I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
The coalition acknowledges that the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022 continues in part the work of the fundamental and generational reform of the aged-care system to ensure it meets the needs of senior Australians both now and into the future. However, this bill is also an election commitment tick and flick. The bill is rushed, it lacks detail and it ignores the unique circumstances faced by rural, remote and regional Australia. This bill ignores the importance of good legislation.
The opposition will continue to work constructively with the aged-care sector, older Australians and their families, and the government to collectively address the many challenges that lie ahead, including the changing and the expanding expectations of aged-care services, the legacy of COVID and Australia's ageing population. The task before us is to maintain and sustain an aged-care sector that meets expectations, is affordable to those who need it and is equitable whether you live in Sydney, Mildura or Kununurra. We must ensure that the people this sector aims to support and their quality of life are at the centre of every piece of our decision-making.
Whilst the coalition supports the intent of this bill, it is very inadequate and suboptimal. It neglects to recognise many important and substantial consequences, because it has been rushed and doesn't even try to address the concerns of stakeholders about the severe lack of workforce and the uncertainty of what might be contained in the delegated legislation. This implementing care reform bill contains three schedules amending the Aged Care Act 1997; however the opposition is disappointed with the incredible lack of detail—details missing from this very important piece of legislation.
In government, the coalition called the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety to ensure our oldest and most vulnerable Australians receive care that supports and respects their dignity and recognises the contribution that they have made to society. We responded to the recommendations of the royal commission by investing $19.1 billion to improve aged care and fund new home-care packages, respite services, training places, retention bonuses and infrastructure upgrades. Schedule 1 of this legislation goes to the heart of a very significant recommendation of the royal commission, recommendation 86.5, which states:
… from 1 July 2024, the minimum staff time standard should require at least one registered nurse on site per residential aged care facility at all times.
The opposition supports the implementation of the recommendation for a nurse on site 24/7 in every aged-care facility, in line with the royal commission's recommendation, as we know the workforce challenges the Australian care sector is facing. This is particularly acute for registered nurses.
Considering this schedule is not consistent with the time frame recommended by the royal commission and noting the current workforce shortages experienced across Australia, the opposition has concerns about the impact of the expedited time line on the broader healthcare sector. The new residential aged-care staffing targets are ambitious, and achieving them is going to be challenging, especially for small providers and rural, regional and, especially, remote providers. However, in the broader current climate of worker shortages and record-low unemployment, the whole sector will face significant difficulties employing and retaining the critical staff to continue to support our older Australians.
Despite these undeniable factors, the government has just looked at a few inner-city aged-care providers and has blatantly ignored a whole range of factors that the royal commission took into consideration when they suggested their time line. This conflict with the royal commission's recommendations is the reason the opposition is concerned by the one-size-fits-all approach in this legislation. We know that aged care comes in all shapes and sizes, issues vary from location to location and facilities have residents with varying levels of acuity of care needs. I note the testimonies to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee hearing into the bill and that many witnesses, including aged-care peak bodies, providers and advocacy groups, anticipate that accessing additional registered nurses will be difficult, if not impossible, within the time frame designated in this bill. The written submissions of the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation stated:
There is a risk that many services may need to close, or that providers will leave aged care, especially in areas where there are no other services available. There is a known undersupply of health and care staff across the sector - in aged care, this includes registered nurses. The aged care industry needs adequate time to recruit and train additional staff.
Without clear advice and direction from the government, it is unclear how providers, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander providers and those in rural, regional and remote Australia, will be supported to ensure that their aged-care services are not forced to close due to this accelerated requirement. Although acknowledging the government's amendments moved by Senator Pocock, they really do nothing to address the opposition's concerns about the lack of key information and the impact on rural, regional and remote nursing homes and the Australians who rely on them.
Another issue that has been raised by numerous aged-care providers is the matter of enrolled nurses and the potential impact of them of the strictly prescribed requirements of care minutes within recommendation 86 of the royal commission. Enrolled nurses are an absolutely critical part of Australia's aged-care workforce. They provide essential care to older Australians, they support registered nurses and they can assist administrative staff in the work that they have to undertake. Given the time frame that the government has set in this bill for aged-care providers to achieve having a registered nurse on site 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and noting that many providers remain anxious regarding that exemption and what the clauses will be, we call on the government to give consideration to the role of enrolled nurses in this time period.
The refusal of the government to provide details about subordinate legislation is not only concerning, as it avoids parliamentary scrutiny, but has been highlighted as a key issue for aged-care providers and other stakeholders. The government must provide answers to significant questions that remain unanswered, particularly surrounding this exemption clause, on which they have to date been completely silent. For example, what exactly is the exemption mechanism that will be detailed in this delegated legislation? When will the delegated legislation be available for the sector to be able to see? Will the delegated legislation be consulted on? When? Who will be eligible for an exemption? For those not eligible for an exemption, what are the penalties for non-compliance? All of these are very important questions for the security of the aged-care sector to go forward with certainty. They have been unanswered by this government, and yet it still wants to push this piece of legislation through this morning.
The opposition is particularly concerned about the possible additional burdens and requirements that will be placed on regional, rural and remote providers if the exemption clauses are not adequately defined. We note the unique circumstances of rural, regional and remote providers due to their geographical locations and the burdens that they are facing in finding additional workforce or competing with other sectors, like hospitals, for the workforce to meet the requirements that will be set out within the time frames in this bill.
These concerns were particularly shared by NACCHO, who said:
In order to meet the recommendations of the Royal Commission and the National Agreement and ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people receive aged care from the most appropriate organisations, consideration must be given to alternative staffing models for services in urban, regional, rural, remote and very remote locations.
The cost to providers of a poorly drafted exemption clause has the potential to be significantly detrimental, especially since the detrimental changes in July to the distribution priority areas. Regional providers are now finding it extremely difficult to attract and maintain a steady, reliable workforce as qualified health professionals and their staff relocate to urban areas. It remains unclear whether the subordinate legislation will consider the acuity of care required by individual facilities in its implementation of the requirements for a registered nurse to be on site at all times. I note testimony from Dr Nicole Brooke, the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Community Industry Alliance, who said:
The other problem is that, if you have one registered nurse for a whole facility, you're not defining the level of experience suitable to the level of acuity in those residents. You can have one registered nurse who's a new graduate and has been out—
in the community—
for two weeks, and that will still fulfil that requirement. But the level of acuity … with … palliation, dementia and delirium … isn't going to be supported by an inexperienced nurse or a nurse who's not familiar with the residential aged-care facilities …
The government must advise whether they will stipulate specific nursing requirements for services who care for residents requiring a very acute level of care. The government must advise the public if they are considering mobilising enrolled nurse personnel for situations where those personnel can be utilised. Instead of clear and concise articulated solutions to these issues, all we have had from the government is a talkfest, solution-less jobs summit.
In recognition of our concerns, the opposition will again seek to move an amendment to ensure that the draft subordinate legislation is presented to the parliament prior to the start of the schedule to allow providers the time to consider and consult on the proposed exemption clause.
Schedule 2 of the bill enables the government to cap charges that approved home-care providers can charge care recipients and removes home-care providers' ability to charge exit fees. In government, the coalition implemented for the first time a requirement for information to be published relating to the median prices charged for home-care services to support older Australians and their families to make more informed decisions on home care and the associated costs. We began the process of providing greater accessibility of information not only to assist with informed decision-making on home-care services but also to put downward pressure on home-care prices.
We support the government's continuation of our reforms to support older Australians to access important home-care services, allowing them to remain independent in their homes for longer. The government has also not provided clarity regarding who will set home-care caps and how the relevant deputy secretary of the department will work with the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority to decide what the relevant price cap is. There is also a lack of certainty regarding how much discretionary power the decision-maker will have for setting the home-care fees and whether this will be formulated using evidence based advice.
Schedule 3 of the bill requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Aged Care to publish information in relation to the operation of aged-care providers, with the aim of further increasing transparency on aged-care services to allow Australians to make a more informed decision on aged care. The publication of additional information to increase sector transparency and to increase consumer understanding of the sector is supported by the opposition.
We're happy to see the government continue our reform work in this area. However, it must noted that, like schedule 1, the details of this schedule are subject to delegated legislation that has not been released by the government. Therefore, there are still questions regarding what exactly will be required to be published. We are calling on the government to ensure that, when amending the quality of care principles, they note that, of all aged-care homes who currently do not have a registered nurse on site at all times, 53 per cent are in rural, regional and remote areas, and 46 per cent of them are small providers. We're introducing amendments to ensure the government, who were elected on a platform of transparency, provide the necessary information to allow for adequate parliamentary scrutiny of this bill and its delegated legislation, and to ensure that providers are genuinely supported and not just another headline to fulfil an election promise.
Furthermore, the opposition will move an amendment to have an enrolled nurse on site and an RN on Telehealth 24/7. This will be a feasible option for some low-acuity providers or regional providers who are currently unable to attract a steady RN workforce despite ample and genuine attempts to do so.
The opposition strongly supports continued improvement in the aged-care sector and the care provided to older Australians; however, this bill is nothing more than a slap in the face for transparency. Furthermore, the opposition will move an amendment to require the secretary, when considering whether the provider has taken reasonable steps to ensure that the clinical needs of the care recipients in the facility will be met during the period for which the exemption is in force, to consider whether the provider has established reasonable measures to ensure the highest level of clinical care with the available workforce will be provided, which may include measures for support for clinical care by an enrolled nurse and through telehealth consultations with a registered nurse. This would not change the overall standard that the provider needs to take reasonable steps to ensure clinical needs are met.
Current workforce constraints and the extreme reliance in this bill on delegated legislation, the details of which have not been released by the government, is disrespectful to the aged-care sector and remains a serious concern for the opposition. Notwithstanding the very serious concerns the opposition have about this bill, we will always support improvements to care for older Australians and, therefore, we will be supporting this bill in the Senate.
I move:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:
(a) notes that, of the aged care providers who do not currently have a registered nurse on site, and on duty, at all times, 53% are based in regional and remote areas and 86% are small providers; and
(b) calls on the Government to ensure that, when amending the Quality of Care Principles to make provision for an exemption to the new responsibility relating to registered nurses, the disproportionate impact on providers in regional and remote areas, especially small providers, is taken into account".
I am very pleased to rise today to support the passing of the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022. It's an important bill. It adds to the aged-care framework to ensure that we are providing appropriate care for older Australians. It's consistent with the principles that the Greens bring to aged care, where we believe that the federal government must play a central role in the funding, regulation and support of high-quality aged-care services and that older people should be able to access health and aged-care services as soon as they need them. We want to see a high-quality, affordable aged-care system characterised by quality support, nursing and personal care, whether that is in someone's own home, residential care or hospital. We also believe that this should be provided on a not-for-profit basis. This legislation doesn't go to that, but those are the aspirations of the Greens going forward.
We welcome the scrutiny that this legislation received through our Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry process and believe that there was a lot of important information that in fact influenced this bill and also influenced how this legislation is going to be implemented in terms of things that will be in the delegated regulations down the track.
We heard clear evidence through the inquiry process that advocates want this commitment to nursing requirements implemented. We note that it was, indeed, a recommendation of the royal commission. We note that the timing has been brought forward from the royal commission's recommendation but that the sector overall supports bringing this forward.
The Older Persons Advocacy Network said:
OPAN strongly supports the requirement that Registered Nurses must be on site and on duty at all times (that is, 24 hours each day, 7 days each week).
While we acknowledge that the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety recommended one registered nurse be on staff for both morning and afternoon shifts (16 hours per day), increasing to all day from 2024. OPAN believes a registered nurse should be available 24 hours per day as soon as possible rather than delaying implementation. The increasing health complexity and comorbidities of older people entering residential aged care requires a corresponding need for staff with the right health and medical skills to provide support. We know that health related incidents don’t just happen in the day time.
Similarly, the Council on the Ageing said:
This measure strengthens national minimum staffing standards in residential aged care and brings Australia into line with similar regulations in other countries.
Nurses play a vital role in aged care in partnership with allied health professionals, lifestyle coordinators and well-trained personal care workers.
COTA Australia has long supported the principle of ensuring the right skills are available in the right setting and at the right time, within each staff member’s professional scope of practice.
So we welcome this legislation. We are glad to see it being brought forward by the government and look forward to seeing it passed by the parliament.
I also want to thank the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation for their crucial advocacy and commitment on this issue. I met just yesterday with a delegation of nurses who were here to advocate for this legislation. I heard about their experiences of working in walk-in centres and aged-care homes, and in providing palliative care and a range of other types of care. One of them, Glenn, began his nursing training in 1978, so he's been in the field for a long, long time. One of the things he said to me yesterday stuck with me. He said the No. 1 thing that was going to make a difference to the older people he cares for was having more eyes, more feet and more hearts on duty.
Another nurse, Steph, talked of being a nurse in aged care, rather than in hospitals, even though the pay was less. I asked her why—why had she stuck with working in aged care? She said she really enjoys and appreciates the opportunity to work with older people at the end of their lives. She said she's not in it for the money; she's there because she cares.
This delegation of nurses, however, talked about nurses walking away from the job because, at the moment, the job is just too much; the stress, the overwork and not having the support they need are not what they signed up for. We have trained nurses across the country who are at the moment deciding they just cannot cope with the extra stress of being in the job, who are off doing other things. This is a critical part of addressing the workforce shortage of nurses that we face in Australia: actually bringing back into the profession those trained nurses who are currently working in other fields because they don't feel that they are being paid appropriately, that they are valued and that the job is sustainable for them in the long term. The nurses I spoke with yesterday talked of just not having the time to do the work that needs to be done when they're on the job. Clearly, increasing nursing staffing levels in aged-care homes is going to make a vital difference to people around the country, so it's really important that we enable this framework to be established.
This, of course, goes to the critical issue that Senator Ruston was just talking to. We know that, as part of implementing this framework, providers around the country, and especially in rural and regional areas, are going to need more nurses. We know that that is the fundamental issue, the tension, of introducing this legislation now and the time line it's being introduced on. Having more nurses around the country and putting in place a framework that requires that is a good thing, because nurses are providing crucial care and, as a country, we should be providing the best care possible for older Australians. But at the heart of the concerns that have been raised, particularly by regional and rural providers, is how providers are going to attract and retain staff when these reforms come into effect. Obviously, a crucial part of this legislation, and any exemptions to be put in place if providers, despite their best efforts, are not able to attract staff, is going to be in delegated legislation. In particular, that delegated legislation is going to lay out what those exemptions are. We too would have preferred to see more detail in this legislation, but at this stage it's a question of weighing things up: do you pass this legislation now or do you wait to see more detail in the delegated legislation? We recognise it's an important issue but believe that, on balance, it is much more important to get this legislation passed now.
I want to let people know that we are going to be scrutinising the delegated legislation very, very closely. I really look forward to working with the government as the delegated legislation is developed. I really look forward to ensuring that people across the sector, from the nurses to the providers to the community, have the opportunity to provide input into that delegated legislation to make sure that the framework the delegated legislation provides can best be implemented to support older Australians. So we are going to be looking at it really closely. And I'm confident that we will be able to work with the government, and that the government is going to be able to work with providers, workers and, most importantly, residents, to make sure the delegated legislation is appropriate.
