I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate notes the Safe and Respectful Workplaces Training Program (the Training Program) administered by the Department of Finance and resolves that the following procedures apply for senators to declare that they have undertaken the Training Program:
(1) Each senator who has undertaken the Training Program shall provide to the Registrar of Senators' Interests a statement declaring that they have undertaken the Training Program:
(a) within 28 days of this resolution, where the statement relates to the Senator having undertaken the Training Program prior to the date of this resolution; and
(b) within 28 days of having undertaken the Training Program.
(2) Statements shall be made in accordance with this resolution and in a form determined by the Committee of Senators' Interests. The Registrar shall, in accordance with procedures determined by the Committee, maintain a Training Program Register comprising statements provided under this resolution. Other than as specifically provided for in this resolution, the Committee has the same powers and functions in relation to the Training Program Register as it does in relation to the Register of Senators' Interests.
(3) The Registrar shall publish the Training Program Register and any alterations to the Training Program Register on the Parliament's website.
(4) Any senator who knowingly provides false or misleading information to the Registrar of Senators' Interests shall be guilty of a serious contempt of the Senate and shall be dealt with by the Senate accordingly, but the question of whether any senator has committed such a serious contempt shall first be referred to the Privileges Committee for inquiry and report and may not be considered by any other committee.
This motion relates to the Safe and Respectful Workplaces Training Program and provides procedures for senators to declare that they have undertaken training in relation to that program. I wish to place on the record the government's thanks to all parties and crossbenchers across this place and across the parliament for the constructive manner in which they have engaged in this motion as, indeed, they have engaged constructively through all stages of the response to the Foster review that was undertaken to help to provide for a better process in relation to the receipt and handling of complaints in relation to workplace bullying and sexual harassment in this place as well as the establishment of the training program. I acknowledge that many, many members of parliament and staff have already undertaken this training, and this motion will provide a clear means for members and senators to have registered, as the government indicated would occur, publicly that they have undertaken the training in accordance with those recommendations. The government looks forward to continuing to work across the parliament with all members and senators in relation to the implementation of the Foster review and also of the Jenkins review, which we expect to be released in coming days. I thank the Senate.
It's very interesting timing. I thought we were going to see this motion at 12.20 pm, and the government has brought it forward to deal with it this morning. Obviously, we welcome the substance of this, but it's very convenient for the government to try to chew up time whilst it's trying to avoid a different stoush on the floor of the chamber pertaining to which private member's bill will be debated. But we'll have that debate shortly.
We are here debating the development of the parliamentary workplace support service because of brave souls like Brittany Higgins. I want to place once again on record my admiration for her courage and to say, on behalf of women everywhere, that we salute the resilience that you have demonstrated and the guts and the metal that you have shown at every turn to hold your own party to account. Your courage has ultimately led to what we're seeing today, which is training for all MPs and their staff on sexual harassment and workplace safety. We should have been doing this training anyway. This should have been mandatory from the day dot. But, thanks to people like Brittany Higgins, Dhanya Mani, Chelsey Potter and the many other brave women who have spoken out about the harassment that they've received in a political setting, we now have a formal process. My office has done the training. It's very good. It of course should be mandatory for all MPs and their staff. I understand that's not the case yet. The Greens have made it mandatory. We would urge other parties to make sure that their own people undertake this training as well.
I want to note that this is not a complete solution. People still realise that there are no consequences that will flow for MPs where those MPs are the abusers, the harassers, the rapists. Constitutionally, the Department of Finance has not been able to deal with that issue. That is still an issue that needs a resolution, because our staff know—they unfortunately perceive—that MPs are untouchable. That is not a safe workplace, is it, if the boss is the predator and can get away with it? We see staff shuffled around from office to office and the problem not really dealt with—staff just moved around. Ultimately it's those staff—generally women—who then leave. That is deeply unfair and unacceptable.
My final point is: we had a chance to fix that. We had the debate on the Respect@Work bill several sittings ago, and this government squibbed it. It did not implement that key recommendation that there be a positive duty on employers to provide a safe workplace for all of their workers. We had that chance. The Greens moved amendments for that, the opposition moved amendments for that, and this government voted them down every time. So it's a bit rich for this government to be holding out that it's somehow dealt with this situation, when it has not. There is a gaping hole at the heart of workplace protection for women everywhere—not just in parliamentary settings but in workplaces right around the country—because there still is not that legal obligation for employers to provide a safe workplace. The government needs to fix that, and, if it won't, it needs to get out of the way.
I note that the Jenkins report is due to be handed down tomorrow. We understand that the PWSS and the Foster recommendations were always meant to be an interim treatment of this matter. We very much look forward to the Jenkins report and we hope that this government will take it seriously and implement all of the recommendations, unlike the 55 Respect@Work recommendations, of which the key one was ignored. You'd better do better tomorrow, because women are watching, and we won't be placated with this partial down payment on our safety. Women deserve safety in their workplaces right across the country, with no excuses.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the following general business orders of the day be considered today at the time for private senators' bills:
No. 81 Ensuring Northern Territory Rights Bill 2021; and
No. 95 Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Transparent Patient Outcomes) Bill 2021.
Question agreed to.
Perhaps I can jump ahead of Senator McMahon and speak first, and that will allow her time to come to the chamber. I don't understand what's going on here. Senator McMahon was just in the chamber.
You have the call.
Thank you very much. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Ensuring Northern Territory Rights Bill 2021. I would have preferred to have spoken second, because I understand that Senator McMahon is planning on moving amendments to her bill that would significantly amend it, and I would welcome those amendments. So my comments would be basically have been made following the amendments to her bill.
But I will say that to get to this point it has been an extraordinary process. This bill was tabled by Senator McMahon some months ago. She attempted to debate it last week. Her own government refused to allow it to be listed and instead listed a One Nation bill in its place, and we've had some difficulty getting to this point today. We thought it was important that Senator McMahon be allowed to debate her bill. She is leaving the Senate at the next election, as I understand it, and the debate on this bill this morning was to provide her with the only opportunity she had to have that debate heard. Labor is happy to facilitate that; in fact, we have given up our spot on our own bill this morning to allow Senator McMahon's bill to be debated.
As a territory senator, I am very keen to see passage of legislation in both chambers of this parliament that would allow citizens of the territories to enjoy the same democratic rights as any other Australian. At the moment, in my neck of the woods, a person who lives in Queanbeyan has greater democratic rights than a person who resides in the ACT. That is fundamentally unfair. We don't see it in other areas of law, only in this area. Whilst there may be mixed views about voluntary assisted dying and the laws that surround it, once Senator McMahon has this bill amended, it would allow the overturning of a law made almost 25 years ago that extinguished the rights of Territorians to debate end-of-life matters in their parliaments.
The legislation has remained on the statute book because the federal parliament has been unable to resolve it. As a territorian, as a senator and as someone who has served in the ACT Legislative Assembly, I believe that is fundamentally unfair. There have been bills in this place similar to what Senator McMahon's amended bill will progress, and they failed very narrowly by two votes the last time this was tested. I believe, if it gets to the point where there is a vote on this bill and that is a matter of a conscience vote for people in the Labor Party, that it is a vote that the parliament should support.
Times have moved on. In 1997, even though I didn't agree with it at the time, legislation passed this parliament that put in place this discriminatory regime. However, since then, there has been significant international and national progress on laws around euthanasia or voluntary assisted dying. In fact, in every single state or territory there has been progress on this, either with the passage of legislation or legislation waiting to be voted upon, as is the case in New South Wales.
There has been enormous change regarding voluntary assisted dying. We know that, if you ask, people believe they should have greater rights when it comes to end-of-life decision-making and control over their own care. Yes, there have to be protections alongside this, but we leave those matters to state and territory parliaments to pursue, which is the right place for those matters to be debated. They represent and engage with their community as they're shaping those laws. However, the federal parliament could overturn the ban on territory parliaments, allowing them to debate this. The crazy situation we are now in is that the rights of hundreds of thousands of Australians are different because of where they live; that's the only reason. Because they decide to live, work and bring up their families in a territory, they do not have the ability to debate end-of-life decision-making or voluntary assisted dying laws through their local parliament. It is crazy. We wouldn't stand for it in any other area of lawmaking, in terms of the role of the federal parliament. It is something that has existed for 24 years and it is something that should be overturned. That is all this bill—given the amendments that I understand Senator McMahon will move—will allow to occur. It won't put in place any laws around voluntary assisted dying. It won't impose any restrictions. It won't change anything for people in the territories immediately, but it will allow for legislation to be brought forward in those parliaments and for people to have the debate.
This is an area in which I have advocated for my entire time in politics—that we should enjoy the same democratic rights as anyone else, and just because we live in the ACT shouldn't affect that—but unfortunately it's not something that Senator Seselja has chosen to support. We are in an extraordinary situation where we have a senator for the ACT, representing the people of the ACT, actually saying that his constituents should not have the same democratic rights as anybody else. He's actually saying that his constituents should have fewer democratic rights than the people who live over the border or in Tasmania, WA, South Australia or Queensland. That is the extraordinary position we are in here.
We have every federal member, other than Senator Seselja, supportive of the overturning of these laws. We have every member of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly supporting this, even though those members of the legislative assembly, as I know from experience, would not all back voluntary assisted dying legislation. They wouldn't, and that is their right. I completely accept that every individual member of parliament and every individual member of the community form their own views on this. They will change and they will be different, and there will be disagreement, but allowing the debate to occur is the important thing.
Senator Seselja won't even allow this debate to occur in the legislative assembly, a parliament that he was also a member of. We know this, because we've been written to by every member of the legislative assembly, including the Canberra Liberals—all of them—who have petitioned their federal representatives, saying, 'Please allow us to have this debate in our parliament.' They've actually written to us asking for that, through the Speaker of the assembly, and we're still in the position where Senator Seselja remains a roadblock to this reform. It is important because it would change things if you had a conservative member of the parliament, someone who has strong views around voluntary assisted dying, standing with his colleagues representing the same constituents just to allow the debate to occur.
It's not like we would see the Andrews legislation overturned and then automatically something would happen in the assembly. That is not how it would happen. These are mature parliaments. We give the ACT and Northern Territory parliaments the right to legislate and represent their constituents on every other matter that the states are allowed. They run the emergency services, they run the health system, they run the justice system, they run the education system and they run—in the ACT's case—all of the municipal services and all of the infrastructure. They run a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars every year. The parliament's been in place since 1989 in the ACT. They've managed to look after the community very well. Both sides of politics have managed in government, and yet for some reason we still have this paternalistic view that the territories can't be trusted when it comes to matters around euthanasia.
This is another example where the community moves faster than the parliament. We've seen it in other areas. We saw it on marriage equality where the community wondered what all the fuss was about here. It's a similar thing on voluntary assisted dying. It is an emotional issue. It is a serious issue. There can really be no more serious an issue than matters of life and death. I accept that, and I accept that people will bring their own views to the debate. I support that.
I'm not even sure if I would support the legislation that the assembly might look at. Both my parents passed away from cancer in very, very difficult circumstances. I watched both of them pass away. I nursed them.
I understand that these are incredible difficult issues for people—for families, for loved ones and for individuals themselves. But, at the moment, to anyone in the ACT who is considering the end of life due to a terminal illness or the end of life of one of their loved ones: bad luck. You can lobby your local government all you like but, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter, because the parliament that you elected, your assembly, is not allowed to debate this matter, which might be the most important thing to you. You can debate everything else on the floor of that parliament, but you're not allowed to debate end-of-life matters.
It is absolutely unfair. It is outrageous that it has remained on the statute books for this long—for a quarter of a century. As community views have changed, as debates have raged and been won and lost, as laws have been passed and as millions of people have died, the territories have been unable to represent their citizens and advocate their points of view in their parliament because of this outdated, paternalistic law that the government seems intent on not dealing with.
A Labor government, if elected, will deal with it. We understand that there will be mixed views on the Labor side about end-of-life decision-making, but one thing that we have from Mr Albanese is a commitment that, if elected, he would allow a private member's or private senator's bill to be put to this chamber and the other chamber, because he recognises the right to debate it in this place and the rights of those parliaments, if legislation were to be passed in these chambers, to debate end-of-life decision-making too.
This is important. I thank Senator McMahon for bringing this bill, which I welcome, to the chamber. I think it is right that she be given the opportunity to put this bill. She's worked hard on it. She has sought to engage others in it. I understand she will move amendments that take out certain parts of the bill that Labor was not able to agree with. If those amendments were moved and put, it would change the nature of the bill, and, whilst Labor had a position to oppose the bill, this would allow us to move to a conscience vote on the remaining elements of the bill. If we got to that point, as an ACT senator, I would certainly vote in favour of the McMahon bill with an amendment to incorporate the ACT. If that were in the remaining provisions of the bill—that the Northern Territory and the ACT were allowed to debate voluntary assisted dying legislation, with a complete repeal of the Andrews bill—then I would absolutely support that, as I have supported other bills in this place.
I would hope that the Senate, despite people's own views about end-of-life care and voluntary assisted dying, would at least allow every Australian citizen to enjoy the same democratic rights as those citizens who live in the states. At the moment, that isn't what happens. It's not fair, it's outdated and it's paternalistic, and we should believe that these state governments, which have run our pandemic response and done everything else, can be responsible in how they embark on a discussion with their community about voluntary assisted dying legislation. Frankly, the federal parliament should get out of the way. (Time expired)
Thank you to Senator Gallagher. Thank you for acknowledging the work that I have done, and I thank all of my colleagues in the Senate for hearing me out on this issue and for granting me the opportunity to bring this legislation, the Ensuring Northern Territory Rights Bill 2021—my private senator's bill—to the Senate and to debate it. It is important.
The Northern Territory is, I believe, a very unique place. Everybody probably believes that about where they live. They probably believe that it's special, it's unique and it's the best place in the world. But the Northern Territory is unique. It's a huge landmass. We've got over 1.4 million square kilometres. We don't have many people. We have a very large Indigenous population. We have a great deal of difference in our socioeconomic areas. You've got Darwin, which is quite a metropolitan, cosmopolitan city, and many people live there, as in inner-city Melbourne or inner-city Sydney. Then we have the smaller towns. Katherine is where I'm from. Katherine is the fourth-largest town in the Northern Territory, with a population of about 10,000 people—so it would count as quite a small country town in the rest of Australia.
Our Indigenous communities are spread throughout the Northern Territory, often in some very beautiful but inaccessible locations. A lot of these places are not well serviced by roads, and the people live out there in very small communities and with quite a traditional lifestyle. We have our cattle stations, isolated farms, isolated properties. For some people on some of these properties, it might be an 800-kilometre trip one-way to go shopping. So it is quite sparsely populated, and a unique and different place. Some of our places are not even accessible by road for most of the year. They have to get their supplies brought in by barge or by small plane.
Having such a small population, we are a territory, the same as the ACT, although the ACT is obviously geographically very small. But we are capable of making our own laws. We are capable of governing our people and making our own decisions and deciding what is best for Territorians. I've just described a little bit of the uniqueness of the place. Now, how can you expect someone who lives in Melbourne or Sydney or Canberra to understand what makes the place and the people tick and to know what is best for those people. Only those who live in that environment, who live with those people, can truly know what is the best thing for Territorians.
The Northern Territory was the first jurisdiction in the world to legalise voluntary assisted dying, or voluntary euthanasia, laws. The Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill was introduced into the parliament by then Chief Minister and member for Fannie Bay Marshall Perron on 22 February 1995. Mr Perron actually resigned his Chief Ministership; that's how important this issue was to him. To introduce this private member's bill, he resigned his Chief Ministership so as not to influence his colleagues by the weight of his office. That is a pretty big decision to take and it just shows you the conviction that he had in introducing these laws for Territorians. Mr Perron said at the time:
This bill is based on a relatively simple principle: if there are terminally ill patients who wish to end their suffering by accelerating inevitable death, and there are sympathetic doctors who are willing to help them die with dignity, then the law should not forbid it. There are such patients, and there are such doctors, and the law does forbid it.
Mr Perron recognised that, with the laws forbidding this from occurring, you were taking away people's right to die without suffering and to die with dignity. is Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill was passed by the Northern Territory's Legislative Assembly on 25 May 1995. The Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 entered into law on 1 July 1996—25 years ago.
The following year the Commonwealth parliament intervened to overturn this act. Section 50A was added to the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 to prohibit the Northern Territory from making laws in respect of voluntary assisted dying. In June 1996, Mr Kevin Andrews, the member for Menzies, in the Commonwealth House of Representatives announced his intention to introduce a private members bill to override the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act. On 9 September 1996 he introduced the bill entitled Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996 in the House. On 7 November 1996, while debate on the bill continued in the House of Representatives, the Senate Selection of Bills Committee recommended, and the Senate agreed, that the provisions of the bill be referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee for inquiry. The report was tabled in the House in March 1997. On 9 December 1996, the House of Representatives agreed to the bill with amendments.
The Rights of the Terminally Ill Act in the Northern Territory was in force for nine months, during which time four people died by medically assisted procedures. At the time, the overturning of this legislation by the Commonwealth was seen by the Northern Territory as taking away the rights of Territorians to legislate for themselves. Now I understand it. I get it. At the time we were the first jurisdiction in the world to do this, so I understand that people in this place said: 'Clearly they're all mad. They can't make decisions for themselves. They've lost the plot. They can't govern responsibly, so we're going to step in and we're going to look after those poor people up there in the Northern Territory whose government has quite clearly lost the plot.' I get that, but that was 25 years ago. Time has moved on and the world has moved on.
The world is a very different place, and there are now many, many jurisdictions that have legislation around voluntary assisted dying—including most states of Australia. They can make those laws. The states can make those laws. The territories can't. The territories are still prohibited from legislating for their people. In this way, Northern Territorians are being treated as second-class citizens, and so are the residents of the ACT. The residents of the territories are being treated as though they can't govern for themselves. As we've heard, the territories have multi-billion-dollar budgets. They look after everything else. They legislate for everything else that affects their citizens, but they can't do this one thing that all the states are saying we need to do for the people.
I get that 25 years ago the Northern Territory was ahead of its time. History has proved that. We weren't crazy back then. We were not crazy; we were just ahead of our time. The fact that almost every other jurisdiction in Australia has passed or is considering these laws shows that. We've been vindicated. We weren't mad. We were just ahead of our time. You might say about the Northern Territory, 'You're just a small place. You don't have many people. How could that be?' Well, maybe that's why. Maybe it's because we are a small, tight-knit community and we look after each other because we are isolated up there, because we've grown up having to look after ourselves and each other. Maybe that is why we were ahead of the game? Maybe that's why we were ahead of our time? We got together, we saw what was happening, we saw what people wanted and our Legislative Assembly at the time had the fortitude to pass voluntary assisted dying laws for the people of the Northern Territory. I'm not here to debate what those laws might look like or the attributes or otherwise of voluntary assisted dying, because that's a matter for the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. They are best placed to debate those laws and bring them into effect if they want to—they can't currently but they could. That is not for me to debate.
I am an advocate for voluntary assisted dying. I'm a veterinarian. I see what effect the relief of pain and suffering has on animals and their loved ones all the time, but that's not the purpose here today. This is not to make laws about voluntary assisted dying or assisted euthanasia; this is to empower the people of the Northern Territory to enjoy the same representation and power to make their own laws that almost everyone else around Australia has. The two territories are cut out of this. They can't even have this debate, but everyone else in Australia can.
Is it fair? Is it right? Is it just that, because you happen to live in the ACT or the Northern Territory, you don't have the right to have the same governance that someone who lives in New South Wales, Western Australia or Tasmania has? Is it right that territorians don't enjoy the same freedom of having their government pass laws for them? That is my argument. That is not right; that is not just.
The Commonwealth stands back in every other argument saying: 'It's up to the states to decide if they want to have biosecurity in place. It's up to the states to decide about quarantine. It's up to the states to decide this.' However, in this area, the Commonwealth government is still saying: 'No, you can't. We're going to stop you. We're going to override your right to make fair, just and needed laws for your people.' That is absolutely not right; it is not fair. It is time for the Commonwealth to pull back from this argument and say to the territories: 'We got it wrong 25 years ago. We thought you were mad. We thought you were nuts. We thought you'd lost the plot, but we were actually wrong: you hadn't. It turns out you were ahead of the game, and we will give you back the right to make laws, if you so desire, around this very sensitive topic. It is sensitive. It is emotive, and there are different points of view; however, we give you the right to have that debate and that discussion with your people if they want to pass laws around voluntary assisted dying and that is what you decide is right for your people.'
It is time for the Commonwealth to get out of the way of the territories and let them make laws around this issue, the way they let them make laws around everything else that governs everything from economic policy to life-and-death decisions that affect peoples' everyday lives. Let them make laws around voluntary assisted dying, if they so desire, that will have an effect on peoples' lives. Territorians no longer want, and certainly don't need, voluntary assisted decision-making. Thank you.
I rise to speak on the Ensuring Northern Territory Rights Bill 2021. I'll flag that it's very interesting that we are debating this bill this morning. This is private members' time, and normally we'd be debating a Labor bill. There was a big stoush over the weekend when this bill was sought to be listed, and the government have now caved because they'd rather avoid losing another vote on the floor of the parliament. I just want to flag that this government has now lost control of both chambers, and it's caved in and listed this bill because it was going to lose the vote and this bill was going to come on anyway. That's my first point, an observation for those watching this debate.
The other observation I have before I talk to the substance of this bill is the hypocrisy of this government. They are desperate to shed powers to the states when it comes to environmental protection. They've been trying to give away their powers to approve developments that would have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance since Mr Tony Abbott was Prime Minister. They've been desperate to get rid of those powers and, of course, they've taken a hands-off approach to building quarantine facilities in a global pandemic. They tried to say that that wasn't their responsibility and that was up to the states. Yet, on matters of ideology, they want to tell the states and territories what they can and can't do. Take the religious discrimination bill, for example. It would seek to override states' protections in certain antidiscrimination laws. What an absolute farce. The other thing, which happened overnight, is the federal government has told Queensland and Victoria that it can't sign on to an international pledge to try to limit global warming to less than two degrees. This government is being highly selective on when it wants to flex its powers. When it suits them and when it suits their ideologies they want to tell the states what to do, but when it doesn't suit their ideology then they're happy for the states to do the heavy lifting.
Today, we have this bill to give rights to the Territory. As the bill is currently drafted it's just to give rights to the Northern Territory, and I understand there's an amendment to include the Australian Capital Territory within the bill, which the Greens would support. We now have this bill for territories' rights. We strongly support the territories having these rights; in fact, the Australian Greens passed a bill in 2011 in this very chamber to ensure that territories had those rights. Naturally, the bill unfortunately did not pass the House, but we passed the Territories Self-Government Legislation Amendment (Disallowance and Amendment of Laws) Act 2011, which would have removed federal powers to overturn the laws passed by the legislative assemblies of the territories. We have always been strong supporters of territories' rights and we support this bill with the amendments, both those flagged by Senator McMahon and those just circulated by the Labor Party, I understand.
Why should people in the territories have fewer rights than the rest of Australia? Why should those legislative assemblies be restricted in what they can even discuss? I'll be very interested to hear what Senator Seselja has to say. I understand he's next on the speakers list. I'll keep my comments short because another senator from the Territory, Senator McCarthy, is also listed to make a contribution and I want to make sure that those folk have the chance to make a contribution. My understanding is that Senator Seselja is the lone person in his party in the ACT that doesn't want this bill to pass. I understand that Canberra Liberals have been begging him to support this bill, so I can't wait to hear what he's got to say about why he wants his very voters to have fewer rights. I would suggest that, in fact, the ACT in this coming election has the chance to elect a Green in place of Senator Seselja, fabulous First Nations woman Dr Tjanara Goreng Goreng, who would back territories' rights and back climate action and action on wealth inequality, for that matter.
I'll return to the substance of this bill. We have always advocated for the rights of elected assemblies in the Territory, in Norfolk Island and in the ACT to legislate in the interests of their citizens, including on the crucial issue of dying with dignity. We have long advocated for the repeal of the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997, as voluntary assisted dying is an issue that affects countless families, medical professionals and healthcare and aged-care workers across Australia. I want to flag that recent polling found that 76 per cent of Australians support voluntary assisted dying and they support the Commonwealth removing restrictions on the territory governments to enact voluntary assisted dying laws. In fact, essentially every credible opinion poll over the last two decades has shown that similar level of support for the concept of dying with dignity, and the number of passionate submissions to the inquiry on this bill is testament to the significance of this issue.
Since the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 overturned the historic 1995 Rights of the Terminally Ill Act (NT), which would've allowed euthanasia in the Northern Territory, many of the states have now in fact passed voluntary assisted dying laws—Victoria, WA, Tassie, South Australia and, most recently, Queensland—and I understand New South Wales is now well on the way. There's no compelling rationale for citizens of the Northern Territory and the ACT to be denied the opportunity to engage in similar debates, particularly in light of the Northern Territory having led the way on voluntary assisted dying all those decades ago.
Given the importance of dying with dignity to so many Australians, all Australians should have at the very least the right to have their elected representatives debate the issue and to make laws for voluntary assisted dying if they have the majority of those votes on the floor. I acknowledge many people have said that perhaps they wouldn't support the substance of voluntary assisted dying laws but that they would support the ability of territories to at least have the debate. The Greens support both, but we absolutely think that there should be no restriction on what the legislative assemblies can even debate.
Citizens in the Northern Territory and citizens in the ACT deserve these rights; they want to have this conversation. This bill from this backbencher would provide those rights, and this government won't let the bill come to a vote because it doesn't want to lose another vote on the floor. It's all about politics with this government. It's not about the rights of people. It's not about the rights of territorians. It's about making sure the Prime Minister isn't left with egg on his face once again, after losing a vote on the floor of the House last week. It's all about politics, never about the right thing, what's good for the community or what's good for the planet. So bring on the election and let's turf out this awful mob.
The Greens support the intention of this bill. We support the amendments to remove some of the objectionable provisions and we would support the amendments circulated by the opposition to include the ACT in this bill. I'll conclude my remarks early so that we can hear from the two territorian representatives.
Thank you for opportunity to speak on this bill, the Ensuring Northern Territory Rights Bill 2021. I have to start by responding to some of the contribution by Senator Gallagher, who right throughout this debate, I think, has sought to make it a personality issue, and particularly some of the mistruths and untruths she has peddled in relation to where we are today.
The very fact that we are debating this bill today undermines one of the key arguments that Senator Gallagher has been making throughout this time, and that is that somehow I have been blocking debate on this bill in the Senate. It's not true, and the fact that it was able to be brought on today is another example of that. Senator Gallagher has been making the argument that she has been committed to this issue and fighting for this issue. But you wonder how much she wants to use it as a political wedge rather than progress the issue, because there have been a lot of Labor slots for private senator's business in the last three years, and I'm not aware that, during all of that time, Senator Katy Gallagher, as Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate, took even one of those slots to introduce her own bill or to bring on another bill and to have a debate. If you were fair dinkum about this, after we dealt with this issue in 2018, you may have actually brought forward your own bill. Senator Gallagher and I have both been very clear about our positions on this issue, but she has not sought to progress the issue; what she has sought to do instead is misrepresent my position and, indeed, misrepresent Senator McMahon's position in quite a deliberate way.
I note the petition which I think was tabled the other day by Senator Gallagher, and it contained clear falsehoods—falsehoods that she was alerted to well before she tabled the petition. In the petition, she claimed that I was deliberately blocking one of my own coalition colleagues from including the ACT in a private senator's bill to restore Territory rights. That's untrue. If she was in any doubt about whether that was untrue, Senator McMahon actually wrote to her, soon after Senator Gallagher had made public that petition, to alert her to the fact that it was incorrect. She ignored it and she tabled a false petition, which she knew to be false. Senator McMahon wrote to Senator Gallagher on 19 July in relation to the issue of euthanasia, amongst other things, and said: 'In your public commentary, as well as in a petition you have launched, you claim that Senator Zed Seselja deliberately blocked me from including the ACT in my proposed legislation. I wish to clarify to you that your assertions are completely false, baseless and incorrect.'
She goes on to emphatically state that what Senator Gallagher is putting in her petition to the people of the ACT—getting them to sign on to a false petition—is incorrect. She completely misrepresents me and also Senator McMahon and seeks to use her as a wedge for her political argument here in the ACT. As I say, not only has she had the opportunity over the last three years to bring forward a bill on this for the Senate to debate and hasn't devoted one minute to it, but she then goes on to misrepresent me and Senator McMahon in relation to the nature of Senator McMahon's bill. The very fact that we are having this debate puts a lie to it, but the fact that Senator Gallagher has only sought to bring on debate right at the last minute, not having used the last three years, demonstrates the political motivations.
The other point I would make is that, for a long time, when I have got up and said I have a position against euthanasia, I've been told, 'These bills are not about euthanasia; they are about territory rights.' That's what we've consistently been told. When Senator McMahon brought forward a bill that actually dealt with issues—including euthanasia but also other issues—of territory rights, what did the Labor Party say in relation to that? The Labor Party said they would not be supporting that bill. Let's just be clear: the Labor Party's position is not to support territory rights; it's to support euthanasia. If that's the case, bring that debate on—and that's part of the debate we're going to be having—but don't pretend that you actually care about territory rights. When Senator McMahon sought to broaden the issues and deal with other issues that she felt needed to be dealt with for the Northern Territory, the Labor Party, including Northern Territory Labor senators, said they wouldn't support it. Do you support territory rights, or do you just support voluntary euthanasia? If the latter is the case, that's fine, but let's be clear about what debate we're having. There needs to be some honesty when we're having these discussions. Senator McMahon brought forward her bill in good faith. Now we understand it's going to be amended, and that will bring forward a conscience vote where we deal with the issue of euthanasia.
I've put a lot of things on the record, including in the lead-up to the last election. This was last debated in the Senate in 2018, I believe, a few months out from the 2019 election. I won't repeat all of the words that I used and all of the points that I made during that debate, but there are a number of important points as we look at this issue. Just finally on the issue of territory rights, the Labor Party not only wouldn't support Senator McMahon's bill but also, in the past, have voted directly to overturn Northern Territory bills on mandatory sentencing. When it comes to issues that they don't support, they have been very happy to utilise the Commonwealth constitutional powers in relation to territories to override a law of the Northern Territory. That has been the Labor Party's view, and I believe even the current Leader of the Opposition was part of the opposition that actually voted for that.
Senator Gallagher says, 'In the ACT, if you go over to Queanbeyan, they have more rights.' Let's be clear on what Senator Gallagher and others are arguing for for the ACT. They are actually arguing for 13 members of the territory assembly to have more rights than those in New South Wales. What happens in New South Wales is that they have this thing called an upper house, which is a check and balance on the power of the lower house. That is something that we don't have in the ACT or indeed in the Northern Territory. When she says she wants to have the same rights, actually she wants 13 members of the Labor-Greens government to have far more power than the New South Wales government has. If it were to pass in New South Wales in the lower house, it would go through the detailed inquiry and scrutiny of an upper house. We don't have that for the territories, and the only check on territory power is the Commonwealth parliament. We exercise that intervention very rarely, it must be said—very rarely. But it came together in a conscience vote many years ago, and it was tested again in a conscience vote. We saw Labor members, Liberal members, Nationals members and crossbenchers voting not to overturn the Andrews legislation in 2018.
There are another couple of important points I'd like to make on the issue more broadly. When we look at the issue of assisted suicide and whether or not we can trust the 13 members of the ACT Legislative Assembly to deliver fair and just laws in relation to assisted suicide, I would just point members of the Senate to the performance of the ACT government and its health system. The management of the health system under this government has been an absolute disgrace. They've underinvested in palliative care and have some of the longest waiting times for elective surgery in the country. If they were to pass these types of laws in the ACT unchecked—and, make no mistake, they would be the most extreme, unchecked euthanasia laws in the country, by far—would that improve the situation for those who are doing it tough and going through the health system, those experiencing palliative care? Would we see more investment compared to the underinvestment in palliative care from the ACT government? Would there be an incentive for them to do that? We heard from Dr Michael Chapman, Canberra Hospital's director of palliative medicine, who said:
… a pressing priority to provide optimal end of life choices in the ACT requires people to have real access to quality palliative care, which is currently not always the case for many and not always the case when they need it. People often receive too little, too late, or no services at all.
Dr Chapman's evidence to the inquiry into end-of-life choices in the ACT confirmed that there are just four full-time equivalent palliative medicine specialists operating in the territory, half the number required for the size of the population. Given that the territory treats many patients from the surrounding regions, this number again falls short. John Watkins, the chair of the board of Canberra's Calvary Hospital, also notes:
… rather than weakening current protections we should instead be talking about how we best support the dignity and personal needs of those reaching the end of their life in addition to their families and make sure that care is available and accessible to all.
It's also significant to note that the 2016 review of the National Palliative Care Strategy found that there remain significant barriers to access to palliative care services for a number of people within the population, particularly for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and:
… there is work to be done in developing culturally specific activities to address the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to help improve access for those who need it.
Indeed, Senator Pat Dodson spoke to this issue when we debated a similar bill in the Senate in 2018:
Where First Nations people are already overrepresented at every stage of our health system, it is irresponsible to vote in favour of another avenue to death. Paving the way for euthanasia and assisted suicide leaves First Nations people even more vulnerable, when our focus should be on working collectively to create laws that help prolong life and restore their right to enjoy a healthy life.
Senator Dodson makes an important point. I just note that Senator Gallagher seeks to make it about my position, which has been on the record for many years, including ahead of the last election, when the Labor Party sought to make this an issue at the election and they encouraged people, as is their right, to vote against me because of my views on issues including euthanasia. But, when she seeks to make it simply about my vote—as one of the 39 senators who voted against the bill last time—it's also a criticism of her colleagues, including Senator Dodson, who happen to have a different view.
As I said at the outset, when Senator Gallagher and others try and claim that it's not about euthanasia and is actually about territory rights, the lie to that has been put by the way they have treated Senator McMahon's bill. If it were not about the issue of euthanasia, if it were simply about the issue of territory rights, then why wouldn't you support all aspects of Senator McMahon's bill? Why wouldn't you simply be removing any restrictions on the Northern Territory to legislate in exactly the same way as a state? Well, it doesn't have that same right, and, if this bill in its amended form were to pass, it would continue to not have those same rights. So we are brought back to this conscience issue, which I know that people in this chamber and across the country have different views on. I've put my views on that issue on the record, but to try and misrepresent them in the way that Senator Gallagher has throughout this debate, to misrepresent—it's incorrect that I, in any way, tried to block Senator McMahon from bringing this bill forward. It's absolutely incorrect. The fact that you have got to misrepresent the situation in terms of making your argument—we had the embarrassing situation where the ACT assembly wrote to all senators and repeated that falsehood that Senator Gallagher had put in her petition. We had the embarrassing situation of an assembly—arguing to have more rights, to have more power to deliver laws—that couldn't even deliver an honest statement. They had to have a complete misrepresentation, in terms of making its argument, which I think undermines those arguments.
Finally, former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating has had significant things to say about this. He talked about what happens with the further liberalisation of these types of laws, that when you pass euthanasia legislation what you see is further liberalisation. We have seen that in Europe. We've seen extreme versions of that in Europe. I would put to the Senate that, in fact, even in the parliaments in Australia that have passed it—in Victoria we saw significant restrictions and significant safeguards when it was passed. We have seen less in WA and less again in Queensland. I would put to it you that should we see the ACT legislating on this issue what we will see are laws with the least safeguards in the country. We do still have some Constitutional responsibilities here. We can choose to exercise those. We do it very rarely. We do it on some of the most significant issues. In terms of this bill, as it's going to be amended—as understand it will be a conscience vote—I won't be supporting it.
