good, sound, strong economic recovery, as it is being overseen by our federal Treasurer. We are concentrating on jobs, job security and job development. We are looking at national resilience to ensure that Australia can withstand the withholding of supplies, be it in fuel, in medical supplies and elsewhere. National resilience is a fundamental issue. You would have thought that those opposite, who lust after the government benches, might have a reason and rationale for that desire. But no, it is just for the sake of power, and they think they can achieve that by tearing down members of the government.
The Australian people see through that. They want more substance. They don't want the personal attacks. So we as a government continue in ensuring our defence capability and our environmental stewardship. All these matters are front and centre of our considerations. Whilst the ALP continues to use question time to personally denigrate the Prime Minister, and anybody else they think they can have a cheap shot at, we get on with the business of government, economic development, security, keeping our country safe from COVID and from external threats and ensuring that we have good environmental stewardship.
They're the things that the people of Australia elect us to do. That is what the Australian people want us to concentrate on, not to engage in the personal attacks and partisan politics that, quite frankly, aren't even appropriate for undergraduate student politics. I invite the ALP to reconsider their approach to public policy debate in this chamber. (Time expired)
There can be no doubting that an essential element of a well-functioning democracy is the right to freely express views on the government of the day and the decisions that the government makes. It will come as no surprise to most that, being a Labor parliamentarian and former union official, I have spent my fair time, alongside many others, robustly articulating views on certain government decision-making that was not in the interests of the workers at all. Work Choices is one example.
In exercising one's right to freedom of political communication in Australia, it is important that the manner in which this right is exercised is in accordance with the values that underpin our democracy: respect, civility and the rule of law. I condemn without reservation those who seek to articulate their views through violence or the threat of it. As we all do in this place, I condemn it without reservation. There is certainly a place in this country for protest. One might even suggest that such activity enhances the quality of our democracy. What there is no place for, however, is harm or threats thereof to participants in that democracy.
I am appalled to hear of members of parliament, whether in this place or state parliaments, and their families and staff receiving threats to their lives. We should all be appalled at such acts. This is not what a well-functioning democracy is about. It is our duty, not just as members of this place but as passionate democrats, to call out this bad behaviour in the strongest possible terms.
That's what we are doing here today. I only hope that, in due course, we will all join together and call on the government to do the same without reservation. Failure to do so is being complicit in undermining our democracy and gives tacit approval to behaviour we all know is wrong. It is our duty as legislators to come together and overcome this division. It is our duty not to tear this place down and not to tear down the fabric of our community. Rather, it is our duty to mend those tears when they do appear.
I am disappointed that there are some in the other place who do not share our commitment to this solemn undertaking, and I hope that, in time, they will. We saw some examples today and yesterday which I hope will remain a one-off. We can and should be very proud of the democracy which we, as Australians, have built here in this country. Indeed, unlike others, we have for the most part been spared the perils of politically motivated violence. Yet such circumstances have not come about through luck; they have come about through deliberate action and through a conscious understanding of the importance of always acting with the purpose of strengthening our democracy, not tearing it down.
These are things that I recall as a young student, not just at school but at university: core, fundamental principles of respect for one another. Yes, we'll have the argy-bargy that occurs in this place, but, when you have actions of members in the Senate and members in the other place that put others' lives in danger and their families in danger, you need to reflect on that and ask why. Is it that you're not able to articulate your argument and put it forward in this place? Why do you have to resort to violence? Why do you have to resort to putting someone's life in danger?
In my home state of Victoria recently, the addresses of many members of state parliament were leaked. One must ask why. What are you trying to prove? Like many people in our country, go and protest and do so peacefully. Do it at the steps of parliament, as many, many groups have done for decades on Spring Street. That's what good democracy is about, and I want to make sure that we maintain it that way. (Time expired)
I rise to respond to Senators Kitching and Ciccone taking note of answers from Senator Birmingham to questions asked by Senator Wong. I might be paraphrasing Senator Wong a little bit, but basically her question was why we as a government did not oppose the motion that was put up. The fact is that there was no motion put. So we didn't not oppose, and we didn't vote against—there was no motion put to the Senate to vote on.
If we turn to some of the comments made by Senator Kitching regarding the issue of violent protests, violence and unacceptable behaviour, we did hear from Senator Birmingham. He said, 'Of course, we oppose and condemn threatening or inflicting violence in any form whatsoever.' So he did address it. We as a government and we as individuals completely oppose threatening, violent or inciteful behaviour by anyone.
Those opposite and those in the corner would have us believe that this is all right-wing extremism. It's not. Certainly, there are extremists out there—right and left wing, and other types—and we must always take action against extremist, politically motivated violence. And we are. I'm pleased to say that this year the government has made a record $1 billion investment in ASIO's most sensitive capabilities. This is to investigate, discover, stamp out, prevent and crack down on this kind of extremism and this kind of violence. So we're definitely doing a lot about the issue.
The other thing that we need to look at is why we're seeing this massive rise in violence and threats—fortunately, at the moment, it's mostly threats—directed towards people in government and people in public office. None of it's excusable, but those on the other side don't care why. They don't care. We do. On this side we do, and we recognise that a lot of these people who aren't the extremists are actually pretty normal people who are behaving in a very, very abnormal way—a way that they would not normally behave in. We need to look at what's causing that.
Some of the people I know in the Northern Territory who are going to these protests are not behaving violently or threatening violence, but they are behaving in a way they would not normally do. The reason they have done that is through absolute frustration and through their livelihoods being taken away from them by the government. That doesn't excuse what they're doing, but these people need help. We need to intervene before they get to the stage where they feel their only course of action is to threaten people. And we are doing that. We're making record investments in mental health. We recognise that a lot of the stresses that people have suffered over COVID have driven them to experience mental health issues, and we're investing in mental health to combat these issues.
Those on the other side don't care about mental health. They're not speaking out about it and they're not committing to investing in it. They don't care about helping people through one of the most difficult and extraordinary times that we'll probably ever live through. We need to acknowledge the impacts of this disease and the responses to the disease. Often, it's the state and territory Labor governments which are reacting extraordinarily in taking away people's lives and livelihoods. We need to acknowledge that and we need to provide help and support for these people who are experiencing mental illness as a result of the COVID responses.
Today we asked the government to support a very simple motion: a motion to call on the Prime Minister and all political leaders to condemn, without reservation and without qualification, the threats of violence at recent protests, including in Melbourne. That sounds pretty simple, right? Well, it's not simple for the Morrison government, because this government wouldn't even allow that important motion to be put. On behalf of all Victorians, I have to say that I am completely disgusted by that decision. It's a disgrace that the government would not allow that motion to be put today—that the government wouldn't take the step that was offered to it to offer the leadership that we need for Victoria and for the country to absolutely, unequivocally and without qualification and reservation condemn the violent protests and threats of violence to politicians, to their families and to our democracy. It is a disgrace!
It is Victorians who are seeing the worst of all of this right now. It is Victorians who are experiencing the violent threats and the disgusting actions of these people, who are threatening our democracy in Victoria. Now it seems, unfortunately, that these threats are being spread around the country. In my home state we have seen attacks on essential workers. We have seen nurses who have been trying to vaccinate people spat on. In Melbourne we have seen protests, as Senator Kitching said, at our shrine, and we have seen the shrine desecrated by violent protesters. We have seen protestors out the front of parliament with gallows, with mocked-up nooses, chanting: 'Hang Dan Andrews! Hang Dan Andrews!'
All we were asking for today was for the government to support a motion—to allow it to be moved—calling on the Prime Minister and all political leaders to condemn, without reservation or qualification, these sorts of threats of violence. And they refused. It is a complete disgrace. In Victoria we are seeing not only members of parliament being threatened but also their families. We are seeing death threats to the Premier in Victoria, and now in other states as well. We are seeing these protests spread. We are seeing members of parliament in other states receiving the same threats and needing protection. There were speakers at a rally this weekend claiming that they would go to any lengths necessary to rid our parliament of these 'traitorous politicians'.
This needs to end. This needs to be put to an end now. What we need is for the Prime Minister to stand up. We need the Prime Minister to lead. We need the Prime Minister to get out of the gutter, where he is scrounging around for votes right now, and actually call this behaviour out, from the highest elected office in the land, and to call it out without reservation—to call it out now, to join us on the Labor side and call out this violent behaviour now. But instead of that leadership, we have a prime minister who is actively sowing distrust for political gain. That is what we have in this country right now. He is playing a dangerous game, with dangerous consequences. He is flirting with the violent protesters in Melbourne, and he is doing that with his doublespeak. On one side, he is saying, 'I condemn the protesters.' Then, out of the other side of his mouth, at the same time, he is saying, 'I understand their frustrations; I understand that they think it's time for governments to get out of people's lives.' We need leadership, not doublespeak, from this Prime Minister.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Women's Safety (Senator Ruston) to a question without notice asked by Senator Waters today relating to domestic and family violence.
We saw last night duelling announcements about a domestic and family violence commission. The timing of the government's announcement was very interesting, because shortly thereafter the opposition party made their announcement and the two announcements were quite similar. Tomorrow is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. Already this year 38 women have been killed by violence. That's 38 too many. Hence I asked the minister about these recent announcements, and I was a bit concerned by one element of her response. She seemed to imply—and I'll follow this up—that the commission the government is proposing would somehow be in oversight of frontline organisations. I hope I incorrectly inferred that; I hope that's not the case, because what this government needs to do is actually listen to those frontline service workers who are saving women's lives, who are drastically underfunded and who are working overtime, on the smell of an oily rag, often at award-wage pay rates, because they are actually very passionate about keeping women safe. So I was just a little bit disturbed that the minister made an offhand remark, which I will follow up and hope it is not some kind of watchdog role that they intend to play over the frontline services sector to try to stop domestic violence. That's the first thing I wanted to place on record.
The other point was we just had this women's safety summit. Do you remember the one that kept on getting delayed and ended up being by Zoom? In fact, it wasn't really an exchange of information; it was just a one-way broadcast. Anyway, at that summit one of the statements clearly made went to the need for more housing. This shouldn't be news to anyone who's been paying attention to this issue. Women are being forced to choose between violence and homelessness because there is no crisis housing, there is no transitional housing and there is no long-term affordable housing in this country. There's no social housing. Private housing—there are barely any vacancy rates. Rentals are through the roof and no-one can afford to buy a home anymore. Housing is a key issue for keeping women safe. I asked the minister—well and good about this commission, assuming they won't just attack front-line workers—how many roofs will that provide for women escaping violence? She didn't really answer that question, but, hey, it's called question time; it's not called answer time, after all.
I want to remind the minister that the fastest growing group of homeless people in this nation are women and they are older women to boot. Before COVID it was women over 55 who were the fastest group headed towards homelessness; now it's women over 45. This is a problem touching so many of us in this nation. Rather than passing the buck to the states, as this government likes to do, they need to step up and provide real funding so we have enough homes in this nation to house people who need them, particularly those older women and particularly women who are fleeing violence, and not just long-term affordable housing but transitional and crisis housing.
I also asked the minister about the investment, or lack thereof, in prevention programs, in particular, this government's vexed relationship with respectful relationships programs in schools. Remember the palaver about Safe Schools? This crew on the government benches are so torn apart when it comes to providing basic consent education to children to keep them safe and to teach them about what a real respectful relationship means, whether same-sex, heterosexual relationship, whatever. They just can't deal with the notion we should give kids the tools to keep themselves safe. Again, I didn't really get a response from the minister on whether they will stop attacking proper education and consent education in schools and start funding it, but this is not the first time we raised this.
The last issue I talked about and asked the minister about, again, not with a good response, was the quantum of funding that needs to be provided so no-one is turned away from a front-line domestic and family violence service when they reach out for help. The sector has clearly said it needs $12 billion over 12 years, which is the life of the next national plan, $1 billion a year. This government is providing—on the back of the envelope, my calculations—about two per cent of what the sector is asking for. It is not enough. Not a single person who reaches out for help after fleeing violence should be turned away. It is this government's job to stump up the funds to make sure those front-line heroes have the beds and the personnel to do that job.
Question agreed to.
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 notices of motion proposing the disallowance of five legislative instruments as set out in the list I have provided to the Clerk. I advise the chamber the list will be circulated to senators with today's notices.
I remind senators the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011, 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 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 will reform Australia's 2011 autonomous sanctions framework through the Autonomous Sanctions (Thematic Sanctions) Amendment Bill 2021, and the Autonomous Sanctions (Thematic Sanctions) Amendment Regulations 2021. Thiswill enable the listing of individuals and entities responsible for, or complicit in, egregious conduct, including malicious cyber activity, serious human rights abuses and violations, and serious corruption.
This reform responds to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's (JSCFADT) inquiry into the use of sanctions to target human rights abuses and violations tabled on 7 December 2020, to which the Government responded on 5 August 2021.
With this reform, Australia introduces Magnitsky-style sanctions. The Magnitsky movement was inspired by Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer who exposed fraud committed by Russian government officials, but was consequently arrested and imprisoned. He was subjected to degrading treatment and tortured, and he died in custody on 16 November 2009.
Through the advocacy of Bill Browder, whose firm Hermitage Capital Management Mr Magnitsky was advising, the US Congress in 2012 passed the Magnitsky Act, banning travel and freezing assets of those Russian officials responsible. From 2016, countries including the US, Canada, EU and UK, began to create or update their respective sanctions frameworks to enable perpetrators of egregious conduct to be sanctioned in a more timely way, no matter where the conduct occurs. With this debate gathering momentum internationally, I referred the matter for inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in 2019.
Autonomous sanctions can be used as an important tool of statecraft to respond to the most egregious situations of international concern, when in our national interest. They are highly targeted measures, designed to influence, deter and impose costs on the perpetrators, while minimising the impact on the general population.
Autonomous sanctions are distinguished from sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council and implemented by UN Member States pursuant to international obligations. Australia uses autonomous sanctions in egregious situations of international concern which are not covered by UN Security Council sanctions, or to supplement sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council.
Australia has a proud history of promoting and protecting human rights globally, supporting the international rules-based order, and acting for the peace and security of the international community. We have used our existing country-specific autonomous sanctions regimes to those ends. These include human rights violations in Zimbabwe and Syria, and Russian threats to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.
The Bill expands Australia's Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011 by creating a framework to establish new thematic sanctions regimes, which will allow Australia to list perpetrators of the most egregious relevant conduct of international concern, wherever and whenever such conduct occurs.
The Government recognises the importance of denying the perpetrators and beneficiaries of egregious acts from accessing our economy and benefiting from the freedoms our democracy allows. Positioning Australia to act more quickly to freeze the funds of perpetrators and beneficiaries, and to prevent them from travelling here, will ensure that we do not become an isolated, attractive safe haven for such people and entities, and their ill-gotten gains.
An increasing number of comparatively attractive economies have joined the "Magnitsky movement", and this bill is timely for Australia. This will also allow us to act more swiftly with key like-minded sanctions partners, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, where it is in the national interest.
As sanctions are a foreign policy tool it is both appropriate, and in line with our existing autonomous sanctions framework, that the power to impose, remove or vary thematic sanctions rests with the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Prior to making a thematic sanctions listing decision, the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be required to consult and obtain the agreement of the Attorney-General, as First Law Officer of the Commonwealth. The Minister for Foreign Affairs must also consult with any other relevant Ministers. This decision-making process ensures that thematic sanctions listings decisions take account of all relevant foreign policy and other national interest considerations.
The Bill sets out an illustrative list of themes for sanctions regimes. If the Parliament elects to pass the Bill, the Government will amend the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 to establish three new thematic sanctions regimes: serious violations or serious abuses of human rights; activities undermining good governance and the rule of law, including serious corruption; and malicious cyber activity. This was part of the Government Response to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, issued on 5 August 2021.
This will enable Australia to respond flexibly and swiftly in the national interest, without the delay of creating a new country regime when a situation of international concern arises, if the conduct constitutes serious human rights abuses and violations, serious corruption or malicious cyber activity.
The Government Response included a commitment to introduce a new thematic cyber regime, in addition to the Magnitsky-style sanctions canvassed by the Committee. This additional tool of statecraft, will serve alongside other law enforcement and operational mechanisms, to enhance Australia's response to instances of egregious malicious cyber activity that impact our interests.
The Regulations will provide the specific criteria under which a person or entity could be sanctioned under these new thematic regimes, should the Minister for Foreign Affairs assess - after appropriate consultation - that it is in Australia's national interest to do so. Additional thematic sanctions regimes could be included in the Regulations at a later date, should the Government consider they are necessary.
