By letter dated 25 November 2021, the Chair of the Community Affairs References Committee, Senator Rice, has raised a matter of privilege connected to the committee's inquiry into Centrelink's income compliance program. The letter outlines numerous occasions on which the Minister for Government Services and her predecessor have declined to provide information sought by the committee and ordered by the Senate to be produced. In doing so, the chair notes the government's continued reliance on public interest immunity claims that have been explicitly rejected by the committee and by the Senate. On behalf of the committee, Senator Rice seeks to have the minister's refusal to comply with the Senate's orders dealt with as a matter of privilege and referred to the Privileges Committee for inquiry as a possible contempt.
While the Senate has generally preferred political or procedural remedies in disputes over documents, it may also seek to enforce its orders through its contempt jurisdiction. Senators will be aware that two such matters have been referred to the Privileges Committee this year. When a matter of privilege is raised, my role is to consider whether it should have precedence in debate. In making that determination, I am bound to consider only the criteria in privilege resolution 4, which seeks to reserve the Senate's contempt powers for matters involving substantial obstruction of Senate and committee processes or of senators performing their duties. They also recognise that the Senate is generally reluctant to deal with conduct as a contempt where there is a another, more appropriate avenue for redress available. The Senate has declared that disobedience of lawful Senate orders and refusal to produce documents so ordered may be dealt with as a contempt, as may conduct interfering with the work of Senate committees. Only the Senate can remedy such conduct, so in my view both criteria are met. I therefore determine that I should grant the matter precedence in debate. The question of whether the matter warrants investigation as a possible contempt is not a question for me. It is for the Senate to determine whether the matter should be progressed by way of a referral to the Privileges Committee or whether another remedy should be pursued. I table correspondence and call Senator Rice to give notice of motion in respect to the matter.
I give notice of a motion to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report. I seek leave to make a short statement, of up to two minutes, about the issue.
Leave is granted for two minutes.
Referring this as a privileges matter was not something that our committee did lightly. We would have much preferred to have seen this critical information that is core to the Senate's inquiry into the Centrelink compliance program, otherwise known as robodebt. The Senate first ordered the production of the documents that we are seeking in February last year, February 2020. It's been almost two years. It was part of the first interim report into the Centrelink compliance program, when my predecessor, Senator Rachel Siewert, was chair. The information that we are seeking is absolutely key to the committee's inquiry into Centrelink's compliance program. It's an issue which has impacted thousands of people across Australia. Robodebt, the illegal placing of debts on people, has resulted in people taking their own lives because of the impact on them. It is a really, really significant issue.
As I said, in our fifth interim report, which we tabled last week, we once again rejected the government's previous claims of public interest immunity and said these documents that we're seeking are core. We've had a response from the relevant minister as to why they have continued to apply for public interest immunity. We the committee have rejected them, and the Senate has rejected those public interest immunity claims. These documents are absolutely critical to the Senate's inquiry, to be able to do our business. Taking action now really goes to the heart of the ability of the Senate and the committees to undertake our work and of the Senate to function as a chamber of review. The Senate has ordered the production of documents, and we have rejected the public interest immunity claim by the minister. It has occurred repeatedly, hence this referral to the Privileges Committee.
I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2021, as circulated.
Leave not granted.
Pursuant to contingent notice of motion in my name, I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the consideration of the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2021.
Federal ICAC now. Federal ICAC now. There are just so many things that are going on that are undermining public confidence in our system of government—in the way in which this building operates and in the way in which the federal government operates—and we have to address that as a matter of urgency.
We've had sports rorts. We've had car park rorts. We've had jobs for mates. We've had water purchases. We've had blind trusts. All of this goes to an erosion of confidence in our system of government. We note that in the states this doesn't happen. It doesn't happen or it rarely happens because there is a strong watchdog that makes people very, very cautious about doing anything that would give rise to a referral. The problem we've got and the reason I'm seeking to suspend standing orders to deal with this bill is that we have waited patiently, after a promise from the Prime Minister that he would bring legislation to this chamber, to the parliament, to deal with an ICAC—a promise prior to the last election. And the election is closing in. We've seen the sitting calendar for next year. Before the election, we have 10 sitting days; that's it. We can't wait any longer.
Last week, for my pushing for this to be dealt with immediately, Senator Ruston called me 'a procedure wonk', and actually I take some pride in being called a procedure wonk. I do follow procedure. I do understand the standing orders. I do read Odgers, however sad people may feel that is. The fact is that I'm proud of this institution and I'm proud of the way in which it operates. And it doesn't give me pleasure to come in here and ask to interrupt government business time, which was the complaint that was made by Senator Ruston, but I'm doing so in circumstances when the government promised to do this and haven't. They promised to do this in their time in office and haven't, and that ultimately forces people like me, people like Senator Griff and Senator Lambie, and Labor and the Greens, who supported me last week, to try to force a change in thinking and get the Liberal Party to understand how important this is.
Again, they set the agenda; they said that they would bring an integrity commission bill into this parliament, as a promise in the election campaign, and we are running out of time. That's the reason why we need to suspend. That's the reason why we need to get onto the Dr Helen Haines bill—the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill—that I've introduced into the Senate. This bill has the endorsement of a number of external and independent experts in integrity. Again, I don't like interrupting government business time, but they promised to give time to this and they haven't.
Senator Patrick, in your contribution last week you acknowledged that you had sought to bring this bill on for debate last week—through you, Mr President. The will of the chamber at that time was that the chamber didn't want to bring this bill on. So now you come in here and try to hide behind the fact that you can somehow amend what you previously stood for, just to bring on something because you've decided that you want to come in here and seriously disrupt the chamber. I've always had a great deal of respect for your policy wonkiness, Senator Patrick, and your procedural wonkiness—probably more so than anything—because you have always been a great stickler in this place for procedure. To come in here this week, after the will of the chamber last week was that it wasn't to be brought on for debate, and seek to do it again probably undermines the purity of your position when it comes to procedural matters. I would draw to your attention the flaw in your argument that you just put forward.
As you know, Senator Patrick, it is the prerogative of the government to set the agenda. We've got a very serious agenda of legislation that we would like to put before this chamber—and I thank the chamber for the nine bills we were able to get through this place last week. Despite the number of times that suspensions were sought to waste time, particularly by those at the other end of the chamber, we still managed to get nine bills through, and some of them were really, really important. Something like the funder-of-last-resort amendments to the redress bill that we put through this place last week were super important, and I was really proud that we were table to do that. I thank the chamber for that, but we could do more if you would stop with these stunts of wasting time on these sorts of processes. I don't particularly want to be standing here having to defend this situation when we could be talking about substantive legislation that's part of the program that we have put forward. We were completely transparent last Friday about the agenda that we wanted to put through, but here we are again talking about a procedural motion.
On the substantive matter that you're seeking to bring on today, Senator Patrick, the government have been particularly clear around the fact that we issued an exposure draft of the Commonwealth Integrity Commission Bill, along with explanatory memorandum. It was provided to the other side as this is a really important issue that we hope we might be able to get consensus on. I'm sure all members of this government would be more than happy to sit down and get agreement about bringing something forward, but what we will not be bringing forward, Senator Patrick, is a bill that deals with what is a very serious issue—that is, dealing with corruption in public places—and seeks to turn around the basic premise of Australia's legal system, and that is that somebody should be presumed to be innocent until they are proven guilty.
To be proven guilty by the court of public opinion, by the mechanism by which a particular commission is put forward or designed, is not something that this government will support. We will support an Integrity Commission that allows us to root out serious corrupt behaviour, but we will not allow an Integrity Commission to be turned into a political witch-hunt tool. The mechanism of suggesting that politicians can refer other politicians under a model that we've seen put into this place, that politicians can refer other politicians to an Integrity Commission, is a complete outrage. I believe fundamentally in the law of natural justice, and that is that everybody in this country should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
It is completely unfair to have a commission that does not do what it's designed to do. A commission should be designed to root out serious corruption in public places. It shouldn't be designed to duplicate the current processes that are in place in many other integrity-type bodies that sit within the Commonwealth space, not the least of which is one that we in this place all have to adhere to, the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority. There are a number of authorities—including the AFP and the Ombudsman—that already undertake a level of integrity. We are more than happy to support an integrity commission that roots out serious corruption but we will not be party to one that turns it into a witch-hunt that means people who are innocent are not afforded that privilege.
What did we just hear: a 'political witch-hunt'? Last week it was the 'Spanish Inquisition'. I think the Prime Minister called it a 'kangaroo court'. This government is running scared from an integrity commission with teeth, because they know that half of their cabinet have been embroiled in integrity scandals of one form or another and that a corruption watchdog with teeth might cause them a spot of bother. That's why we haven't seen the government's version of an integrity commission. I don't think the Prime Minister ever intended to follow through on his pre-election promise last election to deliver an integrity commission, because you can't believe a word he says. Once again this is a failure to follow through on a commitment. I think we're back in the 'non-core promise' days of John Howard.
The Centre for Public Integrity have looked at all of the various models and found that the government's version is the weakest of all existing corruption watchdogs and the weakest of all proposed models. They found that the Greens' version was the strongest. Our bill, I might add, passed the Senate two years ago. It is the most progressed integrity commission this parliament has and, if the Prime Minister had had the guts to bring it on for debate and a vote in the House, we could have had a corruption watchdog two years ago.
There's a reason he's not bringing it on. He knows half his cabinet would be embroiled in it. He would rather have a watchdog that is in fact toothless and asleep, that commentators have described as 'a protection racket' for MPs. Now they're trying to shift the blame, saying that they're too scared to bring in their own bill because it might not get passed. Sorry, but this is a level of ridiculousness I didn't expect. But here we are.
We have a strong bill, which has passed the Senate. We have a number of Independents who have drafted their own strong bills, very similar to our bill. We don't mind whose name is on the bill, as long as it has teeth, is independent, can hold public hearings and has a genuinely dissuasive effect on corruption. So we welcome the interventions by the Independents and smaller parties in this space. The Greens have been pushing for a corruption watchdog since 2009 federally. We remain the final jurisdiction that doesn't have one; every other state and territory has one. We've needed one since long before 2009, but it took the Prime Minister until three years ago to agree this wasn't a niche issue. Yet we've seen no progress since then. In fact, the minister belled the cat over the weekend on ABC's Insidersthere have now been at least three rounds of consultation, but this has not resulted in any change to the government's bill. They are using sham consultation as a delay tactic. They have no intention of strengthening their weak model, because they don't want a corruption watchdog to work; it would embroil half their cabinet.
I don't think we will see this government's bill and I don't think they will bring on my bill for debate in the House. The bravery of Helen Haines and Bridget Archer last week in the House unfortunately failed on a technicality. This government is in the minority in blocking a corruption watchdog. Many other people in this place want one. It's just One Nation and the coalition that are standing in the way of a watchdog with teeth.
Initially, my bill passed because One Nation abstained. Since then, we've seen that One Nation don't want my bill brought on in the House, and they now don't even want Senator Patrick's bill debated nor that of Helen Haines, the member for Indi. I don't know what cosy deal One Nation have done with the coalition. They've certainly done many a deal in years gone by and they are effectively just a rubber stamp for this coalition's awful agenda. But the Australian people deserve better. They deserve a corruption watchdog with teeth and they deserve a system that isn't corrupt. They deserve a parliament that works in their interests, that isn't dominated and influenced by corporate donors and vested interests and that cleans up the reasons for corruption. They deserve a parliament that ends the big money that's been running this show, that stops the revolving door of lobbyists and that acts based on science, based on the public interest and based on the interests of the community. It is not too much to ask. The people deserve a corruption watchdog and, even more than that, a system that isn't corrupt. Let's vote for that. Let's put the Greens in the balance of power to deliver that.
GALLAGHER (—) (): The Labor Party, the opposition, will be supporting Senator Patrick's motion for the suspension of standing orders to bring on the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill. We think it's an important debate to be had. We think that the Australian people rate it as a significant priority for this parliament to deal with matters around ensuring integrity of politicians and other senior officials. It was something that came up before the last election. The Prime Minister promised to deal with it. He promised to implement and create a Commonwealth integrity body, and that was 1,080 days ago. It is clearly not going to be managed by this government, and that is why the Senate has a responsibility, I would argue, to support Senator Patrick, as we have supported other attempts to bring on debate over a Commonwealth anticorruption commission. I would say that it is clear.
I take the speech by Senator Ruston as giving the most detail I've heard about why they don't want an anticorruption body to be put in place. We have heard the constant comments from the government that it's all the Labor Party's fault, that they have merely had their hands tied by legislation that the Labor Party doesn't support. It doesn't seem to stop them from introducing other bills in this place. I think there is a reasonable amount of contested legislation that comes before this chamber that doesn't always have the Labor Party support, and that lack of support hasn't stopped the government. It is only this bill that they've decided to apply this test to: if there is no support from the Labor Party then they will not introduce it. The reality is they either don't have a bill ready to go or they've got a bill and they're too scared to introduce it into the chamber because they know it will be amended and they will lose the vote on that. That would mean that what would be passed through this chamber and possibly the other place would be a model that the government doesn't have control over.
I think that's the real story: they can't introduce it because they can't guarantee the numbers in the House and they can't guarantee the numbers in the Senate. They can't guarantee the numbers because this deeply divided government has lost control of the parliament, and we saw that reflected in the sitting pattern that was released yesterday. The Senate will sit for three days in the first half of next year—some may like that. The government are prepared to allow the Senate to sit for three days in the first half of next year in this chamber because they are worried that they will continue to lose votes. They have lost their way, they have no agenda and they have managed to divide this parliament to the point that there is a logjam in the Senate because they're unable to get any of their legislation through. That's the reality.
We know that, if there were an integrity commission in place, this government would be at most risk from having that body in place. We've had sports rorts, the Western Sydney airport land, the 'pork and ride' car park rorts. We've had forged documents from ministers. We've had the 'grassgate' affair. We've had robodebt. We've got breaches of ministerial standards and ministers that get rotated off team A, back on the timeout bench and then back in the cabinet as soon as they think they can get away with it. We've got blind trusts, with millions of dollars being given to ministers with no accountability, and we've got a raft of jobs for mates everywhere you look, the last being the chair of Infrastructure Australia, Barnaby's mate being appointed. That is what these people fear. They fear that the rorting funds, where we have calculated $6.9 billion was spent through various funds—the Urban Congestion Fund, the Commuter Car Park Fund, the Building Better Regions Fund, community development grants, the Safer Communities Fund—and where $5.7 billion was directed to coalition or target seats. Eighty-two per cent of billions of dollars of public funds were funnelled for political purposes—not in the national interest, not fairly shared across the country, but for the narrow political interests of the governing party. That is why we need an anticorruption commission. That's why the people of Australia want an anticorruption commission. It's because this government is trashing the standards that existed before that people could trust. There is no trust. We need it, and that's why the opposition will be supporting the suspension.
Senator Patrick says he's motivated in bringing this suspension motion by the frustration that the government is running out of time to deliver its Commonwealth Integrity Commission before the end of the year. So, in order to give effect to that frustration, he has decided to attempt to derail the government's legislative program in a game of competitive one-upmanship about who around this chamber most stands against corruption. Well, the reality is that there's nobody in this room saying that corruption is a good thing. There's nobody here who's saying that corruption is the order of the day. Everyone in this place stands against corruption. It's part of the reason this government has engaged in such a detailed consultation process to make sure that we can deliver an institution that has the teeth it needs while learning the lessons of the integrity commissions in other states that have gone horribly awry.
Which states?
I'll happily tell you that, Senator Lines, in just a moment. But, really, he's frustrated about not getting through the government's program, and so, to do that, he's going to derail getting through the government's program. I mean, can you bear it?
Then we moved around the chamber to hear from Senator Gallagher, who was complaining that we have a desire to introduce a bill of this significance with the support of those opposite. Now, every time I go out into the Australian community, they want to see more of the major parties working together to get sensible agreement on matters so fundamental to the institutions of this country that we want them to have an enduring and stable quality. But, no, they want to engage in a game of partisanship, a game of political one-upmanship, instead of just getting the heads around the table and agreeing on what it is possible to do amongst the people in this room.
It leads me to say again: can you bear it? The hypocrisy of those around this chamber makes my eyes water. But it's important that, rather than trying to cast slurs on people who serve in this place, under the coward's castle of parliamentary privilege, we instead step back and look at what works in these institutions. If we look to the example of the New South Wales ICAC, we see a long list of great injustices that have been inflicted by a star chamber which itself needs to be held accountable. For those Australians watching and thinking, 'But we do need something to look at corruption at the federal level'—and, of course, it is important that we are stomping out corruption at every opportunity—few Australians realise that, first, we have 12 agencies at the Commonwealth level that deal with corruption. We don't have one or two. We have 12 agencies that are responsible for tracking down and stomping out corruption every day of the week. So, in the time between now and when the Commonwealth Integrity Commission comes into force, these things are not languishing by the wayside; they are being dealt with and they are being addressed.
The next thing to say is that we've already taken action to expand the role of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. We've expanded it. We have funded it, and it is already delivering those aspects of the federal government's Commonwealth Integrity Commission bill. It's already happened. It's already funded and it's already being delivered every day of the week. So there are an awful lot of political slogans being chucked around by those opposite, but there's not a lot of connection to reality. Let's have a look at the long list of injustices that can occur when we don't get the design of an integrity commission right, because, can I tell you, the design that has been proposed by those in the Greens and the design proposed in the Haines bill would empower many great injustices of the kind that we have seen in New South Wales. Nick Greiner—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Members on my left, you are given the courtesy of silence when you speak. I'd ask that you extend that to others when they're on their feet. That is how this place works to provide everyone an opportunity to express their views.
Let me give you an example of the case of Nick Greiner—1992 we're talking about here. This is the man who fought for and established the New South Wales ICAC. This man referred himself to it, such was his belief in it. He was found not to have acted corruptly, not to have acted illegally. They bagged him so much anyway he was forced to resign. (Time expired)
The Jacqui Lambie Network will be supporting this and will continue to support an ICAC that's got some teeth. I want to tell you what the reality is—through the chair—Senator Stoker. The reality is this: the Australian people right now believe that we're politically corrupt up here—we don't have to answer to them, we don't have to show documents and we don't have to hold people responsible for their actions is what they believe. What that is doing is actually putting the rest of us in that shame basket, and I do not want to be a part of that. That is the reality of what is going on on the ground with the Australian people. That is their thought process right now. There is no trust.
I can tell you after two years, or 2½ years or however long we've waited, to them all you're doing is covering up because you do not want this thing to happen. What they're telling me is that we can get away with blue murder in this chamber, in both houses, and we can walk around grander than the rest of the country. That's what they're telling me, that we are untouchable. That is not the Australia I know and that is not good leadership.
I can tell you: I will be supporting this. I look forward very much to you putting your own ICAC up, the one that will leave the puppy dog sitting in the kennel because it's got no teeth and is still in its gummy stage. That's what we're expecting. That's what we will get because you'll be trying to rush it through to say, 'Hey, look at this. We promised it, and everybody else knocked it back.' We already know how the election cycle works, but I don't think people in Australia are actually going to believe you. I think your credibility is about washed in this area. It's gone down the gurgler. That's where we stand in here.
For the sake of transparency, for the sake of trust and honesty and to gain that back from the Australian people, I will support it whether it's a Greens bill or a Helen Haines bill. I don't care whose bill it is, as long as it has teeth. I'm not just talking about teeth of a dog; I'm talking about the teeth of Jaws. That's what I want to see. If politicians end up at these ICACs that have got full powers, then so be it. If you have nothing to hide, you will show up. That's what you will do. You will show up and answer questions, and keep your credibility intact. That's what it gives you the opportunity to do. So no more excuses, because these are just lame excuses, and the Australian people can see this. It's not good enough. Today I will be supporting Senator Patrick's motion.
The question is that the suspension of standing orders moved by Senator Patrick be agreed to.
I seek leave to move a motion in relation to Australia's climate targets.
Leave not granted.
Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to Australia's climate targets.
The latest—
Senator Waters, before you go on, I will point out that it is in the discretion of the chair to avoid multiple suspensions of standing orders if repeated suspensions are used to frustrate the business of the chamber. However, as per past practice, I will allow a second suspension. But there will be no third.
Thanks, Mr President. We'll come back to the procedural elements of your ruling another time. On this matter, the latest quarterly emissions data has just been released by the department this morning, and Australia's pollution is up two per cent in this quarter. These June quarter results are proof that, despite the short-term drop in emissions due to COVID that this government claimed as a great success, that was nothing but a road bump. It's a reminder that a global pandemic is not a climate policy. Today's report exposes that there is no structural change happening. We're driving off the climate cliff, with Liberals, Nationals and Labor pushing their feet on the accelerator heading into this election. In the approval pipeline, there are 116 new coal and gas projects that both parties want to see opened up. Yesterday Labor voted with the government to give $50 million to gas companies to start fracking the Beetaloo basin in the Northern Territory, against the wishes of First Nations owners. Last week they voted together again, to give millions more to coal and gas companies for carbon capture and storage. Meanwhile, there is no plan for transport pollution, no plan to help farmers reduce emissions, no plan for rolling out new renewables and no plan to stop the gridlock. There is expansion of methane-leaking coal and gas fields.
This is urgent. We have until the end of the decade to slash global pollution or we risk setting off an irreversible chain and we will be unable to stop the collapse of our climate system. Once that extreme-weather genie is out of the bottle, humans won't be able to put it back in. The science says that we need a 74 per cent reduction in emissions by the end of the decade, three times more than what the coalition has sentenced us to. Last month, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Albanese, said that he would respect the science when it comes to climate change. The Australian Greens will hold the opposition leader to those words when the opposition soon announce their climate targets. If you want to limit Australia to 1½ degrees of warming, which is what was just inserted into the Glasgow text, the science says that Australia's 2030 targets need to be 75 per cent. Any target that is a 2030 target that is less than 75 per cent is not science based.
In the two years since the 2019 election, the climate crisis has gotten worse, not better, so the opposition's targets need to be stronger and not weaker than they were at the last election. A 45 per cent reduction was once the barest minimum for two degrees of warming. Since the Climate Change Authority report in 2014, that's been revised up by the Climate Targets Panel to 50 per cent, but even a 50 per cent target would give us only a two-thirds chance of staying below two degrees. But two degrees is too high. The world recognised that at Glasgow, after they listened to the voices of Pacific islanders saying that their nations will not survive if warming reaches two degrees. The text of the Paris Agreement shifted in Glasgow. The goal is now 1½ degrees, and two degrees is not acceptable to the global community anymore.
We listen to medical scientists for our health advice. We listen to engineering science to build bridges and towers. We listen to aeronautical science, which delivers us safely around the world. We now have to listen to atmospheric science. If we don't let the science guide us through this critical decade, our generation will forever be known as the generation that handed down worse living conditions to those that followed us. That is not something that the Australian Greens will sit back and allow to happen.
Transforming our economy to create the jobs and the public infrastructure that we need to avert climate catastrophe is all upside. There's no downside—except, of course, for the coal and gas corporations that are plundering our planet and donating generously to both sides of parliament. Putting the Greens in the balance of power to kick out the Liberals and push the next government to go further and faster on the climate emergency will mean that our next parliament has to listen to voters and climate science, not fossil fuel donors. It is long past time that the coal and gas companies stopped writing this nation's climate policies. That is a dodgy pay-off for the donations that they make to both sides of politics.
If, as the opposition leader said last week, the opposition wants climate targets to be based on science, let's see some targets that are based on science. To stick with 1½ degrees, Australia's got to commit to a 75 per cent reduction by 2030. Otherwise, we are cooking the planet. We can create a tonne of jobs with renewable energy. We need science based targets, not coal donors running the show. (Time expired)
Labor won't be supporting this suspension this morning. It is important to put it on the record, because we're constantly accused by the Greens of not agreeing with them. We are not agreeing to this suspension today, firstly because we had, again, no notice of it. If the Greens were serious about trying to get Labor's support for a debate to be brought on urgently, as they are intending to do, they would engage with us prior to this being circulated in the chamber. I had no line of sight, as manager, that this was being done until I walked into the chamber this morning.
The second issue is that we will not agree to having our climate policy determined by the Greens political party through a suspension debate in this chamber. Labor has been very clear that we will be finalising our policy and the measures which underpin that policy within our caucus through the leadership of Mr Bowen and Mr Albanese. It will not be determined by an order from the Senate.
This is a very similar motion—almost identical, I think—to the one that was moved last week, and we didn't support that one either. If there was a genuine desire to find time for a debate around climate policy, I think we would have been able to do that, whether it be through general business or whether it be through MPIs or urgency motions. They are the avenues through which this debate could have been sought and could have been held. That would have given people the opportunity to have their say.
In conclusion, I would say: if you want serious action on climate, we are going to need a change of government. If you want the jobs that will come from having a serious policy on climate, you will have to change the government. If you want Australia to be a renewable energy superpower, you will have to change the government. If you want serious climate policy, you will have to change the government. And if you want to provide business with the incentives and the investment certainty that they have been desiring for the last eight years, then you will need to change the government. I don't think these motions do that.
These motions are politically inspired by the Greens political party, which is openly campaigning for Labor to lose seats. There are six Labor seats that you are targeting in the election. I don't know how that advances climate policy, frankly. You are openly campaigning against the party that wants to take serious action on climate. We need to call this out. It's not in your political interests to have a change of government. You are a party of protest and you like fighting Liberals on climate. That's what you like. All of your standard operating procedures are geared to having a government that you're opposed to.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senators on my left. The Senate works on the basis that people can come here and express their views and be heard in silence. If you want to have the rule of the loudest voice or the strongest, go to some nation that is an autocracy. This is a democracy where we have conventions and rules to allow people to express an opinion.
I will conclude on this point. Australia taking serious action on climate change and having the policies that underpin it and the economic opportunities that will come with that is not going to be progressed by the Greens moving motions like this. They are not serious about it. If they want to get serious about it, they should stop campaigning for the Labor Party to lose seats, be a bit more collaborative in here so they can reach agreement and actually work in the national interest, not their narrow political interests.
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Ruston be agreed to.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.
I move:
That the order of government business today be as shown on the order of business:
Question agreed to.
I rise to speak on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Economic Empowerment) Bill 2021.
The passage of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act in 1976 was an historic moment in the history of our country. In fact, in discussing this with colleagues on the other side of the chamber, they also recognise that. Before I go on, Mr Acting Deputy President Fawcett, I would like to say that your point in relation to who has the loudest voice was necessary, unfortunately, but one that was very well made in our system, so thank you. This was the first legislative attempt by an Australian government to recognise First Nations people's prior ownership of the land. It followed years of advocacy by Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, including the bark petition presented to this parliament by the Yolngu people and, of course, the Gurindji people's seven-year strike for land rights. The act was an achievement of both the Whitlam and Fraser governments and passed with historic bipartisan support.
Since 1976, however, the act has been amended several times, mostly against the wishes of the land councils and the Aboriginal people they represent. The Howard government was responsible for amendments in 2006 and 2007—I may need to correct those dates later on the Hansardwhich were an attempt to weaken the land councils and limit their abilities to advocate for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. It's no wonder then that this bill, which proposes significant reforms to the act, has been met with suspicion in some quarters. However, unusually for this government, the bill has been negotiated with and is supported by all four of the Northern Territory land councils: the Tiwi Land Council, the Central Land Council, the Anindilyakwa Land council and the Northern Land Council.
Following the introduction of the bill in the House, the chair of the Northern Land Council, Mr Samuel Bush-Blanasi, said:
We have been working on this now for many years. For the first time Aboriginal people have been at the table with government ensuring the interests of Aboriginal people are front and centre. Finally we are seeing real progress.
In the explanatory memorandum to the bill, the government has stated a commitment to only amend the land rights act with the support of the land councils. This is a welcome development. The involvement of the land councils in the design of these changes and their strong support for them is the basis for Labor's support of this bill.
I will now go through the changes to the act. In relation to the new investment corporation—and these are arguably the most significant changes—a new Northern Territory Aboriginal Investment Corporation is to be established, funded from the existing Aboriginals Benefit Account, the ABA, which receives and distributes the equivalent of royalties generated by mining on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. It currently holds some $1.3 billion in funds. Pursuant to the land rights act, the minister is empowered to make payments from the account 'for the benefit of' Aboriginal Territorians. The ABA Advisory Committee was established under the act to provide advice to the minister on the making of these beneficial payments.
Unfortunately, there has been a chequered history of ministerial payments from the ABA. Ministers have not always heeded the advice of the ABA advisory committee. Minister Brough, for example, used funds from the ABA intended to benefit Aboriginal people living in the Northern Territory to support a festival in Queensland. Minister Scullion controversially used his discretion to refuse funding projects that had been recommended by the ABA advisory committee. Land councils have long called for greater Aboriginal control over the funds of the ABA. This bill makes a significant step in that direction. It will empower the new Aboriginal controlled NTAI Corporation to take over responsibility for making beneficial payments and to make investments that will promote the economic self-sufficiency of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.
The new corporation will be led by a board of eight Aboriginal representatives from the Northern Territory, two government appointed directors and two independent directors appointed by the board. Roughly half of the current balance of the ABA will be transferred to the new corporation; that's about $500 million and $60 million annually for the first three years of its operation. The bill also enables further payments to be made from the ABA to the corporation at the minister's discretion. Concerns have been raised about continued ministerial discretion over the remaining funds in the ABA, which are projected to grow significantly in coming years. Given this government's astonishing willingness to use public funds for its own political imperatives, that concern is understandable. However, as the history of ministerial payments indicates, misuse of ABA funds remains arguably a greater risk if the status quo is maintained. The establishment of the new corporation means that for the first time an Aboriginal controlled body is making decisions about the spending of ABA money. This is far preferable to an advisory body that does not have the capacity to direct spending and which has certainly not prevented questionable ministerial payments in the past.
The second set of amendments to the bill go to processes for the negotiation, consent and approval of exploration and mining on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. Given the importance and the subject matter of these provisions, the changes have understandably attracted some concern. As my colleague the shadow Attorney-General noted in his speech on the bill in the other place:
… this government has a dismal history with respect to making changes to traditional negotiation and consent processes in the context of native title. In recent years, claimed improvements to make those processes more efficient have in fact come at a cost to the rights of First Nations people and have threatened the integrity of traditional decision-making processes.
In contrast, these parts of the bill make largely administrative or technical changes to the land rights act and have the strong support of the four Northern Territory land councils. As the land councils submitted to the committee inquiry:
The reforms have the potential to reduce the amount of time associated with the application process for exploration licenses and permits. Creating more efficient and consistent processes will benefit Traditional Owners and mining parties equally.
As they outline, the changes resolve 'a major source of frustration' by reducing unnecessary meetings when traditional owners have already made their views clear to a land council. In his evidence to the committee, Mr Wayne Beswick of the Northern Land Council explained:
In fact, they're precisely there at the request of traditional owners, who don't want to be humbugged by endless meetings when they've already clearly made their views known to the land councils. So it's traditional owners who were pushing for that particular change, not the miners.
The administrative nature of the changes was emphasised by the Law Council of Australia, which regarded the impact of the amendments as 'generally being negligible'. Importantly, these changes do not dilute the protections in the act for traditional owners, which remain some of the strongest in the country. Land councils are still required to be satisfied that traditional owners have consented to the relevant licence. There has been no change to the right of traditional owners to withhold consent to mining under the act. As Mr Nugent of the Central Land Council explained to the committee, these changes:
…in no way derogate from the central requirements of traditional owners. The so-called 'veto right' that traditional owners maintain is sacrosanct under the land rights act. That is absolutely protected.
The third set of amendments made by the bill are to the land administration arrangements under the land rights act. This includes a range of measures to give land councils greater authority to act on behalf of their communities without ministerial approval and increase penalties for unauthorised access to Aboriginal land. Labor particularly welcomes the bill's repeal of controversial Howard-era provisions imposed over the strong opposition of Aboriginal Territorians. This includes the repeal of section 74AA of the land rights act, which was part of the Howard government's 2007 Northern Territory intervention. That provision has the effect of preventing land councils from overturning permits for accessing Aboriginal land that had been granted by a minority in the community and against the wishes of the traditional owners. According to the land councils, the ongoing effects of this section has been to cause division within communities. As they say:
It undermines Traditional Owner decision making as well as the Land Council’s ability to discharge its statutory function to act on behalf of Traditional Owners as a group.
Its repeal is welcome.
Labor also welcomes the bill's repeal of sections 28A to 28F of the land rights act which provide for the delegation of land councils functions to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations. This is another hangover of the Howard era, introduced in an attempt to fragment and undermine the authority of the land councils. Labor opposed these provisions at the time. We have been glad to note that there has been not been a single successful application during the 15 years since its introduction. These provisions were poorly designed and were ultimately ineffective. We are pleased that the government is finally repealing them.
The final set of changes made by the bill align the operation of the ABA with the Commonwealth financial framework by ensuring consistency with Northern Territory legislation for the payment of mineral royalties and clarifying the purposes of the ABA. These provisions are uncontroversial and Labor is pleased to support them.
Before I finish my remarks, I want to briefly address concerns raised about the representative nature of the land councils. There are some who say the consultations the land councils have conducted in relation to this bill are insufficient. There are some that argue the board of the new corporation is not sufficiently representative of Aboriginal people in the Territory because the majority of its directors will be appointed by the land councils. It's worth remembering that land councils are democratically elected bodies with a statutory obligation to represent the views and protect the interests of Aboriginal people living in the regions across the Northern Territory.
Federal MPs represent anything from 70,000 voters to 100,000 voters. Each of the Northern Land Council's 78 full council members represents, on average, 410 Aboriginal people in their region. For the Central Land Council the comparable figure is 187. For the two small land councils it's 60 to 70 each. These are arguably the most democratically representative institutions in the country. Just as those of us in this chamber are accountable to voters in our states' and territories' elections, so too are land council members accountable to the Aboriginal people they represent. As the land councils state in their submission:
Land Council members are elected to represent the views of Traditional Owners and other Aboriginal residents in their Land Council region. If they fail at this, they get voted out.
That sounds pretty democratic to me.
Undoubtedly, there are aspects of the bill and its development that Labor would have managed differently if we were in government. There are parts that we intend to monitor closely over the coming years. In particular, we will take the opportunity to scrutinise the strategic investment plan for the new corporation when it is tabled in parliament, as required under the bill. And we look forward to interrogating the effectiveness of the new corporation through the review provided for in the bill, noting that it will take several years to be able to evaluate the success of its strategic investments.
Overall, the bill has the capacity to enhance the rights and interests of Aboriginal people. It ends some of the most controversial and damaging reforms of the Howard government, and, while there are further reforms Labor would like to see, this is a positive first step. Most importantly, the new investment corporation will ensure a higher level of Aboriginal control over moneys earned from mining and development on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. This is a significant development and one that land councils and those they represent have been advocating for, over many years. Labor commends this bill to the Senate.
I rise to speak to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Economic Empowerment) Bill 2021. It sounds lovely! But what does it really mean? Let's pull out the devil in the detail, hey? This bill is the most extensive change to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act since 1976, and it's being rushed through this place. Surprise, surprise! There are problems through the bill, but the main ones, the critical flaws in this bill, are the lack of self-determination and of free, prior and informed consent in the development of the bill.
Both the government and Labor have hailed this bill as an example of a bottom-up approach, based on consultation with First Nations people in the Northern Territory. But the government didn't actually talk to communities in the Northern Territory; those who they really talked to were the land councils.
Let's talk about the land councils—the elephant in the room. The land councils are the ones who have really been consulted in the development of this bill, and that's because they're the ones who get substantial powers through this bill. No wonder the land councils are so in favour of the bill! Land councils are supposed to act as representatives of traditional owners and to always act in their interests and always obtain their free, prior and informed consent. But this doesn't happen. The direct feedback I get, regularly, from traditional owners, family clan groups, in the Northern Territory about this bill is that communities have absolutely no idea about this bill and what it will mean to them—how it will affect their life. They have not been informed of the extensive changes proposed through this bill and have certainly not been consulted. So there you have it. Consultation is not consent.
Communities in the Northern Territory don't want this bill to be passed—it's as simple as that. They want more time to understand and examine the changes proposed. That's called free, prior and informed consent. That's called self-determination. Communities want to have input into the amendments made to the Aboriginal land rights act. Hello? They want to know the details. And they have the right to know the details, surely?
At the Senate inquiry into this bill, almost all submitters did not want this bill to pass, due to the lack of consultation with traditional owners. Dot paintings; Black Lives Matter; but don't worry about consultation! The only ones who want this bill to pass are the land councils and the national Indigenous, Aboriginal advancement—the blackfella version of this government's approach to fixing the Aboriginal problem in this country. The only other submission received in favour of this bill was from the Minerals Council. There is no surprise there either, as it helps facilitate mining and exploration applications. Let me just make that clear for Northern Territory mob at home who are listening and have asked me to say these things and call out the government and call out Labor. This bill is supported by the Minerals Council, which helps facilitate mining and exploration applications. This bill we're talking about now gives the mining companies direct access with no free, prior and informed consent.