I rise to stand and support Senator McMahon's Ensuring Northern Territory Rights Bill 2021 for territory rights for the people of the Northern Territory and for the people of the ACT. I'll just put on the record though what a load of rubbish some of the words that came from Senator Seselja were.
Senator McMahon's bill would not have come before the Senate if it had not been for the Australian Labor Party pushing for it to come before the Senate. Why? Because the federal government, the coalition government, the Prime Minister himself, has intervened to stop Senator McMahon from being able to bring anything to this Senate, which is absolutely outrageous. It is systemic of this government to bully, to intimidate, to antagonise and to stop the rights of people having their democratic say—in particular here in the parliament of Australia to be able to have their rights to speak in the House, to speak here in the Senate.
Senator McMahon brought this bill on with great sincerity on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory. This bill should've been listed well before this government was forced to bring it in five minutes before the bells rang this morning. Why did they do that? They did it because they had no choice. They knew that there was support for Senator McMahon's bill because in the Northern Territory parliament and the ACT parliament we want to see the ability for those members in those parliaments to debate these laws. Why is it that the people of the Northern Territory and the ACT are second-class citizens? Why is it that nearly every other state parliament in this country can debate laws for end of days? Why are we afraid to enable the people of the Northern Territory and the ACT to do exactly that?
For me personally, I don't support voluntary assisted dying. It is not something that I would want to see. But I support very much the right of the people of the Northern Territory and, indeed, the Northern Territory parliament to debate itself—the democratic right where they can argue, where they can speak passionately about issues impacting or possibly affecting their very own constituents who put them in there. Why do we think we have to be the big brother or the big sister, stopping the people of the ACT and the Northern Territory being able to debate what happens at the end of life for their families—their brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers—and them being able to speak to the medical fraternity, being able to speak to the aged-care providers and being able to talk to the churches? Why are we afraid to enable them to do that?
We expect the people of those territories to do everything else this parliament says. As Senator Gallagher pointed out, the Prime Minister keeps throwing everything back to the state and territory premiers: 'You're responsible for quarantining. You're responsible for putting people in hotels.' It's interesting, isn't it? I think Senator Waters raised that point. This parliament likes to dictate what can and can't be done in the territories. Here we have a very courageous government backbench senator who has not only stood up to her colleagues in both the Nationals and the Liberals for the people of the Northern Territory on this bill coming forward today but also fought with me to save the seat of Lingiari so that we could have two seats in the Northern Territory and not revert to one.
The bullying and harassment that went on to prevent Senator McMahon from even doing that is absolutely outrageous. These are the reasons people do not stand for politics. These are the reasons why women in particular think twice about standing for politics. It's an absolute disgrace that members on that side have not given the Territory senator for the Country Liberal Party the support she needed to get this bill here in the Senate and the support, respect and dignity to be able to speak.
There are only two of us, for goodness sake. There are 12 senators in every state, all bullying one on your side. Is that an indication of what you think of the people of the territories? That's the only thing we can take away from that. If this is how you treat your senator then it's no wonder the people of the Northern Territory and the ACT think they don't matter and that their voice is not important. That is the only image you give when you do that not only to this bill but to the senator who has tried to bring it forward. I commend Senator McMahon for doing this.
As I've said, I do not support voluntary assisted dying. I have my personal reasons for that. I will fight vehemently for the rights of the Northern Territory and the ACT parliaments to be able to debate it most passionately, with great maturity and with great compassion. I urge senators here today to realise the significance of this moment in this parliament this year and the fact that the Labor opposition had to force this private senator's bill to the floor this morning.
Next year it will be 100 years since the Northern Territory was able to have its first member in the Australian parliament. That was one seat. We've got only two seats—Solomon and Lingiari—so our voices have not grown significantly at all. Do not diminish us just because you can. Do not silence us just because you can. Do not bully us just because you think you can, because that will not be tolerated.
With the Ensuring Northern Territory Rights Bill 2021, we'd certainly like to see the amendments come forward in terms of the two aspects that Labor does not support. That is not because we don't support a Territory rights bill. We have had this discussion with the senator opposite. The Australian Labor Party has concerns about the fair work rights aspect of it and obviously the aspects around the land. I understand that when Senator McMahon does move those two amendments we will absolutely be supporting this bill wholeheartedly. Certainly Senator Katy Gallagher will be moving to include the ACT.
I think it's really interesting to observe Senator Seselja's comments around this. Senator Katy Gallagher was in no way at all reluctant to see this bill come forward. In fact, it's her private senators' bill that's been removed completely from today's debate. We are not sure when we'll get it back on again. Are we coming back after these parliamentary sittings? Will we be here before the next election? Who knows? But Senator Gallagher has willingly given up her spot on her very important senators' bill to enable this debate to take place. Whatever Senator Seselja has to say on it really gives little comfort at all, if any, as to whether he's had any willingness to support the territories to have their rights empowered again in these parliaments so that that discussion and debate can take place. Shame on you, Senator Seselja, for trying to bring to this Senate such disrepute in saying that you brought this bill on this morning, that it was the government. No, it wasn't—not at all. This was us. This was completely the Labor Party and this was done because we fairly believe in the sincerity of Senator McMahon's bill to improve the rights for the people of the ACT and the Northern Territory.
One of the things that I'm acutely aware of is that, should this bill pass, there will be passionate debate, in particular in the Northern Territory. Given the over 100 Aboriginal languages there, I know the importance of communication and the importance of being able to understand what the ability to debate this in the Northern Territory parliament would mean. It would come back to the 25 members of the legislative assembly in the Northern Territory to discuss and debate, and I have no doubt that each and every one of those 25 members of the Northern Territory assembly will have to dig deep and find out where they stand on this issue of voluntary assisted dying.
It has been over two decades since the Northern Territory led the way, and I have to agree with Senator McMahon's comments that it was the Northern Territory that courageously brought this forward well ahead of its time. Were we mad? Were we crazy? Were we all these things? Let's have a look at the state parliaments around the country who have now had their own debates. No doubt every single parliamentarian in each of those states that have debated end of life have dug deep to find out what it means for them, their conscience, their family, their Christian beliefs and their ability to sit comfortably or uncomfortably with it. But that's because we're a democracy. Isn't that what we pride ourselves on as Australians? Isn't that the one thing that really does hold us together—the belief in our ability to speak respectfully? I have to raise 'respectfully', because there are many views of late that shouting at people, threatening people and bullying people is democracy. Well, that's not democracy. It's not the democracy I want; that's for sure. Democracy is the ability to stand up and agree to disagree. It's the ability to listen respectfully but also know that in this particular instance it's about the Senate, the House of Reps and parliamentarians at the Australian government level realising that sometimes democracy is also about letting go. Let go of the power you hold onto so fiercely in this place, and let the peoples of the Northern Territory and the ACT make up their own minds and have the right to do so.
I just rise to make a short contribution to this debate. I will, in opening, simply state that I do support euthanasia. This bill, the Ensuring Northern Territory Rights Bill 2021, is not about that, however. This bill is about how responsible systems of government work. In a responsible system of government, we have the government responsible to the parliament, which is responsible to the people. So it's not really a matter for me to decide how laws are passed in the ACT or the Northern Territory; that is a matter for the parliaments of the Northern Territory and of the ACT. It's not for Senator Smith to decide what the laws are in the Northern Territory. It's not for Senator O'Sullivan to decide what the laws are in the ACT. It's not for Senator Waters to decide what the laws are in the ACT or the Northern Territory, because she's not responsible to that electorate. The principle ought to be that those who legislate, who pass laws that affect the conduct and the rights of people, are responsible to those people, and, ultimately, those people can rid themselves of that member if they don't like the way in which they vote. So it is pretty important that we understand that that is what this is about. This is about proper systems of government, where we hand responsibility to the parliaments that are actually voted in by their respective people.
I do hope this does come to a debate, because, in some sense, it is a proxy for euthanasia. I can't imagine why anyone would vote against allowing a parliament of a state to set their own laws unless they had a feeling that they didn't like those laws.
I just note that, in this chamber in the last week or so, we've had a number of coalition MPs crossing the floor to vote for choice. One would hope that, if this does come to a vote, some of those people who were voting for choice would also vote to allow choice in the Northern Territory and in the ACT. Under responsible systems of government, we should let the parliaments of the ACT and the Northern Territory pass laws that relate to their people. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
The Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Transparent Patient Outcomes) Bill 2021 will improve health outcomes: the outcome of surgery, and, most importantly, the outcome for the patient. For the very first time, patients who are facing surgery will be able to make an informed choice about their practitioner and their hospital rather than flying blind by accepting without question the surgeon and the hospital selected by their GP. This bill does this by allowing the health minister to create public-facing databases that will detail the performance record of individual surgeons. These databases will also detail the surgical outcomes of the hospitals and clinics in which surgery occurs.
Too regularly, we hear horror stories of patients who are scarred for life and left in agony; of patients who have had to undergo numerous corrective surgeries, otherwise known as 'revisions', and whose lives are forever impacted by the careless knife of a cocky or inexperienced surgeon.
As many in this place would know, the slow-moving regulator often seems close to useless in this space. You only have look at the most recent media story of surgical incompetence to see this—that of cosmetic surgeon Daniel Lanzer, who has reportedly agreed to stop practising in Australia after a joint Four Corners and Fairfax investigation. It took the media to uncover his appalling practices and put an end to him. Where was the regulator, the medical board, the college? How did valid patient complaints not result in the outcome that one media investigation did? This is not an unfamiliar story. We've all read harrowing stories of patients who've undergone a botched procedure and then found themselves in a traumatic battle with the hospital, their surgeon and the system in their often hopeless attempt to get answers and ensure that others don't suffer the exact same fate.
Consumers need more power in their hands to make informed decisions, and that is the sole reason I am proposing this bill. This bill will empower the health minister to make rules to create and maintain a transparent patient outcomes register for a range of medical specialties. Each register will be a public-facing database that will give patients information on the number and types of procedures performed by each surgeon, their surgical revision rates, their mortality rates, their patient demographics, the type and class of prosthesis used if that is relevant, and perhaps even their fees. It is intended that these registers would also detail the performance standards of each facility and for each surgical specialty, because where the surgery happens also influences surgical outcomes.
This bill will also require the minister to consult with the Information Commissioner to ensure that the rules don't breach any privacy rules. Ultimately the information included on these registers would be determined by the minister, but the aim is to include the relevant information for each specialty that would allow patients to make an informed choice about the skill of their prospective practitioner and the standards of each particular facility. The rules in this bill are not prescriptive. The bill gives the minister flexibility about how a transparent patient outcome register would deal with newly minted surgeons who are still building up their bank of experience and how to deal with complaints about incorrect information. This bill is not about creating 'gotcha' databases that undermine professionals. It will ensure that registers are not used in unintended ways and it specifies that information collected for or held on the registries cannot be used in criminal proceedings.
Even so, I know many of the medical colleges won't support it at all. They like to have a closed shop. We found that recently with the IVF industry, but I'll talk a little bit more about that later. They will claim that the bill will create perverse incentives and penalise average performers. I absolutely disagree. Patients want to know whether their surgeon is competent. High fees are no guarantee of this. Neither are framed certificates on a surgeon's wall or the letters after his or her name. Results speak for themselves. Where there is transparency there is always improvement—every single time. Bringing this performance information into the light will ensure that surgeons persist with their ongoing education and keep their skills up to date. It will likely root out complacency and may even help ensure that those who charge the highest fees do in fact earn them. The successful collaboration and launch of the YourIVFSuccess website earlier this year demonstrated the value of and public interest in public disclosure of surgical performance outcomes. That first step improved medical transparency significantly, and it should be the model for all surgical specialties. The process of building such databases does not need to be complicated. I know that this data already exists for some specialties. For instance, orthopaedics has absolutely outstanding data going back well over 20 years.
The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry contains information on all hip, knee, shoulder, elbow, wrist, ankle and spinal disc replacement surgery performed in public and private hospitals throughout Australia. It also collects what they call 'patient reported outcome measures' pre and post surgery regarding pain and surgery outcomes. This data exists. It is shared with surgeons but not the public. Individual performance data is available for each surgeon to view to see how their performance tracks against unidentified peers. They can see whether they plot above or below their fellow orthopaedic surgeons and how many of them are in the low or high ranges. Wouldn't that be valuable information if you were about to undergo a hip replacement or a knee replacement?
This database has existed since 2002. One intention of this disclosure and ranking process and one of the great benefits is that it encourages poor performers to lift their game. The registry shows that a few surgeons continue to use poorly performing prostheses. It also shows a small but significant number of surgeons perform well below expected standards, with much higher revision or repeat operation rates for joint replacement than their peers. Currently, the public only get a small window to see the wealth of orthopaedic surgery data and have no idea whether their surgeon—the surgeon that they are seeing—is a good or poor performer.
Orthopaedic surgeons perform a significant proportion of all surgeries. This means they affect a significant proportion of patients. In fact, 15 per cent of all hospital admissions in 2017-18 were for orthopaedic surgery, including knee and hip replacements—a massive number.
Given the life impacts of poor prosthesis and surgical revisions, I would argue that these thousands of people in households who have been orthopaedic patients should be able to get objective performance data about their surgeon before they go under the knife. Every patient who undergoes any invasive surgery should have this information available to them. It's their money and their health at stake. They shouldn't just have to rely on the reassurances of their surgeon or referring GP that everything will be fine.
This is a bill for consumers. It's not a bill to protect people that are not doing the right thing, that are not up to scratch. It is a bill for consumers, who are often sidelined or feel ignored when things go wrong as surgeries sometimes do. The transparent patient outcomes register, created through this bill, can alleviate some of this needless suffering by helping guide patients before they set off down a road that they may well regret. The databases could also serve to reassure an anxious patient. Those considering surgery will be able to look up the performance record of their intended surgeon and know whether their doctor is well versed in their particular operation or just a dabbler.
Research shows that surgeons who perform fewer surgeries of particular types compared to their peers have increased revision rates—which, again, are repeat operations to go back in to likely fix a problem—and they have poorer patient outcomes overall. A 2014 study that looked at complications arising from hip replacement surgery found that patients whose surgeons had performed 35 or fewer hip surgeries in the previous year had an increased risk of dislocation and early revision. If you are about to have a hip operation, wouldn't you want to know whether your surgeon of choice represented a greater or lower risk? I would; I think everyone here would, but currently that information is unavailable to you.
The bill also deals with an administrative hurdle that would otherwise require data from a minority of specialties, including orthopaedic surgery, to be collected twice from hospitals. The Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry is deemed a quality assurance activity under the Health Insurance Act 1973. Identifying data collected for the purpose of a quality assurance activity currently cannot be disclosed to another person or a court without consent, at the risk of serious penalty.
The intention behind the provisions in the act is to provide protection from civil liberty claims. This bill seeks to retain this protection by doing two things: first, it will prohibit data collected for or held on a transparent patient outcomes register from being used in court; second, it creates an exemption for disclosure of quality assurance activity data if it is in accordance with the rules set by the minister. The bill intentionally prevents data collected for or held on a transparent patient outcomes register from being used in unintended ways that cannot be supported by health facilities and practitioners, such as to sue surgeons or to bring criminal proceedings against them. That is not what this is about.
As I say stated previously, the intention of this bill is to provide objective and useful performance data that will help patients make an informed choice about their doctor and hospital before they proceed to surgery. If patients have a clearer view of their surgeon's performance and revision rates, it will help them steer clear of surgeons who aren't experienced in their procedure or who have higher than average revision or repeat operation rates. Without doubt, it would mean fewer complications and surgical trauma for the patient. That is a most worthy outcome.
In an environment where we can't rely always on the regulator, the colleges and the hospitals to rally around patients, we should help them help themselves. This is a most important bill—a very important bill to me—and I hope all senators here will support it.
I rise today to speak on the Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Transparent Patient Outcomes) Bill 2021, which was introduced to the Senate by Senator Griff on 23 November 2021. As chair of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee I wish to make a brief contribution to the debate. I also wish to acknowledge Senator Griff's interest in, and active participation and involvement in, a number of inquiries undertaken by this committee.
Senator Griff has a particular interest in the transparency of outcomes, as evidenced by another of his bills, the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Financial Transparency) Bill 2020, which is also before the Senate, as well as his ongoing influential and determined support for transparency in relation to IVF clinics that saw the launch of the YourIVFSuccess website this year. This website, together with a searchable database that provides comparable fertility clinic success rates across Australia, was developed in association with UNSW Sydney. The development of this informative and interactive site was funded through a Medical Research Future Fund grant provided by the Australian government and is a testament to the outcomes that can be achieved through collaboration.
The IVFSuccess estimator allows people to make informed choices about their conception options. It draws on the experience of over 600,000 IVF cycles, performed in clinics across Australia, to formulate an individualised estimate of IVF success for patients. This informs the discussion between the patient and clinicians. What a great outcome, and thank you, Senator Griff, for your determination to see it eventuate. I have many friends who have been through the IVF program and this valuable tool would certainly have assisted them at that time.
I note that in a speech to this place, around the time of the launch for the IVF website, Senator Griff foreshadowed the tabling of the bill before us today. He stated:
It is my hope that one day we will have similar performance transparency for all specialists performing all surgeries in both public and private hospitals. Transparency and accountability are key to improving health outcomes for all of us. They also mean that outliers have nowhere to hide and must lift their game, all to the benefit of patients and to the benefit of the health system.
Senator Griff believes that public disclosure of any surgical performance outcomes, including such areas as gynaecological, cardiothoracic, orthopaedic, plastic and reconstructive surgeries, would be relevant to the proposed transparency of outcome and provide consumers with greater control in determining their surgical provider.
As outlined in Senator Griff's second reading speech, this bill would enable the minister to make rules to create a transparent patient outcomes register that would include information such as the number and type of surgical procedures performed by a practitioner, their surgical revision rate, their patient mortality rate, any prosthesis device they may use, patient data and any other information deemed relevant to that specialty. When reading Senator Griff's speech, I noted that he focused on joint replacement surgery as one example of where a patient may wish to select an orthopaedic surgeon who has undertaken a significantly higher proportion of surgeries than others. As a consumer in this space, it is something I can definitely relate to, and I note that I relied on considered advice from my medical practitioner, personal investigation and research, and third-party references to determine the surgeon that I proposed to use for my knee replacement.
As outlined by Senator Griff earlier, although data in relation to orthopaedic surgeon performance and patient outcomes is collected by the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, which is funded by the health department, the information held by the register is not available for use for any other purpose; it's simply a quality assurance activity as required by the act. Senator Griff's bill seeks to access this data and allow the reuse of relevant data that is already being collected to be provided for the purpose of a transparent patient outcomes register. The explanatory memorandum provided by Senator Griff details how the transparent patient outcomes bill will preserve the current protections afforded to this information.
The explanatory memorandum also includes details on how the bill seeks to provide protection from liability for secondary disclosure of quality assurance data which is collected for or contained on a transparent patient outcomes register. Orthopaedic surgery is one example; however, as mentioned earlier, there are many others where shining the light on surgical outcomes may assist consumers as they make decisions about potential surgeries.
Cosmetic and plastic surgery has been highlighted over recent months through a number of media stories, including Todd Sampson's documentary Mirror Mirror. Examples of unaccepted outcomes from surgery performed by inexperienced and often barely qualified health professionals in that field have been highlighted. Interestingly, this phenomena has come to light during the Senate Community Affairs References Committee's inquiry into the administration of registration and notifications by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and related entities under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. This inquiry is continuing and will report in the new year. However, from evidence received already, it is quite possible that access to more transparent and accountable patient outcomes may have enabled different decisions to have been made by those who have approached the committee with their concerns as well.
As those in this place would be aware, the Australian government is working with states and territories under the 2020-25 national health reform agreement, the NHRA, to improve access to timely, fit-for-purpose information, which is needed to make informed decisions about health care. All levels of government are working with the health sector to better understand and remove systemic barriers to improving health care and outcomes, and under the NHRA progress is being made. The national health reform agreement long-term reforms road map was endorsed by all Australian health ministers at the health ministers meeting on 17 September this year.
Providing flexibility to achieving the outcomes is a key component of the road map. Allowing jurisdictions to respond to changing circumstances, they will have the flexibility to identify priority reforms and determine the scope and timing of activities to best suit local needs and support local health system diversity, readiness and funder and provider capabilities. The road map includes an extensive plan for each reform area, including a vision statement, aim, case for change, links to other reforms, intended outcomes, key concepts and COVID-related developments. The road map identifies actions, deliverables and time frames for the following key areas of reform: nationally cohesive health technology assessment; paying for value and outcomes; joint planning and funding at a local level; empowering people through health literacy, prevention and wellbeing; enhanced health data; and interfaces between health, disability and aged-care systems.
One of the key components contained in the road map, enhanced health data, clearly aligns with the intent of Senator Griff's bill, subject to access being made available to the specified data. The rationale for the enhancement of health data, as explained in the document, states this reform supports Australia's governments in their commitment to realise the value of public health data through greater data sharing and information access to transform health care, drive efficiency and safety, create productivity gains and allow better decision-making.
It will ensure that relevant, robust and timely data is available to the appropriate people, to support shared patient-clinician decision-making, improved service delivery, evidence-informed policy development, research and analytics, and system planning. Maintaining data security and preserving individuals' privacy will be central to the reforms.
By expanding public reporting on the quality, safety and value of health services, it is possible that we will see improvements in the health system and improved accountability for outcomes. The NHRA work will build on the Australian Health Performance Framework and existing hospital-level reporting by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare on information such as emergency department performance, elective surgery waiting times and healthcare associated infections.
The long-term health reforms under the NHRA are intended to provide better coordinated care in the community, to focus on prevention and keeping people healthier longer, and to reduce pressure on hospitals. These systemic reforms will also help improve the experiences of people using services across the health, aged-care, disability and mental health sectors. The stated intent overall is that the long-term reforms will make it easier for people to manage their health.
I understand that the Minister for Health, the Hon. Greg Hunt, has undertaken to consult further with key stakeholders in relation to Senator Griff's bill and is anticipating that a report will be provided to him early in the new year. The findings of the report will be discussed with Senator Griff and other interested parties at that time as we look to provide more information to the Australian public in support of their healthcare decisions of the future.
CHING () (): I rise to speak on the Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Transparent Patient Outcomes) Bill 2021. Labor supports the goals of this bill. We welcome this debate and we thank Senator Griff for the forethought, the care and the compassion that has gone into this bill.
Labor thinks there's a good philosophical point in what Senator Griff has proposed. It's hard to overestimate the importance of the ability of people to make informed decisions about their own lives. This applies to the goods they may buy, how they spend their time and their decisions about health care. Senator Griff's bill is driven by an understandable idea that people make better decisions when they have more information about the decisions they are making. I would add to that that we don't want to be patronising or patriarchal about how people spend their lives and what decisions they make. Importantly, if we consider that having good health is one of the most important aspects of our lives, this bill goes to enable people to make decisions around their health. That is very important. So we thank Senator Griff.
This has been a long-term philosophical aspect of democracy. In the century before the birth of Jesus Christ, Cicero, the great Roman statesman, lawyer and console—I'm reading The Republic at the moment—said:
The safety of the people shall be the highest law.
Thomas Jefferson followed on from that thought and said:
The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.
In light of that philosophical line of reasoning, this bill enables Australians to go to a health system that will support them in ways whereby they are comfortable with the decisions they can make about their health care. There's a view that successful leaders, true leaders, understand that true power comes from not exercising control but from empowering others, and that's what this bill seeks to do. It seeks to empower all of us to have the requisite information to make decisions about our own health care.
Whether you go through the public system, the private system or, as a lot of people do, a combination of both, what we're really asking is: should people have to rely on the good luck of having a GP who is a good diagnostician or who has an excellent rolodex with specialists' names in it? Really, that shouldn't be the measure of whether you have good health care. When you're going to see a specialist, whether it's a surgeon, an obstetrician-gynaecologist or a cardiologist, you want to be able to make that decision yourself. There would be some people who might be more comfortable with a doctor of a particular gender for some issues. This bill enables the minister for health to establish public databases of surgical procedures and patient outcomes. The intent is that people considering a particular surgical procedure will be able to make a more informed choice about their health care and, in particular, their healthcare provider.
Currently, there's little information in the public domain that allows patients to assess the performance, skills and outcomes of individual facilities as well as practitioners. This bill amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 to enable the minister to make rules to establish and maintain transparent patient outcomes registers. These registers may contain data such as the number and types of surgical procedures performed at a facility, the number and types of procedures performed by a practitioner, surgical revision rates and patient mortality rates, any prosthesis device used, patient demographics, or any other information set out in the rules by the minister. The provisions of the transparent patient outcomes bill can be applied to any medical specialty, and that's one of the beauties of it. It is not just related to one particular specialty—it can be used across the board.
Many factors determine the overall success of a surgery, including a patient's age, health and individual diagnosis, as well as their behaviour and willingness to following the doctor's orders post surgery. The bill recognises these facts and allows the minister to ensure they are accounted for so as not to provide the false impression that outcomes are always solely tied to practitioners' skills or decisions, nor to facility characteristics. But no-one can deny that a surgeon's skill and familiarity with a particular procedure is also a key determinant of outcomes. It is a key determinant that this bill aims to make transparent.
While the bill attempts to provide for information indicating a practitioner's skill to be made available on transparent patient outcomes registers, we should acknowledge that, in reality, we can measure relative practitioner skill only indirectly through outcomes. Of course, to be effective, a transparent patient outcomes register resulting from the provisions of this bill will allow for the identification of individual practitioners. It will not require practitioner-related information to be deidentified or provided anonymously. The intent being to inform patient choices, anonymous information is seen as far less useful and not consistent with the objective of the bill. To be effective, the transparent patient outcomes registers must also contain some degree of patient data. This raises questions of patient privacy, which is acknowledged by the bill. The proposed subsection 124ZCB(6) stipulates that the rules must prohibit the publication of sensitive information, including identifying health information about an individual. There's balance in this bill.
Recognising that there is a limit to what patient data can and should be provided through outcomes registers due to legitimate privacy considerations, we must also acknowledge that such limits have implications for the usefulness of outcomes data in registers to inform potential patients. The information to be provided in the transparent patient outcomes register is not intended to be prescriptive or exhaustive. The minister will have broad discretion in deciding what information is to be made public through the register. However, it is intended that the minimum information included in any such rules will allow consumers or patients to make useful comparisons and judgements about a surgeon's experience and capabilities. To do otherwise would defeat the intent and utility of a transparent patient outcomes register. However, Labor acknowledges that there's a danger in this approach, and the possibility of unintended consequences.
As I mentioned above, numerous factors play a role in the final outcomes related to medical procedures, including surgeries. If not designed carefully by the minister, the transparent patient outcomes register could have the opposite effect of its intention. Take, for example, the case of an exceptionally highly skilled surgeon who, as a result of his or her skills, tends to attract the most difficult surgeries in a given specialty and a given location. You could imagine this could skew data. Maybe this is represented by patients who have challenging comorbidities, or maybe it is represented by the needs for a particularly difficult technique employed more frequently in these cases than in others—the point being that, when measuring aggregate outcomes, by definition we lose specific information that could be relevant in making a comprehensive and objective assessment of performance and skill. This is true, of course, in any field of endeavour and is no less true in surgery.
A simple accounting for average patient outcomes by practitioner could represent this surgeon as performing worse than his or her peers when, in reality, the opposite is the case. Maybe that's the surgeon you actually want for a difficult procedure. This would not only represent a personal and professional injustice with respect to our hypothetical surgeon; it would represent a danger to patients, as patients unaware of the deeper issues at play could base decisions on simplistic, aggregate and only partially informed data. I do not know whether it's possible to collect and include all the relevant data that would be needed to guard against such unintended consequences in the context of this bill. That is an open question that Labor would like to hear the views of experts on. Even if it is the case that all data could be collected without breaching patient privacy protections, there is no assurance that the minister would require its collection and publication on transparent patient outcomes registers.
This bill represents a good-faith effort to improve patient choice and patient outcomes. It also represents a key strain in a democratic system: to inform people and to give people the right to make good decisions for themselves. Labor supports these goals, as should anyone who is interested in the welfare of all Australians. I again thank Senator Griff, and we welcome this debate.
I rise to speak on the Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Transparent Patient Outcomes) Bill 2021. The bill, if it finds favour with the Senate, will allow the Minister for Health to establish public databases of surgical procedures and patient outcomes, to allow consumers who are considering a particular procedure to make an informed choice about their practitioner. The mover of the bill, my South Australian colleague Senator Griff, argues in debate that such information in the public domain will allow Australian patients to objectively assess skills and outcomes of individual practitioners and that the bill will repair a lack of transparency that currently exists in what I suppose I could describe as the consumer market for medical services.
The bill technically seeks to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973 to enable the minister to make rules to establish and maintain a transparent patient outcomes register or registers, as the case may be, that contain data such as the number and type of surgical procedures performed at a facility, the number and type of procedures performed by a practitioner, surgical revision rates and patient mortality rates for each facility and practitioner, as well as any prosthesis device used, patient demographics or any other information set out in the rules by the minister. The bill, in effect, gives the minister wide discretion to effectively construct or structure the nature of the register or registers. Registers can be for particular surgical interventions and can also relate to particular medical professions, so there is a degree of flexibility and empowerment of the minister to do so. As we've heard from Senator Askew, the government's intention through its Minister for Health is to consult widely in relation to this bill and to share those findings with the mover of the bill to see the best way forward or whether this bill may require further refinement.
This bill raises two interesting issues. First, around privacy, which the bill takes great pains to protect and, second—and this was touched upon by Senator Kitching—the nature of the presentation of that data, which we hope will empower the consumer and not confuse the consumer. I'm also interested in, in relation to this bill, how that will impact on the performance of the medical profession as a profession—that is, the interplay between the delivery of information and how the profession, both as individuals in the profession and the profession as a whole, will respond—we hope positively—if this bill is passed.
On the issue of privacy, Hippocrates, the Ancient Greek physician, pledged to keep information about patients private and confidential, so this is not a new concept. In fact, the Hippocratic oath states:
What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself …
So it is not a new concept, and it is one which we've grappled with in the past. This bill aims to keep the balance—that is, to collect the data for the societal benefit whilst protecting the individual. But, to gather the data, it has to be protected; otherwise, it will be used for a variety of other purposes, which could prevent its ultimate collection or affect the ability to rely on that data and undermine its validity. This is an old trade-off which has occurred in health, and the trade-off is being extended to allow the creation of these registers. Senator Griff stated in his second reading speech:
The bill endeavours to strike a balance between providing useful information to guide patients, providing ongoing protections to those who, in good faith, provide, collect and manage performance and outcomes data, and also endeavours to ensure registry information is not appropriated in unintended ways, such as for court proceedings.
As I've said, this is not a new concept. Protections of personal privacy are always used to protect the interests of individuals, while the primary justification for collecting personally identifiable health information for health research is for the benefit of society. It's an old balance and one which I think is maintained in the bill.
In preparing for the debate today, I would like to thank Senator Griff for including in the explanatory memorandum to the bill a statement of compatibility with human rights, which I found informative and which also alleviated potential concerns that I or others may have had in relation to privacy. The conclusion to that statement says:
This Bill aims to assist individuals to access information about a healthcare provider and exercise informed choice before proceeding with surgery, and so is compatible with human rights as it promotes the right to a high standard of health, the right to control one's health and the right to information accessibility.
From my own perspective, I do not find fault with those assertions, and I have considered the arguments of the mover carefully.
What has particularly interested me about the issues raised by this bill is their interplay with the profession. Historically, we have relied on the medical profession to self-regulate. In effect, we have placed our trust in the medical profession and the doctors and surgeons within it, and we have not sought to question their counsel or their wisdom.
Society has moved on apace. Individuals in our community want to have a dialogue with their doctors and specialists, and in that dialogue they want to be informed. That is why the seed of this bill has great attraction, because it empowers the consumer to have a dialogue with their medical professional—not necessarily on equal terms, because in a doctor-patient relationship there is a lack of power: one has great knowledge, and one is ill and concerned for recovery. So, the relationship has never been equal, which is why the profession was created—to create some balance and self-responsibility on those providing the care.
When discussing professions I always come back to an Australian Bar Gazette article, a reprint of part of a presidential address delivered by Mr Hilton to the English Law Society titled 'The nature of a profession.' He says that one of the really attractive arguments about professions—he's referring to both the medical and the legal profession, the latter of which I'm a member—is that before a group of individuals can be called a profession they must follow their trade or craft in the spirit of public service. That doesn't rule out the need for fair reward. The point is that the first priority is to apply all the person's knowledge, energy and abilities in doing the job, and earning a reward is incidental to that, But, as the mover of the bill has indicated, that is not always the case—in any profession—and there have been considerable failings in the medical profession to clean up its own dirty linen, might I say.
Senator Kitching also indicated that there may be different behaviours as a result of the data. For example, because it's aggregated, it may result in a debate with a patient who is not necessarily as informed. I don't really want to speak for the mover, but as I understand his contribution here, he wants an empowerment conversation. That does not necessarily mean that this data will inform the patient to the nth degree, because they are not data experts. But it will allow them to come to the surgeon's desk or the doctor's surgery and say: 'This is the public data. Please explain to me why you think this surgeon is the best.' I think that's the attractiveness of this legislation, because no legislation like this can generate perfection.
One of the interesting things—and I don't profess to have a crystal ball in relation to this—is how the profession will respond. It could be that the less-noble members of the profession—those who do not put societal benefit as one of their primary drivers in the profession; remuneration is higher to them—might reduce their scope of practice and operate only on those they think are going to have a greater chance of recovery. One would like not to think so. My point in raising the interplay with the profession is that the profession will have to do more work on this to ensure that their members do not respond in a base way to this sort of data being held by the patient.
It will also, I think, have positive knock-on effects for the procurement process, particularly with prosthetics. We know that there are very hard sales techniques around prosthetics, and the patient needs to know whether they are getting the one that is used in majority or in specialist cases and then raise the question. It may also drive increased specialisation in the profession and more attention to those being apprenticed, with their apprenticeships taking longer. I don't raise those issues to negate the positive intentions of this bill but to promote the debate about how this register will be structured. As my honourable friend Senator Askew has indicated, the government finds favour with the intentions of this bill and is seeking to consult to better understand how the registers will be constructed. I congratulate the mover of the bill for his dedication to advancing the interests of patients in Australia. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I move:
That the motion proposing the disallowance of the Industry Research and Development (Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program) Instrument 2021 be called on immediately and the question be put after 30 minutes.
(Quorum formed)
I rise to speak on this gag motion to make sure that this government can give $50 million of taxpayers' money to a private gas company to frack the Beetaloo basin in the Northern Territory, against the wishes of First Nations owners. There is not a fossil fuel subsidy that this government isn't completely enamoured by.
We have just had the Glasgow climate conference, we've just had First Nations people crying out to be heard, and for their rights and wishes to be respected, and this government is now bringing on a gag to ram through the vote on the disallowance motion that the Greens have moved to say, 'No, don't give taxpayer money to a private gas company to frack the Beetaloo basin.'
This is a climate bomb. It would emit four times the amount of emissions that the Adani coalmine would. This is exactly the wrong thing to be doing in a climate crisis. It is unbelievable that this government, just three weeks after the Glasgow climate conference, is now having the audacity to try to give even more taxpayers' dollars to private gas companies. I suspect the Liberal-aligned chair of the company, who has made some generous donations to this government, might have a bit of an in there with this government. What a cosy little relationship—they are giving taxpayer money to their donors to open up a climate bomb, to frack the Beetaloo basin.