Embedding the new thematic regimes in our existing autonomous sanctions framework means that established processes and safeguards will continue to apply, rather than being duplicated across multiple sanctions Acts and frameworks. This is important to provide certainty and continuity for all of those who engage with our autonomous sanctions framework. Businesses and the community can maintain their existing compliance processes while those involved in governance, whether at the bureaucratic, political or legal level, will not be required to administer new provisions. This is similar to the approach taken by the UK, which does not have a standalone Act, and has a similar framework with Regulations under an overarching Act.
The changes we are making to the existing Act and Regulations empower us to do all that a separate Bill would do, without creating multiple, and complex, laws, separate frameworks, and imposing additional regulatory burdens on businesses and the community.
Consistent with current practice, the Government encourages public engagement on these significant issues and looks forward to future recommendations from Parliament and civil society on possible listings.
The Bill will support the ongoing role of sanctions as a primary tool of statecraft, by which Australia can define, defend and demonstrate our foreign policy values globally and support a robust international rules-based order.
I commend the Bill to the Senate and, in doing so, would like to thank everyone who has advocated for and supported Magnitsky-style sanctions, in particular, the Chair of the JSCFADT Senator David Fawcett, the Chair of the JSCFADT Sub-committee Kevin Andrews MP and his colleagues on the Committee, and several others across all sides of politics, including Senator Penny Wong, Senator James Paterson, Senator Kimberley Kitching and Senator Janet Rice.
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 on Thursday, 25 November 2021, the notice of motion proposing the disallowance of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Regulations 2021 be called on at 3.30 pm, and the question be put after 30 minutes.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, by no later than 9.30 am on 25 November 2021, any correspondence between Woodside and the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment regarding Scope 3 emissions as part of the Scarborough to Pluto gas project that was received in the past calendar year.
Question agreed to.
WATERS (—) (): At the request of another senator, I seek leave to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 by bringing forward the reporting date to 3 February 2022.
Leave granted.
I move the motion as amended:
That the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Political Campaigners) Bill 2021 be referred to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 3 February 2022.
M (—) (): I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
These matters have already been considered by the committee. The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Political Campaigners) Bill 2021 responds to recommendation No. 18 of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters from its Report on the conduct of the 2019 federal election and matters related thereto. The amendments will enhance public confidence in Australia's political processes by aligning transparency requirements for political actors who seek to influence the outcome of an election to more closely resemble those for political parties, candidates and members of the Australian parliament.
The question is that the motion as amended be agreed to.
At the request of Senator Whish-Wilson, I move:
(1) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, by no later than 22 December 2021, the following documents:
(a) all unedited and edited video recordings taken by Australian Antarctic Division personnel and held by the Australian Antarctic Division, of the RAAF airdrop over the Vestfold Hills, Antarctica reported on the Australian Antarctic Division website on 2 November 2018;
(b) all unedited and edited video recordings taken by Australian Antarctic Division personnel and held by the Australian Antarctic Division, that document the impact on wildlife of the airdrop; and
(c) all reports (video, audio or written) by Australian Antarctic Division personnel on any observed impact on wildlife arising from the airdrop (occurring at any time), including the potential causes of said impact.
(2) If the Senate is not sitting when the documents are ready for presentation, the documents are to be presented to the President under standing order 166.
The question is that the motion be agreed to.
I move:
That, noting the Senate resolution of 23 November 2021 relating to National Cabinet and public interest immunity claims, there be laid on the table by the relevant ministers, by no later than 9 am Tuesday, 30 November 2021, the documents required by any Senate order, committee resolution or question on notice to which a claim of public interest immunity was made on the unacceptable ground that material related to the National Cabinet is subject to Cabinet confidentiality, including material required under:
(a) the Senate order relating to Doherty Institute modelling (No. 1208);
(b) Senate orders adopting the recommendations of the second interim report of the Select Committee on COVID-19; and
(c) questions on notice asked in the Senate or in the course of a committee inquiry.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
It remains the view of the government that national cabinet was established as a committee of cabinet and that its documents and deliberations should remain confidential. On 17 September this year, the Prime Minister and all the leaders of state and territory governments made it clear that the national cabinet has strengthened relationships by facilitating regular confidential discussions in the national interest, founded on the same principles of trust, confidence and collaboration which underpin state, territory and Commonwealth cabinets.
Cabinet confidentiality is a longstanding principle of the Westminster system of government and a well-established ground for a claim of public interest immunity with respect to orders by the Senate. The release of documents required by any Senate order, committee resolution or question on notice to which a public interest immunity claim has been made on the grounds of their being related to deliberations of national cabinet would unacceptably breach the convention of cabinet confidentiality, which ought to be respected by the Senate.
Senator Patrick!
And I would appreciate Senator Patrick showing a bit of respect to my contribution.
The question is the motion moved by Senator Patrick be agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senator Whish-Wilson, move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, by no later than 30 November 2021, the following documents:
(a) all submissions made in respect of the public consultation on the proposed changes to conservation planning decisions, as advertised on the Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment website, which were open from 17 September to 2 November 2021; and
(b) all correspondence between the Minister for the Environment and the Threatened Species Scientific Committee in respect of the proposed changes to conservation planning decisions.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
More than 6,000 submissions were received during the public consultation process and the department does not have the capacity to contact all of the submitters to confirm their permission to release their submissions publicly.
Question agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senator Whish-Wilson, move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, by no later than 1 December 2021, the full government response to the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee titled Shark mitigation and deterrent measures, tabled on 12 December 2017.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute
The government response is yet to be finalised and will be released as soon as it's able to be.
Question agreed to.
I inform the Senate that at 8.30 am today 18 proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Thorpe.
Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
That the Glasgow Climate Pact, agreed to by nearly 200 countries, including Australia, resolved to pursue efforts to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, which according to the International Energy Agency would require no new coal mines or new gas fields, and is consistent with respecting, promoting and considering the rights of First Nations and Indigenous peoples when taking actions to address climate change."
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.
At the request of Senator Thorpe, I move:
That the Glasgow Climate Pact, agreed to by nearly 200 countries, including Australia, resolved to pursue efforts to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, which according to the International Energy Agency would require no new coal mines or new gas fields, and is consistent with respecting, promoting and considering the rights of First Nations and Indigenous peoples when taking actions to address climate change."
I rise to thank three brave environmental warriors who right at this minute are in 35-degree heat, putting their bodies on the line to stop work today at Woodside's Pluto project in the Burrup, working to stop the environmental criminals. This morning I spoke to Petrina, a mother and schoolteacher who has locked herself to a concrete barrel inside a caravan to block the Burrup Road, the only road into Australia's biggest gas hub. Alongside her are Elizabeth, a grandmother, and Caleb, a 23-year-old schoolteacher, who is chained to a concrete barrel under a car. The lands of the Murujuga people are made up of five language groups, so I pay my respects to them, their elders past and present and their emerging leaders. Murujuga always was and always will be Aboriginal land. The word 'Murujuga' means 'hip bone sticking out' in the Ngarluma Yapurarra language and consists of a narrow peninsula of land and 42 islands located near the town of Dampier in the Pilbara region of Western Australia.
For First Nations people, land and people are connected, both physically and spiritually. There is a belief among First Nations people that if country gets sick, damaged, degraded and polluted then they too will become ill and might even die. By protecting the land, the people are also protected. Everyone is responsible for looking after country, even non-First Nations people who live and work on this land. This is not Woodside's land. This is not BHP's land. It's not the state government's land. This is our land, and we've looked after this land for thousands of years. We have been the custodians of the ancient Murujuga rock art, which depicts the Seven Sisters dreaming story that is etched into the rock. We know that, when people fight for nature, nature wins. We saw this at James Price Point. We saw it when people were locked onto tractors to save the Beeliar wetlands to stop a highway being built through those beautiful and precious wetlands. It was a campaign that, by the way, Labor supported and protected, so we know that Labor can protect the environment, but they only do it when they get votes to win elections. Why can't they do it all the time? I'll tell you why. It's because of donations. Woodside donate $220,000 every year to both the Liberal and Labor parties. In a statement to the Australian Financial Review, shadow resources minister Madeleine King said, 'The investment decision to go ahead with Scarborough was consistent with the global move towards decarbonisation.' That sounds pretty much like a line straight out of Woodside's playbook. Is Woodside writing talking points for Labor or is Labor writing talking points for Woodside? It's anyone's guess. The Greens are the only party that are turning up to protect nature, to protect Aboriginal cultural heritage and to reduce the dangerous, polluting emissions that are cooking this planet.
On Monday, the WA state Labor government's support of Australia's most-polluting gas project paved the way for Woodside and BHP to give the final tick of approval for the Scarborough gas project, which will generate 1.6 billion tonnes of emissions every year, equivalent to 15 coal-fired power stations. There's a groundswell of opposition coming together against this project, including from investors. The world has been turning against oil and gas and the extraction of fossil fuels, since the Glasgow summit. We know that Japan and Korea are transitioning out of gas. Any suggestion by Woodside CEO Meg O'Neill that this project will assist in decarbonising the planet is blatantly untrue. There is no credible evidence to back that up.
Today I was taking a look at Woodside's Indigenous communities policywhich was released, funnily enough, in August 2020, not that long ago. Unfortunately, I had to laugh with horror as I read the policy, because it couldn't be further from the truth. Post-Juukan caves, where lots of corporates made statements like this, Woodside claim that they will be 'guided by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples'. They will ensure their 'management of cultural heritage is thorough, transparent and underpinned by consultation and continued engagement'. They will avoid 'future damage or disturbance to cultural heritage' and, 'if avoidance is not possible', 'minimise and mitigate the impacts' in consultation with communities. They will also support 'self-determination, economic empowerment … and cultural heritage protection'.
To me, these are absolute lies. Now we are witnessing Juukan Gorge in slow motion, thanks to Woodside's obsession with fossil fuels. In my conversations with community, I have seen no evidence of Woodside upholding UNDRIP or protecting cultural heritage. In fact, what I have witnessed is the exact opposite. This is nothing short of gross negligence, and these governments and companies will have to answer to our kids and their kids for generations to come. They are the criminals here. To Petrina, Elizabeth and Caleb, I say: thank you, because you are the real change-makers.
Again, I thank those in the corner for their matters of urgency motions—they're like dorothy dixers to us. They set up a debate which we're very, very happy to have. The Morrison government is the only party in this chamber with a whole-of-economy, long-term emissions reduction plan that will see us meet and beat our 2030 target and achieve net zero by 2050 without imposing new costs on households, small businesses, our traditional industries or the economy. Those opposite will tax their way there. We know that. They've done it before. They'll do it again. Those in the corner would just blow up the economy. Shutting down fossil fuels overnight would just kill the economy. The loss of jobs would be enormous, poverty would be rife—all the things that they pretend they argue for, we would see in Australia overnight.
The Prime Minister took to COP26 a plan to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 in the Australian way—that is, looking at where we have strategic advantage and where we can make the easiest and biggest gains with the least amount of money. And, by money, we're talking about incentives to partner with other levels of government and business. We will act in a practical, responsible way to reduce emissions, while preserving Australian jobs and taking advantage of new opportunities for industries and regional Australia. The government will not support the Greens' reckless and economy-destroying climate policies that would force industries to shut and projects to be delayed or cancelled and would destroy Australian jobs and industries. Labor, if elected at the next election—and there's a big 'if'—will have no choice but to bow to the Greens' bidding. We hear that from the Greens every day in this place—how they say they need to be the party with the balance of power in this parliament. And we've seen what that would cause.
Australia's economy is almost unique amongst developed countries, with an economy specialising in the production of energy and emissions-intensive commodities. That's why our proportion of non-export emissions is incredibly low. Ahead of and during COP26, Australia worked closely with our Pacific family to come up with ways to bring about lower emissions while building our regional partners' resilience and funding any needs that they have. We particularly welcome the outcomes on the international carbon markets and the standardised transparency framework, which was a major focus for Australia, because transparency is the key to accountability and to translating ambition into achievement. This goes to the heart of the Paris agreement, which relies on countries delivering on their commitments to achieve a global net zero outcome. Australia's emissions reporting and transparency is the gold standard, and we expect all major emitters to display similar levels of transparency. As I mentioned before, in our area of the world, through the $104 million Indo-Pacific Carbon Offsets Scheme, we're working with our regional partners to build on their emissions accounting and reporting capabilities. Strong transparency integrity standards are vital to ensuring carbon markets deliver real and verifiable emissions reductions.
Australia has doubled its climate finance commitment to $2 billion over the next five years. More than 70 per cent of our support is focused on climate resilience and adaption. At COP26, countries committed to scaling up cooperation to make low-emissions technologies the most cost-effective and reliable option available. The technologies that we need to reach net zero don't yet exist, but our energy technology road map maps a path to finding those technologies, bringing down the cost such that they are competitive and ensuring that we, Australia, and the rest of the world have the technologies available to us to significantly reduce emissions and decarbonise our economy.
Analysis by the IEA, the International Energy Agency, shows that half the global reductions required to achieve net zero will come from technologies that are not yet ready for commercial deployment. China, the world's largest emitter, has not yet put an end to building thermal coal generation and production. In fact, in the first half of 2021 the country announced that they would build 43 new coal-fired power plants, which will emit an estimated 150 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. At Glasgow, Prime Minister Modi of India announced that by 2030 India will reduce its total projected carbon emissions by one billion tonnes and meet half of its energy requirements with renewable fuels, and also pledged to reach net zero emissions by 2070.
Other developing countries do not have the luxury of well-off countries, such as in the EU, by buying cheap offset credits to reduce their emissions. They require solutions that are inexpensive, that provide reliable power and that materially reduce their emissions. That's why the Morrison government's technology investment road map is so important. This government's road map is a plan to accelerate new technologies like hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, batteries and healthy soils that will help reduce emissions here and around the world. So far we have committed to invest $20 billion in new energy technologies by 2030, to drive at least $80 billion of total public and private investment over the decade. This investment will support at least 160,000 new jobs.
This road map is clearly working. Over the last two years our position against our 2030 target has improved by 639 million tonnes. This is the equivalent of taking all of Australia's 14.7 million cars off the road for 15 years. So while those opposite are happy to stand up and make statements that make them feel good and look good on social media, this government is working on delivering actual results that not only reduce our emissions but also drive investment and economic growth. We are about taking action not making statements.
Thousands of jobs will be created by 2050 by the creation of an Australian hydrogen industry. This follows on, very nicely, from the work that has been done over recent decades on building an LNG industry. The amount of investment—some government; mostly private—that built that industry will go a long way. It has created markets that Australia will follow up and that we will transition to selling hydrogen into when those markets transition away from natural gas. Regional hydrogen hubs, that we are building in regional Australia, will help develop the industry and create jobs. Our priority is to produce clean hydrogen under $2 a kilo. Low-cost, clean hydrogen holds significant promise for the world's energy future, and Australia has what it takes to be that world leader in hydrogen, just like we did with LNG.
Our government's $1.2 billion hydrogen investment is set to increase, boosting economic activity and jobs in regional Australia. An additional $150 million for a further two locations under the Clean Hydrogen Industrial Hubs program will enable the rollout of hydrogen hubs across seven priority regional sites. Hubs will consolidate Australia's natural resource strengths to unlock cheap, clean energy and stimulate a potential surge in industrial activity. An Australian hydrogen industry could generate more than 8,000 jobs and deliver over $11 billion a year in GDP by 2050. The research that's going on will help lead the creation of those hydrogen hubs and industry, whereby we will then reach our goal of producing green hydrogen below $2 a kilo. Our aim is to accelerate this process so that clean hydrogen achieves parity with other energy fuel sources that give us firm power in the quickest possible way.
The Morrison government has a plan. We took that plan to the last election. We took it to Glasgow. We're meeting and beating that plan. We're meeting and beating our emissions targets and we will continue to do so.
The Morrison government doesn't have a plan; it's got a pamphlet. It's got a different plan every few months. It always changes. It's a plan that lacks ambition, lacks capability and lacks the things that Australians need to have confidence in the government.