Fundamentally, the issue with rural and regional facilities being able to access staff comes down to how many people are in the workforce. To tackle that we need to address the underlying issues about the pay and conditions the workforce is experiencing. We need to create an aged-care sector where nurses really do feel that the work they're doing is sustainable, that they're being paid well and that they're being valued and rewarded. We look forward to seeing the outcome of the Fair Work Commission's review into the pay levels of aged-care workers. As you know, the Greens are supporting a 25 per cent increase in pay levels for aged-care workers. Across the board, we need to be improving the pay and conditions of workers in the care industry so that it does become an attractive career path for more people and so that it does become a field where people feel they can work in sustainably—like Glenn, who has been in it since 1978—and so that it brings nurses back into the workforce who at the moment feel burnt out, who don't feel supported, who feel underpaid and who feel that there are other things they would prefer to be doing.
As we talk about the importance of implementing the recommendations of the royal commission and improving care for older Australians, there are a number of other points I would like to raise that we will keep on advocating for and that aren't being addressed in this bill. I look forward to continuing to work on them in the context of the complete review of aged-care legislation that is also underway. The first is the use of restrictive practices, which is something that my predecessor in this portfolio in the Greens, Senator Siewert, pursued relentlessly. I intend to continue focusing on that. I want to thank the advocacy groups around the country who have raised that issue with me. Nobody's human rights should be undermined for corporate profit, and this is something that we will keep on fighting for. I'm disturbed that since the royal commission showed the inappropriate overuse of restrictive practices—the royal commission highlighted it as a key issue—the data so far has shown that there hasn't been any reduction. So it's something that clearly needs to have ongoing attention paid to it.
The nurses I spoke to yesterday, when I was talking about restrictive practices, also noted the massive link, the correlation, with the size of the workforce and the importance of having enough people to actually be able to work with older residents so that it's not just the quick fix of restrictive practices. Often, despite their best efforts, they're without the workforce that's able to sit down and talk through issues with residents suffering from dementia and to give them that sense of being heard and being supported. Those restrictive practices are something that they then fall back on.
The other issue that I've consistently raised is allied health, and I continue to do so. It's reflected in the second reading amendment that's been circulated in this chamber. This legislation is addressing care minutes for registered nurses—it's a really important issue—but we remain concerned that the changed legislation now is not giving the same level of support to allied health professionals. We need to be ensuring that allied health is given the support and the serious attention it deserves, because the care for older Australians is genuinely multidisciplinary and is determined by a team approach. When all allied health professionals are there, residents in aged-care facilities, and older Australians in general, can access the levels of allied health care that they need and that they deserve.
Finally, I would like to make the point that there are a number of recommendations in the royal commission's final report that relate to palliative care—in particular, recommendation 80. That focuses on ensuring that dementia and palliative care training are available to everyone in the aged-care sector. Given that context, it's extremely concerning that we understand the work of the palliative care peak body is at risk due to funding cuts. That's an issue I'm going to be examining closely in Senate estimates.
In conclusion I would like to thank Minister Wells's office for their close engagement on this bill and the work that they've done in bringing it to the parliament. This is a piece of reform that has been a long time coming. It is going to make a crucial difference to people's lives. I would also like to thank Senator Ruston for her close engagement on this legislation, her work with me and her advocacy for the sustainability of smaller providers in rural and regional Australia, who are such a critical part of our aged-care system.
This is important legislation. We want to see it passed, and we want to see it passed today. It needs to be passed today to be supporting older Australians. We have a second reading amendment reflecting our advocacy on restrictive practices and allied health care, which are issues I will continue to engage on. I am very pleased to be able to share the Greens support for this legislation. We hope it will be passed by the Senate today.
I rise to make a relatively brief contribution today on the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022. Senator Ruston has outlined the coalition's position on this bill. I foreshadow that I will be moving a second reading amendment. Senator Ruston did describe it in part, but I will also talk through it.
I just want to pick up some of the comments from Senator Rice. I have no doubt about her commitment in this space, but the challenges facing particularly smaller rural and regional providers are so fundamental. I've visited so many providers with relatively low numbers of people in their care. They are just struggling. The number in the centres varies, but there can be as few as eight. But centres in regional areas with numbers in the 20s and 30s are struggling in a very fundamental way. They find it extraordinarily difficult to find staff. When they can find staff they are often poaching them from the local GP or the local hospital. So placing a new requirement on these small rural and regional centres has the potential for centres to reconsider their operation. This is why the opposition is so keen to see the regulations that underpin the vast bulk of the changes embodied through this legislation.
Centres are struggling at the moment. In so many country towns in WA they can't even find a house for health professionals, let alone find the actual professionals. In towns up north in WA that I visited recently nurses are working on fly-in fly-out rosters. They can't attract nurses to live permanently in those towns. The challenges are manifest. That is why the exemption clauses in the subordinate legislation are so important. That's why the coalition are so keen on seeing those clauses prior to this legislation being implemented. As I've said, we would like to see a copy of those draft recommendations to parliament as soon as practical. That is what would allow us to be certain that those smaller rural and regional centres in particular are not going to be adversely impacted.
I think it's important to note that our nursing community have worked tirelessly over the last few years. The pandemic has been an extreme challenge particularly for aged-care providers and right across the healthcare sector obviously. The support that nurses have provided to older Australians in aged-care homes has been absolutely outstanding. Nurses stood up when it mattered most to protect our older Australians. We know, having gone through those times, that we will always—and I know this place on many occasions did so—state our gratitude to the work of nurses in particular as well as all health professionals.
In responding to the aged-care royal commission in this bill, we are seeing a time frame that isn't consistent with the royal commission's final report and something that does potentially have some negative impacts, particularly on those rural and regional providers I spoke about earlier. I will now end my remarks there, and I will formally move my second reading amendment.
We'll get you to move that later, after the first one has been dealt with. Senator Pocock, you have the call.
Thank you, Acting Deputy President. I rise to speak in support of the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022 and would like to start by echoing Senator Brockman's acknowledgment of nurses and what they have done for our communities across the country during the pandemic. They are some of the heroes of the pandemic. They have worked tirelessly, many to the point of burnout, and they continue to deal with massive workloads, burnout and low pay. This is a welcome first step to acknowledge that and start to put things in place to ensure that not only nurses are better supported but also people in aged care are better supported. I'd like to acknowledge the work of the ANMF and the registered nurses in the gallery today.
Much has been said about our aged-care system in this place since the aged-care royal commission, and rightly so. We've heard the stories of senior Australians being left to die without dignity in the very places that are meant to look after them. We've heard stories of pain, heartbreak and anguish. We may never know the full extent of the suffering that has taken place in aged-care facilities across the country over the past couple of decades, but we do know what the way forward needs to look like.
The aged-care royal commission gave us the blueprint for reform and laid out what is needed to ensure residents receive high-quality care in aged-care facilities. This bill achieves part of that vision. Principally, it enacts the requirements for all aged-care facilities to have a registered nurse on site and on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This requirement would come into effect on 1 July 2023. This actually goes above and beyond what was recommended in the royal commission, but I know it is a commitment that has been welcomed widely by older Australians and advocates across the country. Simply, having a registered nurse available in every aged-care facility at all times will lead to better health outcomes for residents. It will ensure there is better monitoring of the health of aged-care residents. It is hoped that we will see fewer people transported to hospital for issues that would otherwise be prevented through early identification and intervention.
I want to echo what I've heard from aged-care advocates and those that work in aged care: one nurse should be the bare minimum. This bill does not put a cap on the number of nurses required in aged care; it sets a minimum standard of at least one nurse, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. There will be nothing preventing providers from employing more than one nurse, and I hope these decisions will be made based on the needs of residents over any other factor.
Throughout the inquiry, I heard concerns about how the exemption framework was established by this bill. On the bill's first reading in the House, it contained no safeguards for the granting of exemptions. It allowed the government, without limitation, to write and then enforce their own rules in exempting providers from the RN requirement. Technically, it would have been feasible for the government to exempt providers indefinitely from the requirement. I did not think that that was appropriate. I was pleased to work with the Minister for Health and Aged Care to move amendments to this bill that strengthened the safeguards.
This bill now contains some important provisions that limit the government's ability to provide exemptions, in line with what was intended by the royal commission. Any exemption must now be time limited and cannot exceed 12 months without review. The need for exemptions may differ markedly across the country. I acknowledge the challenges of regional and remote areas as highlighted by Senator Ruston, Senator Brockman and many others in this place.
Some providers may initially require more time to recruit the necessary workforce, and, in this instance, a longer exemption may be required. Some facilities may have a limited workforce, and, if one nurse were to become sick, an exemption may then be needed for a short period. Therefore, I think it's important that there is flexibility in the time limits provided, but none should exceed 12 months without looking at whether circumstances have changed for that facility. Importantly, the government will now also be required to consider the safety of aged-care residents in granting an exemption and whether alternative arrangements are in place to keep people safe and healthy during that period. Finally, all exemptions will need to be published in full view of residents, their families and aged-care watchdogs. This will provide another accountability mechanism to ensure the exemption power is not being overused.
Cumulatively, these changes ensure that the one-RN requirement cannot be watered down. If we're going to make this a minimum standard, then it should apply to every facility in the country. We should not be setting different standards based on postcodes. Those living in regional and remote areas should be entitled to the same standards of quality and safety in aged care as those living in the major cities. There is no doubt that, for some providers, recruiting and retaining an appropriate workforce to meet this requirement may be very difficult initially, but the exemption framework will assist with this.
This also speaks to a broader issue around the availability of skilled nurses across the health system and how we attract and—importantly and crucially—retain them. It seems to me that there's been an undervaluing of nurses for some time now, particularly in aged care. I've heard many stories of aged-care nurses moving to other places, like the NDIS, simply because they're being paid more and they have fewer patients to deal with. We're now realising what a precious resource nurses are and how much catch-up work we need to do to value them.
I implore the government to look at this holistically and consider how we are training, recruiting and retaining highly skilled nurses in all corners of our health and aged-care systems. I thank the minister once again for her collaboration on this bill. This is not the end of the road when it comes to reform, and I look forward to working with the government on continued reform that will improve the lives of people in aged care across Australia.
I'd like to thank all senators for their contributions in this debate on the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022. This is a really important bill that delivers on some key election commitments of the Albanese government, so we're very pleased to have this legislation before the Senate so early in the term. More importantly, this bill will also deliver the care that our older Australians need and the support that our aged-care workforce deserves.
At the outset, I'd like to thank officials from the ANMF who are in the gallery today and Glen O'Driscoll, an aged-care nurse who I know has been very involved in the discussions around this bill. Thank you for representing the many thousands of nurses who work in aged care and have needed, for a long time, a government that backed them and provided the support that they deserve so they can fully care for our older Australians, and thank you for your participation in this really important bill.
As I say, this bill makes important practical changes to the delivery of aged-care services and provides greater transparency on what funds are being used for. The measures in this bill put the quality of care and safety of older Australians first, just as the Albanese Labor government has committed to do. The bill introduces a new responsibility for approved providers of residential aged care and of specified kinds of flexible care to have a registered nurse on site and on duty at every residential facility 24 hours a day, seven days a week, from 1 July 2023. This will save thousands of unnecessary trips to hospital emergency departments and will ensure that older Australians living in residential aged care have access to the nursing care they deserve.
I remember talking about this policy in the run-up to the last election, and I think most Australians were shocked to learn that there was no requirement for residential aged-care facilities to have a registered nurse on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Unfortunately, that was one of the legacies left by the former government's regulation of aged care, and it's one of the factors that contributed to some of the appalling incidents we saw in aged-care facilities around the country.
I know very well, from spending time in aged-care facilities, that the staff there work incredibly hard but just haven't had the resources that they need to be able to provide the care they want to provide residents of aged-care facilities. The change we're making in this legislation will go a long way to doing that.
I note that some of the contributions from opposition senators questioned the ability to deliver on this promise in rural and regional areas. That is a serious issue, and I noticed Senator Brockman talking about the difficulty that rural and regional providers have in obtaining staff and housing. I've got to say: this is exactly the problem that has arisen as a result of 10 years of neglect of the aged-care system.
For an opposition senator to now be saying that we can't do what we need to do for our older Australians because of problems in skills and problems in housing—well, I'm sorry, but the opposition had 10 years to do something about these issues and failed to do so. We finally have a government that is prepared to make the regulatory changes required and back it up with real resourcing, to fix the problems in the aged-care system that the last government left for 10 years.
We are conscious that there are massive skill shortages in the aged-care sector, and they have grown over 10 years of doing nothing by the former government. That's why we have already established a wide range of programs to support providers to attract and retain staff. These were things the former government never did in the 10 years that they had to do something about this.
For example, the Workforce Advisory Service is available to assist providers attract, retain and build the skills of their workers. Subsidised vocational education and training places are widely available to train personal care workers, and the Rural Locum Assistance Program supports providers with recruitment challenges. Initiatives specifically aimed at nurses include a transition to practice in aged care for newly graduated nurses, scholarships and the nurses' retention payment, and local guidance is provided through the department's regional stewardship network.
Another thing that the former government failed to do in the 10 years that it was in power was do anything about the wages of aged-care workers. They wouldn't even take a position when the case was taken for the wage rise that aged-care workers were seeking. I was incredibly pleased to see the Albanese Labor government make a submission to the Fair Work Commission in support of increased wages for aged-care workers, and, of course, we have committed to funding the outcome of the case.
Rather than the hand-wringing that we see from some members of the opposition, saying that this is all too hard and can't be done, this government is actually stepping up to the plate and doing things that the former government didn't do in the 10 years they had to do something while in power. We're serious about fixing the skill shortage in aged care. We're serious about making sure that older Australians get the care that they deserve. That's why we're introducing this bill and making a lot more resourcing available to the sector.
We acknowledge that there are going to be challenges in some rural and regional environments, and that's why this bill sets up a system to provide exemptions for the rare cases where this requirement can't be met and the process for that to be worked through between the department and individual providers. We acknowledge that it's going to be a challenge, but we're putting significant resourcing into this to back up this commitment. Again, that's something the former government failed to do in any one of its 10 years in office.
Beyond the provisions about 24-hour nursing, from 1 January 2023 this bill also introduces powers to enable the government to cap administration and management charges for older Australians receiving a home-care package and removes the ability to charge care recipients for ceasing care. There is currently little transparency in how providers set their prices for care and package management, and there is no cap on how much they can charge.
The royal commission heard that some providers were charging up to 50 per cent of home-care package funding for administration and management. The bill will provide the means to ensure high levels of administration and management charges reduce, to stop the rorting and to make sure that the maximum amount of funds instead go directly towards meeting people's care needs. Again, this is something that should have been done by the former government, but it's taken the election of a new Labor government to actually make change on this front.
Finally, the bill will also include amendments relating to the transparency of providers' financial information and other valuable information about providers' operations. This will empower older Australians and their families to make more informed choices about their care and will make transparent to taxpayers how aged-care funds are being used.