Today we'll have the vote because this government is bringing it to a vote. It's gagging debate and forcing us to have a vote on this. I will be very interested to see how the opposition vote on this crucial question of whether to give taxpayer subsidies to open up a climate bomb against the wishes of First Nations Northern Territorians. This is a test for the Labor Party. Are they going to vote to give $50 million of taxpayer money to a private gas company to frack the Beetaloo or are they going to find some spine and principles and say, 'No, we don't want the climate to be completely destroyed and we don't want to trash the rights of First Nations Northern Territorians'? This is a test. Will they allow public money to be wasted on propping up a private gas company to make the climate crisis worse?
We had the International Energy Agency and the G7 just before Glasgow talk about phasing out fossil fuel subsidies. This government is completely deaf to the science and is completely deaf to the international shift away from fossil fuels and is now wanting to give $50 million of taxpayer dollars to private companies. This government has completely missed the memo. It missed the memo on 2030 and increasing targets so that we can have a liveable climate that safeguards nature, that protects our agriculture and that protects beautiful natural assets like the Great Barrier Reef, which has already lost 50 per cent of coral cover through back-to-back bleaching episodes that are driven by the burning of coal and gas.
We just had those international bodies say it's not a great idea to open new coal and gas and not a great idea to continue fossil fuel subsidies to do so. This government have their fingers in their ears and say, 'Of course we want to keep giving free money to our donors to wreck the climate,' because not only do they want to pay back those donors but they want cushy lobbying jobs once they leave parliament. I hope they will be on the opposition benches very soon. No doubt they'll be looking at and lining up those cushy gas company jobs. We know several former politicians from this chamber and the other chamber have gone to represent big gas companies and even APIA, the gas representative body itself.
That cosy little relationship sees First Nations' rights trashed and sees the climate crisis turbo charged. What an absolute crock. Why on earth would the opposition be supporting this? This is a test for them. Are they going to support the gag to bring this on for a vote? Are they going to support giving $50 million of taxpayer money to frack the Beetaloo basin?
We have schools and hospitals that are desperate for additional funding. We have front-line domestic violence services that are desperate for additional funding. People can't afford to go to the dentist and people can't afford to get mental health care. They are the sorts of things that taxpayer dollars should be spent on—dental and mental into Medicare. We should have fully funded schools, fully funded hospitals and funded renewable energy projects. But, no, this government won't have a bar of any of that. It wants to give taxpayer money to private gas companies with links to the Liberal Party to frack the Beetaloo basin, to open up a gas basin that would be four times as bad for the environment as Adani would be and that would represent 13 per cent of Australia's domestic emissions. You could not make this up. This could not make any less sense. This government is so cosy with its gas donors and its coal donors and cares so little about First Nations' rights that it is willing to have this conversation three weeks after the Glasgow climate crisis—for shame!
I add for the benefit of the chamber that we have got the crossbench on this—all of them. Labor will decide whether $50 million of public money goes to these private companies. They are the swing vote here. Every single crossbencher—and I thank all of the crossbenchers for their support—says, 'No, I don't want to give taxpayer dollars to these companies,' many of whom don't even pay corporate tax in Australia, because they have fancy accountants that can exploit loopholes that this government couldn't be bothered changing. They're not even paying tax and yet they're getting massive subsidies from the taxpayer. That's why many of the crossbench will be voting to say: 'Don't give these tax dodgers more money, in a climate crisis and against the wishes of First Nations owners.'
This is a test for the Labor opposition. Will they gag this and ram it through? And will they then sit once again with the government, on the side of coal and gas, to trash the climate and to absolutely insult the wishes of First Nations people in the Beetaloo basin? I really hope that Labor do the right thing, because the people of Australia would like a choice at the next election. They'd like to know that there's a bit of difference between the two big parties. They don't want it to be just the Greens who are standing for the climate and for First Nations rights. It's not too much to ask in a democracy for the opposition to oppose. We don't expect anything better from this government, who are giving yet more taxpayer dollars to the gas companies, but we had hoped that the Labor opposition would decide that schools and hospitals and renewable energy were a better spend than giving money to private gas companies with cosy links to the Liberal Party, against the wishes of First Nations owners.
I'll conclude my remarks there because I know that many of our Greens senators wish to speak on this and they feel as passionately about this issue as I do. We'll be speaking both to the substantive and to the procedural debate here. Our First Nations Senators Lidia Thorpe and Dorinda Cox will make powerful contributions.
This is yet another example of the joke that is the trashing of First Nations rights in this country. We should be talking about free, prior and informed consent; instead, the government is talking about free public money to a private gas company and just thumbing its nose at First Nations communities. It's utterly unacceptable. I look forward to the contributions from other senators.
As this is the last day to consider this motion for disallowance, I rise to say that Labor will be supporting the motion to ensure the debate is concluded to allow the Senate to express its opinion on the substantive motion, rather than allowing the regulation to be disallowed by the effluxion of time. It has been our consistent position that senators should be able to vote on disallowance motions.
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the question be put.
The question is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to.
I rise to speak to this motion on disallowance of the Industry Research and Development (Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program) Instrument 2021, in order to stop the Morrison government from providing $50 million to frack in the Beetaloo basin in the Northern Territory. In this country projects are being approved left, right and centre without consent and without proper approvals that assess the damage being caused to our environment. This is unacceptable and it is something we have the opportunity to change here today. It is clear there are some gaping holes in our legislative frameworks that allow big corporations to get away with destroying our country. Last week I went out onto the lawns of Parliament House with my colleagues Senator Thorpe and Senator Waters and met with First Nations people and members of the community who are saying no to fracking in the Beetaloo basin. What is it about the word 'no' that this government do not understand? From a Western worldview, you can play with geography and the environment on a topographical map and you can reprint a new version of that the next day. But to the traditional owners of these lands, if you disrupt the geography and the environment, the songlines of that country are lost forever.
The ecosystem in the outback is fragile and precious, and there is no doubt that drilling will have consequences to flora, fauna and farmers. I am worried about the impact it will have on endangered species and savannah ecosystems. Fracking poses serious risks to our precious groundwater, and groundwater is especially critical in the Northern Territory because 90 per cent of water for human purposes, including the drinking water, comes from those aquifers.
Origin Energy's own environmental report for 10,000 square kilometres of the Beetaloo basin warned that drilling will pose a risk of causing the aquifers under some properties to leak into each other, deteriorating the quality of existing and future groundwater supplies. Even the independent review of fracking in the Territory, the Pepper inquiry, noted significant environmental, social and economic risks from fracking in the Territory. These include risks to the water quality due to contamination, due to quantity and due to the extraction and drawdown. These risks are absolutely unacceptable.
From the Pepper inquiry there were 135 recommendations, and it said only the full implementation of all those recommendations could provide any assurances that these risks could be managed. One of the core recommendations from the Pepper inquiry was for the Commonwealth to extend the water trigger to onshore shale gas developments. This key recommendation remains unimplemented. It is clear that the EPBC Act is failing to protect our water from serious risks of fracking and we need stronger environmental protections, including through the addition of shale gas fracking into the act's water trigger. We need approvals that actually assess what the impacts of fracking will be on our water resources. Despite these significant risks against the wishes of traditional owners, Empire Energy was granted approval from the Northern Territory government. Its environmental management plan in October includes the approval to construct wells, drill wells and frack—in other words, the Northern Territory government has given the green light for the destruction of country.
What is even more unbelievable is that the NT environment minister suggested that the greenhouse gas emissions from the exploration phase were manageable. Who would think? Has the minister even read the Pepper inquiry report? That inquiry identified the life cycle of greenhouse gas emissions from a new onshore gas field across a range of production scenarios would contribute 4.5 to 6.6 per cent of Australia's total greenhouse gas emissions. This risk was deemed unacceptable, so I don't know how the minister could actually say that. Granting public money to party donors for climate-wrecking projects that no-one wants is unethical, wasteful and a danger to our children's future. Here we go again, it's the Greens standing up, trying to protect our environment and our country, while Liberal and Labor parties hand out public money to oil and gas corporations to frack in the Beetaloo. I know which side of the chamber I would rather be on when this disallowance motion comes up for a vote.
I rise to oppose this disallowance, because our nation desperately needs more secure oil and gas supplies. Australia is now far from being self-sufficient in oil production—something that we were only 20 years ago. I think a lot of Australians wouldn't realise, understand or know that just 20 years ago, when September 11 happened, we produced 96 per cent of our raw petroleum needs. We were almost self-sufficient in petroleum production. If the worst happened and our supplies of oil were cut off from the Malacca Strait or elsewhere, we would have been able to produce enough petrol to keep our economy going, defend our nation and make sure people could still be fed and we could transport goods around the country. Those are some pretty important things for any nation that wants to provide for its own people. It is true that we didn't have the refinery capacity to turn that 96 per cent of raw petroleum into a useable product 20 years ago, but it's not very difficult to build a refinery. It can be done very quickly if a crisis emerges. It is very difficult to find a new source of oil or gas, something that I'll come to in a second.
People don't understand in this country why we were self-sufficient, because we don't teach the history of how this oil came about and how we actually developed our nation. We were self-sufficient in oil and gas thanks to the discovery of the Bass Strait, which was one of the world's most productive oil and gas basins just off the coast of Melbourne, just off the coast of Victoria. For 50 years we have produced an enormous amount of oil and gas from that region. Around 20 years ago, that production started to fall, and fall rapidly. That means that today we barely get any oil out of the Bass Strait. We still get some oil, mainly from the North West Shelf, from offshore oil and gas rigs up there, but they are predominantly gas-producing regions, not oil-producing. That's why we don't have the security we had.
How did we develop the Bass Strait? How did we get that going? In the aftermath of World War II, it became clear that Australia did need to become more secure in its own natural resource supplies, particularly of oil and gas. In the 1950s the Menzies government established a subsidy to attract investment in oil and gas into Australia. They established a 50 per cent drilling subsidy so any company could come to Australia at that time and have half of their exploration drilling costs paid for to find oil and gas in this country. There was also a price-support mechanism for domestic oil. All prices were very low in the 1950s, so there wasn't a lot of incentive for people to discover oil and gas in Australia, and the Menzies government paid an additional subsidy for any oil that was produced and consumed from domestic sources. That eventually led to one of our nation's most historic meetings, when an Australian company, the Broken Hill Proprietary company, or BHP, decided they would seek to access this subsidy. They brought out a gentleman called Lewis Weeks, a geologist from the United States, well known to be the world's greatest geologist of his time. He had a meeting in Melbourne with the CEO of BHP, and over lunch the CEO asked Mr Lewis Weeks, 'Where's the best place in Australia to drill for oil?' Without hesitation, apparently, as the story goes, Lewis responded: 'The Bass Strait. You've got to go with the Bass Strait.' The rest is history.
BHP did do that. They weren't a company in petroleum at the time. They cut their teeth in Broken Hill, and later developed most of the nation's steelworks and steel industry—something we should return to as well, a topic for another speech. But in the 1950s and through the 1960s, BHP had a third incarnation as a company and expanded into oil and gas, and they did very well in that industry. We benefited from that for 50 years. We benefited from the foresight of that government. At the time, as I said, there were plentiful supplies of oil. Oil prices were very low in the fifties and sixties, but the decision was made to do that so we could have security. It wasn't necessarily about the economy or jobs or any of these things; it was to provide Australians with security, their most basic need. This is what we should do as a government to defend our country, to continue to supply goods for people. That's why they did it. It was done with foresight, because by the 1970s Middle Eastern countries had formed a cartel called OPEC, that we still live with, and cut off the world's oil supplies or at least constrained them to boost the price.
We, Australia, were not as impacted as many other countries, thanks to the foresight of the Menzies government. Because we were sufficient in petroleum production, we didn't have the line-ups at petrol stations like in the United States. We didn't have the lack of supplies like in Europe. We were self-sufficient and we could provide for our country. We can't do that now. If there a crisis were to occur in the next five to 10 years we could not guarantee to the Australian people that oil supplies would be maintained. We may have to ration them, we may have line-ups at petrol stations, because we do not have the domestic production in this country. It would be great, if a crisis happened, to be able to flick a switch and go and develop these oil and gas reserves in the Beetaloo basin or the Canning Basin—and I'll get to that if I have time—but it takes a long time to do these things.
We have, here, a political party proposing a motion to try and shut down the nascent shale oil and gas industry in this country while knowing almost nothing about the geology, the process or the industry that they're seeking to regulate. The Greens would have to be the most ignorant party in this place when it comes to the oil and gas industry. They have no idea about fracking. They have no idea about how the process works. They don't talk to the oil and gas riggers who are out there doing this stuff, with this wonderful technology, in the United States. They don't know how it works. They hear the words 'fossil fuels' and that's all they need to hear. That's as far as their reading and in-depth analysis goes. It's fossil fuels; therefore, it's bad. That's the naive and ignorant approach being brought into this chamber, and it could cost our country very dearly if they ever get close to the reins of government.
Back in the real world, our food supplies rely on petrol to fuel the trucks, to deliver to us all around the country. Our transport, our ability to get around, relies on adequate access to oil and gas. Our ability to defend ourselves—to run our tanks, submarines and aircraft in our defence forces—relies on adequate supplies of oil and gas. We've exhausted the Bass Strait. Even the oil and gas reserves of the North West Shelf are largely declining. It was great news, last week, to see the Scarborough investment go through, but that's not a particularly oil-rich basin. It will probably be more gas than liquid fuels and, therefore, not that beneficial for the transport and other things required from liquid fuels. But there is a great hope that we can get back to self-sufficiency in oil—if we were to bring the wonderful technology that is shale gas development to Australia.
Part of that technology is this thing called fracking. It shows the Greens' complete ignorance here, because they really don't know that it wasn't fracking that unlocked the shale basins of Texas, Pennsylvania and Oklahoma. The oil and gas industry have been fracking—in fact, fracking goes back to the Civil War days. Hydraulic fracturing, which is a technique used today, using water, was developed after World War II and is used in conventional oil and gas basins here in Australia and all around the world. It is not a new thing, but it sounds a bit scary. Engineers aren't the best, sometimes, at coming up with words. They've come up with the word 'fracking' to describe this process. It sounds a bit scary so the Greens latch onto that, but it's been used for decades completely safely. The Greens use oil and gas to get around, to get to and from this building. They are absolute hypocrites, because they only have that oil and gas today thanks to fracking.
The technology that has unlocked the shale reserves of the United States is horizontal drilling. That's the technology that's unlocked it. The Greens don't talk about that, because it doesn't sound particularly scary. All it means is this amazing technology—that these amazing engineers, these amazing men and women who work in the industry, have discovered how to take a drill that can go kilometres under the ground and turn it sideways. It is absolutely unbelievable. It doesn't completely go 90 degrees flat, but it's in the way they curve it around and frack or extract the oil and gas from a horizontal seam. We've always known there's lots of oil and gas in the shales, but, with vertical drilling, you have to drill a lot of wells in the shale to get any oil and gas out of it, which makes it uneconomic. That's why it hasn't happened. But this wonderful technology that has been developed has been applied now in the United States for years; we're getting on for 20 years of this technology. It has helped restore—or had helped restore, I should say, unfortunately—the energy independence of the United States. It has changed the geopolitics of the world, because it has reduced the power and influence of the Middle East and theocratic regimes therein. It has, or had, reduced the power of the authoritarian government in Russia under Vladimir Putin. If we don't extract more oil and gas from Western free and democratic nations, we get held to ransom by these other countries—as you can see now in Europe, where they effectively have to beg Mr Putin to supply them enough gas because they have closed down fracking everywhere. They've closed it down in the UK and in Germany and France. Now they have become slaves to Moscow because of this nonsensical green-driven agenda. So let's not repeat the mistakes of Europe.
We've seen, in the United States, the Biden administration has shut down fracking on federal lands and extensively increased the red tape on the industry. Then, last week, the news came out that the US is no longer energy independent. The US had a short period, in the last five or six years, where it was producing enough oil to supply itself, and now it is back to the net importing stage—a terrible consequence for the free world, because we do not want to be beholden to dictatorial authoritarian regimes, which is what happens when you don't develop your own energy resources.
We have this great opportunity. We have shales here in this country. They could be unlocked. They do exist in the Beetaloo. It's the most promising basin, today, in front of us. So, if this motion passes, we will be closing off that opportunity for our nation—that opportunity to return to energy independence as a country, to return to self-sufficiency.
We have an even bigger potential opportunity with the shale basins of the Canning Basin in Western Australia. According to our experts, our geologists—Geoscience Australia—there are 800 billion barrels of oil in place in the Canning Basin. There are only 1.7 trillion barrels of economically recoverable oil identified in the world. Now, we won't get all those 800 billion barrels back. Geoscience Australia estimate about 40 billion barrels of those 800 billion will be economically recoverable. But that is as big as the shale resources of Texas. It's a huge basin that could unlock enormous opportunity for our country and restore our ability to defend ourselves. We would be mad—mad!—to say no to this right now. It would be a shocking misstep for the future generations of Australians, who may face greater risks and crises than we do.
Now, our shales are very different from those of the United States. Our geological pressures are different from those of the US. We won't just be able to translate what happened in Texas and Louisiana and other places and bring that to the Northern Territory and apply it off the shelf; that won't work. We will have to develop different techniques, because, when you frack here in this country, our fracks, I think, go vertically; in the US, they go horizontally, I think, given the different pressures—I might be getting that around the wrong way. But that will take time. It will take money. It will take investment. And it's very, very high risk for an investor.
This is where we come in, as the government. It has always been the case that governments around the world have helped at the exploration stage of oil and gas, and of mineral resources, too, of copper and iron ore. All of these resources that we have developed in this nation have benefited from governments helping with early-stage drilling to identify the resource, de-risk it and then attract the capital later to produce it on a private basis. And that's what we're doing here: to fund this exploration, to find out more information, to do the science about what is actually under our feet. Of what is under our feet we still have very little knowledge. We are still developing these amazing technologies, like horizontal drilling. It is through this science that we can protect our free country, we can deliver security for Australians and we can deliver jobs for the Indigenous people in the Northern Territory and in Darwin. There's a massive opportunity here in the Northern Territory. Let's not say no to that, because it's the right thing to develop our resources for future Australians.
Black lives don't matter in the Beetaloo. It's as simple as that: black lives don't matter in the Beetaloo. 'Black Lives Matter' is not just a slogan or a hashtag; it's action. All we are saying is that black lives matter, not that they matter more or that yours matters less. We are stating a very simple, clear and completely unambiguous fact: black lives matter. That's all it is: our lives matter. Our lives have always mattered, but they don't matter to the people in this place. We could be working together and making a clear statement that the lives and the wellbeing of our people matter and that the actions that we take in this place matter.
Just last week I read out into this place the voices and views of the many traditional owners of what we now call the Beetaloo basin. I'll remind you of their words:
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.
… … …
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.
That should be enough for every single one of us here in this place to do the right thing, especially those who say 'black lives matter,' like Labor, and 'I love my dot painting,' like the Libs. Seriously—if you really care, you'll listen to the traditional owners of the Northern Territory, who don't want their country fracked.
We can work together to stop the destruction of country, to stop the desecration of sacred sites and to end the war that we are waging on our environment, our lands, our waters, our skies, our animals, our totems and our song lines. Those stories are in your paintings. I remind every single one of you that your vote in this place will be recorded for all time. Vote to end this public money going to destroy our environment and our climate. Vote like black lives depend on it—because they do. Our lives depend on how you vote today. Our lives are in your hands.
I'm reminded of the words of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. In August this year, she said—ally solidarity:
Our First Nations peoples were the first traders on this land, they were the first exporters and they were the first diplomats, engaging with people from other lands. Should I have the honour of serving as foreign minister in an Albanese Labor government, this will be recognised at the heart of Australian diplomacy …
I say to the opposition: don't wait until then; act now. Right now, in this moment, is your chance, Labor. What's the point of an opposition that doesn't oppose? That's why you need Greens in the balance of power in this place—because we have a weak opposition. Only the Greens will kick the Liberals out and make Labor do the right thing. he traditional owners, who are made up of family clan groups—they're from the Beetaloo and they're speaking as one. They are the custodians. They are the diplomats who have the legal, moral and cultural authority to make decisions about country. Why won't you listen to them? They are fighting for it. Everything they have they're using to stop this.
Both Labor and the Liberals: you need to stop listening to the oil and gas companies that purchase you and your vote. Listen to the people. You are being given an opportunity to do the right thing. Do it now. Don't wait. Black lives don't matter in the Beetaloo unless you do the right thing. You are being given an opportunity to do the right thing. Do it now without delay. Black lives matter, but, to this lot, black lives don't matter in the Beetaloo. It's shameful! Shame! Black lives don't matter in the Beetaloo, do they? Black lives don't matter in the Beetaloo, do they?
Senator Thorpe, resume your seat and remove yourself from the chamber; you're wearing a slogan. Senator Davey.
I also rise to speak on this disallowance motion. What is clear here, listening to the Greens, is that jobs don't matter. Irrespective of everything else, jobs do not matter, especially jobs in the Northern Territory.
I'd like to start by acknowledging the remarks from my colleague Senator Sam McMahon, who spoke on this issue recently. As a Senator for the Northern Territory, Senator McMahon has been on the ground. She has been working with her constituents. She has been working with the traditional owners up there to understand the issue and to find out what it actually means for the people of the Northern Territory. What she has heard is that they don't want to be told what to do by a Greens senator from a capital city. I commend Senator McMahon for being a great voice for her constituents on this issue, and I speak in support of her position, which is based on the conversations she's had with those people on the ground.
Going to jobs, developing the Beetaloo sub-basin has the potential to create 6,000 extra jobs in the Northern Territory by 2040. As a nation coming out of COVID, we know that we need to rebuild our economy. But, to do so, we can't just be boosting public services and bureaucracies; we need private enterprise. We need industry, and that is what developing the Beetaloo basin will create. The Northern Territory should not have to thumb its nose at 6,000 potential new jobs. The Northern Territory should welcome 6,000 potential new jobs.
The development of this basin will also see an extra $173.6 million towards a Roads of Strategic Importance corridor, which is expected to create 400 new jobs. Importantly, it's also going to improve transport and safety across the Territory, because lives matter. The development will also support a whole range of new industries in the Northern Territory, including refining and petrochemicals, methanol production and hydrogen production. Hydrogen is what everyone is clamouring about, because hydrogen is a potential new source of stored energy, which is fantastic. But, as we transition towards green hydrogen, the obvious first step is blue hydrogen, and blue hydrogen needs gas. On top of all of this—and this is very important—new industry, new jobs, new production, $2.2 million is going to the Northern Land Council to support effective engagement with traditional owners and to ensure that they continue to be consulted.
Thank you, Senator Davey; the time for this debate has now expired.
The question is that the disallowance motion be agreed to.
I'd like to thank the honourable members for their contribution to the debate on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021. The bill is a representation of the important strides being made by this government's reforms to employment services to support the economic recovery from COVID-19.
This program, since its introduction in 1977, has gone through many iterations, including the CDEP, the RJCP in 2013, the CDP from 2015 and now the Remote Engagement Program. For the first time, this program will be co-designed and developed with Indigenous Australians. The Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee undertook a comprehensive inquiry into the provisions of the bill.
In response to recommendation 2, the government will establish the following co-design and consultation mechanism for the Remote Engagement Program: a national co-design working group to co-design the Remote Engagement Program, which will be rolled out nationally in 2023; a local co-design working group in each pilot site, to co-design the pilot program to be trialled in each pilot site; and a national consultation process to provide an opportunity for stakeholders not directly involved in the pilots or the national co-design working group to have a say about the future of employment services in remote Australia.
In response to recommendation 3, the bill has been specifically designed to facilitate co-design in the pilot sites by setting high-level parameters, with further details to be set out in legislative instruments that will be informed by the outcomes of the co-design process in the pilot regions. The government will publish the outcomes of the co-design process, for full transparency. The legislative instruments are an important feature of the co-design process in the pilot sites. They will set the amount of the Remote Engagement Program supplementary payment and the hours of engagement in the pilot sites.
In response to recommendation 4, the aim is for the new Remote Engagement Program supplementary payment plus an eligible jobseeker's income support payment to be approximately equivalent to the minimum wage for the hours participating in the remote engagement placement. The placements will not be jobs but will aim to give jobseekers experience that will enable the transition to paid employment. The new supplementary payment will not be at a level such that people avoid taking up paid employment opportunities. Eligible jobseekers will continue to receive the supplementary payment for the whole time they're eligible to be a part of the remote engagement placement.
In response to recommendation 1, the government is monitoring the work states and territories are doing on treaties. It's important that state and territory jurisdictions take the lead on this work in their jurisdictions. The legislation is just one building block and sunsets in 2023. This bill is not the new program. The new payment that the bill enables will be one aspect that communities can trial alongside other approaches to training, skills development and non-vocational support as part of the co-design of the remote employment program. It will provide a framework for piloting new approaches to delivering employment services in remote communities, ahead of implementing the Morrison government's budget announcement that the Community Development Program will be replaced in 2023.
I'm pleased to sum up the debate in relation to the bill debate today. This bill is an important step towards closing the gap and significantly improving the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, especially those living in remote Australia. I commend the bill to the chamber.
The question is that the second reading amendment as moved by Senator McAllister be agreed to.
I move:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that:
(a) this bill replaces the Community Development Program with a new framework piloting how employment services are delivered in remote communities, particularly communities with a high number of First Nations people;
(b) these pilot programs dishonour the Federal Government's commitment to formal partnerships and shared decision-making in the National Agreement on Closing the Gap as it is not clear how communities have been chosen to participate in the pilots or if the principles of free, prior, and informed consent were followed when working with these communities;
(c) people in these pilot programs will not be paid a living wage for work they are required to perform and they will not be given the industrial protections available to all working people;
(d) this bill is opposed by human rights organisations, Aboriginal community controlled organisations, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health services; and
(e) this bill does not address the underlying issue causing under-employment or unemployment in regional, remote, and very remote areas of the country; namely, the lack of economic and job opportunities".
The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Thorpe be agreed to.
The question is that the bill now be read a second time.
As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
This morning I joined early childhood educators and the United Workers Union out on the front lawns of parliament to launch the report "Spitting off cash": Where does all the money go in Australia's early learning sector? Anyone would have been shocked by the contents of that report and by the treatment of workers in this essential sector. Private not-for-profit companies now account for half of all early childhood education and care services in the country and that share is growing. It's clear that too many of these corporate operators just don't care about the passionate, skilled educators working in their centres.
G8 Education is just one example, to give this chamber a bit of a sense of what seems to be happening and how big an issue this really is. G8 Education is Australia's largest for-profit provider of long day care. They have 53,000 children enrolled across this country and they are raking in the cash. In 2019, they made $79 million in profit. Last year, with the onset of COVID, G8 still earned $60 million in profit, and that was in no small part assisted by gaining $102 million in JobKeeper payments. So, just to be clear, that's $102 million in taxpayer funding resulting in a $60 million profit to that private company, which paid no tax. This is just one company; there are so many more. The big profits and the executive salaries are really giving staff a raw deal. I am so very proud to stand with United Workers Union members in this sector. They deserve so much better than this. (Time expired)
A few months ago I spoke about to enormous generosity of Gina Rinehart around our Olympians and our Paralympians in the swimming, rowing, volleyball and artistic swimming teams. We saw fantastic results from Emma McKeon, our most successful Olympian ever, as well as our female and male awesome foursomes in the rowing, amongst many other stellar performances that did our country so proud. Outside of her direct financial support, Mrs Rinehart has wanted our Olympians to have with them, especially when travelling overseas, a part of Australia's very best Paspaley pearls. The Paspaley gifts started after the Rio Olympics in 2016 for the female Olympians teams of which Mrs Rinehart is patron, with custom Paspaley necklaces with their names and year inscribed, which were designed by Mrs Rinehart and Mr Nick Paspaley. The men received crocodile skin pens, which were also inscribed 'Rio 16', and iPads.
In 2018, after the most successful Commonwealth Games ever for the Australian team when it was held in Queensland, it was a Paspaley ring—again, designed by Mrs Rinehart and Nick—with the individual's name and the year inscribed.
After the Tokyo 2020 Olympics held this year, the female Olympians are being gifted Paspaley earrings—again, designed by Mrs Rinehart. Gold and silver winners will also receive an Apple Mac. The men will receive an Apple Mac, and gold or silver medallists an iPad as well. Both female and male Paralympians will also be receiving these gifts, and coaches will not miss out this year either. The ongoing generosity of Mrs Rinehart in support of these Olympic and Paralympic teams is incredible. So many athletes are able to reach their dreams because of her support.
A few weeks ago I met with the Gas Free Hunter Alliance, a community group opposing the Kurri Kurri gas-fired power station. The Morrison-Joyce government is using $600 million in public funding to build a gas-fired power station in the Hunter that no-one in the community wants—what a sham! Kurri Kurri will only create 10 ongoing jobs. The skilled workers needed to build the infrastructure will be FIFO workers who will contribute very little to the local economy. This is despite the community asking for clean, ongoing jobs in non-polluting industries for hundreds of people now and into the future. Kurri Kurri will take at least 30 minutes to reach full capacity so it won't be able to respond quickly to demand peaks. Contrary to what the government will have you believe, New South Wales does not need another peaking gas power plant. It already has three.
A report by Victoria University also found the project has no prospect for generating enough revenue to justify its huge $600 million price tag. Kurri Kurri reeks of incompetence, dodgy donations and links to the Liberal Party. Gas is not a transition fuel; gas is as dirty as coal, and our communities don't want anything to do with it.
The Gas Free Hunter Alliance are calling for a clear transition to renewables and they don't want our public money being spent on propping up the last days of the fossil fuel industry. Today I am calling on the government to listen to the community and to abandon Kurri Kurri today.
[by video link] On 9 July this year I wrote to the Minister for Government Services, Senator Reynolds, on behalf of Tasmanian constituents who were concerned that their vaccinations had not appeared on the Australian Immunisation Register. One of these constituents is a fire safety and training consultant who does a lot of work with residential aged care. A COVID vaccine mandate was about to come into effect for residential aged care in Tasmania and he needed to prove his vaccination status quickly. It took until 14 September for the minister to reply to my letter. Minister Reynolds revealed that a software constraint meant immunisation data failed to transfer from the Tasmanian Department of Health to the register. Instead of alerting the public, the minister quietly deployed Services Australia staff to help Tas health catch up and manually input 3,788 vaccinations.
I wrote to Minister Reynolds again with a series of questions about the vaccine certificate bungle—in fact, I have written to the minister three times on this issue—but she refused to answer any more of my questions. This is outrageous and it stinks of a cover-up. Australians have a right to know what happened. Without answers, how can they know that the issue has been fully resolved and that their vaccination status will appear on the register in a timely manner? Vaccinations are our ticket to freedom but only if Australians can demonstrate they've been vaccinated.
The latest bungle comes from the government that gave us robodebt, the botched COVIDSafe app and the most shambolic census in history. How can Australians trust any ICT project this government gets its hands on, including the Immunisation Register? It's time for the minister to come clean, tell us what happened, tell us why it happened and make sure that all those people have their names properly on the register.
Last weekend more than half a million Australians came together to protest antihuman and possibly criminal governments. The media were there, not to report on proceedings accurately and with integrity but to lie and cover-up for our medical dictatorships. What we all saw around Australia was not right-wing extremists. What One Nation saw was everyday Australians united in a desire to get government and health bureaucrats out of their lives, to be left alone to make the best decisions for their bodies and for the bodies of their children. It was no surprise that a common sign being held high was: 'my body, my choice'—on one occasion written on the back of a Greens' election poster. Apparently 'my body, my choice' is a value the Greens abandoned and their hypocrisy is now widely noticed.
The Liberal Party should be scared of the number of signs from small businesses that capricious, callous government mandates shut down. The closures destroyed lives and weakened local communities. The Labor Party should be concerned at the handwritten T-shirts on former unionists in health care, education, police and emergency services, and aged-care facilities, fired for the crime of respecting their bodies—Labor voters no more. Another sign simply read: 'pray, reflect, vote.' Religious leaders advocating action contrary to religious teachings are not going to come out of this unscathed.
The rallies were peaceful and the mood was positive and energised. Many Australians have realised that fear is the virus and the cure is to embrace family and community with love and inclusion. The only fear was from some small groups of spectators infected with the media mutation.
The weekend stands as a warning to all power-crazed health bureaucrats, state premiers and federal politicians. We have one flag. We are one community. We are one people. We are one nation. We will not be scared and bullied into surrendering our bodies and our freedoms.
[by video link] I rise to highlight work being done in regional Queensland to transform agriculture and manufacturing as we know it. In Camooweal, just north of Mount Isa near the Northern Territory border, a dedicated group is helping overcome a prickly issue, and their success will have worldwide implications. It's a hardy plant, and from painful experience I can tell you that it's spiky. But for millennia Indigenous people have extracted resin from spinifex to use as a powerful adhesive to fix axe heads and as a waterproofing agent.
Today Colin Saltmere and the Dugalunji Aboriginal Corporation have combined ancient knowledge with cutting-edge modern technology to harness the true genius of this humble and plentiful Aussie native plant. By perfecting harvesting techniques, streamlining the resin extraction process and using some of the University of Queensland's top scientists, they've isolated the qualities of spinifex to create the toughest nanocellulose reinforcing agent ever reported. This product can be used as a strengthening additive for gels, cement, paper and cardboard. Other spinifex compounds can be used in beauty products, some resistant wood treatments and sunscreen. Using spinifex gel for wound care and as an injectable dermal filler are also progressing well through trial phases. There is also an exciting agricultural application, which will be an international game-changer once final testing is complete. At the same time, in Mackay, family business Townsend Industries have developed a method to separate different elements of sugar cane plants, which can be used to create biodegradable food containers and give farmers another income stream.
These are just two examples of the ingenuity that abounds in regional Queensland, which is wholeheartedly supported by the Morrison government. I commend these small organisations for their big ideas.
Over the last two years Australia's engagement with its Public Service has changed enormously. Those with no interest in politics have found themselves watching long, daily press conferences, discussing and debating policy issues and constantly interacting with government apps and websites. The scale of engagement has completely reshaped our opinion of our leaders, our governments and our public institutions. Unfortunately, those experiences have often been disappointing or frustrating. There are many lessons that need to be learned and improvements realised, but public figures and agencies very much need to rebuild trust and credibility.
There is one institution that has deeply impressed throughout the pandemic and earned even more trust and respect amongst Australians: the SBS. They have done an absolutely stellar job of keeping us informed and ensuring that every Australian, no matter their background or language, has access to reliable and accurate information throughout the pandemic. This builds on the world-class service SBS has been delivering to Australia for almost half a century.
They are the quiet achievers of the public sector, an agency that very much keeps a low profile but constantly goes above and beyond in their work, and they do it all on very much a shoestring budget. They are a remarkable organisation, one which sets the standard for their industry. We are very fortunate to have a public broadcaster of their calibre in Australia. To everyone at SBS, I say thank you for what you do and what you have done over the past two years. You are a real asset to our country.
There are a few important things to know about today's COVID update in the Northern Territory. We've just confirmed our first case of the omicron COVID-19 variant and, while this is concerning, it is reassuring to know that the man has been in quarantine at the Howard Springs facility since arriving in the Northern Territory last week. Our world-class Howard Springs facility is separated by different zones so our international repatriations do not interact with any of our local community members who are also quarantining. Two teenagers from the remote community of Binjari have also tested positive to COVID-19, but one was already in quarantine and the other is now going to Howard Springs. I certainly wish all of those who are in Howard Springs a speedy recovery.