This bill is not about self-determination. It's certainly not about the empowerment of First Nations people. It is yet another example of how we are being patronised and decisions are being made for us instead of by us. I want to make clear to the Senate and those watching—I know you're paying attention to how people in this place are voting, even though some don't turn up to vote because they are so shamed by how they voted yesterday on Beetaloo—the Australian Greens can't support this bill unless schedule 2 is removed. It's as simple as that. Schedule 2 is about fast-tracking the destruction and desecration of country. It's about mining destroying and desecrating sacred sites. This parliament has no business passing this bill as our people have not consented. They do not consent. That should be the end of the matter. But, no, the government, with their Labor mates, are going to support it and ram it through anyway.
I say to everyone in this place that the Australian Greens cannot support this bill if it will make it easier for the big mining corporations, which have purchased so many politicians in this place, to destroy country. That's what they've done. They've purchased politicians. They've said: 'We'll donate to your campaigns for the next election, but you have to pass this bill, mate. You have to pass it. Don't worry about the blackfellas and their country'—you want a welcome to country all the time—'Just pass the bill. We'll give you money for your campaigns and we'll get easier access to destroy country and frack.' Nice one! This little black girl ain't silly and neither are the blackfellas out there watching. They're not silly. We know what you're up to. We have blacademics out there now.
The Greens are on the side of First Nations people in this country. There's absolutely no doubt about that. I say to the elders fighting for country and to the land and water defenders across this country: we are genuinely with you. We won't tell you that we support you and then, when you turn your back, stab you in the back. We don't do that. We genuinely listen and genuinely act.
No consent means we're not going to support it. Why would anybody else? Labor can laugh at this very serious matter, which they're doing in the chamber right now. In fact, the senator who made the previous speech is having a good old laugh down there.
Madam Acting Deputy President—
Please take your seat, Senator Thorpe. I will take a point of order from Senator Kitching, but I'm going to remark first that you are reflecting on another senator and that is incredibly disorderly in the chamber. I ask you to withdraw the comment that was a reflection on another senator. Are you willing to do that, Senator Thorpe?
Yes, I am.
Thank you. Senator Kitching, are you still seeking to raise a point of order?
Under standing order 193(3), the language of Senator Thorpe implying that both government and opposition senators were corrupt and that we had been bought by the mining companies would be unparliamentary.
I'll take a point from Senator Stoker. Is it on the same point of order?
I support the point of order that's been made by Senator Kitching but furthermore invite Senator Thorpe, if she has evidence of this, to provide it, because—
That's a debating point. Thank you very much. Senator McKim, on the same point of order?
On the same point of order, I have just a small contribution, if I might. For 193(3) to be enabled would require Senator Thorpe to have made those reflections against a specific senator. That was not the case, so I submit to you—
Your argument is that it was in the general rather than the particular?
Exactly right. That is my submission to you.
Thank you very much. I will take some advice from the Clerk. Can I be clear that I think that that is correct, Senator McKim: on the advice of the Clerk, while it was a general comment, it was not directed at a particular senator, so we will deal with that point of order. I note that Senator Thorpe has withdrawn her comment. I call Senator Thorpe. Senator Kitching, you're seeking the call?
Senator Thorpe then went on to refer to the senator who gave the previous contribution, which would be me, so it was specific.
I suggest that it would be appropriate for the transcript to be reviewed and, if required, I'm sure the President will be able to seek the redress that Senator Kitching is seeking. In the interests of time, we will proceed. I call Senator Thorpe.
The Aboriginal Land Rights Act was established to give ownership back to the people of the Northern Territory. Traditional owners are still struggling to protect country and culture in a system that is stacked against them, as we have just seen in the report handed down by the Juukan inquiry. Communities still don't have the power to decide what happens on their lands; it's mining companies and governments who decide. Free, prior and informed consent means you provide all of the information available to the people that will be affected. You provide communities with the means to participate in meetings and understand the content of what is being proposed. Most importantly, free, prior and informed consent involves listening—really listening—to the communities affected. Withholding consent is a completely legitimate outcome of free, prior and informed consent.
Free, prior and informed consent has not occurred in this instance. Communities in the Northern Territory have not been heard. It was the Greens who demanded an inquiry into this bill so that community voices could be heard at all. Even the inquiry was rushed. I think we were given two hours. There were only two hours for blackfellas in the Northern Territory to provide evidence as to why this is important to them? I find that quite disrespectful in itself. That shows how much you really want to hear the voices of First Nations people in this country.
What we need is an overhaul of the whole system of how we do things. It's time to do things properly. Do you want to join in that or continue the path that both the government and the Labor Party are going down, which contravenes the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in this country? It's a simple fact that free, prior and informed consent just don't matter to some people in this place. Free, prior and informed consent are fundamental in a treaty. This is why we need a treaty and why you will hear me talk about it again and again and again and again. Free, prior and informed consent must be part of that treaty. I foreshadow a second reading amendment in my name that will educate senators. I think people actually don't know what free, prior and informed consent means, or they make up their own version of it, and it's not working.
Debate interrupted.
Today and every day, I am proud to stand with early childhood educators. Mostly women, they are professional, they are dedicated, they are qualified and they are absolutely essential. These amazing women, and a few men, do their very best to provide quality early education in a system that is in crisis. It's a system that increasingly puts profits over people, a system that cuts corners instead of investing in our children and in our essential early educators, a system that is unaffordable and out of reach for too many families.
Jade works at one of Australia's largest for-profit early learning providers. She tells me that the food budget at her centre is only $1.50 per child per day. That delivers a diet of 'white bread and carbs'. The deck needs sanding, and children have splinters from it. One splinter was so bad the child was taken to hospital. The pay is close to minimum wage, despite the immense responsibility Jade and all educators have for our future generations.
This story is just one of so many in a sector where, today, two-thirds of long day care centres are for-profit. We're not talking about mum-and-dad operations here. Early education has become big business. Today $1.7 billion in revenue is collected by five large companies, three of which are based offshore and pay no tax in Australia. Eighty per cent of that money comes from taxpayers. Providers should be putting every cent of the money that they get from taxpayers and parents into quality early education, into affordable early education. It is a complete disgrace that they are not. Children deserve better, families deserve better and early childhood educators deserve better too.
We are seeing very welcome drought-breaking rains at the moment, which is a welcome relief for farmers and irrigators across the nation, but, as ever, rain is a double-edged sword. Some of the farmers who thought they would finally be able to go to the bank and pay some of their debt back are now facing washed out crops, which is devastating for those farmers. But the good news is that—and this is the anomaly that is Australia—at the same time as some farmers are seeing the downgrading of their crops or some crops washed away, ABARES is still predicting that Australia will have the highest grain crop on record. We're expecting to harvest 34.4 million tonnes of wheat and barley. Even despite China banning the sale of Australian barley in China, we're still expecting to harvest 13.3 million tonnes. I was talking to a farmer the other day who is getting nearly nine tonnes a hectare from their barley crop, which is incredible. New South Wales is still expected to produce the second-largest crop ever.
This should be celebrated. We should be thanking our farmers, because all of this contributes to our gross domestic product. All of this contributes to our strong economy, and we know that our economy has got through COVID on the back of our agriculture and resources industries. Without them, we would have been an economic basket case. I acknowledge that there is disappointment out there with the rains. I acknowledge that we're getting great tonnage but prices might not be as good due to the downgrading. But to all farmers out there trying to get their crops in: I hope it dries out a bit, and all the best.
Fifty years ago next year, the Tasmanian government made a terrible mistake. It needlessly flooded a dynamic, living waterway deep in Tasmania's wilderness, and at the heart of that waterway was—and still is—the spectacular wild icon of Lake Pedder. In this, the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, with nature and wilderness under relentless attack and the climate breaking down around us, it is time to right this historical wrong. Now, more than ever, we need to restore nature, and there could be no project more worthy than to heal what we broke nearly half a century ago when Lake Pedder was drowned.
Restoring Pedder is not just a big idea; it is a courageous and visionary idea, and it's an idea and a project that is eminently achievable. It would show leadership to the world, and it would provide hope to people around the world, that we can learn from our mistakes and make good on our mistakes. It would show people that we can heal nature when it has been so grievously harmed. It would put Tasmania on the global map, on the front page, for all the right reasons.
The magnificent quartzite beach at Lake Pedder is still intact, ready to be revealed to the world in all its beauty and magnificence. Restoring Pedder would also create thousands of jobs in our post-COVID economy, a nature-led recovery instead of the nonsense of a gas-led recovery. Restoring Pedder would show the world that humanity can play a positive role in the stewardship of wilderness and nature. The time has come. After 50 years it is time to restore Lake Pedder.
[by video link] Tomorrow is World AIDS Day and I want to take this opportunity now to speak in support of all those living with HIV and to commemorate those who've been lost in the AIDS epidemic. HIV has taught Australia and the world many lessons that serve us particularly well now in the time of COVID. Science and research, access to health care and treatment, prevention without stigma, and listening and working closely with affected communities have been key to addressing the HIV pandemic in Australia, and so it is with COVID.
Here in Australia fewer than 10,000 people have died from AIDS and around 26,000 people continue to live with HIV today. So, our burden, compared to the rest of the world, has been comparatively light, and this is not luck. Just as with COVID, it has been our commitment to implementing evidence based policies which respond to real-world behaviour. We have so much work still to do, including increasing awareness in the community, especially among at-risk groups.
I want to send my congratulations to the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations and all their members on their Agenda 2025 plan. This sets out a detailed, fully costed, evidence based approach to the elimination of HIV transmission in Australia by 2025. Like so many others in this movement, I am committed to the realisation of this goal and committed to continuing to confront and fight stigma against people living with HIV in all areas of life. I'm proud that Australia has committed to the UN Political Declaration on HIV and AIDS and that we are focused on efforts to make HIV history here in Australia and right around the world.
[by video link] Since 2016, One Nation has been campaigning for natural, Australian, whole-plant medical cannabis to be made available through chemists—under doctor's prescription—on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. So far in 2021 the TGA has approved 184,000 applications for medicinal cannabis, an exponential increase, with Queensland leading the way. The world hasn't ended—nothing harmful has happened—and people are being healed. The first cannabis product has now been approved for supply under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for Dravet syndrome. It's an extract, not whole-plant, but at least it's a natural product.
One Nation worked with the government to introduce new cannabis licensing for export producers in 2019. That's been largely responsible for the increase. At the time, the cannabis community did not understand why One Nation was celebrating regulation changes that provide companies with the certainty needed to enter export markets. We're now seeing the benefit of One Nation's advocacy. Business expanded production for export and supplied some of that product into the Australian prescription market. This caused prices to fall and increased the range of available options, quality and availability.
In a Senate speech in 2019, I quoted a Roy Morgan survey that found medical cannabis could help one million Australians every year. That's looking accurate. Most of the growth in medical cannabis has come from pain relief, just one of the many uses for medical cannabis. In 2019, 1,000 Australians died of overdoses from prescription painkillers. No-one has ever died from prescription medical cannabis. There are more lives to be saved here, by moving patients from fatal narcotic drugs to medical cannabis. I urge the government to widen the approved use of medical cannabis to include epilepsy and chemotherapy support among others. Our people, our community and our nation deserve improved access to medical cannabis.
Labor wants to introduce its reckless plan to scrap the cashless debit card, a card that protects particularly vulnerable communities from having their welfare scammed for drugs and alcohol. We on this side of the chamber care about helping and protecting unemployed Australian families. We want to help stabilise their lives and their communities. The card is a targeted, proportionate program. It puts food on the table and gets the kids to school.
Labor, in its misguided world view, wants to scrap the card and the protection it affords, especially for women and children. While they're at it, they peddle their dishonest scare campaign that the government wants to expand the cashless welfare card to include age pensioners. The truth is that the government's legislation explicitly rules this out. The legislation doesn't allow for that to happen. In an ironic twist, Labor voted against that guarantee. We saw Labor's dishonest 'Mediscare' campaign in the 2016 election. Thankfully, Australians saw through the politicking. Brazenly, one Tasmanian Labor MP's website still says, 'The government wants to expand the cashless welfare card to include all pensioners.' This is simply false, simply untrue and simply desperate.
The government has made it clear it will never place age pensioners onto the cashless debit card. Retirees can rest assured that their pensions are safe in Liberal hands. Devoid of a positive agenda, Labor is resorting to peddling falsehoods about age pensioners in the hope that pensioners will vote Labor. It's unworthy, and our pensioner community, who built our country, deserve so much better. Pensioners have no better friend than the Liberal-National parties.
Today marks the beginning of an important national awareness campaign about the dangers of drinking while pregnant. I have been advocating for more recognition and understanding of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, known as FASD, for many years. I am thrilled to finally see this campaign realised from today.
The message is simple. It tells women and the people around them that every moment and every drop matters when you are pregnant. Many people, including some health professionals, think that the occasional drink won't hurt, but the truth is that any alcohol can hurt a developing baby. The more a mother drinks, at any stage of pregnancy, the greater the risk of alcohol crossing the placenta and causing devastating lifelong damage. This is the condition known as FASD. It is not well understood in our communities but it can have a massive impact on a person's health and, of course, their life. There is no treatment. Prevention is the only cure. This is why we need an awareness campaign and why we have the awareness campaign kicking off from today, to ensure people know of the dangers of drinking alcohol while pregnant.
I desperately hope it cuts through to those who need to hear this message, and I congratulate everyone who has made it happen: FARE, the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education; NOFASD Australia; and the federal government for their financial support. We all have a part to play in fighting FASD. We fight it by informing and supporting women—informing them of the risks; supporting them without judgement—to make the healthy choice not to drink during pregnancy, and supporting them to make the moment that they start trying for a baby the moment that they stop drinking, because every moment matters.
'NEILL () (): I want to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Griff. I think it's a very important issue and it's great that it's acknowledged.
Today, I want to make a contribution about the conclusion of the ACCC investigation into the conduct of General Motors towards its dealership network, following its decision to withdraw the Holden brand from Australia. Australians love their Holdens. They not only got shunted offshore by this government, but General Motors also got away with a disgraceful act because this government didn't act to help Australian consumers and Australian jobs.
The ACCC noted that General Motors conduct is a lesson to all franchisers of what not to do, but they did it on the watch of this government, aided and abetted by the government who did nothing to stand up. This finding from the ACCC is in line with the findings of a bipartisan Senate report. The Senate carefully inquired and then castigated General Motors for their appalling treatment of the Holden dealer network. These are small businesses distributed right across our country. General Motors conduct led to the collapse of dealerships across this country and they prompted me to introduce a private senator's bill to address this power imbalance. I want to take the opportunity to thank particularly my Labor colleagues, who supported this through the Labor Party, but also the crossbench who helped actually save the car dealer network and industry across Australia by supporting my private senator's bill.
Australia's car dealers employ 60,000 local Australians, and nearly 7,000 trainees and apprenticeships are provided in that sector. It is part of the social fabric of towns, suburbs and communities across this country. Now the government knows about information asymmetry, but when they were called on to defend small businesses the gap between what they promise and what they deliver is an absolute chasm. There is one thing we can constantly say: this government is no friend of small business.
The people of the Ipswich region in my home state of Queensland have big hearts. Senator Stoker and Senator McGrath are here from Queensland. Madam Acting Deputy President, you originate from Queensland. You all know what I'm saying is correct; the people of Ipswich have very, very big hearts. As we go into the Christmas period, there are three outstanding organisations that will be supporting those in need over the Christmas break. I want to give them a shout-out. Firstly, I want to mention Ipswich Assist. Jason Budden and his team provide emergency food and accommodation to people in need in the Ipswich region. The team at Westside Community Care, under the leadership of Pastor Phil Cutcliffe, provide emergency assistance, including food and help to schoolkids at the beginning of the school year. They make sure kids have everything they need when they turn up at on the first day of school, so they're not embarrassed in front of their mates. They do outstanding work. City Hope Care, under Pastor Mark Edwards, do outstanding work, including providing domestic violence help kits to people in need, and working closely with the Queensland police force. Each of these three agencies—Ipswich Assist, Westside Community Care and City Hope Care—will be reaching out to people in need over the Christmas period, and I call for everyone in the Ipswich region to help these three agencies, as I will be, to support people in need and to embrace the true spirit of Christmas.
Defence Minister Dutton has had a lot to say about Taiwan in the last couple of weeks. He has repeatedly stated that it would be inconceivable that Australia would not provide military support to the United States in defending Taiwan against Chinese attack. I have long expressed concerns about China's growing military power and the need to support Taiwan. I agree with some of what Mr Dutton has said—though not all. I'm not in agreement with the way he's expressed the government's position.
He has very deliberately ramped up the rhetoric in the hope of a khaki election. That is a very dangerous tactic, both in terms of Australia's diplomatic interests and the potential impact on the nation's social cohesion. He has missed a key point. China is unlikely to try to invade Taiwan in the next few years; such an undertaking would be fraught with too much risk. But Chinese action against Taiwan's small islands in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea could well be on the cards, possibly as an act of intimidation in the run-up to Taiwan's 2024 presidential elections. So perhaps the media should press him harder on precisely what he means. Is Kinmen Island, just 10 kilometres off the Chinese coast, or Matsu island further north part of the Pacific area for the purposes of article 4 of the ANZUS Treaty? Does the Australian government consider the South China Sea, including Taiwan's Taiping and Pratas islands, to be part of the Pacific area for the purpose of the ANZUS Treaty? The US, Japan and Australia do need to deter a Chinese communist takeover of Taiwan, but those indefensible small islands certainly would not be worth the risk of a major conflict; better that we draw clear lines about our obligations on what we will and will not support and stick to that.
Yesterday, I reported to the Senate that Mr Joyce had used his ministerial powers to appoint his mate and local political fixer, Councillor Col Murray, who is the Mayor of Tamworth, as the chair of Infrastructure Australia. Councillor Murray was disarmingly frank in the local paper. He said he asked Mr Joyce for a retirement job and that's what he got. We know what the National Party are: they are a men's shed for mates. They are all about retirement jobs for their mates. You have to give it to them: they don't hide it; they are open about it. The old Bunyip aristocracy, decayed and decrepit, knows what it stands for: itself. The Liberals stand for nothing. They hide their mendacity.
I heard Senator Stoker in here earlier today dissembling about their failure, sophistry after more than a thousand days, to deliver a federal integrity commission with real teeth. The real reason that Mr Morrison's failed to deliver a federal integrity commission with teeth is that half their cabinet are fugitives from justice. It is the most corrupt Commonwealth government in Australian history. They hide behind Mr Gaetjens, behind weak laws and impotent authorities, and they bully the Public Service. What Australians want to see is proper accountability. They want to see these ministers and the Prime Minister justifying their positions in the witness box. Thirty million dollars for a $3 million property, car park reports, sports rorts, regional rorts—the list goes on. We know they stand for nothing. We have seen their sitting schedule for next year. They won't sit, and we know they are running from justice and running from accountability.
I rise to draw attention to the prolonged deterioration in the health of former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia. Seventy-six-year-old Zia was arrested on corruption charges almost four years ago. She has been moved from jail to hospital for treatment and then, when the pandemic broke out, she was allowed to stay at her home under house arrest. Zia suffers from chronic and deteriorating diabetes and arthritis. Her doctors and family members have informed Amnesty International that her condition is deteriorating and she urgently requires specialised health care but this has been repeatedly denied by the Bangladeshi government.
The Bangladeshi government's treatment of Zia is in violation of the UN standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners, which stipulate that 'Prisoners who require specialized treatment or surgery shall be transferred to specialized institutions or to civil hospitals' and that 'Prisoners should enjoy the same standards of health care that are available in the community … without discrimination'. Zia's family have also told Amnesty that the Bangladeshi government have refused to make Zia's health reports public, in violation of these UN rules. Bangladesh is also a signatory to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which commits it to respect, protect and fulfil the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
The Bangladesh government's treatment of Zia is appalling. I urge our foreign minister to speak to her Bangladeshi counterpart and to urge for Zia to be transferred to a specialised facility where she can receive adequate care for her health conditions. I also urge our government to remind Bangladesh of its commitment to uphold the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and to pay heed to calls to allow Begum Khaleda Zia to travel to access the necessary health care to aid her deteriorating health conditions.
We have had months of misinformation from Labor when it comes to the cashless debit card. Now, an AAP fact check has confirmed what we all know to be true: that Labor's claim that the government are going to put all age pensioners onto the cashless welfare card is entirely false.
The Morrison government have made it clear: we have no plan, and we will never have a plan, to force age pensioners onto the cashless debit card. Frankly, the ALP should be ashamed of running a scare campaign so absolutely based on lies and aimed at striking fear into the hearts of our age pensioners. This claim has been fact checked previously by outlets like the New Daily and Starts at 60. Like the AAP, they too found no evidence to support Labor's claims. The cashless debit card program requires the quarantining of a percentage of welfare payments into a separate bank account, accessed using a card that prevents cash withdrawals or spending on certain items like alcohol and gaming. It is aimed at helping people to put food on the table, get kids to school, become job ready and get their utilities bills paid.
The cashless debit card is currently being trialled in six sites around Australia, such as in the Cape York region in Far North Queensland. The Department of Social Services is responsible for implementing the cashless debit card policy and, as their website states clearly:
… Age Pension recipients can choose to join the Cashless Debit Card program if they wish to.
That's right—it's optional! The claim that age pensioners will be forced onto the card has never been anything other than a fabrication concocted by the Labor Party to scare pensioners into voting for them.
I rise to speak about Geoff and Jane Smith. Geoff is a Pentecostal pastor who has dedicated much of his life to supporting South Sea islanders who work on Central Queensland farms. Jane's grandparents came to Australia as victims of blackbirding, and a lot of the people they help are victims of very similar circumstances. Labour hire firms lure Pacific workers to Australia and shove them into rooms where they sleep with 15 other people. They work from dawn until well into the night while getting paid just a few dollars an hour. One payslip I saw had a $14.20 deduction for drinking water! This is economic blackbirding; it's modern blackbirding.
In July, Geoff and Jane were gardening at their Bundaberg home when they were raided by nine Border Force troopers. They ransacked their home and Jane was left sobbing and shaken. Why did the nine Border Force troopers raid an elderly Christian minister? It's because he had the gall to help victims of economic blackbirding. To top it off, the Border Force search warrant, which I have seen, demands all correspondence Geoff has had with the High Commissioner of Vanuatu.
The UN's Vienna convention prohibits governments from seizing correspondence by foreign diplomats. Why is this government serving illegal warrants relating to foreign diplomats? Why is this government running a protection racket for modern slavers? Why is this government introducing an 'anything goes' ag visa that will make the situation worse? I demand that the Minister for Home Affairs come here and explain herself to this place.
In this place yesterday we heard from Senator Henderson that the Morrison government had done more for Australian women than any other government in history. Seriously? Seemingly, Senator Henderson is oblivious to the chorus of concerns raised in recent years by her colleagues and former colleagues, including Julie Bishop, Julia Banks, Bridget Archer and even Minister Linda Reynolds. Senator Henderson went on to say that it was one of the most caring workplaces she has ever worked in. Give me a break! How the senator can overlook the appalling treatment of Brittany Higgins and Rachel Miller—a woman who was bullied and harassed, and who lost her career—is beyond me.
Today, we saw the Liberal preselection hopeful for Reid pull out and run as an Independent, after yet more alleged inappropriate behaviour by senior Liberal males. When her complaints were not listened to, she said:
It is astonishing the level of dismissiveness with which those concerns have been met.
At the same time, I see a government paying lip service to this notion of respect at work and the protection of women and I believe that the concerns that I have raised have caused the party to sweep yet another critical issue under the rug.
Senator Grogan, it being 2.00 pm, we are required to move to questions without notice.
I advise the Senate that Senator Ruston, the Minister for Families and Social Services, will be absent from question time today for personal reasons. In Senator Ruston's absence, I will represent the Minister for Families and Social Services, the Minister for Indigenous Australians and the Minister for Housing; Senator McKenzie will represent the Minister for Resources and Water; and Senator Payne will represent the Minister for Women's Safety.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
There being no objection, leave is granted.
We appreciate that there must be circumstances which have given rise to a very short period of notice, but I would like to again reiterate that it is important for question time that such notice is given as soon as practicable of ministerial absences.
My question is to Senator Birmingham, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. In a report released this month, Mr Morrison's handpicked quarantine adviser, Ms Jane Halton, told him: 'Some quarantine settings, such as quarantine in a purpose-built facility, are better able to mitigate transmission risks, especially for high-risk travellers and in respect of variants of concern.' Almost two years into the pandemic and with a new variant of concern on our shores, why has Mr Morrison failed to establish even one new federal quarantine facility?
I thank Senator McCarthy for her question, a similar question to the one she asked yesterday. As I outlined to the Senate yesterday, we do recognise that there is an ongoing role in the future for there to be centres of national resilience of a greater number and scale than we have had in the past.
Through the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have successfully worked in partnership with the Northern Territory government, who I acknowledge, to utilise the Howard Springs facility and to significantly expand the Howard Springs facility to a 2,000-bed capacity. Alongside that, we are working with the Victorian government to ensure the establishment of a new Centre for National Resilience—and we will see the initial handover of beds at that facility to the Victorian government by the end of this year—and with the governments of Queensland and Western Australia for further facilities. These will all provide long-term resilience capability. In terms of the broader quarantine effort, states and territories have done a very strong job in working to ensure that we have quarantine capacities for the most extraordinary of circumstances that COVID-19 has presented.
In relation to the omicron variant, the government has made certain announcements to pause the next stage of reopening that we had indicated. We don't wish to see any step backwards from the safe reopening of Australia. The very high levels of vaccination that we have achieved as a country provide very strong protections. We use this pause to ensure that we can continue as we always have to get the best possible health advice to continue to keep Australians safe.
Senator McCarthy, a supplementary question?
Chief Executive of the Business Council of Australia, Jennifer Westacott, said this morning: 'Why can't we get the systems in place to manage this? There are 24 letters in the Greek alphabet. Everyone assumes that we're going to have more mutations and variants.' Why has the Morrison government refused to take responsibility for national quarantine?
As I outlined in the primary answer, we are indeed working on a range of additional facilities, alongside the expansion we created in Howard Springs. We are fully funding the development of those facilities under memoranda of understanding that we have entered into with the relevant states. Those memoranda of understanding have the states operating those facilities, consistent with the operational capabilities they have delivered throughout the COVID-19 pandemic for the purposes of providing quarantine.
I would stress that, whilst there are new variants, we do need to all show responsibility in how we discuss those new variants. For example, Professor Lewin from the Doherty institute this morning made clear that it is highly likely that the vaccines will still work, that we're quite confident that the vaccines will still work. Whilst we are pausing some steps to get further advice and information, we ought to make sure that we maintain the confidence of Australians in this regard. (Time expired)
Senator McCarthy, a second supplementary?
On what date will a new federal quarantine facility first commence operation?
As I said in my answer to the primary question, the Howard Springs facility has operated largely throughout and has been significantly expanded—indeed, doubled—during the operation of that facility. As I also said in the answer to the primary question, the facility being built in Victoria will see handover of its first beds to the Victorian government before the end of this year. The Victorian government will take on the operational capabilities. I thank them, as I do the governments of Western Australia and Queensland, for the way in which they have engaged with the Commonwealth through the design stages. Their officials have worked with us in terms of all the different protocols necessary to ensure the highest standards of infection control, the highest standards of safety protocols in relation to those facilities, and the agreements they have entered into in relation to Commonwealth responsibility for building and their role in relation to operation.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Can the minister please inform the Senate on the status of the final report of the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces, titled Set the standard?
I thank Senator Askew for her question and her interest in this matter, as I know many senators and members of the House of Representatives have expressed serious interest in and concern about these matters. On behalf of all of us, I welcome the report of the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces, led by Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins, and I thank her for her leadership in this review and for the report, Set the standard. This report highlights that people who work in our parliament and the agencies that exist across its operation consider it a privilege to be here, and they work with the utmost of integrity in making a difference to our nation in the vast majority of cases. We give thanks and celebrate the work of all of those tireless individuals right across this building and across parliamentary workplaces.
However, the report also highlights that people in our workplaces, particularly women, have experienced bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault. It is unacceptable. Some of the examples in this report are deeply distressing. It is clear that we have not had pathways to successfully prevent these instances from occurring or to effectively respond and support people when they have experienced it. Every Australian has a right to feel and to be safe at work. The high-pressure environment of this workplace is not an excuse for unacceptable behaviour. We should, as the report's title says, set the standard.
The report provides 28 practical recommendations for change, which we have a responsibility to make and to work positively through. I thank all those who have engaged courageously in this review, sharing their stories and helping to drive change and a better workplace for all. I acknowledge that this report will be distressing for many as well. I urge those in this building and beyond who may be distressed by aspects of its release to access the support services available, be that 1800APHSPT, 1800RESPECT or other services available. (Time expired)
Senator Askew, a supplementary question?
Can the minister advise as to what steps have already been taken to improve the safety and workplace culture of Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces ahead of the government's receiving this report?
Whilst this important review was underway throughout much of this year, the Prime Minister also commissioned a deputy secretary in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Stephanie Foster, to review procedures and processes involved in identifying, reporting and responding to serious incidents that occur in the parliamentary workplace. In March the government accepted an urgent recommendation from Ms Foster to establish an independent, trauma-informed, confidential support line, 1800APHSPT. This has been supporting staff, MPs, and their family and friends to receive necessary support. Ms Foster provided her consultation report in June 2021. Following feedback from across the parliament, Ms Foster provided a final report in July 2021. The government accepted the 10 recommendations in that report, working to establish the Safe and Respectful Workplaces training program, the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, and transparency and monitoring measures in this regard. I thank Ms Foster for her work, in addition to that of Commissioner Jenkins, and all those who have engaged in these processes, including across parliament.
Senator Askew, a second supplementary question?
How does the government propose to consult with all parties and parliamentarians on the recommendations and implementation of the report?
The review was established with engagement with the opposition, the Greens, other minor parties, crossbenchers, and current and former staff. We engaged in terms of the reviewer, the terms of reference and the timing and worked collaboratively to ensure that a review was put in place that could provide maximum confidence for individuals to participate and to ensure that participation gave us the best possible basis upon which to prevent bullying, sexual harassment or sexual assault in the future.
I thank the opposition and all other parties for their engagement to date and commit that we wish to continue the cooperation in relation to the response to this report. The Prime Minister has asked me and the Special Minister of State to consult with all on the way forward to respond. Our desire is to work in a positive way to implement recommendations in this review to effect the type of change that can ensure that our parliamentary workplaces do set the standard for safety, culture and respect.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. As the omicron variant emerges in Australia, a webinar promoted by One Nation was recently hosted by the so-called COVID Medical Network, which is under investigation by the TGA for promoting hydroxychloroquine. Why did four government members—Liberal MP George Christensen and Senators Canavan, Rennick and Antic—appear on this anti-vaccination, anti-mandate webinar?
If there is something that the emergence of the omicron variant should reinforce to all Australians and all those around the world, it is the importance of vaccination. It is the importance of encouraging all Australians to be vaccinated. Whilst from the outset our government has always said that vaccination should be voluntary and that we would not enforce mandates, except for working with the states and territories in relation to those areas of highly vulnerable individuals such as in aged care, disability care, and health practice, we absolutely encourage every Australian to get vaccinated.
I urge every member across this parliament to engage in such encouragement as well. More than 19 million individual Australians have had at least one dose of the vaccine to date. That is an incredible turnout by Australians, who now count among some of the most highly vaccinated populations in the world.
Senator Keneally on a point of order?
Yes, on direct relevance. I draw the minister back to the question. His answer here is not relevant to the question. It was very specific. Why did four members of the government appear on this webinar?
You've brought the minister back to part of the question. There was an additional statement at the beginning of the question about the omicron variant. I'm listening carefully to the minister. You've had the chance to bring him back to the question. Minister, you have the call.
As I said before, I encourage and the government encourages every member of the government, of the crossbench—of the parliament—to encourage vaccination and to encourage its take-up. I urge all members to do so, and it is the urging and the health advice from across the country that has helped to achieve 92.4 per cent of Australians over the age of 16 having had at least that first dose. That's 92.4 per cent of Australians who have heeded that message and who are out there, having been vaccinated, getting vaccinated, and building those numbers day in, day out. We will continue to work to lift those numbers and to grow those numbers as high as possible. (Time expired)
Senator Keneally, a supplementary question?
A description of the One Nation hosted webinar states: 'The people have been tricked into thinking the vaccines offer the best way to reduce death and hospitalisation.' Does Mr Morrison agree with these views?
I outright reject the quote that was put to me. Mr Morrison outright rejects it, and the government outright rejects it. We are very clear that vaccines do offer the best possible way for individuals to protect themselves, their loved ones and the communities in which they live and work. That's a message we've delivered consistently to Australians, and it has driven and achieved one of the highest vaccination rates in the world: a vaccination rate that is above the OECD average and above those of many nations that suffered from COVID-19 far more than Australia has to date. It's our approach that has saved more than 30,000 lives. It's an approach that has delivered this high rate of vaccination. It's an approach that sees us as one of the most protected countries in the world now, having had such high rates of vaccination and being one of the first to have a nationwide booster program. (Time expired)
Senator Keneally, a second supplementary?
Will Mr Morrison counsel Mr Christensen and Senators Rennick, Antic and Canavan for spreading dangerous disinformation as the omicron variant emerges?
As I have just said in this place, I urge all members of the government and all members across the parliament to encourage people to get vaccinated. Mr Morrison urges all members of the government and all members across the parliament to encourage Australians to continue to get vaccinated. That is what we will each continue to do. It's what the health minister will do. It's what Minister Colbeck will do.
Senator Wong, on a point of order?
The point of order is direct relevance. This question goes to Mr Morrison's actions, and there was only a single question, which is whether he would counsel those members and senators who were active in spreading disinformation—disinformation that's contrary to government policy. That's the question. Where's the leadership?
Senator Wong, I cannot direct the minister how to answer a question. I believe the minister was being directly relevant to the question. Minister, you have the call.
As I said, we urge all members of the government and all members of the parliament to encourage other Australians to get vaccinated. Indeed, we urge all Australians to encourage one another to get vaccinated. Having achieved such incredibly high rates of vaccination across the country, we are working with states and territories and health officials to particularly target communities with lower vaccination rates, noting the critical importance of having those high rates spread right across the nation. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. The Human Rights Commission's comprehensive report Set the standard is a much-needed reality check on the cultural and structural changes needed in this place. We have the bravery of people like Brittany Higgins, Rachelle Miller, Chelsey Potter, Dhanya Mani, Saxon Mullins, Grace Tame, Chanel Contos and strong women in the press gallery to thank for this report existing. I'd also like to thank every single participant who shared their stories and their trauma to create this report. When half the staff who work here have experienced bullying, sexual assault or harassment and only 11 per cent report it, we need action. Can the minister confirm that no staffer or MP in this building will be subject to an experience and a bungled response like Brittany Higgins had to endure? Will the government commit to fully implementing all of the recommendations in this landmark report, fully funded and in the time frames Commissioner Jenkins recommends?
I thank Senator Waters for the question and acknowledge her engagement with me through the course of this year—as I acknowledged, before, engagement from across this chamber and the other chamber, and of staff, current and former, in relation to the commissioning of this work and also in relation to the actions the government has taken in response to Stephanie Foster's recommendations earlier this year.
I think, in responding as we did, as a parliament, to Stephanie Foster's recommendations, we have shown that this parliament and this government recognise the need for action—that these reports, these recommendations and the events of this year need to be a turning point and a driver of change. The actions we have taken this year—in relation to delivering new support services and counselling services; in relation to delivering new training mechanisms across the parliament and ensuring transparency about MPs' and senators' take-up of those training mechanisms; and in relation to establishing the new Parliamentary Workplace Support Service to handle complaints, and putting in place procedures to ensure that people are held to account for recommendations in response to those complaints, all the way through to members of parliament—demonstrate a willingness to act. That willingness to act follows through, now, to the recommendations in the Jenkins report.
We want to see response to these recommendations in the most positive and wholesome and fulsome way possible. What I would say—through you, Mr President—to Senator Waters is that we want to make sure that we continue to engage with you, the opposition and other parties' crossbenchers and with staff, current and former, to make sure we get the responses to this right. We have funded responses to date. We've acted to date. We will continue to do that. And I, of course, join you, as I have already, publicly and in here, in acknowledging all of those who participated in this review and drove it to this point. (Time expired)
Senator Waters, a supplementary question?
Commissioner Jenkins has said that one of the most common themes raised by those who made submissions was the critical role of leaders in creating and maintaining a safe, respectful and inclusive workplace. It comes from the top. When we see the Prime Minister refuse to allow an independent investigation into allegations against a senior minister, refuse to remove a member accused of harassing constituents from committee roles and take aside a female member who dared to cross the floor for a 'pastoral care chat', what message is that sending from the top?
I don't—on this day, in receipt of this report, with its recommendations that do require us to work collectively and together to effectively implement them—wish to politicise the report, or actions in response to it, in the way that Senator Waters's question invites me to do. As I said before, the events of this year are a catalyst for change. The events of this year have been a catalyst for the types of changes that we have already implemented together, as a parliament, and for the work that Commissioner Jenkins has undertaken, with the engagement of so many staff, current and former, and so many members of parliament, current and former. I thank, indeed, those who particularly had interviews with Commissioner Jenkins as part of this process, as I did, in terms of ensuring that all of her thinking and recommendations could be fully informed by how to get the best possible outcomes, to set the best possible standard. (Time expired)
Senator Waters, a second supplementary question?