In wrapping up, the Minister for Aged Care would also like to take a moment to acknowledge and thank the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee members for their time and contributions in the consideration of this bill and the subsequent report. The minister wants to reassure those who have taken the time to participate in these processes that we've heard you and the issues you've raised. As a result, the government moved a number of amendments which clarify some points which would otherwise be in subordinate legislation.
The minister would like to thank Senator David Pocock and his office for their productive engagement on these amendments, as well as all members and senators who have engaged with the minister and her team.
The government acknowledges comments raised during the inquiry process around ensuring appropriate levels of consultation for the delegated legislation. We agree that there should be consultation about the detail, and there will be.
In relation to the recommendation made by the Australian Greens in the inquiry report, the government consulted broadly, during the drafting of both the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Act as well as this bill, including with aged-care providers and allied health specialists. The government supports robust consultation and will continue to consult with the sector and invite commentary on subordinate legislation moving forward.
We also acknowledge recommendation 4 made by Senator Pocock in relation to introducing a review mechanism for exemption decisions. We agree and the Quality of Care Principles 2014 will be amended to provide for a decision of the secretary to grant an exemption to be a reviewable decision for the purposes of the Aged Care Act 1997 in accordance with existing provisions around reviewable decisions.
The government is committed to driving meaningful aged-care reform and will continue to work through the details with the sector, unions, older Australians and our colleagues in this chamber and in this parliament. We want to do this reform once and do it well for a lasting, positive impact on people's lives, and that will require us all to work together to make that happen. Again, this bill is another step towards fixing the terrible problems that were left to us and left to Australians in the aged-care system by the Liberals and Nationals. This is a very good piece of legislation and I encourage all senators to support it.
The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Ruston be agreed to.
I move:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety called for the use of restrictive practices in aged care to be based on an independent expert assessment and be subject to ongoing reporting and monitoring, and
(ii) a lack of legislative provisions to ensure aged care residents can access adequate and appropriate allied health services may reduce the level of care they receive, with clear implications for their health and wellbeing; and
(b) urges the Government to ensure that its response to the Royal Commission includes urgent action to reduce the use of restrictive practices and to ensure that allied health care is appropriately funded".
The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Rice be agreed to.
I move the second reading amendment as circulated in my name on behalf of the opposition:
At the end of the motion, add "and further consideration of the bill be made an order of the day for 2 sitting days after a draft of legislative instruments relating to both of the following matters are laid on the table:
(a) exemptions from the responsibility relating to registered nurses (proposed section 54-1A); and
(b) information about aged care services that must be made publicly available (proposed section 86-10)".
The question is that the second reading amendment as moved by Senator Brockman be agreed to. I remind senators that once I have called the tellers, you need to be sitting still and not standing.
I'd like to ask the minister a few questions before I move my amendment. Minister, could I get some clarification in relation to the budgeting around this particular measure? I note in the explanatory memorandum that there is an amount of funding, and I've asked the department, through questions, to explain to me how exactly the funding attached to the bill is going to be spent, but I haven't had a response yet. This is somewhat frustrating, given that the government are seeking for us to pass this bill despite the lack of information that has been provided in relation to the delegated legislation, which is so important to be able to understand exactly what is going to be required. Minister, can you give me some idea of what the funding allocated in your explanatory memorandum will be going to?
The information I've been provided with is that—in accordance with the financial impact statement and the explanatory memorandum to the bill—the indicative financial impacts over the forward estimates of each of these measures are: for schedule 1, which involves the extra nurses who will be needed, $450.7 million; for schedule 2, which relates to capping home care fees, $1.2 million; and schedule 3, which relates to transparency and reporting, $8.1 million.
In calculating the $450.7 million that's been allocated for schedule 1—relating to the requirement for 24/7 nurses—what provision has been made for the likelihood of exemptions?
I'll just try and get some advice on that point. While I'm obtaining that advice, I'll just reiterate this point: it is disappointing to see the opposition continue to do what they did for 10 years—which is failing to deal with the need for 24/7 nurses in Australian aged-care facilities. As I said earlier, when I was talking about this issue in the run-up to the election, I found people were shocked that we don't have 24/7 registered nurses in aged-care facilities. It's very clear that one of the reasons for the range of appalling incidents that we've seen involving care in aged care is not bad staff but a lack of staff. It seems that the opposition continues to want to delay this important measure, which is about providing extra support for residential aged-care workers so that they can provide better care for residents. I've already acknowledged that there are challenges in implementing this in rural and regional environments, and that's why this government is putting more resources into fixing this situation than we ever saw from the former government. As I say, it's disappointing to see these ongoing delay tactics from the opposition when we finally have a government that wants to fix it.
The information that I have been provided with just now is that the government will be providing, overall over four years, $2.5 billion towards 24/7 and increased care minutes. We're introducing a 24/7 registered nurse supplement to support residential aged-cares services to employ extra registered nurses to be on site and on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We'll invest $473.3 million over three years from 1 July 2023 in a new RN supplement that tops up Australian National Aged Care Classification care minutes funding to support smaller services to meet their 24/7 requirement. Initially, the supplement will be available to eligible services providing care to up to 60 residents. Services over this size will not receive the supplement, as their existing care minutes funding will be sufficient for providing 24-hour care, taking into account the previously announced funding increases and the additional $1.9 billion in Australian National Aged Care Classification funding in the budget to increase care minutes to 215 minutes, including 44 RN minutes, from 1 October 2024. This supplement will be available to eligible providers from 1 July 2023.
On exemptions, the government has considered feedback from the sector around current workforce shortages and will allow one-off 12-month exemptions to the 24/7 RN requirement for all services of 30 or fewer beds in modified Monash model 5 to 7 areas. This exemption is provided on the basis that small rural and remote services are likely to face the most significant workforce challenges in recruiting sufficient RNs to meet the requirement. Exempt services will not, of course, receive the RN supplement. We are taking into account the challenges that rural and remote services in particular will have in attracting workforce. Again, if we'd had a government at some point over the last 10 years that had been prepared to invest in workforce and prepared to build the skills of the workforce, then perhaps we wouldn't be having this problem.
I have a number of questions, and I absolutely don't want to delay the passage of this legislation, despite the false information you have just put on the record. In quite short answers, could you please advise: is the $450.7 million that has been allocated to schedule 1 one-off funding or an ongoing measure?
It's an ongoing measure over the forward estimates.
I'm seeking clarification on your answer. The $450.7 million is for four years. Are you saying that this will be continued funding past the end of the forward estimates or a one-off allocation for the four years of this budget cycle?
Senator Ruston, as you well know, having been in government, the way governments structure their budgets is to provide funding for four years. Any decisions about future funding beyond the forward estimates are obviously made closer to the end of the forward estimates, but I can't see any situation in which we would walk away from this.
Will this funding go to providers who currently do not have an RN on-site, or will it be allocated more generally?
The advice to me is that the money will be allocated on the basis of the modified Monash model level that I referred to earlier, but the funding will be provided both to services that have an RN now and services that don't have an RN, provided they meet that modified Monash model test.
Can I take it from that that modified Monash 1, as an example, will not have access to the $450.7 million, whereas more remote and inaccessible operators will get access to it? That is, it is entirely based on the modified Monash model and not on need.
I'm taking advice as we're debating this, but to be clear, there are two issues. There is the one-off 12-month exemption that's provided, which applies to services of 30 or fewer beds in modified Monash model 5 to 7 areas. As to whether services in modified Monash model 1 areas, for instance, get extra funding, the answer is that if they have 60 beds or less then they would be eligible for that funding. So, it's possible that I misled you before. My answer earlier in reference to the level 5 to 7 areas was in relation to the exemption rather than the funding. I apologise for any confusion.
I'm keen to understand: in the determination of the expenditure of the $450.7 million for schedule 1, you've said that it's available to any provider with 60 beds or less. Could you advise on whether there is any mechanism within the determination that would differentiate between a provider who was struggling with the current workforce crisis or rewarding bad providers? We know that, sadly, we do have some of those out there. So, is there a mechanism that will actually determine the most imperative issue that is before us at the moment, which is workforce crisis versus rewarding bad providers?
While I get some advice on that specific point, I might just give you a bit more information about how this supplement will work and who it will be paid to. The 24/7 RN supplement will be introduced from 1 July 2023 to support residential aged-care services to employ extra RNs to be onsite and on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This supplement is targeted at small services—up to 60 residents—in recognition of the extra support these services need in order to deliver 24/7 RN coverage. The RN supplement provides up to $733,000 in funding per annum to rural and remote services in Modified Monash Model areas 5 to 7 and is paid at a higher rate to rural and remote services, recognising the increased costs in attracting nurses to work in rural and remote areas. The supplement is expected to be available to around 90 per cent of—I've never quite known whether you say 'triple M' or 'MMM'—areas 5 to 7 services, compared with under 40 per cent of more-metropolitan services in MMM areas 1 to 4. So, it will be eligible for both rural and urban, and it's more dependent on the size of the service.
Can I take it from that that the $733 million that you just referred to in the supplement is not actually contained in the explanatory memorandum as a cost associated with the bill—that you've only got $450.7 million, which relates to the support for the nursing homes to employ extra RNs? I'm just seeking clarification on what you actually just said. You said that the $450.7 million was to support facilities to employ extra RNs. So, what you've just said somewhat contradicts what you said before. You said it would be available to all facilities as long as they met the 60-or-below threshold, but what you've just said is that it is for them to employ extra RNs. Is the $450.7 million able to be used to provide extra RNs, even at facilities that already have 24/7 RNs?
The advice I've received is that that supplement would be available to services that do already have 24/7 RNs in place, provided that they have 60 or fewer beds. That's in recognition that those smaller services, whether large, small, rural or urban, have additional difficulties.
Can I just quickly seek some clarification: we've got $450.7 million for schedule 1 of this bill, and you've just told me $733 million for the supplement. So, where is the $733 million currently allocated for in the budget? Where is the $450.7 million allocated in the budget? And what is the differentiation, in terms of what you're taking to me about, between the $450.7 million and the $733 million? Which is the supplement? Or are they both the same thing?
I'd been wondering where you got that $733 million figure from. What I said, unless I said the wrong thing—I was talking about $733,000 in funding per annum to rural and regional and remote services, not $733 million. That is per service. Just to repeat the point: the RN supplement provides up to $733,000 in funding per annum to rural and remote services in MMM areas 5 to 7, and it's paid at a higher rate to rural and remote services because of the increased costs that they will incur.
Moving on to the exemptions that exist under this particular schedule: can you please advise where you're up to regarding your current considerations about what would constitute an exemption under this legislation?
This legislation puts in place a process to then create exemptions. Early consultation has begun. I'm advised an exposure draft of the exemptions will be finalised soon—it's currently being drafted—and there will be a consultation process on that exposure draft.
RUSTON (—) (): Do you think there's any possibility we could get a little more detail about when that exposure draft is likely to be available?
Early next year.
Clearly, you're not going to provide us any more advice around the process of what is in your mind in relation to general attempts to try and obtain a RN. Or can you provide us with more information on that?
We're working out the specifics at the moment but the intention is to make it an open and fair process that treats particular facilities on a case-by-case basis. I'm sure Minister Wells will be more than happy to provide a briefing to you once the consultation process begins.
In relation to that, what communication, consultation and certainty have you given providers to date regarding how the exemption process will work? Or are you just going to leave them to wait until they see the exposure draft, or have you been talking to them? If you put out an exposure draft, we're not going to see the delegated legislation until April next year—that's what I was advised when I asked about this in committee. Where does that leave providers who will be frantically trying to seek an exemption and provide the necessary detail to you? I'd like to understand what communication and consultation have you provided to date to give certainty and security to these very important workers in our community.
I'm advised there has been extensive consultation around these commitments already. I won't go through it in great detail, but there was general consultation conducted in relation to the government's election commitments around aged care that occurred with a range of groups, employers, union providers and carers through July and August. General consultation was conducted in relation to legislative amendments with a range of stakeholders from various perspectives through July and August. Specific consultation in relation to exemptions to the 24/7 RN requirement was conducted on 22 July with the funding reform working group. I could run through the members of that group; it essentially includes a wide range of providers and various interest groups. Again, there will be further consultation once we've drafted.
Can you put on the record how many regional providers the minister has visited, and how many rural, regional and remote providers the minister has discussed the exemption clauses with directly?
TT (—) (): I'm not in a position to advise that here. I can say that some of the groups that were consulted about the exemptions on 22 July included the Aged Care Workforce Remote Accord, Leading Age Services Australia and a number of other large providers who have services in regional and rural Australia.
Minister, I would appreciate it if you could take that on notice and come back to me, maybe before estimates, as to how many rural, regional and remote nursing home facilities the minister has visited and consulted with.
Finally, on these exemptions, the information contained in the documentation we have suggests they are for one year. Is there an ability for those exemptions to be extended or renewed past that one year if it's determined the exemptions are still warranted?
The advice is, yes, there would be capacity for those to be extended but they would have to reapply.
Moving onto probably the most important issue that the Australian care sector is facing more generally—that is, the workforce challenges—I would be keen to understand what data the government has relied upon to understand and to be able to quantify the current level of workforce shortages and, therefore, the impact this is likely to have on the ability of the sector to deliver on requirements of this bill?
I'm advised there are a range of sources of that data, including the departmental modelling.
Would it be possible for the data and the sources on which the government has relied in making its decisions around this to be made available to the opposition or to this chamber/
I am very happy to take that on notice, in addition to the request about the minister's travels.
Has the government done any research since coming into government to reassess and stock-take the number of nurses currently in the sector? Because we do know there is quite a lot of pressure and stress, and a workforce that is highly susceptible to burnout from the conditions they have experienced over the last three years with the amazing job they did in dealing with COVID. Has there been any reassessment of the impact of the last three years on our nursing workforce and how that may impact on the ability of provisions of this bill to be implemented?
I'm advised we rely on the national workforce, health workforce report, the last of which was made public. We'll find out when that one was. There will also soon be another quarterly financial information report. I am not exactly sure of the exact title of that. It is due in October or November. We will have further information on that. I will again put on the record I welcome the fact that minister is interested in the workforce challenges facing the aged-care sector and I just wish she and her colleagues had been so focused on it in the 10 years they were in government.
Is the government expecting to rely on immigration to assist providers in fulfilling the requirements of this legislation? If they are, to what extent, and what kinds of numbers are they expecting to rely on from immigration and the time frame in which they believe they would be able to be accessed in Australia?
Yes, there will undoubtedly be an element of immigration required to meet the general workforce challenges of the aged-care sector, whether it be as a result of this legislation or because of the crisis in the aged-care workforce that was left behind from the former government, just as there is a workforce crisis in agriculture, in hospitality, in manufacturing, in construction and in every industry of the economy because of the failure of the former government to act. Immigration will be a part of it. I have seen the minister's announcement about work being done under the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility program to source workers for our aged-care sector in addition to other sectors of the economy, but that is in addition to the range of measures we have already put in place to train locals and to provide skilling opportunities for locals to work in aged care, again, which were never put in place by the former government.
So can I take it from that you have not modelled specifically the immigration requirement of 24/7 nurses? You just made a blanket statement around general workforce. Can you answer the following—
I didn't say that.
Well, you sort of did. I will ask you another question: What is the current estimate number of nurses needed to ensure every aged-care facility in Australia has a RN on-site 24/7?