All the way through this term Mr Albanese has indicated that, following the Glasgow conference and following the government finally releasing what passes for modelling, he and Mr Bowen will set out for the electorate precisely the climate and energy framework that will deliver a credible approach to Australia's position on climate and energy. That will come soon. He will do it. He has indicated that it will happen, and it will happen. It is something that the government have singularly failed to do over the course of the last eight, going on nine, long years of failure and ineptitude. Even with all the resources of government, they have failed. I suppose in some respects they've succeeded: they've had not one policy framework but 21—a hodgepodge of mutually opposed, utterly contradictory, befuddled and shambolic policy offerings. That's why we're last in the OECD.
It's only a Labor government that will deliver a credible policy framework in climate and energy. Labor's climate and energy policy, when it's released, will be directed towards the following national objectives. No. 1 is reducing electricity and energy prices for Australian households and businesses. No. 2 is reducing our emissions profile—Australia's emissions contribution—in order to, importantly, reduce our contribution but also to try and restore Australian credibility around the world, which has been so utterly trashed by this government. No. 3 will be about driving investment in new, good jobs—permanent jobs, not bodgie labour-hire jobs, not casual jobs, but real jobs in our industrial suburbs and in our regions and in our cities. We will do that by having lower electricity and energy prices and by making improvements in reliability and capacity to the grid, with investments in capability, with expansions in mining and mining technology, and with other efforts to try and push Australian exports up the value chain.
Our contribution through the National Reconstruction Fund and the Rewiring the Nation initiative, already announced, will be the biggest single policy contribution of any Australian government to rebuilding and reindustrialising our regions. That's what we'll do if we're elected. It's a solemn commitment to the regions and our industrial suburbs. It will have a real, material effect on our emissions profile. And it will be, finally, from an Australian government, a credible commitment on climate and energy.
Now, if you vote for the government, you won't get that. If you vote for the Greens political party, you won't get that—you'll undermine that—or if you vote for the National Party or One Nation. The only way you'll make progress on climate and energy and on jobs in the regions is by voting for the Labor Party. It is a critical national objective. There's no wedge, no political games, no tricks, no clever politics, no marketing, no spin, nobody left out, nobody left behind. It is a critical national objective for our economy, our society and our environment, and to protect jobs. If you want real action on climate and energy, if you want lower power prices, if you really care about blue-collar jobs beyond dressing up as a blue-collar worker, if you want more industry and a better environment, then vote for it. If Australians waste votes on them or them, that will undermine the capacity for change. It will put us further behind in the race for jobs and opportunity because, unlike the bloke who currently leads the government, Albo will do what he says and say what he means and will deliver.
Sorry, Senator Ayres. Senator Davey, on a point of order.
I think we are advised not to refer to people from the other place by their nicknames.
If we could refer to members of the other place by their correct titles, thank you, Senator.
Thanks very much. On our side we've got party discipline, strength of purpose, a common commitment, and we've demonstrated that. We've one message, not 12 messages, unlike Mr Morrison, who says one thing in Glasgow and says something entirely different in Gladstone, or Senator Canavan, who says that we should put aside $250 billion of public money to directly fund projects that commercial lenders won't fund, or his mate, Mr Pitt, who supports this but doesn't say it anymore because he wants to protect the only job that he cares about—his own, in the cabinet.
Now, Senator Canavan, in a rare moment of clarity, said that he knows that that policy that he supports and that Mr Pitt supports will push up mortgage interest rates and increase the cost of borrowing for businesses. But that's okay, apparently. Home mortgage costs up by what? Fifty dollars a month? Eighty dollars a month? A couple of hundred dollars a month? This is a reverse scare campaign. It's Senator Canavan who's wandering around the country telling Australians and Australian businesses that his policy framework is going to push interest rates up, when wages are going down and have been year after year, in the longest sustained period of zero wage growth. When household incomes are going down, Senator Canavan wants to push mortgage interest rates up. He thinks ordinary Australians can find a couple of hundred dollars every month to fund his ideological frivolity.
I want to go from a former Trotskyite to the bunch of current Trots and faded university politicians over here. That cavalcade to Queensland symbolised everything that's wrong with the self-indulgent, self-defeating narcissism that defines the Greens political party today. What's their real target for 2022? It's 10 per cent. Their real target is 10 per cent. Ten per cent of Australian voters is the only thing that they care about. They don't care about the climate; they only care about themselves.
It's been a long time. Both Senator Canavan and the Greens need each other. Political polarisation suits them, because that's their business model. There's no progress with the Greens political party—I mean, save me! These people come in here talk about the 'old parties'. They've been here in Australian parliaments for 37 years—for 37 years the Greens have been turning up in Australian parliaments! Do you know how many national parks they have delivered? Zero. How much impact on species extinction has the Greens political party had? Zero. Not a kilogram of carbon has been emitted—or not emitted—or taken out of the atmosphere because of the activity of the Greens political party. It's just narcissism, noise and seats. That's all they're interested in.
They're pretend progressives who haven't learned and who haven't changed. It's the same stunts—the tired, boring and irrelevant stunts. Ten per cent of the primary vote is all they care about. They're not part of the solution; they are part of the problem if you care about climate change and if you care about real action on climate.
[by video link] Despite harming the Aboriginal people in many ways, the Greens, dishonestly and falsely, pretend to care for Aboriginals. In pushing Greens policies, ripening in 2030, the Greens are in fact pushing Australia down the UN's agenda 2030 path.
For example, let's consider something as basic as land rights and land use before we get onto the Glasgow distraction. It's not immediately obvious, but the United Nations globalist strategy significantly influenced Australia's Native Title Act, which pretends to give Aboriginal people access to land yet actually limits and, in many ways, prevents all Australians, including Aboriginals, from using the land and even accessing the land. From my recent listening across Cape York, all Cape York communities in Far North Queensland confirmed yet again many Aboriginal and European community leaders' dissatisfaction with the reality and impact of native title legislation. The Native Title Act preamble refers many times to United Nations principles. When a claim is successful under native title, individuals find that they're prevented from owning their own home within the area of the claim and face impediments in raising money for business loans for lack of collateral. In practical terms, the rights of Aboriginal people and their lives have not been improved under the Native Title Act.
That said, let's look at the other policies that the Greens have raised here. The United Nations actually drives the Glasgow agenda. Let's look at that more closely, because it lacks substance—as do the Labor-Greens coalition climate and energy policies and the Liberal-Nationals coalition climate and energy policies. Contradictions erupt and abound in climate and energy policies, because no politician has ever provided the logical scientific points as evidence for those policies. John Howard's government introduced the abominable Renewable Energy Target and his government stole farmers' property rights to use their own properties. Yet, six years after being booted from office in 2007, he confessed in London in 2013 that he is agnostic on climate science. He had no science. The whole thing was drive just by whims and fairytales. He had no science to support what has become the gutting of our electricity sector and our productive capacity.
In 2016, the then Father of the Senate, Ian Macdonald, said that there has never been a debate on the climate science. He was correct, and there still hasn't been one. Two months ago, 10 federal parliamentarians confirmed in writing to me that they have never been provided with the scientific evidence. They had the integrity and courage to say so. In August last year, 19 federal parliamentarians from the Greens, Labor, Liberal and Nationals parties—who were all advocating climate alarm and climate policies—failed to provide me with any scientific evidence for their claims. In 2007 and 2008, Kevin Rudd claimed 4,000 scientists supported the claim that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut. The data from the UN IPCC—the climate body in the UN—shows that only five endorsed the claim, and there's doubt they were even scientists. The Greens, instead of science, have a well-worn trick of using emotional stories and have never produced the evidence.
There is no basis for these policies the UN is driving it in this country. Freedom of information requests and Parliamentary Library research revealed to me no evidence for this. Here we have the Labor-Greens coalition pushing this, and who does it hurt the most? It hurts the people who are poorest, who are not— (Time expired)
I welcome the opportunity to debate this motion. I must confess I have felt a hole in my life since the Glasgow climate conference ended. It was the best comedy I have seen for decades. It was a laugh a minute. I was waiting with bated breath for most of the agenda. Ever since it's ended, it's been a bit like the Olympics ending—there's nothing to watch on TV anymore; nothing really comes up to scratch. One of the highlights was on day 42 or something, which was the gender innovation science day. I know Senator Duniam was watching that one. There that was an absolute cracker.
But it was mainly the participants at Glasgow that made it what it was. It was the people who went along there. We all owe them a debt of gratitude. One of my favourite parts was the headline of a Reuters story, I think, which said, 'German Greens want more Russian gas'. It sums it up, doesn't it? The Green activists like to talk the talk—they love to talk the talk—but when it comes to walking the walk they still want to be able to heat their homes and to be able to fly to these climate conferences, and they'll use fossil fuels as much as they can to get there. They just don't want the gas coming from Australia or from their own countries. They like it to come from dictatorial regimes like Mr Putin's or indeed the Chinese Communist Party's, which we'll get to.
Another favourite was BBC Scotland, who during the Glasgow conference tweeted:
Gas and air is the most popular pain relief in childbirth, but many don't realise its climate impact.
That's what they tweeted. I've had five children and I don't think I'll be going to a delivery suite again, but for all those listening, particularly the blokes out there who may one day find themselves in a delivery suite trying to give comfort to their wife, I make the suggestion that it's probably best not to say to your wife in that circumstance, 'I know this is tough, honey, but we must think of the planet.' I don't think that would be a smart idea. I don't think you should do that. No-one is going to do that. How absurd are these guys? How absurd is the United Nations, who say that to save the planet we're allowed to eat only 14 grams of red meat a week? So if any of us here are going down to the Kingston Hotel and having a 400-gram rump this fortnight, just remember that's a little bit over your allocation for the month. That's it for you—no more red meat for the month if you care about the planet, otherwise you are an environmental vandal. You're a criminal, in fact. You're absolutely a criminal.
But I can't go through this contribution without paying tribute to the greatest entertainer Australia has exported for some time, Mr Twiggy Forrest. He was over there getting some pressure, I suppose, about the fact that President Xi Jinping had not attended the Glasgow conference. He responded by saying that he was going to convince Xi Jinping—unsuccessfully as it turned out—to come along to the conference. Mr Forrest was reported as saying that, from what he sees happening in China, the younger generation have a very strong will to have carbon-neutral power. Mr Forrest went on to say:
And one thing which the Chinese government is incredibly good at doing is listening to the mood of its people.
That's what he said. I actually agree with Mr Forrest. I agree with Twiggy on this one, because I ask you: when is the last time you heard a person living in China complain about their own government? It doesn't happen. You never hear about it. It's just not happening. They must be doing a fantastic job, because there are no complaints coming out of China. Mr Forrest is absolutely right. How absurd are these guys? These are the people who want to tell us what to do, who want to dictate our lives, and who want to tell us what to eat, what car we can drive and how we can power our homes.
The Greens have done all this work, but I don't know if they stayed around for the end of Glasgow. They must have missed the ending because this motion says that, because of the Glasgow conference, we're not allowed to approve new coalmines or build new gas facilities. That's not actually how it ended. It ended in tears. The whole thing ended in tears—literal tears. There was crying because India had the temerity to want to develop and grow the same way other industrialised economies have done, so they demanded that, in fact, coalmines and coal-fired power be still allowed and that they just be reduced over time. There was no mention of gas being ruled out completely, which means nothing about the approval of the Scarborough project is inconsistent with Glasgow. This motion simply shows that the people over either were not watching Glasgow or were so mentally scarred by it that they have already repressed the experience from their memory, because Glasgow was a huge win for oil and gas.
Ever since the end of the Glasgow conference, there's been nothing but good news for the workers in this country who work in this great coal industry—which we are lucky enough to have—and for those who work in the oil and gas industry. It has been a cavalcade of great news for them. We already heard it mentioned here that we've had the approval of the massive $16½ billion Scarborough project, with over 3,000 Australian jobs. Three thousand people from this country will be able to work thanks to the approval for that project going ahead. They've attracted $16½ billion of investment. We're constantly told no-one will build coalmines or gas fields. Well, they're doing it. Since Glasgow, we had the headline in Reuters, 'China doubles down on a slower coal exit after COP26 spat'. So China is continuing with more coal. It's a green light for coal under this Glasgow agreement.
One of the more remarkable things concerns the Dutch government, which is a very green government. They were committed to a stronger Glasgow agreement than ended up coming out. But, since Glasgow, the Dutch government are now focused on trying desperately to keep a little company called Shell headquartered in Amsterdam. What are they doing? They are offering Shell a tax cut of 15 per cent, to keep them in the Netherlands. So they went to Glasgow. They flew over there, presumably, in their private jet, which has got to be fuelled with fossil fuels. They say they want to go green. Then they go back home to the lovely surrounds of Amsterdam and give tax cuts to big oil companies, because—guess what?—they want jobs, too. I'm sure the Dutch government want jobs, too. Finally, since Glasgow, we've seen the headline, 'US coal prices surge to the highest level since 2009'. That's the highest point in over 12 years. This is because this restriction of coal, oil and gas is pushing up fossil fuel prices to record levels—the highest levels that we've ever seen—because there is significant demand for fossil fuels around the world.
I want to finish on making a very important point that relates to the Scarborough project. This is a project that will produce oil and a lot of gas, and there are a lot of things that comes from those products. I think the average Australian doesn't understand that it's not just about heating our homes or what we put in our petrol tanks. Oil and gas create a whole raft of other products that our modern economy relies on. One of the saddest pieces of news since Glasgow has been that Incitec Pivot, an Australian company, has announced that it will close the last urea manufacturing facility in Australia. Urea is the most important fertiliser used in agriculture production. It is the fertiliser that is, by far, the most used in this dry continent, and, without it, we would not be able to grow the same amount of food that we currently grow. Now we will be completely reliant on imports for our urea fertilisers. Urea comes from natural gas. You cannot make urea without natural gas. It is the carbon dioxide in urea that activates plant growth and allows us to grow things in this world. But you never hear that from these so-called experts on the oil and gas industry who like to say a lot about an industry that they know very little about, that they talk to no-one in, and that they just want to shut down, not knowing the consequences for average Australians.
This is not just about the workers in that industry. It's not just about the royalties that help pay for our hospitals and schools. It is about our basic ability to feed ourselves as a country, to power ourselves as a country and ultimately to defend ourselves as a country. If we shut down all the oil and gas and coal production here in this country, we know that the Greens, as I said, will still want the products; they'll still want to eat, they'll still want to fly and they'll still want to be able to heat their homes, so they will instead import all those products from other regimes who don't shut down their production, like China and Russia, and we will be more dependent on those countries. To defend this country, we need to support our resources industry, including coal, oil and gas.
Let's be clear: the only way to get a good climate policy—or any climate policy, for that matter—is to change the government. Moving away from fossil fuel requires an effective energy transition, and we have an incredible renewable future ahead of us. But only a Labor government will deliver this and will deliver Australia's potential as a renewable energy superpower, reduce emissions, reduce energy prices and deliver the industry and jobs growth that can be a serious part of addressing climate change.
We all remember when the Greens teamed up with Tony Abbott in 2009 to sink Australia's best chance at lasting climate action, and we are still reeling from that now. Had the Greens supported real action on climate change back then, Australia would be in a much better position today. The coalition's decade of delay has already cost thousands of new energy jobs and is setting Australia up for failure. The government's approach to this critical climate conference in Glasgow was just plain embarrassing. Rather than digging deep to commit to a plan for transition, the Prime Minister spent most of his trip to Glasgow in a diplomatic incident with France and being accused by President Macron of lying. Morrison had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the most basic commitment: a target of net zero emissions by 2050. Then he voluntarily signed an international agreement to revisit the 2030 targets at the end of the COP, but a few hours later he said he wouldn't. Liberal inaction, chaos and lies have left Australia behind the game in terms of economic opportunities. In contrast, Labor sees the world's climate emergency as Australia's jobs opportunity. We should be fighting at the front of this emergency, not whingeing at the back of the pack.
I'm proud to represent South Australia in this place. Under the Weatherill government, our state took the need to transition to renewables very seriously. We became a world leader in renewables and in building a low carbon economy. There are so many projects in South Australia, particularly in regional South Australia, such as the Hornsdale wind farm, the proposed Port Augusta renewable energy project, which is combining wind and solar and bringing together a clean energy generation capacity of 320 megawatts, and the South Australian big battery—the list of projects goes on. What it takes is a government that believes and a government that will commit to the economic development that is necessary in order to address climate change and build jobs.
South Australia has shown that a transition away from fossil fuels and towards clean renewable energy is possible, and it unlocks the economic opportunities and a pipeline of secure, well-paid, clean energy jobs. That is the pathway that an Albanese Labor government will also take. But time is running out, and we are desperately in need of a government that will take this emergency seriously—that will actually take serious action on well-balanced policies to make a fundamental difference to the future of this country.