Another strong theme in the report is that there are rarely any consequences for the abuser if a complaint is made about bullying, sexual harassment or sexual assault—in fact, often they get promoted—while the complainant suffers the consequences: being gas-lit, frozen out of work, moved on or encouraged to quit. Will the government commit to introducing a code of conduct for politicians and senior staff that would provide real consequences and act as a genuine deterrent to bad behaviour?
I touched, in my primary answer, on the question of consequences and the fact that the work we have already done this year ensures that we have put in place processes that mean that if recommendations, through an independent process, are made, in response to an allegation of workplace bullying, harassment or the like, those recommendations need to be acted on, and that there are transparent and public consequences, including for members of parliament, if that's not the case. Commissioner Jenkins' recommendations built upon that and we want to work to ensure that we do have those independent and effective processes in place. Commissioner Jenkins' recommendations do also recommend the development of a code of practice in relation to parliamentarians, a code of practice in relation to parliamentary staff and standards of practice in relation to all work occupants within this workplace. These are some of the actions that we're committed to working through with other parties to ensure they're delivered upon in the most effective and successful way possible.
My question is to Minister Payne, representing the Minister for Defence. Minister, the AUKUS security agreement and the government's decision to spend many billions on nuclear submarines is predicated on the rise of China, but there are signs that China will soon peak or may have already done so. Their economy is not what it was. GDP growth is rapidly decelerating, productivity growth has tumbled and the country is dangerously exposed to a collapsing real estate bubble. The country is ageing rapidly and its birth rate has plummeted. China will almost certainly grow old before it grows rich and may pose very little risk to Australia. Given this context, what is the strategic rationale for a long-term investment in nuclear submarines?
(—) (): I thank Senator Griff for his question. I note the senator's points; however, all of the advice to government, all of the work that we have done with counterparts in the region, and, indeed, more broadly, tells us that our strategic environment has most certainly deteriorated faster than anticipated, faster than expected. The trajectory of the strategic environment is not expected to change substantially. The decision to pursue the trilateral partnership with our oldest allies and partners, the United States and the United Kingdom, is about protecting our security and our prosperity, as all countries do. It's about making a contribution to regional stability. We will continue to work not just with those traditional partners and allies but across a whole range of relationships in the region and, again, more broadly. I've spoken about these in this chamber before. I've spoken about our engagements with ASEAN—very much focused on the ASEAN outlook on the Indo-Pacific, at the centre of our perceptions of the Indo-Pacific. I've spoken about our relationships across the Five Eyes in terms of intelligence sharing. I've spoken about our more contemporary relationships in the Quad itself as a new, innovative and focused group of four leading democracies, addressing some of the key issues which also challenge our strategic environment, like climate change, like the vaccine challenge that we've spoken about in this chamber this week, like cyber and critical technologies—(Time expired)
Senator Griff, a supplementary question?
Minister, strategic analysts from ASPI suggest the likelihood of conflict with China is greatest in the next five years, long before any new subs arrive. They also suggest conflict is most likely to occur in Taiwan, conflict the defence minister has committed us to fighting. Wouldn't it be more prudent for us to invest in equipment that would be available in the coming years when the risk is to be perceived greater?
I can absolutely assure Senator Griff and the chamber that these two things are not mutually exclusive and that that is not the approach that the government is taking. It's not an either/or approach. In fact, we are doing both. For example, any reference to the record of the AUSMIN meetings of the last two years, both 2020 and 2021, provides a very clear indicator of the government's commitments and ambitions in that regard. As you say, the defence minister has spoken of those in his recent comments. We will work closely, as I said, with those counterparts in the region: with ASEAN; with our Quad partners; with our Five Eyes partners; with the European Union, particularly given their Indo-Pacific strategy released recently. I was speaking to the new Canadian Foreign Minister last week in relation to the work that Canada is also doing in this area. Australia is not the only country by any stretch, by any consideration, who is facing these issues and addressing these issues head on.
Senator Griff, a second supplementary question?
Some ministers have made the claim that we need to invest in defence because 'without sovereignty you don't have a country'. Hasn't the government already compromised Australia's sovereignty by the defence minister stating that, in any armed conflict between China and the United States, Australia is locked into sending Australia's finest young men and women into that theatre of war?
I thank Senator Griff for his second supplementary question. The focus on sovereignty is one which is a key priority for the government. In all of the comments, speeches and remarks that have been made by the Prime Minister, the defence minister and me over an extended period of time, our absolute priority has been Australia's national interests and protecting Australia's sovereignty. The Australian people expect no less and the Australian people deserve no less.
TH () (): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. As then Minister for Social Services, in 2015, Mr Morrison removed the exemption for parents who are conscientious objectors to children's vaccinations, implementing what he called 'No Jab, No Play' and 'No Jab, No Pay'. This month, Mr Morrison declared it was time for governments to step back and that he wasn't in favour of mandatory vaccines. Can the minister clarify what Mr Morrison's position on the vaccination of children is?
I thank Senator Smith for the question, and it's a very important question. The No Jab, No Play policy worked very effectively, and continues to work very effectively, to encourage Australia to meet and to achieve some of the highest rates of childhood vaccination and immunisation in the world. The policy was implemented after it had been identified that there were areas of decline occurring in relation to childhood vaccination, that those areas of decline were obvious in particular communities around the country and that it was crucial to create stronger incentives for people to make the decision and the choice to have their children vaccinated.
Pleasingly, those policies have worked. Indeed, I am sure the success of childhood vaccination in Australia is one of the reasons why the COVID-19 vaccination program has also been so successful across this country. We are, overwhelmingly, a nation of vaccinators—people who recognise the medical benefits of vaccination. Importantly, a program like No Jab, No Pay was structured to particularly motivate those who may just not have gotten around to getting a vaccination. It was, crucially, to encourage people and to make sure they were very aware of the importance of getting vaccinated and to think it through seriously if they were not going to do so. We know that program has worked and has lifted vaccination rates across Australian children once again. In doing so, it has not only protected those who have been vaccinated but, importantly, it has helped to protect even those children who have not been vaccinated, by continuing to maintain high levels of herd immunity for a number of childhood diseases.
Does Mr Morrison agree with Senator Rennick that children 'do not need to take the vaccine'?
At present, COVID-19 vaccines are not approved for children under the age of 12, unless there are exceptional or extenuating medical circumstances. So, at present, children are not approved to receive that vaccine. The government, through the Therapeutic Goods Administration, is reviewing the evidence in relation to childhood vaccination. The United States is one of the few countries in the world to have begun a population-wide rollout of vaccines to children. We now look forward to having the benefit of that data and evidence to inform the approvals process—the safety and the dosage rates and information—for Australian children. Once the TGA has completed its work, ATAGI will do likewise. Assuming approvals are granted, the government stands ready to both deliver and oversee the administration of COVID-19 vaccines to Australian children. We'll encourage all parents to do that once those safeguards are in place.
Senator Rennick has claimed that vaccinating children against COVID-19 is more likely to increase risk of ill health. Does Senator Rennick's claim reflect medical advice, and, if not, will Mr Morrison publicly refute Senator Rennick's statements?
IRMINGHAM (—) (): Vaccination can elicit concern in many. Vaccinating children can elicit even more concern, particularly in parents, and so I would urge all to be responsible in their comments and not to create unnecessary fear or concern in relation to vaccine programs at all and particularly in relation to childhood vaccination. The government, from the Prime Minister down, will make sure that when we have that advice from the TGA and ATAGI—
Senator Ayres!
that is the advice that we take to the nation. Australians should have confidence that we will act on the health expertise, medical science and best possible advice and information, and that when we recommend childhood vaccinations occur, it will be because they are safe, they are credible and they will help to fight against COVID and to protect Australia's children.
Minister, your time has expired. Senator Bragg.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Cash. Can the Minister outline what steps the government is taking to keep Australians safe and to ensure that we are well placed to deal with the new COVID-19 variant of concern?
I thank Senator Bragg for the question. As we have done throughout the entire pandemic, the Morrison government has acted quickly but cautiously to protect the livelihoods and lives of Australians. On 28 November the minister for health signed a biosecurity determination preventing people who have been in an omicron high-risk country in the previous 14 days from entering Australia unless they are Australian citizens, permanent residents or immediate family members of a citizen or are otherwise exempt. Omicron high-risk countries for this determination are the eight southern African countries of Botswana, Eswatini, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe. Direct flights from these countries will not be permitted until 12 December. In addition, and based on the advice of the Chief Medical Officer of Australia, the national security committee of cabinet has taken the necessary and temporary decision to pause the next step to safely reopen Australia to vaccinated visa-holders, including skilled and student cohorts, until 15 December. This includes the reopening to Japan and Korea. This temporary pause will ensure Australia can gather the information we need to better understand the omicron variant, including the efficacy of the vaccine; the range of illness, including whether it may generate more mild symptoms; and the level of transmission. As is the case currently, all persons entering Australia must make an Australia Travel Declaration before they arrive. Again, on behalf of the government, I can assure all Australians we are taking the cautious approach we have had throughout the pandemic to protect the lives and livelihoods of Australians.
Senator Bragg, a supplementary question?
How has Australia's experience in dealing with COVID-19 to date given us the opportunity to take this cautious action?
The strong measures that we took at the start of the pandemic have ensured that we fared better than most countries in dealing with COVID-19. The closure of the border to China was a significant step that allowed us to continue protecting Australia lives and livelihoods. Over 12 percent of people in the USA and 11 percent of people in the UK have had COVID-19. When you contrast that to Australia, 0.4 percent of Australians have had COVID-19. Of the 38 developed OECD countries, Australia has had the second-lowest number of COVID-19 cases on a per capita basis and, again on a per capita basis, the UK and the USA have had over 40 times the number of COVID deaths compared to Australia. By avoiding the death rates of OECD countries we have saved, as Australians, around 30,000 lives.
Senator Bragg, a second supplementary?
What can each and every Australian do to allow Australia to continue to safely reopen to the world?
As the Leader of the Government in the Senate has said, the best way for each and every Australian to protect themselves—not just themselves but their family and their community—is to get vaccinated. Without a doubt, again, as the leader of the government has pointed out today, we have done an amazing job as Australians. We have now some of the highest vaccination rates in the world and, of that, we can all be incredibly proud. Australia now has the equal 10th highest with Norway first-dose vaccination rate in the OECD. Australia's full vaccination rate is ranked 14th highest.
We know that vaccination against COVID-19 reduces the risk of the virus. While, at this point in time, we don't know about the new variant, vaccination will continue to protect us. We can again be confident we will emerge on the other side.
My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Housing. Minister, Tasmania's housing crisis is at boiling point. The average Hobart renter is paying nearly a third of their income to keep a roof over their head, and that's on a good day. We've got people sleeping in their cars, families are camping out in friends' living rooms and, meanwhile, your government is running yet another talkfest inquiry on housing affordability. We don't need another inquiry. Your answers are already there. We already know what we need to do. We need more affordable housing. Why can't your government see this, and what action will you take instead of having just another talkfest?
I thank Senator Lambie for her question, although I reject some of the characterisation in that question. Indeed, our government has pursued multiple policies and is making multiple investments to support access to housing across Australia. We are providing an expected $9 billion through 2021-22 to support housing and homelessness across the country, which includes around $1.6 billion being provided to the states to meet their responsibility in support for housing and homelessness.
As a government we have put a particular priority in relation to supporting home ownership and into supporting more first homeowners into home ownership, and we are very pleased that programs our government has delivered over the last few years, under Prime Minister Morrison—from HomeBuilder through to the home guarantee schemes, including the first home guarantee, the New Home Guarantee and the Family Home Guarantee—have helped more than 300,000 Australians to become homeowners.
In the middle of the pandemic we have seen first homeowner numbers at their highest level in nearly 15 years. As parties of government that have long championed from a very foundation the importance of homeownership, we take great pride in seeing that achievement. We've made sure that we've put in place the policies to help those Australians who might have struggled to get a deposit, get a deposit and get into the housing market more easily. That is what our home guarantee schemes are doing.
In this year's budget, we made the extension of that home guarantee scheme to particularly support single parents to access a home deposit and the opportunity of home ownership. We know that is one of the best ways to provide a lifetime of economic security, particularly through retirement years, alongside of successful retirement savings policies.
Senator Lambie, a supplementary question?
Minister, the head of your talkfest inquiry, the member for Mackellar, said last week that a housing affordability crisis is a moral failure by the state and local governments. Isn't the fact that we have people sleeping in their cars a moral failure on the federal government as well or is it that it's everyone else's fault like usual?
In addition to the policies that I spoke about before, particularly the billions of dollars in funding, including to the states and territories, the work of our National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation and its infrastructure facility, in particular, has supported the delivery of over 6,600 new social, affordable and market dwellings. We have pursued policies and continued to deliver policies across the country that have helped with the delivery of additional social housing and affordable dwellings around the country. They help states and territories in the provision of support for homelessness and delivery of those policies. And they have helped more than 300,000 Australians—
I hear Senator McKim inviting me to tell him about our tax policies. Well, $1½ billion dollars extra into the pockets of hardworking Australians every month is also helping Australians to pay for their mortgages, their rents and their homes.
Senator McKim! Order! Senator Lambie, a second supplementary question.
There are more than 4,000 people on the social housing waitlist in Tasmania right now. It takes nearly 18 months, on a good day, for the neediest applicants to get put into a home. My staff are taking calls from people who are at their wit's end and we have to tell them that there's nothing we can do; the housing just isn't there. Minister, your government holds the purse strings; we've seen this through COVID. This is happening on your watch and you have the power to turn this around. Why aren't you paying for the social housing we know that we need?
Honourable senators interjecting—
Are you rising on a point of order, Senator Hanson-Young?
Yes, I am, Mr President. I don't think it's appropriate, given what has been handed down today, to have growling and dog noises coming from this side of the chamber while a female member in this place is on her feet. It happened. I don't know who was responsible for it, but it is inappropriate and if we're going to change culture from the top then that means all of us.
Senator Hanson-Young, I certainly—Senator Wong?
Well, I did hear it, because I in fact said, 'Who's growling?' I would ask one of the senators at that end perhaps to do the right thing and withdraw. At least fess up!
An honourable senator interjecting—
Gee, you're tough aren't you? You're happy to dish it out but you're not happy to take responsibility! I mean, really—
Senator Wong—
Growling, Mr President!
Senator Wong, I certainly did not hear anything—
I did.
Senator Wong, I'm not challenging what you heard. I certainly did not hear it. I cannot ask someone to withdraw something I did not hear.
H onourable senator s interjecting—
Order! Interjections—
Order! Senator Molan!
Senator Molan and Senator Wong! Interjections, as everyone in this chamber has heard on many, many occasions, are disorderly. I did call a senator who interjected across the chamber on my right to order. I did not hear the particular incident that you have raised. If it occurred, I would ask the senator involved to reflect upon it and to withdraw if they did do what has been stated. However, I did not hear the particular interjection myself. I think I'm calling the minister.
I do reject a number of the assertions in Senator Lambie's supplementary question. Our government is taking a most comprehensive suite of policies to support housing and homelessness. The work of NHFIC, which I referenced before, is delivering thousands of additional houses—low-income and affordable houses and dwellings—through its operation.
The work under our national partnership agreement with the states and territories provides $1.6 billion a year to them. The work in relation to home ownership that I referenced before is driving those home ownership rates higher, which we are so pleased to see and which we will continue to pursue and support as a government—those 300,000-plus additional homeowners who we have managed to achieve as a result of these policy settings. Indeed, specifically in relation to Tasmania, there's the work to provide a waiver of more than $150 million to the Tasmanian government in relation to their housing related debts. That will help them to pursue policies— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Colbeck. In early November, President Biden announced that the US already had enough vaccines to supply every child in America and had already commenced the process of packing and shipping out vaccine doses. Are there paediatric COVID-19 vaccine doses already in Australia? And, if not, on what date will the vials of COVID-19 vaccines for children aged five to 11 arrive on Australian shores?
I thank the senator for the question. As Senator Birmingham indicated earlier, there is at this point in time no approved vaccine available for children aged five to 12. That process is still being undertaken, with research being done by ATAGI, which of course will be followed up by the appropriate work by the TGA. So we don't at this point in time have an approved vaccine available for children aged five to 12. While that process is continuing, preparations are being made to ensure that, if the appropriate approvals are put in place, we have supplies available to us to commence a vaccination program. But, at this point in time, we don't have the full range of data to be able to approve a vaccine program for children aged five to seven.
Minister, resume your seat. Senator Gallagher, on a point of order?
Yes, a point of order on relevance. I was listening carefully to the minister. The question was whether we have any paediatric doses of the vaccine available in Australia now and, if not, when they are coming, not whether they have been approved or not. We know they haven't been approved. The question was very specific to the actual issue of supply of the vaccine.
Senator Gallagher, I will allow you to draw the minister back to the question. I have been listening carefully. Minister, I will give you the call, but Senator Gallagher has brought you back to the question.
I would invite the opposition to listen to my answer, because I did say during my answer that has just had a point of order taken on it—possibly just for the point of interruption rather than taking a point of order—that we would ensure while that process was occurring that we would have supplies available for us in time to commence a vaccination program for children aged five to 12 if and when the vaccination program was approved.
You clearly didn't read the Respect@Work report today, did you, Senator?
Order!
So we are making sure that, while the investigative work is being done by ATAGI and by the TGA, we are ready to start— (Time expired)
Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question?
I take it that there are no paediatric doses in the country at the moment. So will the Morrison government guarantee that there will be sufficient supply for an immediate rollout as soon as ATAGI approval for vaccination of children aged five to 11 is obtained?
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! Order on my right! Order on my left! I will call the minister once there is silence in the chamber.
Senator Gallagher!
Senator Gallagher has just demonstrated what happens when you have a pre-prepared question and you don't listen to the answer to the first question. I indicated a number of times during my answer to the first question that, while the processes are being undertaken for the approval or otherwise of a vaccination program for children aged five to 12, arrangements are being put in place to ensure that when and if that process occurs we have vaccines available for children as a part of the vaccination program. I have said it three or four times now, and it is disappointing that the Labor Party don't even bother to listen to the answers that have been given to the questions.
Senator Gallagher, a second supplementary question?
Given that there is competition around the world for these paediatric vaccine doses and with the omicron variant emerging, will the minister assure Australian parents there will be no shortage of vaccines for their children? And does Mr Morrison accept that this is a race?
It is really quite disappointing that the Labor Party try to confuse the omicron circumstance right now with the proposals that are being developed for the vaccination program for five- to 12-year-olds. The Labor Party are trying to drive fear into the Australian community with questions they don't—
Opposition senators interject ing—
They're not interested in the answer, quite clearly, going by their interjections across the chamber. They're not interested in what the government's got say in respect of this matter. I've indicated already a number of times in each of my answers that, as a part of our process in preparation for this, in the circumstance when the ATAGI and the TGA approve a vaccine, there will be vaccines available for a program for Australian children.
Y (—) (): My question is to the Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Senator McKenzie. We've recently seen some quite devastating flooding in the north of New South Wales and in the south-west of Queensland. We've seen some crops destroyed just when farmers thought that they were going to be able to start repaying the bank. Can the minister please update the Senate on what the Liberals and Nationals in government are doing to keep Australians safe, to provide support to the communities that are affected by recent floods and severe weather and some information for the communities that are right at this very minute watching their TV screens and listening to the weather reports in trepidation.
I thank Senator Davey for her question and for her ongoing advocacy for regional New South Wales. I'm sure everyone in this place will agree that the flooding and severe weather we're seeing in New South Wales at the moment is very, very concerning. That's why our government is already providing assistance to New South Wales through the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements. It's the primary way we can provide support to states and territories that are affected by disasters.
This year we've put in a new streamlined process for activating DRFA assistance so that we, as a Commonwealth, can respond more quickly following severe disasters. We've been working very closely with New South Wales to ensure that we deliver the support needed where it's needed and, for that reason, we've extended that funding from the original seven local government areas identified by New South Wales, earlier this month, to another 13 local government areas last Friday. We stand ready to extend that support again should New South Wales need further assistance.
The support currently being provided covers the critical early needs of a community following a disaster: support for people suffering through hardship and distress, financial assistance for small businesses and primary producers and funding to clean up and repair damaged essential public assets.
The DRFA continues to be the most effective and immediate way that our government can support Australians affected by disasters, helping them to get back on their feet and to keep them safe. In the last decade we've provided over $12 billion in funding to states and territories through this mechanism. In the last few weeks alone, in addition to the support we've provided to New South Wales, we've also worked closely with other states and territories to get assistance to Australians on the ground, to Queensland, which also experienced flooding earlier this month across five local government areas, and to South Australia across 24 LGAs—I'd like to shout out to Rowan Ramsey, from the other place, for his strong advocacy for the farmers there—and to Victoria, for prolonged power outage payments. (Time expired)
Senator Davey, a supplementary question?
Minister, we've got forecasts that we'll see a wetter-than-average summer. We're now predicted to be in a La Nina weather cycle, which normally brings increased rain and higher chances of flooding. This will lead to more flooding across the east of the country. What is our government doing to mitigate against flood damage and to help with the repair bill but also to prepare for future flooding events?
With a La Nina established in our region, we're certainly going to see higher than average rainfall across many parts of the country, and unfortunately that means more flooding in the east and cyclones to our north. We know floods are the most costly natural disaster and that's why flood mitigation is such a high-impact investment. We also know from the findings of the royal commission that flood mitigation is incredibly important. Building resilience saves recovery costs later on.
Today I was very proud to announce that applications are open for the second round of national flood mitigation. We are putting another $50 million of investment on the table for flood mitigation, bringing the total investment by our government to $100 million for the last two years, building on the strong demand that we saw across the country. The National Flood Mitigation Infrastructure Program will be funded from our Emergency Response Fund, which is a future focused, dedicated, sustainable investment fund.
Senator Davey, a second supplementary question?
Can the minister please explain how the Emergency Response Fund operates, how people can access it and how it can be used to better prepare Australia for natural disasters?
As I said, it is a national program and will be delivered in partnership with states and territories. I encourage all local governments to work closely with their jurisdiction to apply over coming months. The Emergency Response Fund is a dedicated investment fund credited with approximately $4 billion and established in 2019. The act is very, very prescriptive in how the $200 million is available to be accessed each financial year and how we as a government can use it. Each year, $50 million can be used to build resilience and prepare for or reduce the risk of future natural disasters, which is the announcement I made today on flood mitigation funding. Each financial year, $150 million can be available to fund emergency response and recovery following natural disasters in Australia that have a significant or catastrophic impact when the government determines that existing recovery programs are insufficient to meet the of the response.
Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Pursuant to stand order 74(5)(a), I seek explanation from the Minister representing the Prime Minister as to why question on notice no. 3985 has still not been answered.
I thank Senator Patrick for his question. I have had a few things on of late. I don't have to hand, since getting notice that Senator Patrick was going to make this inquiry, an update on the status of that answer. As I've noted in this place before, the government continues to process through questions on notice in this chamber, as well as those taken through Senate estimates and committee processes. There are unparalleled numbers of questions to process answers to. I apologise for delays that occur from time to time in some answers making their way to the chamber. I acknowledge the hard work undertaken by many officials and others to provide the record numbers of answers to questions we have managed to facilitate through this parliament.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the minister's answer.
It's really just a repeat of the answer we received last week. I inform the minister that I did advise his office this morning that I was seeking the answer. I did that very early. I rose last week to seek an explanation expressing my concern about my question relating to the national cabinet. There's a bit of irony in what the minister said, because part 2 of this question is one I've had to ask three times. Three times I've had to ask the question because in subsequent answers the Prime Minister has simply said 'no charges have been levied at this point'. That relates to a matter that was before the AAT not this year but last year, where the Prime Minister also lost an FOI. I understand there may be lots of questions but this is one that has been asked for a third time.
The question I am seeking an answer on relates to the cost of proceedings in the AAT and how much the Prime Minister is spending trying to defend untenable FOI exemption positions. I don't understand why the Prime Minister's staff can't just go to the accounting system and get the answer for me.
In moving a take note motion last time, I expressed a serious concern regarding a recent decision by a senior official in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to override Justice White's decision that national cabinet is not a committee of the cabinet. That's right: a bureaucrat overturned a judge of the Federal Court on the meaning of a statutory expression.
Since becoming a senator I have submitted about 200 FOIs. If I had to guess, it's probably on the north side of 200. I've not liked some of the decisions I've received, but, in those cases, I've appealed them.
How many did you win, Rex?
Thank you, Senator Scarr. I think the score is about 14-2, and that includes some state ones. I've been relatively successful in the appeals. But that's the approach I normally take: if I don't like a decision, I appeal it
It wasn't until last week that I stood up in the chamber and said something about a decision-maker in respect of the decision I had received. The difference in this instance is the fact that a bureaucrat thought it in their remit to overturn a judicial officer in favour of the opinion and interests of her political master. That occurred either under an inappropriate direction—because FOI decision-makers make independent decisions—or because the decision-maker was trimming her sails to the political winds, in her own career interest and ahead of her Public Service obligation.
PM&C didn't like what I had to say. The secretary of PM&C, Mr Philip Gaetjens, has written to the President of the Senate, complaining that I sought to hold a public official to account. In that regard, I seek leave to table the letter that was sent to the President in relation to that. I do so in fairness, because there is criticism of me in this letter. I have run this by Senator Smith and the other leaders prior to this.
Leave granted.
Mr Gaetjens didn't like the fact that I suggested his employee 'breached her obligation' or was 'directed to make a decision contrary to law'. He did not like that I spoke of her actions as being incompetent or abhorrent or politicised. Until yesterday, I would have accepted the comment that the official wasn't directed to make the decision and I would have withdrawn my remarks about Ms McKenzie being 'directed to make a decision contrary to law'. But that withdrawal would still have left me backing my other comments: no-one, without being politicised or simply stupid, or both, could make the decision that she did. Moreover, Mr Gaetjens's flexible attitude towards the truth, to serve his own political master, has now been confirmed through another FOI decision that I received last night. That decision was made by another PM&C official, Assistant Secretary Hugh Cameron, who yesterday used what was effectively a pro forma decision-making template to claim exactly the same thing, stating that he is 'of the opinion that national cabinet is a committee of the cabinet and therefore national cabinet documents are exempt from disclosure under section 34 of the FOI Act'. That's two. Two senior officials have now sought to ignore the ruling of a Federal Court judge.
Some might think it's unconventional that I come into this chamber and start naming public officials, but there are conventions being broken inside government that are far more harmful in respect of damage to institutions. Mr Cameron's decision is, to all intents, a carbon copy of Ms McKenzie's. So here we have another bureaucrat in the Prime Minister's department arrogantly asserting that he is more learned than a judge when it comes to the law; here we have another official politicised and disrespectful to the rule of law. Presumably he too will get a pat on the head from Mr Gaetjens. But, in actual fact, it's a case of Tweedledee and, with Mr Cameron, Tweedledumber. And to think that the secretary of PM&C would write to the Senate, to the President, seeking sympathy, when the Senate itself has resolved that it will not accept national cabinet as a public interest immunity relating to cabinet deliberations. Mr Gaetjens' claim of me taking on officials is that I have undermined public confidence in the Australian Public Service. That is laughable coming from the grub of a man that Mr Gaetjens is.
It's not appropriate to reflect in that way about a public official. I would ask you to consider withdrawing that.
Well, how about you hear my evidence first?
Senator Patrick, I am asking you to withdraw.
Alright, I will withdraw. But this is a fellow who hasn't led the Public Service in a highly professional way. Sure, he's been a public servant in government for a long time but that doesn't make him a true public servant. Instead, he has been happy to act as the Prime Minister's henchman, covering up all manner of sins and corruption in the government and particularly in other ministers' offices. The secretary of PM&C is a cover-up expert. If there is some dark secret that the government needs to bury, Gaetjens is the man who has the shovel. He's been helping the PM and sending all manner of dirty secrets and sins off to the governance committee of cabinet to be buried for the next 20 years in the vaults of the National Archives. Mr Gaetjens, you are a disgrace. It is you who has undermined confidence in the Public Service. I know there are very good people in the Australian Public Service, but, as it is said, a fish rots from the head and when the head is rotten, no-one is likely to have faith in the remainder of the fish.
In closing, I note that so low is Gaetjens' estimate of his own standing he has had to try and bolster his doubtful credibility of his letter by roping in the Australian Public Service Commissioner, Peter Walcott, and has had him co-sign the letter. Mr Walcott, you should be more careful of the company you keep. Tying yourself up to a political deadbeat like Gaetjens was a foolish move that won't enhance your reputation.
I would not usually rise to speak on a motion to take note, particularly a motion to take note of an answer that I have given. However, we have just seen quite an extraordinary display by Senator Patrick.
Order, Senator Patrick.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senators! I will call you to order, please. The minister has the right to be heard in silence.
We have just seen the most extraordinary display by Senator Patrick, impugning motives against senior officials in the Australian Public Service, having already on a previous occasion singled out in quite an extraordinary way an individual senior public servant.
Order!
It is entirely appropriate for the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to seek to defend public servants working across the Australian Public Service from being brought into improper political debate.
Senator Patrick, we heard you in silence. I would ask you to show the same respect back to the minister.
Those of us who serve in public office are fair game in this place for the political debates that occur. We bring many public servants into the limelight as part of Senate estimates processes and other processes of government to provide the opportunity for questioning and the opportunity for information-gathering across our democratic processes. But we ought to respect that those public servants are not elected officials and they are not public officials. They are individuals who rightly have accountability mechanisms and processes in place for the way in which they conduct their duties. Of course, as ministers, we are responsible for the work of our departments and for addressing those matters.
I acknowledge that, overwhelmingly, members of this place and members of the other place have respected the work of the Australian Public Service and have not sought to create this type of politicised attack on individuals within it. I acknowledge that the President will consider the matters before him and, if necessary, the privileges committee will consider those matters. But, certainly on behalf of the government, I wish to make clear our respect for the work of our Public Service officials and leaders, including those individuals who have been maligned in the comments by Senator Patrick.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Birmingham) to a question without notice asked by Senator McCarthy today relating to federal quarantine facilities.
I do so in the context of the last few question times having had a slightly different quality, with the absence of Senators Rennick and Antic—without Heckle and Jeckle. I've missed Senator Rennick's heckling during the course of—
Senator Ayres, please resume your seat. Senator O'Sullivan on a point of order?
This will be good!
It's not appropriate for a senator to reflect on the absence of another senator.
That is true. Thank you for reminding me, Senator O'Sullivan. I'll just remind Senator Ayres of that. Particularly during this COVID period, when it has been difficult for senators to attend this place, the agreed custom is that we don't refer to senators being here or not being here. Thank you, Senator Ayres.
I'm just worried about them. One of their offices is next to mine. The lights are on, but nobody is home. The question is: are they in witness protection, or are they voluntarily not attending? I'll leave senators to reflect on that question. Senator McMahon and Senator Canavan, the other two rebel senators, the vaccine senators—at least they've got the courage to be in here.
What I am really here to talk about is the government's failure to deal with the COVID pandemic and the government's failure to manage its quarantine responsibilities. In the face of a national crisis, some governments rise to the occasion and some governments wilt. Former Prime Minister Menzies wilted in the face of Australia's existential crisis in the Second World War. Prime Ministers Curtin and then Chifley rose to the occasion, united Australia, got the strategy right and built a postwar Australia that was the foundation for the second half of the 20th century. The Morrison government's approach to the COVID pandemic looks a lot more like Menzies's approach—and failure—to the Second World War than it does to a government that really grasps its responsibilities. In the face of the COVID pandemic, Mr Morrison has been incapable of taking action when it's required. He's certainly been incapable of taking responsibility, and he's been incapable of grasping his own role in a time of national crisis.
The failures on quarantine are of course not the only failure of the Morrison government. Its failure on delivering vaccines for Australia at the promised time, in time to avoid the Southern Hemisphere winter, have been described as the biggest public policy failure in Australian history. Mr Morrison failed to purchase the vaccines in time, and when everything went wrong—
Senator Ayres, resume your seat. Senator McLachlan?
As much as I'm enjoying my honourable friend's contribution to the chamber, I listened carefully to Senator Birmingham's response to Senator McCarthy's answer, and the question and the answer directly related to quarantine facilities, not vaccines. I ask you to bring my honourable friend back to the question and answer.
Thank you, Senator McLachlan. There was a question on quarantine and in relation to the new outbreak. So I would ask Senator Ayres—whilst this is a broad debate, I think he's probably gone broader than the question. I ask you to bring your response back to those issues. Thank you, Senator Ayres.
I certainly will. What did Mr Morrison do when confronted with these failures? He blamed the states. Blaming the states is a bit like blaming the fire brigade, when they turn up to your house, because you get a little bit wet. The pandemic took off because of Mr Morrison's failure on vaccines and on quarantine. That's why we've had almost six months of lockdowns on the east coast: failure on quarantine and failure to do his job, set out clearly in the constitution.
It's not just Labor who says that quarantine is fundamental to getting the national strategy right. Ms Halton pointed that out in her report. The responsibility is clear. This morning Ms Westacott said she couldn't understand why the federal government hadn't got this right—quarantine, vaccines. Who will Australians trust next year to deliver sufficient quarantine capability? Who will they trust to deliver booster vaccines? Well, I can tell you, you wouldn't trust this lot; that's for sure.
I take a very differing view. I, like the leader of the government, have a very firm view that our quarantine policy and implementation have been exceptional and recognised around the world for achieving great success in fighting COVID and its encroachment on our lives in this country. The government has supported over 60,000 Australians to return, including 32,000 on 212 facilitated flights that brought 32,000 people. We worked in partnership with every state across the political divide to deliver quarantine facilities so that Australians can return to the arms of their families.
As the COVID impacts have evolved, so have the government responses. The government has invested $513.5 million into Howard Springs, with the capacity for 2,000 returned travellers. That is the language and action of success. The Centres for National Resilience are under construction in Melbourne, with a capacity of 1,000; in Brisbane, a capacity of 500; and in Perth, a capacity of 500. The government's response to the COVID crisis evolves, as it should. The government is flexible in its response and committed to ensuring that Australians remain safe and also that Australians overseas can return home through a process that keeps everyone in the community safe and healthy.
The Centres for National Resilience will have an ongoing role as part of the government's national response. There is a need for purpose-built quarantine for people who are travelling to Australia from high-risk locations or who are unable to quarantine at home. These centres will provide adequate, enduring capability that will assist the Commonwealth now and into the future with health and other crises. The centres will be built and owned by the Commonwealth, and they'll be operated by the state governments. Implicit in my honourable friend's contribution, prior to mine, was a criticism of state governments. The state governments have worked in partnership with the Commonwealth. My honourable friend from the opposite side implicitly has been criticising his own state Labor governments; I do not do so.
The government is working quickly to ensure that construction of the centres is completed as soon as possible. In Victoria, we expect construction of the first 250 beds will be completed by the end of 2021 and the next 250 in mid-January, with the last 500 of a thousand beds completed in the first quarter of 2022. In Western Australia and Queensland, we are working towards construction of the first 500 beds at each site being completed by the first quarter of 2022. This capacity is in addition to the existing capacity of up to 2,000 beds at Howard Springs. The government will make further decisions, if it is necessary, as circumstances unfold.
I would like to take this opportunity, in response to the contribution of my honourable friend Senator Ayres, to say that the leadership shown by the Prime Minister has been unwavering in its commitment to the health and safety of all Australians. He has created a national cabinet, which has enabled us, as a government, to work in partnership with the states to deliver the services required—including the vaccines, as my honourable friend mentioned—to those that need them. There is an easy opportunity—well, an opportunity, for many in the community, as is their right, to criticise the government's response, but I think people need to appreciate that this government has, each and every day, to look upon new circumstances and adjust its response to meet the same. I congratulate the Prime Minister on his leadership during this time, and I look forward to it continuing into the new year as the government works extraordinarily hard to ensure that we have, and continue to have, the lowest fatality rates, the highest vaccination rates and, importantly, the strongest economy. (Time expired)
[by video link] One of the recurring themes of the COVID pandemic in Australia has been this Prime Minister's failure to act—failure to act on advice; failure to act on the facts—and nowhere more than in the area of quarantine. We have known for close to two years that construction of purpose-built quarantine facilities is vital to keeping COVID rates in Australia to a minimum, and—despite that advice; despite report after report from the government's own hand-picked expert, Jane Halton, calling for purpose-built quarantine stations—we are still yet to see a single new quarantine station built by this government anywhere in the country.
This pandemic has been going for nearly two years. This government has had ample opportunity to build purpose-built quarantine facilities which would keep Australians safe, and the emergence of the omicron variant makes very clear that this pandemic is a long way from being over. It's very clear that we need to prepare for all circumstances—including the emergence of new variants about which we know very little and which are most likely to be developing in other parts of the world and, potentially, being brought to Australia. That's why quarantine facilities are so important.
Let's just look at how the most recent delta outbreak commenced in Sydney: it commenced because we had a poorly vaccinated population because of the government's failures on vaccine rollout—a poorly vaccinated population hit by a new variant entering the community because of the government's reliance on hotel quarantine. It was the fact that people were in hotel quarantine—were being transported from airports to hotel quarantine—that led to the delta variant getting out and into the community, and, tragically, leading to the deaths of Australians in a number of states, not to mention the enormous business losses that we've seen all around the country. That's why purpose-built quarantine matters, and that's why it should have happened well before now.