What is the estimated number of nurses believed to be required to meet the care minutes that will come into effect in October 2023, 40 minutes of care? Can I have them both separately? Do you have an accumulative total, because obviously some may well cross over into the other?
Again, first I would make the point that I never said there was no modelling around immigration. That is the shadow minister's decision to misrepresent what I said. What I am advised is that the estimated additional nurses required for 24/7 registered nurses in our nursing homes is 869, measured in terms of headcount.
Would you like to answer the other half of the question?
Would you like to repeat it?
There's the 24/7 nurses and also a requirement in October 2023 for 40 minutes of care—you referred to it in your second reading address. Forty care minutes. I'm just wondering if you can tell me how many additional registered nurses are required for the 40 care minutes. What is the collective total of those two things, which were coupled under the royal commission and which your government has chosen to decouple? I would like to know the coupled impact.
I don't have that information to hand, but again I would say that, whatever number of extra nurses is required to deliver on this commitment, it would have been a hell of a lot easier if the former government had done anything about training nurses.
Would you be able to take that on notice? In the absence of you taking it on notice and providing that piece of information, which is absolutely essential, one can only assume that you don't know the answer.
Finally, I was wondering if there is any additional funding in the budget or contained in this particular bill that would go to assist nurse peak bodies and aged-care providers to upskill their current workforce of enrolled nurses or nurse practitioners.
I'm certainly aware that part of the workforce plan here is to upskill existing workers and increase the participation of existing workers. I'm sure the shadow minister would be aware that there is a large number of aged-care workers who either work part time or casually, and there is certainly an opportunity there to increase the working hours for those who wish to do so. I may have to take on notice the details as to the cost.
I know Senator Pocock has a couple of questions, so in the interest of time, could you also take on notice and provide me with this advice. Will any funding allocated under the workforce training—or whatever element you're going to come back to me with—go to train and upskill enrolled nurses? Is the money ongoing funding or only one-off funding for upskilling? Are providers expected to provide their own ongoing funding in terms of this development? I'm very interested to understand what provisions have been put in place to ensure not just the attraction of additional workers into the sector but that existing workers in the sector are given the opportunity to upskill so they can try and assist in meeting the expectations of this bill.
My question goes to how the government will be monitoring for compliance with the 24/7 RN requirement when it comes into effect. After 1 July it will be the responsibility of aged-care providers to meet this requirement, and I understand the commissioner may have powers to sanction providers should there be breaches. How will the government ensure that providers are complying with this new responsibility? Specifically, what are the plans to communicate to those living in aged care and their families how they can also report breaches if they notice them?
Thanks, Senator Pocock, and again can I thank you for your cooperation with us in getting this legislation finalised and into the chamber. The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission will be responsible for ensuring compliance with this new provider responsibility, just as it is currently responsible for a range of other regulatory measures. The commission will extend their existing risk-based and proportionate regulatory approach used to regulate other provider responsibilities to this new responsibility. Consideration is also being given to developing auditing arrangements that ensure that the registered nurse and care time data that facilities report is accurate. I think the second part of your question is: what would a resident or family member do if they were concerned that the requirement was not being met? I presume the answer is that they could make a complaint to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission.
Does the government have plans to inform aged-care residents and families that they can report after 1 July?
There are already a range of activities undertaken to inform residents and family members of their rights to make complaints or raise concerns about the failure to meet regulatory requirements, and information is provided on how people can do that. This would come within the existing information. Whether it be a breach of this provision or a breach of existing provisions, information is provided to residents and families about how they can make those kinds of complaints. But I'm happy to follow that up with the department and make sure there is specific reference to this.
Through the inquiry process, the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation raised that there currently isn't the Indigenous led workforce that can provide culturally appropriate care where it is needed. Currently, elders may have to move off country to live in aged-care facilities. There's no doubt that having more Indigenous aged-care workers and nurses would help provide more culturally appropriate care for these elders. Could the minister advise what plans are underway to ensure that the training of the next generation of Indigenous aged-care workers and nurses happens?
Thanks, Senator Pocock. You raise a very good point. I have been to an aged-care facility in remote Northern Territory and saw firsthand the particular issues and challenges that arise in providing aged care in those sorts of settings. There are existing training programs in place, but I'm happy to get the department to come back to your office with some more information about what more we can do. But you're dead right. It's a really important thing to have our First Nations people trained to deliver these sorts of services in community.
I have a couple of quick final questions. I'm wondering whether the department has modelled—or has taken into account or has any understanding of—the impact of the changes to the distribution priority areas that may make it more difficult for regional and rural providers to retain or obtain staff.
I'll have to take that one on notice.
On that basis, it would be really good if you could provide in the response any evidence as to whether you believe it has or it hasn't and what that evidence might be. Are you considering a bonus or incentive for nurses to relocate to regional communities to help providers meet their requirements in this legislation, as opposed to the incentives that have been provided to providers to retain nurses?
We're obviously at a fairly early stage of doing the workforce planning to deliver on this commitment. The money has been provided in the budget and consultation has begun. There are a range of measures that are under consideration, but I can't commit to one or the other at this point in time.
Finally, I want to understand whether the department has looked at, or is intending to look at, how technologies like telehealth could be used to support the current nurse workforce, noting the challenges particularly of the shallow workforces we're finding in rural, regional and remote Australia. I'm wondering whether any consideration has been given, or will be given, to supporting providers to use innovative technologies like telehealth to ensure that older Australians are able to get the care that is possible within the circumstances that they, often, wish to live in. I know a lot of people who live in rural, regional and remote Australia would prefer to stay in their own communities rather than move to places that may have a greater depth of service opportunity. So I'm just wondering whether any consideration has been given to using other types of technology and innovative approaches to ensure that service is provided without necessarily having to force providers to have 24/7 nurses when other alternatives may deliver the same outcome.
I am certainly familiar with the benefits that telehealth can provide for health and aged care in regional settings. Senator Ruston, you may have seen that we actually provided significant new funding to extend telehealth services in health in general. We are giving consideration to what more can be done for telehealth specifically for older Australians. But I certainly wouldn't rule out doing that kind of thing.
On that point—and not necessarily specific to this bill—I am wondering whether the minister might seek for the department to provide me with advice about the expansion of telehealth services in the bush that are in the budget. The only one that I saw was the reinstatement of the loading on the psychiatric service. So I am wondering whether the minister could provide additional detail around the telehealth services in the bush that you just referred to. I am also wondering whether you absolutely committed to working with rural, regional and remote providers to ensure that we don't see facilities closed in an attempt try to meet the requirements of this bill and that you and the government will always act in the interest to ensure that facilities are kept open and the supports are provided to enable them to be kept open in a manner which delivers the appropriate care for the older Australians that rely on the services of those facilities.
We certainly will be consulting with those providers as we roll out this initiative. We will be working with providers to make sure that they can access the workforce that they need. What we will also do as a result of this legislation is ensure that older Australians living in rural and remote areas get the kind of nursing care that they deserve in rural and remote nursing homes—something, again, that was neglected by the former government. We are determined to fix that and make sure that all Australians get the aged-care services they deserve whether they live in the bush or in the cities.
It is great to hear that, though I find it somewhat astounding that that you voted against our second reading amendment—but there you go. Can you advise whether the $450.7 million, the $1.2 million and the $1.8 million that are contained in this bill are contained in the $2.5 billion election commitment that you are rolling out for aged care?
I am advised—and I will come back to you if I get this wrong in explaining it—that the measures included in schedule 1 form part of the $2.5 billion, because that was about extra hours and minutes for nursing homes, but that the measures included in schedules 2 and 3 are outside the $2.5 billion because they relate to transparency and other things.
So the $3 million or $4 million sits outside but the bulk of it sits inside? Maybe we can prosecute this more vigorously during estimates, but I am wondering what is included in the actual $2.5 billion—and I know you read it out earlier—and what additional funding sits outside the $2.5 billion that is contained in your healthcare commitments as part of the budget. If you don't have that information we will have to prosecute that further in estimates.
It might be better to explore this further at estimates. But, again, the $2.5 billion extra commitment was for extra hours and minutes of nursing care and other care. The matters that are in schedules 2 and 3 are to deal with other things, and funding has been provided to the department via the budget to do those other things.
I thank the minister for the answers that he has been able to give. Obviously, there is a lot more that needs to go through in terms of this bill. I reiterate the disappointment of the opposition that we don't have greater clarity around the really important aspects of this bill that will have such a huge impact on nursing home facilities across the whole of Australia, not the least of which will be the significantly disproportionate impact on rural, regional and remote communities.
So I look forward to seeing what you're going to come forward with in your delegated and subordinate legislation. We will certainly use the opportunity of the little time that you're going to be providing to us and the wider community to make sure that we are not having unintended detrimental consequences because of the fact that this has been rushed, and also because of the lack of transparency and, obviously, the lack of time that is going to be made available for these really important facilities that protect and support older Australians in their journey in later life. This is obviously a tick and flick that is being put in place to move forward an election commitment, with no regard whatsoever for the unintended consequences. But, as I said in my contribution earlier, the opposition is absolutely committed to making sure that we support any initiative that's going to support older Australians in their journey.
So we will not stand in the way of this legislation. In fact, we would have put in place this legislation, almost in its entirety. We probably just would have accepted the recommendations of the royal commission, which spent many, many months working with the sector more generally to understand the really significant nuances that exist across our aged-care sector. That's to make sure that whatever we put into this place and whatever legislation we enact takes into account all of those details. Instead, we see those opposite going for a headline. Yes, Australians do expect that people who are in nursing homes will have access to the appropriate nursing care. But in the pursuit of a headline, those opposite have absolutely failed to recognise that sometimes there are nuances that will mean that things need to be changed to meet the individual and unique circumstances that we find because we have such a large country and very shallow markets across our country. That's not what's happening here today, but we certainly won't stand in the way of improving the situation for older Australians who need the support and care of our many, many wonderful aged-care providers. We also will not stand in the way of making sure that anybody who is a bad provider, a rogue provider, is held to account and is not allowed to inflict the kind of devastating pain and impacts that we saw in some of the testimony during the royal commission.
I would urge those opposite, as they go forward in their aged-care reform—a reform that we're happy to be constructive about and support them with as they go forward with that reform—is, please, not to apply a one-size-fits-all model to this. That appears to be what they're intending to do with this bill and with the bill they've pushed through this place more recently. I would urge them to make sure that they actually take a little bit more time and pushing a little bit more investment and effort in making sure that they understand the nuances of what is a very, very important sector for Australians. It is absolutely important, as we see with our ageing population, that we support the journey of older Australians—that we put them in the centre of every single piece of our decision-making. This should not be what the government wants, what the bureaucracy wants or even, for that matter, what the providers want. What we need to do is invest in the opinions, wants and needs of older Australians, making sure that those are the seminal points when we make decisions about what we intend to do. Those opposite need to listen to the voices of older Australians and not to their own voices.
On that note, as I said, the opposition will be supporting the government in moving forward on this important piece of reform, despite the reservations that we have about the way this has been handled. By leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1677 together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (after line 5), at the end of paragraph 54-1A(4)(a), add:
(iii) in considering whether the provider has taken reasonable steps, the Secretary must consider whether the provider will undertake reasonable measures to provide the highest level of clinical care with the available workforce, which may include measures for the support of clinical care by enrolled nurses and through telehealth consultations with registered nurses (within the meaning of the Health Insurance Act 1973); and
(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (after line 23), at the end of section 54-1A, add:
(6) In this section:
en rolled nurse means a person who is registered under the National Law (within the meaning of the Health Insurance Act 1973) in the nursing profession as an enrolled nurse.
telehealth consultation means a consultation conducted (other than in person) by videoconference, telephone or other technology.
The question before the committee is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1677, as circulated by Senator Ruston, be agreed to.
PRESIDENT (): The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The time allotted for debate on the bill has now expired. The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
by leave—I incorporate my speech on the second reading debate in relation to the bill that was just passed, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill, due to my inability to table the speech because we were under a time order.
The speech read as follo ws—
I rise to speak in support of this Bill.
Protecting the Australian community from the evolving threat of terrorism is the absolute first job of any Government.
This bill will provide for the continuation of key counterterrorism powers to keep Australians safe. Control orders and preventative detention orders are important tools used to prevent terrorist acts and manage the risk posed by persons who continue to present a risk to the community.
The former Government passed a similar bill through the Parliament last year to extend them while the Committee continued to inquire into these powers.
The emergency stop, search and seizure powers that are contained in this bill ensure that police are able to respond consistently and effectively to a terrorist incident or threat.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security conducted a statutory review of control orders, preventative detention orders and the stop, search and seizure powers under the former Coalition Government.
The committee unanimously supported the extension of the powers subject to certain amendments, including the introduction of additional safeguards.
While other aspects of their report are being considered by the government, this Bill is necessary to ensure the important powers contained do not Lapse.
The Bill will also ensure that key powers available to the Australian Federal Police will continue to be available.
It is critical that these powers do not sunset ahead of this work being finalised.
Accordingly, the Bill will defer sunsetting for another 12 months, to ensure that law enforcement continues to have a range of capabilities to respond to the ongoing threat of a terrorist attack in Australia while the government continues to consult and respond to the bipartisan recommendations.
All powers will continue to be subject to robust safeguards and oversight, including by providing for the PJCIS.
I will now set out what the bill the Coalition will support does to ensure Australians are protected from the threat of terrorism.
Control orders
Control orders under Division 104 of the Criminal Code are an important tool in preventing a terrorist act and managing the risk posed by persons who continue to present a risk to the community.
The provisions allow the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit Court to impose an order which places tailored obligations, prohibitions and restrictions on an individual.
The conditions must be reasonably necessary and reasonably appropriate and adapted to protect the public from a terrorist act.
Preventative detention orders
Preventative detention orders under Division 105 of the Criminal Code are another important tool in preventing an imminent terrorist act.
A preventative detention order allows a person to be detained without charge, and can only be used where the AFP reasonably suspects an attack could occur within 14 days, or in the aftermath of a terrorist attack to preserve vital evidence.
Crimes Act powers
The emergency stop, search and seizure powers in the Crimes Act ensure that police are able to respond consistently and effectively to a terrorist incident or threat.
The powers allow police to request a person's name, address and other details; they allow police to conduct a search for a terrorism related item and to seize such an item; and they allow police to enter premises without a warrant to prevent a serious and imminent threat to a person's life, health or safety.
These AFP powers have been used sparingly since they were enacted.
As the Attorney-general said in the other place, only 23 control orders have been made since September 2014, when the national terrorism threat level was raised.
No preventative detention orders have been made, and no incidents have required the use of the emergency stop, search and seizure powers.
Although as it was when the Coalition passed a similar bill last year, and as the Attorney-General informed the house within the debate—these powers have not been used to date, and it continues to demonstrate that the AFP have been appropriately prudent in exercising these exceptional powers.
Concluding Remarks
This bill provides for the continuation of important counterterrorism powers that ensure the safety and security of all Australians.
They ensure that Australia's law enforcement agencies continue to be able to manage the evolving national security and threat environment, while protecting individual rights through strong and effective oversight and safeguards.