It is not an easy task in the Territory to ensure that our health workers are out there around the clock assisting all Territorians in terms of the vaccination program. With soaring temperatures and some of the most remote communities where English is not the first language, healthcare workers will be out in remote communities every day this week, and this includes, in the centre region, Yuendumu, Docker River, Papunya and Canteen Creek. The community outbreak in the Territory stands at 58. This number would be much higher if it weren't for the work of our healthcare workers but also our elders in each of our communities who are encouraging people to get vaccinated. I cannot say enough: please get vaccinated. COVID is well and truly in the Northern Territory. To each and every resident in our communities right across the Territory: please get vaccinated. It is absolutely important. We do have enough supply there. I urge you not to listen to any misinformation, or even lies, out there. Please get vaccinated.
All Tasmanians know that sinking feeling: your kids come off a bike screaming blue murder, your elderly father has woken up in the middle of the night with chest pains he can't explain, or your partner has a high fever, and you know they need urgent medical help but, in our state, you don't know how long it will be before they get it. The federal government's promise to all Australians is that we will get free, high-quality health care whenever we need it. But that's not how things work in Tasmania. Here, elderly people die before they can see a doctor in the emergency ward. In Tasmania, we travel for hours, pay through the nose and wait for weeks before we can see our closest GP. Something's got to give. We have to take the pressure off the nurses and doctors who work in our emergency departments and get Tasmanians the medical help everyday Australians deserve.
This is what I am proposing: Launceston, the North West Coast and Hobart need urgent care centres that provide free medical care—and fast. You would visit the centres for everything from cuts to burns, to broken bones, to wound dressings or a fever. They would be run by professional registered nurses and would provide immediate high-quality care, seven days a week, including after hours—and you wouldn't pay a cent for any of it, either. People who need emergency help will get it, instead of waiting for hours in an ambulance on the hospital driveway, in the ramping, where they can see the hospital staff who otherwise would have been treating them.
Nearly 9,000 people who showed up at the Launceston General Hospital with an urgent medical problem were not seen on time last year. That's 9,000 too many. It's countless numbers of Tasmanians waiting to see if their kids, parents or partners are going to be alright. It's time to do something different, and urgent action needs to be taken. Therefore, I'm calling for urgent care centres that will finally give Tasmanians the health care we deserve.
Online trolling is a scourge. It is a blight upon the lives of so many innocent Australians who have had to suffer abuse, vilification and bullying online. I want to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Attorney General for leading the charge in saying that they will introduce the 'social media anti-trolling bill 2021' to strengthen our online safety laws. The bill will protect ordinary Australians who are or become the targets of anonymous online trolling and abuse by empowering social media users to expose the identities of their abusers. This can happen either through an efficient complaints mechanism which enables a person to raise a complaint with the social media company and with the company's consent obtain the contact details of the anonymous abuser, or by enabling the person to obtain an end-user information disclosure order from a court.
The bill will incentivise—and I say 'will' because I very much trust that it will be supported by Labor, the Greens and the crossbench—social media companies to adopt mechanisms which facilitate the identification of online anonymous trolls. And, if they don't adopt these mechanisms, social media companies may be liable as publishers of the defamatory or abusive material. The government's bill makes it very clear that page owners are not publishers of defamatory material, which of course is a very significant improvement in the current law. These reforms are essential in the rapidly changing and evolving online world. This is a wonderful development—in particular for women, who suffer so much abuse online; they are a particular concern of our government. I celebrate this very significant announcement.
Delay is the enemy of freedom of information. Information has currency if it is new, and it can become very stale in a very short period. I currently have 22 matters before the Information Commissioner appealing access refusals from government departments. Some of my matters with the Information Commissioner have been on foot for two years. Twelve of them have been on foot for over a year. In order to remedy this, I've made an application in the Federal Court to make a determination across a broad range of my FOI reviews and find out what is a reasonable time frame for the Information Commissioner to make a decision. In making that application, I am supported by affidavits from EDO, the Australia Institute, businesses and the Hon. Mark Dreyfus QC, all appreciating that this is a matter that needs to be sorted out.
Last week I was in court seeking a protective cost order, recognising that my matter is a public interest matter. There's no benefit that flows to me. If I get a ruling, that will help everyone. What does the Commonwealth do at the last moment? It throws a $150,000 legal threat at me. Legal thugs—that's what we've got with the Commonwealth. At the very last minute it throws a threat of legal costs against me. I won't be deterred. This is going to be David and Goliath, but this is a really important matter. I am going to seek help from others, and I will not back down on this.
In the House in question time last week, it was revealed that the Deputy Prime Minister has appointed his mate, the retiring Mayor of Tamworth, as the head of Infrastructure Australia. Mr Murray's appointment is an insult to the very concept of a merit-driven process. The Northern Daily Leader, the journal of record in New England, reported last week that Mr Murray was appointed to the role after what they described as an 'informal chat' with Mr Joyce. It quotes Councillor Murray:
"We were sort of having a chat. This wasn't a formal chat, it was an informal chat about what I was going to do when I was finished in council," he said.
"I said 'well it looks like I've got a position at the University of New England on their board, I said I wouldn't mind one other thing to give me something to do, something to keep my mind active and keep myself engaged.'
"I said 'if there was a vacancy on something like Infrastructure Australia that'd be really good for me. I like that sort of thing.'"
Mr Joyce's mate's wish is Mr Joyce's command.
But Infrastructure Australia is a very important organisation. It provides advice and research for all levels of Australian government about tens of billions of dollars worth of critical infrastructure. It just shows what has happened at the rotten heart of this government, which is so corrupted that it can't see the public interest—only its private interest. Questions of merit become irrelevant. You see, the National Party has become a jobs board for National Party mates. This government no longer deals with questions in terms of the public interest. It has become a men's shed for mates—a jobs board for mates. It has totally lost its way. (Time expired)
I'd like to make some remarks about the 20th anniversary of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, which was passed by the Howard government in order to protect and preserve the lands which were used primarily by the defence forces over the past hundred years or so. What this trust has enabled is the preservation of military history, the preservation of environment and the preservation of significant Indigenous and other cultural heritage on Sydney Harbour. You would have to argue that Sydney Harbour, being the most beautiful natural harbour in the world, is well served by having a trust like this.
It is unusual for the federal government to be running something like this, but I think it has enjoyed bipartisan support, and it is doing a good job. The government has put some additional money into this trust in the past budget or so to ensure that remediation of the buildings can be completed so that there can be broadened public access. That's really the key point here. These lands are for the public and for the public's enjoyment. They are not to be sold off or closed up in anyway.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I want to pay tribute and give my thanks to the more than 200 volunteers of the Headland Preservation Group, who have given their time to ensure that the sites look good and that, when you go to one of the sites, you can be given a decent tour and some advice about what has happened here—from the military perspective, from the Indigenous perspective and so on and so forth. Here's to the next 20 years of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust!
In Australia, there is a significant divide between our regions and our cities when it comes to the quality and quantity of health and hospital services. This inequity exists when it comes to maternal health, mental health, trauma care and specialist services. It exists for allied health services, GP access and after-hours care and support services. This is grossly unfair, and it is especially unfair on those who are vulnerable and those who live in our remotest areas. It's unfair for women and it's unfair for First Nations Australians.
When we know that Australians in our region are living with such inequity in the quality of health services, it is absolutely galling to find a situation like we currently have in Ceduna with Yadu Health. As I've raised in this place previously, this Aboriginal community health clinic, which serves First Nations South Australians not only in Ceduna but in the surrounding areas, is in a catastrophic state of disrepair. Both levels of government know about this, and it has not been fixed. There's black mould. There's asbestos contamination. There's water damage, which led to sections of the roof caving in on this vital service. These issues, when combined, have led to a catastrophic situation and are amplified by the inequities which already exist when it comes to the quality and quantity of health services for Australians in our regions, particularly First Nations Australians.
In the Closing the Gap statement, the Prime Minister announced $254 million worth of capital works to fund precisely these sorts of projects. I am again calling on the Prime Minister and on the Minister for Health and Aged Care to fix Yadu, to fix this vital health service.
nator ABETZ () (): Today, crates full of live rock lobster and abalone will be loaded onto an airbus at Hobart airport, signalling the resumption of a cargo service that takes fresh produce from Tasmania to vital Asian markets. The resumption of this service by Cathay Pacific is indicative of how vibrant Tasmania's primary industry sector is. Live abalone, live rock lobster, cherries and other fresh produce are being delivered to Asian markets to command the premium prices that Tasmanian produce deserves. More importantly this service, which over this period has lasted for only eight weeks, will now be for a period of 12 weeks, which is a 50 per cent increase. Of course, that is because of the demand to get fresh Tasmanian produce to the Asian markets—Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines. All of this is indicative of a healthy, vibrant Tasmanian primary industry sector.
It's also indicative of the delivery on a promise made by the then Abbott opposition to extend the Hobart runway to cater for planes like this because it would deliver job security and export potential. That which was promised has been delivered. In fact, the extension on the runway was delivered under budget and on time, and the people of Tasmania, in particular the workers of Tasmania, are the beneficiaries, as of course are those who are fortunate enough to consume our product.
It being 2 pm, we will move to questions without notice.
My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Payne. Last week Senator Payne attended a meeting with Mr Morrison, Mrs Archer and Mr Frydenberg. Who made the request for this minister to attend this meeting and when was that request made?
I thank Senator McAllister for the question. I was already in the Prime Minister's office for a meeting on another matter and I was asked to remain in the office.
Senator McAllister, a supplementary question?
Was the minister aware that Mrs Archer had asked that the meeting be postponed?
In response to Senator McAllister's question, no, I was not specifically aware that there had been a request for the meeting to be postponed. I was simply asked to remain in the Prime Minister's office, where I had been for another meeting.
Senator McAllister, a second supplementary question?
Can the minister confirm Mrs Archer, in her own words, 'spent the first half of the conversation crying and apologising'?
I'm not going to comment on a private meeting between the Prime Minister and colleagues.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. How is the Liberal-National government responding to international developments in relation to the new COVID-19 variant of concern?
I thank Senator Smith for his question. As we've seen in the media over the last few days, a new strain of COVID-19 first detected in Southern Africa, known as the omicron strain, has been declared a variant of concern by the World Health Organization. The omicron strain has a high number of mutations within its spike protein. Three cases of the variant have been detected in Australia in passengers who arrived in Sydney and Darwin. Fourteen passengers from a Sydney flight from Southern Africa, including two infected, are in quarantine and the remaining passengers are isolating. One person at the Howard Springs quarantine facility has tested positive to the new omicron COVID variant.
Yesterday the minister for health signed a biosecurity determination, valid until 12 December, preventing people who have been in an omicron high-risk country within 14 days from entering Australia, unless they are an Australian citizen, a permanent resident, an immediate family member of a citizen or otherwise exempt, including crew, diplomats and members of the Australian Defence Force. High-risk countries for this purpose are Botswana, Eswatini, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa and Zimbabwe. During this period flights from these countries will not be permitted. Australian citizens, permanent residents and immediate family members who have been in high-risk countries in 14 days prior to their travel will be permitted to return but will be required to undertake quarantine of 14 days in a managed facility. The government has increased the Smartraveller advice level for these high-risk countries in Southern Africa to 'do not travel'. (Time expired)
Senator Smith, a supplementary question?
How does Australia's vaccination rate compare to other countries'?
I thank Senator Smith for his supplementary question. On both the health and economic fronts Australia has fared better than most countries in dealing with COVID-19. More than 92 per cent of the eligible population over 16 are now protected against COVID-19 with a first dose and more than 86 per cent with a second dose. Of the 38 developed OECD countries, Australia has the second-lowest number of COVID cases per capita. The UK and the US have more than 40 times the number of COVID deaths compared with Australia. For example, over 12 per cent of people in the United States and 11 per cent of people in the United Kingdom have had COVID. By contrast, 0.4 per cent of Australians have had COVID. It's estimated that our program of support for Australians has saved more than 30,000 lives, an important number— (Time expired)
Senator Smith, a second supplementary question?
How can Australians continue to prepare as new strands of COVID-19 enter the country?
Thanks, Senator Smith. There is very simple action that Australians can take: get vaccinated. Vaccination continues to be our best defence against the virus. To provide even greater protection against COVID-19, Australians aged 18 and over who have received two doses of a vaccine at least six months ago are now eligible for a booster shot. This follows advice from Australia's vaccine experts, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, and approval from Australia's medicines regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration. The booster program will roll out directly to people living in residential aged-care and disability homes through in-reach programs. As of today there are over 500 aged-care facilities and quite a few disability sites that have already received those in-reach programs. This makes Australia one of the first countries in the world to commence a whole-of-population booster program.
My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Birmingham. Liberal MP Bridget Archer said she spent the first half of her meeting with Mr Morrison, Senator Payne and Mr Frydenberg 'crying and apologising' and that she requested that the meeting with Mr Morrison be delayed. Was the Treasurer aware of Mrs Archer's request?
I'm not aware of the details of conversations between the Treasurer and Mrs Archer in relation to that matter.
Senator Keneally, a supplementary question?
Mrs Archer has said that she went to Treasurer Frydenberg's office expecting a one-on-one conversation with him, but instead he took her to the Prime Minister's office. Did Mr Morrison ask Mr Frydenberg to bring Mrs Archer to his office? Or was it Mr Frydenberg's idea to ambush Mrs Archer with a meeting she was not ready for?
Again, I'm not aware of conversations between the Prime Minister and the Treasurer in relation to such matters. I would note that it would not be unusual for the Leader of the Liberal Party to want to engage with parliamentary members of the Liberal Party.
Senator Keneally, a second supplementary question?
Former Liberal MP Julia Banks has said that when she crossed the floor Mr Frydenberg 'played good cop, trying to lure and ambush me, showering praise on me, declaring we were "very good friends", while saying I had to meet with the PM.' Was this good-cop tactic conceived by Mr Frydenberg? Or was he directed by Mr Morrison?
I'm aware that Ms Banks has made a number of media comments. I haven't seen that particular media comment. But in relation to the consequences of crossing the floor, I'm well aware of the difference between the consequences of crossing the floor on this side—the Liberal and National parties—
Minister, resume your seat. Senator Keneally on a point of order?
The point of order is direct relevance. The question was not about crossing the floor; it was about the meeting that occurred. There is no way this could be directly relevant to the question that was asked.
Minister, I will bring you back to the question that was asked. But you have the call. I cannot direct a minister on how to answer a question.
Senator Keneally's question indeed did contain references to quotes about the consequences of crossing the floor. The point I was making in relation to the consequences of crossing the floor is that on our side of the chamber, the Liberal and National parties, members and senators have a right to cross the floor. Yes, you would expect and anticipate that party leaders would wish to discuss that with Liberal or National MPs. But, for those opposite, there is no such right. The only consequence there is that their party tosses them out if they cross the floor. That is a fundamental difference, and it's a difference of which we are all very proud, on this side.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. Can the minister update the Senate on the current situation in the Solomon Islands?
I thank Senator McGrath for his question. Australia is deeply concerned by the recent civil unrest in Honiara. I can advise the Senate that, following several days of protests, with some violence, there were no significant incidents overnight or this morning. We do continue to monitor the situation very closely, however, and to respond accordingly. We understand there have, regrettably, been four deaths during the unrest. A curfew remains in place in Honiara between 7 pm and 6 am daily.
Australia continues to call for calm, an end to violence, and for tensions to be resolved peacefully. Our focus is to support stability. We do not take sides in these differences; nor do we take a position on other countries' choices about their diplomatic relationships. Australia has responded as a close friend, neighbour and partner, following a request from the Solomon Islands government under our bilateral security treaty. This is our responsibility under the treaty and the right thing to do in support of our Pacific family.
Australian personnel are there primarily to support the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force. Australian Federal Police are working with the RSIPF, along with Papua New Guinean personnel, to conduct community patrols, to maintain security. The Australian Defence Force are supporting the RSIPF and the AFP. We acknowledge the professional work of the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force to bring the situation under control.
The Australian mission in Honiara is operational and all staff and families are safe. I've spoken to the Acting Head of Mission again today. We again advise Australians to avoid protests, to monitor local media, to avoid areas affected by protests and roadblocks and to follow the advice of local authorities.
Senator McGrath, a supplementary question?
Can the minister provide further detail on Australia's support to our friend and neighbour?
I thank Senator McGrath and also thank Senator McGrath for his interest in these matters in the Solomon Islands. Within 24 hours of the request for assistance from the Solomon Islands government, Australia had responded. The Royal Australian Air Force began flights in support of our response on 25 November. As of this morning, we had deployed 45 AFP, 76 ADF and eight DFAT personnel, in addition to the Australian personnel already, of course, based in the Solomon Islands. HMAS Armidale is scheduled to arrive tomorrow. We are taking every precaution against the risk of COVID-19 transmission. One of the Royal Australian Air Force flights that landed in Honiara yesterday carried 1,280 rapid antigen test kits, to ensure no risk is posed by our personnel or those of partners. Australia's support is to contribute to maintaining stability, enabling tensions to be resolved by the Solomon Islands people within their own system.
Senator McGrath, a second supplementary?
Can the minister advise the Senate on Australia's engagement with Pacific partners and others in our shared response?
In addition to Australia's own deployment, we are working closely with regional partners, who are similarly committed to a stable Pacific. We welcome the participation of 37 members of the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary, who have deployed alongside Australian personnel. We are working with Fiji to mobilise a number of RFMF personnel, who are expected to arrive tomorrow. These efforts are also in response to requests from the Solomon Islands government. Australia is also in discussion with New Zealand about further cooperation. I have engaged with my counterparts across the Pacific, and Prime Minister Morrison and Minister Seselja have done the same. Australia continues to engage and work with our Pacific family and like-minded partners as the situation develops. We are strongly committed to peace, security and stability across our region.
My question without notice is to Senator Payne, the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Minister, countries in southern Africa are grappling with the new omicron COVID variant, while also suffering low vaccination rates. Meanwhile, Australia is set to join the World Trade Organization's ministerial meetings soon, with the proposed intellectual-property waiver on COVID-19 vaccines on the agenda, which would allow for mass vaccine production across the global South. The government has stated that, rather than support the waiver proposed by India and South Africa, it would try to find a so-called 'convergence' with the opposing countries. Your government is making no effort to galvanise support for a strong waiver. Amnesty International has labelled Australia 'a passive bystander' in light of this. Why is the government taking the coward's way out and refusing to join more than 60 countries to co-sponsor the vaccine waiver, as proposed by India and South Africa?
I thank Senator Faruqi for her question. We have been consistent in our approach on the TRIPS waiver, but let me begin by saying that we are also very disappointed that the WTO's 12th Ministerial Conference, MC12, has been postponed owing to the occurrence of the omicron COVID-19 variant. We've consistently said that Australia will support a TRIPS waiver and our position has not changed. A waiver can only be passed with the support of all 164 WTO members, and there is no proposal on the table right now that has the required level of support. We are, as I said, disappointed that the conference has been postponed, but we remain committed to delivering an ambitious and meaningful outcome on the waiver. We are working with other countries to find common ground on a solution that will ensure all countries can overcome any intellectual property barriers as they respond to COVID-19 or future pandemics.
We are, I would note, committed to supplying up to 60 million vaccine doses to our region by the end of 2022, including to a significant number of developing nations: including 20 million vaccine doses that Australia has already committed to share with the Pacific and South-East Asia by mid-2022; an additional 20 million doses from Australia's own supply, to be shared by the end of 2022; and up to a further 20 million doses to be procured through a partnership with UNICEF, also to be shared by the end of 2022. And we have already shared more than 9.2 million of these doses across our region as at the end of this month, including 4.6 million doses to Indonesia, 1½ million to Vietnam, one million to Fiji, 700,000 to the Philippines delivered last week, almost 678,000 to Timor-Leste, over 200,000 to the Solomon Islands and over 200,000 to Papua New Guinea. We have committed $130 million to— (Time expired)
Senator Faruqi, a supplementary question?
Minister, Australia's donor funding to the global COVAX Facility is low, very low, by global standards. Australia is contributing only $4 per person, compared to nearly triple that amount by the United States and many times that amount by countries such as Sweden and Norway. Why is Australia shunning the COVAX facility with such miserly contributions and failing to do its fair share in helping the global South countries to get vaccinated? Do you even care about global vaccine equity?
Caring about global vaccine equity includes delivering—delivering on the sorts of commitments that I made explicitly clear in response to Senator Faruqi's previous question. But, in the absence of that having been heard at the other end of the chamber, let me reiterate it in very clear terms. We are committed to supplying up to 60 million vaccine doses to our region by the end of 2022—that is, 20 million vaccine doses that we have already committed to share with the Pacific and South-East Asia by mid-next year; an additional 20 million doses from Australia's own supply, to be shared by the end of next year; and up to a further 20 million doses to be procured through our funded partnership with UNICEF, also to be shared by the end of 2022. We have already shared over nine million doses across our region: 4.6 million to Indonesia, 1.5 million to Vietnam, one million to Fiji, 700,000 to the Philippines, 677,850 to Timor-Leste and 213,000 to— (Time expired)
Senator Faruqi, a second supplementary question?
Minister, last month the World Health Organization reported that just five African countries, less than 10 per cent of Africa's 54 nations, are projected to hit their 2021 target of fully vaccinating 40 per cent of their people—not 2022, 2021—unless they see efforts to accelerate the pace of vaccination take off. How many more people have to unnecessarily get sick and die from COVID in the global south before Australia backs the strong TRIPS waiver and properly funds COVAX? (Time expired)
I will not have Australia misrepresented as not backing the TRIPS waiver, because that is not true. You are spreading misinformation in doing that. I will not have Australia misrepresented in relation to our contribution to the international vaccine effort, most particularly in our region, the Pacific and South-East Asia, which is our backyard. The contributions that we are making in those countries are changing lives and saving lives.
My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Birmingham. How many funds in the Morrison-Joyce government's budget are allocated at the discretion of the minister, and what is their total value?
I don't have those details immediately to hand, as I'm sure would not be a surprise to Senator Gallagher. I'm happy to take those details on notice so far as we can extract that information. As Senator Gallagher well knows, the direct administration of funds occurs across a range of portfolios. The Department of Finance operates the Commonwealth grant guidelines and has a role in relation to the approval of those grant guidelines, which are then administered across the relevant portfolio departments by different ministers, providing support for a range of different services right around the country.
One particular example that comes to mind is that Commonwealth grants have been used as vehicles during COVID-19 to provide additional support to early childhood education and care services. Indeed, they've also been used as a vehicle by Senator Colbeck in this chamber to help provide additional targeted support to aged-care facilities around Australia. So the grant guidelines are used for a range of different functions and purposes in terms of supporting the delivery of Commonwealth assistance. Yes, they often support—and I suspect this will be where Senator Gallagher goes—a range of different local or community related projects, and those projects are done in accordance with those grant guidelines too. But the types of discretion that are provided, the types of non-competitive processes that exist in place, are often there to enable swift response by ministers in circumstances such as those that I outlined before: supporting direct targeted assistance to sectors that need it most at different junctures such as those in aged care or early childhood during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question?
Can the minister confirm that, over eight long years of the Morrison-Joyce government, ministers have allocated 71 per cent of $3.9 billion worth of taxpayer funds in these discretionary grant funds to coalition seats?
I can confirm that Senator Gallagher is quoting from what I understand to be an Australia Institute study that has selectively chosen a number—a very small number—of Commonwealth grant programs upon which to base its analysis. That's where Senator Gallagher is drawing her figures from: an Australia Institute survey. I imagine she is quoting from the report published in the Guardian of the Australia Institute survey. It's quite a virtuous little cycle we've got going here. The Australia Institute does the report, the Guardian publishes it and the Labor Party asks about it, but, of course, it's all just selective reporting when it comes to these matters. The fact is that, in selecting these targeted areas, there's a disproportionate capturing regional grants, for example, where the coalition holds the vast majority of electorates, so it would be of little surprise that these regional programs support— (Time expired)
Senator Gallagher, a second supplementary?
Can the minister explain why seats held by independents and that the coalition wanted to win back have received an average of $206 per person, coalition-held seats have received $184 per person and safe Labor seats have received just $39 per person? Why are some Australians worth more than others to Mr Morrison?
r BIRMINGHAM (—) (): I think I can give it a crack in terms of explaining, in relation to regional grants programs, why it is that coalition seats have benefited overall—when you take all electorates across the country—more than Labor-held seats or even why Independents might've benefited more. That would be the maths of the fact that the coalition holds more regional seats than the Labor Party does. In terms of proportionality, the Independents have greater representation in some of the regions than they do in some of the urban areas. In terms of distorting statistics and figures, which is what is being bowled up here, the simple reality of these programs is, yes, they will support Liberal and National Party held seats to a greater degree because those communities have elected Liberal and National Party MPs across regional Australia, or in some cases they've elected Independent MPs. That is simply a function of our parties holding those electorates.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Colbeck. In recent months more than one million Australians have participated in freedom protests around our country, with many not wearing a mask and not socially distancing and most being unvaccinated. Opportunity for person-to-person transmission of COVID runs into the tens of millions, which we're told is inviting mass outbreaks. Yet the only case I know of COVID transmission at a freedom rally was a cluster that occurred in the Melbourne rally, and that cluster was amongst antifa antifreedom protesters. Minister, in the last three months how many COVID clusters—that's two or more infections—have occurred at freedom rallies?
I thank Senator Roberts for the question. I don't think that there have been any attempts to attribute specific COVID infections to any such public event of that nature, and the government doesn't hold data in relation to that. Although, it may be that some of that information is held at a state level, where the contact-tracing processes for COVID-19 are conducted.
I'll go back to something that I've put to the chamber on a number of occasions: the whole point of where the government is going in relation to the vaccination program is to get as many Australians as possible to be vaccinated. We know the vaccine works. We know that it's safe, we know that it supports in protecting us from COVID-19, we know that it protects our families and we know that it protects our communities. One of the really fortunate things that we've seen in this country is the willingness of Australians to go out and get vaccinated. In excess of 92 per cent of Australians have now had a first dose, and in excess of 86 per cent of Australians have now had a second dose. It's one of the reasons that we are able to start to reopen our economy, to reopen our communities, which is what I think the people who are participating in these protests are looking for. They want to see us be able to get around more freely. The decision to take up a vaccine which we know is safe and which we know works is really important.
We continue to monitor circumstances globally, as I said in my answer to Senator Smith's question earlier in question time, so that we can understand what's happening with new variants and so that we can take appropriate actions to protect Australians from those new variants while we learn more about them and get to understand the impact that the vaccines might have on those new variants so that we can keep Australians safe. We will continue to take all of the actions that we need to to do just that.
Senator Roberts, a supplementary question?
A European study found that the death rate per 100,000 double-vaccinated subjects averaged 2.5 per month, while the unvaccinated rate was lower, at 1.1. The government has authorised the third booster shot and so must have modelled death rates against overseas experience and have an anticipated outcome from the booster program. Minister, what is the anticipated death rate for triple-vaccinated Australians as compared to unvaccinated Australians?
(—) (): One of the things that we've seen here in Australia, and around the world, and one of the things that we've been concerned about as the pandemic has continued to progress is the impact of the virus on the unvaccinated. I know when I was in Japan earlier in the year the reporting out of the US, that I saw on a daily basis, was that in the United States it was becoming very much a pandemic of the unvaccinated. Somewhere between 90 per cent and 95 per cent of those in hospital suffering severe symptoms of COVID-19 were actually unvaccinated. Some figures out of New South Wales earlier this year indicated that similar proportions, 90 per cent to 95 per cent of those in hospital with severe illness, severe symptoms of the virus, were unvaccinated. The data is very clear. It shows up in the circumstances of the most vulnerable, in this country, that the vaccine works. (Time expired)
Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?
The South African health minister said on Sky News that the scientist who isolated omicron never said it would be vaccine resistant. Angelique Coetzee, the South African Medical Association chair, stated on Fox: 'Symptoms are so mild we don't know why so much hype has been driven.' Yet Australian media have dialled fear to the maximum. Freedoms are again being removed and big pharma are raking in billions from boosters. Minister, will the death of the Liberal Party be counted as a COVID death or as self-inflicted?
(—) (): I suspect a party as proud as the Liberal Party will probably be around for a fair while longer than Pauline Hanson's One Nation party, and I look forward to that. I do agree with Senator Roberts with respect to us needing to take the time, take the moment, to understand the circumstances of this new variant. That's why the government has taken the proportionate measures that it has done to ensure that we have the time to understand what the impacts of this variant might be, with respect to vaccination, with respect to transmission and with respect to the seriousness of its impact on the communities, before we continue the processes that we'd undertaken with respect to opening up. That's why we took the appropriate precautionary response, at the weekend, to say nine nations will cease access to Australia. (Time expired)
My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Cash. Can the Attorney-General please outline to the Senate how the Liberal-National government is unmasking and tackling online trolls to protect everyday Australians from harassment and abuse online?
I thank Senator Henderson for the question and acknowledge her keen interest in this particular area. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we know that social media has, for far too long, allowed trolls, bots and bigots to weaponise anonymity to strike out at ordinary Australians. That is just unacceptable behaviour. That is why the Morrison-Joyce government will introduce new laws which are capable of forcing global social media giants to unmask anonymous online trolls and, at the same time, better protect Australians when they are online. This is a world-first legislation, and we will address these pressing issues of online abuse and defamation liability.
The legislation, which will go to exposure draft this week, will do the following. In the first instance, it will provide certainty, flowing from the High Court's decision in Fairfax Media v Voller, and we will qualify who is a publisher of defamatory comments on social media. That will be the social media company themselves. We will also protect Australian social media users from potential liability for comments made by online trolls. We will support Australians who are the subject of defamatory comments on social media to unmask anonymous online trolls, and we will assist Australians to institute defamation proceedings in state and territory courts. We will deem the social media providers to be a publisher of defamatory comments, on their platform, in circumstances where the online troll cannot be identified.
This is all about protecting ordinary Australians from liability for comments made by third-party users on social media. It is also about ensuring that anyone who operates in the online space is operating in a safe space.
Senator Henderson, a supplementary question?
Why is it important for the government to take strong action against online trolls and ensure that social media companies are helping to ensure online safety?
We know that social media use is increasing, and it's increasing in Australia. But what that increase in the utilisation of social media has done is to bring greater exposure to online harms, and that includes exposure to defamation. We know that social media can amplify the harmful defamatory impact of material posted by online trolls. This includes the use of algorithms that can push harmful material to users far more quickly than was possible through traditional media. At this point in time, victims have limited to no recourse against the anonymous originators of defamatory comments made on social media.
We will provide new pathways for victims to quickly and easily identify originators of defamatory material posted on social media. Again, this is world leading in terms of what Australia is doing to ensure that, when you are online, you're in a safe environment.
Senator Henderson, a second supplementary question?
With more Australians than ever using and benefiting from social media today, can you please outline what the government is doing about online harms more broadly?
The Morrison-Joyce government has been leading the way in protecting Australians online. When eSafety was established in 2015, it was the first agency in the world to be dedicated to protecting citizens from online dangers such as cyberbullying targeted at children. Through the work of Minister Fletcher, with the Online Safety Act, and the eSafety Commissioner, we are bringing the rules of the real world to the online world. This, of course, includes the introduction of a complaints based removal notice scheme for cyberabuse for adults, based on the model that is in place for children.
Our government has also recently released our online privacy code, working to protect our personal data—in particular, our children's data—and to ensure that it is used appropriately. The government also acted quickly to protect Australians from the live streaming of terrorist content, through the abhorrent violent material legislation.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Can the minister confirm that, nearly two years after COVID-19 reached Australian shores, and with the emergence of a new variant of concern, not one new federal quarantine facility has yet opened its doors?
I thank the senator for her question. Australia's decisions taken and led by the Prime Minister from 1 February last year to close our international borders have been a key feature of Australia's success in protecting Australians from COVID-19 and ensuring that we have saved lives—some estimated 30,000-plus lives, compared with the OECD averages for deaths around the world. Alongside that, we've been fortunate, thanks to economic responses, to be able to save businesses and jobs and to ensure that Australia weathers the global storm caused by this global pandemic—
A point of order, Senator McCarthy?
It's on relevance. I asked specifically about the building of new quarantine facilities.
I'm listening carefully to the minister's answer. I will allow you to bring the minister back to the question. Minister, you have the call.
Those border closures have served Australia well. The quarantine arrangements that have been associated with those border closures have, overwhelmingly, also worked effectively and served Australians well. In the vast majority of cases, hundreds of thousands of Australians have been able to move back into our country safely and securely. Part of that has been the crucial role that the Howard Springs facility has played in the Northern Territory; it received a significant expansion to a capacity of 2,000 during this time frame.
In addition to the work at the Howard Springs facility, work is underway on additional quarantine facilities in Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth following the encouragement and partnership agreements struck by state governments in each of those jurisdictions. The first of those is scheduled to see beds handed over to the Victorian government by the end of this year. That remains on track and remains the case to provide longer term capabilities to respond to COVID or other emergencies into the future.
Senator McCarthy, a supplementary question?
Would Australia's defences against the omicron variant be stronger if Mr Morrison had listened to the experts and built fit-for-purpose national health quarantine facilities?
Australia's defences throughout COVID-19, as I said at the outset, have been incredibly strong. We have shown amazing resilience as a nation and great capacity to be able to minimise the loss of life and, whilst minimising the loss of life, to work ourselves into a position as a nation where we are now one of the most heavily vaccinated and most protected populations and nations across the planet and that is our key protection in relation to COVID-19.
We are working on building these additional centres for national resilience. These centres will serve their purpose in continued response to COVID-19 but they will also serve a purpose in response to other future pandemics, natural disasters or emergency situations around the world. It is important in relation to the omicron variant that we keep a sense of perspective, as many infectious disease and public health experts have urged. Government is working through the evidence in relation to that.
Senator McCarthy, a second supplementary question?
How many more variants of concern will appear on Australian shores before Mr Morrison finally delivers fit-for-purpose national quarantine capacity?
AM (—) (): I think it is very important for all leaders in this place to keep a sense of perspective in relation to the omicron variant or, indeed, other variants that may emerge in the future. As Professor Peter Collignon, infectious diseases physician at the ANU, said, fear is 'out of proportion to the data at the moment' with this new variant. Indeed, as Professor Greg Dore, epidemiologist at the Kirby Institute said, 'Ideal response to uncertainty is to accelerate evidence gathering. It's not the pull the panic levers … ' I would urge those opposite and all to keep that sense of perspective at present. The government has acted in a precautionary way to further tighten border restrictions in relation to a number of nations across the southern part of the African continent. We are continuing to receive regular briefings in relation to this. But it is notable that a number of health experts have highlighted the seemingly mild implications of this variant, so we ought to all keep it in perspective.
My question is to the Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Senator McKenzie. Can the minister update the Senate on what arrangements the Liberal and Nationals government has in place to ensure we are well prepared for bushfires, floods and other natural disasters this high-risk weather season.
I thank Senator Molan for his question and for his longstanding interest in emergency management matters. The Australian government is well prepared to respond to disasters that may occur during the upcoming high-risk weather season. We have been working closely with states and territories to ensure that all levels of government are ready to respond quickly and effectively.