It is the case, fortunately, that there are governments who are moving ahead with building quarantine stations. In my state of Queensland, the Queensland government is well advanced in getting the new Wellcamp quarantine station just outside Toowoomba completed, and all indications are that it will be built by the end of this year. But even on this one the Morrison government is nowhere to be seen. This quarantine station, which is likely to be up and running before the end of the year, will receive not a single dollar of federal government investment—yet again, it's being left to the states, to Labor states, to carry the can for a government that fails to act in an area of its responsibility. Just like aged care—another area of gross failure by this government—quarantine is a federal government responsibility. There can be no doubt whose job it is to do this, and there can be no doubt who is dropping the ball—that is, Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his government. The only other quarantine station that is under construction in Queensland is at Pinkenba, near the Brisbane Airport. I was alarmed to read a couple of weeks ago that the federal government is considering halving the number of places that will be available at that quarantine station. It may turn out that that is a very short-sighted decision now that we have the emergence of this new variant.
The decision by the government to temporarily extend the closure of Australia's international borders is a decision that Labor supports. We have always argued that we need to apply the precautionary principle when new variants emerge and new circumstances emerge. But that is causing real consternation in the tourism industry and the international education industry, which were both really looking forward to international borders starting to reopen. That's why purpose-built quarantine stations matter. If we are to have confidence and security about our ability to bring people, particularly international workers and international students, into our country, we need to have these kinds of purpose-built quarantine facilities around the country to provide that kind of security and make sure that new variants aren't being brought into this country.
Why is it that Mr Morrison is always so slow to act? Nearly two years have elapsed since the beginning of this pandemic and we don't have a single new quarantine station. We saw it with the bushfires, we saw it with vaccines and we're seeing it now with quarantine as well. It's always too little, too late from this Prime Minister. And he never takes responsibility, even when the Constitution says that quarantine is his responsibility.
I've been listening carefully to the contributions on the motion to take note at this time of day from Senator Ayres and Senator Watt, speaking about the government's response to the COVID pandemic. Now, I'm very proud of the Morrison government's response to the COVID pandemic. I'm very proud of Australia's response to the COVID pandemic. It must be really difficult for Labor senators to have to come in here and trot out these lines. They live in a parallel universe because their view of what Australia has done is far more pessimistic than the reality. It's actually not connected to reality at all. They're living in some sort of alternative universe here, because Australia has actually tackled and dealt with the pandemic better than practically anywhere else in the world. In fact, if we had just the average death rate from COVID of any OECD country, then over 30,000 Australians would have died in the COVID pandemic. We're not anywhere near that. Way less than 2,000, I believe, is the number of people who have succumbed to COVID since the outbreak began here.
Australia has one of the highest rates of vaccination in the world. I don't know if you've seen that as well, Labor senators: we have one of the highest rates of vaccination in the world. I mean, this is phenomenal—we've got over 85 per cent double-dosed vaccination of people aged over 16 in Australia right now. And it's growing every day. This is good news. But you won't hear anyone on that side of the chamber celebrate the success that we as Australians, collectively, have achieved. You're not going to hear that, Madam Deputy President, because what do they do? They come in here—and it's really interesting, actually—
Senator O'Sullivan, I'm going to draw your attention to the take note question, which was about quarantine facilities.
Well, Madam Deputy President, the points that were raised were in relation to the handling of the pandemic. The issue of facilities was the nature of the question and, in response to that, I think it was Senator Watt who referenced the fact that often the breakouts in transmission actually occurred as people went from the airport to a hotel facility. That's not going to change if we have a dedicated COVID quarantine centre. We still actually need to get people from the airstrip. What are we going to build—a dedicated airport? I know that's what they proposed to do in Queensland, but how many airlines are actually going to land there directly? How many are actually going to land directly into these locations? We know that's just not practical. What we need is resilience.
That's where vaccines are the obvious key, and that's what Australians have stepped up to do. Australians have stepped up to go and get vaccinated. Sadly, though, in my home state our vaccination rate hasn't kept up to pace with the rest of the country. I don't blame Western Australians for that fact. The reality is that in WA we had one of the best experiences in dealing with COVID of anywhere else in Australia and, indeed, of anywhere else in the world. So I guess there has been a lack of urgency there in Western Australia which has maybe contributed somewhat to our lower rates of vaccination. But it's interesting when we see what has happened of late, since there have been these mandatory vaccinations—
Senator O'Sullivan, the question was about quarantine. It's not a debating point. I'm directing you specifically to the take note response. Senator Dean Smith?
Deputy President, with all due respect, it's difficult to talk about quarantine without talking about vaccination rates.
Senator Smith, you are debating with me. I am directing Senator O'Sullivan to take note of the answers that were given, and the questions were about quarantine.
Thank you, Madam Deputy President, and I won't disagree with your ruling. The reality is that quarantine centres become less relevant as vaccinations go up. We do know that with the omicron variant we have a new challenge here. It's looking okay so far, but the reality is that the best thing Australians can do, and the best thing that travellers can do, is to go and get vaccinated. That's the best way we can prevent the spread of disease. Sure, quarantine facilities are a part of that, but let's hope that we don't actually require them going into the future because we have such high levels of vaccinations—as we do here in Australia. We have one of the highest vaccination rates, and that's a credit to all Australians, including to this government, which has procured the vaccines and helped to establish them across the country.
I know that Senator O'Sullivan was trying his best to defend the government's appalling record when it comes to building quarantine facilities. I can assure the Senate that in my home state of Victoria we're already starting to build one facility, thanks to the state government applying a lot of pressure on the feds to cough up some of the costs towards the $250-million facility. That wasn't because the coalition, the federal government, decided one day that they were going to build quarantine facilities around the country; it was led not just by Victoria but by Queensland, Western Australia and even the Northern Territory governments demanding that the Commonwealth take responsibility for what it should be ensuring, that every Australian and every noncitizen who come to this country go through some form of quarantine. That was a debate that we had 12 months ago.
As things have developed, I know that Queensland, Victoria and WA are all very keen. In my home state of Victoria we're continuing to build the quarantine facility at Mickleham, right next to our airport in Tullamarine. But a government needs to ensure—like this government, it has a responsibility—that it does everything it can to avoid any further outbreaks of this deadly disease. A responsible government would be doing everything it could to mitigate the risks from future pandemics. In ensuring that you mitigate those risks building quarantine facilities is just one of many things that this government should be doing—one of many. But we know that this government, the Morrison-Joyce coalition government, is allergic to responsibility. As I mentioned earlier, quarantine is a Commonwealth responsibility under the federal Constitution. So why hasn't the coalition built dedicated quarantine facilities? Why is it being led by the various state and territory governments around the nation? Almost two years into this pandemic what we do know is that hotels aren't built for quarantine. That is why we need quarantine facilities. The Morrison-Joyce government has to build fit-for-purpose quarantine facilities right around the country—not just picking and choosing states or territories. There needs to be a national plan and that's what federal Labor, under the leadership of Anthony Albanese, has been calling on Mr Morrison and his government to do for some time now. Labor has a plan.
This government's failure on quarantine is also shown, as we've heard from other speakers, with the slow vaccine rollout, which I won't go into great detail on. But it has done a terrible job and that is the point that Labor senators have been making today: that this government has done a terrible job not just in the rollout of the vaccine but also in building quarantine facilities over the last 18 months. How much more do Australians have to suffer under this government? How much more do they have to wait for this government to finally get on and do its job? How many more lessons do they need to learn from all their mistakes? How many more outbreaks do we need to ensure that this government finally understands that we need an adequate national quarantine system?
This new omicron variant is a reminder of the pandemic. It is a reminder that this pandemic is still real. Despite a number of the restrictions being lifted right around the country, it does threaten our country. It threatens our economy because it threatens the working lives of men and women—people right around this country. For us to futureproof our economy it is important that we start to build these facilities everywhere. There are thousands of jobs to construct these facilities, thousands of jobs supporting local communities. But the Morrison government fails to listen to what the opposition has put forward in terms of its credible plan to protect Australia now and into the future. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Birmingham) to a question without notice asked by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate (Senator Waters) today relating to the report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces.
I rise to take note of the answers given by Senator Birmingham in response to questions asked by Senator Waters in relation to the Jenkins review, which of course we know was handed down and tabled today. It's a very important report that includes 28 thorough recommendations. It's disappointing to see already that the government is stalling on taking swift action to implement these recommendations. We don't need any more talk here. We know what the problem is. A lot of work has gone into this. A lot of suffering has occurred for people to come forward and to tell their stories. Now what we need is the government to work with all sides to get it done. We need a commitment from the Prime Minister this week that he will work to implement every single one of these recommendations. That's what the Greens want to see. That's what survivors and victims-survivors—both in this place and those who have already left—want as well.
I want to say very clearly just how grateful, as a woman in this place, I am to the bravery of so many women—many of them staff but others members of parliament—who participated in this process. They told their stories, were brave and sacrificed a whole lot of suffering, pain and trauma in order to help improve workplace conditions in parliament. Of course, this is important not because parliament is a place that should be better than anywhere else in and of itself. It is important because the standards that we set for ourselves are standards that should be set for the rest of the country. If we can't have a safe workplace for women in Australia's parliament, how on earth can we expect a safe workplace for women and girls and Australians in every other workplace?
While I stand here reflecting on these recommendations and urging the government to act, not defer these recommendations, I think it's important that we acknowledge the specific contribution that was made by Brittany Higgins in calling out the treatment that she suffered as a staff member in this building. I know that there will be lots of people digesting these recommendations, watching the news tonight, listening to how parliamentarians respond to this. As I know Senator Birmingham has already mentioned today, there are some who we will never know the names of but who were brave enough to come forward and tell their stories. I thank them. We should all be thanking them. It is their bravery that has pulled this forward. But it will be in vain unless this government acts and commits itself to implementing every single one of these recommendations this week, unless the Prime Minister gives that commitment this week.
It was only a matter of hours after the tabling of this report that, during question time, when we had another female member on her feet—Senator Lambie—asking questions of the government, that we heard growling and dog sounds coming from the government side of the chamber. Now, one of the key reflections in this report is that parliamentarians have to behave better. We have to take accountability for our own actions and clean up behaviour across the board. Culture starts at the top, and if we expect staff to feel safe and behave respectfully towards each other then MPs and senators have to do the same. I was appalled that, only a matter of hours after the Prime Minister was on his feet, growling was coming from his side of the chamber. It's a disgrace.
Question agreed to.
I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to various bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings.
I also table statements of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statements incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The statements read as follows—
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2021 SPRING SITTINGS
AUTONOMOUS SANCTIONS (THEMATIC SANCTIONS) AMENDMENT BILL 2021
Purpose of the Bill
1. The purpose of the Autonomous Sanctions (Thematic Sanctions) Amendment Bill 2021 (the Bill) is to expand the Government's ability to impose targeted financial sanctions and travel bans against the perpetrators of egregious acts of international concern, beyond Australia's primarily country-based autonomous sanctions framework. The Bill will specify categories of conduct pursuant to which new thematic sanctions could be established. Once the Bill has passed, the Government will amend the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 to promptly establish new thematic sanctions regimes relating to serious human rights violations or abuses, serious corruption and significant cyber incidents. This reform implements the government's response to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (JSCFADT) entitled Criminality, corruption and impunity: Should Australia join the Global Magnitsky movement?. The Minister for Foreign Affairs publicly announced the measures in the Bill on 5 August 2021. As an increasing number of countries use thematic sanctions to respond swiftly and flexibly to issues of international concern, regardless of geographic location, the Bill will also enable us to sanction individuals and entities in coordination with key global partners, including the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada, where it is in our national interest to do so. This reform provides Australia with an additional foreign policy tool of statecraft to define, defend and demonstrate our values, and protect the international rules-based order.
Reasons for Urgency
With an increasing number of comparatively attractive economies joining the "Magnitsky movement", we must position Australia to act more quickly to freeze the funds of perpetrators and beneficiaries, and to prevent them from travelling here. Further delay would mean we risk becoming an isolated, attractive safe haven for such people and entities, and their ill-gotten gains. The reform will enable Australia to swiftly and flexibly deny the perpetrators and beneficiaries of egregious acts, including serious human rights violations or abuses, and serious corruption, from accessing our economy and benefiting from the freedoms that our democracy allows. This additional tool of foreign policy statecraft will allow us to more flexibly respond to situations of international concern in the national interest. Introduction and passage of the Bill in the 2021 Spring sittings will facilitate swift implementation of human rights and corruption sanctions, consistent with the recommendations of the JSCFADT.
(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Foreign Affairs)
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2021 SPRI NG SITTINGS
ELECTORAL LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (ANNUAL DISCLOSURE EQUALITY) BILL 2021
Purpose of the Bill
The objective of the proposed amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 is to improve the consistency of application of the financial disclosure framework and promote transparency by:
Reasons for Urgency
The Bill is urgent with the next federal election to be held on or before 21 May 2022. In order for relevant legislative changes to take effect and be implemented by the Australian Electoral Commission before the election, passage will be needed during this sitting period.
(Circulated by authority of the Special Minister of State)
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGEIN THE 2021 SPRING SITTINGS
ELECTORAL LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (ASSURANCE OF SENATE COUNTING) BILL
Purpose of the Bill
The Bill enhances confidence in elections through strengthening the integrity of counting of Senate votes, including independent assurance of computer systems and processes used to capture and count votes.
Reasons for Urgency
The bill is urgent with the next federal election to be held on or before 21 May 2022. In order for relevant legislative changes to take effect and be implemented by the Australian Electoral Commission before the election, passage will be needed during this sitting period.
(Circulated by authority of the Special Minister of State)
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2021 SPRING SITTINGS
ELECTORAL LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CONTINGENCY MEASURES) BILL
Purpose of the Bill
The Bill implements the Government response to recommendations from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) inquiry on the future conduct of elections operating during times of emergency situations
Reasons for Urgency
The Bill is urgent with the next federal election to be held on or before 21 May 2022. In order for relevant legislative changes to take effect and be implemented by the Australian Electoral Commission before the election, passage will be needed during this sitting period.
(Circulated by authority of the Special Minister of State)
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2021 SPRING SITTINGS
INVESTMENT FUNDS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
The Investment Funds Legislation Amendment Bill will provide alternate employment arrangements for the Future Fund Management Agency (FFMA) and a partial Freedom of Information Act 1982 exemption for the Future Fund Board of Guardians (Board) and the FFMA for documents relating to investment activities. The Amendment Bill will simplify the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) disbursements framework, bringing greater certainty to funding for health and medical research. It will also transfer administrative responsibility for expenditure from the Emergency Response Fund (ERF) to the newly established National Recovery and Resilience Agency (NRRA).
Reasons for Urgency
Passage of the Amendment Bill will ensure the new disbursements framework for the MRFF is in place ahead of the disbursement amount for next financial year being determined under current arrangements, providing certainty of the funding that is available in 2022-23. It will also give effect to the transfer of administrative responsibility for expenditure from the ERF to the NRRA, which came into existence on 1 July 2021.
(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Finance)
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 20 21 SPRING SITTINGS
VETERANS' AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (EXEMPTING DISABILITY PAYMENTS FROM INCOME TESTING AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL
Purpose of the Bill
Exempting Disability Payments
These measures will exempt the disability pension − as defined in the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA) − from the income test under the Social Security Act 1991 (SSA). This would remove the need for the Defence Force Income Support Allowance (DFISA). These measures will also amend the VEA to remove the disability income rent test for rent assistance under the VEA, providing additional support to certain disability veterans who rent privately.
These measures will simplify the way income support payments are calculated and administered by DVA and Services Australia. The changes align with the Government's commitment to remove unnecessary complexities in the broader welfare system.
These measures will also remove an anomaly whereby the more impaired a veteran is, the lower the rate of rent assistance they receive. Once implemented, the rent assistance measure will result in some highly impaired individuals receiving higher rates of rent assistance.
Approximately 14,000 veterans and dependents will benefit from simpler administration of their payments. Of these people, approximately 6,900 veterans and their dependents will receive additional rent assistance. All clients (including those who will not have a change to their payment rate) will benefit from a simpler payment structure. The veteran community is particularly anxious that benefits from removing the rent assistance anomaly flow through to them as soon as possible.
Overall, these measures will provide much needed financial and other assistance to severely impaired veterans.
Pilot of Non-Liability Rehabilitation
These measures will establish access to vocational and psychosocial rehabilitation services for transitioning Australian Defence Force (ADF) members and other veterans who have an identified need, without the requirement of having lodged a compensation claim.
Currently, access to DVA-funded rehabilitation services is only available once the Commonwealth has accepted liability for an injury or disease as being related to the person's ADF service, or while their claim is being determined. The proposal will establish a two-year pilot program that will provide early access to rehabilitation services and break the nexus between a liability claim and undertaking rehabilitation.
An instrument-making power will allow the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to determine a class of persons to whom the provision of rehabilitation programs would apply in the context of the new pilot program.
The pilot is in response to Recommendation 6.3 from the Productivity Commission's Report, A Better Way to Support Veterans, and seeks to foster cultural change, encouraging early and voluntary participation in rehabilitation.
Reasons for Urgency
The Exempting Disability Payments from income testing measures were part of the 2020-21 Budget with a commencement date of 20 September 2022. The 2021-22 Budget however brought the commencement date forward to 1 January 2022.
These measures have been long awaited and are in response to the Independent Review into the TPI Payment delivered to the Australian Government in August 2019. The measures will provide much needed financial and other support to a significant number of the veteran community.
The non-liability rehabilitation measure was announced as part of the 2021-22 Budget with a commencement date of 1 January 2022. Early commencement of the pilot will enable the Government to assess the beneficial impact of providing early rehabilitation to veterans.
The 1 January 2022 commencement date will necessitate introduction and passage of the bill in the Spring sittings.
(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs)
by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Henderson for today, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Carr for 30 November, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
PRESIDENT (): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. I shall now proceed to the discovery of formal business.
I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction, by no later than 9.30 am on Thursday, 2 December 2021, the modelling undertaken for the 2021 National Gas Infrastructure Plan (NGIP) which is referred to in the NGIP's foreword and executive summary.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government will not oppose this motion as we are proud to support Australia's gas industry and infrastructure, which is securing the future of our manufacturing and export industries and complementing the integration of more renewable energy into the market. However, the government advises the Senate that the short deadline put forward to provide the material will need to be extended.
Question agreed to.
I inform the Senate that at 8.30 am today 18 proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Kitching:
Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
Undermining of public health by the Morrison-Joyce Government by always doing too little too late, including ongoing failure to open any new federal quarantine facilities and deliver sovereign mRNA vaccine manufacturing capacity that would protect Australians and our neighbours from new variants of COVID-19, and instead pandering to anti-vax extremists for votes despite an ongoing global pandemic.
Is the proposal supported?
More tha n the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.
No-one knows better than a Victorian that just wishing for the pandemic to be over will not make it over. The reality is that we are now facing the prospect of another new variant on our shores. But, at a time when we should be feeling confident about our ability to manage this new strain of the virus, Australians are again concerned—concerned because, even after two years of this pandemic, we still cannot trust this government to respond. We still cannot trust this government to deliver us through this new challenge that we're facing today, because we know how this government responds in a crisis. It is always too little too late. It's always someone else's responsibility. It's always a matter for the states.
For the past two years, Prime Minister Morrison has had just two jobs that Australians needed him to do to keep us safe: deliver a fast, speedy, effective vaccination program and deliver new fit-for-purpose national quarantine facilities. We all know what happened. We all know the story of the failed vaccine rollout. Apparently it wasn't a race, according to Mr Morrison. Apparently no-one in government needed to pick up the phone when Pfizer called. And, almost two years on, we still have no dedicated, purpose-built national quarantine facilities—no new federal quarantine facilities.
Throughout this year, in particular, Australians have paid the price. This year, 2021, was the year that Australians just did not need to go through—lockdowns, restrictions and border closures. This year, 2021, was the year of COVID that we just didn't need to have, because the Prime Minister failed to roll out the vaccines. He said it wasn't a race. He didn't pick up the phone to Pfizer. He failed to roll out the vaccines. That failure has been called by the former Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, the biggest public policy failure on record. Two years into this pandemic we are still reliant on leaky and insufficient hotel quarantine. We know that hotels were built for tourists. They weren't built to deal with this crisis. That's why we needed the government to build purpose-built quarantine facilities.
Now we can add to all of this the absolute snail's pace that this government is displaying in establishing mRNA capacity here in Australia. This is sovereign capacity that we urgently need—vaccines that we urgently need to produce right here in Australia. The success of mRNA vaccines became apparent last year in the pandemic. It became clear last year just how critical this technology would be in our ongoing fight against the pandemic. Last year everyone got this news—everyone except for Prime Minister Morrison, because we are still nowhere on delivering mRNA vaccine-manufacturing capacity in Australia. This is an absolutely essential capability that we need in order to continue to protect Australians and our regional neighbours from this virus, but this government was so slow to even announce an mRNA bid.
Since then, it has been absolutely glacial in rolling that process out. First the government said we would be making the vaccines here in 12 months. Then it became 24 months. Now it's some time in the next three years. We are still waiting for the Morrison government to announce the results of its approach to market—its belated, snail-paced approach to market—to manufacture mRNA vaccines right here. We still have no announcement, more than five months after expressions of interest closed. In that five months, and in the period before the government even announced its bid, the rest of the world has already moved. There is a global race on to attract these facilities, and this is yet another race that this government wants Australians to lose.
We know how critical this particular vaccine technology is to our ability to protect against this virus, the current variant and any future variants, but we are still waiting, waiting, waiting for this government to get its plans off the drawing board. Australian scientists, businesses and manufacturers are all ready to go. Just today, the first trial mRNA drug made in Australia was produced in Victoria. It was made in a facility in Boronia, Melbourne. It's now heading to clinical trials. This is great news. It should be great news. It would be even better news if we had in Australia the mRNA manufacturing facility that we need to actually make this a reality—the type of facility that could take Australian-made innovations like that out of the trial phase and into advanced manufacturing. But we don't, and we don't know when that is going to happen, because the Morrison government still has its plans on the drawing board. The Morrison government is holding us back from building the mRNA capacity that we urgently need. It is holding us at the back of the line in a global race. This is the track record of our federal government—always too little, too late. Always.
Australians need their government to get moving. Australians need their government to get in the race. But instead of leadership from this Prime Minister, what we have seen, particularly in the last few weeks, is just division. From the very early days of this crisis we have seen the Prime Minister prioritise politics over the best interests of the people, blaming the state premiers instead of backing them when they were making the tough calls that needed to be made to keep us safe, playing state off against state, turning his back on millions of people who were locked down in what the Prime Minister decided, divisively, to label 'the Victorian wave' of the pandemic.
And now, when we most need unity, he is playing a dangerous game of doublespeak, condemning the violent threats of protesters on one hand but then straightaway, on the other hand, saying he has sympathy with their concerns. He's playing a dangerous game that undermines the advice of the health experts—a game that could impact the critical uptake of booster shots that we need to prevent another winter lockdown. He's playing a game that undermines the unity and the goodwill displayed by millions of Australians who have done the right thing and gone and got themselves vaccinated.
We know this is not a game, that there are lives at stake, that the sacrifices of millions of Australians should not be undermined in what is a desperate scrounge for votes from this Prime Minister. But this is a government that is desperate—desperate to avoid responsibility, desperate to avoid scrutiny, desperate to save itself before anything else. They are so desperate to distract from their long list of failures that they are prepared to play footsy with extremists. We have a prime minister who refuses to unequivocally condemn the violent threats against state MPs and state premiers. He refuses to act as a leader and do the hard thing and tell the violent protesters that the crisis is not over, that there is more work to do. He refuses to tell them that, while it's difficult, we can get through this if we actually stand together. A real leader would deliver the unity we need to move forward together.
Today's matter of urgency is a huge window into Labor's policy void—policy vacuum—and petty vindictiveness. So, I thank Labor for moving this motion, because it's a huge public service. On one hand, what we have seen in the motion and the first contribution to this debate is nothing short of relentless negativity. If I were an opposition senator, believing that my party was worthy of government, I'd be moving a matter of urgency saying that the government should be adopting my positive policy platform. But there is not a single word of alternative from the Australian Labor Party in the motion or in the debate thus far. All we've had is fact-devoid negativity being thrown at us.
Let's move to that which is before us. First of all, the government is accused of its 'ongoing failure to open any new federal quarantine facilities'. Well, at Howard Springs there's already a facility that I think caters for 1,000 or so. But we are, as we speak, building facilities. In Victoria, we expect that construction of the first 250 beds will be completed by the end of 2021—within a month. And this is the shallowness of the Labor Party's attack: do you know why it will only be the end of this year? Because the state Labor government's lockdown of its state delayed completion. The federal government pleaded with the state Labor government, saying, 'Please give an exemption for the building of these quarantine facilities in Victoria so that they can be ready.' But in typical Labor style, talking out of both sides of their mouths, on one hand the state Labor government says, 'No, we will not give you an exemption,' and then federal Labor uses that denial of an exemption to condemn the federal government for not building the facility. That sort of shallowness tells you everything you need to know about the Australian Labor Party and why it is not fit for office.
In Western Australia—your home state, Mr Acting Deputy President O'Sullivan—as well as in Queensland, the federal government is working towards construction of the first 500 beds at various sites being completed by the first quarter of 2022. So here we are, on the cusp of delivering all these quarantine beds and facilities that Labor are asking about, and what do they do? Instead of celebrating the quick movement and the fact that we are on the cusp of delivering them, they're telling us, 'They're not ready yet; isn't this terrible!' It's just relentless negativity, and there's no description to us, as a nation, of how they would have done things differently.
In referring to the Victorian situation, Multiplex was the company that was on track for delivery of the first 500 beds by December, which is next month. We're on the very last day of November today. The finance minister wrote to the Victorian Premier, seeking an exemption from lockdown for the Mickleham project. The Victorian government did not agree to any concessions whatsoever, and undoubtedly that is part of the coordinated Labor Party political playbook—that the state government will refuse and delay so that federal Labor can somehow take advantage of it. How shallow. How un-Australian. Sadly, how very predictable it is for Labor to engage in such stunts, but I have every confidence that the Australian people will see through it. Labor are crying crocodile tears. It is fake concern. Surely, they must know the truth about the facilities that are about to come online, and the delays occasioned by state Labor? No, they seek to airbrush all of that out of the equation.
Having dealt with the quarantine facilities, let me turn to the other aspect of the motion, the delivery of sovereign mRNA vaccine-manufacturing capacity. Wouldn't we all love it! That'd be great, wouldn't it? But there are no new end-to-end mRNA facilities that have been established, since the vaccines were approved, anywhere in the world. That was just a slight omission, I'm sure, by the Labor Party mover of this urgency matter—that nowhere in the world do such facilities exist. Yet they seek to slap the federal Liberal-National government around the chops for not having done that which nobody else in the world has been able to achieve as yet. Please, give us a break! Do not use this pandemic for such cheap political points, when you know that what you are saying to the Australian people is demonstrably false on all the evidence. I would encourage the next Labor speaker to tell us where there is that capacity anywhere in the world. If they can't, I would say to the Australian Labor Party: apologise for having brought this matter forward.
Then we have the assertion that we somehow haven't protected Australians and our neighbours. Again, let's look at the evidence. Let's look at the facts. Australia has pledged to supply up to 60 million doses to our region by the end of 2022, of which up to 15 million would go to the Pacific and Timor-Leste. We have shared over 2.3 million doses with our neighbours in the Pacific and Timor-Leste, as of 17 November. Australia has provided 1.076 million AstraZeneca vaccine doses to Fiji. How many more would Labor have delivered? Not a word from them as to how much has been done in this space. There have been 677,000 doses given to Timor-Leste, 213,000 doses given to the Solomon Islands, 204,000 to PNG, 100,000 doses to Vanuatu—these are all figures as of 17 November—as well as medical supplies, personal protective equipment and testing equipment. Australia has committed $623.2 million to assist vaccine procurement and rollout efforts in the Pacific and South-East Asia. Excuse me, but where does Labor get this nonsense from that we have done nothing for our neighbourhood or our region? They're demonstrably false on the figures. I would encourage the next Labor speaker to say how they would have done more, and how.
Finally, let me deal with what is so vindictive and nasty: this talk about pandering to antivax extremists. I happen to be vaccinated; I encourage people to be vaccinated. But I'm willing to accept that men and women of good faith looking at the same evidence can come to different conclusions. And do you know what? Even the very best of our judiciary in the High Court—taking the same oath of office, hearing the same evidence and applying the same law—come to different conclusions, and that is why sometimes the High Court is split 4-3. Or, for those of us who did jury trials from time to time, men and women are sworn into a jury and hear the same evidence, yet you get a split jury verdict. Why? It's because men and women of good faith applying themselves to the same situation can reasonably come to different conclusions. It's the same in the vaccination space. Respectfully, I disagree with them, but to call them 'antivax extremists' is, if you like, Hillary Clinton-esque, of the 'deplorables' that cost her the election against Donald Trump.
So the Australian Labor Party deserve to lose the next election, because what they are seeking to do is to divide the Australian society into a two-tier system of the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. We on this side, whilst we have certain views about vaccination, are willing to accept that there are alternative views. This motion shows that Labor is not ready to govern.
I rise to talk on an aspect of the vaccine rollout that flows on a little bit from what Senator Abetz has talked about but, in my view, hasn't been discussed in enough detail and certainly not without the extreme rhetoric that can sometimes be attached to both sides of this argument. It goes to where the boundaries are in relation to restrictions that are being imposed upon people who have not been vaccinated.
I just want to state my position really clearly: I am fully vaccinated, and I intend to get a booster. My view is that everyone who is medically able should get a vaccination. But I also accept that there are some people—and I've spoken to constituents who say to me: 'Rex, I'm really scared.' A woman I was chatting to the other day said: 'I'm a single mother. I'm very scared about what's going to happen. I'm not trying to be violent. I'm not trying to be extreme. I'm just worried. I'm genuinely worried about what would happen if I were to receive a vaccination.'
Again, my position is that mass vaccination has saved, and will save, lives. I also think that mass vaccination has played a key role in Australia opening up and has helped from a national and statewide health restrictions perspective. But, again, there are some questions that need to be properly asked. I don't think restrictions and exemptions—and I point out that there ought to be exemptions; there are good cases for exemptions—have necessarily been well spelt out to people, and I'm talking about restrictions and exemptions at the federal, state and local government level. We do have inconsistency around the states and the territories, right across our federation, and I don't think that is helpful. Sometimes, trying to untangle what the restrictions are, and, indeed, where the exceptions may lie, can be very difficult. Where does the legal basis for restrictions lie, and what are the limits of those legal restrictions? Those are things that we need to be talking about. They're things that we ought to understand.
I'll give another example of this: we have business entities imposing restrictions on people who haven't been vaccinated. The other day I listened to Senator Lambie's speech and I think it was one of the best speeches she's ever given. I support all the features of her speeches where she talks about never wanting someone who's unvaccinated to go into an aged-care facility and put the elderly at risk. The same would be said about children. But there are some businesses which, in good faith, as Senator Abetz talked about, are imposing restrictions. What is the legal basis for them doing so, and what are the boundaries—what are the limits of those restrictions?
I was speaking with the BCA the other day. They're quite worried about what happens when they, as employers, say to their employees, 'You can't attend work and, in fact, you may not be employed if you do not get yourself vaccinated.' The legal basis for such an indication to an employee is unclear to me, and I don't know what happens when someone who is a good worker and who is happy to do their work gets themselves into a situation where an employer says, 'I'm sorry, you have to go.' What may happen in those circumstances—what I suspect will happen in those circumstances—is that we'll end up with a matter before the Fair Work Commission. The facts will be presented, the circumstances and the law will be discussed and some decision will be made.
But there is great uncertainty right now: where are the boundaries? I think that's something which government ought to pay some attention to, to assist the community, to make it easier for the community to understand, to make the worker understand what their rights might be and to make sure that employers understand what their rights may be. There are boundaries; there may be circumstances where it's quite inappropriate to apply a restriction. I wonder about the intersection of COVID restrictions and on people who have not been vaccinated entering into a medical facility. How does that intersect with the Hippocratic oath? I don't know the answers to these questions but I think we ought to be thinking about them. I think that the government ought to put some effort into that space, to help remove some of the confusion.
[by video link] Today I'm speaking on the urgency motion in relation to what is very clearly the government's continually dangerous and lacklustre approach to this pandemic. This week we've had the new omicron variant found in Australia and it brings into harsh focus the fact that we have a too little, too late approach coming from this government.
We've seen this for the last two years of this pandemic. We've said it time and time again, that this government had two jobs in the pandemic—two jobs: to vaccinate the country and to have a national quarantine scheme around the country. Both of these are federal responsibilities according to our Constitution—it couldn't be clearer. They're the constitutional responsibility of our federal government, and the Morrison government have failed at achieving or taking responsibility for both.
Not only have they shirked their responsibilities they've attacked state governments, like in Western Australia, Queensland and Victoria, who have filled the void. They have filled the void and fought, tooth and nail, to patch up the gaps left by this federal government's shortfalls. We've been left, necessarily, with COVID lockdowns and border closures because of the lack of quarantine support by the Commonwealth and also because of slow vaccination accessibility in coming from overseas. We should have had a government that was prepared to back responsible lockdowns and border closures instead of causing division and divisiveness in the community. We saw this government side with Clive Palmer trying to tear down the Western Australian border control. Then the Prime Minister went on to say: 'I don't hold a hose, mate. It's a matter for the states. It's not a race on vaccination.' The simple fact is that the government has tried to undermine the states, including Western Australia.
At the same time Indigenous people were supposed to have been vaccinated much earlier. Instead, we now see outbreaks in remote communities in the Northern Territory. We have a vaccination gap of something like 22 per cent. This is bad enough, but when you come to Western Australia and Queensland the gap is over 30 per cent, with a national gap of some 28 per cent in vaccination rates. From the start it was well understood that remote communities are more vulnerable. From the start there should have been a plan for them to be vaccinated first. The government failed to do this. It failed to prioritise people appropriately in the vaccination rollout. Aged-care workers were supposed to be vaccinated by Easter this year. These workers are already struggling with a critical workforce shortage caused by this government's underfunding. The government failed to meet that target too.
We have had promise after promise to protect this country during this pandemic. We still see a drag on dedicated quarantine facilities in Australia. Hotel quarantine is not a sustainable solution as the Commonwealth pushes us to open up internationally. This is an outrageous dichotomy. Almost all of the leaks of COVID-19 into the general community have come from hotel quarantine. These leaks have caused devastating lockdowns across the country. This is something that the Commonwealth government has failed to take responsibility for.
Hotels were not set up for quarantine. We've been calling—again and again—on the government for the duration of this pandemic to take responsibility for quarantine and only now do we begin to see movement. Do we see this movement completed? Do we see it rolled out? Do we see federal supported quarantine facilities open and active before we open up the international borders? No. We've seen designated quarantine facilities behind schedule. Quarantine Services Australia is only now gearing up to provide quarantine for skilled workers and international students. They will be charged nearly four times what state and federal governments have charged for quarantine. This is outrageous. Trust the government to attempt to let their mates gouge profits out of students in a pandemic.
Even worse, it turns out that this fee-for-service setup is being run by friends of Scott Morrison, our Prime Minister. They were the only people approached by Home Affairs to run the quarantine system. DPG Advisory Solutions, which is led by the Prime Minister's friends David Gazard and Scott Briggs, advised on setting up the private sector quarantine service. Scott Briggs is a former Liberal Party state director, party donor and friend of the Prime Minister.
Mr Briggs is not a 'pop in cash for the raffle at the local Lib fundraiser' kind of donor. He is at the heart of the political circles of the Liberal Party and their power hub. Mr Briggs's company is a largely inactive political consultancy business that he started four years ago. Last year it was reported that his company donated $165,000 to the Liberal Party. When asked about it, Briggs and the Liberal Party denied the $165,000 donation and they declared to the Electoral Commission that it never happened. Mr Briggs also has another company—Pacific Blue Capital—which made 14 donations to the Liberal Party, worth $90,000, in 2018-19.
This is the man who recently resigned from very aggressively bidding for the $1 billion visa privatisation contract the government has recently abandoned. Perhaps the Liberal Party and the government are trying to make it up to him. He is the only one whom Home Affairs has contacted to run this privatisation of quarantine. Quite a consolation prize, isn't it? This kind of 'job for mates' approach is something that this government blatantly takes on. They blatantly deliver it. It is little wonder that because of this kind of activity the public is losing faith in our federal leaders by the day. Our nation needs answers, explanations and accountability.
What this government needs to explain to the Australian people is why it is even necessary to create a fee-for-service quarantine system run by the private sector in the first place. The need for this has not been established, especially when QSA has said that it will charge clients up to $13,750 per person for these quarantine services. Why is our government attempting to monetise the pandemic when we as a country could have been domestically manufacturing the mRNA vaccines much earlier than we look to? They've been proven to be the vaccines of the future and Australia has been behind—and contributed to their research and development. We should have the capability to produce them to protect our health, but also to secure jobs and economic prosperity.
This should not be about trying to get a job for your old mates who have given your political party a lot of money. But, no, we have a government that has taken too long to protect us from this pandemic, too long to rule out misinformation, too long to bring out information for Australians about our vaccines, too long to get those vaccines into the country. Instead, they've held up their hands—not led. Instead, they've pandered to extremists attempting to get votes. Our nation needs a government that we can trust to respond in a crisis.