The Coalition will also support National security legislation that continues to equip our security agencies to protect Australia and Australians.
Are you seeking the call, Senator Shoebridge?
I seek leave to make a brief contribution in relation to the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill.
Leave is not granted, Senator Shoebridge. It now being 11.15, I call the Clerk to present a petition.
or URQUHART (—) (): by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator McCarthy for today on account of ministerial business.
Question agreed to.
Pursuant to notice given on 26 October 2022 on behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion Nos 1, 3, 4 and 5 for seven sitting days after today proposing the disallowance of the Air Navigation (Aircraft Noise) Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2021; the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Health Measures No. 9) Regulations 2021; the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Prime Minister and Cabinet Measures No. 11) Regulations 2021; and the Industry Research and Development (Underwriting New Generation Investments Program) Instrument 2021.
I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 3 for 13 sitting days after today proposing the disallowance of the Bankruptcy Amendment (Service of Documents) Regulations 2022.
I present the sixth report of 2022 of the Selection of Bills Committee, and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The report read as follows—
SELECTI ON OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 6 OF 2022
27 October 2022
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair)
Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)
Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip)
Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip)
Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)
Senator Ralph Babet
Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm
Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher
Senator Matt O'Sullivan
Senator David Pocock
Senator Paul Scarr
Senator Tammy Tyrrell
Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 6 OF 2022
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 26 October 2022 at 7.21 pm.
2. The committee recommends that—
the Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 March 2023 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
5. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement:
(Anne Urquhart)
Chair
27 October 2022
Appendix 1
Name of Bill:
Environment and Other Legislation (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Complicated issue.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Various Stakeholders
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Nov —March
Possible reporting date:
31 March 2023
(signed)
Wendy Askew
I move:
That the report be adopted.
I move the following amendment:
At the end of the motion, add: ", and:
(a) in respect of the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 November 2022; and
(b) in respect of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 November 2022".
I indicate that the Greens will be supporting the government's amendments to the Selection of Bills Committee report, and I flag that we will also be moving an amendment, once these amendments have been tabled.
Equally, I flag that we will also be moving an amendment. I move an amendment that will amend the amendment that has been moved by Senator Chisolm in respect to part (b) of the motion:
At the end of the motion, add:
in respect of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report on 10 February 2023"
My change reflects a change of committee—the Education and Employment Legislation Committee—for a reporting date of 10 February 2023, as per the amendment circulated.
I rise to speak in support of the government's amendment but also to respond to the amendments just flagged by the opposition. If you ever wanted to see that the Liberal Party and National Party were wedded to low wages as a design feature of the Australian economy, you see that again in this. They don't even want to deal with a bill that, at its heart, recognises that we've got to get wages moving again in this country. But do they want to debate the bill? No, they want to defer the Senate consideration of legislation which is all about trying to get wages moving again. You are so wedded to low wages as a design feature of the economy that you're even trying to defer legislation which this government clearly has a mandate for. We are very happy to have a proper inquiry, but let us be clear. We know what a 1 March date means in terms of legislation—
An honourable senator interjecting—
Sorry, a 10 February date—we know you want to defer it until next year. I think anybody in this country who remembers Senator Cormann's declaration that low wages are a design feature of the Australian economy knows that that was the policy under the coalition government. Here today, yet again, we see how slavishly they are wedded to that proposition, in wanting to defer a bill for which this government has a very clear mandate—it's not as if this wasn't clearly discussed in the election—and which is needed for our economy, particularly for low-paid men and women throughout this country who are battling inflation and battling rising costs of living at a time when they have experienced wage stagnation for years under those opposite. So, when the opposition come in here and ask questions about the cost of living, let everybody remember what they are trying to defer is changes to our industrial relations system which have, at their core, a desire to get wages moving again. So I would say to the Senate: don't give them that. They have to learn that people in this country, workers in this country not only want but are entitled to a better deal than they had under Scott Morrison and the coalition.
Before I call Senator Birmingham, I remind all senators it is particularly disorderly to call out when you are not in your correct seat.
The government's proposal for the inquiry into this legislation is for an obscenely short inquiry, obscenely rushed, and shows that this Labor government are scared of any fair dinkum scrutiny into their industrial relations proposals. They have just released this bill today, and they are seeking to push it through the Senate inquiry process in a matter of weeks. If you look at the Senate sitting calendar, when you look at estimates and other considerations, they're only effectively allowing three or four working days for any potential hearings to take place. We know they won't of course use those days; there'd be the last few days before the committee reports. So what opportunity will Australian small businesses have to get their heads around the legislative proposals of this government? What opportunity will they have to take time out of their businesses and make a submission? What opportunity will they have to appear before an inquiry and put their views and concerns about this legislation? The answer to that is: bugger all! They will have bugger all opportunity in terms of giving fair dinkum evidence, analysis and advice to the Senate about this legislation.
The government are clearly scared of scrutiny around these reforms. They're scared of allowing proper, reasonable scrutiny. If the government's reporting date is adopted by the Senate, this will be one of the shortest, most rushed processes for industrial relations reform in living memory. This will be rushed through faster and quicker than any comparable reforms we have seen, with less scrutiny, less time for senators and, most importantly, less time for Australian businesses.
Why does this matter? Because these types of reforms will matter about whether we have an economy where businesses have more confidence or less confidence to employ Australians. We already know from the hapless budget handed down by this government earlier this week that unemployment in Australia is forecast to go up under Labor. We already know there are forecast to be more Australians losing their jobs over the next year under this government. Reforms such as this run the risk of worsening that problem. They run the risk that if they get it wrong—as it appears, from the concerns of many parts of business, they might—we will have a situation where Australian businesses, particularly small businesses, will be even more hesitant to employ more Australians. If businesses are concerned about employing Australians, that means fewer Australians in work, more Australians on unemployment benefits and fewer Australians with the opportunity to get ahead. Lord knows they need every helping hand they can get in terms of work opportunities to get ahead at present. With the inflationary environment, with this government's broken promises in relation to energy prices, with this government's threat hanging over the heads of Australian workers in terms of increased taxes in the future, Australians need all the help they can get to get secure work and have certainty but to do it in an environment where those jobs exist. They only exist if businesses and small businesses are hiring.
The government claims these reforms in this bill were largely cooked up at its jobs summit, but we know that small businesses were largely absent from the jobs summit.
Plenty of union people!
Indeed, Senator O'Sullivan—plenty of union representatives at the jobs summit. We know from all the evidence that Mr Burke and others sit down with the unions quite frequently. They have been there at the drafting table, no doubt, day in and day out, preparing this legislation.
But this is not a debate about the substance of the legislation; this is a debate about whether or not proper process is followed, and those opposite don't want to follow the established processes. This is a highly unusual process they're proposing to rush through the inquiry in an abnormally short period of time. The opposition's amendment simply ensures we have a normal period of time, and then the government can bring the legislation forward for normal debate in the early part of next year as would be customary, not seek to ram it through as they are proposing. I urge the crossbench in particular to support the opposition's amendment to ensure— (Time expired)
The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 is clearly really important legislation for Australians, particularly workers in areas such as nursing, frontline workers who have not seen wage increases and who are feeling the pinch when it comes to inflation and the cost of living, with electricity prices forecast to go up more. This is really important for us to consider as a Senate. I am very supportive of a number of the measures in this enormous piece of legislation. However, I think it's really important that the Senate has time to consider this, as good as the ideas in the legislation are.
To be clear, I've not seen the legislation. The crossbench has had no opportunity to see it in detail. Those who have had an opportunity to see the legislation have signed nondisclosure agreements. This is brand-new legislation, with a reporting date of a few weeks. It doesn't make sense to me to give crossbench senators a couple of weeks to get across this and to give small business owners who are under the pump a short period of time to do so. Elements of this bill would have huge consequences for our industrial relations laws in Australia. I asked the Parliamentary Library to look at the length of reporting dates for industrial relations reform in Australia, all the way back to Work Choices in 2005 and this sort of reporting date is unprecedented in terms of industrial relations. So I have real concerns about having such a short reporting date.
I have put to the government that I believe there are parts of this big omnibus bill that potentially don't need as long to consider—parts of it around putting gender equity into the Fair Work Act, equal renumeration, the two new expert panels, banning pay secrecy clauses, and the BOOT reforms, which people have known about; there seems to be general consensus. But other elements of the bill are new to many and I think warrant our consideration.
I have circulated an amendment that would allow us to have more time, but I'm certainly open to talking to the government about ensuring that we deal with this legislation in a timely way but also allow the oversight that these committee hearings provide. Being new to this place and having been involved in the committee process for a few bills now, I find quite incredible the access to experts and the ideas that come up, and the genuine consultation, as well as the very collegiate way senators engage to improve legislation.
Given that we haven't seen any details of this bill, given how big it is and, crucially, how important this is to Australians and the future of workers and small businesses in Australia, I would really like the government to ensure that we get the balance right between legislating in a timely manner and having time to really look at the detail, to engage with the various stakeholders and, ultimately, to legislate very important reforms that are needed, that are warranted when wages for many Australians are back at 2008 levels.
Well, blow me over: if this doesn't reek of union all over it, I don't know what does. You've got to be kidding! You're doing an omnibus on IR laws! The whole time I've been up here, with these omnibuses, what did you say? These omnibuses have got to go. So what do you do with some of the most important things that need to be done over the next term of parliament? What do you do with these IR laws that need to be looked at properly? You roll them into an omnibus and try to run that bus down the bloody hill. That is what is going on here.
I will not be doing this. How am I going to speak to my businesses in Tasmania? I haven't even seen the bill. We haven't seen it. These are going to be some of the most crucial and important decisions we are going to make for the future when it comes to IR, and you're trying to shove them down our throats? Seriously? If this is the way it is going to go, goodness me, this is just not going to function well up here, I can assure you. I need time to go and have a look at that bill—for the first time. I need to go and use the small number of staff I now have left to try to dissect that bill, and if you think I can do that in a few weeks, I don't know what planet you are living on. Oh, that's right—you're living on the planet of the unions. I can tell you: it is not going to happen. It is not going to happen over this bill or any other important bill you put up in the future and you want to ram down our throats. You will not get that vote. You will not get it.
If you want this done a little bit quicker, great, give our staff back. That's fine. In the meantime, with the few staff we have left, keep wearing them down so we get a revolving door of staff, which makes it worse. But there is no way—no way!—that reporting date is happening this year. I'm sorry for those guys out there who expect pay rises and all the rest. I apologise to you. But, when it comes to the Jacqui Lambie Network, I have stipulated that we will not vote on anything in this parliament without putting it under the microscope. If you don't give us time to digest things and put them under that microscope, you will never, ever get our vote. We will just vote against you. So here is a very clear reminder of how we operate up here. This is what the Tasmanian people expect from me, and I will give them nothing less.
This needs to go to a Senate inquiry. There are going to be, I imagine, a lot of people putting in submissions to this, which we will also have to go through. The amount of time that you have given us to do that is absolutely shameful. It is shameful with regard to the people you are trying to get wages for, and it is shameful with regard to small business, who have been through two years of COVID and are struggling to keep their doors open still. You're not doing this to my small businesses down there in Tasmania, because that's who we rely on. We need their doors open. We are not rushing this legislation.
This rushed inquiry has got nothing to do with workers; it's got everything to do with union bosses. Let me tell you why. With the exception of senators like Deborah O'Neill, Tony Sheldon and Glenn Sterle, the Labor Party no longer represents workers. I've been pushing an issue about casual miners in the Hunter Valley and in Central Queensland for three years. I've been misrepresented by Labor and the CFMMEU in the Hunter Valley, to put people off the scent. Thanks to Senator Barbara Pocock, we're starting to get some traction. She's now aware of what's going on in the Hunter Valley. Labor has not been at all interested in fixing that problem. They don't even want to recognise the problem. I've raised it with Senator Ayres. Nothing to see here. I've raised it with Senator Sheldon, who said he would like to help, but couldn't. I appreciate that, Senator Sheldon.
Senator Roberts, I've given you some leeway, but we are debating motions before the chair. Thank you, I'll ask you to—
Thank you. I am too.
Senator Roberts, it is not a debating point with me; I'm the President. We are looking at the timing put forward in the motion by Senator Ruston on the committee of bills report. That is what you need to confine your remarks too.
What I will say, again, is that the Labor Party has not been genuine here. This is a complex bill. We know some people in the senate have seen it. We have not. Why not? Has Senator Lambie seen it? No. She said she hadn't. Why are some people getting it and not others? This is a complex bill that needs to be done properly for the workers of this country. This is about union bosses making sure that donations get back to the Labor Party. That's why we need a thorough inquiry to assess the benefits for workers and to give small businesses an opportunity to comment, and so that we can all have proper scrutiny of the bill. I will be supporting the Liberal-National coalition on this. I will not be voting for the Labor Party rushing this through the chamber.
I want to make a comment again, to emphasise that the climate change bill was in the hands of the Greens and Senator Pocock for weeks before we even saw it. Why? Now we have the Greens justifying it, but my point is that this bill needs solid scrutiny for the benefit of small business and workers.
If it will assist the chamber in a more streamlined approach to the reporting date for this particular important bill, the coalition will withdraw its amendment for the reporting date being 10 February. In doing so, we indicate that we will support Senator Pocock's motion, which requires the reporting date to be the first day of the second sitting week of 2023.
I assume you were seeking leave to withdraw, Senator Ruston?
I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Leave granted.
I move:
At the end of the motion, add:
"and, in respect of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by the first day of the second sitting week in 2023"
The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Pocock be agreed to.
I will be very brief. It is deeply disappointing that the government and the Greens have combined to block fair dinkum scrutiny of this legislation. We note the only proposal left on the table to actually have any Senate inquiry at all is to have this rushed, curtailed inquiry that is being forced upon the Senate by the Labor Party and the Greens with complete disregard to the interests of Australian small businesses or the opportunities for those businesses to be heard, and heard properly, or indeed the opportunities for crossbench senators and others to give proper, serious consideration to this legislation.
Let it fall upon the government's head if those senators come back to this place, when they seek to rush this legislation through in the final two sitting weeks, and those senators say, 'We haven't had a chance to properly consider it,' or, 'Business tells us they haven't had a proper chance consider it.' Let it be on your heads, Labor Party and Greens, if the consequence when it comes to your legislation being considered is that the message is that there hasn't been time, there hasn't been proper consideration, and that the voices of Australian small businesses are emphatically, 'We haven't had a chance to get across the detail of it.' However, some inquiry is better than no inquiry and so, despite the opposition's deep reservations about this rushed inquiry, we will give those who have the chance the opportunity to participate in at least getting their voices heard, but we know this will be woefully inadequate, and it all hangs and sits on the Labor Party's heads.
The question is that the amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report, as moved by Senator Chisolm, be agreed to.
Could I ask that part A and part B be put separately?
On Senator Ruston's request, I am now going to move part A of the amendment. The question is that part A of the amendment moved by Senator Chisolm be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The question is that part B of the amendment moved by Senator Chisolm be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I move Greens amendment as circulated in my name:
At the end of the motion, add:
"but, in respect of the Privacy Legislation Amendment (Enforcement and Other Measures) Bill 2022, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 22 November 2022".