Since September this year, our government, through Emergency Management Australia, has led a national preparedness program with states and territories, industry and not-for-profit organisations so that we can practise our responses to crises. On 5 September, we announced additional funding to support preparedness for the upcoming season, including $2 million for the national community education and engagement program for the Australian Warning System due to commence this week, $44 million to the Australian Aerial Firefighting Centre to fund the lease of a large air tanker, over $20 million to implement the Australian Fire Danger Rating System to give clear and consistent fire danger information across Australia, and $23 million to enhance EMA's national situation room to have the most up-to-date information to hand in a crisis. We know that these severe weather events are inevitable and that's why we're even better prepared to respond to disasters once they've happened.
We've put in place a new streamlined process for activating the disaster recovery funding arrangements. That's the primary way we fund recovery following disasters here in Australia. These arrangements are co-funded in partnership with jurisdictions and delivered by the state or territory that has requested that assistance. They provide much-needed assistance for immediately after a natural disaster.
We're not just focused on immediate response and recovery; we're also focused on developing resilience because we know the money spent on building community resilience before a disaster will provide more long-term value than money spent on recovery.
Our government has invested heavily in disaster risk reduction with the $600 million Preparing Australia Program. On 8 November, I announced the release of the grant opportunity guidelines for round 1 and I look forward to applications. (Time expired)
Senator Molan, a supplementary question?
With COVID-19 restrictions still in place in some states and territories and a new variant of concern, what has the Commonwealth government done to prepare for the movement of essential personnel during COVID related border closures?
This year the Australian government, through Emergency Management Australia, has worked with the states, territories and industry to agree the COVID-19 Interstate (Fire, Emergency and other Essential Services) Deployment Protocol. The protocol will facilitate cross-border movement for emergency support specialists and technicians not only for that immediate response in the middle of a crisis but for the all-important work associated with cleaning up and rebuilding after a disaster occurs.
The updated protocol came into effect on 8 November with endorsement from state and territory emergency chiefs as well as the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee. It will mean we can ensure that essential workers required to repair critical infrastructure assets like telecommunications, power, energy and health, can go where they're needed to restore these essential services to Australians. It will also apply to tradespeople, where rebuilding is required, and insurers to make it easier for people to access the support they need to repair their homes and get their businesses back up and running after a disaster.
Senator Molan, a second supplementary question?
With the high-risk weather season in full force during the last few weeks, particularly in my state of New South Wales, can the minister please update the Senate on what support the government has provided to the communities recently affected by flooding across the country?
Severe weather events, like we've seen over New South Wales over the past week, are always distressing for those who experience them. That's why our government is committed to supporting communities impacted by natural disasters. The recent severe weather event in New South Wales caused damage to critical infrastructure and residential properties, while the very heavy rain has caused flooding to occur and has damaged crops right across New South Wales.
The Australian and New South Wales government funded disaster assistance will provide a range of practical assistance measures to help councils, individuals, primary producers, small businesses and charities to recover and get back on their feet. The assistance will help to cover the costs associated with the operational response and repair to damaged essential public assets. Additionally, individuals will receive support to get back on their feet, including grants to replace essential household contents or repair structural damage to homes, because our government is ready to stand side-by-side with these communities and ensure that they recover.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. In December 2018, Mr Morrison stood next to Mr Porter and announced he would deliver a national integrity commission. But, more than a thousand days later, Mr Morrison has not introduced his own legislation and last week he defied the House of Representatives, which demanded an anticorruption commission. Why did Mr Morrison say he would create a national integrity commission when that just wasn't true?
I thank the senator for her question. Indeed, she is correct; the government did commit to build and establish a Commonwealth integrity commission. We not only committed to it, we funded some $150 million in budget proceedings for it—
We have consulted on it—correct, Senator Cash. We've consulted quite widely in relation to it. We've released draft legislation as part of our consultations. We have 349 pages of legislation to support the implementation of the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. We released our bill with the full intentions that we would like to implement our bill. The problem lies in the fact that those opposite won't and don't support our bill. That's the problem. They won't agree to pass the Commonwealth Integrity Commission that the government has worked to develop, has released legislation for and has provided funding for. Those opposite aren't interested in a model that ensures integrity. They aren't interested in a model that focuses on weeding out corrupt conduct. What those opposite want is to make sure it's as politicised as possible. That seems to be the desire of those opposite. Their whole campaign tactics are about smear and sledging at present. We see that time and time again in the questions they bring into this place, in nature of their interviews—
Senator Wong, on a point of order?
I flag that we would give you leave to table your legislation here and now, should you wish.
Senator Wong, is there a point of order? Minister, you have the call.
Those opposite are not happy with our model, but what's the alternative they've offered? They haven't actually provided a detailed alternative. All we can take is that they want a vehicle for smear and for politicisation, but they have only a two-page glossy, compared with the 349 pages of legislation.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Could you please sit down, Senator O'Neill. Those on my left calling time whilst interjecting to the point where I was dealing with the chamber are not helping. Senator O'Neill, a supplementary question?
Yesterday, New South Wales Liberal Premier Dominic Perrottet said 'ICAC does a very important job—it gets rid of corruption from public life'. Why does Mr Morrison disagree with Premier Dominic Perrottet?
We are very happy to support a model for a Commonwealth Integrity Commission that is focused on eliminating corrupt conduct. That is precisely what the legislation we have developed actually does. What it does not do is establish kangaroo court proceedings that operate in ways to destroy reputations, even when there is no finding, let alone ultimate prosecution in relation to corrupt conduct. That's where the line of distinction exists. In the home state of Senator Wong and me, I know there has been a different approach taken in relation to the role of ICAC. It's a model that is more closely analogous to the one that our government has released legislation for. It operates in a way that doesn't seek to destroy reputations in advance. There are different models that exist. We have presented one. We invite those opposite to publicly indicate they would support the passage of our legislation. (Time expired)
Senator O'Neill, a second supplementary?
Honourable senators interjecting—
If only they were in government.
Order! Senator O'Neill, you have the call.
Last week, senators crossed the floor in defiance of Mr Morrison, and on Thursday a member of Mr Morrison's own government crossed the floor in the House because of his ongoing refusal to act. Hasn't Mr Morrison completely lost control of the House, his senators and his government?
The answer is no. The answer very clearly is no. But those opposite are entirely focused on internal political machinations, because that's all they know. It's certainly all that their leader, Mr Albanese, knows. All Mr Albanese knows are the politics of smear and the politics inside this parliament. What you don't hear them asking questions about, or pursuing policies on, are the things that matter to Australians.
Our government is clearly focused on the 700,000 jobs that we've created since COVID-19 struck at its deepest point. Our government is focused on the 133,000 apprenticeships that we have created as a result of our policies. Our government is focused on the delivery of tax cuts that are putting $1.5 billion a month back into the pockets of hardworking Australians. We're focused on a $110 billion infrastructure program and on national security, through the AUKUS partnership. They're the things we're focused on, not the politics of smear like those opposite. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister Ruston. How is the Liberal-National government supporting older Australians in their retirement?
I thank Senator Abetz for his question. This government is absolutely committed to finding new and innovative ways to support age pensioners and self-funded retirees in their retirement. That's why we're introducing legislation this week to ensure older Australians are supported to use their own resources to maximise their retirement outcomes.
We are delivering on our 2021-22 budget measure and enhancing the Pension Loans Scheme with a $21 million reform package. It's important to point out that the Pension Loans Scheme is available to all Australians who have reached age pension age, and that includes people who are part-pensioners and people who are self-funded retirees. The program can be used for them to top up their retirement income by using some of the equity that they have in their home or other assets and, when their house is sold, the loan is then repaid from those proceeds. The loan amount is paid out fortnightly at the rate of up to 150 per cent of the full age pension. Under the budget reform, we are expanding the scheme through the introduction of lump sum payments. From the middle of next year, people using the Pension Loans Scheme will be able to access up to two annual lump sum advances in any 12-month period up to a total of 50 per cent of the maximum annual rate of the age pension.
The popularity of the Pension Loans Scheme has grown more than five-fold in less two years, as our expansions to the scheme have allowed more retirees to tap into the equity tied up in their homes to pay for additional living expenses. The School of Risk and Actuarial Studies at the University of New South Wales believe access to lump sum payments will increase the attractiveness of the scheme. We know that homeownership has always been the bedrock of our society, and we want to make sure that we give older Australians the confidence to tap into a small proportion of their home equity to make sure that their retirement outcomes are maximised for their own benefits.
Senator Abetz, a supplementary question?
I thank the minister for the wealth of information contained in her extensive answer, and I ask the minister for further advice. How has the government supported older Australians throughout the COVID-19 pandemic?
As we recover from the pandemic, some older Australians are facing new challenges and stresses, such as loneliness and increased social isolation. Friend Line encourages older Australians who may be lonely and not have anyone to talk to to call and chat to a volunteer. We know that there is a real need for assistance to alleviate loneliness and social isolation, so programs like Friend Line are here to help. I would encourage all senators in this place to make sure that you let your constituents know, particularly your older constituents, that this service is available to them to make sure that they have someone to reach out to if they don't have a friend or family member to do so.
Throughout the pandemic, we also made economic support payments to more than 2.5 million Australian age pensioners, who were among the 5.5 million social security recipients to receive one-off payments in 2020-21. These were paid at $750 in both March and July. (Time expired)
Senator Abetz, a second supplementary question?
I thank the minister for another extensive answer. Can the minister further update the Senate on how our Liberal-National government is providing pensioners flexibility in their retirement and tackling misinformation?
The government are focused on ways we can make a real difference in the lives of age pensioners. We want them to have flexibility and to boost their income so that they can choose how they spend their money in retirement. We're doing this through changes to the Pension Loans Scheme as well as the work bonus, which increases the amount a pensioner can earn from work before it affects their pension rate. This is in stark contrast to those opposite, who are focused on frightening senior Australians with a false campaign. For the record, I repeat in this place that the government has been very clear that the Morrison government has no plan and never will have a plan to force age pensioners onto the cashless debit card. Senior Australians know that we are the party that can be trusted to protect their interests in retirement, which is exactly what we will do and continue to focus on. We will not scare age pensioners for political gain.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Payne) and the Minister for Finance (Senator Birmingham) to questions without notice asked by Senators Keneally and McAllister today relating to the Member for Bass.
Last week two members of the House of Representatives crossed the floor to vote against the government. One, the member for Dawson, voted against a government bill and delivered a speech that likened vaccine mandates and COVID restrictions to the Nazi regime and then called for civil disobedience.
Yes, Senator Scarr?
Deputy President, there was absolutely no reference at all in either the question put by Senator McAllister or the question put by the other senator from the other side to either George Christensen or his contribution last week and there was no reference at all in the answers from either minister with respect to that question.
Senator Scarr, that's a debating point. Please continue, Senator McAllister.
So one member crossed the floor under one set of circumstances and the other member, the member for Bass, voted to bring on a debate on an integrity commission after three years of inaction by the government. Only one of these members was hauled into the Prime Minister's office and reduced to tears.
Sometimes the things someone doesn't do can tell you as much about their character as the things they do. Last week in Senate question time we learned that Mr Morrison didn't feel the need to speak to a member of the coalition whose comments in and out of the parliament have the capacity to incite violence. He simply wasn't interested; it wasn't important enough. Now the Prime Minister has some real questions to answer about why that's the case. There is also the broader question: why was Mrs Archer treated so differently from Mr Christensen and forced to speak with the Prime Minister against her will?
Two-thirds of Australian women regularly tell surveys that they don't believe they are treated equally at work. Those women may have an idea why Mr Morrison singled out Mrs Archer for special attention. They are seeing a pattern that they know all too well. Mrs Archer now has the dubious honour of joining the list of Liberal women who have publicly spoken about the way the Prime Minister, his staff and close allies have used their power against them.
The Prime Minister described the meeting as a very warm, friendly and supportive meeting. Mrs Archer has said it wasn't a pastoral care meeting and, further, that she spent the first half of the conversation crying and apologising. That doesn't sound like the same meeting, does it? The Prime Minister finds himself in a position where yet again someone has called his version of events inaccurate and misleading. Perhaps it's not shocking that the Prime Minister has a different story from a woman who was in the room. This is the Prime Minister who has never really explained how he came to be so surprised when he learnt the following things—and I'll quote him:
I have heard that women are overlooked, talked over by men, whether it is in boardrooms, in meeting rooms, in staff rooms, media conferences, cabinets or anywhere else – overlooked and treated like they have nothing valuable to contribute.
I have heard about being marginalised, women being intimidated, women being belittled, women being diminished, and women being objectified.
Former Liberal backbencher Ms Banks is on the record as describing Mr Morrison as 'menacing'.
Perhaps the PM would have been less surprised if he took the time to examine how he and his office use power. The Prime Minister has made no secret of his love for the top job. He makes no secret of his love for red carpets and for power. But being powerful comes with obligations and responsibilities. You should be honest and you should exercise power in a way that enhances, not diminishes, others. We heard from those opposite that none of this is a big deal, that crossing the floor is a very important freedom for the Liberal Party. Indeed, when five senators voted for the One Nation private senator's bill last Monday Mr Morrison said that he doesn't 'run an autocracy'. But if that's the case, where are the moderate Liberals, crossing the floor for strong climate action? Where is the member for Wentworth or the member for North Sydney? Where is Senator Hume? Where are the others? It turns out that having the courage of your convictions requires both courage and conviction.
So here we are, entering the ninth year—the ninth year!—of this tired government, and on yet another occasion the Prime Minister's inability to understand the way women experience work and experience public life is on display. We see a leave pass for members who cross the floor and call for civil disobedience and we see a dressing down for members who want an integrity commission. As I said, sometimes it's the things that someone doesn't do that tell you as much about their character as the things they do.
There were lots of debating points in that contribution by Senator McAllister to be responded to. Perhaps I can draw particular reference to Minister Birmingham and his response to the question. I think it was an important point he made, and it's something all of us on this side of the chamber hold dear, and that is that in the Liberal Party of Australia we have the right—and indeed there's an expectation, from some of our members—that we will exercise that right from time to time when we consider it necessary, to cross the floor on matters of great principle, of great conviction and of conscience. The member for Bass, Bridget Archer MP, exercised that right last week, and that is her right in the Liberal Party.
I want to quote from the article that appeared in the Guardian on 24 November 2021 in relation to Mrs Archer MP, member for Bass, exercising that right:
"To be perfectly clear, I always reserve my right to cross the floor, that is one of the reasons I sit on this side [in the Liberal party]," Archer said.
So when Bridget Archer made her decision, as the member for Bass, as to which party she would represent, one of the core principles of the Liberal Party of Australia had direct relevance to that decision, and that was her right—her right, as it is of every member of the Liberal Party in the lower house and every Liberal senator in the upper house, and similarly members of the National Party—to cross the floor on matters of deep conviction and on matters of conscience if they believe that is what they need to do in order to represent their constituencies and to act in accordance with their principles. That's what Mrs Archer, the member for Bass, did last week, and I deeply respect her for making that decision.
We also heard from our Prime Minister in relation to that decision that our party is not a party of drones. There are strong personalities, strong-minded individuals in our party. We've seen that demonstrated in the 2½ years during which I've been sitting in this place—and I'm sure we'll continue to see it demonstrated in the future. I think that's a good thing for our democracy. The particular matter that Mrs Archer, the member for Bass, crossed the floor on, in terms of a Commonwealth Integrity Commission, is an important matter. I certainly am 100 per cent behind the introduction of a Commonwealth Integrity Commission. Do I support the Independent member's bill? No, because I am deeply concerned, with respect to a Commonwealth integrity commission, about the impact any structure that might be adopted could have upon persons who are subject to complaints.
As I have done in the past, I want to bring the chamber's attention to the matter of Mr Stephen Pearce, who went through the New South Wales ICAC process. Mr Pearce was the deputy commissioner of the State Emergency Service. He went through an absolute ordeal through the New South Wales ICAC. An article by Natalie O'Brien in the Sydney Morning Herald, dated 13 February 2016, quotes Mr Steven Pearce:
"My family and I suffered substantial public humiliation, emotional and financial trauma," he said.
"Never did the system look after me and I was crucified publicly and professionally."
These are important issues. Mrs Archer, the member for Bass, was quite entitled to cross the floor, and she was deeply respected for doing so. At the same time, I will say to this chamber that I will do all I can to make sure that any Commonwealth integrity commission gets the balance right in terms of pursuing matters which ought to be pursued by a corruption commission but also in terms of ensuring that reputations are not unnecessarily trashed, as the legacy lasts forever even though the political caravan moves on. (Time expired)
Senator Scarr is right: there are a lot of different debating points you can make about what happened in question time today in response to Senator McAllister's questions and others' questions. But I don't think the point here is about crossing the floor; I think the point is about what happens when a woman, in particular, does something the Prime Minister doesn't want her to do—what the impact is on that woman and what that says about the Prime Minister's beliefs and values and the culture of this government.
I am deeply unenthusiastic about contributing to this debate, because, in my 2½ years in the Senate, this issue has dominated so much of the public discourse. This government is completely inept when it comes to listening to women, understanding the issues that women are raising, and seeing this place as a workplace, where people not only have rights but also have responsibilities to each other. For women in this workplace, especially, that is abused. I was in this chamber only two weeks when I first heard the phrase 'quota girls' thrown out from those opposite me—just a few weeks. What a nice welcome to the chamber which has gender parity!
We've seen three different positions on quotas from the Prime Minister. We've heard views like, 'We want more women in, but just not at the expense of men.' We've seen all sorts of incidents when it comes to the treatment of female MPs in this government, whether it's Mrs Archer, as was the topic in question time today, or the experience of Ms Julia Banks in this parliament. We've seen the nonsense the Prime Minister has uttered in response to the concerns of women giving birth in regional New South Wales: 'Well, the solution to your lack of access to maternity care isn't a hospital; it's a highway.' We've seen this government sit on the Human Rights Commission's Respect@Work report for almost a year and then completely fudge its response to the recommendations. They pretended they were going to do it all, and then they reneged on that commitment. But all of this pales in comparison to the way that female staff have been treated in this building. And it pales in comparison to the way women in general are treated by this government—when women join on the lawns of Parliament House for March4Justice and the Prime Minister says, 'Women in Australia should be grateful, because not far from here such marches even now are being met with bullets.'
I am so sick of having these debates. I am so appalled that this has to be a topic in question time. It has to be, because it's still going on, right? It has to be, because we're still seeing this kind of behaviour. In my 2½ years here, given everything I've seen and everything this place has borne witness to, given the courage and bravery of women seeking to change the culture of this place, I am completely fed up that not enough seems to happen to recognise that this is a workplace and that the people within this workplace need to be treated with respect. If women in this workplace feel like that, is it any wonder that women outside of this workplace, looking in, don't want to put their hand up to be here—that's especially true on the other side—and is it any wonder that those women don't feel like their concerns, the issues facing them, are being listened to or heeded by this government?
This is a cultural thing and it starts at the top. If this is the way the Prime Minister perceives women, if this is the way the Prime Minister responds to concerns from women, if this is the way the Prime Minister runs his workplace, which is the workplace of all of us, then that culture will permeate down. It doesn't just stay in this building; it goes beyond its walls as well. It sets a standard which becomes one more broadly in the public space. It is no wonder that women in Australia are fed up. I am fed up, too. So I would urge, as we look at the debating points, as we continue this debate, that we give some consideration to how serious this is for the women outside of this building and those within it.
I'm fed up with being mischaracterised by Labor on these matters. What we are seeing right now is a grubby campaign to denigrate the Prime Minister. We have an inherent right, in the Liberal and National parties, to cross the floor. Senators have not mentioned Senator Fierravanti-Wells or Senator McMahon, who crossed the floor. Don't they matter? What we are seeing here is a continuing grubby attempt by the Labor Party to denigrate the campaign and rewrite history.
The fact of the matter is that our government has done more for Australian women than any other government before. When I talk about what we are doing for Australian women, I talk about the, in excess of, $1 billion that we are providing for women's safety, on matters such as emergency accommodation. Did members opposite, the former Labor federal government, ever make a provision for women fleeing family violence? Did the former Labor government ever think that it might be a good idea to provide support in emergency situations, when women are fleeing family violence, through finance for emergency accommodation?
We have provided an absolute record amount of funding to care for women and children in their hour of need: more flexible parental leave; accessible, affordable child care—not child care for millionaires, which is Labor's policy. Labor's policy is about more money going to millionaires than ever before. Our government is providing child care to those who need it the most, those who are in the lower and medium income brackets. Labor's childcare policy is a disgrace. Look at our record on closing the gender pay gap. It was at a record low, under us, of 13.4 per cent. It now sits at 14.2 per cent, down from 17.4 per cent under the previous Labor government. So when we talk about caring for women, I can tell you right now this is one of the most caring workplaces I have ever worked in. I've put that on the record before. But I will call out bad behaviour and I have, as I did, with the member for Higgins, on Insiders earlier this year in relation to Mr Laming.
Where were Labor women when Emma Husar was treated so disgracefully? When Labor had made a decision to get rid of her where were Labor women? She was subjected to the most horrific abuse, false allegations. It almost drove her to a nervous breakdown, to breaking point. Where were Labor women in standing up for Emma Husar? Where were they in standing up for Gai Brodtmann, the former member for Canberra? There is so much hypocrisy. When it comes to bad behaviour from Labor I have not seen Labor women stand up and hold to account those who treat Labor women so badly.
As for our Respect@Work report, let me put on the record that nearly all of the recommendations have been implemented by our government. There are some, of course, that can only be implemented by the states and territories, so I correct the record in that respect. We are really proud of the work that we are doing.
I say to the member for Bass, who has got courage: what a wonderful party we are in where we celebrate the fact that we can exercise our conscience. Guess what happens to Labor senators and members if they cross the floor? If they exercise their conscience, they are expelled. They are the rules of Labor. There is no ability to stand up for what's right or to exercise one's own conscience in the Labor Party. You cross the floor and you are gone. So let's stop the hypocrisy that we are hearing from Labor in this debate.
Let's just be really clear: this issue is not about crossing the floor. It is about respect for women, about equal treatment for women—not just care, but respect. We can debate the policy in this place, about various positions on either side of the chamber, but the core disrespect for women shown by the Prime Minister is the issue that we are discussing right now. This issue is about the appalling double standards applied by this Prime Minister when it comes to the way he treats the men of his government and the way he treats the women of his government.
Tasmanian Liberal Bridget Archer, the member for Bass, was singled out not for having the audacity to stand with the opposition, the crossbenchers and the Australian people in calling for a national integrity commission but for being a woman. She was marched over to the PM's office against her wishes. What was the response to other members of the government? When wayward South Australian Senator Alex Antic crossed the floor to vote to undermine public health messages, was he marched immediately over to the PM's office? No. Apparently, according to the PM, Senator Antic was just expressing his right to be an individual. It's the same with two Queensland renegades, Senator Gerard Rennick and the member for Dawson, George Christensen, who both crossed the floor to vote with One Nation to undermine the hard work of health officials. Were they immediately marched directly to the PM's office? No, they were not. By her own admission, Bridget Archer had asked on numerous occasions to have the conversation postponed—not cancelled—until she was able to gather her thoughts. She knew she had to talk to him but she clearly needed some time to collect herself. This simple request was denied. Her wishes were ignored.
Former Liberal MP Julia Banks has previously called out this exact type of behaviour, calling it 'menacing, bullying and calculating'. Grace Tame has labelled this treatment as 'textbook coercive control'. So now we add Bridget Archer to the list of those who've seen recent displays of blatant disrespect: Grace Tame; Brittany Higgins; Julia Banks; Christine Holgate; Sam Maiden; the women of the March 4 Justice. What we are seeing, over and over again, is that, regardless of the situation, the PM has consistently refused to respect women's views, refused to respect women's voices and refused to respect women's requests. This pattern of behaviour, this culture within our current government, is appalling. And that is what we stand up against, here, today—that behaviour, disrespecting the women across Australia.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Payne) to a question without notice I asked today relating to COVID-19 vaccines.
History will look poorly on Australia and other wealthy countries for their complete and utter failure to support low-income countries in getting vaccinated. This is a complete abrogation of our responsibility to other countries, many of whom already suffer because of the colonial legacies that have left them in poverty.
The global COVID crisis continues to evolve, but Australia is missing in action when it comes to strong support for global vaccine equity. Vaccine apartheid looms large amongst the landscape of global inequities. What we are seeing on an international level is rich high-income nations making strides towards vaccinations, while poorer nations are left behind. Omicron should put further pressure on wealthy countries like Australia to step up to fund and facilitate vaccination across the world. This is the time to show global solidarity. But we are not quite there.
It has been over a year since India and South Africa first brought a proposal to the World Trade Organization to waive intellectual property provisions on COVID-19 vaccines and allow for mass vaccine production across the global South. This was a simple and incredibly reasonable request, which, if it had been agreed to at the time, would have already allowed for the delivery of millions of vaccines to people in countries that have really struggled to gain access to jabs in the quantities needed to keep their populations safe. Dozens of low-income countries were quick to join on and support the proposal from India and South Africa. The United States eventually followed. Then, finally, in September of this year, Australia announced that it would support a waiver. But Australia has since clarified its position, with DFAT telling estimates last month: 'The government has decided that, rather than attaching itself' to a specific proposal, 'it's going to focus its efforts' on 'encouraging the key players to find convergence,' and to encourage both sides to show flexibility with a view to ensuring that we have a consensus outcome. Well, that's not good enough. In fact, it's pretty shameful. This sort of hedging is simply terrible. It's the coward's way out. And now countries across the world are paying the price.
The emergence of the omicron variant has put further pressure on Australia to co-sponsor the intellectual property waiver. At its upcoming ministerial meetings, the World Trade Organization will consider the intellectual property waiver first proposed by India and South Africa more than one year ago. Australia is at the table, and we should declare our hand unambiguously in support of the waiver proposal from India and South Africa. In fact, we should go further and do everything we can to galvanise support for this waiver.
The depressing reality is that, by refusing to co-sponsor the waiver, Australia has taken the side of big pharmaceutical companies over the health and wellbeing of millions of people. It's time for Australia to give its full-throated support to the waiver proposed by India and South Africa. In addition, Australia should substantially boost funding to the COVAX vaccine facility, to ramp up vaccination in low-income countries. Our per-capita contributions at this point have been miserly. Australia's donor funding to the global COVAX facility is low by global standards. Australia is contributing only about $4 per person, compared to the United States contributing nearly triple that, and many times less than countries such as Sweden and Norway. Last month the WHO reported that just five African countries—less than 10 per cent of Africa's 54 nations—are projected to hit their 2021 target of fully vaccinating 40 per cent of their populations unless efforts to accelerate the pace take off. The question we have to ask is: how many more people have to unnecessarily get sick or die from COVID in the global south before Australia backs the TRIPS waiver and properly funds COVAX so that global vaccine equity can become a reality?
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to the following senators from 29 November to 2 December 2021:
(a) Senator McDonald, for personal reasons; and
(b) Senators Hanson and Roberts, on account of COVID-19 travel restrictions.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Brown from 25 November to 2 December 2021, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senators.
I 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.
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senator Whish-Wilson, I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006, and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.
Leave granted.
I table the explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated into Hansard and to continue my remarks on behalf of Senator Whish-Wilson.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
This Bill significantly protects our oceans and takes effective climate action.
Australia's destiny is encircled by our seas, figuratively and literally. Most of our population live on or near our coastlines. Australians love our beaches, we love our oceans, they are such an important part of our culture. Our oceans also feed us, and dictate our weather, our fortunes.
As our oceans warm from rising fossil fuel emissions, the rapid changes we are seeing right before our eyes are frightening.
The Great Barrier Reef has lost half its coral cover in the past ten years, due to unprecedented marine heatwaves linked directly to rising emissions; this is something many of us didn't believe we could see in our lifetimes. Without radical climate action this is expected to get much worse.
The loss of my home state Tasmania's millions year old giant kelp forest habitat, so critical to the billion dollar abalone and rock lobster fisheries, is another brutal consequence of exploring and burning more fossil fuels in a time of climate emergency. We are in an existential crisis.
This is why the International Energy Agency (IEA) is saying 2021 must be the year we end all new fossil fuel exploration. This is why the UN Secretary-General said following the release of the latest IPCC report we are "on the edge of an irreversible disaster" and are facing a "code red for humanity". It is insanity to be opening up new areas of our oceans to explore for the exact same dirty fossil fuel product that is quickly choking them off, killing them, driving us over the edge.
So why are we allowing our oceans to be put at further risk by letting oil and gas companies search for their next fossil fuel bonanza?
Over 4500km2 of ocean and coastline, from Manly through to Newcastle, has been opened to drilling. This area of ocean is designated Petroleum Exploration Permit 11 - PEP11 - and the proposed exploration threatens critically important whale migration routes and dolphin habitats.
31,000km2 of pristine ocean in the Otway Basin is also under threat. With potential sites just a handful of kilometres from the Great Ocean Road, one of the most famous landmarks in Australia - the 12 Apostles - could become synonymous with rigs and discharge flames. This is not the vision that coastal communities or visitors want to see.
And in my state of Tasmania, the oceans and fisheries off King Island are now at risk, as these precious waters are exposed to seismic testing and drilling.
This reckless disregard for the sanctity and health of our oceans has to stop.
Just earlier this year, I led Australia's first inquiry into the impacts of seismic surveying from oil and gas exploration.
It took three attempts to get the inquiry established, with evidence provided to the committee that government ministers were keen to avoid the scrutiny of a Senate inquiry, quietly getting fishing and petroleum stakeholders together, to hammer out an alternative to an inquiry and resolve differences behind closed doors.
Evidence also demonstrated that this secretive process failed to provide comfort for commercial fishing stakeholders who after years of dealing with them, simply didn't trust the oil and gas industry.
For the first time ever, the Senate heard evidence from all stakeholders, from both the fishing and the oil and gas industries, to environmental NGOs, governments, scientists, academics, and community groups.
The committee heard an abundance of evidence detailing the risks to our oceans and fisheries from ongoing oil and gas exploration. No witness disputed that seismic testing is potentially harmful and under-researched. What was disputed was whether this risk 'acceptable', with the oil and gas industry and the regulator NOPSEMA saying this meant avoiding "permanent or irreversible harm".
But seriously, who would know, given the almost complete lack of historical research into long term, cumulative seismic testing impacts on fisheries?
I find it hard to comprehend that a trillion dollar industry that has been conducting seismic testing for decades has hardly spent a cent on better understanding the impacts of their activities.
The committee heard evidence that the current regulatory framework does not provide financing for research, monitoring, or sufficient environmental or economic protections from the impacts of seismic surveying and gives too much latitude to a regulator who is perceived to be too close to the petroleum industry.
There are other voices though, not quiet but loud and clear. They are the voices of our coastal communities, and they have boldly said what their expectation of 'acceptable' really is. No harm is acceptable, too much uncertainty exists. We should proceed with caution. The principle that states that a lack of full scientific certainty should be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.
Yet, where the government is concerned, in the absence of research, the onus seems to be placed on those who have concerns to prove damage, rather than the proponents or regulator having to prove it does no damage.
We are all here, in this place, as Senators because of a commitment to listen to all voices, and not just become enablers for private vested interests who donate to big political parties for their own benefit.
Fossil fuel companies can draw off extensive resources, utilising millions of dollars to pursue dangerous and destructive offshore drilling and seismic testing. Local communities, forced to fight for their future when those in power will not, have nothing like the kind of money at the disposal of these big corporations. But they have the Greens in parliament. We will stand with them every time.
What we see around the nation today is a David and Goliath stand-off, with a handful of multinational oil and gas industry giants on one side, and multi-generational local fishing communities and ocean lovers on the other.
Evidence abounds that the Australian community expects the precautionary principle to be applied in favour of the environment, not in favour of exploration and commercial interests, and be applied to any reasonable threat of environmental damage, not just a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage.
The Australian Government has acknowledged that new research is important to understanding the broader impacts of seismic testing on marine ecosystems. However, it continues to hand out permits for offshore oil and gas exploration, backed with taxpayer subsidies, right around the country while being fully aware of this uncertainty, and while doing nothing to address this.
We are not prepared to play games with the future of Australia's coastline communities. The time has come for strong and meaningful action.
I urge all Senators to support this necessary bill to ban new offshore oil and gas exploration, I urge them to speak to marine biologists, climate scientists, coastal communities; their first nations elders, their fishers, those who care for the sea, they will tell you their way of life is under threat, and that their local economy relies on a thriving ocean, now increasingly broken by the burning of fossil fuels.
Australia would not be alone in taking such action.
In 2018, the New Zealand government banned all new seismic testing and oil and gas drilling off its coasts.
Denmark, the EU's largest oil producer, has also announced a transition to do the same, phasing out offshore oil and gas drilling by 2050.
Legislation has even been presented to the House of Representatives in the US.
Greenland, Spain, Costa Rica, France, Belize and Portugal have all implemented bans on new oil and gas exploration - there is no reason Australia shouldn't do the same.
Mr James Shaw, Leader of the Green Party of Aotearoa in New Zealand, on his nation's announcement, said:
"Today we have drawn a line in the sand and set our country on the path to a clean energy, low carbon future. This represents an enormous opportunity for the creation of new jobs and new technologies that our dependence on fossil fuels has held back for too long.
As we move towards a fossil fuel-free future, we will move together - communities, government and business alike… This is truly the nuclear free moment of our generation, and the beginning of a new and exciting future."
There is no reason why Australia shouldn't be moving toward the same new and exciting future.
With a serious lack of research into the impacts of seismic testing and inadequate regulation, and in a time of climate emergency that consistently threatens our marine ecosystems, the Greens do not believe we should be risking our oceans, communities, fisheries and coastlines for the sake of a few profit-driven interests.
The community's expectations, combined with the clear evidence of unaddressed risks from seismic testing, should be reflected in strong action to legislate a narrowly focused amendment to the OPGGS Act that would allow for a ban in three active areas of fossil fuel exploration off the Sydney Basin, Otway Basin, and King Island.
The Australian Greens will continue to fight for healthy oceans and coastlines, local communities and small business. Many senators here represent the areas affected; this is your chance to do something for the people you represent.
It is our time in history to be making brave decisions, take the strongest possible action on climate change, and transition our economies and our communities to a renewable energy future.
Listen to your communities. Listen to the science.
Stop PEP11. No way in Otway. No gas across the Bass.
Take action, and support this bill.
Debate adjourned.
At the request of Senator Rice, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) order 1217 of 23 August 2021, to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, and order 1252 of 20 October 2021, to the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts, requiring the provision of documents relating to the Urban Congestion Fund (UCF) have not been complied with, and
(ii) the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts made a public interest immunity claim in relation to paragraphs (b) and (c) of the 23 August 2021 order and paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) of the 20 October 2021 order requiring spreadsheets of proposed UCF projects;
(b) rejects the claim of public interest immunity made by the Minister on the grounds of disclosure of Cabinet deliberations, noting that:
(i) the request does not seek the disclosure of the deliberations of Cabinet but rather spreadsheets provided to the Cabinet, and
(ii) the public interest immunity claim fails to demonstrate any specific harm to the public interest that would ensue from the disclosure of the information;
(c) requires the Minister representing the Prime Minister to provide the following documents to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, which can receive documents confidentially if satisfied that it would be appropriate to do so, under the auspices of its inquiry into the administration and expenditure of funding under the UCF, by no later than 7.20 pm on Tuesday, 30 November 2021:
(i) the documents outlined in paragraph (a)(i) and (ii) above, and
(ii) any documents prepared by current or former ministers or their offices or a department in relation to the process of canvassing Liberal and National Party MPs and candidates in marginal or targeted electorates to identify projects for funding under the UCF, including any lists of electorates and the presentation prepared by the office of the Minister for Education and Youth, the Honourable Alan Tudge MP, for a meeting with the Prime Minister on 6 December 2019;
(d) requires the Finance and Public Administration References Committee to advise the Senate that the Minister has complied to the satisfaction of the committee, or otherwise, with this order as soon as practicable after the deadline for the provision of the documents; and
(e) determines that, in the event that the Finance and Public Administration References Committee reports that the Minister has not fully complied with the order:
(i) the Senate requires the Minister representing the Prime Minister to attend the Senate immediately after question time on Wednesday, 1 December 2021 to explain why the documents have not been tabled, and
(ii) any senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (e), and any motion under paragraph (e) may be debated for no longer than 60 minutes, shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes each.