Here we are today, another MPU concocted out of thin air by the ALP that the Morrison government is undermining public health. We really should thank those opposite for these dorothy dixers that they deal up every other day. On both the health and economic front I think it's fair to say that Australia has fared better than most countries dealing with COVID. Out of the 38 OECD countries Australia has the second lowest number of COVID cases per capita. By avoiding the death rates of other OECD countries Australia has saved over 30,000 lives. While Australia has been doing it tough because of the longest lockdowns in the world, particularly in my home state of Victoria, Australia was also the first advanced economy to have more people in work prior to COVID. Nearly 900,000 jobs have been created since May last year. After last year's recession Australia's economy recovered to be larger than prior to the pandemic—the head of many advanced major economies in the world.
On the point of vaccines, on November 2020 the Prime Minister pointed out, in an announcement, that the government had ordered 135 million doses of vaccine—contrary to what those opposite have been saying. It's more than enough doses for five doses for every Australian.
On 21 February this year the Prime Minister announced that the government had a comprehensive plan to offer COVID vaccines to all Australians by the end of October 2021. I think it's safe to say that we've seen that. By the end of October we were 80 per cent vaccinated. No-one said that the rollout of the vaccine had to be a straight line. Of course it's going to ramp up. That's the way these things work. With more than 92 per cent of the eligible population aged over 16 protected with their first dose and more than 86 per cent of the eligible population aged over 16 fully vaccinated with both doses, this government is clearly in a position that it's delivering on its promises and delivering results. Our investments in our public health have put Australia in one of the best positions in the world.
I am awfully glad that Senator Kitching mentioned mRNA in her urgency motion today and I note the contributions of senators opposite about how there is no mRNA vaccine manufacturer in Australia. Well, just today, I point to an ASX announcement and to a media release from the Premier of Victoria talking about how Australia's Monash University—where I currently study—through its Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences and with an Australian drug manufacturer, IDT Australia, have produced the first mRNA vaccine in Australia. That's right—the first mRNA vaccine in Australia. It is hard to imagine how those opposite missed all this, but it is very clear that here in Australia we are progressing towards manufacturing of mRNA vaccines, other therapeutics and other vaccines, not just for COVID. This is coming about because, in my home state of Victoria, we have the strongest ecosystem for medical research and manufacturing in the country. Other countries such as Singapore have announced that they are going to be building their own facilities as well and they've said that the soonest they can do it is 2023. We have a long way to go. The vaccine that is being developed in Victoria that I've just talked about is being made in quantities big enough to be able to go into phase 3 trials.
As we recover from the COVID pandemic we want to make sure that we are well placed to control our own destiny. In a more uncertain world this means that it is more important than ever to have that sovereign manufacturing capability, and we have that. We are building towards it. The Morrison government invested $3 million towards that mRNA vaccine candidate that I was talking about before. So we are very proud of our efforts in building that sovereign mRNA manufacturing capability, particularly in Victoria, my home state.
Once we have that mRNA capability, it will create the potential for thousands of associated jobs and will be a great benefit to our economy. But constructing that sovereign capability is no easy task. Such a vital and critical undertaking is a complex task. How to operate those facilities and where to operate those facilities are critical decisions for the future. Victoria has the ecosystem. We have the research scientists. We have the manufacturing capability. As those opposite would be aware, CSL in Victoria are already manufacturing the AstraZeneca vaccine. An mRNA manufacturing complex requires the best medical research ecosystem and support, and needs to be located in that ecosystem which has that proven pharmaceutical research capability and the workforce to be able to back it up with the skills in precision pharmaceutical manufacturing.
The reality of the situation is that there are two important elements to developing an onshore mRNA capability—that is, having the manufacturing capability and having the intellectual property and know-how. It takes time to be able to develop both of those things. The real benefit to Australia of this endeavour is to protect Australia's long-term health needs and to help grow and develop an mRNA ecosystem and industry here in Australia. You don't just do this for COVID vaccines; mRNA technology is a platform rather than just a vaccine. Work is already underway to create mRNA technology to address illnesses such as cancer, HIV, the zika virus, Epstein-Barr, as well as auto-immune disorders, cellular engineering and protein replacement therapies. This is important for Australia. It is important for the future of manufacturing and is an important part of building our sovereign capability and that is why it is essential we get this right. Our thorough, measured approach is the right one to achieve this.
The Australian government is also on track to have purpose-built quarantine facilities delivered in the north, south, east and west of Australia to ensure we maintain a robust quarantine system to bring Australians home safely and so we have the capacity to respond to future emergencies. The government's priority is the safety and wellbeing of Australians and supporting those overseas to travel here safely. The government has already supported over 60,000 Australians to return, including 32,000 on 211 facilitated flights. We invested $513 million to increase the capacity of Howard Springs to 2,000 returned travellers.
The Centres for National Resilience under construction in Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth are well underway. The Centres for National Resilience will have an ongoing role as part of the government's national response to COVID-19. There is a need for purpose-built quarantine for people travelling to Australia from high-risk locations or who are unable to quarantine at home. These centres will provide adaptable, enduring capability that will assist the Commonwealth now and in response to future health and emergency crises. The centres will be built and owned by the Commonwealth, but they will be operated by the state governments. The government is working quickly to ensure that the construction of the centres is completed as soon as possible. In Victoria, my home state, we expect construction of the first 250 beds will be completed by the end of this year, the next 250 by early next year and the last 500 beds of the thousand-bed facility completed in the first quarter of 2022. In Western Australia and Queensland, we are working towards the construction of the first 500 beds at each site being completed by the first quarter of 2022. This capacity is in addition to the existing capacity of up to 2,000 beds at Howard Springs.
So I think you can see that we are well and truly looking after the public's health; we're looking after their wellbeing; we're looking after their jobs; we're protecting their lives and their livelihoods. I thank the senators opposite for this motion, for me to be able to put that on the record.
[by video link] As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I agree that the Morrison government did too little, too late; yet I find it damned hard to agree with Labor, whose premiers have damaged our economy and our jobs. The Morrison-Joyce government has had no plan, was slow to respond and was slow at every point on the critical path. The government failed to learn lessons from other nations that were ahead of them—well ahead of them—such as Taiwan, where they protect the sick, the aged and the vulnerable, while keeping their economy and people's businesses and jobs going. The Morrison-Joyce government and state premiers have been busy on the political point-scoring, not the doing.
Queensland's Annastacia Palaszczuk is far more concerned about looking good and sounding good than doing good. Her border lockdowns and sacking of health workers have damaged families, businesses and jobs in the regions. Under Labor, Queensland's economic future is now jeopardised.
Had the Morrison-Joyce government allowed equal priority to other treatments, such as antivirals, many more Australians would have been treated and safe and the virus would be finished, as it is in other countries that are using the antivirals. Instead, the Morrison-Joyce government's reliance on only one treatment is a major risk—a provisional COVID injection that the TGA did not test and could not and will not guarantee as safe, and that concerns a hell of a lot of Australians. Yet the Morrison-Joyce government and the states have chosen to punish nearly two in every 10 Australians for not taking this unacceptable injection and the risk associated with it.
Understand us, Prime Minister: the Liberal-Nationals and the Labor-Greens are forcing a huge segment of the public into voting against you. Calling honest everyday Australians 'antivax extremists' has never been the answer—unless you and Labor believe that punishing and threatening workers with the sack is the right way. I don't. The name 'national cabinet' sounds grand yet is nothing more than a meeting of the Prime Minister, state premiers and territory chief ministers, trying to hide behind collective decision-making instead of standing up and being accountable for decisions. National cabinet is a pretend concept to protect politicians from what they are not doing and to hide their mistakes.
It's time to stop sacking workers and instead focus on jobs and the economy and on people's health and safety. Instead of looking good, let's have the people safe and healthy. One Nation will continue to stand up for all Australians, injected or not injected, for our jobs, our rights and our freedoms, and to keep Australians safe.
I want to remind senators of what the people are saying. On Friday night I attended a lively meeting in Redlands, a suburb in the south-east of Brisbane. I also attended a meeting on the Gold Coast on Saturday and a meeting in Moreton on Sunday night. I heard about the bankruptcies. I heard about a person who has built a business up and has had to sell his house to pay off the assets in the business, and his wife and daughter will now not be able to work after the 17th—because of Annastacia Palaszczuk's edict and medical apartheid. So what the hell does he do? He's one of many, many people who are very angry, and rightly so. What about the veteran up at Moreton who has physical injuries and cannot get physio anymore? She's a veteran and served the country—and now she's worried she will slide backwards physically and mentally. What about all the other veterans in the same position? This is what Scott Morrison and Annastacia Palaszczuk are doing to this country. (Time expired)
It has been almost two years since COVID first hit Australia, and the government has failed to open up any new quarantine facilities. Mr Morrison has said it isn't a race—well, he's certainly tried to prove that! We have another new COVID strain and still no new federal quarantine facilities. Mr Morrison has been caught with his pants down yet again, but he has also pulled the Australian public's pants down.
Prolonged border closures are having a cascading effect across Australian society and the Australian economy. One essential area that is being disrupted is aged care, an area which has a massive crisis at the moment due to its very low wages and very poor working conditions. Just six per cent of residential aged-care workers have a permanent full-time job—just six per cent. There are shortages of labour across the aged-care system, and this tight labour market for those providers is causing undue havoc for the most elderly and vulnerable people.
The government says job security is a made-up issue. Well, when you have six per cent of the aged-care workforce who are full-time, then job security certainly is an issue. The other 94 per cent are casuals or precariously employed part-time subcontractors or labour hire workers. And now we have seen exploitative gig platforms like Mable replacing even part-time jobs, both in aged-care services and also in the National Disability Insurance Scheme. These undervalued workers, who are doing part-time jobs with full-time bills, are leaving the industry in droves, due to the fact that the wages are so pitifully low. Why are aged-care workers so poorly paid and insecure? Some have suggested it's because 86 per cent of them are an undervalued female workforce. This government sees aged care as being women's work—so why should they be paid a living wage? This government has the responsibility to make sure we have aged-care workers to protect and deliver for our aged population.
In relation to aged care and how it's operating now, quite clearly, there have been a number of calls by industry providers for the government to deal with the crisis of aged-care workers. I note that the minister is not listening to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which stated very clearly that there was a need for increased support. In the royal commission's Final report: care, dignity and respect, on page 211 of volume 2, the commissioners said:
We both consider that Australia’s aged care is understaffed and the workforce underpaid and undertrained.
Yet what steps have we seen from the government? They have extended student visas so that students can work in aged care for up to 40 hours. And of course all that does is take some pressure off for a moment, whilst evidence has been given time and time again about the number of shifts that aren't being covered, because people can't be retained. You get paid more working at Woolies and Coles—and no reflection on those jobs; they're important jobs, as we've seen through the pandemic—on a cash register or stacking shelves, than you get paid looking after our elderly.
For those who don't appreciate all that, imagine having responsibility for a dementia patient. I've spoken to many aged-care workers over the last 18 months, and just recently—only a matter of months ago—in Forster, workers from three different facilities. Those workers said: 'We love our job, but we have people missing shifts, we have shifts that need to be filled, we have services that can't be provided and, quite frankly, the pay is so low it's horrific. And we're dealing with dementia patients who have everything from memory loss to violence.' That's the sort of system we've seen broken down through this entire period of COVID, that's the system we've seen highlighted during the COVID period and that's the system that needs to be aggressively improved, right across the system, so that all Australians can have a better go in aged care.
The Labor senators' contributions to the debate on this urgency motion remind me of a saying of a Jacobean playwright:
Of all the forms of wisdom, hindsight is by general consent the least merciful, the most unforgiving.
This government has actually shown great foresight, great anticipation of the challenges the nation was going to face and has faced with COVID affecting its population. As a result of its initiative, the government now has a proven record of dealing with COVID, and we've had one of the lowest fatality rates, highest vaccination rates and strongest economies in the world. That is success.
The motion we're debating this afternoon makes specific reference to the delivery of sovereign mRNA vaccine manufacturing capacity, and I would like to bring my comments to that in particular. Honourable members of the Senate should know that no new end-to-end mRNA facilities have been established anywhere in the world since the vaccines were approved. A facility to be established in Singapore won't be online until 2023 at the earliest. And none of the submissions through an approach to the market by the government said they could provide an end-to-end facility in the near term.
In essence, this motion is criticising the government for not achieving the impossible. The government is still taking action to bring mRNA vaccine production to Australia. The government is speaking extensively to Moderna, the producer of one of only two mRNA vaccines approved for use anywhere in the world. There are other approaches to market. The reality of the situation is that there are two important elements in developing onshore capability. You have to have a manufacturing capability as well as the intellectual property and know-how. In essence, this motion, as I've indicated to the chamber, is criticising the government for not achieving the impossible. The government is doing all it can to achieve sovereign capability, and where we are at the moment is competitive with most other nations in the world. The government is not able to send off Prometheus to magically produce manufacturing plants.
Honourable members should be aware that more than 99 per cent of over-70s are protected with a first does and more than 97 per cent have received a second dose—success. More than 97 per cent of those over 50 are protected with a first dose, with more than 93 per cent having received a second dose—success. Just over 92 per cent of the eligible population aged over 16 is protected with a first dose, and more than 86 per cent of the eligible population aged over 16 is fully vaccinated with both doses—success.
So I'd encourage senators to take a more realistic approach, rather than the miserable contributions to the Senate which are dragging down the efforts of the government, which has worked collaboratively with the states—even those states which have governments of a different political persuasion—to keep Australians safe. We must remind ourselves that we have one of the lowest death rates from COVID-19 of anywhere in the world. It can be estimated that this government has protected over 30,000 people from death, if we compare our rates against the OECD average.
The government is establishing a national plan to reopen. It has committed $33 billion to a vaccine rollout and it has strengthened our health system in response to the disease. Mention has been made by senators on my side of the aisle of the Howard Springs quarantine facility and the investment in new centres in Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth. We're beginning to establish overseas travel, although that has been paused out of an abundance of caution. Australia has fared magnificently compared with other countries, and it should be a cause for celebration in the Senate, not denigration.
The question is that the urgency motion moved by Senator Kitching be agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
Today, after many months of diligent work, Commissioner Kate Jenkins has handed down her report into the Commonwealth parliamentary workplace, entitled, Set the standard: report on the independent review into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. I acknowledge the work of the commissioner and her staff on this report and the 28 recommendations that she has provided to us for change. Following the many issues that have surfaced in this building over the previous months, it was right that an independent review take place so that we can work to change the culture of Parliament House. Labor supported the independent review and encouraged participation and submissions from former and current staff as well as former and current parliamentarians.
Many reflections and opinions will be made on this report in coming days. Parliamentarians from all sides will rightly express their outrage and dismay at the culture of this building and the troubling statistics that were published in this report. However, today, in one of the first responses to the report, I want to address our own staff, both former and current. I entered this place in 2008 after decades as a union official, after decades focused on improving the conditions of working people. It is with that focus that I speak to this report today.
The culture of this building has failed our staff, and any delay in rectifying the issues presented in this report represents further failure. Should these statistics be published in any other workplace, we would be rightly and justifiably outraged. That it is occurring in the nation's parliament makes it even worse. To our staff, I say: this is your workplace. You deserve to be safe at work and you deserve to be supported at your workplace. You deserve to contribute to the government of this nation without compromising your safety or wellbeing. To each of you who has been in contact with our staff and our offices or contributed to the review through submissions and interviews, I want to say thank you. Whatever your contribution to this review or through our offices, you have helped the culture change in this parliament. You have pushed it a little bit more in the right direction.
Labor will review the recommendations published by the commissioner thoroughly. We will consult with our staff and continue to work in a bipartisan manner to improve the culture of this building wherever it is possible. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted.
I rise to make some brief remarks on Set the standard, a landmark report handed down today by Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins. It really blows the lid on the toxic culture that's been allowed to fester in parliament for far too long. Again, as I did in question time, I want to acknowledge the courage and metal of outstanding, brave, courageous young women like Brittany Higgins, Chelsey Potter, Dhanya Mani, Saxon Mullins, Grace Tame and so many others who have spoken out and who have led to this report being commissioned and drafted. I also want to thank very sincerely everyone who participated. There was a very large number of participants, and that's very welcomed, because one of the alarming statistics in this report was that 11 per cent of people who experienced bullying, harassment or assault report that. That's 89 per cent of survivors who stay silent. I'm very grateful that this inquiry and this report allowed many more people to speak up to share their experiences so that collectively as an institution we can learn from that and never, ever repeat the mistakes of the past.
I'm alarmed that the government have not yet been unequivocal in saying whether they will adopt these recommendations. I did ask that in question time, and I just wasn't quite reassured that the government did in fact intend to adopt and implement all the recommendations. I would love to be reassured of that, because you can't accept a report like this and then just say, 'Oh, look, it's up to all of us; we'll come back to you later.' That's not good enough. We need the government to finally show some leadership and say, 'Yes, we will adopt all of the 28 recommendations. We will do so in a fully funded way, and we will do so in the time frame that Commissioner Jenkins recommended.' That was the reassurance that I had hoped to hear and that I have not yet heard, and I express my concern that that's the case.
When half of our staff in this building, and employees more broadly under the MoPS Act, have experienced harassment, bullying or actual assault it's long past time that this issue was addressed and long past time that the culture that underpins that is changed. We don't have enough women in this place and we certainly don't have enough women of colour in this place. We don't have enough women around the decision-making table and we haven't had enough men in leadership positions, particularly in the governing party, who have called this toxic culture out. I have been incredibly disheartened to see the conduct of the Prime Minister in excusing and permitting awful conduct by some of his male ministers. He has not brought former minister Christian Porter to task and he has not removed committee roles from people who have been accused by constituents of harassment. He has not taken to task chiefs of staff of members of his own government who, allegedly, were harassing volunteers. And just last week he used standover tactics when a female member of his own party crossed the floor.
This is not the sort of leadership that the country deserves and it is not the sort of leadership that will make for a safe workplace. The Prime Minister needs to read this report; maybe he needs to have a chat to his wife about it? He then needs to commit to implementing the 28 recommendations—all of them. I hope that's what occurs. If he won't do that then he needs to get out of the way. As I've said on many occasions, I look forward to him not being our Prime Minister anymore.
I very much support the recommendations in this report and I'm very pleased to see the recommendation for an independent complaints mechanism; that has long been the reason for many staff not pursuing complaints. They felt like the process wasn't independent and they felt that consequences would not flow when their abuser was their boss or was some other member of parliament. It's important that we redress that. I'm also very pleased to see the code of conduct recommended. When today we saw dog-growling noises while a female senator was asking a question, it's pretty clear that we need a code of conduct. We shouldn't need a code of conduct to know not to do that sort of thing when a woman is on her feet but, hey, here we are.
So we very much welcome this report and, again, commend everyone who was involved and commend the enormous effort, time and expertise shown by the Human Rights Commission in conducting this investigation and bringing it together in a landmark and important report.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted.
(—) (): by leave—I present to the Senate a non-conforming petition in regard to Tasmania's strong antidiscrimination laws, urging the Senate to vote against the government's Religious Discrimination Bill 2021. (Quorum formed)
I rise to present the 181st report of the Standing Committee of Privileges, regarding a possible contempt by the Commissioner of Taxation. I move:
That the report be adopted.
The report relates to the committee's inquiry into whether the Commissioner of Taxation committed a contempt by failing to comply with an order of the Senate requiring the production of documents related to JobKeeper payments. Specifically, the Senate required the committee to consider whether the commissioner, without reasonable excuse, disobeyed a lawful order of the Senate, failed to produce documents in accordance with an order or improperly interfered with the power of the Senate to obtain information.
The committee sought and considered submissions provided by Senator Patrick, Minister Birmingham, as the Minister representing the Treasurer, and the commissioner. As senators will recall, the commissioner raised a public interest immunity claim in response to the Senate's original order for information about JobKeeper payments. The Senate explicitly rejected that claim and ordered the commissioner to comply fully with the order. The Treasurer responded to this order, raising a public interest immunity claim. The Treasurer's claim did not identify any new basis for resisting production of the information beyond the grounds already raised by the commissioner and rejected by the Senate.
I'd like to put on the record now some words regarding the criteria for a finding of contempt. The first criterion the committee must consider under privilege resolution 3 is whether the conduct of the Commissioner of Taxation could amount to a substantial obstruction of the Senate performing its functions. In determining whether the Senate has been obstructed, the committee is not required to evaluate the public interest claims raised by the commissioner and the Treasurer. That is ultimately a matter for the Senate. For the purposes of this inquiry, it is sufficient to note that the inquiry powers of the houses are essential to support the houses obtaining the information they require to effectively perform their functions. It's clear that the Senate being unable to obtain necessary information could substantially obstruct the performance of its accountability functions.
The second criterion the committee is required to consider is whether there is another, more appropriate, remedy available, other than the Senate's power to punish contempts. The Senate accepts that this power is undoubtedly a remedy available where a Senate order is not complied with. However, as a matter of practice, the Senate has generally pursued political or procedural remedies rather than immediately having recourse to the contempt power.
The commissioner suggested in his submission that it may be possible to supply information about JobKeeper recipients in a manner which provides sufficient detail to enable the Senate to fulfil its accountability function but gives due regard to maintaining the privacy of taxpayer information. The committee's view is that this suggests there is a genuine prospect of resolving this matter through the usual approach of negotiation, rather than through the exercise of the contempt powers of the Senate.
The final criterion the committee is required to consider relates to culpability and, in particular, whether the commissioner had a reasonable excuse for conduct which might otherwise amount to a contempt. The commissioner acknowledged the power of a Senate order to require the production of the JobKeeper information but submitted that there was a significant public interest in preserving the confidentiality of information collected by taxation officers for the purpose of administering tax laws. He also submitted that public disclosure of the information may cause commercial harm to the entities identified.
Now to the committee's findings. While the committee will be circumspect about recommending that the Senate make a finding of contempt, it stands ready to do so in cases involving intractable obstruction of the Senate. In this case, however, an independent statutory officer has advanced public interest grounds for withholding information which the committee accepts reflect genuine concerns related to the administration of the taxation system, rather than an attempt to shield government policies or administration from effective scrutiny.
In his submission to the committee, the commissioner has also proposed a potentially acceptable approach to providing the information the Senate requires. In these circumstances, it would be precipitous to have recourse to the ultimate remedies at the Senate's disposal to protect the integrity of its operations. Noting the commissioner's proposal for resolving this matter, the committee considered that the Senate should have the opportunity to determine whether this would result in the Senate obtaining adequate information regarding expenditure under the JobKeeper program.
While the committee is confident the commissioner will meet his responsibilities to comply with the Senate order, in the event that he does not provide the required information in a manner which is acceptable to the Senate, it is open to the Senate to refer this matter back to the committee for further consideration. Accordingly, the committee has recommended that no contempt be found in relation to the matters referred. The committee noted that the Treasurer's intervention served to delay an acceptable resolution of this matter. A sounder approach, in circumstances where an order is directed at an independent statutory officer, would have been to allow time for that officer to engage in negotiations with the proponents of the Senate order to provide the information in a manner which addressed any legitimate public interest concerns.
I commend the report to the Senate but, before I conclude, I note that the committee had hoped to be in a position to provide a report on the earlier matter referred to it concerning possible obstruction of the naval shipbuilding inquiry of the Senate Economics References Committee. Negotiations for provision of the documents required by that committee are occurring, but they have been, to say the least, protracted. In this regard, I would caution officials that further delay in this matter will, in and of itself, be considered a substantial obstruction of the Economics References Committee.
Question agreed to.
I present the third interim report of the Select Committee on Job Security on labour hire and contracting. I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
Before I even had an opportunity to table this report in the Senate the Morrison government had already stated its position on labour hire. Last week in question time in the other place Mr Morrison's minister covering industrial relations in the House, Minister Fletcher, said labour hire is 'a made-up issue'. I'm sure many labour hire workers we heard from throughout the inquiry, their families and local community members in Central Queensland, the Hunter and Western Australia—across the country—will feel very disappointed to hear that from their government. But it sums up the attitude of Mr Morrison and the government to the issue.
Over the last eight years there have been absolutely no improvements for those workers. If you're shoved out of your job with a labour hire firm on lower pay as a casual then Mr Morrison and his government don't see any issue at all. They see it as a made-up issue. Here are the facts, as reported in this report. According to the ABS, when the government entered office in 2013 there were 540,622 labour hire workers. In 2019—that's the most recent year data is available for—that number was 797,710. That is a 48 per cent increase in just six years of Liberal governments. No wonder we have wage stagnation. When Minister Fletcher and others in the government get up and say it's a made-up issue they are covering up the extraordinary increase in labour hire in the Australian workforce. Labour hire has a legitimate place where it's used for legitimate surge workforce needs, but does the Morrison government really expect us to believe that there has been a 48 per cent increase in surge workforce needs in six years?
It's insulting to claim that this is a made-up issue. Why is there an explosion in the use of labour hire under this government? Employers, particularly in industries like mining, meat processing, construction and transport, have realised that if you offload your workforce to a labour hire company you aren't really legally required to pay them the same rate as your own employees. In fact, you can replace well-paid permanent jobs with low-paid casual jobs.
The industry that has been hit the hardest by labour hire rorts is the mining industry. Just ask BHP, Australia's largest mining company. BHP admitted to the committee that they have half of their mining workforce nationwide working for labour hire or other contractors. Across their operations that jumps to 71 per cent. So 71 per cent of BHP coalmine workers are not BHP employees. BHP have set up their own sham labour hire company called Operations Services to undercut their own workers. When BHP has outsourced almost all of its own workforce and set up its own sham labour hire firm, how can Minister Fletcher say this is a made-up issue?
The fact is that the Liberal and National parties have abandoned CALD workers. Wayne Goulevitch, a mine worker in Queensland, told us:
I started out like everyone did back in my day, as a labour hire employee … Back then … crews were made up of 40 full-time employees and about five labour hire workers … within 10 years, labour hire had ballooned to about 120 workers while full-time employees remained around 40 … My crew has not had a full-time employee join our team in over seven years.
That's not a made-up issue, is it? It's a 'made' issue. Those are literally comments right from the coalface.
The Minerals Council, the lobby group for mining companies, admitted that, on average, labour hire mine workers are paid 24 per cent less than workers employed by the mining companies. This is a 24 per cent cut for every labour hire worker in Australian mines. With the full cooperation and support of the Liberal and National parties, Anne Baker, who is mayor of the Isaac region up in Central Queensland, told us:
It is our view … that this is nothing short of a pandemic. We talk about a COVID pandemic. We are actually living a casualisation pandemic … there can be absolutely no mistake that this completely undermines the socioeconomic health of our regional and remote communities and is an offensive insult that continues to be allowed to happen …
I'm sure that local Queensland MPs are standing up against labour hire, right? Well, here it is. The member for Dawson, George Christensen, said earlier this year about labour hire: 'The unfortunate answer, for everyone, is nothing can be done.' Well, there you go. The message from the Liberals is it's a made-up issue, and the message from the Nationals is nothing can be done. The message from Labor is that this is a serious issue that needs urgent, urgent attention. Last week, Mr Anthony Albanese, the opposition leader, introduced a 'Same job, same pay' bill.
The committee's first recommendation is that such a law must be passed. The only hurdle in the way is a government that won't even acknowledge there is a problem. Chad Stokes, another coalminer, told us:
I have been in labour hire … for seven years, and there are just no permanent jobs being offered anymore. I work the same roster and shift as the permanent workers on my crew, but I have no job security. I get paid less, and it is really hard to take time off.
Here is an idea for Minister Fletcher, or anyone else who thinks this is a made-up issue: why don't you get out of your bubble and go to Central Queensland or the Hunter or Western Australia and talk to workers like Wayne and Chad who are actually living this every day?
Of course, it isn't just the mining industry. Qantas are the most antiworker company in Australia. Qantas also set up its own internal labour hire company, Qantas Ground Services, to undercut its agreement with its workforce. It was an agreement that Qantas workers negotiated in good faith. Alan Joyce betrayed those workers almost immediately after that agreement was struck. Alan Joyce illegally outsourced more than 2,000 jobs last year, in the middle of a pandemic, while receiving almost $2 billion in public bail-out money to keep those workers in their jobs. It's one of the dirtiest acts of corporate bastardry Australia has ever seen. One of the committee's recommendations makes clear that can never be allowed to happen again.
The final industries I want to talk about are horticulture and meat processing—two industries now mostly staffed by underpaid and overworked temporary migrants employed by shonky labour-hire outfits. Since the report was drafted we've learnt that nine Border Force agents have raided the home of a Christian minister who was helping exploited farm workers near Bundaberg. The search warrant, amongst other things, demanded: 'any correspondence with the High Commissioner of Vanuatu'—in breach of every obligation under the UN Vienna convention. This really sums up the evidence this committee received, that this government is not interested in tackling modern slavery, this government isn't interested in tackling labour hire rorts and this government isn't interested in growing wages or making jobs secure. It's more interested in attacking unions and anyone else who tries to help. It's quite clear that this government needs to read this report and give it proper consideration. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted.
I too rise to speak on the Senate Select Committee on Job Security's third interim report on labour hire and contracting. First of all, I would like to thank the committee chair, Senator Tony Sheldon, for the incredible amount of work that he and his team have done on this really important committee, and thank my fellow committee members for the work that they are continuing to do. I would also like to thank the witnesses, particularly the working people who came and told their stories to us, people who've given us evidence throughout this inquiry. That has been absolutely critical to this interim report.
The committee has held 20 hearings since it was established at the end of 2020. Throughout this time we've heard from workers and employers across a number of industries and workplaces. If anybody takes one thing from this inquiry, it must be that there is a crisis of insecure work in this country, without question. It's a crisis that is leaving Australian workers without good, secure jobs and decent pay. It's leaving too many workers without the ability to even do the basics, like get a loan or pay their bills, and it's forcing workers to continue working when they are sick, because they don't have any other option. It's a crisis that has gone on for way too long, one that has only gotten worse under eight long years of the Morrison government.
Throughout the hearings we have heard about the growing use of labour hire throughout various industries. We've heard from some employers that labour hire is a useful tool for managing fluctuating demand, but what we are seeing in too many workplaces and hearing from too many workers is that labour hire is being used by companies to avoid paying basic minimum standards. Labour hire is being used to weaken the bargaining power of people through their unions and undermine pay and working conditions across the workforce. We've heard from casual labour hire workers that have been employed for years but have not been offered a permanent role, required to work side by side permanent workers of a parent company, doing the exact same job but for much less pay.
Earlier this year, Mr Chad Stokes shared his story with the committee. He has been employed as a labour hire worker in the coalmining industry for seven years, and he told the committee:
I work the same roster and shift as the permanent workers on my crew, but I have no job security. I get paid less …
We also heard from Mr Wayne Goulevitch, who started off as a labour hire worker in 2010. He told the committee that, back then, labour hire was used as intended—to supplement labour from to time to time, to fill in for permanent employees when they're on leave. He noted that, in 2010, crews were made up of 40 full-time employees and about five labour hire workers. As Senator Sheldon noted too, Mr Goulevitch told us that labour hire has now ballooned to 120 workers, while the number of full-time employees has stayed at just 40. So this is not about meeting short-term challenges. Mr Goulevitch stated:
My crew has not had a full-time employee join our team in over seven years. That is why I need 'same job, same pay' just as much as casuals in the industry.
I also want to share the story of Mr Rob Foot. Mr Foot worked in a permanent mining job in Central Queensland for 14 years before he retired. He told the committee that one day he and his fellow workers were told that they had to start working for WorkPac, a labour hire company. Mr Foot told us that, in his permanent role, he was paid $150,000 per year, but with the labour hire company he was put onto a casual role and offered less than half that amount, despite continuing the same work that he had been doing. Despite the apparent inclusion of a casual loading, his salary was more than halved. On top of this, Mr Foot told the committee about how he was now required to foot the bill for a range of things that he didn't have to pay for before: transport, accommodation, training, safety and trade certificates, and medical passes. All of those things had previously been covered by his employer. He told the committee:
As a consequence, I finished my working life about four years earlier than I really wanted to.
This is the reality in the coalmining industry and it is the reality in many industries. These are the stories that we are hearing from real people, real people who are out there in these industries, facing the crisis of job insecurity every single day, whether they are casual workers, like Mr Stokes or Mr Foot, who are paid less for doing the same work while having fewer entitlements, or whether they are permanent workers, like Mr Goulevitch, watching their industry become more and more casualised, left wondering whether their job security is at risk. Labour hire is one of the key foundations, the key pillars, of the insecure work crisis in this country and, without a real plan from this government, labour hire will continue to be used to undermine the pay and conditions of Australian workers.
Last Thursday in this chamber, I invited the government to front up to this final week of parliament—to front up with a plan to fix the crisis of insecure work. But this government still does not even recognise that this crisis exists. We have seen government senators on this committee write in their dissenting comments that it is 'a Labor lie that job insecurity is an issue in this nation.' Just last week, Minister Fletcher stood up in the other chamber and called job insecurity and labour hire 'made-up issues' and Labor lies. Despite what they themselves were hearing from these workers, the very workers whose stories I and Senator Sheldon have told today, they say that this is all Labor lies and made-up issues. This is despite the evidence right in front of them.
This government denies reality. It denies the reality of working people today. But this government has one last chance to act on this crisis this week. It could support the 'same job, same pay' bill that Anthony Albanese has introduced into the parliament. It's a bill which will address the issues we've seen in labour hire throughout the numerous hearings of this committee. These are problems which see workers like Mr Stokes paid less as a casual coalmining worker than his permanent counterparts who are doing the same job.
But we know that working people aren't holding their breath. If the Morrison government can't even admit that this is a problem, how could it ever be trusted to fix it? Workers deserve better than the Morrison government; they deserve better than a government which denies their reality. They deserve a government that actually has a plan to address insecure work. This government has absolutely no such plan—no plan to create good, secure jobs across the country and no plan to get wages moving. Working people deserve better than a government that's totally incapable of imagining a better future, let alone creating one.
Instead, Australian workers deserve a government that is on their side; a government that faces the realities of insecure work and has a plan to fix it. They deserve a government with secure work at the heart of its agenda. That is what an Albanese Labor government will deliver: a real plan to create the good, secure jobs that allow workers to plan for their futures with certainty—a plan that includes pathways to permanent work and which ensures that workers doing the same job are quite simply paid the same rates. Labor is always on the side of workers, and a Labor government will always put good, secure jobs at the heart of everything it does.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
On behalf of the chair of the Economics Legislation Committee, Senator Scarr, I present additional information received by the committee for its inquiry into the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Amendment (Ending JobKeeper Profiteering) Bill 2021.
On behalf of the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Senator Fawcett, I present its report on the Human rights of women and girls in the Pacific. By leave—I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
On behalf of the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Senator Fawcett, I present its report on the Inquiry into the Department of Defence annual report 2019-20. By leave—I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's 9th and 10th reports of 2021.
I seek leave to make a short personal statement to clarify a matter from question time.
Leave granted.
Mr President, as you asked us to reflect, I reflected on my behaviour in question time. I acknowledge that interjections are always disorderly. I also acknowledge that I was making interjections while Senator Lambie was asking a question during question time. While I do not accept the characterisation of my interjections in the manner that was raised in points of order at that time by other senators, I do regret the interjections and I apologise to Senator Lambie and to the Senate unreservedly. Mr President, I commit to holding myself to the highest standards in the future.
On behalf of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Mr Gee, I table a ministerial statement on veterans and their families.
I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning conservation planning decisions and Food Standards Australia and New Zealand.
I table a response to a question taken on notice during question time on 29 November asked by Senator Gallagher relating to the allocation of grants at the discretion of ministers and seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
Dear Mr President
Following my commitment yesterday in question time, I am providing further information in response to a question from Senator Katy Gallagher about allocation of grants at the discretion of Ministers. Whilst her primary question asked about discretion for Ministers to award amounts from 'funds', I take it, from her supplementary questions, that she was not referring to investment funds, but rather to Commonwealth grant programs.
I indicated to the Senate yesterday that there are known constraints on extracting aggregated data about grant decision makers, hence I cautioned that I could only endeavour to provide more detail so far as such information could be extracted.
The ANAO recently observed in Information Report No. 7 2021-22 that "[t]he GrantConnect dataset does not include information about whether ... a Minister was involved in the decision making" (p12). The ANAO's statement relates to structured data held on GrantConnect, in a searchable form.
I can clarify that Grant Opportunity Guidelines are also available as separate documents on GrantConnect, containing details on the relevant decision maker for each program, including where this is a minister. Information on decision makers is not discretely placed into a unique datafield and therefore cannot be extracted through search tools. To determine the number of grants awarded by ministerial approval would therefore require a manual assessment of all Grant Opportunity Guidelines and consultation with all Commonwealth entities involved in grants administration.
This would be an unreasonable diversion of resources and require an extensive period of time to assemble the information. As the ANAO recently reported, there were 108,206 grant awards, with a total value of $60.2 billion, published on GrantConnect with a start date between 31 December 2017 and 30 June 2021.
I note that GrantConnect became operational in February 2017 and was initially designed to improve the discovery and transparency of granting activities at a whole-of-government level, replacing the previous process of granting entities publishing limited details of their granting activities on their own websites. I also note that it is a tool to connect members of the community to grant opportunities, including by registering for 'push notifications' of different program types. Accordingly those factors have shaped the way in which the database has been built and evolved. Ongoing work continues to enhance the utility of the database for other purposes, including for extraction of data and reporting.