For the assistance of senators, this is an amendment that seeks to refer The Privacy Legislation Amendment (Enforcement and Other Measures) Bill 2022 immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 22 November 2022.
Can I seek leave to speak to this?
No, the time has expired. You could ask for leave but it is not my decision. It is the decision of the chamber. I am indicating to you that the hard marker for this bill, for this part of the day, has passed.
Leave not granted.
The question is that the amendment, as moved by Senator McKim, to the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Can I get my name recorded as opposing the amendment, please?
That will be done.
Can I get my name recorded as well?
That will be done. The question is that the amended Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Original question, as amended, adopted.
I move:
That today—
(a) government business orders of the day as shown on today's Order of Business be considered from 12.15 pm;
(b) government business then be called on and considered till not later than 1.30 pm; and
(c) general business notice of motion no. 78 be considered during general business.
I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by the last sitting day in June 2024:
The capacity and capability of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to undertake proportionate investigation and enforcement action arising from reports of alleged misconduct, with particular reference to:
(a) the potential for dispute resolution and compensation schemes to distort efficient market outcomes and regulatory action;
(b) the balance in policy settings that deliver an efficient market but also effectively deter poor behaviour;
(c) whether ASIC is meeting the expectations of government, business and the community with respect to regulatory action and enforcement;
(d) the range and use of various regulatory tools and their effectiveness in contributing to good market outcomes;
(e) the offences from which penalties can be considered and the nature of liability in these offences;
(f) the resourcing allocated to ensure investigations and enforcement action progresses in a timely manner;
(g) opportunities to reduce duplicative regulation; and
(h) any other related matters.
I seek leave to make a statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I draw the Senate's attention to the reality of the work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. It is the statutory responsibility of that committee to inquire into the effectiveness of ASIC's enforcement measures and to make sure that we do our proper judicious work in supervising that entity. Senator Bragg and Senator McKim are both members of that committee, and it was within that committee this morning that we adopted the terms of reference that are here on the Notice Paper before senators, with the addition of one further item: the effectiveness of ASIC's enforcement measures in protecting vulnerable Australians.
If this bill is supported it will lead to a duplication of this inquiry in two different places. In fact, this is the construction of a platform for Senator Bragg, who is on both committees, to provide himself with an opportunity for media, not for the service of the Australian people. I urge senators to vote against this. We should be absolutely working on this in the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. (Time expired)
The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, be agreed to.
I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Education and Employment References Committee for inquiry and report by 22 March 2023:
The national trend of school refusal or 'School Can't'—as distinct from truancy—that is affecting primary and secondary school aged children, who are unable to attend school regularly or on a consistent basis, with specific reference to:
(a) the increasing number since the COVID-19 pandemic, of young people and their families who are experiencing school refusal;
(b) how school refusal is affecting young people and their families and the impacts it is having on the employment and financial security of parents and carers;
(c) the impacts and demands of the increasing case load on service providers and schools to support these students and their families;
(d) how relevant state, territory and federal departments are working to monitor and address this growing school refusal challenge; and
(e) any other related matters.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 21 November 2022:
The efficacy of previous and ongoing measures to respond to COVID-19 in Australia, with particular reference to:
(a) COVID-19 vaccines rolled out in Australia, including:
(i) pharmacological evidence and safety data regarding toxicity, genotoxicity and teratogenicity,
(ii) vaccines and boosters that have been subject to provisional approval in Australia or emergency use authorisations in other countries, and
(iii) adverse events related to COVID-19 vaccines;
(b) antiviral treatments including Remdesivir and new treatments subject to provisional approval in Australia or emergency use authorisations in other countries;
(c) other measures including:
(i) vaccine mandates,
(ii) mask mandates,
(iii) social distancing mandates,
(iv) lockdowns, and
(v) travel restrictions, including the closure of state and international borders;
(d) the role of National Cabinet in responding to COVID-19, and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority regulating medical professionals raising concerns about COVID-19 treatments; and
(e) any related matters.
The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 3, standing in the name of Senator Rennick, be agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senator Lambie, move:
That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 December 2022:
The human rights implications of recent violence in Iran, with particular reference to:
(a) the recent violence against women and girls by Iranian authorities;
(b) opportunities for nations that value human rights to support those being persecuted and oppressed in Iran;
(c) the potential application of sanctions on those responsible for the widespread violence and killing of women, girls and protesters in Iran;
(d) the appropriateness of Iran's ongoing status on the UN Commission on the
Status of Women;
(e) other actions available to the Australian Government and other like-minded nations to respond to human rights abuses in Iran; and
(f) any other related matters.
I seek leave to amend the motion by changing the reporting date from 1 December 2022 to 1 February 2023.
Leave granted.
I move the motion as amended:
That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 February 2023:
The human rights implications of recent violence in Iran, with particular reference to:
(a) the recent violence against women and girls by Iranian authorities;
(b) opportunities for nations that value human rights to support those being persecuted and oppressed in Iran;
(c) the potential application of sanctions on those responsible for the widespread violence and killing of women, girls and protesters in Iran;
(d) the appropriateness of Iran's ongoing status on the UN Commission on the
Status of Women;
(e) other actions available to the Australian Government and other like-minded nations to respond to human rights abuses in Iran; and
(f) any other related matters.
I also seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government acknowledges the importance of the issue and believes it is something that deserves consideration by this place. I do want to note my disappointment, though, about how this particular motion has progressed and the lack of consultation, given that consultation was only after the motion was lodged by the Table Office. The amendment I have moved to the motion to change the reporting date would allow proper consideration by the committee of this very important and sensitive matter.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I want to put on the record that the Greens will be supporting the amendment from the Labor Party to the reference. But I also want to put it on the record that we expect a public hearing of the committee this year and we will be working with the committee to have a public hearing this year.
The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Ciccone be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Chandler and Senator Lambie, as amended, be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by no later than midday on 3 November 2022, all correspondence, briefing materials, emails, plans, proposals, file notes, meeting minutes and minutes between the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications and the Arts or the Minister and their office and:
(a) the Queensland Premier, Treasurer, Minister for Education, Minister for Public Works and Procurement and Minister for State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning and their offices; and
(b) the Queensland Departments of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, Education, Public Works and Procurement, and State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning;
in relation to the Gabba Stadium project and impacts on East Brisbane State School.
Question agreed to.
I move:
(1) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 5 pm on Monday, 21 November 2022, all minutes of, and health advice or other written materials provided to, the National Cabinet that relate to, document or were used to inform a decision by the National Cabinet concerning COVID-19 measures, including lockdowns, border closures, quarantine and vaccines.
(2) For the purposes of this order, a decision by the National Cabinet concerning COVID-19 vaccines includes:
(a) decisions relating to the structure, pace or strategy concerning the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines;
(b) decisions relating to COVID-19 vaccine mandates, such as requirements for persons to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to obtain or retain employment, access goods and services or exercise freedom of movement; and
(c) decisions relating to the purchase of COVID-19 vaccines from foreign pharmaceutical companies.
The question is that general business notice of motion No. 70, standing in the name of Senator Rennick, be agreed to.
I rise to give a brief contribution on the Health Legislation Amendment (Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2022. This bill amends the Health Insurance Act 1973, the National Health Act 1953 and the Dental Benefits Act 2008 to protect the viability of Medicare. The bill supports the integrity of the Medicare Benefits Schedule, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the Child Dental Benefits Schedule by addressing inappropriate practice as well as protecting payment integrity, encouraging compliance with claiming requirements and supporting consistency. Medicare, including the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, provides Australians with access to free hospital care and more-affordable health care and medicines, while the Child Dental Benefits Schedule provides children with access to dental services.
The primary intention of the bill is to strengthen the compliance powers of the Professional Services Review, the PSR, which is the agency responsible for reviewing and examining possible inappropriate practice relating to Medicare or the PBS, and also to add a degree of flexibility to the PSR's ability to address any inappropriate practice. This is the same legislation introduced by the former coalition government in the 46th Parliament via the Health Legislation Amendment (Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021. This legislation formed part of the coalition's commitment to protecting the integrity and financial viability of Medicare. Medicare is there for all Australians and underpins our world-class health system. The former government were stewards in ensuring the viability of Medicare and supporting access to affordable health care for all Australians, having introduced this legislation in the last parliament. The coalition oversaw record investment in Medicare, ensuring that all Australians can access healthcare services no matter where they live. And we were committed to investing $133 billion over four years into Medicare, including $31.4 billion in 2022-23 and an increase of $7.3 billion compared with the 2021-22 budget, $32.3 billion in 2023-24 and $33.9 billion in 2024-25. The coalition will always be committed to supporting the integrity and financial viability of Medicare in ensuring that all Australians have access to our world-class health system into the future.
Once again, the Labor Party are prioritising the passage of one of our bills in recognition that the coalition was a leader when it came to important healthcare policy and improving the sustainability of Australia's world-class health system for the benefit of all Australians.
The Australian government is committed to protecting the integrity of the Medicare program. Rigorous and effective health provider compliance is a vital component of this commitment. The behaviour of individual practitioners remains a critical focus, but the government is adapting its compliance arrangements for corporations in recognition that they are increasingly involved in and influencing the provision of healthcare services.
The Health Legislation Amendment (Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2022 both strengthens and adds flexibility to compliance powers, especially the ability of the Professional Services Review, the PSR, to address the inappropriate practices of corporations. In essence, the bill extends provisions that are currently applicable only to individual practitioners, corporations and other nonpractitioners. The new provisions allow the director to come to an agreement with a body corporate or a nonpractitioner as an alternative to a lengthy review by a committee. This is a valuable and practical addition to the PSR's toolkit, facilitating confidential agreements with corporations while still ensuring that the PSR properly addresses inappropriate practice.
It must be emphasised, however, that while the bill strengthens the compliance arrangements in respect to corporations it also protects practitioners who are employed or otherwise engaged by corporations that acknowledge inappropriate practice. To be clear, individual practitioners will not be named in agreements with corporations. To encourage compliance, the director of the PSR will have discretion as to whether to publish details of the agreement when its terms are not fulfilled. The government's commitment to improve compliance is demonstrated through new sanctions, including civil liberties, to discourage behaviour that interferes with the ability of the PSR to review inappropriate practice and the Commonwealth's ability to recover debts formed in agreement between persons under review and the director. In addition, the director will be able to apply for court orders that require non-responsive corporations to comply with notices to produce information. Another important safeguard protecting the compliance terms negotiated in agreements is the extension of the government's ability to garnishee the bank accounts of persons or corporations that renege on agreements to repay a debt to the Commonwealth.
The bill also clarifies that a referral to the PSR may be made where it appears that there is a possibility that a person may have engaged in inappropriate practice in the provision of services. It is ultimately for the director or a committee to investigate whether a person has provided services and to determine whether the conduct of the person under review in relation to the rendering or initiation of those services amounts to inappropriate practice.
The bill also addresses inconsistencies arising from the introduction of legislation in 2018 to improve debt recovery powers under the Health Insurance Act 1973, the National Health Act 1953 and the Dental Benefits Act 2008. The bill introduces amendments clarifying the application of debt recovery provisions, the use of financial information powers, the recovery of Commonwealth debts from the states, the recovery of interest on Commonwealth debts and the administrative penalties for debts under the Shared Debt Recovery Scheme. Finally, the bill amends the National Health Act 1953 and the Dental Benefits Act 2008 to mirror recent changes to the Health Insurance Act 1973. The December 2020 amendments to the Health Insurance Act 1973 clarify the Commonwealth may recover incorrect payments resulting from the giving of false or misleading information.
I thank senators for their contributions and commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The opposition will not be opposing this legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (More Competition, Better Prices) Bill 2022. Indeed, it was coalition policy in government—part of a significant program of reforms to assist small businesses by the former coalition government. It is worth noting, however, that the measure in this bill was one that blew a $500 million black hole in Labor's budget before it was even handed down. Prior to the election Labor claimed its policy to increase penalties under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 would raise $557.7 million in its first four years. But Treasury's costings of the government's legislation show it will raise a mere $63 million in its first four years. Helpfully, the Assistant Treasurer clarified the government position on this black hole in a media interview recently, where he said: 'We've got to wear that. Obviously it's regrettable, but we've got to wear that and we've got to find other areas to ensure those savings are made up.'
In the budget handed down this week, we saw that the only new change to the tax system announced in the budget was a new tax on investments. Labor's sneaky new tax will slug people who invest their own savings and superannuation. Despite ruling out these changes before the election, Labor will hit retirees and investors with a new $555 million tax, depriving investors of franking credits which they have previously relied on. In classic Labor fashion they've mixed up their sums and introduced a new tax to pay for it. Labor want you to work hard so they don't have to. The opposition will be supporting this bill but will not be letting Labor off the hook on their failure to manage the budget, and we won't be supporting their higher taxes to pay for their poor budget management.
The Treasury Laws Amendment (More Competition, Better Prices) Bill 2022 will deliver on the government's election commitments to help ease the cost of living by increasing penalties for breaches of competition and consumer laws, and to provide greater protections for small businesses from unfair contract terms.
Schedule 1 to the bill will increase the maximum penalty for anticompetitive behaviour under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 as well as breaches of the Australian Consumer Law to ensure the price of misconduct is high enough to deter unfair activity, and to ensure consumers retain a robust level of protection.
In 2018, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found that the average and maximum competition penalties in Australia are substantially lower than those in other international jurisdictions. As a result, there is a risk that a breach of the existing competition law could be seen as an acceptable cost of doing business by some large firms.
Consumers and small businesses often lack the resources and bargaining power to effectively review and negotiate terms in standard form contracts they are offered by a larger party.
The existing unfair contract terms protections in the ACL and the ASIC Act provide that where a court finds a term is unfair, the term is void.
This approach has not provided sufficient deterrence against the use of unfair terms, which remain prevalent in standard form contracts.
The amendments introduce civil penalty provisions prohibiting the use of, and reliance on, unfair terms in standard form contracts. This will enable a regulator to seek a civil penalty from a court. The existing definition of an unfair term remains unchanged.
The government's expectation is that regulators will continue to take a reasonable and proportionate approach to enforcing the unfair contract terms protections, including affording businesses an opportunity to respond to allegations of unfair terms before commencing any legal proceedings.
The bill includes a requirement to review the reforms two years after commencement, and the government will also welcome feedback from stakeholders ahead of this review. I commend the legislation to the Senate.
by leave—The government is to be commended for bringing forward this bill. It will increase penalties for anticompetitive conduct and it will expand the scope of unfair contract terms. The Greens will be supporting this legislation accordingly.
In particular, the Greens welcome the increase in civil penalties for various contraventions of competition and consumer law. Under the bill, maximum civil penalties for individuals—and I want to highlight those words, 'civil penalties for individuals'—including the CEOs and other executives of corporate Australia, will increase from $500 million to $2.5 million. As the government has explained, this will put penalties for anticompetitive conduct in Australia on par with those in comparable jurisdictions around the world. After nine years of the Liberal government dragging the chain, this bill will finally bring Australia up to scratch.