The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1280, standing in the name of Senator Rice, be agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senators McAllister, Waters, Griff and Lambie, move:
That on Tuesday, 30 November 2021:
(a) the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2021 be called on after authorisations for committees to meet and have precedence over all other business until determined;
(b) the questions on all remaining stages be put at 2 pm; and
(c) paragraph (b) operate as a limitation on debate under standing order 142.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government does not support the motion. We're delivering on our commitment to establish a Commonwealth Integrity Commission and the government has conducted a nation-wide consultation process on draft legislation for the CRC. This is significant legislation that we must get right so that Australians can have confidence that the commission will operate effectively.
The CRC will be essential to ensuring the integrity of our public sector, our government and our elected officials. It's essential for the functioning of Australia's government that we are methodical, consultive and thorough in our approach to developing this legislation.
The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1284, standing in the names of Senator Patrick and others, be agreed to.
I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Water, by 9 am on Wednesday, 1 December 2021, the report of the second independent review of the Water for the Environment Special Account.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The report of the second independent review of the Water for the Environment Special Account is due by late 2021, will be tabled on completion and will be made publicly available. Work is well underway to finalise it.
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senator Whish-Wilson, I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 1279.
Leave is granted.
I move the motion as amended:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, by no later than midday on Thursday, 2 December 2021, the report of the 2021 review of the Australian Packaging Covenant and National Environment Protection (Used Packaging Materials) Measure 2011.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government has already committed to publishing the report before the end of the year and we will be doing so.
Question agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senator Waters, move:
(1) That the Senate notes that:
(a) the legislative power of the Commonwealth is vested in a Federal Parliament;
(b) this power is exercised through a vote in each chamber of the Parliament;
(c) a senator can influence the outcome of a vote by sitting on the 'yes' or 'no' side of the Senate chamber, by having themselves paired, or by being absent from the vote;
(d) pairing, which is not publicly recorded, masks if a senator is paired as a 'yes' or 'no' and this situation is exacerbated with other parties and independents who have no-one present in the chamber for the vote or if a senator decided to abstain (including a senator who decides to abstain in contrast to their party's vote or a senator who had indicated publicly they will vote in a particular way and then changes their mind);
(e) only Government and Opposition parties are aware of pairing arrangements, with votes being taken without other parties and independent senators being informed or appraised of how individual senators are paired; and
(f) every Australian has the right to see how each of their Senate representatives has influenced the outcome of a vote.
(2) That all parties and independent senators be included in the existing whips pairing sheet arrangements.
(3) That this matter be referred to the Procedure Committee for inquiry and report by 2 December 2021.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government does not support this motion; however, it should be noted that pairs exist solely as a matter of convention and, as noted in Odgers Australian Senate Practice, are an entirely informal arrangement between the parties and are not part of the procedures of the Senate.
Question agreed to.
The Senate will now proceed to the consideration of a condolence motion relating to the late Senator Alex Gallacher. I call the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate expresses its sadness at the death, on 29 August 2021, of Senator Alexander McEachian Gallacher, Senator for South Australia, places on record its gratitude for his service to the Parliament and the nation, and tenders its deep sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
I acknowledge the courtesy extended by the government in having the opposition move this motion and for the adjournment after the conclusion of the condolence.
I express the opposition's condolences and our grief following the passing of our colleague and friend Senator Alex Gallacher. My thoughts are with Paola and all of Alex's family, his staff and his comrades at the Transport Workers Union.
As Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I have spoken on the passing of a number of former senators and ministers over the last few years, from all sides of politics. But it is an acutely sad duty to eulogise a colleague who just a few short months ago sat here amongst us in this chamber. I know many of my colleagues here miss him dearly.
We knew Alex had cancer. He once told us that, in response to someone asking him how he was, he replied, 'How do you think I am? I'm dying of cancer!' Yet despite his frankness, it is still hard to confront the reality that he is gone—that his determination in the face of adversity was not enough to defeat the disease that ended his life on 29 August. The fact we knew of his fragile health did not make the news of his passing any easier.
Despite his illness, Alex was determined to remain a senator. Even after his diagnosis was announced in January 2020, he continued to work as much as he was able to. Alex joined us and participated in the sittings of the Senate in Canberra as recently as June this year. The determination he demonstrated in doing so was a hallmark of the way he conducted himself throughout his life.
Alex Gallacher never forgot the workers he was elected to represent. In his first speech, he said:
I will strive to be true to the Labor values of a fair go and a better chance for all. It is my belief that the Labor Party is the only party that provides all Australians a greater share of the prosperity of this great nation.
At every opportunity, he brought the Senate's attention to those people who are at the heart of what it means to represent the Australian Labor Party, especially in the transport industry. Australian workers across this country are better off for his advocacy and his commitment.
Born on New Year's Day in 1954, Senator Alex Gallacher's early life was peripatetic. As a child, he went from Scotland to England, back to Scotland, then to Wales and again to England. The youngest of five, his mother died when he was two; he was cared for by his grandmother before his father remarried. These were not easy years—his stepmother and her two children later left his father—and Alex felt the impact of poverty, insecure work and inadequate housing. He channelled those experiences into a life of fighting for those who needed an advocate, those who did not have the capacity to speak up for themselves.
In 1966, at the age of 12, he made the long journey to Darwin. He would call the Northern Territory home for the best part of the next 30 years, before his final migration south to Adelaide in 2011. It was in Darwin that Alex began another journey—one that would eventually take him to the Senate—from transport worker to union official, and it was there that his two children, Caroline and Ian, were born. In time they were joined by Terry and Frank, and he married Paola in 2011.
Family was always very important to Alex, and he to them. Later in life he was delighted as his family grew with the addition of grandchildren, and he delighted in their company when they joined him on the golf course. It was very moving, at the wake, after the funeral, to see his grandchildren speaking of him.
Alex Gallacher worked in the transport and aviation industries before becoming an official of the Transport Workers Union and serving as secretary of the South Australian and Northern Territory branch as well as vice-president and president of the national branch of that union. He brought to the union the direct experience of being a truck driver and an aviation ramp operator. His influence and impact run deep in the union, illustrated by the tributes paid to his efforts over decades. He was described as 'straight-talking, no-nonsense and hardworking', a reliable advocate for workers in the transport industry who wanted the best for working people. He wanted to lift standards in the transport industry, understanding as he did that safety in the workplace and recognition of the dangers inherent in many of the jobs in that sector were critical to improving the lives and prospects of workers.
Whilst he was always happy to be clear about which side of the debate he was on, Alex was also a strategic thinker, and he was someone who could build relationships and see another's perspective, too—even if it was one with which he disagreed. He helped to build the union, ensuring that it was strong and on a secure financial base—a vital legacy through a time of considerable industrial change in the 1990s and 2000s. It is a fitting tribute that his name will live on through the Alex Gallacher Training Centre at the union's offices in Adelaide. And it is a good thing that the facility was named before he passed so that he could appreciate being recognised in this way by his comrades. After some initial reservations—which probably reflected his humility—it was a source of immense pride to him.
After more than two decades of service to the union, Alex was elected to represent our state of South Australia in the Senate in 2010, taking his seat on 1 July 2011. He was subsequently re-elected in 2016 and 2019. And whilst he may have left employment with the union, he used his platform to amplify the issues on which he had been campaigning throughout his life in the labour movement. He campaigned on superannuation and road safety in particular. Alex was the founder of Parliamentary Friends of Road Safety and he also served as deputy chair of the Joint Select Committee on Road Safety. In this work, he and his colleague Glenn Sterle put the safety of the people he represented for so many decades at the forefront of their political campaigning, and there is no doubt that this work saved lives.
He served on a number of other committees, including as chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and Economics References committees. To these roles he brought forensic skills that ensured that ministers and bureaucrats couldn't slip anything past him. And always, Senator Alex Gallacher stood up for those who needed someone to be their voice in this place, from those affected by road trauma to people with disability to veterans. He stood up for his state, and he stood up for South Australian workers, including in the manufacturing and defence industries.
Alex was also not afraid to take policy stances—such as those in support of the nuclear industry and oil and gas exploration in the Great Australian Bight—that were at odds with others in his own party. In fact, Alex and I were often on different sides on an issue. But he was forthright, but he was also honest and upfront. And he was as tough in negotiating a policy issue as he was in his battle with cancer, and in both he was equally dignified.
I remember a few personal conversations with Alex towards the end, and I remember the cracks of vulnerability appearing in his normally stoic presentation. The rarity of them made them all the more moving. I hope he knew then that the contribution he would leave is lasting. And just as lasting is the affection of those who cared for him.
Indeed, one of the most enduring friendships I've witnessed in my time here is that which Alex shared with Senator Glenn Sterle. It's a friendship between two mates that lasted a quarter of a century, from their days as union officials together. It's a measure of the strength of this relationship that Senator Sterle was invited by the family to deliver a eulogy at Alex's funeral and was entrusted with the responsibility of speaking about Alex's early life as well as his union and parliamentary career.
Alex and Glenn lived with each other here in Canberra for nearly a decade, where they enjoyed Fiona's Sunday night dinners—as Senator Sterle says, as family. They travelled together often for parliamentary work both within Australia and, on occasion, overseas. In his tribute, Senator Sterle spoke of his friend who had a rough exterior but was generous and welcoming, and had one of the sharpest minds in the parliament, a champion of common sense and fairness. So, Sterlie, our thoughts continue to be with you and Fiona at this time.
One thing amongst many that Alex and Glenn share is they never forgot where they came from. Alex channelled the values forged in a difficult upbringing into his relentless support for the underdog. Woe betide any boss he found undermining the rights of his workers. But beneath that formidable exterior beat a loyal heart. While this guided his work, it also radiated in his life, in his friendships in this place, his comradeship with those in the labour movement and, most especially, in his love for his family. He brought a positive attitude even as he dealt with the challenge of cancer, maintaining his determination all the way.
Senator Gallacher was a Labor champion and deserves to be remembered as someone who never relented in his pursuit of a fair go for others. As Anthony Albanese said, 'We in Labor are very proud of Alex.' We mourn the loss of our colleague. I close by again extending my sympathies to his family, his beloved wife, Paola, his children and grandchildren, and his friends and my colleagues in their grief.
Today we pause to reflect upon and remember the life of a colleague for each of us, a friend across this chamber and a Labor man truly reflective of the great old-style tradition of Labor Party advocates. Alex Gallacher, the former senator for South Australia, in August this year tragically lost his hard-fought battle with cancer. Alex was a Senate colleague and fellow South Australian senator in this place for over 10 years. We remember Alex as a straight shooter, a man with whom you knew where you stood, what he believed and what he was here to do. He was here to advocate for and improve the lives of working people, and that is what he fought to do right to the very end.
Senator Gallacher delivered his first speech to this place in 2011. In his remarks he committed to be true to the Labor values of a fair go and a better chance for all, to repay the faith put in him by the Labor voters of South Australia, by his party and his colleagues, to deliver a greater share of the prosperity of this great nation to all Australians, especially hardworking Australians. In the 10 years that followed, Alex remained loyal to his word and strived to be true to his Labor values. In his final speech to this place Alex was continuing exactly as he had started: advocating for the workers of this country to get a better share, as he saw it, of the national income. While we take this opportunity now to reflect on his life and the significant contributions he made to this nation, we lament the loss of a good man and a strong voice for Australian workers.
Upon election to the Senate, Alex immediately got to work on championing three key policy interests: the transport industry, road safety and superannuation. The root of his passion for these causes came from his journey that led him all the way to serve in this our nation's parliament. The son of Scottish migrants, Alex Gallacher was born in the coalmining village of New Cumnock, Scotland, in 1954. Whilst he may have been born a Scot and remained proud of his heritage, Alex made Australia home and, in every aspect, the key part and home for his life.
As Senator Wong has said, at age 12 he made the move across to Australia. Like so many migrants, his family sought a better chance for themselves. In their case, they moved to the Northern Territory. It was here that Alex would undertake his schooling at Darwin High School. In 1971 he started work as a labourer and truck driver, before commencing work as an airline ramp services operator from 1976 through to 1988. Alex, through his 'roll the sleeves up' work was truly proud of his old-school Labor mould, having been a traditional blue-collar working-class man. His background proudly added to the diversity of this place. It was in 1988 that he made what would be a defining step in his journey, ultimately leading to the Senate, by joining the Northern Territory branch of the Australian Labor Party and then, later in 1994, the South Australian branch.
For 22 years he worked in several roles for the Transport Workers Union in the Northern Territory and South Australia, taking on an initial role as industrial relations officer. He would later move into various leadership roles within the TWU, culminating in his rise to president from 2007 until 2010, when he was first elected to the Senate. Alex also served as a commissioner for the National Road Transport Commission and as a director of the South Australian Motor Accident Commission. He took his love for the transport sector and brought it into this place, particularly his staunch advocacy for road safety and his pointed interest in the rights of workers in the aviation industry.
As a fellow South Australian, I also fondly remember Alex for his genuine interest in rural and remote South Australia. He undertook important work with great passion and care on the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport. As the member for Grey put it in the other place, 'Wheels on the road is what keeps our remote communities going,' and few understood that better than Alex Gallacher. He dedicated a significant amount of work to parliamentary committees, serving on 23 different committees during his time in the Australian parliament. Despite his cancer diagnosis in December 2019, Alex continued to represent the people of South Australia, the Labor Party, the trade union movement and his constituents with diligence and passion. Notwithstanding his battle with cancer, Alex focused his parliamentary service on those he served, not himself, earning great admiration and respect right across the political divide.
Alex was at heart, as Senator Wong acknowledged, a true family man, a quality I and I'm sure all admired in him. It was his family from whom he sought advice and stability. More than that, Alex credited his wife, Paola, with ensuring the important things in life. Family, children and grandchildren were always front and centre. Paola was, as Alex endearingly described her, his tower of strength. In his own words, she made him a better person by holding up the values of humility and respect for others that Alex rightly considered necessary for making an effective contribution to this place.
To conclude some of my remarks on Alex's service, I want to borrow the same Theodore Roosevelt quotation that Alex concluded in his first address in this place:
Far and away the best prize life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.
Alex carried the spirit of this quotation throughout his life. He embodied it in his work ethic, especially his work in this place, and his commitment and dedication to those he sought to serve. For that, we thank him for his service and acknowledge the significant contribution and differences that he made.
To those who believe that politics is a friendless profession, Alex proved the opposite. His SA party comrade Don Farrell and, perhaps more so and more particularly in a special way, as Senator Wong has acknowledged, his fellow former TWU leader Glenn Sterle were always obviously great mates. Alex and Sterlo moved almost as one, it seemed at times, backing each other in to pack an even bigger punch in the views that they expressed and the issues they fought for. To Sterlo: those on this side of the chamber acknowledge the particular loss that you feel of your great mate. Alex made friends and earned respect across unions, across factions and across parties because of his roll-the-sleeves-up and get-the-job-done type of attitude.
To Paola and to Alex's four children, Caroline, Ian, Terry and Frank, and to his grandchildren, all of whom meant so much to him, I extend our sincerest condolences on behalf of the Australian government and no doubt on behalf of all senators. I thank the Senate.
I rise to associate the Australian Greens with the remarks that have been made by Senator Wong and Senator Birmingham. Former senator Alex Gallacher came into the Senate at the same time as I did. I regret that, in that time, I did not get to know him better. What did always strike me about Alex was that, whilst he was a man of few words, he was a man of strong convictions, of determination and of quiet passion. In his first speech he said that all Australians want a better environment and a greater opportunity for those who come after them, and he worked towards that goal during his time in this place. He did that tirelessly in his work on many committees, of which voice has already been given.
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, he was an employee of transport companies, both as a truck driver and ramp operator for Trans Australia Airlines. He joined the TWU and climbed through its ranks in the 1990s and 2000s. He was the TWU secretary from 2007 until his appointment to the Senate in 2011. His passion for workers' rights and workers' safety was clear, and he continued to advocate for reforms that would tilt the balance away from freight owners and back towards workers. He wanted better regulation for workers' safety. With all the challenges that COVID has imposed on logistics and transport, his advocacy in this crucial time will be sorely missed.
Along with the difficulties that COVID has presented, remote parliament has provided some welcome flexibility. It allowed Senator Gallacher to participate during his treatment and stay connected to the work that he so dearly loved. Remote parliament also offered an insight into people's interests and passions, through what they display in their office, and Senator Gallacher became internet famous when he participated from his home office in his garage. It was an insight into a full life: a home office bursting at the seams with equipment, art pieces, photographs and cars. It showed a love of art, sport, travel and family. While his life was cut short, it was clear that it was a rich life well lived.
I would like to pay my particular condolences to Senator Sterle for the loss of his dear friend. We send our heartfelt condolences to all of Senator Gallacher's family, his friends, his staff, his Labor colleagues and everyone in this chamber who knew him.
On behalf of the National Party, I'd like to associate us with the comments around the chamber. Like Senator Waters, I started with former senator Alex Gallacher here back in 2011, and I served with him on the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, of which he was a longstanding and strong contributor, along with the deputy chair—'Sterlo', as we like to colloquially call him.
Senator Gallacher's presence here was very influential. He knew what he stood for, and that was the old-school Labor mould. He was determined to make a difference for the working class men and women of Australia. His grit and determination to make a positive change for transport workers and truck drivers across the nation was limitless. He fought for the rights of hardworking Australians. After 22 years of advocating across different unions, his desire to make a difference resulted in him serving here in the Senate. He pushed for improvements in road safety, to protect the truck drivers that connected Australians right across this nation, and his experience in the industry allowed him to push for the voice of those who were often silenced.
The life of a truck driver can be tough—working long hours, isolated and separated from loved ones. It's a job that not many of us can truly understand, but Alex did, and he spoke to what mattered to them most. He never lost that determination to improve their lives. He was Deputy Chair of the Joint Select Committee on Road Safety and also an outspoken member of the Public Works Committee, which saw him oversee a lot of infrastructure projects that also contributed to positive outcomes for those in the trucking industry.
His passionate endorsement for a fair go and a better chance for all went beyond truck drivers. He fought for what he believed was the best interests of all South Australians, and so we often clashed on water. He was driven by the vision of all Australians having access to fair and secure jobs, and this included equitable pay and working conditions. He did stand against the crowd, and I think Senator Wong mentioned that it didn't matter which crowd you were in—if you were in the Liberal Party or the National Party. He definitely wasn't a fan of the Greens and sometimes not a great fan of some of the Labor Party policies, but that is a man of conviction and integrity, too often rare in this line of work these days.
He also understood the importance of connecting Australians to the regions. In his first speech—and this quote has already been used today—he said:
I firmly believe that all Australians want a better environment and a greater opportunity for those who come after them and I will endeavour to fulfil that obligation in my role here in the Senate.
I absolutely believe Alex did that.
He'll always be admired by all as a hardworking straight shooter who had the best interests of all at heart. My former colleague Senator John 'Wacka' Williams recalls him as a good bloke with a kind nature and always up for a laugh, particularly when he teamed up with his good friend Glenn Sterle and caused a bit of havoc on some of those road trips that the RRAT committee was wont to do.
Just briefly, on Alex's relationship with Senator Sterle: it didn't matter whether they were sharing a wine or a walk, those two were absolutely inseparable. During some of those late-night debates in this chamber that we used to have, when we made ourselves stay here till the wee hours, they'd be like those two old guys on the Muppets, commentating, particularly on Nick Xenophon at times.
Wacka also remembers his time working with Senator Gallacher and praised his dedication to improving safety within the trucking industry.
A husband, brother, father, grandfather and advocate, Alex was respected and loved and admired by all those who knew him. We thank him for his 10 years of service in this place, and our sympathies are with his family and friends.
STERLE () (): [by video link] President Brockman, thank you very much, and congratulations on your ascension to the highest office in the land, on our side, this chamber, and I congratulate you.
I want to thank all the previous speakers—my Senate colleagues—for your kind words. There were never truer words spoken. And, yes, Senator McKenzie, we were often referred to as the Statler and Waldorf of the Senate. We thought that was quite funny, because even we thought we looked like Statler and Waldorf!
But I want to take the opportunity to thank the over 80 individuals who contacted me on that terrible day in August, the 29th, when we lost Alex, and the subsequent day, after, when the news broke, who sent their best wishes to me. I thank you very much for that.
Alex and I, as you know, go back many, many years. We first met in the early nineties. Alex was a brash, older official of the South Australia and Northern Territory branch of the Transport Workers Union; I was the younger brash official of the Western Australia branch of the Transport Workers Union. We were summoned to, I think it was, an ACTU get-together, a love-in, in Wagga Wagga. I still don't remember, to this day, what it was actually about—it was that long ago. But, on the way over, the Western Australians had had a difference of opinion in the car, and we thought we might have disgraced our branch if the news broke of the disagreement. There was the odd black eye, and someone had a scratch on their cheek. Anyway, the rest is history. It was the nineties, and it was the Transport Workers Union. But all was forgiven when we got to Wagga Wagga on the Friday night, prior to the start of the conference, because we'd found out that some brash young South Australia and Northern Territory organiser had knocked out the secretary of the branch and taken over the reins. I always thanked Alex for that; he took the pressure off us. That was the sort of bloke that Alex was. He was a no-nonsense, no-mucking-around, straight-to-the-point guy. I don't condone that behaviour nowadays, but it was nearly 30 years ago. Thankfully, things have changed.
As you all know, and you have heard, Alex lived with Fiona and me in Canberra for the last 10 years. To this day I miss, and I'm going to miss, Alex's nightly lectures on what I should be doing because my health choices and my dietary choices were wrong, even though, after a few, he'd be exactly the same—after a few quiet wines or a few quiet beers. As Senator Wong said, Sunday night was family night, when we had some normality in our life. When Fiona and I would come across from Perth and we would go up the stairs to our unit, sure enough—as you know, Senator Wong, the South Australian flight gets in before the Perth flight—the light would be on, and I'd say to Fiona, 'Oh well, Mr Happy's here—beauty.' Bottom dollar, we'd open the door, in the middle of winter, and he'd have all the windows open—sure enough.
But we had so many good nights, so many good times. Alex and I shared many, many common interests, apart from our love of the Transport Workers Union and apart from our commitment to the Australian Labor Party and their values. But, like me, Alex also had the strongest love of family. To Alex, family was everything. Alex always spoke lovingly and endearingly of Paola, who he used to refer to as 'the boss', and we knew who he meant! But also, as much as Paola had the same amount of energy and love, it was always centred around Caroline and Ian, and, of course, their extended family of Frank and Terry, and never, ever did Alex miss an opportunity to talk about Lachie and Connor up in Darwin and Mia down in Adelaide.
Alex's other loves, which he and I both shared together—because we were inseparable—were our love of golf and our love of a quiet beer or a cider or a wine together and with anyone else who cared to join us, but also to have the odd 50c each way on the odd nag every Saturday at any opportunity. Alex and I would sometimes combine those passions. We'd stay over in Canberra—Alex always kept his car over here—and, after our sittings, Alex and I would pack up and bolt off to play golf. And many, many, many times—every time we played—Alex wanted a dollar on it, or $100 or it, or, if I was lucky enough, I'd get away with $10 each way. We'd bet on golf, and we'd bet on anything. One day I had an opportunity when Alex and I were having a weekend game of golf, and this sits proudly on the bar in my games room at my home in Perth: there's a golf scorecard, and there's a $10 note and there's a golf ball. Alex wanted $100 on the front nine, $100 on the back nine and $100 overall. And I said: 'Alex, knock it off. I'll go you 10 on the front, 10 on the back and 10 overall.' To cut a long story short, the only way I could win on the last hole, which was a par 3, was that Alex had to wipe the hole—we were playing Stableford—and I had to get a hole in one. I'm happy to say I got the hole in one and he wiped, and he never, ever forgave me. He wanted that $10 back. So, Alex, I thank you for that, mate!
But I also want to talk about Alex Gallacher my mate. As we heard earlier, have heard before and will continue to hear, Alex was an absolute champion of the underdog, champion of working men and women and champion of those who didn't have a voice. Alex never saw black and white or Left and Right. Alex was there if you needed a mate and if you needed someone solid. If he was on your side, you knew you couldn't wish for a better mate in your corner—and not at your back but at your shoulder. Many, many times Alex and I had locked in on conversations and positions, and we may have argued them and we may have had disagreements. But with Alex—and this goes for everyone—you had the opportunity to work your way through it, put your case to him and, if your case proved to be the one that he could accept, he would back you in all the way. Nothing changed with Alex.
It's a well-known fact that I like to shoot off to Bali and play golf with my mates in the Christmas break, and it came to the point where in late 2019 I was planning the usual January trip to Bali. Alex had come across the year before with Paola and the family, and he'd joined me for a couple of games of golf with my mates. I'd said to Alex in late '19, 'Come and join us in Bali.' At the time Alex and Paola were building their beautiful new home, and he said: 'I've got to stay home. I've got to get the house built.' I said: 'Alright, mate; no worries.' And, unbeknownst to me, Fiona and the kids had surprised me with a special 60th birthday present: they were coming to Bali—shock, horror! It was fantastic! They came over and stayed for five days, and we had a great time. Then they left, and my mates were coming so that we could spend 10 days playing golf.
Fiona and I and my son Daniel were sitting in a beachside bar on this beautiful sunny day in Bali, one day in the first week, and the phone rang. It was Alex, but I missed the call. This was probably in the first week of January. I said to Fiona: 'That's Alex. I'll give him a call back.' I missed him, but I left a quick message saying: 'Buzz me back.' I sort of thought: 'Oh, you beauty; Alex has changed his mind and he's going to come up and play some golf with us.' And then Alex rang me straight back—this all happened in about three or four minutes—and I said to him, 'Hey, Alex, Bali bagus! Get your backside up here, mate!' to which he said to me: 'Glenn, I've got cancer.' Well, my world dropped. My heart dropped. Fiona and I were just absolutely stunned. I said to him, 'Mate, how is it?' and Alex, being Alex, said, 'Oh, yeah, you know—it's up to the doctors now.' I said, 'Alex, how is it, mate?' and he said, 'Nah, she'll be right.'
I stewed overnight. I hardly slept. I said to Fiona the next day, 'I haven't got the answer; I've got to ring him back.' I rang him back. He said, 'I'm at Bunnings.' I said, 'That's great, but how is it?' He said, 'It's not good.' I think, now, that every opportunity you get to spend time with loved ones and friends—grab it with two hands, because you don't realise how quick it can go. I looked up to Alex, even when he was lecturing me and telling me that I needed to go tell Albo or Penny, 'This is not right,' and I needed to back him. You've got to love the man. By God I miss him. I absolutely do miss him. We've been through thick and thin together.
His passion for road safety in this nation, and for industry and superannuation, was unquestionable. Nobody could hold a candle to Alex when you were discussing road safety, superannuation or worker's rights. You could try—good luck! I suppose our friendship lasted so long mainly because we agreed on everything! I always think back to that brash young South Australian organiser and the brash young Western Australian one, and I think I probably didn't fancy a bop on the nose, either, if it got that bad! Not that he ever would—he was a great mate.
I want to share a couple of stories. I won't take all that long. I do apologise to my colleagues on the Labor side, because Alex and I were the ones, along with former Senator Gavin Marshall after Hoggy left the place, who had to do the barbecues. We used to put on the aprons, and our shorts and thongs, and off we'd go and barbie. The Libs can laugh as much as they like, because they were doing the same on the other side in their shorts and thongs. Fiona was always very clear to pass on the word from the whips: do not mix up the meat with the vegetarian or vegan stuff. I won't use the same language, but Senator Gallacher said to me, 'What is the difference?' And I said, 'Alex, I don't know, but you can't mix them up.' Alex said to me, 'If I don't eat meat twice a day, I think I'm turning vegetarian.' To my colleagues: I did my best, trust me, but even I got them mixed up after a while, because I don't know what Alex had got up to. No-one suffered any injury or loss, so he got away with that one.
I want to share another story quickly before I read some words from other people. As Senator Wong said, Alex and I had the privilege of travelling together with the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee—along with you, Senator Brockman, a long-time member of our great committee. We got to share a lot of fun times and meet a lot of good people. Alex and I had the opportunity to be in Geneva together on a couple of occasions. There, he said that he wanted to buy the kids something from Geneva. He worked out something for Lachie and for Connor, and I said, 'What are you going to get for Mia?' He said. 'I've got no idea.' I said, 'Look around, mate. What are we surrounded by?' He said, 'Mountains.' I said: 'Yeah, apart from mountains, what are we surrounded by? Clocks. What little girl wouldn't love a cuckoo clock?' He said, 'Right, we're going to get a cuckoo clock.' We jumped on the tram and I tagged along to make the pair look even brighter, and to cut a long story short he bought the cuckoo clock and set it up in Mia's room at Alex's place. I used to stay in the spare room every time we were in Adelaide doing hearings, and I have to tell you, I wish to heck I had never opened my big mouth, because every hour on the hour while sleeping in the spare room, I could have choked that wooden cuckoo as it kept going off!
There are many stories about Alex, and I'll carry them to my grave. I'm going to miss you, mate. I'm really going to miss you. With the Senate's indulgence, I want to take the opportunity to read some words that other people wrote about Alex and wanted me to pass on. The first one is from Matthew Marozzi. Those of us on the Labor side know who Matthew is. He said:
When I first started working for Alex, I thought my journey with him would only be a short one. It was a shock to my system. It took around six months for Alex to warm to me, and I'm thankful for that first road trip into the Eyre Peninsula where he got to know me personally and the reason why I'm in the Labor Party. It was an understanding of shared values and knowing he could trust me. We then formed a strong working relationship due to many long parliamentary sitting nights, travel for committees, travel in regional SA, and our passion for fighting for working Australians. The bond became more than just professional, and we became friends. I was probably one of his most trusted confidants, and he was mine too.
I lost my father at the age of 18 due to the same cancer that took Alex, and, in that time, Alex truly became a father figure to me. Alex and Paola were like an additional family to me, something I will cherish forever. In fact, our office became family too, we were all long-term staffers loyal to Alex, and he was loyal to us nowing that our office of Alex, Peter, Suzie, Brendon, Pauline, and myself will never be together again also deeply saddens me.
I will forever remember and cherish the warm moments with Alex because if you received those moments, you truly knew that you were in his inner circle. I'm forever grateful for the ten years we had, and I'll forever remember those days as the good old days, which I know will never be replicated. He always had my best interest at heart, and it wasn't just about work but life as well. I will be forever indebted for his constant life advice, which well and truly showed he had my best interest at heart.
I miss my boss dearly, but also my friend, ally, mentor, and father figure. The impact he had on me will live with me for the rest of my life, and I'm proud to have been his loyal staffer and friend. I will miss him!
Rest in peace Alex, and we'll meet again.
Just in closing, I have one more set of words I would like to read from a very, very dear friend of Alex, and a person I consider a friend too. His name is Peter Garske and he writes:
The passing of Alex Gallacher, South Australian ALP Senator, aged 67, has left both myself and my wife Anne with a deep sadness.
Our friendship over 27 years was built on our understanding of his many qualities. Family was always a priority from which all of lifes activities flowed.
Alex was a lifelong achiever but always open to new learnings. He had a great vision and could see things anew/differently to others. When he was elected to the Senate in 2010 nothing changed in Alex. This transition in his life was another opportunity to support and assist those in the community with the greatest need.
He had an exceptional mind for quickly grasping new concepts. Those who knew him well knew he was the smartest man in the room—
may I add also, Alex thought he was the smartest man in the room too, and so did we most of the time—
He had an exceptionally strong social justice ethic but always with a pragmatic outlook. He was unafraid to call out his own colleagues—
and believe me, colleagues, I've been on the receiving end more than you have!—
Alex never looked to impress anyone. He was his own man with a strong sense of loyalty. He was a great judge of character.
Highlights of his life included his contribution to Family, to the Road Freight/Trucking Industry, to Industrial Relations, to Industry Superannuation Funds, and to the Australian Senate. He had a passion for golf.
Condolences to his wife Paola, his four adult children, his wider Scottish and Italian Families and his many friends.
He will be missed.
Thank you very much, Peter.
To the Senate on this condolence motion, I say: rest in peace, mate.
enator RUSTON (—) (): Many go through this place and they are remembered for a myriad of reasons. They may have risen to high office as ministers or leaders of parties. They may have courted a controversy or they may well have got into trouble. They may well have bestowed their views on Sky after dark or the ABC but that wasn't Alex. Alex made his mark and will be remembered here for two reasons. One is because he was a damn good bloke, and the other one is that no matter how long he was here he never stopped fighting for the people that sent him here and the people that he believed in, that is, the hardworking Australians. Alex also never really played politics. He made sure everything that he did in this place was about playing the issue. The way he went about his job here—I can only say I have the utmost respect for him and the way he conducted himself.
Like Senator McKenzie, I have very fond memories of the first committee that I sat on, being the rural and regional affairs committee. Alex and you, Sterlo, were both on that committee and we worked closely together. When we worked together on that committee you could have been excused for thinking that there were no politics or sides of politics, because everybody on that committee just wanted to get the right outcome for rural and regional Australia. I'll acknowledge the fact that Senator Gallacher really understood rural and regional Australia—and you do too, Senator Sterle. It's funny that you should have raised the names 'Statler and Waldorf'. I've often thought of the pair of you as that—a couple of cantankerous old fellas who used to sit on the other side of the chamber giving us on this side of the chamber great cause for mirth, because you were giving your own side as much grief as you were giving us! There was great pleasure in watching that all go down.
Senator Sterle, you and Alex were a couple of peas in a pod, in the old-school mould—you loved a game of golf, you loved a punt and you loved a glass of wine. Hilariously, though, for all the love of golf that Alex had, I still remember the last time I saw him on the golf course. He wasn't much of a golfer but, by God, he enjoyed giving it a red-hot go.
At the last election I can remember Alex decided he wanted to have a bet with me. He said, 'Rusty'—that's what he always called me; I don't think I was ever called 'Senator Anne' or anything like that—'what about a bet on who gets elected first?' I said: 'Okay. You're on.' I'm pleased to say that the bottle of red wine that he gave me after he lost that bet was consumed with great pleasure. It was a great South Australian red wine. He hugely supported his own community, including making sure that he consumed as much great South Australian red wine as he was possibly able to, which is something that I'm sure all South Australians in this chamber aspire to.
I, sadly, was not able to make Alex's funeral, because of the quarantine arrangements that existed at the time. I would have loved to have been there because, to me, Alex wasn't a member of the Labor Party; to me, Alex was a friend. I didn't see him as a political rival; I saw him as a friend. I'm delighted today to be able to put my condolences on the record. I extend my condolences to Paola, to Alex's children—Caroline, Ian, Terry and Frank—and to all of his grandchildren. It's a great loss for this place and a great loss for South Australia. Obviously, it is a terrible loss to Alex's family. Please remember that Alex was one of the great people who have gone through this place. He will be remembered because he made a difference. He will be remembered because he was a great bloke.