As I noted in my answer in the Senate yesterday, the awarding of grants by Ministers serves many benefits including enabling expedited responses to targeted areas of need, such as support to the aged care and early childhood sectors to assist them dealing with the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.
When Ministers decide grants they are always required in the first instance to receive and consider official advice on the merits of applications and must record in writing the basis for the approval relative to the grant opportunity guidelines and the key principle of achieving value with relevant money (these are mandatory requirements under rule 4.10 of the Commonwealth Grant Rules and Guidelines). But they are not rubber stamps and are obliged to use their own judgement.
Ministers are often uniquely positioned as grant decision-makers because they often have greater opportunities than officials to consult extensively with community organisations, local business and other stakeholders. Ministers have a very broad understanding of community needs as they travel extensively around the country and hear frequently from constituents, including from people who are referred by Parliamentary colleagues from around the country on both sides of the aisle.
Yours sincerely
Simon Birmingham
20 November 2021
I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
I thank the Senate for supporting my OPD request last week. That order sought documents relating to proposed health warnings on alcohol. And what a revealing batch of documents they were! We have the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management Australia, Mr David Littleproud, writing to each industry stakeholder, giving them a heads-up about what he referred to as an ambitious reform proposal for the regulator, FSANZ, and making sure that they are fully included in the process. Who needs a public affairs team to stay across reviews and inquiries when federal ministers will do it for you? Mr Littleproud also put up an alternative proposal, one which reflected all of the alcohol industry's concerns and absolutely none of the public health concerns. That's right: none of the public health concerns whatsoever.
After the minister's proposal was defeated by a clear majority of state and territory ministers, the minister and his industry mates all agreed how disappointing it was. A number of them specifically targeted their criticisms at the regulator, FSANZ. One particular letter was sent by the leaders of Alcohol Beverages Australia, the Australian Food and Grocery Council, the National Farmers Federation and Beverages Australia. Curiously, the identity of Beverages Australia was redacted by Mr Littleproud's office, but the same unredacted document was shared by Senator Colbeck's office—and I thank the senator for that. This letter called for FSANZ to be stripped of its powers and for its board make-up to change and responsibility for food regulation to be taken away from the Department of Health and moved to Mr Littleproud's agricultural portfolio. Conversely, the Department of Health wanted to expand the scope, authority and responsibilities of FSANZ, and stakeholder Brewers Australia said FSANZ had served Australia's interests well. This was 30 July this year. The very next week, the CEO of FSANZ was gone and later that month even the acting chair was gone too. How long until the government announces that FSANZ will be stripped of its powers and the alcohol industry will have achieved everything it wanted? This totally smells of interference.
It is the Senate's responsibility, our special role in our parliamentary system, to hold the government to account. That means reviewing their policies, their expenditure and their decisions. There needs to be a Senate inquiry into the conduct of ministers with regards to FSANZ; an inquiry to determine if the Minister for Agriculture removed statutory officers at the behest of the alcohol industry; an inquiry to determine if a line was crossed.
Cosy relationships between governments and lobby groups are a cancer on our democracy. We need transparency to know what deals are being done and how this may affect Australians. We need transparency to hold politicians and lobbyists to account and to create incentives for them to act in the public interest instead of their personal interests. Once again, I thank the Senate for supporting my OPD. I encourage all senators to read the documents for themselves, to see just how cosy the relationships are between the government and the alcohol industry.
Question agreed to.
Order! The President has received a letter from a party leader seeking a variation to the membership of a joint committee.
by leave—I move:
I move that Senator Thorpe be discharged from and Senator Rice be appointed to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The Telstra Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 proposes to amend legislation to maintain regulatory obligations that protect consumers and promote competition in response to Telstra's proposed restructure.
The Coalition Government's priority is to ensure that all Australians benefit from a competitive telecommunications industry and have access to the internet and telephone services that they need. Telstra plays an important role in the Australian telecommunications market, particularly in the provision of services to regional and rural Australians. The continuity of services and Telstra's regulatory obligations are critical to Australian communities and businesses, particularly in the economic recovery from COVID-19.
Telstra has announced its intention to undertake a corporate restructure that will be the most significant change to the company since its privatisation. While Telstra is free to restructure its business as it sees fit, successive Parliaments have placed and maintained a range of regulatory obligations on that business, and it is important that these remain effective irrespective of the future corporate structure.
These obligations cover core parts of Telstra's regulatory arrangements, including the Universal Service Obligation and the requirement for Telstra to provide other carriers with access to its infrastructure to promote competition. If Telstra's restructure were to weaken the application of these obligations, that would not be acceptable to the Morrison Government. We have a strong commitment to protecting consumers, promoting competition and maintaining Telstra's public interest roles in Australia's telecommunications market.
Without legislative amendment, there is a risk that Telstra's obligations would become less effective or cease to apply to its successor entities following the restructure or future resales. Therefore, there is a compelling need for the legislative amendments set out in this Bill. Their effect will be to maintain Telstra-specific obligations and to address related policy issues that arise from Telstra's proposed restructure.
There are two key sets of provisions in the Bill:
The first establishes a mechanism in the Telecommunications Act 1997 to re-point Telstra-specific obligations that would otherwise cease to apply to new Telstra entities. The Bill also includes amendments to the competition authorisation provisions in Part 33 of the Telecommunications Act. These provisions are being amended to make sure that the National Broadband Network can continue to operate through cooperation between NBN Corporations and Telstra. In particular, the Bill includes new subsection 577BA(10C) that allows NBN corporations and Telstra and other designated Telstra successor companies to enter into contracts, arrangements and understandings where the sole purpose of those contracts, arrangements and understandings are to repoint rights and obligations under the existing definitive agreements to NBN corporations and new entities in the Telstra group. For clarity, subsection 577BA(10C), is not intended to prevent, deter or affect the ability for NBN Co and Telstra and their related entities to enter into any other types of lawful contracts, arrangements and understandings to effect these obligations or achieve other desired commercial outcomes.
The second key part of the Bill closes a loophole that allows carriers, including Telstra, to avoid facilities access obligations by transferring assets such as towers, into subsidiaries or other related entities. The Bill does so by providing that if a group of companies includes a carrier, a company (other than a carrier) that is in the group must provide all carriers with access to the tower infrastructure that it owns. This will apply to all carriers, not just Telstra.
The Bill establishes a requirement for Telstra to notify the Australian Communications and Media Authority when Telstra transfers a telecommunications business or asset to another company. This will provide visibility to the Government to respond to any future restructure.
The Government recognises that the continuity of service is critical. This Bill therefore provides that obligations associated with carrier licences continue between the passage of the Bill and the commencement of the restructure.
This legislation will uphold Telstra's current obligations to the Australian community and businesses, by maintaining regulatory equivalency for Telstra's successor entities. In doing so, it will protect consumers, promote competition and support Telstra's public interest roles in Australia's telecommunications market.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.
I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2021 amends the National Health Act 1953 to implement reforms negotiated with the medicines industry to improve and guarantee access to medicines for Australian patients.
1. Industry agreements
The amendments reflect new five-year agreements with Medicines Australia, the representative body for the innovative medicines sector in Australia and the Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Association which represents generic and biosimilar medicines suppliers in Australia. These agreement's build upon the long standing partnership this Government has fostered with Australia's medicines industry with the goal of supporting Australian patients.
Australians have world-class access to medicines. In the 2020-21 financial year, over 300 million prescriptions for around 16 million Australians were supplied through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (the PBS). Without the PBS, many of these treatments would be beyond the reach of ordinary Australians. An Australian who, for example, is diagnosed with multiple myeloma, a type of bone marrow cancer, would face costs of around $160,000 per year to access the medicine needed to treat that condition. However, through the PBS, that Australian would only need to pay $6.60 per prescription to access treatment if they hold a concession card, or $41.30 otherwise - a mere fraction of the actual cost of the medicine.
Every year, and in fact nearly every month, new medicines are added to the PBS and access to existing medicines is expanded to new patient groups in line with emerging evidence about the safety and effectiveness of those medicines for treating health conditions. Treatment options for patients are ever expanding and the PBS has continued to expand with them. Since 2013 the Government has approved close to 2,800 new or amended medicines listings on the PBS at an overall cost of around $13.9 billion.
The Australian Government recognises that this is fundamentally important to Australians - that Australians continue to gain access to the best available medicines. And to that end, in 2020, the Government committed to the PBS New Medicines Funding Guarantee. This Guarantee safeguards the Government's policy to list all medicines on the PBS as recommended by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. It will deliver new funding each year for the listing of new medicines on the PBS, to be replenished each year to meet the expected cost of new and expanded PBS listings.
In entering new agreements with the medicines industry, the Government recognises that delivery of this world-class access in a way that is sustainable over the long term, requires partnership with the Australian businesses and industries that supply, distribute and dispense the millions of medicines that Australians need and use every day.
Through these new agreements, the Government and the medicines industry have co-developed a comprehensive package of reforms to the PBS:
1. to ensure that Australians continue to gain access to new, break-through, medicines as early as possible;
2. to deliver robust and uninterrupted supply of the medicines that Australian's need and use every day; and
3. to keep the PBS on a long-term sustainable footing.
The industry agreements do this:
1. by securing commitment from the medicines industry to new savings for Australian taxpayers through improved statutory price reductions which will be reinvested in the PBS - helping to make headroom on the PBS for listing new medicines; and
2. by securing commitment from the medicines industry to holding a greater level of stock in Australia of a number of commonly prescribed and older medicines that, in recent years, have become susceptible to global medicines shortages.
These reforms will generate savings of around $1.9 billion over the terms of the agreements. These reforms also target Commonwealth investment towards securing supply of commonly prescribed medicines that have lower margins and are often in short supply globally.
Increasingly, global shortages are interrupting supply of medicines that are the mainstay of treatment for some of the most prevalent health conditions in the Australian community. Recently, global shortages have interrupted the supply of medicines for high blood pressure and diabetes, and medicines for mental health conditions such as depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.
These reforms agreed with the medicines industry will ensure that manufacturers are better placed to compete for supply of these medicines in the global medicine market and hold greater reserve supplies to buffer the Australian market when interruptions occur. These reforms are critical to ensuring the continuity of access that is so important to the proper treatment and management of common medical conditions.
The agreements with the medicines industry strike a balance between affordable access for Australians, a PBS that is sustainable over the long term, and providing the Australian medicines industry the right conditions for it to thrive, launch new and innovative medical treatments in Australia, and provide reliable supply. The agreements support the medicines industry in a number of ways. They do this:
1. by recognising the importance to businesses that they have certainty about Government pricing policy settings;
2. by committing to reinvest savings from the agreements in the PBS; and
3. by supporting industry investment in supply chain redundancies with stable and once-off higher subsidised prices for medicines most at risk of global medicines shortages.
These enhancements to the PBS agreed between the Government and the medicines industry are to be delivered through amendments to the National Health Act 1953 made by the National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill.
The legislative elements of these landmark agreements are in addition to the significant policy and process reforms committed to in the Strategic Agreement's with Medicines Australia and the GBMA, which include:
At least $5 Billion of uncapped new investment in PBS medicines listings over the life of the agreement; which consists of the PBS New Medicines Funding Guarantee and the reinvestment of efficiencies agreed with the sector.
The co-design and implementation of an Enhanced Consumer Engagement Process to better capture the patient voice early in the medicines assessment process.
Ongoing timely access to medicines through a review of Australia's already world leading Health Technology Assessment (HTA) policy and methods to support its continuous improvement.
A Horizon Scanning Forum to ensure Australians have early access to breakthrough treatments.
Commitments to policy stability and predictability for the industry and Government.
These landmark agreements also build on the Government's strong record on the PBS which is demonstrated through
the Seventh Community Pharmacy Agreement (7CPA) between the Australian Government, the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and Pharmaceutical Society of Australia singed in June 2020.
The related improvements to the pharmaceutical wholesaler arrangements designed with the National Pharmaceutical Services Association (NPSA) and enacted through the 7CPA.
2. Improved statutory price reductions
The savings under the new agreements are to be delivered through improved statutory price reductions that will apply to brands upon the fifth, tenth and fifteenth anniversary of a drug listing on the PBS, and when the first new brand of a medicine lists on the PBS.
New Statutory Price Reductions
The new anniversary price reductions in the bill will apply:
1. a five per cent price reduction to brands of a drug on the fifth anniversary of the drug being listed on the PBS;
2. a five per cent price reduction to brands of a drug on the tenth anniversary of the drug being listed on the PBS; and
3. a 26.1 per cent price reduction to brands of a drug on the fifteenth anniversary of the drug being listed on the PBS. This will increase to 30 per cent on 1 April 2027 for drugs that meet their fifteenth anniversary in the year to that day.
4. Catch up price reductions for medicines that have already been listed for fifteen years and have not had these new price reductions apply.
Under current legislation, a company seeking to list the first new brand of a drug on the PBS that is bioequivalent or biosimilar to an existing PBS listed brand of the drug must agree to list at an ex-manufacturer price that is 25 per cent lower than the ex-manufacturer price of the existing brand. These arrangements will continue but will not apply if the existing brand has taken a new 15-year anniversary or catch-up price reduction.
The new statutory price reductions will be capped at 60 per cent off the original listed price of the medicine.
Ministerial Discretion
Under current legislation, the Minister can determine that anniversary and first new brand price reductions should be a lesser amount or not apply at all. These are important powers to ensure that the Minister can intervene if a legislated price reduction were to have an unintended adverse consequence - such as the withdrawal of an important medicine from the Australian market. These powers, which are currently legislated to cease after 1 June 2022, will continue.
3. A Medicines Supply Security Guarantee for Australia
In 2019 and 2020, brands of over 500 PBS items were affected by medium to critical impact shortages, with medicines supplied by manufacturers for $4 or less per pack being the most susceptible.
The amendments in the bill will give effect to commitments from the medicines industry made in the agreements to invest in holding greater stocks of medicines most at risk of global shortages and invest in greater supply chain resilience. In return, the PBS subsidised prices of those brands will be maintained at a sufficient level to support industry investment in greater stockholdings and ensure that manufacturers are better placed to secure supply in the competitive global medicine market.
Stockholding r equirement
The amendments will require manufacturers, from 1 July 2023, to keep in stock in Australia at least four months of their usual demand for any brand that is protected from further price reductions, and six months of usual demand for any brand where the ex-manufacturer portion of PBS subsidy is increased. This will cover over 600 PBS items when it commences including nearly all PBS brands that have an ex-manufacturer price of $4 or less, which are most susceptible to medicines shortages.
The Government and the medicines industry have agreed that the PBS should, in future, only subsidise brands supplied by manufacturers that maintain the required stockholdings and employ business models that support long-term reliable supply. To that end, the amendments in the bill will provide the Minister with express power to make PBS listing decisions to ensure that this occurs.
The amendments will provide the Minister with powers to remove any brand, or refuse to list any brand, supplied by a manufacturer if that manufacturer is not maintaining the required stocks of their PBS listed brands in Australia. And for PBS listed brands that have an approved ex-manufacturer price that is less than $4 and are protected from further price reduction, the amendments will provide the Minister with power to remove any brand, or to refuse to list any brand, supplied by a manufacturer if the additional Commonwealth investment for those brands that is intended to support supply, is instead used by the manufacturer to provide discounts to supply chain customers. In making such a decision, the amendments also provide for the Minister to take into account the extent to which supply could be compromised in these circumstances and any other relevant matter which would include any potential impact of a decision to remove a brand from the PBS.
Price reduction floor
The investments by the medicines industry in additional stockholdings and improved supply chain risk management will be supported by the introduction of a new price reduction floor.
The amendments in the bill will prevent PBS listed brands that have an approved ex-manufacturer price less than $4 from taking any further price reductions.
The amendments in the bill will also prevent further price reductions to brands that have an approved ex-manufacturer price that is more than $4 when it is likely that further price disclosure reductions will be detrimental to reliable supply and where it is clear through market behaviour that significant discounting is no longer occurring.
In creases to the subsidised prices of low-cost PBS medicines
In recognition of the already low margins of brands that have an ex-manufacturer price less than $3.50, the increased frequency of shortages for medicines in this category, and the additional costs to manufacturers in holding greater stocks of these brands, the subsidised prices for these brands will be increased.
The amendments in the bill provide for one-off increases to PBS subsidy for brands that have an approved ex-manufacturer price that is less than $3.50. Brands with an approved ex-manufacturer price that is less than $2 will be increased to $2.50. Brands with an approved ex-manufacturer price that is more than $2 will be increased by 50 cents to a maximum of $3.50.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the amendments in the bill will deliver a number of enhancements and improvements to the operation of the PBS for the benefit of patients, tax-payers and the medicines industry. Delivery of a program like the PBS relies on close partnerships with the medicines businesses that support it. The amendments in the Bill reflect the outcome of extensive negotiations and could not be possible without the strong, collaborative, partnership between the Australian government and the medicines industry.
The Australian Government's to the commitment to the PBS is rock solid. The reforms provided for by the amendments in this bill, reflect this commitment, and will ensure that the PBS will continue to meet the needs of Australians well into the future.
Debate adjourned.
On behalf of the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, Senator Abetz, I present its report on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020, together with accompanying documents.
As I was saying, the bill before you today, on the other hand, does not achieve what it set out to do, which was to strengthen our land rights and lead to economic empowerment. If you want to honestly benefit First Nations people in the Northern Territory then include them in the changes that concern them. Listen properly and work from that. I don't mean just the land councils and the various Native Title corporations—no, I mean the communities and the people on the ground. Acting Deputy President, I foreshadow my second reading amendment.
Senator Thorpe, would you like to move your second reading amendment?
Yes, I move:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that:
(a) this bill proposes the most substantial changes to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act since it commenced in 1976;
(b) an overwhelming majority of submitters to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee's inquiry into this bill recommended that it not be passed, mainly due to insufficient and inadequate consultation about the changes contained in it;
(c) submitters to the inquiry noted that consultation during the bill's development was only conducted with Land Councils and no free, prior and informed consent was obtained from Traditional Owner communities and non-land holding First Nations people in the Northern Territory; and
(d) the Government has failed to conduct extensive, open, transparent, direct and independently facilitated consultation with all affected First Nations communities across the Northern Territory on this bill".
I rise to make a contribution to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Economic Empowerment) Bill 2021. This bill makes some significant changes to the exploration and mining approvals on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. I echo the concerns raised by my colleague Senator Thorpe, who's done a considerable amount of work on this bill.
The Australian Greens have strong concerns about the changes to this bill that make exploration and mining approvals in the Northern Territory. The government claims that these changes will be streamlined and modernised towards mining in the Northern Territory and reduce red tape. This government is famous for using euphemisms and jargon to hide its motives, so when they say 'streamlined and modernised', what do they actually mean? There's no doubt this bill is being rushed through parliament at the expense of proper consultation with First Nations communities.
The Northern Territory has some of the strongest cultural heritage protections in the country. It's the only jurisdiction in Australia that provides traditional owners with the right to veto, the right to refuse exploration and mining activities on their country. This is incredibly powerful and should not be diminished, under any circumstances, and there are strong concerns from right across the communities that this bill could result in the right to veto being weakened. This include concerns about the impact of removing checks and balances from current mining approval processes, which means they're not protecting country. It's unclear if the proposed amendments dilute the ability of traditional owners to say no to mining on their land.
Some of the Aboriginal corporations provided powerful evidence, in the bill's inquiry, outlining their concerns. They explained that the changes being proposed by the government to mining approvals are complex and impossible to understand in such a short period of time. One corporation said in its submission:
The Coalition Government says that they will make the processes more efficient for the Minister, NIAA and miners without impacting on the rights of traditional owners. It is not clear, however, whether there is any benefit to Aboriginal people from these amendments. More importantly, there is no independent evidence produced that assesses the impact for traditional owners and the valuable right they have to consent to exploration on their land.
One of the independent First Nations MPs in the NT explained why any of these changes to exploration and mining approval processes need to align with the principle of free, prior and informed consent. He said that for this reason any amendments to this section of the law must result in robust processes that protect landowners' rights and interests and reinforce the principle of free, prior and informed consent.
There should never be a decision made for us. The land councils are intermediatory; they're not the decision-makers. I am concerned that any amendments to streamlining approval processes and creating greater flexibility may come at the cost of landowners' autonomy. These amendments require a high level of scrutiny that ensures that this doesn't happen.
The proposed changes in the bill enable land councils to convene meetings with traditional owners, and they must do that when that's considered 'appropriate'—rather than necessary—for the purposes of considering exploration licence applications. Professor Altman explained:
This discretion to provide land councils with greater flexibility might result in more or fewer meetings, but the power to convene such meetings seems to lie entirely with land councils, not traditional owners.
It's possible that land councils could restrict meetings in order to prevent objections to a mining project being raised by the traditional owners. Given that, in practice, land councils do not always obtain free, prior and informed consent from traditional owners, the Greens are deeply concerned about the bill's provision for land councils to take a more flexible approach to consulting with traditional owners about mining and exploration proposals. This provision carries the risk of less consultation and, as Senator Thorpe said before, consultation is not consent. Consultation can be undertaken and consent is then assumed when none has been explicitly granted.
It is clear that traditional owners were not consulted about the changes this bill proposes to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. They did not give explicit consent and they did not, in most cases, even know about these changes. It's not good enough for the government to explain these proposed changes by virtue of their benefits for industry and land councils. This is absolutely unacceptable. As explained by the Australian Human Rights Commission:
Without clarity and transparency as to how representative the support for this legislation is, there is no certainty that the changes proposed in this Bill have the free, prior and informed consent of the Aboriginal Territorians affected.
The Greens will be opposing schedule 2 of this bill—which proposes changes to the exploration and mining approvals processes—on the basis that free, prior and informed consent to these changes has not occurred. And there is a high degree of uncertainty around what impact these changes will have on the ground.
For too long in this country, mining companies have got away with manufacturing consent. Free, prior and informed consent is not taken seriously by the likes of Rio Tinto, BHP or Woodside. It is seen as a box-ticking exercise and it's used to buy off First Nations people to enable the destruction of cultural heritage. We see this happening right across the country—from Western Australia to Queensland to Victoria to the Northern Territory. In Beetaloo we saw consent being manufactured, when First Nations families were left out of the consultation processes on purpose. In fact, the committee heard evidence that NLC and Origin Energy did not properly communicate or consult with native-title holders from 11 determinations of native title across the Beetaloo. In my home state we have a system that legally permits the destruction of cultural heritage—every single day. Juukan Gorge is one example of traditional owners being forced to sign an agreement with a gag clause that stops them from speaking out about what's happening on their country. Gag clauses fly in the face of free, prior and informed consent, and they must be stopped.
At the moment state and federal laws do not properly consider the social and environmental impacts of the destruction of country. The rock art in the Murujuga is being eaten away by the acid gas from the Scarborough gas project—and yet the state and federal approvals for the Scarborough project do not require an assessment of how greenhouse gas emissions will impact on cultural heritage. This is a massive oversight.
So what does free, prior and informed consent really look like? Firstly, it means that consent is freely given—that is, free of coercion or pressure from any other party. It means that consultation is undertaken with all First Nations people impacted by the proposal, regardless of whether they're represented by a land council or not. It also means that First Nations people have full access to all of the information about how the proposal will impact on their community and their country. And this information needs to be provided in different languages and formats, to ensure that First Nations people who have English as their second, fourth, or sixth language are able to fully understand the proposal.
Accessible information is especially important in the context of mining agreements, which are usually full of legal jargon. I am deeply hurt when I hear about elders being forced to sign documents they don't understand by land councils and proponents. Obtaining informed consent also means providing independent assessment of harm to country as well as the social, cultural and environmental impacts of the project. True free, prior and informed consent means the outcome is not predetermined. Time and space are provided for extensive deliberation. First Nations people have the right to object to a proposal. They have the right to veto, and that is powerful. It's a powerful choice and its importance cannot be understated.
Finally, I want to touch on the sequence in which free, prior and informed consent needs to be undertaken, which is something that is often misunderstood by mining companies and the government. Free, prior and informed consent is not—it is not—a side dish; it is not something that can be dipped in and out of when it suits the mining company. It needs to be taken in a methodical way that allows First Nations people to lead this process. Anything short of that is manufactured consent.
Yesterday the government announced a new partnership with First Nations Heritage Protection Alliance to strengthen the safeguards of First Nations cultural heritage in this country. Minister Ley said the partnership will develop options to improve the laws, policies and processes that promote and protect the unique Indigenous heritage that exists in Australia. If this government were serious about strengthening cultural heritage protections in this country they would stop and engage in extensive, open and transparent consultation with all Northern Territory First Nations people who will be affected by this bill.
I would like to make remarks about the amendments to the land rights act. I note that these are strongly held views by people in this chamber. I would say that all the contributions I have heard so far are valuable. I would prefer that more people took a view about these things, because they are very important. The land rights system we have, which was put in place in 1976 by the Fraser government, was the culmination of a lot of advocacy from Indigenous people over many decades which had been rebuffed again and again. When you go back and talk to people like Ian Viner, who was the minister at the time in the Fraser government, who put in place the '76 Land Rights Act, with bipartisan support from the Labor Party, I don't know that there would have been any prospect that you would come to 2021 and more than half the Northern Territory would be controlled by Indigenous people through these land councils. That is a very, very significant turnaround over just a few decades.
I have to say, in preparing this contribution, it occurred to me that when this parliament does make laws for Indigenous people—and Indigenous people are the only group of Australians who have an extensive set of laws made by this parliament for them—we could do a better job of consulting with them. I don't know that we get all the information that we should have when we consider these amendments, and that has been my view since I've been here for these past two years. Last year we considered a bill to amend the Native Title Act, and I'm not sure that we really knew what the views were about that on the ground. I think that is a great shame, and it is one of the reasons I have been of the view that we should put in place a formal consultation mechanism, a voice—call it whatever you like—that is clearly missing in this system of government in Australia. I am anxious and keen that we get that right, because we should hear the voices of people on the ground. There should be the opportunity for people to have special laws made for them to have their say.
In relation to this particular bill—and I understand that it has been the culmination of three or four years of work—I understand that there has been significant consultation with the two major land councils in the Northern Territory and with the 14 constituent bodies, and there is very strong support from the land councils. As far as I can see, there is strong support from their constituents as well. Mixed views about this have been expressed in the parliament today, and I respect that. That has not been raised with me prior to this contribution. In fact, the information I have is that there is strong support amongst the land councils. I understand that the land councils aren't the traditional owners, but my understanding is that they have undertaken significant consultation. Minister Wyatt, who is the first Indigenous person to serve in the cabinet of Australia and to serve in this portfolio, is very committed to consultation and very committed to co-design, as has been his mantra whilst in office.
This bill effectively does three things. It establishes a new entity, the Aboriginal Investment Corporation. It puts in place some corporate governance changes and amends the control and consent arrangements for access to land. I think it's a very good concept to move to an investment approach. I think it's a very good opportunity for Indigenous people to take more control of their assets, their land and their capital, and the removal of ministerial discretion and the removal of ministerial oversight for some of these things is exactly what we should be doing. If one thing is for sure in this area, it is that paternalism has not worked, so anything we can do to empower people on the ground to run their own affairs in the way they would wish is absolutely desirable. I think these will be seen as landmark reforms in years to come.
Of course, there are different rules and laws that apply to the land council system. It has often been said that Indigenous Australians should have access to freehold title, to the same economic opportunities as non-Indigenous Australians, and I think that's right. We want to ensure that Indigenous people have every opportunity to fully participate in the economy of Australia and the world, and anything we can do to drive control of these investments—which is what they will be—is a good thing. But we also want to make sure that individuals can access freehold title in time.
These laws build on a very important tradition in the Australian legal system that commenced in 1976 with land rights, which is that the parliament will enact laws for the benefit of Indigenous people. I think that has been a long-held commitment. What we have failed to do in the past is to properly consult Indigenous people on how those laws are to be made and are to be amended. I believe this is a very good example of why you need to have an Indigenous voice, why you need to formalise consultation on these special laws—because no other Australians have special laws like this, and we are running more than a dozen special laws on the books here in Canberra for Indigenous people. So, the way that we consult people on these special laws is important.
I regret to say there is a lot of ignorance about some of these issues and about the legal system we have in Australia as it applies to Indigenous people. So, as a liberal principle, I would say denying people a say over special laws is fundamentally illiberal and that's why I am committed to improving consultation with Indigenous people. But, having said all that, these particular provisions will improve opportunities for people on the ground in the Northern Territory, and I look forward to more commitment to consultation and co-design in the future.
Well, who would have thought over 40 years ago when we had no land in the Northern Territory for First Nations people that we would be here four decades and some later arguing over minor amendments, really, in the land rights act. Let me share with the Senate. In 1976, the Yanyuwa people were the first under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. to go for land. It was in the old police station on Yanyuwa country that my grandfather sat with my grandmother and other families trying to prove who they were as First Nations people in this country. It took Vincent Lingiari and the Gurindji people of that country eight years, supported not only by the union movement but, more importantly, by First Nations people surrounding those lands.
So when this act came in, in 1976, yes, Gough Whitlam, first raised it. Malcolm Fraser enacted it. It was the Yanyuwa who were the first to challenge, to test, to try it out. Those elders stood in the witness box in the old police station which had remnants of members being caught in the cells, very recent and horrible memories of the massacres of that area, and there was indeed an absolute passion and hope that lives would change. But it was not to be. Why? Because there were too many issues, too many things that the new land councils of the day had to work through—lawyers, constitutional lawyers—so the Yanyuwa lost. They got a little bit of land in the Gulf country around the islands but it wasn't until 1992, over 20 years later, that we could try again. In the meantime, we fought successive governments, which happened to be the Country Liberal Party at the time, for every single bit of land that we could fight for, and fight we did.
People were told that Uluru was going to disappear because it was being returned to the Anangu people; the sky would cave in. That was the attitude of the day. There is no way any of my elders standing in that police station giving evidence would have thought in a million years that First Nations people would own nearly 50 per cent of the Northern Territory land mass.
What we have here before us, whilst important, is twinkling around the edges, tweaking around to provide the support that's required in places that have been taken away, for example, under Prime Minister John Howard, with the 2007 Intervention, now being recorrected—if that is possible—in this legislation today. For First Nations people in the Northern Territory, it has been a constant, constant battle to prove who they are.
Over the years, we saw the development, after the Northern Land Council, of the Central Land Council, to cater for the First Nations people in the central region, who were represented by over 70 delegates to the Central Land Council meeting, which I attended, just a couple of weeks ago. After the Central Land Council, you then had two more land councils come into being: the Tiwi Land Council, to protect the interests of the Tiwis, north of Darwin, on that beautiful country, where the Tiwis saw the first bombs come into Darwin. Then, over to the east, you have the Anindilyakwa people of Groote Eylandt, who—surprise, surprise—work very effectively with their local mining company. Yes, they have their issues, but they've also succeeded in places that perhaps even the other land councils could learn from—and not just other land councils but other communities.
So these are the four land councils that have come together, since 2016, 2017 and 2018, to talk about many of the issues that this legislation covers here in terms of the request for change. The problem is that, in the past, there have been successive ministers who have perhaps not been able to achieve what's being achieved here by bringing this legislation before the Senate. Yes, it has its faults. There's no doubt about that.
When we talk about 50 per cent of the Northern Territory's landmass now being Aboriginal land, which also includes rights to the sea country, the priority has to be around economic empowerment. We cannot keep standing in this Senate, or in the other House, and talking about the disadvantage when we have First Nations people owning nearly 50 per cent of the land. It's not just one section here that is failing; it is a combination of sectors that are failing to assist in lifting opportunities for the people up north.
It's in this context that we view these amendments to the Aboriginal Lands Rights (Northern Territory) Act. These amendments have been a long time coming and are made with the strong support of those four land councils, which didn't exist four decades ago. Does that mean that these land councils are above reproach? No, it does not. Does that mean that they are perfect? No. They most certainly are not. Does that mean that they can themselves improve in order to assist the very constituents they are there to support? Yes, they most certainly can do that, but we can do that too, as the Australian parliament. It works hand in hand when this act is a product of this parliament.
The support of the land councils is significant, because there are those of us who remember the battles. Let me tell you: if there were no land councils, those battles would return quick and fast. There is a history of amendments to this very act without the consultation of land councils. We only have to refer to reviews of the past, where papers were burnt because no traditional owners in those four land councils were a part of that. It's interesting to see that we've come this far, where now we have the questions around consent and the questions around inclusion. We need to listen to those questions, as a parliament, and the land councils need to listen too, because it is an example of how far you have grown, and the growth and maturity of First Nations people in the Northern Territory through the land councils. But there are also those who feel that they are missing out. Why are they feeling that they are missing out? Why do traditional owners who are not a part of these land councils at the moment feel so disenfranchised? Who is asking those questions within the land councils? Who is asking those questions beyond the land councils?
We know that there are 83 members of the Northern Land Council. Every three years, 78 members are elected and five are co-opted. Let's have a look at the question of how those elections take place. Is that something the parliament, the land councils and traditional owners need to ask themselves? Is that a fair process? Is it a process that still reflects how this act began? Usually, parliaments review acts. The 1976 Aboriginal Land Rights Act, in terms of the election of its people, may also at some point need to be looked at in fairness to the growth and the development of all those families across the Northern Territory and in fairness to the growth and development of the land councils themselves.
If we are to achieve true economic empowerment, we must open ourselves up to the very strong realistic position of transparency and accountability, not just to ourselves in the Senate as the Australian parliament but also as I stand before you as a traditional owner of those lands. We as traditional owners need to be open and transparent, too. We need to be able to feel confident in a system that enables us to have a voice within that system. I know that there are so many who do not feel they have that. Why? Perhaps because they weren't around in 1976. Perhaps, unlike me—I was only a little girl—they were not even born. But that does not mean that they are not important. In fact, for Yanyuwa, we are known as jungkayi and ngimarringki. My sons are the jungkayi for me. How are they reflected in these land councils? Are they considered as traditional owners?
If I can stand here in the Senate and ask these questions, then I fully understand why there are traditional owners out there who ask the very same thing. It is important to have these debates, but it's more important to achieve the outcomes that are required. That, I believe, can only happen when we have an opportunity to really look at these issues overall.
I have the Senate report here in front of me. I'd like to refer to page 28 and some of the evidence that was provided. I acknowledge the member for Mulka in the Northern Territory parliament, Yingiya. Thank you for the conversations that we've had—and, yes, it was important that we had this Senate inquiry. I know we've got more to do, certainly in North East Arnhem Land. To Professor John Altman: you raised issues about a co-design process and said:
… a co-design process dealing with institutional mechanisms that potentially affect the balance of powers/responsibilities between land councils and traditional owners that is only undertaken with one side of the equation is arguably a flawed co-design process.
There's probably no disagreement with that, Professor, but who is responsible for the co-design process? It comes back to the parliament. These are really important points in the submissions. Michael Dillon, a former senior public servant, said, 'Stating facts demonstrates the complexities involved.' Absolutely, but no-one over four decades ago even thought we'd get to where we are with close to 50 per cent of the land mass plus the sea country. There was Blue Mud Bay. There still is Blue Mud Bay—and the work that has to be done with the commercial fishing industry and the ranger groups. How amazing is it that we can stand here and even talk about that?
Senators, this is a critical piece of discussion around the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, but it is not the only discussion. Far more comprehensive work is required, and I welcome the input from senators here today. As a TO myself, and knowing this act from the very beginning, I know there is a long way to go. But for now, those four land councils do need the support of this Australian parliament, and we must make sure that all those other traditional owners who are not yet included are very much included into the future.
I want to thank senators for their contributions to this debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Economic Empowerment) Bill 2021, from places of experience, and certainly Senator McCarthy's contribution was one well worth listening to. The government welcomes the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee's report on its inquiry into the bill and notes the recommendation in that report that the bill be passed unamended. In responding to the committee report I note the recommendations raised also by the Australian Greens.
Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, through their land councils, have asked for and been partners in the changes proposed by this bill. The government has co-designed the reforms in partnership over nearly four years. The bill establishes the new corporation with a best-practice governance model, including a board with a majority of Aboriginal members. The new corporation will be reviewed after seven years to consider the corporation's performance against its three- to five-year strategic investment plan. The Aboriginals Benefit Account Advisory Committee will continue to advise government on beneficial payments until the new corporation is fully established, ensuring no gap in access to beneficial payments.
The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976—the land rights act—retains its existing provisions that guarantee the free, prior and informed consent of traditional Aboriginal owners. As such, the government is confident that the bill adequately addresses the recommendations raised by the Australian Greens. The passing of the iconic land rights act in 1976 was indeed a great moment of bipartisanship in this parliament. I'm pleased that this spirit of bipartisanship remains as we look beyond party politics to recognise the intrinsic value of these amendments. This is an important day for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, as they see their ideas to modernise the land rights act become a reality. And it's an important day for the parliament as we seize this opportunity to support amendments that will support Aboriginal wealth creation for generations to come.
In conclusion, I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to this bill. This addendum responds to the concerns raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I commend the bill to the Senate.
The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Thorpe be agreed to.
I seek leave to move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1510 together.
Leave granted.
I move:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit the table item.
We also oppose schedule 2 in the following terms:
(2) Schedule 2, page 47 (line 1) to page 60 (line 6), to be opposed.