I want to acknowledge that part of this motion talks about the rights of First Nations peoples in relation to climate action. First Nations peoples are critical to the process of responding to the climate emergency, with their deep knowledge of land management, the enormous leadership that they have shown, their commitment to balancing human needs with environmental needs, their inherent connection to the land and their understanding of how the seasons operate and how to protect that land. First Nations voices are vital to the process, and clearly they are calling out for better engagement and a stronger voice in responding to this existential threat to their country. The only option we have to address climate change and build a better future for this country, which includes building our economic strength, is to change the government. Those opposite and those on the corner have no hope. It is only a Labor government that is going to deliver us a decent outcome and address climate change.
It was only yesterday that I stood up here to remind this place that the climate crisis is being caused by a failure to listen to and act on the advice, knowledge, science and wisdom of First Nations people in this country, not to mention indigenous people around the world, particularly those from countries that are still recovering from colonisation. First Nations people here and around the world have a role to play in preventing climate change and economic destruction, and that role is as leaders. For over 350 million First Nations and indigenous people around the world, climate change will impact our homelands earlier and more severely. It's already happening in this country. This isn't some sort of hypothetical situation or something that is going to happen in the distant future; it's actually happening now.
Today I stood out the front of this building to be in solidarity with traditional owners from what we now call the Beetaloo basin. I'd like to use the rest of my time speaking on this matter of urgency to read their open letter:
We speak as Traditional Owners and custodians of and around the lands and waters that you call the Beetaloo and connected basins. Although we come from many Nations, we have come together to put an end to the ongoing threat of fracking on our countries, which will denigrate and desecrate our lands.
We know our country. We read it, we understand it, and we alone speak for it and its songlines. It is our birthright—handed down by bloodline.
Together, we fight for it.
Our connections to country have been established and proven time and time again by the white man's law. We hold Native Title and Land Rights—a system that is meant to protect and enforce our rights. These have been denied to us.
For years, we have been told lies by the gas and oil corporations. That there would be no damage to the country or poison in our waters. These companies won't even answer the most basic of questions—where they plan to drill or how many wells they want to build.
These gas corporations lack any respect for us as Traditional Owners. They have failed to follow proper process in consultation with us, failed to acquire consent, failed to provide transparency in their dealings with us, and have systematically excluded our voices from the decision-making process for activities on our Country.
We don't have the same resources as these corporations. The system is already set up against us.
This Federal Government coming in over the top of what little processes we have undermines our land rights as Northern Territory Traditional Owners. The same Government who has never come out to our communities to sit with us or meet with us. They are failing to represent us.
Giving $50 million to mining corporations for an 'economic recovery' to start drilling will only line the pockets of huge corporations who want to take more than we're willing to give. It does nothing but hurt us, our communities and our country more.
What about our recovery? The money to finally fulfill the empty promises of proper housing in our communities, or resourcing the health services we've been calling for for years.
And what about country's recovery? Country's water is the blood that flows through our body, and it is already poisoned. Where is the money to clean the water many NT communities are forced to drink?
This is short term money that will cause long term pain, sow division and damage country and community. We will not allow you to cause any more pain, hurt or division in our communities.
Hear us when we say—we won't allow fracking gasfields on our country. Not now. Not ever.
We are united. This is our land, and we're ready to do whatever it takes to protect country.
Don't frack the NT! Don't frack the NT! Don't frack the NT!
Order! Senator Thorpe, you know perfectly well that props are not allowed. You continue to flout the rules of this chamber. Please don't do that.
I return the call to you, Senator Thorpe. I hope you can adhere to the standing orders.
I will adhere to the standing orders and I'll put my prop away. I hope that people in this place listen to that very clear letter from Northern Territory traditional owners. If you can't do that then please take your dot paintings down.
Coincidentally, earlier today I participated in an online event titled Women's Voices, Action for Change. This was a powerful discussion about achieving First Nations gender justice and equality. It started with Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, June Oscar, providing us with an overview of her landmark report Wiyi Yani U Thagani (Women's Voices). This urgency motion today is about the Glasgow Climate Pact and reminds us to respect, promote and consider First Nations people when taking actions to address climate change and in implementing the pact. Wiyi Yani U Thaganitakes a gender lens to all aspects of life, including climate justice. It starts with the premise that Aboriginal women are the backbone of caring for children and family, and caring for country. In relation to this matter, the fundamental strengths of First Nations women are linked right back to first mothers. Commissioner Oscar said, 'For too long the door has been closed and decisions are made about our lives without First Nations women being in the room.' If the government is serious about addressing climate change—and that's a big 'if', because it has a backbench full of climate sceptics—and if it's really serious about limiting global temperatures to a rise of 1.5 degrees—again, which I very much doubt—it must include First Nations peoples, particularly women. As Commissioner Oscar says, 'What we know matters.'
What we've seen, though, is policy development on the run. In the weeks leading up to the Glasgow summit, the government was still lying about what it had achieved and what it would achieve, in relation to meeting our Paris targets. We have a Prime Minister who can't even be honest about what he said about electric vehicles before the last election. We have a Prime Minister and a government who have signed up to technologies that are not yet invented. We have a government that is absolutely captured by its climate-science-denying backbenchers and by two members of the Pauline Hanson's One Nation party who the government relies on in this place, week after week, to get its legislation passed. And we have a government that's too afraid to bring legislation into this place because it's being held to ransom by up to five of its own senators, and we saw that in action on Monday.
The only way to achieve real action on climate change is to change the government and elect a Labor government, because Labor believes that a target of net zero emissions by 2050 is necessary but not sufficient. We need a road map—right now—that will get us there, not something that is made up and predicated on technologies that haven't even been invented yet. This is what an Albanese Labor government will achieve. Our climate ambition will be backed by costed policies to achieve that ambition. Good climate policy is good jobs policy—creating jobs and cutting power prices while reducing emissions. The regions will be at the centre of Labor's climate and energy policies.
The only way to achieve that is through changing this government. They're tired. We've had eight years of nothing. In the weeks leading up to Glasgow was the only time we saw a policy, but they won't tell us how much it is going to cost, and it has no real targets. It actually doesn't have too many policies able to be delivered right now. We have a Prime Minister who now can't tell the truth about what he said about electric vehicles at the time of the last election. We all know it's on video—you know, 'it's going ruin your weekend'—and now he is denying he ever said that. We have a government who are just committed to re-electing themselves. They are a government devoid of policies and leading us nowhere on climate change, and, quite frankly, they need to be sacked by Australian voters at the next election. I will take great pleasure in campaigning as hard as I can to get rid of the Morrison government, a government who are devoid of ideas, who lie about what they might do and what they have done, and who don't deserve to be in government.
The question is that the urgency motion moved by Senator Thorpe be agreed to.
I present a report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on Reviews of administration and expenditure no. 18 (2018-2019) and no. 19 (2019-2020): Australian intelligence agencies, together with the minutes of proceedings of the committee and the transcript of evidence. I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I am pleased to present the report on behalf of the committee. In delivering this report the committee fulfils one of its primary statutory duties under the Intelligence Services Act, that being to review the administration and expenditure of six of Australia's intelligence agencies: the Office of National Intelligence, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Australian Signals Directorate, the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation and the Defence Intelligence Organisation. This report brings to a close what has been an extensive review process that was further complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the restrictions on members of the committee, the agencies being reviewed and the parliament as a whole.
This is core business for the PJCIS and the committee takes the responsibility of the administration and expenditure reviews very seriously. For half of the agencies involved, this is the only discrete parliamentary oversight of their functions that is undertaken as they are not subject to Senate estimates processes, nor do they produce public annual reports or budget statements. These reviews ensure that these agencies are scrutinised regarding the appropriate use of their funds and resources to achieve their stated objectives and mission statements. Budgetary arrangements are scrutinised, along with administrative information such as the strategic direction and organisational structure of each agency; their human resources and performance management; the public accountability and public relations of each agency; and legislative changes impacting their operational and litigation matters.
Review no. 18 was interrupted by the initial onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, so the committee, under the former chair, decided to roll over consideration of the 2018-19 review material into a combined effort with the 2019-20 material for review of no. 19. The committee undertakes classified and restricted processes for these reviews, given the nature of the material provided and the crucial work of these agencies. These processes require careful management of nearly two years of work, culminating in the report that I present today.
The committee has found that all six agencies have managed their administration and expenditure appropriately in a period of significant operational pressure, not only from the impact of COVID-19 but also from the evolving security and technological operating environment, as well as the continued maturation and reform of the national intelligence community. The committee was particularly impressed with the way in which the intelligence community was able to continue their important work, despite the disruptions of the pandemic and the public health restrictions put in place. The committee will pay close interest in the future to the continuity of business plans and redundancies agencies put in place to militate against disruptions in the event of future pandemics.
The committee has made four recommendations for government to consider. The first two recommendations are to investigate options for shared services to support staff complaints and resolution mechanisms, as well as psychological support for staff of intelligence agencies. The reviews highlight the need for ongoing and seamless access to staff support and psychology services, not only from the nature of the work of these agencies but also in the face of challenges from COVID-19 and the evolution of the threat which needs to be countered. The committee has also recommended that the Archives Act be amended to ensure that agencies could address ongoing matters regarding expensive repeated requests for material that have been stuck in lengthy and expensive legal processes. Finally, the committee recommends that a review of the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic be undertaken by the Office of National Intelligence, ensuring they are captured and shared across the entire national intelligence community. The committee has also made a statement in this report regarding the future direction it intends to take with future administration and expenditure reviews, which will be to focus on themes and issues of concern rather than just routine matters that are adequately reported or examined elsewhere.
I want to put on the record my personal thanks and extend my gratitude to the extremely hardworking men and women at the head of our intelligence community: Mr Andrew Shearer, Director-General of the Office of National Intelligence; Mr Mike Burgess, Director-General of Security; Mr Paul Symon, the Director-General of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service; Ms Rachel Noble, the Director-General of the Australian Signals Directorate; Lieutenant General Gavan Reynolds AM, Chief of Defence Intelligence; and Mr Scott Dewar, Director of the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation. By their very nature, most of our intelligence agency heads are very limited in what they can say publicly about their work and the amazing people that they employ.
It is also not appropriate for them to respond, as much as they may wish to, to the criticism which often comes that way, much of it unjustified. In my view, the most unfair of these recent criticisms came from the former Prime Minister Paul Keating, who really should know better, given the office he once occupied. Our intelligence agencies provide the best quality insight that they can, and then it is up to political leaders to make the policy decisions which flow from that. So let me say on their behalf: in my experience, our intelligence community is full of diligent, professional and dedicated people who take compliance with the law, their ethical obligations and the national interest of our country very seriously.
Of course, we can never just take it on trust that that will always be the case. Any self-respecting liberal democracy must have in place a robust system of oversight and scrutiny, both to ensure that the significant powers we grant our agencies are used appropriately but also so that the public can have confidence that that is the case. So I'd also like to thank the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and the Auditor-General for the role that they play in assisting the PJCIS to perform our parliamentary oversight duties.
I have the privilege in this position of working closely with the leaders of our national intelligence community, and I thank them for their cooperation and their transparency and for making available some of the most sensitive information about their agencies to assist the committee to complete its review. While most Australians will never see the work that they do, we should all be very proud of and extend our gratitude to them, especially amid the increasingly challenging security environment in our own region. Similarly, I extend thanks to my fellow committee members—in particular, the former deputy chair, Anthony Byrne, and the new deputy chair, Senator McAllister, for their focus and dedication in fulfilling a critical part of the committee's statutory duty and parliamentary oversight role. I commend the report to the Senate and I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
On behalf of the chair of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Senator Polley, I present Scrutiny digest No. 17 of 2021.
I present government responses to committee reports as listed on today's Order of Business. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to have the documents incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The documents read as follows—
Australian Gov ernment response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report:
Report on the review of the re-listing of Hizballah's External Security Organisation as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code
November 2021
Recommendation s
Recommendation 1: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government give consideration to extending the listing of Hizballah's ESO as a terrorist organisation to the entirety of Hizballah, noting the positions of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, the Arab League, the Gulf Cooperation Council and the United Arab Emirates.
Response:
The Government accepts this recommendation.
Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that the Department of Home Affairs and any other relevant agencie s provide the Committee with a classified briefing on its response to Recommendation 1 within three months of tabling of this report.
Response:
The Government notes this recommendation. The Department of Home Affairs will provide the PJCIS with a briefing in accordance with usual practices relating to Government decisions on the listing of terrorist organisations.
Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement report:
Inquiry into Illicit Tobacco
November 2021
Introdu ction
The Australian Government welcomes the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement (Committee)—Inquiry into Illicit Tobacco Report (Report) and its eight recommendations to combat the trade of illicit tobacco in Australia.
The Government recognises the importance of combatting the trade of illicit tobacco, which has significant implications for the community, legitimate businesses, health policies, and protecting revenue that could be used for government services. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) estimates the amount of evaded tobacco excise and customs duty to be $822 million in the 2018-19 financial year.
The Government has committed significant resources to tackle illicit tobacco including the establishment of the Australian Border Force (ABF) led Illicit Tobacco Taskforce (ITTF), implementation of tobacco control and health measures, and the development of fora bringing together key government agencies, industry and retailers to raise illicit tobacco issues. These factors and the continued efforts of federal, state and territory agencies have led to Australia being recognised as having one of the strongest regulatory regimes for tobacco in the world.
The Government acknowledges there are opportunities to enhance our ability to combat the trade of illicit tobacco. In light of this, the Government appreciates the Committee's eight recommendations to further develop the Government's understanding of, and ability to combat, illicit tobacco. The Government would like to thank the submissions from government, industry, retailers, health professionals and other interested parties that informed the Committee's Report.
The Government's response to the eight recommendations is set out below and implementation has commenced on a number of these recommendations. For others, the Government will undertake detailed policy evaluation while continuing to support state and territory agencies.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1:
2.53 The committee recommends that the Australian Taxation Office con tinues with its tobacco tax gap project on a permanent basis and, where appropriate, uses all available external information to assist in developing its understanding of the scale of the illicit tobacco market in Australia.
Response: The Government agrees to this recommendation.
The ATO, in collaboration with the ABF, will continue to estimate the tobacco tax gap on an ongoing annual basis using the best available internal and external information.
Recommendation 2:
2.55 The committee recommends that the Au stralian Criminal Intelligence Commission consider the inclusion of data on and analysis of illicit tobacco in future iterations of the Illicit Drug Data Report.
Response: The Government does not support this recommendation.
The Government agrees that collection and collation of data on the illicit tobacco market to enable analysis of market trends is important, however, notes the Illicit Drug Data Report (IDDR) is not the most appropriate avenue to achieve this outcome.
The IDDR provides government, law enforcement agencies and interested stakeholders with a national picture of the illicit drug market in Australia. The focus of the IDDR is on illicit drug markets, primarily amphetamine-type stimulants, cannabis, heroin and cocaine. While the IDDR reports on other drug markets that include licit substances with abuse potential—such as illicit pharmaceuticals, anabolic steroids and anaesthetics—the information available for these substances is limited. This is likely to be the case for illicit tobacco.
Through the National Wastewater Drug Monitoring Program (NWDMP), the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) generates three public reports annually on the trends of consumption of 13 substances including nicotine, and there is ongoing wastewater-related research occurring to attempt to quantify the size of the illicit tobacco market.
In the future the NWDMP is likely to be better placed to provide relevant, timely information in relation to illicit tobacco markets noting collection for the program is ongoing and current, and as there are more opportunities to explore supplementary data sources to assist assessing the size of the illicit tobacco market, including via work that is already under way.
Recommendation 3:
3.83 The committee recommends that all aspects of illicit tobacco enforcement be removed from the portfolio responsibility of the Department of Health and transferred to the Department of Home Affairs.
Response: The Government notes this recommendation.
The Government agrees that illicit tobacco enforcement is best addressed as a law enforcement responsibility, most appropriately managed and coordinated by the relevant law enforcement agencies at the Commonwealth level in collaboration with state and territory police forces. Responsibility for combatting illicit tobacco, including enforcement activities, is shared between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments.
The Commonwealth Department of Health (Health) administers the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 (TPP Act). The TPP Act does not contain provisions specific to illicit tobacco nor is the TPP Act seen by Government as an illicit tobacco enforcement regime.