But I wish we could say this in other areas. Unfortunately, the good work that the government is doing here stands in stark contrast to their obsequiousness to the banks in other areas. The Financial Accountability Regime Bill, which is currently before the Senate, establishes a framework to hold the executives of banks, of insurers, and of super funds to account. Very similar to provisions in section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act, the Financial Accountability Regime seeks to hold executives to account, not just for deliberately ripping off their customers but for failing to take reasonable steps to ensure that customers are actually not ripped off.
The Financial Accountability Regime—it might help senators to understand it to put it this way—is the banking equivalent of the effects test. But while this bill increases civil penalties for executives under the effects test to a maximum of $2.5 million, the Financial Accountability Regime, as proposed by this government, includes no such civil penalties for the executives of banks. So this government's position is to apply a maximum civil penalty of $2.5 million on executives who breach competition obligations but to give those executives a complete free pass if they breach their accountability obligations, which will set up Australia's banking accountability regime right at the bottom of the international rankings. It is an approach which makes absolutely no sense at all. It has zero internal coherence.
I've got to say it's a worrying sign because the government seems to be picking up where the previous government left off in going soft on the banks. The banking royal commission appears to be lost in the mists of time. This is how the rot sets in: from the chair of ASIC going soft on enforcement to the minister making clear the limits of this government's ambitions, including by not putting civil penalties in the Financial Accountability Regime. As Commissioner Hayne outlined quite rightly in his report, every time the government goes soft and the regulators go soft, the big banks interpret it as a sign they can just get back to business as usual and do what they want to do—which is, let's face it, to exploit their customers just as hard as they can so they can increase their profits just as much as they can. The banks need to be held to account. When the government finally wakes up to this obvious fact, the Greens will be ready to work with them to deliver an accountability regime that is consistent and fair and does the job to hold banking executives, finally, to account.
I table a correction to the explanatory memorandum relating to this bill.
Bill read a second time.
No amendments to the bill have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
A message has been received from the House of Representatives forwarding a resolution agreed to by that House proposing a variation to the resolution of appointment of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and requesting the concurrence of the Senate.
The House of Representa tives message read as follows—
That:
(1) the resolution of appointment for the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters be amended to replace paragraph 3 with the following:
(3) the committee consist of 14 members, five Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, two Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, one cross-bench Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, three Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and one Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator; and
(2) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate concurs with the resolution.
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—
When the Albanese Government thinks about renewable energy—we don't just think about sun and wind. We think about jobs and investment.
That's why I am pleased to introduce the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill.
This is job enabling legislation.
This Bill underpins the offshore renewable energy regulatory framework for a new Australian industry, building on this Government's strong support for renewable energy projects and critical grid infrastructure.
Offshore wind has incredible potential to strengthen our economy, create jobs and opportunities for Australians, and ensure the delivery of affordable and reliable power.
Renewable energy support
Australia should be on course to be a renewable energy superpower—we have the raw materials and intellect to do it. But what we haven't had to date is a Government committed to seeing it happen.
The Albanese Government is supercharging our renewables vision because we know how important it is to our future—cleaner energy, cheaper energy.
It's why our plan includes 82% electricity by renewables by 2030.
It's why we are investing in community batteries—installing 400 around the country, so that communities can better harness the potential of solar without needing individual household batteries.
It's why we are rolling out 85 solar banks around Australia to ensure more households can benefit from rooftop solar.
And it's why we are leading the way on offshore wind, putting in place the building blocks for what has the potential to be a game changing industry.
Offshore wind
The International Energy Agency estimates that offshore wind has the potential to generate more than 420 000 terawatt hours per year worldwide, more than 18 times global electricity demand.
Offshore wind has the potential to power Australia several times over.
One rotation of an offshore wind turbine has the same amount of energy as an average household solar system produces in one day. Meaning that this technology has the ability to expand manufacturing and the green hydrogen industry.
It's not hard to see why, since 2010, at least 150 offshore wind projects began development across the globe.
Offshore wind can strengthen our energy network by complimenting onshore wind and solar generation patterns.
While offshore wind generation is thriving in the UK, Europe, and the US, this great resource is currently untapped in Australia.
While we're currently behind the pack, we're not out of the race yet, and this Bill enables the necessary changes to allow for licencing and construction to begin.
These proposed measures will deliver investment certainty to renewable energy sector participants seeking to operate in the offshore environment.
There are at least a dozen offshore projects waiting for this legislation—and the passage of this Bill is the next step in regulatory consideration.
Projects like Star of the South, which will deliver up to 20 per cent of Victoria's energy, have significant potential worth exploring, and the Department is consulting with local communities to define job and economic opportunities.
And the opportunities are there—offshore wind has the capability to become a significant maritime employer.
Energy jobs are well paid, secure jobs and this Bill helps provide additional certainty to the regulatory framework.
As part of our licencing framework, we will be supporting local communities to work with offshore electricity developers to get the best outcomes for their communities. Whether that's through:
Process
Further to the introduction of the offshore electricity infrastructure legislative framework, consequential amendments to the Customs Act 1901 are required to effectively manage border security risks that could arise from the installation of offshore renewable energy infrastructure in Commonwealth waters. These amendments will treat offshore renewable energy infrastructure on the same basis as sea and resource installations for customs purposes.
Without legislative amendments, there is a heightened risk of offshore renewable energy infrastructure providing an illegal entry point for people and goods entering into Australia.
These amendments to the customs framework will now treat offshore installations in the renewable and non-renewable energy sector on an impartial basis.
This Bill also makes minor administrative amendments to the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021 to ensure its effective operation as intended, further to recent Machinery of Government changes.
The offshore electricity infrastructure framework enables the development of a new industry; creating jobs, strengthening our economy, facilitating a more affordable and secure energy system, and significantly boosting Australia's progress on tackling emissions and climate change.
It's the start—but not the end—of our plans for offshore wind. But it's an important start.
Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.
I rise to speak on behalf of opposition senators to put the opposition's position on the Australian Human Rights Commission Legislation Amendment (Selection and Appointment) Bill 2022 on the record.
The coalition has a strong history of supporting the Australian Human Rights Commission and human rights work both in Australia and overseas whilst in government. It was under the coalition government that Australia was elected to the Human Rights Council, Australia's autonomous sanction laws were expanded through the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Magnitsky-style and Other Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021 and the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Magnitsky-style and Other Thematic Sanctions) Regulations 2021, and Australia sought an independent review into the origins of the COVID-19 virus by the World Health Organization which a record 145 countries co-sponsored.
This bill responds to a technical process issue raised by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions Sub-Committee on Accreditation in the relation to aspects of the appointment processes for the Australian Human Rights Commission and the potential length of tenure of commissioners. The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions reviews and accredits the NHRIS, based on the United Nations General Assembly principles relating to the status of national institutions, also known as the Paris Principles. The Australian Human Rights Commission has held A status accreditation since 1999, when the accreditation regime was put in place.
While supporting the bill, it is important to acknowledge that these accreditation processes are not perfect, are focused on process issues rather than practical human rights outcomes, and are designed for developing countries without a strong history of independent institutions. By way of example, Sweden's NHRI, the discrimination ombudsman, was downgraded to B status in 2011. The subcommittee determined its mandate was too narrow as it focused on equal rights but didn't consider nondiscrimination. The subcommittee was also concerned because, like Australia, the government appoints and can remove the ombudsman, so Sweden, despite its strong human rights record, has a B status NHRI.
Again, by way of example, Belgium's NHRI, the Interfederal Centre for Equal Opportunities, was also given B status accreditation in 2018. Once again, the subcommittee was concerned its mandate was too narrow as it didn't cover the full range of human rights and was only responsible for combating racism and discrimination. This was despite the fact it acknowledged that, while in practice its mandate was interpreted broadly, it didn't have clear legislative backing for a broad human rights approach. Concerningly, despite the panic over A status, if we were to look more closely at what the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions classes as A-status organisations, we would find those in countries such as Benin, the Russian Federation, Uganda, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Ghana. I would hardly say a country like Belgium or Sweden has grave human rights concerns, yet, under this accreditation process, they are worse than countries with significant human rights concerns.
In March 2022, in the same review Australia was threatened with a downgrade, some other countries which seemed to excite the same criticism as Australia had received from the global alliance nevertheless had their A status confirmed. For instance, Benin was accredited for the first time. Benin was given A status, despite the subcommittee expressing concern that its appointments weren't independent or transparent.
While coalition senators are not opposing this bill, we do stand by the high-quality appointments to the Human Rights Commission that the coalition did make while in government. I particularly want to observe, note and thank them for their service and the contribution they have made to the discussion on the protection of human rights in our country. All of these people are and have been distinguished Australians who have made particular contributions to safeguarding and advancing human rights in this country and beyond its shores. As a liberal democracy with a commitment to human rights, which I might add is shared across this parliament, Australia delivered on key priorities during the coalition's period in office. On the council, Australia spoke out: against Russia's attack on Ukraine and its people; against the Chinese Communist Party's human rights violations; against the deteriorating human rights situations in North Korea, Afghanistan, Ethiopia and Myanmar; against the erosion of human rights in Hong Kong; against the erosion of democratic institutions in Venezuela; and against the humanitarian toll of the conflicts in both Yemen and Syria.
Notwithstanding the clear issues with the accreditation process, the opposition does not oppose this legislation that seeks to address these process matters. It will enjoy our support, and we look forward to continuing to work very, very closely with like-minded countries across the world supporting human rights and the institutions that deliver these outcomes.
I indicated that the Greens will be supporting but seeking to amend the Australian Human Rights Commission Legislation Amendment (Selection and Appointment) Bill. This bill adds new criteria for the process of appointing members of the Australian Human Rights Commission, including a requirement for at least some merit based processes and public advertising. It applies to the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, under the Human Rights Commission Act 1986, and each of the commissioners under the Age Discrimination Act, the Disability Discrimination Act, the Racial Discrimination Act and the Sex Discrimination Act.
It retains the existing requirements that commissioners need to have appropriate qualifications, knowledge or experience—and, in the case of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, that the person have significant experience in community life of Aboriginal persons or Torres Strait Islanders. It further amends those acts to clarify that the total term of appointments for presidents and commissioners cannot exceed seven years.
We're here because the politicisation of these positions by the former government was disgraceful, and it has tarnished the global reputation of Australia and the Human Rights Commission. The defence that we just heard, the defence that other countries have engaged in significant breaches and are being called to account, is a defence that's unworthy of any government that should care about human rights. The fact that other countries have failed—and to give the list of other countries that have failed, as the coalition did, and say, 'We're in a class of defaulters'—is no defence for the disgraceful efforts that the previous Morrison government made to tarnish Australia's human rights reputation.
This bill only partially delivers on an election promise by the ALP. It was in response to what is likely to be, without this and other measures, the downgrading of the Human Rights Commission by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions. They had clearly threatened to downgrade it from an A-status institution to a B-status institution. In doing that, they identified two particular appointments, and the lack of due diligence and process in those appointments, that clearly did not meet accreditation standards. They were the appointment of Ben Gauntlett as Disability Discrimination Commissioner in 2019, a political appointment by the government, and then the appointment of Lorraine Finlay as the Human Rights Commissioner in 2021, another clearly political appointment, without any due process, by the Morrison government.
The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions has called for far broader reform than what Labor is offering with this bill. They are pressing for it, and their report says:
The SCA encourages the AHRC to continue to advocate for a selection process in law and practice that includes explicit requirements to:
a) Publicize vacancies broadly;
b) Maximize the number of potential candidates from a wide range of societal groups;
c) Promote broad consultation and/or participation in the application, screening, selection and appointment process;
d) Assess applicants on the basis of pre-determined, objective and publicly available criteria; and
e) Select members to serve in their own individual capacity rather than on behalf of the organization they represent.
Apart from the first point, pretty much none of the rest of that is implemented in this bill.
What this bill doesn't do is provide a pathway for identified positions for any of these senior appointments, a position that is increasingly out of step with global best practice and public expectations. The bill also fails to implement the requirements of the Paris Principles, particularly clause 1 of part 2, 'Composition and guarantees of independence and pluralism'. That's important because in the Attorney's second reading speech he relied heavily on the Paris Principles as justification for these measures.
Clause 1 of part 2 of the Paris Principles provides that the composition of a National Human Rights Institution and the appointment of its members must 'ensure the pluralist representation' of civilian society through the presence of representatives of:
(a) Non-governmental organizations responsible for human rights and efforts to combat racial discrimination, trade unions, concerned social and professional organizations, for example, associations of lawyers, doctors, journalists and eminent scientists;
(b) Trends in philosophical or religious thought;
(c) Universities and qualified experts;
None of that is implemented in this bill. The Greens strongly support increasing rigour in the appointment process. But that is only the first step in creating a Human Rights Commission that meets minimal international standards and is up to the job of upholding human rights in Australia.
I pause here to note that one of the critical failures in the Australian Human Rights Commission is a woeful lack of budget—a woeful lack of resources that was in no way remedied in the most recent budget that we've just seen passed. I particularly want to draw the Senate's attention to the lack of identified positions as a particular concern and a breach of the Paris Principles and a non-response to UN criticism. It's just one element that needs to be addressed, but for that reason, the Greens in committee will be seeking to amend this bill to explicitly provide for an LGBTIQA+ human rights commissioner. I want to commend here the work of my colleague Stephen Bates, the member for Brisbane, who has been a powerful advocate for the addition of this commissioner, a powerful advocate for his community and a powerful advocate for the LGBTIQA+ community. We have seen in the last few years attack after attack on that community, often coming from the right of politics. These have been ugly, divisive attacks from the right of politics.
It's about time that the LGBTIQA+ community had a commissioner on their side, someone to go to who is unambiguously on their side, so that when the next set of attacks come—and they almost certainly will come from some ugly part of the political right in this country—they are guaranteed to have a commissioner on their side who is fully resourced to go in to bat for them. I'll speak further about that in committee.
I rise today to speak in support of Australian Human Rights Commission Legislation Amendment (Selection and Appointment) Bill 2022. As I understand it, this bill seeks to introduce greater transparency into the selection and appointment of commissioners to the Australian Human Rights Commission. The commission is one of our great public institutions, endeavouring every day to stamp out instances of discrimination in our society. Just the other month I had the pleasure of meeting the Disability Discrimination Commissioner, Dr Ben Gauntlett, and hearing about his work in pushing for greater equality and opportunity for people with disabilities across our community.
The presence of the Australian Human Rights Commission reminds us that in our nation—no matter the colour of your skin, your faith, your disability or whether you're part of the LGBTQIA community—everyone has a right to live their life free of discrimination. The commission supports this by monitoring our nation's compliance with international human rights standards and by providing a mechanism for people to lodge complaints in instances where they feel that they have been discriminated against. This includes instances where people feel they have been discriminated against by the Australian government, a department or agency or as a matter of policy. In this way the commission can also support the government and the parliament to identify and challenge areas of entrenched discrimination. They also advocate broadly for human rights to be better considered in lawmaking and policymaking.