I seek the Senate's support for my amendment which would remove the streamlining for mining destruction on country in schedule 2. The Australian Greens can't support the bill unless schedule 2 is taken out. The Australian Greens will not act against the interests of traditional owners, of land and water defenders, of our environment, of country, land, water and sky. Schedule 2 gives land councils too much decision-making power and flexibility. We will not do it. We have not seen any evidence of free, prior and informed consent. The land councils are not representative of all traditional owners. In fact, in some instances, the land councils are only representatives of themselves. Listen to the people.
I stood outside this place this morning with Ms Burney, the Labor member for Barton. We stood side by side, supporting traditional owners and their fight to protect our heritage. I thank Ms Burney for being there this morning and for her staunch words about protecting culture and First Nations heritage. She said: 'What's absolutely fundamental is free, prior and informed consent.' And I have to say that this is a priority for Labor. Cultural heritage is a living thing; it's not static. And Labor will enter into a proper consultation process. I agree with the member for Barton: free, prior and informed consent is what we need. I could not have said it better. Labor saying one thing on the lawns to the media and voting a completely different way in this chamber is why people don't trust them. We can do the right thing. We can do it today, right here right now. Vote in here like you said out there you were going to vote. Do the right thing by the people.
Yingiya 'Mark' Guyula, the member for Mulka in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, wrote a submission to the inquiry into this bill. He wrote:
I have now spoken widely to elders and leaders in my electorate and they do not know about any changes to the ALRA. I have also spoken to members of the Land Councils from my own electorate and more broadly across the regions, and they have advised that they do not know the detail of the Bill.
The Australian Human Rights Commission asked the committee looking into this bill for more time and said:
Our key recommendation is that the Committee should request a significantly longer time frame for the Inquiry in order to properly consider the Bill and ensure that the amendments have the genuine free prior and informed consent (FPIC) of the Aboriginal Territorians who will be impacted, including but not limited to Traditional Owners.
Staunch defender of country Rikki Dank wrote in her submission:
Thanks, but NO THANKS!
The proposed amendments to the Aboriginal Land Right Act do nothing more than to further erode the already meagre rights of First Nations in the Northern Territory (NT) of Australia. They masquerade as 'progressive' legislation when, in fact, they represent a reincarnation of successive waves of colonial policy initiatives designed to usurp Our rights and transfer them to the Settlers.
Do you know who wants this bill? The Minerals Council of Australia. Do you know why? So they can extract and steal even more profit while destroying country, culture and songlines. That should tell you everything you need to know about who this bill is really meant to serve.
The Australian Greens cannot support the bill unless schedule 2 is removed. It's as simple as that. Please think about free, prior and informed consent every time you look at your dot paintings and every time you come to a rally and scream out 'black lives matter'. Thank you.
Labor opposes these amendments. The amendments in schedule 2 of the bill are largely administrative and technical in nature. They are designed to increase efficiencies for all parties, including traditional owners. The land councils have given evidence that, rather than these changes being proposed by mining companies, these changes have been put forward by traditional owners themselves to avoid the frustration of having to attend multiple meetings when they have already made their views clear to a land council. In other words, they were requested by traditional owners, not by miners. Labor respects the wishes of traditional owners. Importantly, none of these changes dilute the protections in the act for traditional owners. They maintain the right to a veto. That is one of the strongest protections of its kind in the country.
The government does not support the amendments on sheet 1510. The proposed amendments would omit the commencement date for entire schedule 2—mining. And the changes to part 4 proposed in the bill would not take effect. These amendments follow from an independent review in 2013 and have the agreement of the Northern Territory government and the four Northern Territory land councils, in consultation with key resource sector peak bodies. Importantly, the reforms preserve existing strong protections for traditional owners, including their right to free, prior and informed consent and their right to veto exploration and mining proposals on their land. The proposed amendment would not achieve increased confidence and clarity for all stakeholders and would not empower traditional owners to take advantage of opportunities on their land.
The CHAIR ( 19:50 ): I just advise the Senate that we are dealing with schedule 2 on sheet 1510. The question is that schedule 2 stand as printed.
The CHAIR ( 18:51 ): I will just advise the Senate that Senator Thorpe also moved sheet No. 1 on sheet 1510, but as a consequence of the outcome of the first one that falls away because it's consequential. So I'm in the hands of the Senate. Senator Thorpe.
by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1454 together:
(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 13), after item 3, insert:
3A After subsection 64 (4)
Insert:
(4AA) The Minister must consult the Northern Territory Aboriginal Investment Corporation before giving a direction under subsection (4).
(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (before line 10), before paragraph 65BB(a), insert:
(aa) to advise the Minister in relation to debiting the Account for the purposes of making payments under subsection 64(4);
The government does not support amendment sheet 1454. Requiring the corporation to advise the minister on beneficial payments will entrench the current system of government approval of beneficial payments from the ABA corporations, moving decisions about Aboriginal money out of Canberra and into the Northern Territory from government into Aboriginal hands.
Labor will not be supporting these amendments. As stated in the explanatory memorandum, the bill has been designed to transfer responsibility for making beneficial payments under the land rights act from the minister to the NTAI Corporation. Conferring an advisory role on the NTAI Corporation could potentially undermine this intention and give rise to confusion about its function.
The CHAIR (18:54): The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1454, as moved by Senator Thorpe, be agreed to.
Question negatived.
by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (7) on sheet 1449, revised:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 6), insert:
(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (after line 20), at the end of section 64AA, add:
(5) The Minister must give a direction under subsection (4) at least once in each financial year starting on or after the third 1 July that occurs after the commencement of this section.
(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 21 (line 7), after "independent", insert "Aboriginal".
(4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 21 (lines 21 to 25), omit subsection 65ED(3), substitute:
(3) A person is not eligible for appointment as a Board member under subsection (1) unless the person is an Aboriginal person.
(5) Schedule 1, item 6, page 21 (after line 33), after paragraph 65ED(4)(d), insert:
; or (e) holds a right that relates to an area in the Northern Territory and arises under any Australian law dealing with the rights of Aboriginal persons in relation to land or waters, including if the person is:
(i) a traditional Aboriginal owner of an area of land that is held by a Land Trust; or
(ii) a native title holder (within the meaning of the Native Title Act 1993) whose approved determination of native title (within the meaning of that Act) relates to an area in the Northern Territory; or
(iii) a registered native title claimant (within the meaning of the Native Title Act 1993) whose claimant application (within the meaning of that Act) relates to an area in the Northern Territory; or
(f) lives outside the Northern Territory.
(6) Schedule 1, item 6, page 38 (line 26), omit "7 years", substitute "3 years".
(7) Schedule 3, page 75 (after line 16), at the end of the Schedule, add:
Part 5 — Review of operation of Schedule
45 Review of operation of Schedule
(1) The Minister must cause a review of the operation of the amendments made by this Schedule to be undertaken as soon as possible after the end of 5 years after the commencement of Part 1 of this Schedule.
(2) The persons undertaking the review must give the Minister a written report of the review. The report must not include information that is commercially sensitive.
(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.
The government does not support the amendments on sheet 1449 as they are unnecessary. The corporations funding process is consistent with the funding of the NT land councils and ensures the ABA balance remains sufficient to fund its other obligations, including distributions to traditional owners. The bill already enables the board to appoint Aboriginal people who are not landholders to the independent and land council positions and is focused on bringing specific skills and expertise to the board. A seven-year statutory review allows time for the corporation to be reviewed against a full strategic investment plan period. Ongoing review and evaluation is a more efficient mechanism to review the impact of the other amendments in the bill. Traditional owners will retain the right of free, prior and informed group consent, including their right to veto any mining and exploration on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory.
Labor will not be supporting these amendments. The bill already provides for the new corporation to have an Aboriginal controlled board and an appropriately timed statutory review. The new corporation should be afforded the opportunity to demonstrate success from its strategic investments. A review in just three years time would not provide adequate time and risks setting the new corporation up to fail, thus undermining rather than supporting increased Aboriginal control over the funds of the ABA. There will be opportunities to scrutinise the corporation's strategic investment plan and progress reports, which Labor supports being tabled in parliament. We intend to make full use of these opportunities to ensure that the corporation is operating appropriately.
The CHAIR: We are dealing with amendments (1) to (7) on sheet 1449, revised, and moved by leave by Senator Thorpe. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
Question negatived.
by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1514:
(1) Schedule 1, item 19, page 46 (line 4), omit "may", substitute "must".
(2) Schedule 1, item 19, page 46 (after line 5), after subitem (4), insert:
(4A) The Minister must table a copy of any progress report given to the Minister in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.
Labor supports this amendment, which would require the minister to request progress reports on the NTAI Corporation's strategic investment plan. We note that this was a recommendation of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. It is appropriate and consistent with principles of transparency that progress reports should be open to parliamentary scrutiny. There are various options available to the minister to allow for the removal or confidentiality of any genuinely sensitive material.
The government opposes these amendments. The bill includes strong transparency arrangements, including tabling a strategic investment plan in parliament. The strategic investment plan will include consultation with Aboriginal people and organisations in the Northern Territory.
The CHAIR (19:02): We are dealing with amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1514, moved by leave by Senator Thorpe. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 1477 together.
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
(2) Schedule 3, item 25, page 70 (lines 29 and 30), omit "it is satisfied that".
(3) Schedule 3, item 25, page 71 (lines 14 and 15), subsection 12D(7) to be opposed.
(4) Page 78 (after line 18), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 5 — Ensuring the consent of traditional Aboriginal owners etc.
Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976
1 Subsection 11A(3)
Omit "it is satisfied that".
2 Subsection 11A(6)
Repeal the subsection.
3 Subsection 19(5)
Omit "the Land Council is satisfied that".
4 Subsection 19(6)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(6) If:
(a) a Land Council gives a direction for a proposed grant, transfer or surrender of an estate or interest in land; and
(b) the person to whom the grant, transfer or surrender was made procured the direction of the Land Council by fraud;
the grant, transfer or surrender is invalid.
5 Subsection 19A(2)
Omit "it is satisfied that".
6 Subsection 19A(3)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(3) If:
(a) a Land Council gives a direction for a grant of a lease; and
(b) the approved entity to whom the grant was made procured the direction of the Land Council by fraud;
the grant is invalid.
7 Subsection 21E(2)
Omit "the Council is satisfied that".
8 Subsection 23(3)
Omit "the Land Council is satisfied that".
9 Subsection 28(4)
Repeal the subsection.
10 Paragraphs 42(6)(a) and (b)
Omit "it is satisfied that".
11 Paragraphs 43(2)(a) to (c)
Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:
(a) it has, as far as practicable, consulted the traditional Aboriginal owners (if any) of the land concerning the terms and conditions; and
(b) the traditional Aboriginal owners understand the nature and purpose of the terms and conditions and, as a group, consent to them; and
(c) it has, as far as practicable, consulted any other Aboriginal community or group that may be affected by the grant of the licence concerning the terms and conditions; and
(d) the community or group has had an adequate opportunity to express its views to the Land Council; and
(e) the terms and conditions are reasonable.
12 Paragraphs 46(4)(a) to (c)
Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:
(a) it has, as far as practicable, consulted the traditional Aboriginal owners (if any) of the land concerning the terms and conditions; and
(b) the traditional Aboriginal owners understand the nature and purpose of the terms and conditions and, as a group, consent to them; and
(c) it has, as far as practicable, consulted any other Aboriginal community or group that may be affected by the grant of the mining interest concerning the terms and conditions; and
(d) the community or group has had an adequate opportunity to express its view to the Land Council; and
(e) the terms and conditions are reasonable.
13 Subsection 48A(4)
Omit "it is satisfied that".
14 Subsection 48D(3)
Repeal the subsection.
15 Subsection 67B(3)
Omit "it is satisfied that".
16 Subsection 67B(5)
Repeal the subsection.
17 Subsection 68(2)
Omit "the Land Council is satisfied that".
The government does not support the amendments on sheet 1477. The existing land rights act includes provisions to guarantee the free, prior and informed consent of traditional Aboriginal owners. Existing section 77A outlines the process to be followed where traditional Aboriginal owners are required to have consented. To omit the requirement for a land council to be satisfied in endorsing this consent would be contrary to the operation of the act and have unintended consequences.
Labor will not be supporting these amendments which seek to amend multiple provisions of the land rights act. No concerns have been raised about these existing provisions. The land rights act contains some of the strongest protections in the country to ensure the consent of traditional owners to activities on their land. It would be unwise to tamper with these provisions without a thorough process of consultation and review.
The question is that Greens amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 1477 be agreed to.
Question negatived.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that subsection 12D(7) in item 25 of schedule 3 stand as printed.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Labor will support the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority Board and Other Improvements) Bill 2019. We note that this bill has been around for some time. It was first introduced into the parliament back in September 2019.
The stated purpose of the bill is to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the national system for regulating agvet chemical products. The bill will also allow for the establishment of a governance board for the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, the APVMA. It is submitted that the establishment of the APVMA board would strengthen the organisation's governance arrangements and provide the necessary oversight to help the regulator manage operational, financial and performance matters.
I think it's important to note that the government has been slow to implement it—like so many other things with this government; it's just slow. I know you're laughing about it, Mr Acting Deputy President McLachlan. Sometimes it can be funny—and you're still laughing about it. The government is slow to implement the necessary reforms which were expected by industry stakeholders following the introduction of significant legislative reforms introduced by the Labor government in 2013 to improve the efficiency of the APVMA.
On 19 September 2019, the Senate referred the bill to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, and I note the work undertaken by Labor senators during this inquiry. The deputy chair of RRAT, Senator Sterle—a very fine fellow, who we heard from yesterday—provided some dissenting comments as part of this inquiry and raised a number of valid points in relation to this bill. On the whole, Labor senators support the majority of this bill but there were some concerns around the governance board, specifically in relation to the cost of establishing such a regulatory body. During the inquiry key stakeholders raised a number of issues, including the cost to the farming sector for the board to operate and the fact that there was no clear policy rationale as to how the industry would benefit from implementing the board.
Since the RRAT inquiry, an independent panel has reviewed the regulatory framework for agvet chemicals. The final report of the Mathews review was submitted to the government in May 2021 and it included 58 recommendations. One of those recommendations supported the establishment of a five-member skills-based board, including the CEO of the APVMA as an ex officio member. The independent panel stated that this would strengthen the APVMA in relation to its governance arrangements; provide it with the necessary oversight to support it in managing operational, financial and performance matters; and drive the reform agenda. The Mathews report stated that the APVMA is one of a few corporate Commonwealth entities without a board. That's very unusual. The other Commonwealth regulatory entities with direct responsibilities for protecting human life and/or health, such as Food Standards Australia New Zealand, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and the Civil Aviation Safety authority, all have boards.
With regard to the make-up of the board, it will include a mix of regulatory people with scientific, related public health and occupational health and safety skills. The minister for agriculture will appoint the board members through a transparent and merit-based process, and the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment will be responsible for undertaking the recruitment process. I want to take this opportunity to thank the minister for agriculture and his office for extending bipartisan support on this bill with the shadow minister. That's an example of how things ought to work in this place, as I'm sure you would agree, Mr Acting Deputy President.
It was important to gain some assurances from the minister for agriculture before Labor could support this bill. Firstly, I note the government's intention to move the already circulated amendments in relation to computerised decision-making. Secondly, the structure of the board will mirror the one recommended in the Matthews report that includes five members. The shadow minister has also received assurances from the minister for agriculture that the board will be merit based. Thirdly, given the concerns of stakeholders around the cost, the minister for agriculture has proposed to the shadow minister that the government would provide $1 million over two years—$600,000 in the first year and $400,000 in the second year—to assist with establishing the board. Labor are supportive of the funding promised and think that this will help with some of the concerns raised by stakeholders. Given these assurances, Labor will not be proceeding with our amendment circulated on sheet 8846.
I wanted to spend some time on some of the other related agricultural issues that are currently plaguing the Morrison-Joyce government. It's hard to trust the government and support Australian farmers and regional communities when there hasn't been a lot of action. Under this Prime Minister, there's been a history of epic failures. I'll repeat that: under this Prime Minister, there's been a history of epic failures when it comes to Aussie farmers and the ag sector—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Well, I repeated it, so that—
I saw that. You lost your place.
All banter must go through the chair, Minister!
No, I didn't. I said it twice. I'm sure Senator McMahon from the Northern Territory understands that I repeated it—don't you? She heard me, Mr Acting Deputy President.
That's right, yes. Some people in the National Party do understand these things better than others.
You wait and see, Senator McKenzie! Under this Prime Minister, there's been no action on climate change; the industry is miles ahead and has already set its own targets, some of which are to be achieved by 2030. There's a crippling workforce shortage, there's another bumper summer crop on the way and the ag sector is short tens of thousands of workers. A horrific mouse plague has caused devastation across multiple states. There are severe timber shortages—we all know about that—and the government's one billion trees in a decade is never going to be reached. Australia's biosecurity system has been slammed by the Inspector-General of Biosecurity and by the Auditor-General.
And then we have the APVMA. The government relocated the APVMA to Armidale, New South Wales, in 2018. We all know what a fiasco that was—
It was fantastic. We've got international scientists in Armidale.
Yes. The relocation was turbulent and challenging, and it disrupted the efficiency and effectiveness of the APVMA. Basically, it's been eight long years from a tired government that should have done more for Australian farmers and regional communities.
In conclusion, good regulation and good governance are essential when it comes to agvet chemicals. Again, Labor note the assurances from the Morrison-Joyce government that this new board will be merit based—something very unusual for this government—and that it will deliver on the funding, as outlined earlier in my speech, to establish the APVMA board. With these assurances, Labor can offer our support to the bill.
The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority is an important regulator. It regulates agricultural and veterinary chemicals, including medications. We all understand the importance of agriculture. It is vital to Australia—absolutely vital. It produces our food and our fibre, and not just for us but for exports. It is really important that Australia has access to the high-quality chemicals needed to produce the quality food we do.
With respect to the veterinary side of it, being a veterinary surgeon myself, all of the veterinary medications are registered and regulated by the APVMA. Now—
Senator McMahon, I cut you off with great reluctance, but I must obey the standing orders. You'll be in continuance.
Debate interrupted.
As we all know, GetUp is a discredited organisation. Not only has it misrepresented an independent statutory authority—namely, our Australian Electoral Commission—it has also had two findings made against it for misleading the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which is tantamount to lying under oath. It's reprehensible and indicative of its moral bankruptcy.
Not to be deterred in its campaign of misrepresentation, GetUp's misnamed human rights team set themselves the task of 'spreading joy' to people in aged care last Christmas. To ensure people in aged care would 'feel the holiday cheer' while in lockdown, GetUp members wrote self-described 'heartfelt letters', according to GetUp, to highlight the love and generosity of the GetUp movement. These were in a book delivered to aged-care homes across the country. Who would have thought it: the bird-doggers and hardcore Marxists at GetUp are really softies at heart! Their self-described heart-warming book titled Some Love from our Community to Yours, was:
… to make sure you folks in aged care get the love you deserve in this holiday season … love GetUp.
Unsurprisingly, for those familiar with GetUp, their 'heart-warming' offering to aged-care residents containing 'beautiful letters' was laced with political poison. Here are some excerpts: 'I've generally seen the best in people—state and federal Liberal politicians aside. Apologies for my language, but the federal government have been absolute bastards towards those they've been required to care for, whether they're refugees, senior citizens or Aussies also trying to get home, along the predictable racial and financial lines.' This gives you a flavour of GetUp's insensitive, base and ugly offerings, with complete disregard for the aged. There's no Christmas cheer, no good will, no joy and no peace, just 100 per cent hardcore political propaganda seeking to relentlessly attack the coalition government under the dishonest guise of Christmas greetings. There's no depth to which GetUp will not sink if it perceives some benefit for its perverse, extreme left-wing world view.
Another offering in the book reads: 'Aged care should never be a place one is put in readiness for the end, but a place where life, both long and eventful, can be celebrated. Pity our federal government doesn't value this, but there we are.' Let me repeat—this is distastefulness writ large: 'Aged care should never be a place one is put in readiness for the end.' Can you imagine the sensitivity level for such a statement? It's negative, infinitely callous and brutal—anything for cheap political advantage at the expense of aged-care residents. How do these people sleep at night or show their faces? Another ugly offering says: 'It appals me, the lack of federal government care for our ageing population. But that's the government, and mostly they are useless twits.' Really? Again, this is indicative of the standards and behaviour of GetUp. Unwitting people donate to this organisation without realising it abuses their funds to spread abuse and poison, such as I've quoted.
Then there is the question of whether all the writers were even real. Two have the same picture—just a tad awkward—suggesting fabrication.
My plea to GetUp this Christmas is: Give aged-care residents a break. Spare them your confected love and sham exercises of compassion used to peddle your ugly political propaganda. The men and women who have built our country and society—of which we are the beneficiaries—should not be subjected to such nasty, dishonest political campaigns by GetUp, especially under the guise of Christmas greetings. It is a huge disservice and displays a complete disrespect for the Christian celebration of Christmas.
The end of the year is a time for reflection and, as the parliamentary year comes to an end, the people of Australia are reflecting on what the Morrison government has done for them. What they see is a government which, instead of focusing on delivering for the people of this country, is simply a mess—a mess of dishonesty, disunity and desperation. Instead of delivering for communities, we have a government caught out in dishonesty. They have been exposed again and again, even as recently as this week, for their blatant rorting, spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars like it's Liberal Party money. They have been caught out by saying one thing one day and something completely different the next. This is a government where the truth always comes second to spin.
Instead of delivering the legislation needed to make a real difference in people's lives, we have a government that is hamstrung by disunity, held hostage on climate by its own coalition partners, failing to even hold their own numbers, with splits left, right and centre, in the thralls of crossbenchers who are playing to fear at a time when we should be celebrating the unity of millions of ordinary Australians doing the right thing to get us through this pandemic.
Instead of delivering a plan for our recovery, we have a government getting increasingly desperate, so desperate that they're scrounging for votes and are prepared to play footsie with extremists, so desperate that they're dropping last-minute half-baked policies in an attempt to distract from the shambles inside their own party, contorting logic to somehow blame Labor for failing to introduce the government's own legislation. We have a government so focused on itself and its problems that it is ignoring the things that really matter to everyday Australians, the things that help to build a better and brighter life.
Labor knows what matters and is the only party people can rely on to deliver the things that matter at every stage of life, delivering opportunity as we grow: quality early learning, giving every child the best start in life; good schools, TAFEs and universities, so everyone has the chance to be their best; secure jobs that we can count on, to build a good life and support our families, with a plan to get wages moving; rebuilding manufacturing and valuing our essential workers; delivering health and dignity in retirement—only Labor will do that—by protecting Medicare for all, growing superannuation retirement savings and fixing our broken aged-care system. At every age and every stage Labor is on your side.
We have a real plan to reduce our emissions and protect our climate, to bring the jobs and investment of the new global economy here and build Australia into a new green energy superpower. These are the things government should be focused on. These are the things that will make a real difference. We will soon have a choice to make as a nation between three more years of this tired, eight-year government desperately trying to save itself by sowing division or a Labor government that will bring people together and deliver the things that really matter, because Labor believes we can achieve more when you focus on the things that unite us rather than the things that divide us. You can only build great things from a strong foundation of unity—unity in your government and unity in the community.
We have an opportunity to build on the values that saw us come together over the course of the pandemic, to build a stronger nation ready to face the challenges of today and turn them into the opportunities of the future, to move forwards with courage and hope. Unlike those opposite, Labor has a vision and a plan. More importantly, we will deliver it.
In recent times this chamber has been regularly subjected to quite a bit of anti-trans rhetoric from Senator Chandler. She'll come in here and use what is an extremely privileged platform to spout reheated, half-baked talking points from the American far Right and do that no matter the cost to the lives of trans folk here in Australia. I can't help thinking that what appears to be a culture war crusade is how Senator Chandler thinks she's going to get ahead in the Liberal Party. That's the reality of the Liberal Party in modern Australia: you go to war, you fight the culture wars, and maybe a ministry awaits. It's not as though there are any real consequences for bigotry in the modern Liberal Party in Australia. We see racism and colonialism writ large, and the people who espouse those causes keep getting ahead in the modern Liberal Party. It's as if Senator Chandler got up one day and said, 'I know how I'll get ahead in the Liberal Party: I'll make a name for myself as an anti-trans senator.' The truth is that, in doing so, Senator Chandler is exposing trans folk to harm, in order to make that name for herself.
I want to talk about Jasper Lees, my stepson and a fantastic young trans man whom I love very much. He's a great bloke—and I use the words 'man' and 'bloke' because that's what he is. Jasper is a trans man, which means he's a man, like all trans men are men and all trans women are women. No amount of anti-trans diatribe from anybody in this chamber is going to change that reality: that trans men are men and trans women are women.
This isn't a cost-free campaign from Senator Chandler. It's a deeply damaging, deeply hurtful and deeply corrosive campaign, and it's damaging and harmful and corrosive to trans people. Many trans folk have, in their lives, had to deal and grapple with really complex, complicated and difficult issues, and for many of them it's made them really vulnerable and able to be easily hurt. What we should all be doing in this place is giving them our love and support, not trying to weaponise who they are to make a political point or build a political career. I urge folks in this chamber, next time you want to play the hate card against trans people, to think about the harm, the hurt and the damage you're causing. Think about the impact on them, and maybe make a choice to give them some love and support rather than pour hatred onto them.
This kind of rhetoric, this kind of diatribe that we see creeping into this place from a small number, is writ large from the far Right in the US. Thankfully at the moment it is only a small number of senators here. But I won't go quietly on this, and neither will my colleagues in the Greens. I know that for a fact. We will stand up for trans folk, just as we stood up for other queer folk in this chamber, when no other party was standing up for them—15-odd years ago, when we were the only party campaigning for marriage equality and the only party with a position of supporting marriage equality. Just as that was a hard debate for queer folk in this country, so are some of the debates that we're having now difficult and potentially harmful for trans folk. So please, find it within your hearts to give them a bit of love and support, rather than trying to weaponise who they are as people, with the risk of causing them such grievous harm.
As we get closer to another Christmas, this Sunday, 5 December, is International Volunteer Day. Volunteers have always played a very important role in shaping our great nation, but their essential role in our communities has been particularly highlighted over the last two years. Through the terrible bushfires that ravaged our nation in the 2019-20 summer, we were reminded that the bravery of volunteer firefighters is often all that stands between disaster and our homes or even our lives. In my home state of Victoria, the CFA is a fantastic example of the pivotal role that volunteers play in the Australian story. It's those CFA volunteers who fight the fires and perform those essential road checks, rescues and emergency medical responses. They are simple volunteers, just making a contribution—something that they want to give back to the community as well as running community education and engagement activities.
These CFA brigades are often the backbone of many regional communities throughout Victoria—and right around Australia, not as CFA but under the name of other organisations. So people are very proud to be members of their local brigade, knowing that they are standing side-by-side with their neighbours and friends, ready to defend their families, friends and communities. This is just one example of how volunteer organisations bind communities together and provide a sense of purpose and dignity to those who are involved.
Throughout the COVID pandemic we have seen how volunteers gave their time and energy to get us through even the toughest of times. Whether it was by delivering food to families in lockdown or running free online classes to keep people engaged, volunteers continued to do all they could for those who needed assistance, even as they adapted to restrictions and lockdowns. Unfortunately, the pandemic had a detrimental impact on the ability of Australians to volunteer. Research highlighted by Volunteering Australia showed that an estimated 2.3 million fewer Australians volunteered in the 12 months prior to April 2021 compared to late 2019.
Tonight, I acknowledge the hard work of Mark Pearce, the CEO of Volunteering Australia, and his team, who have been working hard to provide volunteer organisations with the information and resources that they need to persevere as best as they can through the COVID-19 pandemic. Earlier this month, Volunteering Australia launched a national strategy for volunteering. This strategy is all about re-imagining the future of volunteering in Australia and ensuring that volunteer organisations can recover from the pandemic and continue their essential role in our community. We should recognise that flame of volunteers and volunteerism, making sure that it still burns bright in communities right around Australia. If you go to Foodbank Victoria's website to volunteer, you'll find a notice—and I checked just before I came to give this speech—that says they have been overwhelmed by kind offers to volunteer and cannot accept anyone new.
As International Volunteer Day, Christmas, and New Year's Day approach, I recognise and pay tribute to all the volunteers right around Australia as well as those Australians doing important volunteer work overseas. You play an essential role in our communities and I give my thanks for all the work that you do.
More and more people are catching on to the horrors of the racing industry. After years of investigations, which have highlighted the cruelty of horse and greyhound racing again and again, it has become an issue that governments can no longer ignore or hide from. Several weeks ago, Minister Littleproud announced the allocation of $1.1 million towards establishing a national horse traceability scheme. This follows the recommendations of a Senate inquiry into horse traceability, which I initiated in 2019. The government needs to get on with this. It is important for biosecurity, for animal welfare and for rider safety.
The racing industry has also been forced to admit that it needs to take animal welfare more seriously. A report commissioned by Thoroughbred Breeders Australia recently highlights the need for national welfare standards for thoroughbred horses and for a new regulator to be established. Forgive me for being cynical, but I am. This is just window-dressing to try to make more palatable an industry that thrives on the exploitation of animals and is losing its social licence. The reality is that no horses will be safe until this gambling-fuelled horse cruelty is shut down. At least 149 horses have been killed at Australian racetracks over the past racing year. That's more than one horse every three days, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Thousands of ex-racehorses are slaughtered every year, after they stop making a profit. Many don't even make it to the racetrack; they are labelled 'wastage' and killed.
The public are increasingly becoming aware of this cruelty, and they don't like it. While horse-betting donations to the major political parties have skyrocketed over the last few years, public interest in the Melbourne Cup has declined dramatically and more businesses are boycotting the event. There is an assumption that voters don't usually consider animal welfare when they vote. However, recent independent and statistically-significant polling commissioned by the Greens found that 80 per cent of respondents were concerned about animal welfare and 46 per cent of voters are more likely to vote for a candidate with strong animal welfare policies. This shows how out of touch both Labor and the coalition are with the majority of voters, who want to see much stronger animal welfare standards.
While the two major parties continue to prop up animal cruelty, the Greens recognise the racing industry for what it is: a deadly industry kept alive by the powerful gambling interests and the cowardly politicians who pander to them. The Greens don't take these dirty donations, and we are not influenced by the racing and gambling industries. Earlier this month, I launched our Horse Racing Transition Plan. There is an opportunity here to shut down a cruel industry, deliver new jobs in the regions and the cities, and repurpose racetracks for community facilities and green spaces. The plan would establish a horseracing transition task force and be funded through a horse-betting levy of one per cent. This levy would raise almost $500 million in two years to fund activities such as retraining programs for workers, rehoming schemes for animals and the redevelopment of racecourses.
Our Horse Racing Transition Plan sits alongside our commitment to shut down greyhound racing, including banning the export of greyhounds for racing and breeding. Despite the intense spotlight on dog drugging, injuries and deaths, greyhounds continue to be relentlessly raced, drugged, injured and killed. In 2021 alone, there have been 160 track deaths and more than 9,000 track injuries. These beautiful dogs should be running for fun, not for their lives.
I want to acknowledge the many animal welfare advocates and activists who expose the cruelty of horse and greyhound racing. From the bottom of my heart, I want to thank the many rescue groups and individuals who save and rehabilitate these animals, giving them love and the good life that they deserve. But they shouldn't have to do this. Racing dogs and horses for gambling and entertainment is barbaric. It's inhumane and it's deadly. Shut it down.
The ABC is out of touch. The ABC has a wilful disregard for the majority of the Australian people who fund its operations. The ABC, like the surly teenager it is, has no regard for the consequences of its reporting, even if it is inaccurate, false or misleading. Its own complaints process is a dodgy cover-up act in disguise that would make Alan Bond blush. The respected role the media plays in our democracy does not mean the ABC has a free licence to wilfully persecute individuals on a whim without factual basis and then prosecute on the assumption of guilt, especially when it comes to the slandering of the brave men and women who have served our country.
In October last year, the ABC alleged members of the November Platoon had committed war crimes by executing a prisoner in Afghanistan. Members of the November Platoon have strenuously denied the allegations, and they have suffered in their mental health, reputation and welfare from the reporting. ABC journalists made these allegations based on the accounts of an unnamed US marine. Arguably, such an allegation would warrant further investigation, but, at the time, the ABC would not afford members of the November Platoon the right of reply. In recent weeks, damning evidence has emerged against this allegation. It has emerged that this US marine was in fact not a witness, but instead based their conclusions upon a popping sound on the radio that was assumed to be a gunshot.
In light of this reporting, former November Platoon commando Heston Russell sent a 10-page letter to the ABC detailing the impossibilities around the broadcaster's allegation and requesting a review. Mr Russell has described the level of nonresponse from the ABC as nothing short of condescending and adversarial. Mr Russell believes it appears that the response has been provided without the ABC even reviewing the 10-page letter of justifications. Not only does this seem irresponsible and unprofessional, but it is nothing short of malfeasance, which highlights the absolute shambles of the ABC's complaints process. The ABC can no longer be trusted to internally manage complaints made against it. Mr Russell has also asked for a live interview on the ABC so that he can defend the members of November Platoon. The ABC are refusing.
Currently, the ABC fox is guarding the truth henhouse, as the ABC only ever protects itself. There are more effective and responsible ways for handling taxpayers' complaints, especially when the taxpayers are the ones funding it. Currently, the ABC fox is guarding the henhouse and truth is on the menu. But even the Senate has seen firsthand the protection racket being run for the ABC by Labor and the Greens, as seen in the voting down of a Senate inquiry into the ABC complaints process. Shame! Of course, Heston Russell and the other members of November Platoon are not the first Australians to have had complaints mishandled by the ABC. Australians recently witnessed in horror up to $200,000 of taxpayer money being dished out to pay for the legal costs of ABC journalist Louise Milligan.
I don't know the men of November Platoon. I know of them. I know they, and all who serve, do so with honour. I know they risked all for freedom, and I thank them and their families for that. I speak freely in this parliament because of those who served. I do know the ABC, with spite, malice and falsehoods, has used freedom to attack, defile and denigrate the service record of men who cannot defend themselves. Shame, ABC, shame.
I call upon the ABC to deal with the complaints process properly and to deal with the concerns of Mr Russell and the members of November Platoon—or is the ABC really another country and no longer our national broadcaster but the un-Australian national broadcaster?
We are all affected by COVID-19. We are all in the same storm, but we are not all in the same ship. Decisions made by Labor and Liberal governments have kept our people back. Long-term systemic racism has made this pandemic worse for our people. Our health care, public homes and social infrastructure haven't been prioritised, despite decades of our people demanding change. Our people did not create the injustices but we are strong in spite of them. We are stronger than ever. We are no strangers to dealing with infectious diseases that we aren't immune to. This is why our people had the best responses in outcomes to the first wave of this pandemic. Our communities and our organisations mobilised better and faster than anyone. Remote communities organised big return-to-country efforts to keep their people well on country. Our language centres produced health promotion material in language when governments wouldn't, or couldn't. When we are in the driver's seat, everyone wins. That's what self-determination means. It means letting us be in control of our own lives. Our people will be hit hardest by every other wave of this pandemic because our services have been starved of resources by Labor and Liberal governments. When governments let us down, we cannot and we must not let each other down.
Right now, people who do not care about us are spreading lies in our communities, lies about vaccines, lies about the Army, lies about the virus—lies. They are lies. We must not fail each other at this moment. Right now, across this country, our strong, staunch elders and their lifelong fight for sovereignty and for self-determination is being hijacked. Those people are lying to our old people about this health crisis. They are disrespecting cultural protocols. They are spreading lies, not because they care about us but because they care about themselves. I say to mob watching, and I know you are, you've got so many blackfellas in here now. I know you're watching because you care. You care deeply about your people and your culture and about Nan. Get vaccinated. Follow only official and trusted health advice, and protect Nan.
Our sovereignty movement is about protecting and caring for one another. It's about protecting our elders and our matriarchs, and about protecting and defending country. Anyone who tells you that vaccines are not safe is lying to you. Talk to your local Aboriginal medical service. Talk to a doctor or an Aboriginal health worker. Talk to people who care about you more than they care about themselves. Our fight for freedom and sovereignty is being hijacked by liars. We must not allow this to ever happen again.
OX () (): I rise today to inform the Senate about an issue that devastates the lives of those that are broken by it—that is, missing and murdered First Nations women in Australia. During my first speech back in October, I announced I would shine the light on a very dark place and call for a national inquiry into the missing and murdered First Nations Australian women. I am humbled and honoured that my colleagues in this place supported me in establishing that inquiry last week. I hope this inquiry will address the conscious and unconscious bias that exists so that we can save lives and see justice.
While many of you may have only considered this issue since last week, this has been 20 years in the making for me to be here. As a former police officer in Kalgoorlie, I saw firsthand how differently these cases were handled between First Nations and non-First Nations people and how they were resourced and investigated. It is also very personal for me. My cousin was murdered many years ago and, for our family, there were many issues we experienced in the legal system that did not provide justice for us and for the loss of her life.
About two years ago, I worked with then ABC journalist Sarah Collard, who is now reporting for SBS in this building, on a piece around 76 women who we knew of who had been murdered or had gone missing. The common theme for many of the families left behind is: why do they go unnoticed; why are these cases continually unsolved; and why don't they take these cases seriously?