However, where Health identifies potential instances of illicit tobacco through inspections or complaints received, Health makes referrals to the ITTF for intelligence gathering and further investigation. These referral opportunities are made possible through Health's use of legislative measures linked to health warnings and associated deterrent measures. As such, Health should maintain these activities within its remit, and continue to focus its expertise and resources on the administration of associated compliance under the TPP Act.
The Government notes that the Home Affairs Portfolio plays a significant role in illicit tobacco enforcement through the ABF-led ITTF. The Government established the ITTF to protect Commonwealth revenue by proactively targeting, disrupting and dismantling serious actors and organised crime syndicates that deal in illicit tobacco. The ITTF complements the efforts made by Health to control tobacco through the administration of the TPP Act.
The Home Affairs Portfolio includes law enforcement and customs functions, which complement the administrative and policy functions of the functions of Health. The Home Affairs Portfolio and Health will work to bolster coordination between Commonwealth agencies on tobacco, including activities to combat the illicit tobacco trade.
Recommendation 4:
5.43 The committee recommends that the Department of Home Affairs develop a strategy for the use of monies from the proceeds of crime account to fund law enforcement operations of the Commonwealth and states and territories targeting illicit tobacco.
Response: The Government does not support this recommendation.
The Confiscated Assets Account (the Account) is not designed to provide ongoing financial support to law enforcement operations and as such, the development of a strategy would not be appropriate.
The Minister for Home Affairs is responsible for funding law enforcement projects from the Account under section 298 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Funding is approved on an annual basis and is dependent on the balance of the Account. The Account is not designed to provide ongoing financial support to law enforcement operations.
Funding for law enforcement programs may only be allocated from the Account if these programs are non-ongoing. The Account is not a suitable source of funds for ongoing operational commitments. In addition, the Account should not be relied on to fund major ongoing programs, as the balance of the Account varies considerably and is subject to the resolution of asset confiscation matters, where timeframes are unpredictable. Committing future funds from the Account to tobacco confiscation operations would also reduce the available funds for other law enforcement and crime prevention measures, limiting the Minister's ability to fund new and innovative proposals as they arise.
The Minister for Home Affairs has discretion in funding activities for specific purposes, including tobacco. The Department of Home Affairs may seek funding from the Account to fund tobacco related activities from time to time. The Department of Home Affairs may develop proposals in collaboration with states and territories in line with strategic objectives and government priorities.
Recommendation 5:
5.65 The committee recommends the Australian Government explore options to develop a nationally consistent licencing regime for tobacco products, including tobacco product manufacturing supplies and equipment.
Response: The Government notes this recommendation.
State and territory governments have responsibility for the licensing requirements for tobacco retailers within their own jurisdiction, including product manufacturing supplies and equipment.
Different regulatory arrangements apply in state and territory jurisdictions in relation to:
The Government supports a nationally consistent approach to licensing suppliers (including retailers, wholesalers and manufacturers) of tobacco products and related product manufacturing supplies and equipment. A licensing regime would support law enforcement of illicit tobacco through information gathering as part of the licensing process. A nationally consistent approach to licensing may also benefit industry by providing more consistent treatment for businesses in different jurisdictions.
States and territories are responsible for the administration of tobacco retail licensing in their respective jurisdictions and each jurisdiction would need to make changes their legislation to ensure a uniform approach. The Government regularly consults states and territories on the administration and enforcement of tobacco matters including encouraging nationally consistent approaches wherever possible.
Recommendation 6:
5.83 The committee recommends the Department of Home Affairs work in collaboration with the relevant law enfo rcement agencies to provide definitive advice to the Australian Government on the implementation of a track and trace regime in Australia, and whether Australia should become signatory to the World Health Organisation Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products, provided it takes into account Australia's unique circumstances.
Response: The Government notes this recommendation.
The Government is committed to strengthening its efforts to reduce illicit tobacco and revenue evasion in Australia. As part of this commitment, the Government will consider the feasibility of implementing a tobacco track and trace system in Australia.
The ABF is responsible for managing the flow of tobacco across the Australian border and collecting customs duty and taxes on imported tobacco. The ABF leads Government efforts to combat illicit tobacco at the border and is the lead agency for consideration of a track and trace regime in Australia.
The ABF agrees to work with relevant government agencies to assess the role that a track and trace system could play in reducing revenue evasion on tobacco products and its applicability in the Australian context.
The implementation of a track and trace scheme in the supply chain would be required to comply with obligations under the World Health Organization Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products (the Protocol). Under domestic arrangements, Australia is only able to accede to the Protocol once all necessary domestic laws to implement obligations under the Protocol are in place.
As the responsible agency for policy relating to Australia's obligations under the World Health Organisation Framework Convention for Tobacco Control, Health will continue to work with law enforcement agencies to support the implementation of measures consistent with the requirements of the Protocol.
Recommendation 7:
5.83 The committee recommends the development of a National Illicit Tobacco strategy, in conjunction with state and territory police forces, as a co-ordinated, national law enforcement-led response that will:
Response: The Government notes this recommendation.
A decision to develop and endorse a new sub-strategy under the National Drug Strategy, or include this issue in future versions of the National Tobacco Strategy or the National Strategy to Fight Transnational, Serious and Organised Crime, would be a matter for joint consideration by relevant Commonwealth, state and territory Ministers.
Responsibility for combatting illicit tobacco, including enforcement activities, is shared between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments. The Government's responsibilities include combatting the supply of illicit tobacco through operational activities at the Australian border and investigating the large-scale cultivation or manufacture of illicit tobacco in the community. The Government also undertakes activities to reduce tobacco consumption such as overseeing plain packaging in accordance with the TPP Act and enforcing product safety-related tobacco regulations. State and territory governments have responsibility for licencing and enforcing the sale of tobacco and any state or territory laws in relation to tobacco consumption. In some circumstances, local councils have been delegated inspection duties.
Recommendation 8:
5.103 The committee recommends that as part of the development of a National Illicit Tobacco strategy, that state and territory legislation be aligne d with the new Commonwealth offences and enhanced penalties, to address in the current law. In addition, a strategy for the introduction of infringement notices for point of sale enforcement be developed with the Commonwealth providing adequate resources f or the development and implementation of this strategy.
Response: The Government notes this recommendation.
A decision to develop and endorse a new sub-strategy under the National Drug Strategy, or include this issue in future versions of the National Tobacco Strategy or the National Strategy to Fight Transnational, Serious and Organised Crime, would be a matter for joint consideration by relevant Commonwealth, state and territory Ministers.
The Government notes the Committee's recommendation to develop a strategy to introduce infringement notices for point of sale enforcement. Considering the division of responsibilities between Commonwealth, state and territory governments, the Government's primary focus continues to be disrupting illicit tobacco at the most effective intervention points; at the Australian border, offshore, and during domestic cultivation onshore.
On behalf of the Minister of Agriculture and Northern Australia, Minister Littleproud, I table a ministerial statement on developing Northern Australia.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
I rise to take note of the 2021 annual statement to the parliament on developing northern Australia and to acknowledge the Hon. David Littleproud, Minister for Agriculture and Northern Australia, because this truly is a government that is focused on developing the northern Australia agenda.
For a nation where just 1.3 million people—5.3 per cent of our population—live in the top 51 per cent of the nation, a casual observer could be forgiven for wondering why we'd prioritise the development of northern Australia. Surely it is too hot, too wet, too dry and too unpopulated to care about, but, for those of us who live, work, or invest in northern Australia, the reality is that it is the part of the nation that has the true potential to deliver the increase of food and fibre production, essential minerals for our new economy, unique and wonderful tourism destinations, defence placement and Indigenous community connections.
Our people are hardworking. They're used to being patient, waiting for seasons, for prices and for recognition from our southern cousins. Only five per cent of our House of Representatives members speak for the northern 50 per cent of land mass, and eight per cent of senators live in the north. A foreign observer wondering why our economy has continued to not just survive but thrive during the pandemic need look no further than northern Australia. The north kept digging, driving, growing, providing jobs and keeping the royalties and taxes flowing, and that's why we care, as a nation, about developing northern Australia.
I often refer to four pillars of developing the north. The first is access to affordable and reliable electricity; we pay, on average, three times more for electricity in North Queensland than those in southern Queensland. The second is access to insurance and finance; we pay three times the price of insurance, if we can get it, in northern Australia, and finance is similarly weighted. The third is the requirement for suitable road, rail, flight and freight infrastructure, and the fourth is access to high-quality medical care, aged care and child care.
I am delighted to say that this government is focusing on those very important issues—particularly the northern Australia insurance fund, which should come into effect next year. This is a $10 billion reinsurance pool which will allow insurers to re-enter the market in northern Australia and will ensure that we are suitably protected. The north performs functions that the south does not and cannot. Through royalties, it funds much of the rest of the nation—including hospitals and schools—and, again, for that reason, the north matters.
Most importantly, though, recently $9.3 million has been allocated to the Regions of Growth pilot program: Broome to Kununurra to Darwin, across Western Australia and the Northern Territory; the Beetaloo basin to Katherine to Darwin, again in the Northern Territory; and Cairns to Gladstone, and Mount Isa to Townsville, in Queensland. The minister has announced the master plans for three of those regions and their respective corridors, 20-year blueprints and five-year action plans to lead a structured and coordinated investment agenda. Most importantly, though, it's in collaboration with state and territory counterparts, industry and communities.
The first master plans will focus on locations within three regions of growth: Kununurra to Darwin, Katherine to Middle Arm and Mount Isa to Townsville. These projects will de-risk the north and give confidence to the private sector to invest in northern Australia. This is important because it is developing plans for the north by the north. I'm truly excited by this advancement in policy thinking.
Minister Littleproud has brought new coordination to the government policy settings in this country because he has turned his mind to coordinating a whole-of-government effort. Traditionally, departments work in silos. What Minister Littleproud has done has encouraged the introduction of more frequent round tables, where federal, state and territory jurisdiction agencies across a range of portfolios—health, defence, infrastructure and many more—sit at the same table and discuss the significant advancements that are being made, both in government research investment as well as in private enterprise.
We know that it is in the north that the significant productivity gains in mining and agriculture and in renewables and new industries will spring up. Resources are taking off, pit-to-port. Vanadium and rare earth mines are being developed, and I applaud the Queensland government for recently investing in a public utility asset for a vanadium-processing facility.
The CRC for northern Australia is doing extremely interesting work. There are promising results from studies into alternative cropping, forestry and cane, utilising industries that are already successful in northern Australia and finding new and more exciting uses for these crops. The important part is that that allows farmers and producers to be more profitable and more successful. We know that makes them not only more sustainable but better land managers, which is something that there has been quite a deal of interest in—in Queensland particularly. And, importantly, it's about Indigenous business development—being able to harness the enthusiasm and the potential of Indigenous communities that are looking for ways to engage their young people and their communities on country, to stay on country and not have to go away.
Townsville port is Australia's largest northern port for sugar, lead, copper, zinc, fertiliser and molasses, and live cattle as well. It is also the largest container and automotive port in northern Australia. More than eight million tonnes of goods worth more than $10 billion are handled through there each year.
So this is an exciting future, funded and supported by this coalition government. It is important that we do turn our whole-of-government attention to developing, as I said, cross-portfolio solutions for the north. We need to positively discriminate for northern Australia. In Townsville alone, $562 million was spent on flying consultants into that city, a city that has incredible and useful capability and capacity in business consulting, health consulting, transport and freight consulting, yet we continue to fly people into that city. I think if I did the numbers, it would be the same right across northern Australia.
I am tired of businesses having a token office—a post office box and a serviced office—in our northern cities and calling that being 'based in the north'. They then call for government projects when they don't pay the salaries into northern Australia. The people don't live there; they don't have their white-collar salaries in the north, their kids in the schools or their lawns being mowed. These are the sorts of things that develop our northern capacity. So when I say I want to positively discriminate in favour of the north, it is to demand that appointments are filled by people who live in northern Australia, that contracts for consultants are awarded to companies that are genuinely based in the north and to support projects and organisations that pay their wages and live in northern Australia, not fly-in, fly-out. It is only with that kind of practical approach that we can fulfil our true potential and destiny, and I applaud the Minister for Agriculture and Northern Australia for the work he has done in truly driving this agenda and holding us to account.
[by video link] I would have loved to have been there in person. Unfortunately, that has not been possible, but I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this and to take note of the minister's statement on northern Australia. I congratulate Senator McDonald, who I know has taken on a new role in relation to northern Australia, and I congratulate Minister Littleproud on providing his first update as Minister for Agriculture and Northern Australia to the House of Representatives. However, it must be said that, six years on from the introduction of this government's white paper on developing northern Australia, the truth is we are still waiting on this government to deliver on many of the promises they've made to the north. We hear a lot of talk from this government about the potential of northern Australia, but six years on we still haven't seen a whole lot delivered. I think most people in northern Australia would have expected to see more on the ground from this government six years after that white paper was released.
This week, while I haven't been with you in Canberra, I have taken the opportunity to spend the last two days in Cairns, where I have seen a lot more of that potential on display both in the traditional industries that Cairns is very well known for and in new industries. What we need is a federal government that's going to get behind that potential, whether it be in Cairns or other places in Queensland, the Northern Territory or Western Australia, and convert that potential to reality. Unfortunately, over the life of this government, time and time again we've seen advances in the northern Australia agenda derailed by leadership squabbles within the National Party. It is the National Party that has held this portfolio for most of the life of this government. Recently, we saw Minister Keith Pitt ousted from the job as minister for northern Australia, after only one year in the role, as the result of another leadership change in the National Party. It is disappointing, I think, to everyone in northern Australia watching on to see the Nationals fight for their own jobs rather than for the jobs of northern Australians.
We've also seen significant turmoil at the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, the key policy and program behind the government's northern Australia agenda. That was exacerbated recently by the shocking and unexplained resignation of its CEO. Labor supports the NAIF, as I and my predecessors have always made clear, and there is a genuine gap in financing projects in northern Australia which the NAIF could fill. Over the last couple of days in both Cairns and Brisbane I've met with businesses who are currently seeking funding through the NAIF, and there is no denying there is a financing gap when it comes to projects in northern Australia that the NAIF could be filling. That's why I was pleased that over the last 12 months the government adopted some of the suggestions proposed through the Senate inquiry into the federal government's northern Australia agenda, such as allowing it to make equity investments and increasing support for small and First Nations projects. But, six years after it was announced, the NAIF has still released only 8½ per cent or $427.6 million of its $5 billion budget, so at this rate it'll take 70 years for all of the NAIF's funding to actually be rolled out.
It has also been concerning this year to see the winding back of some of the offers of northern Australia's key structures. This included downgrading the ministerial forum on northern Australia to an as-needed format and cutting off funding to the Indigenous Reference Group for northern Australia. It's pleasing that the government, under Minister Littleproud, has now confirmed that the Indigenous Reference Group will be re-established—that should never have been in doubt. But it is concerning that so little consideration was given to the ongoing importance of engagement with First Nations northern Australians, especially given the land ownership and the sheer population of First Nations people in northern Australia. These types of structures are essential for the collaboration that the northern Australia agenda needs to succeed.
I will pick up on one point that Senator McDonald made. She talked about the importance of jobs being located in northern Australia. I agree with her on that point, and it would be really good to see this government follow suit. We learned at Senate estimates recently that the majority of the staff of the NAIF, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, are based in Sydney, which is hardly northern Australia. There are more NAIF staff in Sydney than there are across the entirety of northern Australia. It's just not good enough, and it's another sign that, unfortunately, this government's promises to northern Australia don't always get delivered.
I say this after spending significant amounts of time in northern Australia and speaking to many representatives, whether it be businesses, unions, governments or community organisations. As the government is fond of saying, the north is ripe with potential, but it needs more than just the recognition of its potential. The north needs a real, bold plan backed by real action. The truth is that we do have the opportunity to set up northern Australia to lead our country out of COVID-19. It has incredible opportunities that could really lead the pace for our country as a whole, but what northern Australia needs, as I say, is a real plan with real action rather than woolly promises that end up not being delivered. That's what Labor's economic plan for northern Australia will do. I will spend the remainder of my contribution putting forward an alternative agenda for northern Australia which actually will deliver on the potential that we know exists in the region.