I rise to speak on this condolence motion for former South Australian senator Alex Gallacher. I begin by expressing my sympathy and condolences to Alex's family. In particular, I offer my sympathies to Alex's wife, Paola; his daughter, Caroline; his son, Ian; and his stepsons, Terry and Frank. My condolences also go to his daughter-in-law, Seonaid; grandsons, Connor, Lachlan and Jari; and his granddaughter, Mia. Alex, sadly, passed away earlier this year after a long battle with lung cancer. I know he is greatly missed by his family and friends. He'll certainly be missed in this place for all of the reasons previous speakers have mentioned.
Alex was born on 1 January 1954 in New Cumnock in Scotland. He was a New Year's Day baby. Alex's family moved to Australia in 1966. After leaving school he worked as a labourer and truck driver. He ended up getting a job as a ramp service operator with TAA, as it was known then. Alex joined the Transport Workers Union in 1975. That was the start of many years of passionate and dedicated service fighting for the rights and conditions of transport workers in Australia. Senator Sterle very humorously went through some occasions of his work during that time. Alex held the positions of industrial officer, organiser and state secretary in the TWU's South Australian and Northern Territory branch. Later he served as the federal vice-president and president.
I joined the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association in 1976, not that long ago, a year after Alex joined the Transport Workers Union. We shared many years working in and leading the two strongest unions in South Australia. We developed strong ties and a close working relationship between our unions. Those close ties delivered better pay and conditions for retail and Transport Workers Union members in South Australia. They also helped to deliver 31 years of stable, centrist Labor state governments in South Australia between 1975 and 2018. It was a great privilege working closely with Alex, the labour movement and the Labor Party in South Australia for many years. I know our state will be better off for his efforts.
In 1988 Alex joined the Labor Party and he joined the Right faction of the Labor Party. That's 'right' as in 'Right' and 'right' as in 'correct'. After we helped him win an election for the position of state secretary, my very good friend David Feeney, a former senator in this place, came over from Melbourne to run the campaign, and it was one of those great union election campaigns.
Alex served as a delegate at both state council and ALP national conference and he won preselection for the Senate spot on Labor's South Australian Senate ticket prior to the 2010 federal election. He replaced his very good friend Annette Hurley and he was very close to her husband, Bob. Bob used to do all the computer work for the Transport Workers Union in South Australia.
Alex was elected to an initial term, beginning on 1 July 2011, and re-elected in the 2016 and 2019 federal elections. Throughout his working life, Alex remained committed to advocating for a safer workplace with better conditions and fair pay for those working in the Australian transport industry. In his maiden speech, Alex listed transport, road safety and superannuation as his three priority interests, and he pursued those issues throughout his time in the parliament, which I will talk more about later.
In that first speech, Alex also raised his concerns over the impact of the carbon tax on road transport and called for self-employed drivers to be compensated for any negative impacts. He later warned against the ALP becoming a captive to the new green agenda. The need to find a balance between action on climate change and the jobs of Australian workers was something he understood from the start.
Alex was a tireless, hardworking contributor to the parliamentary work schedule. You often hear people lament the fact that question time gets all the attention while all the real work is done through the parliamentary committees. Alex contributed as much to that important work as anyone. I won't list all of his committee work, because Alex really was one of the hardest workers through the committee system that this place has seen. We would be here for a very long time if I was to list all of his service, but I'll mention a few to remind everyone just how hard he worked and the scope of his contributions.
In 2015, Alex chaired the Select Committee on the Recent Allegations relating to Conditions and Circumstances at the Regional Processing Centre in Nauru. He also twice chaired the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, between 2014 and 2019, and was chair of the Economics References Committee from June 2020 to May 2021. In addition, Alex served as deputy chair of several committees, including the Economics Legislation Committee. Alex was very diligent in his committee roles and was a respected and even-handed chair.
I think it would be true to say that one of the committee roles he was most proud of was his involvement in the two joint select committees on road safety. As I mentioned earlier, Alex remained committed to delivering safe workplaces and better working conditions for transport workers. Through his work on the road safety committee, Alex continued to pursue improved road safety not just for transport workers but for all Australians. Alex was deputy chair of the second Joint Select Committee on Road Safety from June 2020 until November 2020. I want to highlight that because I think it perfectly illustrates Alex's commitment to his responsibility as an elected representative in the Australian parliament.
Despite the obvious challenges presented by his illness, Alex continued to contribute to our nation's parliament. He followed through on things he'd committed to, even when things got very tough. He continued to contribute to debate via video link, even when his poor health and the COVID-19 pandemic made it impossible for him to get here in person. Alex's work ethic stands as a reminder that we're all privileged to be in this place and we have a responsibility to work tirelessly in the interests of the Australians who elected us and whom we represent.
Down to earth, hardworking and dedicated to what he believed in, Alex Gallacher was a great fighter for the rights and conditions of transport workers. Alex passionately pursued the interests of South Australians in the federal parliament and never forgot his working-class roots nor his Carlton Football Club. I again offer my condolences to his family, friends and colleagues. He'll be sadly missed.
I'll be brief. Sterlo, I'm glad you mentioned golf. The word 'golf' comes to mind when I think of Alex and the number of times on a plane from South Australia, the number of times during divisions and the number of times on committee trips that he would talk about golf, his favourite clubs, the things he'd played at et cetera. But it is the word 'gulf'—g-u-l-f—that I want to mention, in three contexts. The first is my first impression of Alex—the gulf between my impression and who he was. We were both elected in South Australia at the 2010 election. We were in the office of the Electoral Commission when they read out the various scripts that announced that we were going to be elected, and I couldn't help but wonder what a dreadful time I was going to have with this grumpy old bloke who seemed so unimpressed by this young Liberal that was in the same room with him. I couldn't have been further from the truth: he ended up being one of my closer colleagues in this place.
The Gulf of St Vincent and Spencer Gulf speak to me of Alex's love for South Australia, the remote and western regions of South Australia, where he spent a lot of time. Some of the most constructive work that I did with Alex was on the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee. We had a significant breakthrough at Port Augusta, at the top of the gulf, looking at how defence interacted with regional communities in terms of training areas and how they actually invested. It was a fantastic committee. As I said before, Alex was not political; Alex was concerned about outcomes. It was really useful to be able to work collaboratively and to actually extract from defence the fact that, when they said local, they meant anything in Australia as opposed to what came from overseas; whereas we thought local was Port Augusta and Port Pirie—the local towns and people who actually drove past the training ground. As a result of that committee, which Alex was the chair of, and the report of that committee, we have seen some significant reforms come about in how defence engages with local communities through its procurement. So there will be people around this nation—architects, builders, fencers, signwriters and all kinds of people—who will get work on defence projects because of that committee which Alex chaired.
The final gulf, I guess, goes to the perception that the Australian people have—the perception that parliament is a place which is all about antagonistic interaction between people just point-scoring, and the perception that you only ever have colleagues here; you don't have friends. Alex was a great example of the fact that, across the political divide, people often do work closer together and build good friendships for good outcomes for Australia. Rest in peace, Alex Gallacher.
I rise to contribute to the condolence motion for Senator Alex Gallacher. In doing so, I express my condolences to his wife, Paola, to his children, to his grandchildren and to his friends and colleagues here, particularly Senator Sterle and Senator Bilyk. It is never easy to watch somebody die of cancer—and 67 is far too young.
Of course, the COVID pandemic made it very difficult for Alex and for those who loved him. It made it exceptionally difficult for those of us who would have liked to have spent time with him, and I think, particularly, it's hard today for Senator Sterle and Senator Bilyk and so many of our colleagues who are remote and unable to participate in person in the chamber today. I am very grateful that we have the remote participation and the video links that allow that to happen. COVID has been really hard, and I think many of us have had experiences in the last year of losing someone. It's very difficult to say goodbye to someone when you can't be with them in person.
I think back to the day after the May 2019 election—that unexpected result we all had. As I was driving back to my house, I got a phone call. The first phone call I got from a colleague the day after the election was from Alex Gallacher, and he called to offer me his analysis on what had happened, to offer me his frank assessment that we had too many policies and to offer me his views on what we should do next, as a party and a movement. And, less than 12 hours from the loss, he was already charting our path to victory, to the next election.
To me, and to many of us—I think, all of us—the great tragedy of Alex's death this year is that he will not be with us next year, when we, hopefully, see a Labor government come to power. And when that happens—when that happens—the passion and the values and the policy sense and the commitment to working people that Alex Gallacher brought, not just to the job but, indeed, to his every interaction with his colleagues, on this side of the chamber and that side of the chamber, in his advocacy and in his committee work, will sit at the heart of the next Labor government. So the greatest testament that we, as Alex's colleagues, can pay to him is to ensure that a government that governs for the people he fought for, for the people he represented and for the values he espoused is the government of Australia.
Alex was a fierce warrior for working Australians, he was a dedicated family man and he was a dear friend to so many in this chamber. So many here today have already recounted his life and his journey. I think, as the shadow minister for immigration, one of the things that strikes me about Alex's family story is that it's one that so many Australian families can relate to, and that is: a decision to pack up and leave the country that they have known and called home and to come to Australia, seeking a better life, seeking more opportunity, seeking to build something new in this country. And, I dare say, Scotland's loss was Australia's gain when the Gallachers chose to relocate—first to the Northern Territory, where Alex began his career and spent much of his career in the seventies and eighties working as a labourer, a truck driver and finally as an airline ramp services operator with Trans Australia Airlines.
Now, those early jobs—they won't surprise anyone who saw Alex in this place. He was always immensely proud of his background. It always had an indelible impact on his politics. Those experiences, particularly in trucking and aviation, drew Alex to the Australian Labor Party and the trade union movement. He joined the Northern Territory branch of the Australian Labor Party and the Transport Workers Union in 1988. Through both the ALP and the TWU, Alex became a proud advocate for Australian workers, fighting endlessly for their rights and their pay and their conditions. He also served with distinction as the Commissioner for the National Road Transport Commission and as a director of the South Australian Motor Accident Commission.
A constant theme throughout his time, whether in the committee work, in parliamentary debates or in our caucus committees, in our caucus, was that he had a straight-talking approach and an affinity for ordinary Australians. He proudly fought for them because he was one of them, and rarely, if ever, did they have a better champion than they did in Alex. His work in this place was a testament to his humility. He always stayed true to those values of his early life and consistently advocated, with great pride and passion, the issues which impacted ordinary Australians.
Senator Farrell has done well in pointing to some of the key work that Alex did on committees. He served on 23 committees during his political career, including the Road Safety and Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport committees. One of the great challenges I had over the past few years, along with Senator Farrell, was to constantly have to check in with Senator Gallacher, to know if he was going to be able to make it into parliament or if he was going to be able to make committee hearings and what arrangements we needed to make. The thing that always struck me in those conversations is that he was generous. He wasn't territorial. He was honest and sometimes showed an extraordinary determination at times when I might have thought that the illness might have got the better of him—to come in here to do estimates, to do committee hearings. But he also was straightforward if he felt he couldn't do it, and generous in making sure his colleagues could step in—not without propriety.
One of the other challenges I sometimes faced with Senator Gallacher in our conversations was that he had a lot of views about motions, and sometimes he had a lot of views about the positions we were taking on certain motions—Senator Sterle is nodding his head on the screen; he knows of what I speak! The thing about that is that Alex was frank. He was direct. He sometimes kept me on my toes. He never took anything for granted, and he never took a backward step. What he was, at times, willing to do was to recognise that there was a forest and to see it for the trees. I make that point because, while we are right to laud his straight-talking, passionate conviction—which never wavered—he was part of a collectivist movement: the great Australian Labor Party. And before that he was part of another collectivist movement, the Transport Workers Union.
Alex, in his conviction and in his passion, never saw himself as greater than the whole. He never put himself outside of his colleagues. He understood that we were a collective. He never compromised, but he also never made his view more important than someone else's. He always worked with me and with others to try to find ways to ensure that we were true to our collectivist commitment to one another.
Alex was a good friend to so many in this caucus, and I know that so many of my colleagues will make a contribution on this condolence motion. I will say, at a personal level he offered me support, friendship and loyalty, far more than I could have ever expected, perhaps because he and Senator Sterle, very generously, recognised my brief period as a member of the Teamsters Union—thank you, Senator Sterle!—as appropriate enough to be a somewhat honorary member of the TWU. Alex, in his advocacy for working people—in his principled, passionate commitment—fought for the rights of working people, to ensure that they had the opportunity for a better life and that a working person could support their family, buy a home and have some time for recreation and a holiday on an ordinary working salary. They're humble, important, significant goals for the Australian people, and Alex was constantly motivated by them.
I'm sure Alex, as a humble man, would have shied away from some of this pomp and circumstance today. But I hope it's the first of many accolades and honours that serve to remind us of what people can achieve when they live their lives with passion and dedication. I conclude by again expressing my condolences to Paola and to their children and grandchildren. My thoughts are with all of them today as we celebrate Alex's life.
We will all miss Alex. The past few months of sittings have not been the same without him, and I hope that we see his likes in this chamber again. His passing is a great loss to this chamber, to the Australian Labor Party, to the Transport Workers Union and indeed to the nation as a whole.
The death of a colleague while they still serve here in the Senate is a reminder to all of us that our time on Earth is limited and that we should never waste a day, or indeed a minute, here. Alex Gallacher's passing is a reminder for all of us to stay focused on doing the most good we can in the limited time we're given. Like me and like all Labor senators, he was haunted by the fact that we have been out of office for all but six years of the last 25. I'm sad to be eulogising Alex Gallacher, but I'm also weary of reflecting on so many careers like his: too much time spent in opposition and not enough time with a chance to make real change—all that time, all those missed opportunities, all the good that should have been done and could have been done.
It is a commonsense statement of the obvious to say, 'You can only do good when you're actually in office.' Senator Birmingham and Senator McKenzie have both referred to the quote from Theodore Roosevelt that Alex's daughter Caroline gave to him for his first speech, but Alex and I discussed last year another Roosevelt quote. I would be driving up to Canberra last year and I would phone Alex. Alex was either at the golf club or sometimes resting at home. He said to me, 'You know: that man in the arena quote.' That is:
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
Alex was his usual dry self in discussing that quote, but there was also a poignancy, because he said to me, 'You can never be in the arena forever.' Alex would want this: for us to work tirelessly from now until the election, focusing on what matters to Australian families, so that we can have the privilege of governing on their behalf. Alex would want that.
Men like Alex Gallacher come from a Labor tradition rooted in common sense, the wisdom and life experience that comes from hard work driving trucks, making airports work, two decades of representing hard workers at the mighty Transport Workers Union and representing all South Australians since 2010. Long before there were terms like 'virtue signalling', 'inner city elites' and 'wokeness', Alex Gallacher despised them. He was interested in what Labor was doing for working people—not talking, not positioning, not excusing but actually doing. I wonder if Alex Gallacher ever once read or paid much attention to the talking points usually sent out by various prime ministers' or leaders' offices in the time he was here. I don't think anyone could write a script for Alex Gallacher. I doubt anyone dared.
When he took some time off, fighting the fight of his life against an insidious cancer, I filled in for him briefly on the economics committee. After speaking with him and assessing the contributions he'd made, I had one look at the proposal before that committee—a half-considered Treasury thought bubble about criminalising cash transactions greater than $10,000—and I did my very best to channel Alex Gallacher by asking some tough, direct, pointed questions about the measure that would have caused great inconvenience and imposition on older people, among many others. He had already made it clear that he was deeply sceptical about the merits of the idea no matter who supported it. The committee approved it in principle, as it was government and opposition policy in principle, but with a long list of conditions precedent that gave the Treasury a great deal to think about. We haven't seen the measure in legislation, and I don't think we will for quite some time, until the committee's bipartisan concerns are seriously addressed by the bureaucracy.
Senator Fawcett has reminded me about the trip to Port Augusta. We got out of the airport and into a minibus, and Alex sat up the back and David sat down the front. I looked at them both and said, 'We are not spending this trip in different parts of the minibus, are we?' So in the end we sat together, and Senator Fawcett is correct: it was a great trip. I was very lucky because I was with two very thoughtful people—people who wanted to do good. I can't thank Alex anymore, but I thank Senator Fawcett. That was a great trip, and I learnt a lot.
Also, in the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, no-one could ever accuse Alex Gallacher of being unsound. He was from that tradition—also mine—of belief in our alliance with America, a great country, and of belief that Israel must exist. I can't help thinking about when AUKUS was announced. Alex Gallacher would have loved AUKUS.
While Alex didn't seek glory or boast about many achievements here, this is just a small example of Alex Gallacher's common sense and good judgement. It's an illustration of the impact that men like Alex Gallacher can have here, and why we need more people like Alex Gallacher here. Just because a powerful bureaucracy wanted it, Senator Gallacher needed to be persuaded on the merits, assessed not through a prism of what Canberra's bureaucracy wanted but what would benefit the lives of the people Labor senators are here to represent.
We're not here to make good impressions on Radio National or Insiders. We're not here to trend on Twitter. We are here to do what Alex Gallacher did all his working life: champion Labor values, the right to work, the right to be safe at work, the right to be treated with dignity at work, in a society that leaves no-one behind. Alex was gruff, a straight shooter, honest and wise. Senator Sterle has referred to him as 'Mr Happy', but underneath that grouchiness—as I find so often the case with grouchy people—was a heart of gold and a restlessness that we weren't doing enough for the people he was sent here to fight for.
In the days ahead, when we're debating self-indulgent propositions in Labor forums, when we're slogging through the detail of unwise bureaucratic proposals in Senate committees, when we're thinking about what kind of Labor Party we need to be, what kind of government we should aim to be, I will think about Alex Gallacher. Today my thoughts, as they have been over the past few months, are with Paola, Alex's family, his staff and his friends. I'm sure many of us have had conversations with Alex about his family, and many about his grandchildren. May his memory be an example to all of us. Vale.
It is with great and deep sadness that I rise to speak on this motion as well, but it is also my honour. It was my honour to have known Senator Gallacher, to have served by his side in this place, and to have called him and his beautiful wife, Paola, my friends. Like all of us in this place, we are each the product of our life experience, but, more importantly, we are the product of those we love and those who love us in return. The things we do here, the things we hope to achieve—and, in Alex's case, certainly did achieve—belong to the people we love and who love us too. So I want to acknowledge his family and their contribution to everything that Alex was able to do as a senator.
I want to make some personal reflections on my relationship with Alex soon, but first I want to pay special focus on his legacy and achievements during his time in the Senate. Alex, if you're listening, I have to say: sorry, I'm going to refer to notes as I do this—and I know you really hate senators bringing notes into the chamber! I'm looking at Senator Stoker; I think she fell victim to one of his points of order referring to notes. It was one of the first points of order he referred me to as a young senator, that we are not meant to read from notes in this place. I am sorry, Alex.
Alex knew the importance of staying true to Labor values, the importance of providing Australians 'a fair go and a better chance for all', as he said. These values drove him throughout his entire career and whether you sat on these benches or you sat opposite, everyone knew what Alex stood for. Everyone knew his values. His first speech outlined what he would fight for as a parliamentarian and it was clear and direct, as Alex was. The transport industry, road safety and superannuation, and his contribution in a policy sense to all of these areas, was substantial and unwavering. He brought a real-world perspective to this place, but he also brought an incredible intelligence.
His immediate impact on parliament saw the Labor government bring the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal into legislation. This was an objective that Alex had fought for, alongside his colleagues and comrades at the TWU, for almost two decades. That fight had to continue after a change in government saw the tribunal dismantled, but Alex kept up that fight. In fact, there wasn't a day that he served in this chamber where transport workers—he had once been one; he served alongside, represented and advocated for them his whole career—weren't at the front of his mind. There was no better friend of transport workers than Alex Gallacher.
Super, too, was one of his passions. He knew the intrinsic benefits it could bring to working Australians, its impact on dignity in retirement and its economic benefits to Australia. He was absolutely passionate. In his last months in the Senate I know he was also becoming increasingly passionate about the disparity for women and superannuation, and this is a fight I will continue on his behalf.
But his biggest legacy in this place is his impact, alongside his dear mate Senator Sterle, on road safety. This came from an almost five-year stint as a director with the Motor Accident Commission he served on before entering politics. Alex was acutely aware of the devastation to victims and their families, as well as the economic devastation, caused by the unnecessary loss of life and by the catastrophic injuries suffered on our roads. He was deeply disappointed in the National Road Safety Strategy targets never being met and he fought incredibly hard to make sure that road safety was on the political map, including through his work on the Parliamentary Friends of Road Safety. It was evident in his work in estimates and in his push for the government to form the Office of Road Safety within the department.
On 11 November the government announced that autonomous emergency-braking technology would be mandated in the Australian Design Rules by 2023. This would save 580 lives, avoid tens of thousands of serious and minor injuries, and have a net benefit of close to $1.9 billion. Alex first called for the mandating of this technology in September 2014. He saw the need for this. He fought for it relentlessly until it was achieved. He knew this policy area better than anyone. He believed in it deeply and he left an incredible legacy in this space which will never be forgotten. In his committee work too he pushed for commonsense results. He was true to his principles and he would advance his views whether or not they aligned with the views of our party, often. The Murray River was a huge passion of Alex's.
One area that Alex was deeply passionate about policy wise was the NDIS. He served on the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme and knew the issues relating to the NDIS, especially the times that we saw the NDIS not live up to its promise. We saw it fail the people who needed it most. These issues weighed on Alex heavily. He was dedicated and focused on how he could use his role on that committee to improve the lives of Australians with disability.
Alex loved our state. He loved his duty electorate of Grey. He travelled there regularly. He never flew in and out when he went to Grey. He wanted to stay. He wanted to be amongst it. One of the proudest moments he had as the duty member for Grey was when the Elliston Reconciliation Monument was erected, after much debate, in the town of Elliston, which is almost halfway between Port Lincoln and Ceduna. Alex supported the monument recognising the massacre of 1849, where the local First Nations people were driven off the cliff, as it is described. Alex considered the official opening as one of his more memorable and important moments as a senator.
Alex was a natural at the work he did. He was incredibly focused and hardworking. He did the reading. He did the work. He never turned up unprepared. He always turned up knowing what he wanted to get out of a hearing, out of his day in parliament and out of a speech he would give. He never did anything without purpose. We saw this work ethic, this focus of his, so intensely when he was sick, when he refused to slow down, when he refused to step back. He believed in his work. He believed in what he did. He was determined to continue fighting the fight that he believed in, representing the people he stood for right until the end.
I know we've all had a different experience of Alex. We have all seen different sides of him, and I'm sure we can all fondly remember moments when we found opportunities for agreement with him, where his gruff exterior faded away and you saw the warmth and the passion beneath. We can probably also fondly remember moments when we disagreed with Alex, and you certainly weren't left wondering about Alex's position or what his view was. But Alex always gave people a fair hearing. If you had a good idea, he would listen to you. If you were well reasoned in your argument, he would listen to you. He fought for what he believed was right. I know that some of our colleagues would have liked him to fight a little less loudly sometimes, or a little less publicly, but that was Alex. When he was on a mission, when he believed something, he took his role as a public figure seriously and fought with every tool in his arsenal. Alex was an extremely hard worker. His career, I think, is best referenced in his own maiden speech, when he refers to Theodore Roosevelt saying, 'Far and away the best prize life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.' Alex got that opportunity, and he certainly did that.
Alex was an extremely private person who loved his family immensely. You'd never see a bigger smile on his face than when he was talking about Paola, his kids and especially his grandchildren. Possibly a smile which would rival it, though, was when he talked about his passion for golf. A round of golf a week was never enough for him. He also loved to have a punt, and his Saturdays were often a morning at the North Adelaide Golf Club and an afternoon of horseracing. His staff recalled to me a story—this was before my time—where apparently the coalition government once scheduled a sitting week which overlapped with Melbourne Cup day. Other senators would have to confirm this, but I hear there has never been an angrier parliamentarian in this place than Alex Gallacher in that moment.
Alex's staff formed a powerful bond with him. Thank you, Senator Sterle, for reading the words of Matthew, with whom Alex had a very special bond. I know Matthew misses him very, very deeply, but his other staff do too. Peter and Matthew both began in Alex's office when Alex began as a senator, and they stayed the course with him. Susie worked with him for nine years, and Brendan worked with him for seven. Pauline had been there for a few years too, and I do wonder if Pauline had expected that. Those who know Pauline know she was a firm and passionate member of the Left and was perhaps surprised that she found herself working in Alex's office, but they formed a very close friendship too, as well as a commitment and a passion for the work that Alex was doing on the NDIS.
Alex's staff would say that their office was a family, which is testament to Alex as a boss and a person. He could be gruff, yes, but he was a good and warm man, and when you were in the fold, when you were in the family with Alex, you knew it deeply. In my time in politics—not just as a senator but in the many years I've been around politics—I don't think I've ever seen an office as close and connected as Alex's staff were, or as loyal to their senator. I want to acknowledge them, because this has been a really tough time. All of his staff stuck with him as he was sick, right up until the end. They believed in what Alex was doing too. They knew the man so well, and they believed in what he was doing.
Alex had another work family, and that's his family at his beloved Transport Workers Union. I know Ian Smith and Alex's friends at the TWU are watching these proceedings now, live in Adelaide, under the sign of the Alex Gallacher Training Centre, a fitting monument for a man who made an incredible contribution to that union and all of the people and the values that that union represents. I know that everyone at the TWU will feel this loss deeply, because, when Alex left the TWU to become a senator, he never walked away from those he served with. He was always providing support and was always there for those who needed him.
One of the amazing things about Alex was that he really believed in people. And when he believed in people, he helped them. He gave them active support, active mentoring and active encouragement. If you had Alex in your corner, you knew it. Even when things were tough or when you doubted yourself, Alex would be there backing you and pulling you up—sometimes really gruffly or quite aggressively, but, if he believed in you, he would make sure you did your best. I will miss Alex deeply. This place will not ever be the same for me without him.
I want to make a personal reflection here. Alex was a formidable figure and, in my childhood, his name loomed large. Alex was once my father's adversary, but he became a close and valued friend of me and my family.
It's really easy in politics to make simple assessments of people, one-dimensional assessments of people. Alex never did that. He certainly never did it of me. He didn't do it of others in this chamber, even when people were often quick to make simple, one-dimensional assessments of him. I am so grateful that he was a man who judged people on their substance and judged me on my substance and gave me his firm support very early on in my career here in this place and, indeed, when I was seeking to enter this place. And when I entered the Senate, his support continued. He guided me throughout my journey here.
He was always generous with his feedback to me. I was scrolling through some messages earlier. Alex used to text me, often, after my speeches, to make sure I had the benefit of his experience and wisdom in this place. Some of those critiques were sharp. Of course, he hated speeches being read. He hated speeches being too polished. But he liked speeches which didn't miss anything or anyone. And they're Alex's words. When I was going through my messages from Alex in preparation for today, there were a few which stood out for me—messages he sent me of encouragement and support. He sent me a text defining our role. He said to me: 'Your job is to be different, Marielle. It's to be authentic and to be credible. It's to let people see you, to believe every word that you say.' Alex was authentic. You knew it. It was very good advice. He also gave me the advice: 'Keep your eye on the main game and, most importantly in this place, be yourself.'
Alex was himself. Alex never had to support me, but he did. He mentored me in the ways of this place. Some of those lessons I will keep with me; some of those I might disregard, because our styles are pretty different, but I will always value the things he taught me and the lessons he tried to impart. But, Senator Stoker, I promise I won't be on my feet if there are notes used in this place.
Alex loved Paola deeply. On more than one occasion, I would hear him recount, when he was summing up his view on one individual or another: 'Paola has good judgement. If she thinks someone is decent, then they're okay with me.' Paola was the boss.
One of the last social moments I had with Alex was not long after my daughter Zara was born, and Alex and Paola came to visit Clint and me at our home, to deliver my son Benjamin another truck, which Alex was always prone to do. He wanted my son to be a truck man and not a bus man! It's very important, Senator Wong! But they also brought a teddy bear for my daughter, and there was a bit of a discussion and debate between Alex and Paola, because Paola wanted the bear to go on a shelf and to be preserved and kept pristine, so that, when Zara is older, she can look at the bear and have that memory and have that special thing from her childhood, and Alex was vehemently opposed to this. The bear was for cuddling, the bear was for playing, the bear was for using. And it just summed up, to me, a part of Alex's personality. So, I'm sorry, Paola, but the bear is coming off the mantelpiece and it will be used and cuddled and loved.
It feels quite indulgent, in a way, to talk about how much we will all miss Alex and how much we loved him because, of course, those who've missed him the most and will miss him the most are his family—those who he loved the most and who loved him the most: his wife, Paola; his children, Ian, Caroline, Terry and Frank; his children-in-law, Seonaid, Ian's wife, and Tammy, Terry's partner; and his grandchildren, Connor, Lachlan and Mia. I want to thank you for sharing the man that you loved with this place for so long. It's never without sacrifice. His achievements and his legacy belong to you and your family as well. I hope you are so proud of what your husband, your father, your grandfather achieved here. I hope you're so proud of the words that are being spoken about him.
We should never be one-dimensional or simplistic in our assessment of people who choose to do this role. Alex was a complicated and complex character, but he was a great man. He was a fiercely intelligent man. He worked tirelessly in this place for the values that he held dear. Really, I hope you are so proud of his achievements. We are all so proud of his achievements. I know you will all continue to carry Alex's memory in your hearts, and I want you to know that his colleagues here in the Senate from all sides of politics will continue to carry that memory too. We will also continue on with the work which meant so much to Alex. Rest in peace, Alex. Friend, Senator, you will be so missed.
One of the things that struck me when I was thinking about what to say about Alex was this. I've known Alex for 25 years, and not long after I arrived here a number of people came up and said: 'He's tough and he's gruff and he's pretty damn hard to get on with sometimes.' I said: 'Well, he's my mate. I find him exactly the same way, so don't feel special! It's just the way he is—a guy who's passionate and strongly believes in what he believes.' As so many other speakers have said, he did listen but he also turned around and mentored people. I appreciate the great deal of assistance that Alex provided. He was always available to have a chat with, no matter what the time of day or what he had on.
Many, many years ago I went to a funeral. It was quite a revelation for me. It was a Maori funeral. A lot of people got up and spoke from their hearts about what they felt about the fellow who had just died. They also got up and said things that were nasty about him, which I thought was quite surprising. I was chatting to a number of those who spoke, family members, and they said: 'No, it's really important. You have to really let the spirit be released. If you're not honest and you're not frank, then you're not going to get the spirit released.' And, Alex, we're all going to be very frank!
Why I think of that again is that we had—it wasn't an exclusive group; it was just a group of TWU people who got together, and some of the TWU senators—a wake for Alex. A number of people explained some of their experiences with Alex—how they worked with him in the transport industry and the sorts of differences that he made. I will get to those in a moment, but I just want to look at some of the statements that Alex made when he first came into this place. In his first speech he said:
There is no smoke and mirrors, just plain-talking, hardworking employees and employers alike—
I'm talking about the transport industry—
… They all share common attributes—that is, a capacity for hard work and a selfless dedication to the task at hand.
That could also be a very fine description of Alex, because that's who the man was.
Of course, as we've talked about, Alex did come with those three very important priorities: road safety, the transport industry and superannuation. There are few people in Australia who can match Alex's experience and expertise in road safety. I want to put on record as well the importance of the role he played as the national transport commissioner. I still remember when he got appointed and how proud he was to stand up there and make a difference, to have those conversations, and those hard conversations, in an industry that has way too many deaths. Alex spoke with passion every time he came back and gave reports about what was happening at the commission.
And, of course, being a director of the Motor Accident Commission for South Australia was, again, another important role that Alex felt a great deal of responsibility for—but also passion to make sure that people were properly looked after, that opportunities for turning around and making our roads safer were pursued but also questions of proper compensation for those who were killed in accidents and incidents.
Of course, as we all know, he was the chair of the Road Safety Advisory Council of South Australia. Alex was a firm believer in the Swedish model for Vision Zero. The model recognises that drivers are human and humans make mistakes—a bit like Alex, I think. He was certainly human and he may have made a few mistakes, but there's no doubting the passion which he brought to this place and what he believed in. He talked about:
The freedom and mobility achieved by owning a car are tempered with the sickening human and economic cost of vehicle accidents.
Alex passionately made sure he pursued all those issues to the fullest.
He played an important role, as has been mentioned, in the Gillard government establishing the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal in 2012. I had a lot of dealings with Alex over 25 years and many dealings during that period in the role that I held at the time. Of course, he was scathing when in 2016 it was abolished and replaced with nothing. With decades of experience in the industry, he understood the consequences of that decision better than most. I'll quote from his speech on the abolition bill. This is a speech that Paul Ryan from the Australian Road Transport Industry Organisation described as the best speech he had ever heard given in the Senate. Alex said:
People need to get proper remuneration for the fixed, variable and labour costs. Lots of these owner-drivers will work themselves to death.
… … …
I know the things that they go through on a daily basis.
… … …
I know all about visiting families who have had people in their families not come home from work.
… … …
This was, for me, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see some sanity, some fairness and some real reward for their effort.
Alex was spot on and straight to the point. That's how he always operated.
At the wake Zoom, Michael Kaine, National Secretary of the TWU, summed up a really incredibly important point about Alex. He said: 'He would take the problem in front of him, distil it into a bite-sized grab and then figure out how to use the bite-sized grab to fight for the rights of working people. That's what he would do and he would do it really, really effectively.'
Michael also told a story about his trip to South Australia after joining the national office. For those who don't know, the TWU had the tradition of having seven warring factions. It makes any political party here look tame. Alex always fired directly to everybody about what he believed in. Michael said in talking about the threat of Work Choices: 'I landed at the Adelaide Airport fully expecting to hop in a cab. I walked down the stairs and at the bottom there was Alex.' I said: 'Jeez. I didn't expect to see you here, Alex.' Alex said, 'Do you think I'm going to let the assistant national secretary just come to Adelaide and walk around by himself unchaperoned?' Of course, Alex put Michael in front of the officials—another baptism of fire for Michael—and key delegates, who could all see the angst regarding Work Choices and clearly see what the TWU needed to do. Alex was outspoken again and very supportive of incredibly important steps that were decided by that group of workplace leaders and union officials. He was drawing the crowd out. He was getting people to say things that could be in conflict with what he was saying, because he wanted to draw people out to make sure the best decisions were being made.
It's not just union officials and workers who had tremendous respect for Alex. He drew respect from the employing side for his toughness, his perseverance, his plain talking and his commitment to working people. During the Zoom wake, Steve Schofield, who used to be the head of industrial relations at Qantas, said: 'I butted heads with Alex on a number of occasions.' Steve said that he had a lot of mentors over the years on both sides of the table, but you wouldn't guess that Alex was one of them. Steve told a story about 11 September 2001, a horrible, uncertain day for us all, but particularly for those in the aviation industry. Steve said: 'I got two phone calls in the morning on September 11. One was from Alex. He said words to the effect, "Listen, young fellow, it's going to be a tough couple of days, but if there's anything we can do as a union just let us know."' That was a side of Alex that many didn't see. Then there was the side that many did—the side that was as tough as nails.