This inquiry would be similar to the one that the first nations Canadian brothers and sisters have that is into the unacceptable rates of deaths of women. On my trip to Canada in 2018, I met with the Native Women's Association in Ottawa. During this meeting, first nations women told me of the 582 cases, mostly via media articles, that they provided to their federal government to trigger their inquiry. I heard from them directly the stories of families running fundraising activities to raise money for boats. Yes, that's right, for boats. The boats were used to go into the rivers to search for these women—and, yes, you heard me right. The families were doing this, because absolutely no-one was looking for these women. One of the key issues raised in the Canadian inquiry was the response and investigation by police into these cases, with some appalling examples of the justification not to conduct inquiries and investigations into the same level of other missing and murdered Canadian people.
Here in Australia, we don't even know the real figures. The families hold the names, the faces, the stories and the heartbreak. But we as a collective community have no idea exactly how many First Nations women across Australia are missing and murdered. In order for us to understand the causes, triggers and contexts, we have to first understand who, where, when, what and why. The data that is collected is ad hoc, disjointed, and provides no coherent story of why these cases are not investigated with the same level of attention and detail by police into the circumstances of how these women died or where they went to. These circumstances provide healing and true justice and a level of detail that the communities and the families deserve.
I wish to thank my Greens colleagues for their support in establishing this vital inquiry, particularly my friend and colleague Senator Lidia Thorpe, who told her own personal story in this place and co-signed the motion alongside me. I also want to acknowledge Senators Ruston, McCarthy, McAllister, Payne, Dodson and Lambie for also co-signing this motion. It shows that we can come together in this place and make real change on issues that deserve our compassionate attention to give families left behind a voice that will be heard. This is the first step in a long road for First Nations people, and I'm very proud to be here at the beginning to save lives.
This weekend, on 4 December, we mark the 150th anniversary of a very important date in Tasmania. On the West Coast of Tasmania, in a small community called Waratah, tin was discovered by a fellow by the name of James 'Philosopher' Smith. I acknowledge that, in the chamber tonight, we have two proud North-West Coasters—Senator Anne Urquhart and Senator Jacqui Lambie—who I'm sure would want to welcome this anniversary and this celebration by this very proud community on the North West and those members of the community who are making a contribution to commemorating this important event.
This weekend there will be an exhibition put on by Peter and Sue Smith. Peter Smith is the great-grandson of Philosopher Smith, as he is known, the man who is responsible for discovering much of what we celebrate and reap the benefits of in terms of the mineral wealth of the West Coast of Tasmania. A lot of personal memorabilia and pieces of information are being revealed to the public for the first time, explaining the story of the life of Philosopher Smith and also a lot of information relating to the community which his work has been able to give life to.
I want to pay tribute to that community, to Peter and Sue Smith, to Ann Dunham, to Winston Nickols and others in the community who have put the effort into ensuring we are able to commemorate such a significant event. As my Tasmanian colleagues would know, these towns came, they boomed and then, effectively, they disappeared. Looking at Waratah, a beautiful community situated atop the Waratah Falls, anyone who has been there thinks that it's absolute paradise. The weather is not amazing, but it adds to the charm. The fact that these people were able to carve out a living in this part of the world and do what they've done for our state I think speaks volumes to the resilience of the Tasmanian community, our history and those people who have really forged the way ahead for us.
For those people from bigger population centres in Tasmania, like Launceston, where most of those beautiful sandstone buildings and fancy facades are: it's important to remember that they were paid for by the hard work of those people in communities like Waratah. It was communities like Waratah, Rosebery, Magnet and Queenstown that saw wealth proliferating in places like Launceston and Hobart. So I really do commend the community, which has banded together to acknowledge, celebrate and commemorate this very important anniversary: 150 years since Philosopher Smith discovered tin. This gave birth to the Mount Bischoff tin mine, the jobs of hundreds of people in that community and a livelihood for tens of thousands of Tasmanians.
I won't be able to be there with them this weekend—and I'm sure that both Senator Lambie and Senator Urquhart would have been there as well, but for the same restrictions we're all going to be placed under this weekend. On behalf of them I wish the community well.
I now want to turn to a slightly different issue: the issue of hate and division. Earlier tonight, one of our colleagues provided a speech to this place—and I do acknowledge that the speech was one given from a place of personal experience and one related to a family member. But it was also one which reflected on a colleague, Senator Chandler, and an issue which I think, sadly, as a result of much hype and media hyperbole, has taken on a life of its own which was never intended. Senator Chandler has been a champion for common sense and also for clarity on issues, particularly when it comes to women's sport—the capacity for women to compete in sporting events for women. Tonight that work and those efforts have been characterised as 'hate' and 'stoking division'. I urge those who make those claims to go and re-examine what they say and, more importantly, re-examine what Senator Chandler has said and reconsider their remarks. These comments are not about hate; they're about preserving women's sport as a domain for women, and are done in a way that is not hateful and which does not incite division. I urge those who make those comments to reflect on those and perhaps to insert some sensibility and civility into these conversations, which is what everyone is asking for.
Well, the royal commission is here. Veterans, serving members and their families are finally getting the moment of truth they deserve. We have fought so hard for this—so hard. It has taken years of campaigning. Average, regular people, people who have been broken by their service and people who have lost a most important loved one in their lives stood up against the indifference of government departments and government ministers, and of our own Prime Minister, and said, 'Enough is enough.' They were not going to lie down and be quiet anymore when the government tried to sell them out with a cut-rate commissioner—the national commissioner, the defence minister's mate and supposedly better than a royal commissioner. The convenient solution that was designed by the very departments that we knew needed to be investigated. They weren't going to let Defence and DVA control the narrative, control the story and continue to cover their own backsides at all costs. Those days were over. They weren't going to let up until we solved the very serious issues that have destroyed families and livelihoods again and again for far too long.
This fight started 10 years ago. I could never name everyone who has been involved with pushing for a royal commission for the past decade. We had the Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Veterans Association standing outside DVA offices with placards eight years ago, protesting what was going on. Until the very day we got the royal commission they were still out there. We've had soldiers show as much bravery calling out their own as they would show on a battlefield. We have had mums, dads, friends, loved ones, advocates, families who have been in the ADF for generations and generations, and Aussies who we've never had anything to do with but who still knew we needed to fix what is going on. This royal commission is thanks to all of you—every single one of you—over the last eight to 10 years. We thank every single one of you—those who came for a day at a rally or whatever. We thank you for your support along the way. You're the people who made this happen, and you should be so proud.
I have something I need to tell you now. This fight isn't over. This fight has only just begun. We have a royal commission, but we can't stop here. We have to make this royal commission one that will change the country forever, one the government can't ignore. This is our chance to fix what has gone so wrong for our defence personnel and our veterans. This is our last shot. There will be no more inquiries and no more reviews. Once this is over, we should never have to have another inquiry into veterans suicide. This is the last time—one last push. I need you to give it everything you've got left.
The royal commission needs to hear every story. The commissioners need to know what's going on out there—the reality, the truth. If you don't tell them, they won't know. They are not mind-readers. Those who love their mates should put in a submission. Those who have lost their loved ones should put in a submission. Those who are being terrorised and bullied at the hands of high-ranking soldiers right now should come forward and put in a submission. If the commissioners don't hear from you, they won't know. If you don't tell them, they just won't know.
If you're worried about retribution or backlash from your superiors, know that you will be protected. You can do a submission without putting your name on it. You can go in camera and give evidence behind closed doors. That is the choice you have. These are protections for you to speak out. Those protections will never again be as strong as they are right now with this royal commission.
I say to all of you out there who have a story to tell—your time is now. It is now or never. Do it for your country. Do it for your mates. Better still, do it for yourself.
Firstly, I want to acknowledge Senator Lambie's contribution to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. She thanked a lot of people for their contribution, but I hope Senator Lambie has an opportunity to reflect on her contribution in this area.
I rise to take note of the Prime Minister's announcement last month that Australia has adopted the definition of 'anti-Semitism' that was adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. In fact, the Prime Minister in adopting that definition said: 'Anti-Semitism has no place in Australia. It has no place anywhere in the world.' I want to provide three reflections on the significance of this adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of anti-Semitism. First, it is fit and proper that Australia should adopt that definition. The reason for that is that this country has had a long and proud history of standing up and fighting anti-Semitism. In fact, on 10 November 1975 when a vile resolution, resolution 3379, was adopted by the United Nations, which stated: 'Zionism is a form of racism,' Australia was one of only 35 nations who voted against that resolution. When resolution 4686 of the United Nations was adopted in 1991, revoking that hideous resolution 3379, Australia was one of the 111 nations which supported the revocation of that previous resolution. So it is fit and proper that Australia adopt the definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.
The second reflection I want to make is in relation to the actual words of the definition. We should all reflect on this. The definition is as follows:
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
The alliance then provides some contemporary examples of anti Semitism. We should all reflect on these. I will refer to three of the 11 examples. The first example:
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective…
We should all reflect on that definition. The second example:
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
The third example:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
That is extremely important to note, that the mere act of denying the state of Israel its right of existence is in itself an act of anti-Semitism because to do that is to deny the Jewish people their right of self-determination.
The third reflection in relation to this is to echo the comments of Jillian Segal, who is a senior representative of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. Jillian Segal called upon both the public and the private sector—all of our institutions across Australia, including our universities—to adopt this definition of anti-Semitism. That is important. It is extremely important. I will certainly be looking at those institutions, including our universities, to see if they actually formally adopt the resolution, as they should.
I congratulate the Executive Council of Australian Jewry for their work in calling out anti-Semitism and finally say that that is an obligation upon all of us, to call out anti-Semitism wherever we see it.
FIERRAVANTI-WELLS () (): Earlier this year I distributed a publication in which I stated:
With perceptions of corruption in Australia increasing the erosion of public trust in institutions and the advent of an increasing number of political scandals, there are growing calls for a better National Integrity Commission than the one proposed by the government.
I further note:
Being from New South Wales, I'm conscious of the need to heed the lessons from the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption, which was used to settle factional scores and destroy careers. However, the role of such a body needs to uncover corruption and expose it publicly.
Some state bodies have powers which the police and prosecuting authorities do not have, including the power to force people to answer questions which may incriminate them but which are often inadmissible in court. Clearly, this is overreach and not synonymous with the intent of our justice system. I maintained that public hearings with appropriate safeguards are important but stressed that, most importantly, there be no special treatment for politicians and their staff.
I continue to hold the view that public trust will continue to be eroded unless members of parliament are subject to full and proper scrutiny. Much has happened this year which has only reinforced my view that a federal integrity body is overdue. I manage my own APH email account and, judging by the sheer volume of emails and communications received from constituents on this issue, it confirms to me that it is an important matter for Australians.
In November 2020, a report was issued by Griffith University and Transparency International Australia which sets out how Australia should build a stronger, fairer and more accountable system of government. Its lead author was Professor AJ Brown from the Centre for Governance and Public Policy. It was funded through the Australian Research Council and included contributing researchers and authors from across Australia. The introduction reads as follows:
In every country, a strong system of public integrity and accountability is essential to meet the public's expectations of trustworthy, ethical and effective governance.
Once an international leader, Australia's efforts to fight corruption, undue influence and protect the integrity of democracy have been slipping. Nationally – even when individual states or territories are showing the way – Australia is now failing to keep pace.
A new federal integrity commission is a crucial step in creating a better and world leading system.
Professor Brown says:
Despite increased trust in the performance of governments during COVID19, citizen belief that corruption in government is a problem has also risen from 61% in 2018 to 66% in late October 2020 – confirming the imperative for action …
Furthermore, Professor Brown asserts that:
The lack of a federal anti-corruption watchdog is confirmed as the biggest institutional gap in our integrity system.
He also, and most particularly, cautions:
However it is not a silver bullet – we need political consensus on a strong national commission, but also action to strengthen the integrity of politics and government at all levels, including more effective regulation of lobbying, checks on undue influence, and fairer, more honest election campaigns.
We also must value the contribution of whistleblowers and public interest journalism to the integrity of our democracy.
The CEO of lead partner Transparency International Australia, Serena Lillywhite, in welcoming the report, said:
Australians are loudly demanding that our politicians and public servants act with honesty, transparency and integrity.
The assessment strongly endorses the need for a strong, independent Commonwealth integrity agency with scope to review criminal or non-criminal conduct that undermines integrity of public decision-making, and points the way forward for new, best practice investigation and public hearing powers.
Her warnings about our international standing should also be heeded. She said:
While Australia has a strong past record for integrity in public decision-making, democratic innovation and multi-agency frameworks for controlling corruption, Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index confirms we've been slipping.
Her assessment is that:
This comprehensive blueprint for Australia to have a strong anti-corruption and pro-integrity framework shows us the path towards a fairer and healthier democracy.
Coming as I do from New South Wales, I have observed, over the years, the New South Wales ICAC claim political scalps. Political hit jobs saw innocent people tried in the court of public opinion. However, those examples are outweighed by the investigations that led to criminal prosecution and jailed four perpetrators. Where we have seen resignations, I remind the Senate that those resignations resulted from consideration by the persons in question. In reaching their decisions, those persons no doubt assessed their position based not only on public information but also—and I have no doubt—on information within their own purview and legal advice.
In a media release dated 26 November 2021, the Law Council of Australia called for 'moderation in the debate over the proposed federal anti-corruption commission, after comments comparing the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) to a "kangaroo court" in the context of an ongoing inquiry'. The comments of the Law Council are salutary:
We feel strongly there must be robust debate and detailed consideration given to the establishment of a federal anti-corruption commission and we welcome the opportunities the Commonwealth has provided for organisations and individuals, including the Law Council, to provide input and views—
its president said—
Respect for legal institutions underpins the administration of justice in Australia. The structure and powers of any commission are important topics for discussion, but any commentary must be tempered by fairness and balance.
In October 2021, the Centre for Public Integrity issued a discussion paper, a useful analysis of state and territory integrity commissions. It concludes:
…the strongest and most effective integrity commissions in New South Wales and Queensland share the following powers:
The analysis finds that none of these powers feature in the draft CIC model put up by the Commonwealth, rendering it 'the weakest and least effective integrity agency in the country', potentially.
In February this year, I spoke about integrity and conduct. Politics is about perception, and, regrettably, the public perception of our politicians is not good. Repeatedly, politicians from local, state and federal ranks have acted without integrity and contributed to the ongoing and deteriorating perception of the body politic.
In any survey about the most trusted professions in our society, politicians usually rank amongst the lowest, and why wouldn't this be the case, given the continued exposure of questionable activities over the years? Whether it's alleged lies in election campaigns, dodgy preselections, misappropriation of public monies, personal benefits resulting from insider information, monies sequestered in overseas tax havens, abuse of office for personal advantage, dodgy land deals or connections with foreign governments, the list goes on and on.
Negative public perceptions are compounded when politicians dig their heels in, spin the story and fail to take responsibility for their actions. They rely on the fast-moving media cycle and wait for the next story to take over the front page, and this frustrates the public even more. Modern democracies and the operation of open government must be accountable and transparent, thereby obviating any suspicion of skulduggery.
In conclusion, those who resist the introduction of an effective federal integrity body raise people's curiosity. One has to ask the question: are they conflicted? Why are they resisting the implementation of such a body? And when we speak of integrity, I'm once again reminded of the words of Marcus Aurelius, Roman emperor and philosopher: 'If it is not right, do not do it. If it is not true, do not say it.'
Last week there was a parliamentary event regarding the imprisonment and trial of the World Vision manager in Gaza, Mohammad El Halabi. It was nearly six years ago when his case made headlines, when this man was accused of funnelling Australian aid money to Hamas. However, despite a DFAT investigation, independent World Vision investigations by Deloitte and over 165 Israeli court hearings, no credible evidence has been presented to back up these allegations. But this 41-year-old father of five remains in an Israeli jail, still awaiting an outcome for his trial, which has been in the final stages for nearly a year.
Last month Senator Wong asked questions of the Minister for Foreign Affairs about the status of his case. However, it seems that the government have stopped paying attention. This is despite DFAT initially sending observers along to the trial of Mr El Halabi, Australian embassy staff who told reporters at the time: 'The Australian government maintains an interest in the outcome of the case.' But now the government have walked away and washed their hands of this case. This is of deep concern, as this man continues to languish in jail with Israel accusing him of taking our money and funnelling it to Hamas.
The event in the Australian parliament last week heard powerful words from human rights experts as well as from former World Vision Australia boss Tim Costello and from Mohammad's father. Reverend Tim Costello and former ABC Middle East correspondent Sophie McNeill both talked about how this case haunted them, as it was such a blatant and transparent injustice. Mr El Halabi's former manager in World Vision, Connie Lenneberg, indicated that Mohammad El Halabi was assiduously neutral and independent, and clearly not associated with any political party. She said that he was effective in a complex environment, and she saw evidence of him skilfully implementing the farming and trauma support programs that World Vision was tasking him with delivering. Connie Lenneberg shared how the Deloitte investigation commissioned by World Vision showed that Mohammad was proactive in minimising any risk of misappropriation of funds. She said the only evidence presented in the court case against Mr El Halabi was the testimony of an informant inside the jail, with the evidence of what the informant said being vastly contested. While World Vision offices were raided at the time by heavily armed security, with copious amounts of material confiscated, not one skerrick of evidence from this material has been used in the court proceedings.
Sophie McNeill was reporting for the ABC in 2017 in the early phases of Mohammad El Halabi's court process. She told of how, when she arrived in court in January 2017, she was able to film Mohammad El Halabi in court—the first contact he'd had with outsiders since his arrest. She says: 'He looked straight into the lens and said, "They tortured me."' He was subsequently placed in solitary confinement by Israeli authorities for giving an unauthorised interview. In the same hearings, a judge said to Mohammad that he had little chance of being found not guilty, stating: 'You've read the numbers and the statistics. You know how these cases are handled.' The numbers that he was referring to was the conviction rate for Palestinians in the Israeli court system, which is about 99 per cent. Most Palestinians accept a plea bargain because they know their chances of a fair trial are almost nothing. In what court system does a process begin with a judge saying: 'You have little chance of being found innocent'? Where is the basic presumption of innocence?
Sophie McNeill, who now works with Human Rights Watch, says that Mohammad is charting a new course by refusing to plead guilty and instead insisting Israel present evidence. He is refusing the attempts to undermine not only his own integrity but also that of World Vision by refusing to accept a plea deal—a deal under which he'd be free by now, if he had accepted it. Sophie also reminded us of those comments made last November by UN Special Rapporteur human rights experts with regard to Mohammad's case. They said Mr El Habibi's arrest, interrogation and trial 'is not worthy of a democratic state', and that Israeli authorities 'must grant him the full rights of a fair trial, or else release him unconditionally'. What is happening to Mr El Halabi bears no relation to the trial standards we expect from democracies. It is also part of a pattern where Israel uses secret evidence to indefinitely detain hundreds of Palestinians. Human Rights Watch says:
The decades-long failure of the international community to challenge grave Israeli human rights abuses and impose meaningful consequences for them has emboldened Israeli authorities to act in this brazen manner.
This includes labelling a man like Mr El Halabi a terrorist and providing absolutely no evidence to back up their accusations. We have recently seen them use the same tactics with civil society organisations in the West Bank, with six of the most respected Palestinian NGOs now officially classified as terrorist organisations. Their staff are at risk of arrest and imprisonment by Israeli authorities. Amnesty International also provided a range of grave concerns about Mr El Halabi's case, emphasising that the allegations against Mr El Halabi are extremely serious and it is therefore crucial that his rights are fully respected and that his trial is fair and transparent.
I want to finish with the words of Khalil, Mohammed El Halabi's father, a man who worked for the UN himself for 42 years, including in senior roles. He spoke of the deep grief of the whole community of having someone so committed to their humanitarian work suddenly arrested and jailed for years. He reminded us that Mohammad's son was only a few months old when he was arrested. That child is now five years old and would not even recognise his own father today. Khalil says, 'This injustice that Mohammed is being subjected to isn't the ideal way for building peace between the Palestinian and the Israeli people.' I echo Mr Halabi Sr's comments.
If Australia is truly committed to a just peace between Israel and Palestine then we need to ensure that the basics of the rule of law are followed, including the basic rights of Palestinians to a fair trial, and for humanitarian work not to be criminalised.
The Australian Greens believe that universal human rights are fundamental and must be respected and protected in all countries and for all people, and that must inform our approach to foreign policy, including our approach to bilateral relationships, as well as broader foreign policy approaches. Tomorrow is West Papua Flag Day. It's the 60th anniversary of 1 December 1961, when the Morning Star flag was first raised, when the Indigenous people of the former Dutch New Guinea declared independence.
Following this act of self-determination, Indonesia invaded the territory, and many West Papuans have been killed or imprisoned by the occupying Indonesian military ever since. This flag is seen as the national flag of West Papua and continues to stand as a symbol of hope for a free West Papua. I'm proud that tomorrow morning I'm going to be attending and speaking at a flag-raising of the Morning Star flag to be held at the Aboriginal Tent Embassy here in Canberra, organised by the Free West Papua campaign. There is significant connection and support between our First Nations peoples and West Papuans, who are both working for sovereignty of their traditional lands.
Raising the Morning Star flag is a really potent and moving thing to do because it is illegal to do so in West Papua. Anyone who raises the Morning Star flag in West Papua faces arrest, torture and a long jail sentence. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people have been arrested over the years for raising the flag, including dozens in 2019. Just last month, a Catholic brother was arrested by the Jayapura city district police for wearing a banned Morning Star flag T-shirt while watching a soccer match between Papua and East Nusa Tenggara at Indonesia’s National Games at Mandala Stadium.
Sadly, the Indonesian government's suppression of the West Papua people doesn't stop at arresting people who are attempting to assert freedom of speech or freedom of peaceful protest. Ongoing attacks in West Papua have displaced thousands of people and resulted in multiple civilian deaths. We've heard the awful reports of rockets fired from helicopters, and those displaced in the forest face the risk of disease and starvation, even when they're able to find shelter from the attacks. These attacks in West Papua are horrific and they must cease. It's particularly concerning that the Australian government has been so unwilling to call out these attacks and, in fact, has been training Indonesian security forces at the Jakarta Centre for Law Enforcement. However, there has been no willingness to provide accountability of whether our government is enabling these human rights abusers. Australia has also provided 15 Bushmaster vehicles to the Indonesian government, again without transparency or accountability for how they're being used and whether they're being used in support of human rights abuse and attacks on West Papuan people.
The Australian Greens support the right of the people of West Papua to self-determination and we call on the Australian government to cease training or enabling those who are committing human rights abuses. The Australian government should support the proposed UN human rights visit to Indonesia to investigate human rights abuses. We call for humanitarian aid to reach those who need it, especially to support the health and safety of internally displaced West Papuan refugees—especially women and children who have had to flee their homes due to the ongoing conflict. And we call on the Indonesian government to cease its attacks on civilians in West Papua and to withdraw all military troops.
As well as talking about human rights in West Papua, I want to touch on some different approaches that we can take to ensure human rights are protected and central to our foreign policy approaches. After the 1994 Rwandan genocide and the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, the world became powerfully aware of the urgent need for timely, decisive and coordinated international responses to mass atrocities. An agreement was reached through the United Nations for the Responsibility to Protect, or R2P, a norm encouraging states to take action to ensure that the horrors of Rwanda and Srebrenica would never occur again. At the 2005 World Summit, all UN member states made a commitment to R2P, recognising our shared responsibility to protect populations which are being violently and systematically targeted, and to halt mass atrocities regardless of where they're happening in the world.
As R2P provides a mandate for coercive as well as diplomatic measures, it's important that it be used appropriately and that we do not forget nor overreach its sole purpose of civilian protection. While we should be wary of when we use R2P to justify coercive measures, we should embrace its ideas of atrocity prevention, of mutual assistance and of international solidarity against grievous human rights violations. R2P gives us an avenue to act to halt atrocities and to protect human life.
Australia should be actively supporting R2P, both through advocacy and policy routes, by developing an atrocity prevention unit to improve our ability to prevent and respond to regional atrocities and by clarifying our national atrocity response strategy. Australia can become a global leader in R2P, advocating for human rights and protecting populations across the globe.
Finally this evening, I want to move to some end-of-year things. First of all, I want to take this opportunity to wish all Jewish Australians who will be lighting the menorah over the week a very happy Hanukkah. It has been a tough couple of years, especially for people in my home state of Victoria, but I hope that the lights of Hanukkah bring brightness and renewed hope to all those celebrating. Hanukkah sameach!
Finally, of course it's two days until we break for the year, and it has been a huge year. I want to thank anyone who has taken any action this year to help make Australia and the world a fairer, more caring and more sustainable place, who has reached out to their neighbours doing it tough as they've struggled with the pandemic, with being out of work, with being unwell, with not having enough food to put on the table or money to pay the rent. I have learnt a lot in the past three months since I took on the community affairs portfolio for the Greens. I really want to salute people for whom just getting through each day is an achievement and who are some of the true heroes of our country.
I want to thank everyone working for and supporting the most amazing advocacy and campaign organisations. They are working to help people to live their lives with dignity and respect. I want to thank everyone who has taken action to protect nature and the places we love, from pulling out weeds in their local park to being heroes protecting our forests and putting their bodies on the line in protest action. And I want to thank people who have given their all working for peace and disarmament and for democracy here and around the world.
Finally, I want to thank everyone who has made our jobs here as senators possible. Personally, I want to thank my amazing staff. I want to thank my party room colleagues, and all our Greens members and supporters. And I want to thank the people who make this place tick: the Senate attendants, the library staff, the Clerk and all the procedures staff, the amazing committee staff, the Comcar drivers and the cleaners. Thank you; I thank every one of you. I really hope you all have an excellent holiday break, a merry Christmas and a wonderful New Year's celebration and that 2022 is going to be a year when things go well for you and indeed for us all. Thank you.
[by video link] As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, tonight I draw attention to a new government bill, the Trusted Digital Identity Bill 2021. This is no time for subtlety. The Trusted Digital Identity Bill represents a watershed moment in Australian history. We stand at the divide between a free, personal-enterprise future and a digital surveillance age in which the government sits in the middle of every interaction Australians have with each other and with the world. It achieves this in the same way China does, creating a digital identity that forms a central part of a person's life. Call it a licence to live.
This bill removes the privacy protection currently preventing this exploitation and allows the government to keep one massive data file with everything the government knows about you and to sell that file to private companies overseas. Those companies can add your private sector data to build up a complete digital record of every Australian—everything: medical, shopping, whom we associate with, social security, veterans services, travel, web viewing, employment, our social media comments. Everything will go on the record and be available to any large corporation that can pay for access. We will each have to pay to access our medical records from that corporation. In Morrison-Joyce news speak, it's a 'human-centric digital identity'—sounds great, doesn't it!
This has frightening ramifications for government and corporate control of everyday Australians. Policy documents attached to this bill promote digital identity as a benign housekeeping bill to fix antiquated and incomplete government databases 'to save a few minutes filling out that government form', they say. 'This will reinvigorate the economy after COVID,' they say. What the economy really needs is for the government to get the hell out of the way and let Australians lift ourselves up through our own hard work and enterprise—remove vaccine passports or, as I call them, digital prisons; ditch QR codes; stop spreading fear; and let the Australian spirit do the rest.
One Nation believes in technological advancements and in streamlining services. We would love to see a bill come forward to clean up the government's databases and improve the online experience of Australians trying to access our own data. This is not what the digital identity bill does. Digital identity will do nothing to fix the government's IT, yet it creates a crown-jewel scenario for hackers to steal not just one set of government data but, rather, personalised treasure troves. Far from safe, the Australian government's is one of the most hacked databases in the world. This year, medical records became a highly sought after target. If you want to know the direction in which global policy is headed, watch what the hackers are trying to steal.
Another concern is vaccination. Digital identity links medical history with consumer purchases. What's to stop a government locking out an uninjected person from the economy, as more than one state premier already threatens? It is a social credit system. We should not have to ask these questions, because the power should not exist. Digital identity represents the cornerstone in a larger World Economic Forum and United Nations campaign to implement a global digital identity system.
Why is the Morrison-Joyce government allowing the World Economic Forum to write Australian legislation? This bill is a copy-and-paste from the World Economic Forum's Global Digital Identity Project—part of the digital transformation initiative. The Morrison-Joyce government brought this package to Australia, and this bill will start the World Economic Forum package's implementation. It's designed to shift the global economy away from private ownership and into what the World Economic Forum calls an 'access model'—in other words, control. Australians have heard the slogan of the globalist Build Back Better campaign. You will own nothing and you will be happy. The goal of digital identity is life via subscription. Put simply, everyday Australians will not own assets like a house, car or furniture. Instead, they will rent these from corporations—corporations that the cabal owns—or, as the UN calls them, 'corporate partners'.
When they talk about us having less, or living sustainably, or living in a closed-loop economy, what they mean is: we will have less—a lot less—so that billionaires can have more. It's this principle that informed the Liberal Party's billion-dollar Digital Economy Strategy 2030 which is reliant on the Trusted Digital Identity Bill. Indeed, the bulk of the supporting commentary around digital identity and the Digital Economy Strategy 2030 obsesses about how the government will be able to manage Australia's economy onto a so-called sustainable path—a UN path.
For a glimpse into this future, we need only look at the food menus on display at the UN climate summit that the Prime Minister attended earlier this month. Each dish listed its carbon footprint, with a United Nations pledge to reduce the carbon footprint of every meal consumed across the world, including ours, every day. What happens when a government, obsessed with pursuing digital net-zero policies, decides to encourage people to reduce the carbon footprint of our food choices? We already know the UN is pushing vegetarianism and limiting red meat consumption to one mouthful per person per day.
The level of control this legislation provides to the UN is frightening. Instead of allowing businesses to seek out and explore natural market forces and people's needs, digital identity is a tool to introduce a controlled economy under international direction, where implementing something like net zero can be mandated individually.
One Nation rejects providing more power to unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable UN bureaucrats to control everyday Australians in what we can eat, where we can travel, how much water and power we can use, under the threat of being shut off from the ability to feed, clothe and house ourselves.
It's evident that this policy robs businesses of control over their own future. The government will dictate each and every business's future interactions with customers and suppliers. Small and medium businesses will have to contend with a massive technology overhead and be forced into an unfair David-versus-Goliath fight against large, incredibly well-informed businesses that are in the globalist information-sharing club. More Australian businesses will fall to foreign multinationals.
Digital identity is the end of personal privacy, anonymity, confidentiality, sovereignty and choice. Despite the bill repeatedly insisting that it offers a voluntary service to make life easier, it's clear from the full documentation that digital identity will be made compulsory in the same way that vaccine mandates are now.
With this bill, once again, Prime Minister Morrison is trying to ban cash. One Nation was successful in striking the government's cash-ban bill from the Senate Notice Paper last year, after public outrage. Cashless payments are popular, but the complete loss of cash opens up an entirely different conversation. Cash is a safeguard. When we have cash, we have purchasing power. A digital identity, though, could easily limit our individual purchases based on government or corporate policy. So, under this bill, cash has to go and, under this legislation, cash will go.
Australian banks have already voiced their interest in the Trusted Digital Identity Framework, saying it will allow them to create a rich view of their customers. Most people do not want banking institutions creating rich data maps of their personal and private information. This bill will allow banks to micromanage our spending in the name of whatever social justice cause banks are promoting. The design of the new payment platform that the Reserve Bank of Australia introduced in 2018 and forced on all Australian banks, allows for the addition of a digital identity. In fact, the basic architecture of the new payment platform was designed for a digital identity. Under the new payment platform, every transaction, every retail sale, interbank transfer, pay, online sale, all come through one central server. This allows the digital identity of each party to be checked and approved before the payment is finalised. Just how long have the World Economic Forum and the UN been planning this? For decades.
In China, a person's phone controls their lives. The same thing has happened in Australia during COVID. Without a phone to prove our identity and to cough up medical data, citizens are excluded from society. The need to carry a phone at all times—charged and ready to offer their digital identity to buy something as simple as a cup of coffee—can be replaced with a wearable or an implantable chip. I can't wait to see how they sell that! All forced at the start of a social credit system.
The Trusted Digital Identity Bill makes a wild claim that it will solve online fraud and protect businesses and customers. The government even put 'trusted' in the title, so it must be true! Anyone with any experience in online fraud knows this system will not solve fraud; it will likely make it worse.
The reason we have a Constitution is to enforce absolute boundaries to stop politicians taking liberties with our liberties. The behaviour of politicians during COVID has shown everyone how quick many politicians and bureaucrats were to abuse rights and to punish and coerce citizens into undergoing untested and unproven medical procedures. This bill will give premiers and the Prime Minister the power to take such action at any time. What a terrifying prospect! For this government, once the public understand how much we're going to lose under the global reset, oppression becomes essential. This bill becomes the framework for that oppression. The Trusted Digital Identity Bill is a global surveillance and control mechanism that profit-hungry corporations and power-mad politicians drafted and crafted. It aims to introduce the total-control economy where citizens own nothing and have no freedom and no choices.
One Nation opposes this inhuman dystopian future that the United Nations promotes as the great reset, and we condemn this parliament for signing on to it. The only way to stop this monstrous plan is, at the next election, to throw out the globalist cheer squad—Liberal, Labor, Nationals and Greens parties—and develop a potent One Nation representation to hold government accountable and return parliament to serving the people of Australia.
Sam Telfer is the Mayor of Tumby Bay and Liberal candidate for the South Australian seat of Flinders. His pitch to win over residents and farmers in the lower and western Eyre Peninsula over the weekend went to the end of the line. On Sunday, I was in Port Lincoln to attend a public forum on bringing rail back to the Eyre Peninsula. It was a meeting about vision, about productivity and about investment. The Eyre Peninsula has huge potential, be it enhancing existing industries such as agriculture, fishing, mining and tourism or fostering new industries like space launch, green hydrogen, green ammonia, graphite, iron ore and more. For these opportunities to succeed, infrastructure is required—ports, water and transport. Rail should be part of that.
For more than 110 years, the Eyre Peninsula was serviced by a rail network that moved the region's grains from the farms to the ports. The first segment of the Port Lincoln to Cummins rail line opened in 1907, and the network eventually peaked at some 777 kilometres of track. In November 1997, Australia National sold South Australian freight businesses to Genesee and Wyoming, which included a 50-year lease on the rail network from the state government until 2047. Two years ago, that American company, having run the rail infrastructure to the ground, contrary to their contractual or leasing requirements, shut up all of its operations on the Eyre Peninsula with the one exception of gypsum trains running from the Lake MacDonnell mine at Kevin to Thevenard.
At a time when rail's undergoing a renaissance across many parts of Australia, the shutters were pulled down on the Eyre Peninsula. That sad state of affairs was largely brought about by the refusal of state and federal governments to invest in the rail infrastructure on the peninsula, to switch it to standard gauge, to connect it back to the Australian standard gauge network, and to increase the number of users on the rail network. But refusal to invest was the case. That should be seen for what it is, and that is a political choice. The South Australian state government are happy to spend $700 million on a stadium in Adelaide, but their enthusiasm for investment steadily dwindles as one moves north of Gepps Cross.
The federal government's happy to spend $10 billion on a Brisbane to Melbourne Inland Rail system. There's $4 billion being spent to deal with urban congestion—huge capital works to shave a few minutes off commuter journeys in capital cities—in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane and even in Adelaide. That $4 billion includes the $650 million program to build car parks in marginal Liberal electorates. What a rort that's been! But there's not a single dollar spent on rail in the Eyre Peninsula, a region that produces 40 per cent of South Australia's wheat crop, 24 per cent of the barley crop and 22 per cent of canola. Ninety-seven per cent of the region's grain crop is exported, shipped from farm to port, and, for a century, much of that went by rail.
Sam Telfer turned up to the Port Lincoln railway meeting on Sunday not to listen to the locals, not to carry their message back to Adelaide, but to preach the word of his party's Adelaide-focused leadership. 'You can't have a viable train line that runs to the end of the line,' said Sam. His view was trucks—trucks, trucks, trucks. Why not have an additional 30,000 truck movements on the Eyre Peninsula's narrow and dilapidated roads? It would be a danger to locals and visitors alike and a great inefficiency to farmers, and it would cost the environment in carbon emissions. Sam didn't listen to the business case. He didn't explore the possibilities. He has no ambition. He's quite content with rail investment being restricted to the Port Augusta-to-Perth line, a line that actually bypasses his electorate. I guess I do have to give him credit for turning up.
The federal Liberal member, Mr Rowan Ramsey, wasn't there, and maybe that was for the best. He was asked about the issue in a radio interview yesterday and he was wholly negative. He blabbered on about the tyranny of distance, declared his longstanding view that rail had no future on the Eyre Peninsula, said that if there'd been an investment in rail going to Port Lincoln 10 years ago it might have been different but it's a lost cause now, and ticked the box for road freight. Well, Rowan Ramsey was the member for Grey 10 years ago. He had no vision or ambition then, he didn't have any in 2019, when the railway faced closure, and he certainly hasn't got any vision or ambition for Grey now.
We have to have vision. We have to have investment in this critical South Australian export region. We can't get that while purported parliamentary representatives sing from their Adelaide- and east-coast-centric party hymn sheets. Maybe the federal seat of Grey and the state seat of Flinders need to shift from being safe Liberal seats into marginal seats. Then the Eyre Peninsula might get some of the attention and investment we really need, and all of South Australia will benefit. Perhaps it should be the end of the line for Sam and Rowan.
Se nate adjourned at 20:57