Fundamental to Labor's plan is a very simple proposition, that what we support and what northern Australia desperately wants is more jobs in more industries. They don't want to be picked off and involved in some culture war between the Greens on the one hand and the National Party on the other, who say that you can only have the new industries or you can only have the traditional industries. What people in northern Australia want is more jobs in more industries. That's what Labor's plan will deliver. We want to create more jobs in the north's backbone industries, such as agriculture, resources and tourism. There remain huge opportunities across these traditional, well-established industries—things like food manufacturing, carbon farming, cultural and environmental tourism, and minerals—to build the supply chain and to value-add by building things like batteries here in Australia, preferably in northern Australia. We also want to create more jobs in the hidden industries, the industries that we often don't recognise and that don't get featured in the government's agenda for northern Australia—industries like health care, education and human services. Go to any major town in northern Australia and you will find that the biggest employers are those sectors, but, despite the fact that they're such big employers, they're not part of the government's northern Australia agenda. That has to change, because they have huge economic potential and they cater to the service needs and lifestyle needs of our north.
Of course, Labor also wants to create more jobs in the newer industries, like renewables, hydrogen, advanced manufacturing, aerospace, and creative industries, where the north has a massive competitive advantage. Again, you don't hear much from the government about those industries, but they are fast growing, they have huge opportunities, they generally provide well-paid jobs and they pick up on the cultural and knowledge base that northern Australia has in abundance.
One of the Senate inquiry's key findings was that the northern Australia agenda needs to get behind these new industries, creating greater and more-stable employment across the north. As an example, with a government that was truly committed to its development, rather than a government that had to be dragged kicking and screaming to net zero emissions by 2050, we could make northern Australia the world capital of new energy generation. Just imagine the opportunities that we have to drive a new age of heavy engineering and advanced manufacturing in the north on the back of cheap, clean power. After years of manufacturing decline, we could reindustrialise our north, bringing manufacturing onshore by offering cheap power and creating good jobs for decades to come. That's just one example in one sector.
There are many opportunities like this arising across northern Australia, but they need a real plan that actually acknowledges the industries and gets behind them, rather than pooh-poohing them, which is what we've seen far too often from this government. We need to see some serious commitments from the government to deliver opportunities in infrastructure, in skills and in social infrastructure. Any time you go into northern Australia—it doesn't matter where you go—housing is one of the first issues that are raised with you. Skills shortages is the other. Again, we've seen serious underinvestment from the government in those areas. We can't possibly expect to take the opportunities that exist—whether they be in those traditional industries, in the hidden industries or in the new industries—if we don't provide that basic social infrastructure. Again, that is just not part of this government's plan.
Labor has a clear plan for more jobs in more industries. We will deliver the infrastructure, the skills and all of the other social infrastructure that's needed. It's time for a change in northern Australia. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted.
Question agreed to.
I table documents relating to the order for production of documents concerning questions asked by the Environment and Communications References Committee relating to oil and gas exploration and production in the Beetaloo basin.
I will seek leave to continue my remarks later. We are about to have a disallowance debate in relation to the Beetaloo basin and I will continue there, but I just want to make sure we can come back to those documents at a later stage.
In accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Act 1974, I present a proposal for works within the Parliamentary Zone relating to the Dame Enid Lyons and Dame Dorothy Tangney commemorative sculpture. I seek leave to give notice of a motion in relation to the proposal.
Leave granted.
I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:
That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the proposal by the National Capital Authority for capital works within the Parliamentary Zone, relating to the Dame Enid Lyons and Dame Dorothy Tangney commemorative sculpture.
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 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—
Today I introduce the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Political Campaigners) Bill 2021, which responds to Recommendation 18 of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) from its Report on the conduct of the 2019 federal election and matters related thereto.
This Bill amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to enhance public confidence in Australia's political processes by aligning transparency of political actors who seek to influence the outcome of an election to more closely resemble the disclosures of political parties, candidates, or members of the Australian Parliament.
The amendment reduces the amount of 'electoral expenditure' an individual or organisation can spend before they are required to register as a political campaigner.
This amount will decrease from the current $500,000 to $100,000 during the financial year, or for any of the previous three financial years.
A person or entity will also be required to register as a political campaigner where the amount of the 'electoral expenditure' they have spent during the financial year is at least equal to the disclose threshold, currently $14,500, and at least one-third of their revenue for the previous financial year.
The amendments do not represent a significant change for people or entities who meet the updated thresholds. Every organisation affected by this amendment either is already required to submit a return as a third party campaigner, or would be required to do so if they incurred such expenditure at a future electoral event. These amendments simply change the type of return they lodge with the AEC.
This Bill will assist electors to make an informed choice during the electoral process, by making equal the requirements on political actors seeking to influence election outcomes.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the resumption of debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.
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 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—
This Bill will amend the primary legislation for the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (the Scheme). The amendments form part of the Government's response to recommendations from the Final Report,Second Year Review of the National Redress Scheme (the Review) undertaken by Ms Robyn Kruk AO.
The amendments increase access to the Scheme for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse by expanding Funder of Last Resort arrangements, and forms part of the Government's ongoing commitment to improving the Scheme.
The Scheme was established in response to the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (the Royal Commission). The Scheme was established by the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018 (the Act).
The Scheme's legislation requires that a review of the operation of the Scheme be undertaken following the second and eighth anniversaries of the Scheme. The Final Report,Second Year Review of the National Redress Scheme, presented byMs Robyn Kruk AO, makes 38 recommendations to increase access to redress, including through expanding Funder of Last Resort arrangements, and to improve the Scheme's operation, making it more trauma-informed, efficient and ultimately more survivor-focussed.
In undertaking the Review, survivor voices were front and centre and Ms Kruk consulted extensively with survivors, advocacy groups, support services, institutions and Commonwealth and state and territory governments.
It is essential that the needs of survivors are being met; that the Scheme is operating effectively; and that the unique and evolving challenges in administering such a measure are being addressed.
This year, the Parliament passed two separate pieces of legislation to improve the Scheme. The first piece of legislation addressed minor and technical issues associated with the administration of the Scheme.
The second piece of legislation was in direct response to recommendations made as part of the Second Year Review. This legislation made survivor focused improvements as an initial tranche of action on Review recommendations.
The second piece of legislation provided for an advance payment of $10,000 for elderly and terminally ill applicants, changed the indexation arrangements to be fairer for applicants, removed the requirement to provide a statutory declaration when making an application, enabled an extension of time a person has to accept their offer of redress or request a review, and authorised redress to be paid in instalments at an applicant's request.
The Scheme's establishment is an acknowledgement by the Australian Government and state and territory governments that sexual abuse suffered by children in institutional settings was wrong, a betrayal of trust, and should never have happened.
The Scheme is an important step towards healing and provides a monetary payment as a tangible means of recognising the wrong survivors have suffered; access to counselling or psychological services; and a direct personal response from the institutions responsible where a survivor wants that to occur.
Over the past three years, the Scheme has secured the participation of all states and territories, and as of 8 October 2021, 526 non-government institutions are participating in the Scheme. This means the Scheme now covers over 69,000 sites across Australia. In addition nearly 6,400 payments totalling over $546 million have been paid to survivors to date.
Unfortunately, some survivors continue to be unable to access redress through the Scheme because their institution is not participating.
The Government remains committed to encouraging all institutions named in applications to fulfil their moral obligation to join the Scheme. For those institutions that choose not to join the Scheme, the Government has introduced financial consequences, in order to encourage them to join. This includes institutions being restricted from accessing future Commonwealth grant funding and possible loss of their charitable status and associated tax concessions.
It is important that where an institution can join the Scheme, that it does so as a matter of urgency and takes responsibility for past abuse by providing redress to survivors.
Some survivors are unable to access redress through the Scheme as the institution responsible for their abuse no longer exists, or the institution cannot meet the necessary requirements to be participate in the Scheme. Currently, applications from these survivors cannot be progressed. This is why changes to the Scheme's Funder of Last Resort provisions are critical.
The Australian Government recognises the views of survivors and other key stakeholders and has listened to the concerns raised. We are prioritising initial action on 25 of the 38 Review recommendations in full or in part and investing over $80 million over four years in the 2021-22 Budget to support implementation of these recommendations.
The Government released its interim response to the Review in June 2021 and we plan to provide a final response to all of the Review's recommendations in early 2022.
Following the Government's interim response to the Review the Parliament passed an initial package of legislative amendments, as I have outlined. The more substantial changes recommended by the Review required further negotiations with state and territory governments as Scheme partners and consultation with survivors and their advocates.
This Bill reflects the next legislative changes in response to the Review. It expands Funder of Last Resort arrangements, a significant recommendation made as part of the Second Year Review and one in which the Government has been very public in its support for. The Bill also strengthens the legislative basis on which institutions are publicly named as having not joined the Scheme.
Funder of Last Resort
Currently, a person can only access redress under Funder of Last Resort arrangements where a government is equally responsible for the abuse of the person.
This Bill recognises that regardless of whether a government was involved in the abuse of the person, where the institution responsible for the abuse no longer exists (that is, the institution is defunct), the affected survivors should have the opportunity to access redress.
As such, this Bill expands the Funder of Last Resort arrangements to allow state and territory governments to be a Funder of Last Resort in this circumstance. Wherever possible, an overarching institution that is affiliated with the defunct institution will be called on to take responsibility. However, where there is no such parent institution, governments can step in and enable access to redress.
The Bill also provides that a government can be a Funder of Last resort for an institution that is unable to meet the legislative requirements to participate in the Scheme. Presently, an institution cannot be declared as participating in the Scheme unless there are reasonable grounds to expect that they can discharge their liabilities and obligation under the Scheme. An institution that does not have the financial capacity to pay its redress liabilities would not meet this requirement.
There are currently 21 institutions listed on the Scheme's website that fall within this category of not meeting the legislative requirements to participate. This means survivors naming these institutions in their applications cannot currently access redress. Expanding Funder of Last Resort arrangements in these circumstances is the right thing to do for survivors.
The Bill provides the ability for these institutions to partly participate in the Scheme. Although unable to fund their redress liability, partly participating institutions can perform other important functions including providing a Direct Personal Response to survivors. This recognises that many institutions want to do the right thing by survivors and do what they can to ensure a survivor can access all three parts of redress available through the Scheme.
The Australian Government will contribute half of the funding for the expanded Funder of Last Resort arrangements, under a 50:50 cost-shared model with the relevant state and territory governments. This demonstrates the Australian Government's commitment to ensuring as many survivors as possible can access redress.
The expanding Funder of Last Resort arrangements aligns with recommendation 5.1 of the Second Year Review that allows governments to become a Funder of Last Resort for survivors that would otherwise be unable to access redress or pursue compensation through the civil legal system.
These arrangements will not cover institutions that can join the Scheme but choose not to. These institutions should join and provide survivors with the redress they deserve. Institutions shirking their moral obligations will continued to be encouraged to join the Scheme, will be publicly named, and will be subject to the financial consequences mentioned earlier.
Public Naming Institutions that do not j oin the Scheme
Institutions named in applications to the Scheme that have not joined within a reasonable timeframe are publicly named on the Scheme's website. Publicly naming institutions provides survivors who have applied for redress, and those considering applying for redress, with information on the institutions' participation in the Scheme and is a lever to further encourage institutions to join the Scheme.
The Bill provides that institutions named in applications to the Scheme, or institutions the Scheme Operator has a reasonable belief has a connection with the abuse of the person, can be publicly named if they do not join.
This measure does not change the existing naming practice. It provides a stronger and more administratively efficient basis to publicly name institutions, as well as making it clear to institutions that they will be publicly named should they be able to join the Scheme, but choose not to.
This measure provides a firm legislative basis to disclose protected information, namely the names of institutions.
This measure will also support increased institutional participation in the Scheme, which in turn will allow more survivors to access redress.
The Government has worked extensively with the states and territories on this Bill, and in line with the Scheme's governance arrangements, all state and territory governments have agreed to the amendments.
This Bill is the second tranche of legislative amendments to the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018 following the Review.
The Australian Government is pleased to outline the important measures in this Bill and will continue to work with Scheme stakeholders to bring forward further improvements in response to the recommendations of the Review for the benefit of survivors.
Debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Australian Greens, 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.
This is a very important disallowance motion because it seeks to stop a $50 million slush fund going to mates of the Liberal Party to pollute our planet even more. Mr Morrison, Minister Taylor and resources minister Mr Pitt want to open up the Beetaloo basin in the Northern Territory and build the world's largest gas field when we are in the midst of a climate crisis.
The COP26 climate summit in Glasgow two weeks ago heard very clearly from scientists right around the world and other world leaders that, in order to combat dangerous global warming, we have to stop making climate change worse and we have to start leaving coal and gas in the ground. There's a lot of cleaning up to do right now before making it even worse. The International Energy Agency tells us that, if we are to keep temperatures below the critical threshold of 1.5 degrees and if we are to get to net zero by even 2050, we have to stop opening up new coal and gas fields. In fact, we can't have any new fossil fuels if we are to stop dangerous global warming.
Of course, we know already what this devastating climate crisis is all about. Only two summers ago Australia lived through the worst bushfires we have ever seen. We know that our neighbours in the Pacific islands are already feeling the devastating impacts of sea level rise. We know that famine and drought are hitting some of the most impoverished nations around the world. We know that, in order to stop this, we have to stop polluting and we have to stop making climate change worse.
This current disallowance motion is to stop $50 million of Australian taxpayers' money being handed to private gas companies so that they can continue to drill and explore for more gas. What planet are we on? This world is facing a climate crisis and we are pleading with world leaders and telling our children that we need to stop polluting but we're spending government money, taxpayers' money, propping up the industry that is making our planet sick.
Of course, this is all going on in the Northern Territory in the Beetaloo basin without the consent of the traditional owners. In fact, when I was in Glasgow for the global summit only two weeks ago I met with a young woman who is terrified, frustrated and angry about what the government is proposing to do on her people's land. Rikki Dank, a young, strong First Nations woman from Beetaloo, was at the global summit pleading with world leaders to help stop this devastation. She was pleading not just for the rights of her people but for the rights of every child on this planet. If this gas basin is allowed to be opened up, the Morrison government boasts it will be the biggest in the world—at a time when we have to be getting out of fossil fuels and investing money instead in the transition to clean, green renewable energy and investing in the adaptation strategies that we undoubtably need because already the climate is warming. Rather than doing that, what we see is Mr Morrison putting his hand in the pockets of Australians, taking their hard-earned money and handing it over to his mates in the gas industry.
These mates in the gas industry—let me just put it very clearly—are also donors to the coalition. When I was in Glasgow two weeks ago, talking to leaders, scientists, civil society groups and key business people, when I said I was from Australia, the first question they would ask was: 'What on earth is going on down there? Why is your government so obsessed with propping up coal and gas? We're all here trying to work out a strategy to reduce pollution, to transition, to get money out of subsidising fossil fuels, and all we're hearing from Australia's Prime Minister is, "She'll be right mate; we're doing enough, and, by the way, we're going to keep funnelling money to our mates in the fossil fuel industry."'
When the Prime Minister spoke in Glasgow, he sounded like a stroppy, grumpy, out-of-touch old man. He stood on the stage for three minutes. He travelled all the way to Glasgow for a three-minute speech, and when he stood up he was dismissive of the negotiations taking place. He said Australia didn't have to do anything more; we were doing enough and everything was hunky-dory back home. He directed his Australian negotiators to not sign the agreement to leave coal in the ground and to open no new coal power plants and mines. He refused to sign the methane pledge, because guess where methane comes from—gas. In fact, with the leaking of gas wells at the current rate of three to four per cent, gas is even dirtier than coal. But the Prime Minister doesn't want you to know that. The Prime Minister is doing the bidding of the big fossil fuel companies, pretending that everything is A-OK and that at a minute to midnight, perhaps in 2049, all of a sudden it will all be fixed and we'll get to net zero by 2050.
The rest of the world knows that is bollocks. They know it's not true, and that's what we heard over and over and over again at the global summit. While other world leaders were getting together to discuss how to tackle climate change and how to deal with the influence and undue pressure from the world's multinational coal and gas companies, we had Australia's Prime Minister running PR stunts for Santos. At the Glasgow summit, all of the countries had a pavilion to showcase what their government was doing and what their people were doing to deal with climate change—what they were bringing to the global discussion and putting on the table, what their contribution was. The Australian pavilion, at the direction of the minister, Angus Taylor, had a coffee cart and a Santos logo. So what Australia brought to the global summit, what they wanted broadcast, was: we might make good coffees, but, boy, we do gas well!