Matt Burnell, an official at Alex's South Australian branch of the TWU, told a story about the 2017 South Australian branch elections night. Matt was watching the count together with Alex's chief of staff, Matt Marozzi. Both Ian Smith and Alex were asking how Ian was going in the count. The two Matts looked at each other and wondered how they were going to tell Ian that he'd lost. Worse still, he said, 'How am I going to deal with Alex? He's going to kill us both.' Fortunately, Ian got over the line in the end so never had to find out Alex's wrath.
Alex's other passion was superannuation, as has been mentioned. He strongly believed that working people deserve a retirement with dignity. In his first speech, he said:
Members will always demand value for money, and it is my belief that this is best achieved by the industry fund not-for-profit model, with all profits back to member accounts. Trustee directors representing employer and employees and only acting in the best interest of members are a world-class model.
Various studies have shown that many funds have received brand status with loyalty driven by industry participation and trust in the board of representatives.
Alex was the first chairman of the TWU superannuation investment committee. Frank Sandy, the current CEO of the TWUSUPER fund, summed up on the night of the Zoom wake: 'I have wonderful memories of a person who was strong, direct, really clear and always with a purpose. While we are doing this, we are doing this for members. "Are we doing this to make things better?" That's the question Alex would ask. They're my memories of Alex.'
Paul Ryan, one of the employer-side directors at TWUSUPER, added: 'We and every transport worker owe Alex a debt of gratitude that could probably be measured in dollar terms. If you want to go back to when he started, it was worth somewhere around $100,000 over the last 15 years. That's per member.' That's the additional legacy that Alex leaves, and it's a lasting legacy.
Lou Coia, on the TWUSUPER executive team, told me: 'Alex was a wonderful person. He seemed always to have time for me. He would always ask me and was interested in my life. He was a wonderful person and a gentleman.' That was Alex, and is his legacy, at TWUSUPER.
Then there's the legacy of Alex at TWU itself. Barry Norton, a TWU organiser in Alex's South Australian-Northern Territory branch, said: 'There are a few times over the last 2½ years where people have walked in. They've been union members for the longest time and they remember Alex for what he did. I'm very well aware of the boots that I'm trying to fill and I will do my best to do that, because of Alex being the previous Northern Territory organiser.'
Nick McIntosh, the national assistant secretary of the TWU—one the Zoom participants for Alex's wake—described him as a mentor. Nick said: 'He always spoke words of wisdom. He was always welcoming to me. There were good times. We had conversations in his Parliament House office, where he would never say too much but just enough that I could tell exactly what he was getting at. You could tell just from the interactions how smart he was, how switched on he was, but, most importantly, how much he would always stand for working people.' Alex stood for working people all his life. That's the best way to remember him in this place. That's how we remember him at the TWU—and all of his work colleagues and the people he represented and protected, and defended and supported.
Alex's most important legacy is his family—his family of staff, as was mentioned previously, but also his children and grandchildren, and, of course, his very loved Paola. I think we can all recite many occasions when Alex would talk to us about the love of his family and what they were getting up to. He was such a great family man. We saw that as part of his real worth and real value.
I know this was used a bit earlier today but I thought I might use it again as I think it describes something very accurate about Alex. In his first speech, Alex said his daughter Caroline sent him a quotation of Theodore Roosevelt:
Far and away the best prize life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.
Of course, Alex's record, both here and at the Transport Workers Union, was an affirmation of that. His good friend Ian Smith, the secretary down there—a very close mate of Alex's—told me that, when Alex was getting treatment, literally the following day he would go on the golf course. I haven't heard of anyone else who gets treatment who can do that, but Alex did it because he was determined to make sure that it didn't hold him back from doing the things he had a passion for. That's why he came back to the Senate to speak and be involved, despite the dangers of COVID, particularly for people in his circumstances. He was a man with passion and dedication and a person worth emulating. Thank you, Alex. I'll miss you, mate.
I will be relatively brief. I don't know how I became a friend of Alex's and how he became a friend of mine. It kind of just happened. I don't know whether it started in the meetings we had in cafes when I was an adviser to Nick Xenophon, heading back to Adelaide. I don't know whether it was through my working with him on the economics committee. I note that people have been talking about his passion for road safety, but there were also other things he had passion for, including naval shipbuilding. He was very concerned about workers down in Adelaide. I'm just sad he didn't get to see that particular committee through.
I used to chat with Alex in the chamber and around the building, often with Glenn in tow. I think we all know that the two of them operated together, mischievously in some instances. What I will say about Alex is that he was simple and effective. I note Kristina made a mention of some frustrations that there might have been. Alex always saw things in a different way to others. Where other people found complexity, he found simplicity, and I think that was the source of his frustration with others in this place, in terms of professional frustration. I say 'effective'. I used to watch him in committees, and I never thought he was excited about too much. I even thought that some of his questions were quite boring. But then, when I went back and read the Hansard, I would think, 'That was a really good question.' He was really effective. So that was the other thing that struck me about Alex.
I will reveal something now. As we all know, when trying to get advocacy for any particular issue around this place, you think, 'Do I go to someone who's got carriage of a particular topic, or do I go to someone who's got passion for a particular topic?' Well, what I can say to the Labor Party, at least now, is that if Alex came to me and asked me for something, I almost always did it, just because I knew, particularly if it was a topic I didn't know anything about, that Alex would only come to me when he was passionate. He was just a genuine and honest guy. For me, that was enough, and I would always say yes to him. I can't think of a time when he asked me to support something and I said no. I think that comes down to how I would summarise him, and that is: genuine and honest and someone that I will miss.
I thank Senator Sterle for his words earlier. I know that all of our thoughts are definitely with him today. I would like to join colleagues in recognising the contribution and the passing of Senator Alex Gallacher. It was as a new senator in 2019 that I met Alex, as part of the Senate Economics References Committee, of which he was chair. My reflections on Alex come from my experience of entering this place just two years before Alex's time here came to an end. I have a few memories of Alex that I'd like to share with the chamber and with Alex's loved ones, who may be listening to, or reading later on, the speeches that are being given in his honour today. They are memories of someone who combined complete dedication and commitment to the people he came here to represent, with an absolutely unique larrikinism and irreverence.
One of my first experiences of Alex's particular brand of irreverence was when doing Senate hearings together during lockdown in 2020. Hearings were conducted remotely, with senators and witnesses participating online. In one such hearing Alex appeared in a peaked cap, headphones on, with a very impressive bookshelf against the wall behind him. So far, so good! Impressive bookshelves were a feature of remote meetings and hearings in 2020, but Alex, of course, went one better—he had a large automobile in the background as well. I heard a voice over the feed of either a witness or the secretariat, asking, 'Is that a senator in a garage?' It was indeed, car in full view, and from his garage Senator Alex Gallacher declared those hearings open.
On that day, and really every day, Alex approached his work here with a completely unpretentious disposition, sprinkled with a fair amount of an 'up yours' attitude. He had an attitude of good humour alongside the hard work, commitment and dedication that he showed for the people he represented. I have similar recollections to those of Senator Patrick, of spending many a late night at Senate estimates in economics committee hearings with Senator Gallacher. As a new senator, I found the Labor question pack something of a lifeline to keep my head above water and stay afloat. For Alex, it was more of a guide at best. Occasionally, it was something to flick through whilst leaning back in his chair getting ready for the next witness, much as one might casually flick through a magazine at the supermarket counter before proceeding to the checkout and leaving the magazine behind.
As has been noted, Alex relied on his own preparation, and he was the same here in the chamber. When Alex spoke in the Senate, he usually did so without notes, prosecuting his points admirably and always with passion—passion for the workers whom he proudly came here to represent and whom he never left behind. I think this is what Alex's colleagues will remember the most. He really never forgot where he came from. He never forgot who he went into parliament to fight for. He never stopped being that union organiser on the hustings, representing people working hard in an essential industry, doing the long hauls overnight while the rest of us slept. It was in this chamber, in my first few weeks here, that Alex sat down next to me with a clipboard—a former union organiser, so I knew I was about to be signed up for something. For some weeks I had worn it as a badge of honour that I had not signed up to any of the various parliamentary friends' groups on offer in the early weeks of the new parliament. I'd let them all fly by in my emails. But then Alex sat down next to me that day with a pen and a piece of paper and looked me straight in the eye, and to this day I am a card-carrying member of his beloved Parliamentary Friends of Road Safety.
To the end, Alex was always on the side of working people—his people—and I was one of many of Alex's colleagues who joined online to pay my respects at his funeral remotely. As a proud life member of my own union, I was deeply moved to see that Alex was making his final journey under the protection of the flag of his union—the Transport Workers Union. A life spent standing up for working people is indeed a life well lived. A life spent as part of the collective of the labour movement is a life of service to others, and for that life of service I pay my respects to Alex today and extend my condolences to his family, his friends, his union and his best mate, Glenn Sterle.
I would like to associate myself with the remarks from all colleagues across the chamber in relation to the tributes they are paying to the life of Senator Alex Gallacher. He was somebody who was, without question, true to his beliefs and his values, and they were true Labor values; they were true union beliefs. As Senator Sheldon said, that's what he was respected for, and he was respected for that across the chamber.
I won't share any of my personal stories about him, because they were personal conversations. But they were conversations of fellowship of fellow senators and particular circumstances at the time, and they were very human interactions. They were the things that I really valued about working with Alex. We shared, again, some late nights, both on the same side of the table at estimates and on opposite sides of the table at estimates. If Alex thought you were serving up a load of BS, there was absolutely no question that you were going to be told you were serving up a load of BS—or the officials, for that matter. He just wanted an answer to his question. It was pretty simple.
With Alex you knew what you were going to get. He was deadset straight. You knew where he was coming from and you knew why he was coming from there. Comments have been made by so many colleagues across the chamber about the fact that he didn't forget where he came from and he didn't change: he was Alex Gallacher who became a senator through his time as a member of the union movement and he brought all those practical elements and experience with him to this place and he applied those to policy. And he was a thinker; he really was. He assessed things and he applied those things and that practical knowledge of the work that he'd done to this place.
It's spoken about often that one of the great things about Australia's parliament is that people who come from a really grassroots, practical background can end up in this place. Alex was a great example of that, as someone who came from a different country, became an Australian citizen and then came here to represent his values, his beliefs and his community in this place—something we should all celebrate. For the work he did in respect of a focus on road safety, it's a really fitting tribute that was made to him by his union in naming the training centre in South Australia after him. I think that's an absolutely fantastic thing.
Sterlo—and apologies for not addressing you as Senator Sterle—this was mentioned earlier by Senator McKenzie, and I'm pleased you mentioned it as well in your contribution: the Waldorf and Statler thing. Sterle and Gallacher went together like Waldorf and Statler, in my view. In some of those late-night sittings we'd see them both leaning forward with their chin on their elbows, looking across the chamber, obviously comparing something that was going on over there. They had a synergy and a symbiosis together. They clearly thought the same, and they were a real team. Glenn, I know you would miss Alex immensely, so I particularly express my condolences to you—and to all my other Labor colleagues across the chamber, but Sterlo, I know how much he meant to you, with the conversations and the journey you travelled together over a long period of time. I certainly did think of you a lot when we lost Alex; 67 is way too soon. To Alex's wife, Paola, and his four children and extended family, and to all of those in the Labor family, sincere condolences for your loss. He was a great guy. He made a contribution over a decade in this place. Senator Sheldon talked about him coming here during COVID, with all the things he was dealing with, so he could make a contribution. Certainly I recognised the importance and the significance of him doing that at a time that was a significant risk to him through what we were all facing with the national pandemic. I see his passing as a genuine loss. So, Alex, rest in peace, mate. To the Labor family and his family personally: my sincerest condolences.
I rise to make a contribution to this condolence motion for the passing of the late Senator Alex Gallacher. I want to associate myself with the remarks of all of those who have preceded me. It has been the great telling of the breadth of a man who brought himself, everything of himself, to this chamber. The words that I would use to describe Senator Gallacher would be 'one of the hardest-working senators that I ever saw in this place'. I'm reminded of the day when we actually heard about his passing, standing here in the chamber. As much as we knew he was unwell, the shock washed over us because we don't expect, in this place, for people we work with to not show up one day. We know about life and death but we encounter it in such a profound and intense way in this chamber, being so dedicated to the work. People have spoken about the man, Alex Gallacher, today. As much as we know about one another, there was genuinely still this amazing shock amongst all of us that one of our colleagues had gone.
It is in this period of time, this time warp that we are all living, the COVID reality, where we're not sure if we're home or we're here. Can we see our friends? Can we see our family? How are we accessing health care? What sort of health care did Alex have? All of that was swirling around. But I remind senators that it was only a few months ago that Alex Gallacher was standing up in this chamber on 24 February, at two minutes to question time, when he said:
In the couple of minutes that are available to me I want to put on the record—and it's a very sombre duty—that during the 12 months until the end of December 2020, 170 people died in crashes involving heavy trucks. This includes 104 deaths in crashes involving articulated trucks and 68 deaths involving heavy rigid trucks.
I want to put to the Senate a simple proposition. There is probably no other industry in Australia, certainly none that I'm aware of, that incurs this level of death—and the injuries are not stated here today—and the level of death is through the roof. I don't know how as a government, a state government, a territory government or a council that we can put up with the fact that we're seeing 170 people die at work. That's where they're dying, at work, on the road, and we're not having an outpouring of a call for action.
There have been 170 workplace deaths in the 12 months to the end of 2020. It's a disgrace. The federal parliament should move on it, as should every other parliament in Australia.
All of us here: what can we say in two minutes? What are the snippets of our contributions that people are going to take to heart? In those two minutes, so much was said, so much of power, so much of a call for us to serve the nation.
Alex Gallacher has been eulogised today by members of the Labor Party, by friends and by colleagues who have only known him in this place as a Labor senator, by colleagues who shared the journey literally on the road with him—the TWU, unionists, brothers and sisters in arms—who have fought the good fight that still leaves us with the point he described on 24 February. Labor, Liberal, National, Greens and Independent senators are all in here with so many good words to say about a man who gave his all to this job.
I was really taken by the comments of my colleague Senator Marielle Smith—who I am pleased to see is still in the chamber—when she noted in her contribution her mentoring from Alex. He gave her great advice, but one thing stuck: people should believe every word you say. That's how I heard Alex Gallacher when he spoke in this place. There are people who make contributions and they will be applauded and we should accept that there are gifts differing amongst us. But there is something about the truth and its voice that is powerful. It is a thing that changes us, and if you're very, very lucky, people give of themselves and they come to this place and they speak with truth. Alex Gallacher did that with passion, with style, with vigour, with energy and with great talent every single time he stood up here and he opened his mouth. I don't think there would be a lot of people who we would be able to say that about—constantly speaking the truth.
I got to know Alex very slowly. I always felt that he was sort of watching what was going on. Today, Senator Sterle, you read the words of Matthew Marozzi, where Matthew said, 'He warmed to me.' I guess I'd have to say that that's the kind of experience I had—that Alex watched and he waited. We really didn't get to work together a lot, because we were on different inquiry paths for so much of our time. But I did a few hearings on the famous RRAT committee, which has a particular flavour of camaraderie that I think brings out the best in so many of the senators who were on it. It was on the multi-jurisdictional management of the Murray Darling Basin Plan committee when you, Mr President, were a lowly backbencher and chair of that committee. The work that we did on that committee—which I just had a look at today—was evidence of the kind of work that Alex did.
Alex was always absolutely prepared. He absolutely made sure that he knew what was going on, that he'd done all of the reading. He got to a point in the hearing on 11 December 2019 where he was asking about transparency of water markets. This is a man who can be diminished and described as just a hardworking man. Just a hardworking man is a great thing but, when you're blessed with the gift of intelligence that he had and he brought to this role, he was able to ask about the transparency of water markets, engage in an interchange with experts and allow and invite me into the questioning and recover and make a point at the end. This is what he said—one sentence—after a bit of a discussion about it: 'There is always someone who benefits from information asymmetries.' That is not the sort of language you're going to hear too much on the two-way radio. But people on the two-way radio know exactly what that feels like, and Alex not only knew what it felt like but also came in here and he knew how it would be best received in whatever context and he found the words to do that. Not everybody can do that, and I just really watched and admired that greatly. I want to proclaim him in my experience as a man of insight, a strategic thinker of intelligence, a man who made sure that he had a mastery of the information that he needed to do the job—a preparedness to undertake the tasks that fell to his lap. And there was a generosity in his leadership as a chair, able to engage and move everyone along together.
Towards the end of Alex's time here with me, he reached out and said, 'You should come and have a bottle of Australian wine with me.' We had the most remarkable and memorable evening. I felt that I was getting an incredible download of insight from a man who had a sense that his time was limited. I made notes when I left that meeting, and I have kept them because there was incredible sharp insight and truth in what he had to say.
Alex Gallacher was a loving husband. Paola, he spoke of you many, many times, and he talked about his trips to Italy with you. He also talked about all of his children and his grandchildren with smiles, joy and a genuine love that took him through the days while he was away from you. Now, in the days that you're away from him, be assured that he never, ever left you. His body might not have been with you, but his heart was always with you.
Of those trips to Italy, when I asked him if he'd been to many of the places where you go and look at the sights, he said no; he'd gone to a village and he'd put his roots down there. That tells you something about the man. He made home in places where it was appropriate to make home and he stuck to places where he could be authentic and genuine.
In closing, I want to remind us all, each one of us who valorised Senator Alex Gallacher today, those who have stayed in the chamber for the whole time, those who have made a contribution and those who might be listening and would like do something: Alex Gallacher on 24 February this year really put a challenge out to us. The work of road safety is not finished. It affects all of us. We all drive on roads. He showed us a way. If we really are going to honour him then we should definitely make a commitment in his honour to advance that cause and not lose focus.
I say to Paola and the family that, while I know your grief is great at this moment, I hope the words that we've put on the record today give you some comfort. I say to all people who loved Alex—his staff, the friends of a lifetime, all the unionists who worked with him and, by the sounds of things, against him on occasion, and his family—may they find comfort in these words today. After all your years of hard work, Alex, may you rest in peace.
I rise to pay my respects and to offer my condolences for the sad passing of Senator Alex Gallacher. Alex and I did not know each other well, but I rise to pay my respects as I've taken the sad honour of filling the vacancy that he leaves behind.
In every sense of the phrase, Alex was a working-class man. He'd been a labourer, a truckie, a proud unionist and a committed member of the Australian Labor Party. While Alex and I did not know each other well, we had many connections. His early career mirrored that of my own father, who was a labourer, a truckie and an executive of the Transport and General Workers Union in the UK and Ireland, and I believe that Alex and I would have had a lot to talk about and that I am the poorer for not having had the opportunity of those robust discussions with him.
When he came to this place, he clearly outlined exactly what he was here for, exactly what his priorities were: the transport industry, road safety and superannuation. He then pursued those issues keenly and with dedication for the duration of his time here. We've heard a lot about his committee work, which is impressive: 23 different committees, ranging across all sorts of different areas. His advocacy for the transport industry and road safety was unparalleled. He successfully campaigned for the establishment of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal and later fought passionately against its abolition. He also had the foresight to understand the role of the transport industry in reducing emissions, and in his first speech he noted:
The industry's contribution to carbon emissions is a significant challenge … doing nothing is not an option, as passing on the increased costs imposed will have a significant impact on inflation, affecting every household and business in the community.
On his death, Alex has been described as a champion for the blue-collar worker, a straight shooter and someone who dedicated his life to the interests of working people. As Labor leader Anthony Albanese said recently:
He was a conscientious, no-nonsense man who knew what he stood for.
He was a fighter. He was dedicated. And his role in this place has been borne out today with all of the comments from people and all of the eulogies.
I would just like to express my deep sympathies to Senator Sterle; to Alex's comrades in the Transport Workers Union; and also to his wife, Paola; his children, Caroline, Ian, Terry and Frank; his grandchildren and his broader family. I am so deeply sorry for the loss of your loved one. May he rest in peace.
I just rise to speak to the family of Alex Gallacher. To Paola, on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory: we have incredibly fond memories of his time with us in the Northern Territory—in particular, the Transport Workers Union, who I know are listening, here, today, to all of us.
It was an important time when I came into the Senate in 2016 and met Alex for the first time, along with many other senators here today. But I wanted to share with you, Paola—you and your children and grandchildren—some pretty personal moments in particular, with my role, here in this Senate. I've heard my colleagues speak of so many things, of Alex, but one of the things that stays with me is his mentoring.
One of the earlier experiences I had, not really a year into the Senate, was travelling to the United Kingdom and working with Alex on one of our committees to inquire into modern slavery. It was my first time to the United Kingdom, and I was a little bit nervous about going over to where Captain Cook came from; I wasn't quite sure what to think. I don't think I could've travelled with a better colleague. We were able to talk—not all the way, on that flight over, but certainly in our time in London—and debate many things about the history of Australia and the history of colonisation, looking at landmarks around London but also working closely with him on the important role of reducing and getting rid of modern day slavery not just in the UK or around the world but here in Australia. So that was my first and very important time with Alex, which obviously followed on with many other inquiries from there.
But what I wanted to share, in this moment, was the memories of Anzac Day in London and how that trip to London wasn't just about the modern slavery inquiry. I was able to talk with him about the many Aboriginal men and women, or the black diggers, who fought for our country and were never recognised. And these were really important moments for me, because, with Alex's guidance, I was able to go and have a look at two cemeteries, one in Bournemouth and one in Southampton, and to look at, in particular, Bournemouth, where one of the private diggers was buried and was never really recognised. We wanted to make sure he was recognised in the Anzac Day commemorations, in particular, there in London. That was Private William Joseph Punch, who was enlisted to go to war in 1916, and did go to war, and died in 1917. He was buried in the civilian area of the Bournemouth cemetery, and it took a while to find his grave. The other private was Private Benjamin Combo, who enlisted in 1915 to go over and fight for Australia but unfortunately died on the journey, and he was buried at sea, but he was on the honour roll in Southampton, in Hollybrook cemetery. Again, I don't know if I would've had the courage to go and do that, and have a look, but also to be able to write about that and to commemorate that on the Anzac Day that we had in London.
That was my first opportunity to get to know Alex really well. I had many times with him and with Sterlo on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, and I thought we were a great team. We worked together strongly for the last five years, and I want to share with you that, with all the things he did for our country—working with the TWU, and with the Australian Labor Party here in the Senate on behalf of all Australians, irrespective of whether people agreed or disagreed with him—he was an outstanding person. He was generous, humble, fiercely strong and someone I greatly admired, and I'm deeply saddened by his loss. My sincere condolences to you, Paola, to the family and to the children and grandchildren, and to your extended family and friends. On behalf of all my families in the Northern Territory, I say bawuji barra. May he rest in peace.
[by video link] Despite knowing of Senator Gallacher's illness, and despite having discussed the progress of his treatment with him, I, like many, was shocked and saddened on hearing the sudden news of his passing. It's rare in Queensland that a senator from outside the state is known, let alone highly regarded, and Senator Gallacher and Senator Sterle are two such people. Yet concurrently, as well as the sadness—and I think the sadness was due to the loss that we all felt—I'm most appreciative of having met him and for having worked with him. He showed qualities that are rare in parliament: a genuine love of and support for workers and for everyday Australians; a harking back for solid policies based upon data and facts anchored in the real world—and something that always struck me about Alex was that he was anchored in the real world; a realism and a sense for getting to the core of an issue, with nothing getting in the way of him getting there; and a wry sense of humour that broke out suddenly with gems that punctuated whole issues. I appreciated his willingness to listen to my views and positions, and his quiet yet strong support for issues deeply important to me. In that, I enjoyed his frankness and openness. He loved our country and, like so many everyday Australians across our country, searched and hankered for a return to the basics.
He was a traditional old-school union leader, a real union delegate, the type for whom I have enormous regard, having dealt with them and worked with them in the mining industry, for their competence and their ability to listen to people—to really listen, with genuine interest and genuine care—and to take real action in support. He was quietly assertive—the most effective type of assertiveness, a genuine, deep, grounded care for people and with common sense that showed his strength. Alex's party, our parliament, and our nation have lost a caring, thoughtful, strong and practical contributor for whom I have enormous fondness and admiration. My condolences to Alex's family, to his mates, particularly Glenn, and to our whole nation.
I would like to briefly associate myself with the sentiments of this chamber and the remarks that have been given in tribute to Senator Alex Gallacher. He was the type of person that makes this the best club in the country. Despite being on the other side of the chamber, he was always someone who would engage with everybody in this place. He would deal with everybody as an individual, show them respect and listen to them, but then go away and fight for the things that he held true as a union leader, a member of the Australian Labor Party and a senator for South Australia.
I hope that Senator Gallacher's passing doesn't let us lose something from this place too. Sometimes I think that senators like him aren't made anymore, but hopefully that's not the case. He represented some things that are great about our nation: a down-to-earth spirit, a love of the egalitarian and 'fair go' culture that we're about, and a real defence of honest hardworking men and women of this country. I didn't get time to work with Alex on many issues. I'd just note that, today, we're paying tribute to Senator Gallacher on the same day that the next step has been taken on the radioactive waste journey. That was one issue I dealt with Alex a little bit on, and I really respected his no-nonsense attitude to issues like that, where he saw that there was an interest in the advancement of this country to support. His passing is a great loss to this chamber, but his legacy and memory should inspire all of us to ensure we do not lose his spirit from this chamber.
I seek leave to have incorporated into Hansard the speeches of Senator Kim Carr, Senator Carol Brown and Senator Catryna Bilyk.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as f ollows—
CONDOLENCE MOTION FOR ALEX GALLACHER - SENATOR KIM CARR
A life in politics can be very isolating.
You have lots of acquaintances, but few friends.
Alex Gallacher was a colleague whom I was privileged to call a friend.
We came from different parts of the Labor Party, but that didn't matter.
The longer I serve in this place, the more I appreciate how you can come to see people differently.
In recent times, as I shared the back bench with Alex, I had many conversations with him.
I found how much we had in common in our vision of politics, and Labor politics in particular.
Alex Gallacher represented all that is best in the labour movement.
As a union official, and in this place, he was always a staunch defender of the ideals of that movement.
He was always a loyal member of the Labor Party, though he did not always like the direction it took.
Indeed, his loyalty was shown most strongly when he had such misgivings.
Alex believed it was his duty to call out those who he thought had strayed from Labor values.
He did so fearlessly.
Senators from all sides of this chamber will remember Alex as a straight talker.
To always speak plainly and directly is a virtue in politics.
Unfortunately, it is a virtue that is no longer as widespread as it should be.
Alex's forthrightness, however, will remain an example - and perhaps sometimes a reproach - to us all.
He seems to have acquired this forthrightness from his Scottish family background.
In his first speech in this place, he quoted his two Scottish aunts, Dotty and Mattie.
Their counsel to him on entering Parliament was: "Don't get a big head and don't get too big for your boots".
Alex said he intended to heed their advice, and I'm sure they would be pleased that he did.
They would probably also be pleased at his readiness to pass the advice on unsolicited, to other people he thought needed to hear it.
Alex was born in New Cumnock, Scotland, in 1954 and migrated to Australia with his family in 1966.
Like all migrants, they came here in search of a better life.
Alex found that better life, and dedicated his own life to building a better life for others.
He first worked as a labourer and a truck driver, and through that became involved in the Transport Workers Union.
He rose to become state secretary of the union in South Australia, before becoming a Labor Senator for that state in 2010.
Alex's commitment to the industry in which he had worked never wavered, throughout his time in the Senate.
As he said in his first speech:
Alex spoke from experience, with the knowledge only an insider can have.
But it was not only knowledge of the practice of the industry.
The speech demonstrated his deep theoretical understanding of the industry's role in the wider economy.
He pointed to problems that have since become acute because of the pandemic.
Problems, for example, associated with "just in time" delivery schedules to ensure that the nation's supermarket shelves can be restocked quickly.
He accepted the need to make the schedules work effectively by properly integrating long-distance and local distribution.
But he did not see this only as a technical matter.
A Labor man and a unionist to the core, he warned of the human cost.
The cost of driver fatigue, and the consequent risks to road safety:
Alex knew that resolving such problems requires meticulous research and careful analysis.
His time in this place refutes those who are tempted to think that a labourer and truck driver might not be capable of such activities.
I know how keen his intellect was from the questions he put to me when preparing for committee inquiries.
Committee work is what the Senate does best, and Alex was a consummate committeeman.
He made substantial contributions to the work of many committees, including:
He also served on joint committees, including Public Works and Public Accounts and Audit.
Alex Gallacher will be greatly missed, by the Labor Party, by the Senate and by the people of South Australia whom he represented.
I offer my condolences to Paola and his family.
And also to the TWU, including Alex's Senate colleagues Glenn Sterle and Tony Sheldon.
I'd like to finish on a quote from Theodore Roosevelt, which Alex used to conclude his first speech:
Alex Gallacher certainly earned that prize.
Rest in peace, Alex.
Condolence for Alex Gallacher
SENATOR CAROL BROWN
It is somewhat serendipitous that we are having this debate today, as it was four years ago to this date that our former colleague, and another great TWU official, Senator Steve Hutchins was laid to rest.
Alex Gallacher was not only a valued and trusted colleague but also a true friend.
Alex represented the true values of the labour movement and the Labor Party. He never forgot the hardworking Australians that it was his life's passion to represent — firstly with the Transport Workers Union and then in this parliament.
His passion for walking and driving were legend.
As was his straight talking, mischievous sense of humour and dedication.
Not only did Alex and I become friends, but we were also corridor buddies.
I've lost count of the number of Monday nights a small group of us would keep each other company, with Alex's story telling and strong views on various policy options keeping us all entertained.
Alex also shared a friendship with my very good friend, former Senator Claire Moore, who has asked me to pass on the following message:
Alex had a strong commitment to the work of the Senate.
He valued the importance of the committee system, and the need to gain information through that system to provide the best basis for policy development and consideration. He and his office prepared for estimates hearings, in detail and his effective examination of audit reports, tender documents and annual reports to extract information, patterns and inconsistencies was exemplary.
He enjoyed the process, and nothing angered him more than waffling or covering up by witnesses, especially public servants. He was respected by the public servants because he did his homework, and he established professional relationships because they were doing their jobs.
Alex did not bully or ridicule witnesses, although he did get real pleasure when exposing inaccuracies, or poor behaviour.
Alex was very generous and supportive as a committee member and a chair. If you made your case for a position, he ensured that you had time to put the case wherever possible.
He supported committee enquires on issues which were not popular. He was very supportive when I wished to pursue Australia's commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals, and attended meetings to allow quorum and provide respect to witnesses.
I loved watching him interact with young people and schools during our committee work. Perhaps it was the link with his grandchildren.
As we all know, Alex had a great dry sense of humour — and none of us were beyond its reach.
Two of the important issues Alex brought to this Chamber were road safety and access to health services.
Senator Pat Dodson got to learn about Alex's passion for documenting, acknowledging and celebrating Australia's indigenous history and the work Alex did promoting it in parts of the South Australian community.
Both Claire and I would like to pass on our sincere condolences to Paola, Alex's family and his staff.
He was very proud of all of you and would often talk lovingly about each and every one of you.
Although Alex is no longer with us, his spirit lives on in this place through his close friend and fellow former TWU official Senators Glenn Sterle.
FORMER SENATOR ALEX GALLACHER CONDOLENCE SPEECH BY SENATOR CATRYNA BILYK
I don't want to take up too much time today, but I do want to pay my respects to a man who became a good friend.
I first met Alex when he was elected to the Senate in 2010. My initial thoughts were that I didn't think I would warm to him to as a friend, although I knew he couldn't be all bad because he was good mates with Senator Glenn Sterle. It didn't take too long for us to become friends though, as I realised Alex had a dry sense of humour, but what a great sense of humour it was, that he had a strong work ethic and, if possible, an even stronger sense of loyalty. He was also a very direct shooter when it came to words, not so sure about his golfing hits.
He did not suffer fools gladly and did not like people with titles, for example Senator, Minister, Shadow Minister, thinking they were better than anyone else. He could pull people down with a few swift words and do so without them even realising what he was doing. I saw that in action a few times, when people tried to one up him. He was very down to earth, no pretentions at all.
Alex came to the Senate after a 22-year career in the Transport Workers Union starting as a truck driver and becoming the Secretary of the South Australian/ Northern Territory branch. He dedicated his life to improving conditions for working people, and the love he had for the transport workers never left him. Others have spoken of his achievements and involvements in this area so I won't repeat all that.
Alex was smart, not just street smart, but politically and tactically. Many a discussion (mainly held in his or Sterle's office and often over a red wine or a beer) was about tactics he though we should be using, or how he was going to approach a certain issue. He was a critical thinker and I learnt a lot from him and those discussions.
Alex loved his family, and he would often chat and show me photos of his children and grandchildren and speak about what they were up to. He was a proud dad and an even prouder grandad. Even when he was at home in Adelaide, when I would contact him, he would update me on the family.
He also loved to play golf. Sometimes when I would ring or text him to see how he was going he would tell me he had managed a game or two and how he had played, often badly according to him, but he'd obviously enjoyed it.
I once told Alex that I'd reversed a B double (truck) the length of a football field and had a certificate for doing so. His comment was "well there's a skill I think you've lost." A few months later he was a passenger in my car, as a few of us were going out to dinner. I found a park and reversed in, in one go, using my mirrors, and I watched him and Glenn Sterle looking at each other. "Oh, so you know to use your mirrors to park and reverse well" was the dry comment. "That's what truckies do".
He used to often pester me about people getting pairs. This came to be a great bit of banter between him and I. He thought, as the former Deputy Whip, I should know why people had pairs. I explained that's information the Whip holds in confidence, but he would ask me why so and so had a pair, and how come so and so also got pairs, and why was someone paired for that particular time and so it went on. This went on for months and finally one day he said to how come he didn't paired. My response was. "Alex, if you grew a pair, you would get a pair". He was lost for words and later in the day came to me and told me "It's not many people that leave me speechless, but you did then. Good job mate"
I remember that conversation with fond memories of a man who was a good mate to many. I count myself lucky to have been part of his crowd.
Vale Alex Gallacher - I hope wherever you are you are enjoying a glass of red, or a beer and enjoying your golf.
I wish to also add just a few short remarks to the debate on this condolence motion. Senator Gallacher's journey and mine, as Senator Sterle said, paralleled each other for a little while. We served on a number of committees together, including the Select Committee on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, but most particularly the Senate Standing Committees on Economics, where he was my deputy chair on the Economics Legislation Committee and I was his deputy chair on the Economics References Committee. We had met on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport committees.
I didn't know Senator Gallacher well. We probably spent a lot of time together on the economics committee in that first six months, the second half of 2019. We were down in Traralgon in Victoria, and we'd had the long drive out and a day's hearings where we'd heard of the many serious problems faced by that region. And the committee hearing ended, and Alex disappeared. And I thought: 'It's a long drive home. He and Matthew have got to get back to Melbourne and then back to Adelaide.' So I thought: 'He has jumped in the car and gone.' I chatted to a couple of the witnesses. The hearing had been held in the RSL, and I went upstairs out of the hearing room—and there was Alex sitting at the bar. He'd already won one bet and he had another one on, and that will be an enduring memory I have of a wonderful senator and a wonderful contributor to this place. I offer my sincere condolences to his family, his friends, his colleagues and his staff.
I will now ask all senators to rise and join me in a moment's silence to acknowledge the passing of Senator Alex Gallacher, remembering the contribution which he made to the Senate, and to signify assent to the motion.
Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places.
Mr President, I move:
That, as a mark of respect to the memory of the late Senator Alex McEachian Gallacher, the Senate do now adjourn.
Question agreed to.
Senate adjourned at 18:28