The idea that you rock up to a climate change conference to discuss how your country works with others to cut global warming while showcasing one of the filthiest, dirtiest industries in the country is appalling, and it left a bad taste in everybody's mouth. Mr Morrison and his pavilion stand, with the minister, Angus Taylor, were a laughing-stock on the world stage. Business leaders thought it; world leaders thought it; civil society knew it. No wonder that, when I spoke with Rikki Dank, all the way from the Northern Territory, who was there to plead for her country and her people, she was so angry and frustrated, because what was being presented by her government and her country was a fraud. You can't get to net zero by 2050 and you can't get to net zero by 2030 if you keep opening up new coal and gas. What part of that does this government not understand?
But, of course, we're here today debating this disallowance because it's not just the Morrison government that is doing this—as a frolic of their own, for their mates in the coal and gas industry. Sadly, they are doing it in full sight, with the support of the Labor opposition. This is just devastating to Australians across the country who know we need to get serious about climate change and that we are running out of time. This next decade will be crucial, yet the Labor opposition are agreeing with the Morrison government that public money should be spent on carbon capture and storage to keep propping up the coal industry. Here today we will see the Labor Party agreeing to allow $50 million of taxpayers' money to be handed from the government coffers straight over to their mates in the fossil fuel industry.
It just beggars belief that this is what we are facing, when the rest of the world is trying hard to come up with strategies to reduce pollution, to save the planet and to give our children a safe future. It is extremely disappointing to see the Labor Party fold into the lap of the fossil fuel industry like this. It's devastating to see, when they know what a sham Mr Morrison's policies are—when everybody does; it's been broadcast around the world. No-one believes it. Everyone knows that he will not be able to get to net zero without changing a thing. But it's worse than that. Labor want to allow Mr Morrison and Mr Taylor to spend $50 million propping up some private gas companies, to do the wrecking on the land of the traditional owners without even having consent, and to do it in the name of the next generation, who are frustrated and angry that government and political leaders continue to turn a blind eye to the need for a safe climate to secure their future.
Our planet is desperately sick. It needs help. It needs care. It needs restoration. Rather than helping to heal the planet, this program, paid for by taxpayers, is going to make our climate even worse. It's going to make our planet even sicker. That is not a legacy that we should be leaving to our children or the next generation, and I urge crossbenchers and the Labor Party tonight not to let them get away with this. It's climate chaos, it's climate vandalism and it's devastating.
I rise to speak on this disallowance motion. It's not the first time that this has been attempted. Yes, this government has committed $50 million in grants to advance the exploration of the Beetaloo basin, which we think and we hope will be extremely productive.
Why have we done this? This government gives grants to a lot of different industries that we think are going to be valuable for the Australian people and for our economy. We give lots of grants to things like hydrogen, battery storage, solar and wind, and lots of grants to business development and manufacturing. We do a whole lot of work in this space to try to advance economic development, and this is just one of those. This is to bring forward exploration of the Beetaloo basin, which has the potential to bring a huge amount of jobs and economic stimulus to the Northern Territory in particular and also to Indigenous people and traditional owners.
The Greens like to talk a big game about Indigenous people, but the truth is that they actually don't care about Indigenous economic advancement, Indigenous jobs, Indigenous businesses and independence from welfare. If they did truly believe that then they would be supporting this program. This program is not only going to provide jobs—actual long-term jobs—for the traditional owners of this area but it's also going to provide opportunity for Indigenous businesses. In fact, I am engaged with an Indigenous business at the moment in the region which is looking to provide services and a whole pile of other jobs to this industry. (Quorum formed) The Greens like to talk a big game about supposedly supporting Indigenous Australians, but they actually don't. What they want to do is oppress them. What they're doing is trying to infantilise Indigenous Australians. They want to keep them down. They don't want to give them economic opportunity, because this is the biggest economic opportunity that Indigenous Territorians have had in a very long time.
This will grow Indigenous businesses. This will provide Indigenous jobs. This will provide royalties for traditional owners. The Greens don't even know what a traditional owner is. And when they can't find a traditional owner that supports their view, they go and make one. They actually created a traditional owner. Senator Hanson-Young mentioned Rikki Dank and said that she'd come all the way from the Northern Territory to Glasgow. But she hadn't. She'd come all the way from Dubai, where she lives, and she has been confirmed by the Northern Land Council as not a traditional owner. But she certainly wants a slice of whatever's in it for her from the Beetaloo basin.
The Greens can't find traditional owners who support their views, so they go and make them. They create traditional owners who are fake. That's what the Greens do. They make up what they want in order to support their view. They are patronising to the Northern Land Council. The Northern Land Council is the body set up for determining who the traditional owners are and helping them negotiate with companies about their traditional lands. The Greens reject that because it doesn't suit their narrative. They reject the Northern Land Council, which is made up of Indigenous Territorians, and they go and make up their own traditional owners.
The Greens claim—and Senator Hanson-Young claimed this—that the traditional owners do not support this development on their land, but the truth is they do. The Greens also claim that the traditional owners are not capable of making the decisions regarding their lands. They are extremely capable. They sit down with the companies that want to explore and they sit down with the Northern Land Council. They're capable of understanding what's going on, what's going to happen, and they make informed decisions. They don't have decisions made for them, which is what the Greens would have you believe. They make informed decisions about their traditional lands. They make informed decisions about what are and are not sacred sites and where they do and do not want exploration to occur: 'You don't speak for me; you don't speak for my mob.' They're perfectly capable. The Greens would have you believe they're not capable. But, in fact, they are and they have made the decision that they do want to have exploration, economic opportunities and jobs on their land.
If the last couple of weeks have shown us anything, it is that if we want action on climate change—meaningful action on climate change—we need to change the government, because the Morrison government's performance on the international stage was embarrassing. The Morrison government went to Glasgow committed, like all the other signatories, to updating their targets, to contributing to global momentum, so that we could actually do something about climate change. That was their obligation. That's what they should have done. But we didn't see any of that, nothing of that at all. Instead what we saw was an embarrassing effort to present their existing, weak, ineffective suite of policies as, in some way, a solution to the urgent global challenge of climate chang They were called out, weren't they? They were called out, because the international community saw right through that. International figure after international figure called on the Morrison government to do more, and the truth is Australians want them to do more as well.
The Australian people aren't silly. They know that the climate is changing. They know that there is an urgent task to start dealing with carbon emissions. They also know that the environmental emergency—the urgent environmental task—is also an economic opportunity because Australia is blessed with abundant natural resources, and we have the opportunity to use those resources to create jobs of the future, to make sure that we do have a complex, diverse Australian economy with jobs in the regions, powered by clean, renewable energy and creating opportunities for communities right across the country. There's no interest in that over there. The government are determined to continue with business as usual, to pretend that nothing needs to be done and to pretend that their do-nothing approach will be adequate, and people are angry about it.
Labor will continue to argue for urgent and meaningful action on climate change, in keeping with our commitment to reach net zero by 2050. Our record in government was to ratify Kyoto, to supercharge Australia's renewable energy sector and to put Australia on a path of sharply declining emissions. What intervened to prevent that? It was the election of the Abbott government and their determination to remove every meaningful institution that could have put Australia on a better path. Labor has a very different approach and a future Labor government will take the urgent task seriously. We've already announced that an Albanese Labor government will invest $20 billion to upgrade Australia's electricity grid to unlock new sources of renewable energy and the jobs and power savings that come with them. We'll make electric cars cheaper by slashing inefficient taxes. We'll support 10,000 apprenticeships in the new energy trades of the future, and we'll cut bills and support the grid with community batteries for up to 100,000 solar households.
We know that this will receive the support of the Australian community because Australians are already embracing these technologies. Australians are already putting solar on their roofs and they're already looking for ways to improve their own carbon footprints. But, where there is a role for gas to play in firming and peaking electricity and as a feedstock for manufacturing, exploration and extraction then we understand that there is a role for gas in that transition. That gas exploration and extraction must, of course, be subject to scientific, independent and evidence based approvals. Evidence regarding the Beetaloo sub-basin is in the early stages. It's uncertain what proportion of the resource will be technologically and economically viable to extract, and federal Labor respects the views of the Northern Territory government, which supports exploration of the Beetaloo basin. We also supported a Senate inquiry into the Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program in the interests of transparency, and the work of that committee is ongoing. Labor will consider the final report of the Senate inquiry, which is due in March 2022, and, as it stands, Labor does not support this disallowance motion proposed by the Greens. We will continue to advocate for ongoing consultation with traditional owners by both government and industry to ensure cultural heritage and the environment are protected, as a matter of urgency.
The government stands by its gas-led recovery plans. The Beetaloo basin has the potential to deliver 6,000 jobs and over two million petajoules of gas and drive the economic recovery required.
(Quorum formed)
Debate interrupted.
It has been nearly 2½ years since I joined this chamber, and what an incredible privilege it is to be a representative for my state: the great state of Queensland. But, as that time has gone on, we have seen some extraordinary periods. We have seen a pandemic like nothing seen before in this world. We have seen extraordinary changes to technology and opportunities for this nation, and we have also seen a debate around net zero emissions—something that we've had a great deal of conversation about previously.
But, as I've been here, the debate has become increasingly dysfunctional. I find it very distressing that I listen to senators talking about issues that are in no way related to the reality of the world that I live in in regional Australia. We have just had a response on the northern Australia agenda from the shadow northern Australia minister about the need for more jobs. I often hear Labor members and senators talking about wages going backwards, about how we don't need immigration and that immigrants are taking Australian jobs. Yet I wonder on what planet they've been living, because for the last 18 months we have seen roughly 300,000 people leave Australia as seasonal workers, students and other workforce. But regional Australia is desperate and the need is dire; business owners weep to me about the number of hours they're working to keep their business' doors open long enough to be able to pay the basic bills of insurance, rent and overheads. Yet we will still have Labor talking about creating Public Service jobs in northern Australia, as if that is some sort of solution.
I spoke again to a business owner tonight who will not be able to keep his business doors open more than four days a week because he doesn't have the staff to do that. So I'm reflecting tonight on my Senate colleagues who are up for re-election. The three of them—Senator James McGrath, Senator Matt Canavan and Senator Amanda Stoker—are going to form part of the future of this country. I've never felt more the urgency of having people in this place to support the delivery of the government's agenda. I've never felt more strongly the urgency to fill this chamber with a review of legislation that goes ahead but that, at the same time, allows Australians to believe that they can have a government that delivers on the practicality and the real issues that are facing them, that allows the government to implement its agenda as voted for by the people of Australia. We have enjoyed great success having six government senators from Queensland in this chamber, and the country is better for it. We have had a terrific economy, excellent trade deals and low unemployment, and it is only because of strong coalition support in the Senate that the country is in such good shape.
Inquiries are an important part of the function of government, and it helps make the lawmaking process fit for purpose. Importantly, inquiries also give a voice to marginalised groups who need their issues officially investigated. I reflect on the work that we have done in a number of inquiries in the Senate, and I'm very proud of the light that we've been able to shine on specific things like the Great Barrier Reef science, the dairy industry and Inland Rail, to mention just a few under the Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport.
I will be doing my utmost to ensure we return our three senators who are up for election. They have the runs on the board. They have helped steer Australia through a tumultuous time. They have ensured miners, farmers and working families in Queensland benefited from their representation. We need this experience back for the good work this government can continue.
I rise to speak on one of the forgotten casualties of the COVID-19 pandemic—that is, the rural bank branches. While many of you may not think that that is a major issue, it is actually a very real and pressing one for people in regional Australia and right across New South Wales, my constituency. The amazing women of the Country Women's Association of New South Wales know that it's a problem, and this year they passed a motion seeking action on the rapidly increasing closures of rural bank branches.
This is an issue of life and death for many rural towns. Empty storefronts breed empty storefronts, and those who initially would travel into town to do their banking and their shopping may be forced to do both in another, bigger town, accelerating the decline of their town—assuming that they have the capacity to travel those distances and the money to put petrol in their car. These closures are often sudden, and clients are often not notified by the banks that they're about to close. The big banks are moving further and further away from the social licence that they have to operate, and they cannot continue to disadvantage people who cannot bank over the phone or the internet, people such as the elderly, people with disabilities and those who are underserviced by the 10th-rate NBN insisted on this country by the Abbott government, backed in by the Morrison government and also by Mr Turnbull, who should have known better.
I will read into Hansard some of the stories of those CWA women who've fought against the closure of these important pieces of economic infrastructure. Here are their words: 'Here in Laurieton'—mid-North Coast of New South Wales—'we've lost ANZ, St George and Westpac so far. NAB has limited hours but closed with the last lockdown. Sign says they'll open again after lockdown. Just leaves us with Commonwealth and the post office.' Finley, just north of the Murray River: 'Lost CBA within six weeks of notice. Took the ATM. Leaves NAB open for three hours in the morning and the NAB ATM and post office, which can manage only limited transactions. Maximum cash out at the IGA is $100.' This is the reality of the limited access to money that they need to use in their local community. Kempsey: 'ANZ closes this month. Will have to travel either to Port Macquarie or Coffs Harbour, which is close to 100 kilometres away'—one hundred kilometres to your nearest bank! Another wrote: 'Both NAB and ANZ have closed in Wee Waa this year. I'm aware of one dear lady that's been with the CBA since a child'—that's quite a 70-plus years of loyalty—'who now does not drive and now has to travel over an hour just to get her money.' This is an example of the bush being abandoned again. Another one—the Westpac branch in Quirindi New South Wales—closed last year at the beginning of the pandemic and never reopened. They are just half a dozen of the over 70 stories on bank closures that I have just shared with you. Each of them is from a different part of the state, but every one tells the same story of loss of community, loss of service, loss of connection.
The decision to shut a rural branch is not a decision pushed by economic imperative; if it was, we could understand it. During the COVID-19 pandemic, banks' profits did not take a hit; they continued to soar. Yet, despite soaring profits, they went ahead and shut down branch after branch. The Sydney Morning Herald in March this year asserted that, across the big four, half-year profits soared by an average 62 per cent and dividends rebounded sharply, and lenders have said they have billions in excess capital that is ultimately likely to find its way into shareholders' pockets.
The Australian reported earlier this year that one bank was closed because a staff member had had the time to make a cup of tea, and in doing so proved it wasn't productive enough. Tell that to somebody who lives in a community and who has banked at a bank for 70 years. It is not good enough. I see there is some support from people in the government, but they should not be allowing the banks to get away with this. It is a disgrace. You need to stand up for rural communities.
In the last four years we have seen over 10 per cent of rural bank branches close, and where is the National Party on this? The government must do more in this place to support these towns that they spout support for. But what we see is more inaction, more deference to the banks and a failure to stand up for community access.
[by video link] As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I am ashamed to say that Australia is at war—at war with state and federal governments. I am appalled that Friday 17 December looms in our state as the official date of segregation between the injected and the un-injected. Two years ago, anyone who had dared suggest such a scenario would have been mocked and labelled a conspiracy theorist. It could never happen in our country. It would have been unthinkable that any Australian political leader would consider segregating based on injection status even as a strategy to deal with COVID under the guise that we can all regain our inherent human right to move freely throughout our country.
Despite Victoria being the world's most locked down jurisdiction, and Victorians until recently suffering under increasingly draconian restrictions, Victoria today has more cases of COVID than it did a year ago. There was neither any science nor any modelling that suggested we could suppress the virus so, instead, governments suppressed and oppressed the people to hide political foolishness, failings and gross mismanagement. What started as a supposed war on COVID became a fear-driven war against the people of Australia to make politicians appear to know what they were doing yet politicians and health bureaucrats making decisions and destroying our lives have not suffered themselves. These privileged positions have remained intact, these people have not lost jobs and are not wondering how the hell to feed their families; instead, the privileged have been comfortably working from home, waiting for the storm to blow over. Our confidence and trust in governments have collapsed because we have been lied to.
The Australian people witnessed sweeping inconsistencies, contradictions and hypocrisy on virus rules and, in this, the Queensland premier excels. After two years, state and federal politicians still do not act with one shared view of what a hotspot is, resulting in thousands of double-injected Queensland residents abandoned for months at huge cost just over the border in New South Wales, unable to return home. The fact that the Queensland premier can hold residents in such low regard is repugnant, disgusting, inhuman.
The Prime Minister's lame pretence to push back against mandatory injections provides little comfort to Australians. It drives scorn, derision and anger. He says the federal government does not mandate COVID injections yet leaves the states and territories to run wild with mandates that gut and make a mockery of informed consent, bodily autonomy and human rights—lies. Federal agencies destroy the primacy and privacy of the doctor-patient relationship. Federal government health data is essential for states to enforce mandates, and the Queensland Premier says her decision to divide and segregate is in line with the spuriously labelled 'national cabinet', a concoction over which the Prime Minister presides.
Our political leaders don't know when to stop hurting the people. Their thirst for personal ease and political control over the masses is their justification for draconian measures shredding privacy and human rights, wreaking havoc with people's lives and mental health, and endorsing segregation based on injection status. The rhetoric throughout COVID has been 'we're all in this together'. The Queensland segregation date of 17 December shows we are not. It's unconscionable that, unless injected, Queenslanders will be barred from social and leisure activities and health services. Is the federal government going to stand by and let the Queensland Premier deny uninjected Queenslanders a restaurant meal, a drink in the pub, a coffee and, despite paying our taxes, medical care except in an emergency? Confidence in the injection should translate into the confidence of being protected, making it unnecessary to marginalise people choosing to remain injection-free. Are people so scared that this logic is lost?
There was an opportunity this week for the government to support Senator Hanson's bill, which outlaws discrimination based on injection status, yet the majority of government senators hid in their offices and did nothing. They're hiding from constituents and scurrying from accountability. The federal government is doing nothing to stop the imminent segregation of the Australian people. To avoid getting hands dirty, enforcement will be outsourced to state police and small-business owners. We need to stop our political leaders dividing us and driving coercive discrimination against our fellow Australians. We need to work together as a nation of Australian people, not state against state in an insane, futile race to suppress and eliminate COVID when what is really being suppressed is the people. People are now taking to the streets, protesting to push back government overreach and restore our freedoms. People know freedom, privacy and human rights have been eroded too much for too long, at huge cost, and with both courage and desperation they march in the streets now. It seems freedom isn't always easy and free. Sometimes it must be fought for. Today we're still fighting for common sense, for our freedom and for our democracy. We want it back.
Tonight I'd like to focus on the impact of COVID in south-western Sydney. It was interesting to read today's front page of the Sydney Moring Herald about heavier lockdown measures being imposed in western and south-western Sydney. As patron senator for McMahon, Werriwa, Fowler, Blaxland and Watson, and with a satellite office located in Fairfield, I would like to share matters I experienced firsthand that have enabled this perception to gain momentum. In mid-July, requirements were imposed on essential workers in the Fairfield LGA for COVID testing every three days. This raised concerns about perceptions about why south-western Sydney was being singled out. At first there were logistical problems with testing at the Fairfield Showground immediately after the New South Wales health order was made, which compounded the problems. Residents especially felt that they were being targeted given the strong police presence on the streets.
I live on the northern beaches of Sydney and I went through lockdown at Christmas, but I have to say that we did not see, on the streets of the northern beaches, police cars lined up on Barrenjoey Road or police on the streets like we saw in the suburbs of south-western Sydney. Instead of imposing extra surveillance, there should have been greater focus on multilingual services and closer consultation with community leaders. To this end, in July, I posted a Facebook video message which had been translated into different languages. It was promulgated in the area, encouraging communities to get vaccinated. My office also started conducting direct-calling into households, and the feedback was clear: people were not happy about the delay in the vaccine rollout. They wanted the Pfizer vaccine. Those in small business and construction could not work from home. There were issues about home schooling and the push to vaccinate their children. Livelihoods were being impacted, and people blamed politicians and bureaucrats making decisions who continued to draw big salaries. All this was against a background of cultural and linguistic diversity and changing messages about restrictions.
Another issue which caused concern was the deployment of Australian Defence Force personnel. Local councillors and community leaders were very critical of government, calling it insensitive. As one mayor stated, deploying the ADF to an area with a large number of migrant residents from war-torn countries was 'insensitive'. I spoke to one major service provider who pointed out to me that, with such a large cohort of people born overseas, many of whom had been granted protection under our humanitarian program—they had escaped hardship, including from war-torn countries where they were fearful of the army.
An article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 20 August outlined:
Community leaders in south-west and western Sydney fear for people's mental health, women at risk and disaffected youth, as they warn a police curfew imposed unevenly and without social support will further entrench 'us and them' attitudes and inequality …
Regrettably, instead of focusing on maximising vaccinations through walk-in hubs at mosques, churches and community halls, where CALD communities regularly congregate, we heard stories of delays in getting vaccination appointments. I might add that I advised the New South Wales government that that's the strategy, but, regrettably, I received no reply.
In the words of one community leader, 'If you want to do the curfew, regardless of whether it's legitimate or not, do it across the board.' This message resonated greatly. Community leaders reported hardship among small businesses and among families, desperate because they could no longer afford to pay their mortgage, rent, or bills or to put food on the table to feed their children. The perception of having different rules for different parts of Sydney compounded the sense of inequity. An op-ed by Jordan Baker, the SMH education editor, who lived in an LGA of concern, stated: 'It wouldn't feel so oppressive if Sydney was "all in this together", but there's no longer any pretence of that.'
As Dr Martin Kulldorff tweeted on 14 August:
There is, as always, an enormous gap between the people who use elite media and political platforms to demand lockdowns and the people and families who actually bear the burden of those lockdowns.
That's what makes lockdown advocacy for elites so cheap and easy.
This Friday is Black Friday, the biggest shopping holiday in the United States. It's also becoming increasingly popular in Australia. Ahead of Black Friday, I'm standing with the Transport Workers Union, the SDA and unions and MPs from around the world who this week are calling for an end to appalling working conditions and low wages for Amazon workers. Amazon believes that it is too big to worry about pesky little Australia, that it doesn't need to respect Australian laws, that it doesn't need to pay Australian taxes, that it doesn't need to treat Australian business fairly and that it doesn't need to give Australian workers a fair go.
Amazon believes it can import the very worst of the antiworker and anti-union behaviour from the United States. As long as this wretched and incompetent government is in power, maybe it's correct. Let's look at what Amazon has been allowed to get away with in Australia so far. The ABC revealed back in 2019 that Amazon paid just $20 million in Australian tax in 2018 on a revenue of more than $1 billion, because Amazon shifts its Australian revenue to tax havens. When giant companies like Amazon make billions using infrastructure paid for by the Australian public—Australian taxpayers—and then don't pay their fair share of tax, that is theft.
Then there are the biggest victims of Jeff Bezos's regime: the Amazon workers themselves. I want to commend the work of the SDA, the union for Amazon's online retail workers, and the TWU, the union for drivers making Amazon deliveries. While the Morrison government is asleep at the wheel, the SDA and the TWU have been working tirelessly to reveal what is really going on at Amazon. There are Amazon Flex drivers who are being paid a flat $27 an hour, and that's without superannuation, fuel costs, maintenance costs, insurance costs or paid leave. That isn't a living wage. It's also $13 an hour below the minimum recommended rate for a courier using their own car in Victoria. The Victorian rates schedule for owner-drivers puts the minimum rate at $40.71.
Amazon continues to lie and say that it is fully compliant on pay. But when I asked Amazon at the Select Committee on Job Security inquiry how the $27 hourly pay complies with the $40 hourly recommended minimum, Amazon refused to come clean. In fact, Amazon refused to even answer any of the most basic questions.
When the TWU officials attempted a legal right of entry at an Amazon site, Amazon called the police. When the SDA officials tried to speak to workers at their Moorebank facility, Amazon managers monitored their conversations. In fact, we know that globally Amazon monitors the social media activity of its workers and pays union busting firms to monitor and intimidate anyone who raises concerns or talks about organising.
Alex Ayliff, an Amazon flex driver in Melbourne, told the ABC earlier this year: 'They've created an atmosphere of fear.' Well, over my dead body will Australia become a country where this corporate thuggery is accepted. We've seen reports that Amazon workers are forced to urinate or defecate in bags because they don't have time for a break, Amazon workers being hired through labour-hire companies like Adecco at even lower wages, and overheated Amazon workers being carried out of warehouses on stretchers. Meanwhile, Jeff Bezos told the media he wants Amazon to be 'the earth's best employer'.
When unions across the world attempt to help workers stand up for their rights, Amazon engages in the most vicious misinformation and harassment campaigns you've ever seen. For what—so that Jeff Bezos can fly himself into space? As Bezos said to his workers when he landed back on earth: 'You guys paid for all this.' I think Amazon workers have paid enough. It's time to make Amazon pay.
Given that gaslighting has been a clear theme of the day today, I rise tonight to speak on Santos's big, dirty Barossa gas project off the northern coast of Australia near the Tiwi Islands.
The Barossa development area lies 100 kilometres north of the Tiwi Islands. The Tiwi Islands are home to the Tiwi people who have a long and unbroken history with their country, contrary to some of the distorted reality that is being presented here tonight. The islands are known for their rich biodiversity of frogs, reptiles, birds and mammals, some of which are not found anywhere else in the world. The Tiwi people have carefully managed their natural and cultural resources for thousands and thousands of years.
The Barossa could become one of the dirtiest gas projects in the world. The Barossa gas field has very high levels of CO2, around 16 to 20 per cent, which will be vented into the atmosphere. This is the bottom of the barrel, super-dirty gas that no-one wants, and it needs to stay in the ground.
I was deeply saddened to learn that there has been no consultation with the Tiwi traditional owners on the Barossa project. Before June this year, if you went to the Tiwi Islands and asked any of the local people about the Barossa project, they would have said that they knew nothing. They didn't know it was happening. Santos claim they have consulted with the Tiwi Land Council. There are some serious concerns with this because the Tiwi Land Council are currently undergoing a review to address concerns around its performance and governance.
Recently Santos said they would travel to the Tiwi Islands and speak to all of the clan groups around the Barossa project. The first meeting was held yesterday, but Santos didn't even have the guts to turn up in person, instead, they attended online. How shameful.
I see zero evidence of any efforts to uphold the principle of free, prior and informed consent. Again, how shameful of Santos to do this to the Tiwi people. What are Santos trying to hide? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that First Nations people do not want to see the destruction of their lands and seas at the hands of billionaires and big corporations.
Parks Australia have given a class approval for ConocoPhillips, who were the original owners of this project, to construct a gas pipeline running for 61 kilometres through the Commonwealth Oceanic Shoals Marine Park. But they failed to properly consult with the most important stakeholders in the marine park, the Tiwi people.
Santos, like its mates at Woodside and BHP, are well exercised in the art of greenwashing. A report on the potential impacts on the marine turtles of the Barossa gas export pipeline, provided by Santos, asserts that there will be no impact on turtle populations on the Tiwi Islands. This report has received widespread criticism amongst NT marine scientists. It was not peer reviewed, and it does not include any relevant research conducted in the Northern Territory. The report was actually written as a desktop review from my home city of Perth, thousands of kilometres away, with a severe lack of relevant data. It incorrectly concludes that there will be no impacts from this project. They cannot be trusted to investigate the environmental and social impacts of their own gas projects.
I also have some serious concerns about the fact that the original proposal for the Barossa project that was provided by ConocoPhillips was fundamentally different from the current planning being undertaken by Santos. At no point has Santos received approval from the community to damage the land and sea through this Barossa project. Today I stand together with the Tiwi people in opposition to this project, and I call on Santos and the government to put an end to the Barossa project immediately, because consultation does not mean consent.
Before I get on with what I wanted to speak on, I just want to refer to Senator O'Neill's contribution tonight. I want to thank her for raising the importance of the Regional Banking Taskforce, and why this government has implemented it. She highlighted tonight the closure of banks in regional areas. Let's not forget which government privatised the Commonwealth Bank, which started the snowball of closing banks in regional areas. So thank you, Senator O'Neill, and I hope you look forward to the results of the Regional Banking Taskforce, which I am co-chair of, which is actually looking at solutions to a problem which was of Labor's making.
I'll move on, because I want to talk about the situation we have in regional Australia as we approach—after years of drought and of mouse plagues—thankfully, one of the best harvest seasons in years. La Nina's keeping away and is at bay for the moment. But we are still facing a worker shortage. The scale of the shortage can be illustrated by looking at just the holiday worker visas, which have dropped by about 100,000 from pre-COVID days. Once upon a time, we relied on those on working holiday visas to come and help us with our harvests, for horticulture and for broadacre farming. Even in the meat industry we rely on seasonal workers and the Pacific labour force.
As much as people say, 'Just get Australians to do the job,' farmers have advertised; farmers have sought Australians to do the job. And Australians aren't taking up the job—for whatever reason. I'm not pointing the finger of blame at Australians. What I am saying, however, is: we are dependent on that workforce.
So our government has taken action. Our government has implemented the agriculture workforce visa. This has been welcomed by a huge range of people: the National Farmers Federation, the National Irrigators Council, the NSW Farmers Horticulture Committee, the Victorian Farmers Federation, AUSVEG, Growcom, Berries Australia, the Australian Forest Products Association—and the list goes on. But guess who hasn't welcomed the government's action here? Labor and the unions. Funny that! I refer to the comments of ACTU President Michele O'Neil, who said:
The new visa program is not based on any independent verification of the need for short term visa workers …
Really? A hundred thousand fewer workers in the agriculture workforce because we don't have holiday-maker seasonal workers, thanks to COVID—what more proof do you need?
And there are other criticisms being made by those opposite. One of the other furphies that they like to peddle is that the government is somehow allowing these workers to be exploited. Well, we're not allowing them to be exploited. Pacific workers, for example, are employed under the same industry awards, agreements and legislation as Australian workers. That means they're entitled to the same minimum rates of pay and conditions, and those are meant to be enforced by government. But let me bring to our attention the fact that the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, Alex Hawke, is due to move new amendments very soon that will create new offences and increase penalties significantly on employers who do the wrong thing, to protect those migrant workers. I am calling on the Labor Party to support those amendments and to support migrant workers, seasonal workers, Pacific labour workers and working holiday-makers so that we can continue to have a strong and vibrant agricultural sector. That's because this is far too important.
The modern labour union movement doesn't really care about the rights of workers. They're just looking for an opportunity to point score against the government. So the campaign against the ag worker visa by the unions and by Labor just leaves a bad taste in the mouth of regional Australians, who need workers because we need this harvest to be as good as it can be. To do that, we need to get it off the fields.
After eight long years of Liberal-National government, Australians are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. We're in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. Eight years of wage stagnation, skyrocketing private and public debt, and job insecurity have left people struggling to pay for the necessities like food, rent, petrol and utility bills. Last week I was speaking to Amy, a Flinders uni student who had just been advised by her landlord that her rent was going up by $35 a week. She can't afford it. I also spoke to Liam, who is an admin trainee and who lives on the opposite side of town to his workplace. He doesn't know how he's going to fill his car with petrol next week, because he can't afford it.
Our community deserves so much more from this government. Since the coalition came to office it costs 22 per cent more to see a doctor and 35 per cent more for child care. I hear from parents who are weighing up whether they can afford to return to work after the birth of a baby. People who are struggling to pay the rent and put food on the table have to watch the daily spectacle of waste and rorting on a scale never before seen in this country. Whether it's sports rorts, water rorts, regional rorts or car park rorts, Australians struggling under the crippling cost-of-living pressures must just shake their heads and wonder what on earth is going on in this country under this government.
I met with Ross Womersley from SACOSS a few weeks ago to discuss digital inclusion, which is a key pressure in the cost of living. We imagine that everybody in this day and age has access to the internet and that everybody has some form of device on which to access it, but that's not the case. Eleven per cent of Australians are highly excluded from and 28.9 per cent are struggling to access digital platforms, according to the 2021 Australian Digital Inclusion Index. According to the index's digital affordability measure, 14 per cent of Australians would need to pay more than 10 per cent of their household income to gain quality, reliable connectivity. For Australians in the lowest income quintile, 67 per cent of them would need to pay 10 per cent of their household income to gain this very same connection. Let's be clear: this isn't about gaming or streaming. This is about accessing jobs, accessing work and accessing government services. It's about accessing utility services, banking and education. It's about what one would call the essentials.
As we head into an election the Morrison government will undoubtedly roll out all the usual lines about being sound economic managers, but they're doing nothing for these people who are struggling with cost-of-living pressures. But we will; Labor will make it easier for families to get ahead and stay ahead. We'll do it by removing the financial barriers that discourage women from working longer hours or pursuing their careers. We'll do it by expanding the NBN and we'll do it through the inclusion of the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, which will develop social and affordable housing into the future, creating jobs, building homes and changing lives.
Senate adjourned at 20 : 00