The commission has a long history of providing frank and fearless advice to governments and to the public. To name one example, I remember well when in 2014 the commission released its watershed report, The Forgotten Children, into the detention of children in immigration centres. This sobering report found that Australia's policy of mandatory detention of asylum seeker children was causing significant mental and physical illness and developmental delays, in breach of Australia's human rights obligations. When the report's 324 pages were provided, amongst those pages the commission unflinchingly pronounced, 'Australia is better than this.' The commission drew significant ire from the then government, with a former Attorney-General allegedly asking for the Human Rights Commissioner to tender their resignation. However, the report's findings withstood all challenge—the product of extensive investigation and qualitative and quantitative research. The plight of these children may never have received the attention it deserved without the Human Rights Commission.
Our public institutions are at their best when they are holding truth to power and acting without fear or favour to bring issues to the attention of policymakers. We have the best people for these roles and we need to ensure that they also have the public's trust. But a loose set of laws, at least those underpinning this commission, have left room for political appointments that have undermined both public and international trust in this institution. This has occurred to the extent that the commission is currently at risk of losing its status as an A-grade national human rights institution and being downgraded to the B grade. This bill seeks to remedy that risk and will undoubtedly strengthen the commission as an institution by making clear that appointments to the commission must be merit based and made transparently. I welcome the new government's commitment to transparency. Much has been made by them about issues of transparency in the past and I look forward to them following through with this and ensuring that all legislation that comes through this place has a high degree of transparency.
This bill makes further amendments to ensure that all commissioners appointed hold appropriate qualifications, knowledge or experience. Simply, the bill ends a 'policy for mates' approach in the commission. This really should be standard across our public institutions. I think there's an expectation by Australians that people get jobs based on merit and not because of who they know. According to the Grattan Institute, seven per cent of all federal government appointees have a direct political connection. This figure rises to an alarming 21 per cent among those positions that are well paid, prestigious and/or considered powerful. This is an indictment on politics in Australia that needs to be remedied. Our communities are frustrated with this and they want it to change. This is a welcome first step in the right direction to actually deal with these sobering figures.
Political appointments harm our democracy and significantly undermine confidence in our public institutions. This means that we miss out, and have been missing out, on the most qualified and knowledgeable people to fill these roles. It also perpetuates a culture where some of our highest decision-makers may be afraid to speak their minds and criticise government policies simply because they're worried about their future job prospects. Altogether, it means that the people appointed to make crucial decisions about our everyday lives may be doing so for their own party political interests rather than the public interest—rather than for the people who pay for them to be there to serve Australians.
It's time to restore integrity to appointments in our public sector. This bill is a good first step, but there is a way to go. While I appreciate the urgency in passing this legislation to avoid a downgrade in the commission's international rankings, I hope we can keep our sights on a broader set of reforms to end the jobs-for-mates culture. We should also be looking to make changes that ensure all board, tribunal and statutory appointments are advertised publicly and with selection criteria, as for almost every other job in the country. We should also look to ensure that there are mechanisms where these appointments can be assessed independently, with a ranked shortlist presented to responsible ministers for their consideration.
This is a good first step and I commend this bill, but I sincerely hope that it's not the last one.
ator CHISHOLM (—Assistant Minister for Education, Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (): I thank the honourable senators for their contributions to this debate on the Australian Human Rights Commission Legislation Amendment (Selection and Appointment) Bill 2022. This bill will restore integrity to appointments to the Australian Human Rights Commission and help to maintain the commission's international credibility as part of our broader commitment to the international rules based order.
The bill is an essential part of the government's integrity agenda and it will implement our election commitments to ensure that appointments to the commission are made through a merit based and transparent selection process. The Australian people deserve no less. In addition, this bill will address the concerns raised by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions Subcommittee on Accreditation when it deferred the commission's re-accreditation as an A-status national human rights institution.
The effective functioning of our antidiscrimination system is dependent on the proper functioning of the Australian Human Rights Commission. It is essential that the commission is able to function as an independent statutory body and that the public has confidence that the commissioners who represent their communities are appointed solely on the basis of merit. To address these concerns, the bill legislates a merit based and transparent appointments process for members of the commission by amending relevant provisions of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, the Age Discrimination Act 2004, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. The bill will remove the ability to make direct appointments to the commission without a merit based and publicly advertised selection process.
Further, to address concerns raised by the subcommittee on accreditation, the bill also addresses the tenure of members of the commission. The bill amends these acts to clarify that the total term of the president and commissioners is seven years, inclusive of any reappointment. Finally, the bill will make minor amendments to ensure consistency in the qualification requirements for the president and the statutory commissioners.
I note that the Greens have circulated an amendment—and Senator Shoebridge mentioned this in his contribution—to create an LGBTIQA+ commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission, and this issue has been raised in debate by others. The government will not support that amendment in this debate. The critical issue that this bill will address is restoring the international standing of the commission by urgently addressing the specific issues around transparent and merit based appointments raised by the global alliance, to support the commission's reaccreditation. The amendment circulated by the Greens is unrelated to the subject matter of this bill. If the Greens sought to move a similar amendment in the House of Representatives it would be ruled out of order, and the Greens should know this.
The government recognises that it is important to consider how best the commission can operate to promote and protect the human rights of all members of the Australian community, including LGBTIQA+ people. I acknowledge the work that the commission already undertakes in relation to LGBTIQA+ rights, led by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. By way of example, in 2021 the commission reported on the human rights of people born with variations in sex characteristics in the context of medical intervention. In addition, the commission is engaging in the WorldPride games and conference due to take place next year. There will no doubt be further discussion on the proposal for creation of an LGBTIQA+ commissioner, as well as other opportunities to strengthen the work of the commission in the future. Broader concerns regarding the structure and operation of the commission should be considered separately to this important bill.
An independent Human Rights Commission is fundamental to Australia's human rights agenda, both internationally and domestically. This government strongly supports the work of the Australian Human Rights Commission and is committed to restoring integrity to the process of commissioner appointments. The bill will support the commission's reaccreditation as an A-status National Human Rights Institution, which is necessary for its international legitimacy and credibility. Most importantly, this bill reaffirms our commitment to restoring integrity to government.
I thank all honourable senators for their contributions to this debate, and I commend this bill to the Senate.
The question is that the bill be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1604:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute:
(2) Page 9 (after line 31), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 2 — Establishing the LGBTIQA+ Commissioner
Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986
1 Subsection 3(1)
Insert:
LGBTIQA+ Commissioner means the LGBTIQA+ Commissioner referred to in section 46N.
LGBTIQA+ people means lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer, asexual and other sexually or gender diverse people.
2 At the end of subsection 8(1)
Add:
; and (h) the LGBTIQA+ Commissioner.
3 Subsection 8(7)
Omit "or National Children's Commissioner", substitute ", National Children's Commissioner or LGBTIQA+ Commissioner".
4 After Part IIAA
Insert:
Part IIAB — LGBTIQA+ Commissioner
Division 1 — Establishment and functions
46N LGBTIQA+ Commissioner
There is to be an LGBTIQA+ Commissioner.
46NA Functions of Commission that are to be performed by the LGBTIQA+ Commissioner etc.
(1) The following functions are conferred on the Commission:
(a) to promote discussion and awareness of matters relating to the human rights of LGBTIQA+ people in Australia;
(b) to undertake research, or educational or other programs, for the purpose of promoting respect for the human rights of LGBTIQA+ people in Australia, and promoting the enjoyment and exercise of human rights by LGBTIQA+ people in Australia;
(c) to examine existing and proposed Commonwealth enactments for the purpose of ascertaining whether they recognise and protect the human rights of LGBTIQA+ people in Australia, and to report to the Minister the results of any such examination.
(2) The functions of the Commission under this section are to be performed by the LGBTIQA+ Commissioner on behalf of the Commission.
(3) The LGBTIQA+ Commissioner may submit reports to the Minister that deal with such matters, relating to the enjoyment and exercise of human rights by LGBTIQA+ people in Australia, as the LGBTIQA+ Commissioner considers appropriate.
(4) A report under subsection (3) may include recommendations that the LGBTIQA+ Commissioner considers appropriate as to the action that should be taken to ensure the enjoyment and exercise of human rights by LGBTIQA+ people in Australia.
(5) In performing functions, or exercising powers, under this section, the LGBTIQA+ Commissioner may give particular attention to LGBTIQA+ people who are at risk or vulnerable.
(6) In performing functions, or exercising powers, under this section, the LGBTIQA+ Commissioner may consult any of the following:
(a) LGBTIQA+ people;
(b) Departments and authorities of the Commonwealth, and of the States and Territories;
(c) non-governmental organisations;
(d) international organisations and agencies;
(e) such other organisations, agencies or persons as the Commissioner considers appropriate.
(7) In performing functions, or exercising powers, under this section, the LGBTIQA Commissioner must, as appropriate, have regard to:
(a) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/217(III) A (1948); and
(b) such other instruments relating to human rights as the Commissioner considers relevant.
Note: The text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights could in 2022 be viewed on the United Nations website (http://www.un.org).
Division 2 — Appointment
46NB Appointment of LGBTIQA+ Commissioner
(1) The LGBTIQA+ Commissioner is to be appointed by the Governor-General by written instrument, on a full-time basis.
(2) A person must not be appointed under subsection (1) as the LGBTIQA+ Commissioner unless the Minister is satisfied that:
(a) the person has appropriate qualifications, knowledge or experience; and
(b) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that:
(i) was merit-based; and
(ii) included public advertising of the position.
(3) Paragraph (2)(b) does not apply in relation to the reappointment of a person who, immediately before the start of the period of reappointment, holds office as the LGBTIQA+ Commissioner under a previous appointment under subsection (1).
46NC Period of appointment
(1) The LGBTIQA+ Commissioner holds office for the period specified in the instrument of appointment.
Note: For re-appointment, see section 33AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.
(2) A person must not be appointed as the LGBTIQA+ Commissioner under section 46NB for a period if the sum of the following exceeds 7 years:
(a) that period;
(b) any periods of previous appointment of the person as the LGBTIQA+ Commissioner under that section.
46ND Acting appointment
The Minister may, by written instrument, appoint a person to act as the LGBTIQA+ Commissioner:
(a) during a vacancy in the office of the Commissioner (whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office); or
(b) during any period, or during all periods, when the Commissioner:
(i) is absent from duty or from Australia; or
(ii) is, for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office.
Note: See also sections 20, 33AB and 33A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.
Division 3 — Terms and conditions
46NE Remuneration and allowances
(1) The LGBTIQA+ Commissioner is to be paid the remuneration that is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. If no determination of that remuneration by the Tribunal is in operation, the member is to be paid the remuneration that is prescribed by the regulations.
(2) The LGBTIQA+ Commissioner is to be paid the allowances that are prescribed by the regulations.
(3) This section has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973.
46NF Leave of absence
(1) The LGBTIQA+ Commissioner has the recreation leave entitlements that are determined by the Remuneration Tribunal.
(2) The Minister may grant the LGBTIQA+ Commissioner leave of absence, other than recreation leave, on the terms and conditions as to remuneration or otherwise that the Minister determines.
46NG Outside employment
The LGBTIQA+ Commissioner must not engage in paid employment outside the duties of the Commissioner's office without the approval of the Minister.
46NH Resignation
(1) The LGBTIQA+ Commissioner may resign the Commissioner's appointment by giving the Governor-General a written resignation.
(2) The resignation takes effect on the day it is received by the Governor-General or, if a later day is specified in the resignation, on that later day.
46NI Termination of appointment
The Governor-General may terminate the appointment of the LGBTIQA+ Commissioner:
(a) for misbehaviour; or
(b) if the Commissioner is unable to perform the duties of the Commissioner's office because of physical or mental incapacity; or
(c) if the Commissioner:
(i) becomes bankrupt; or
(ii) applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors; or
(iii) compounds with the Commissioner's creditors; or
(iv) makes an assignment of remuneration for the benefit of the Commissioner's creditors; or
(d) if the Commissioner is absent, except on leave of absence, for 14 consecutive days or for 28 days in any 12 months; or
(e) if the Commissioner engages in paid employment contrary to section 46NG.
46NJ Other terms and conditions
The LGBTIQA+ Commissioner holds office on the terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not covered by this Act that are determined by the Governor-General.
Division 4 — Miscellaneous
46NK LGBTIQA+ Commissioner may obtain information from Commonwealth government agencies
(1) If the LGBTIQA+ Commissioner has reason to believe that a Commonwealth government agency has information or a document relevant to the performance by the Commissioner of functions under this Part, the Commissioner may give a written notice to the agency requiring the agency:
(a) to give the information to the Commissioner in writing signed by or on behalf of the agency; or
(b) to produce the document to the Commissioner.
(2) The notice must state:
(a) the place at which the information or document is to be given or produced; and
(b) the time at which, or period within which, the information or document is to be given or produced.
(3) The time or period stated under paragraph (2)(b) must be reasonable.
(4) A Commonwealth government agency must not, in response to a requirement under this section:
(a) give information in a manner that would reveal the identity of a particular individual; or
(b) produce a document that reveals the identity of a particular individual;
unless the individual has consented to the giving of the information or the production of the document.
(5) If:
(a) subsection (4) would prevent a Commonwealth government agency from complying with a requirement under this section to produce a document; and
(b) the agency is able to provide a copy of the document that has had deleted from it the information that would reveal the identity of the individual concerned;
the agency must comply with the requirement by producing a copy with that information deleted.
(6) In this section:
Commonwealth governme nt agency means:
(a) a Department or authority of the Commonwealth; or
(b) a person who performs the functions of, or performs functions within, a Department or authority of the Commonwealth.
46NL LGBTIQA+ Commissioner must give information to the Commissi on
The LGBTIQA+ Commissioner must give to the Commission such information as the Commission from time to time requires relating to the operations of the Commissioner under this Part.
46NM Minister must table reports of LGBTIQA+ Commissioner
The Minister must cause a copy of each report received by the Minister under this Part to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is received by the Minister.
5 At the end of subsection 46PV(3)
Add:
; and (h) the LGBTIQA+ Commissioner.
6 Application provision
The amendment of subsection 46PV(3) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 made by this Schedule applies in relation to proceedings:
(a) that commence on or after the commencement of this item; or
(b) that commenced before the commencement of this item, and that had not been completed by that commencement.
As I indicated in my second reading contribution, these amendments seek to amend the bill to provide for an LGBTIQA+ human rights commissioner. The Greens have been approached by a variety of organisations and community groups, from across the broader law reform community but especially from the LGBTIQA+ community, who have been asking for this for decades. We've been approached by Just.Equal Australia, who raised the very real issue that the reform in the bill just does not go far enough, and that's why we're moving for the well-overdue appointment of a standalone LGBTIQA+ human rights commissioner. Again, I want to acknowledge the work of my colleague in the other place Stephen Bates, the member for Brisbane, in helping to pull together these amendments and drive forward with this.
This amendment cannot wait. The reason that the Labor government is opposing this amendment now is that they say, 'It doesn't fit neatly in the bill.' Well, tell that to the thousands and thousands of members of the LGBTIQA+ community who want a commissioner who is unambiguously on their side to advance their rights and to protect their interests when the next attack comes. This is a community that went through the appalling marriage equality plebiscite, and thank goodness they won it. Thank goodness we, together, won that, but there were the attacks that came in that plebiscite, and we've seen the platforming of hateful transphobic views from Liberal Party members and other right-wing politicians and commentariats.
The LGBTIQA+ community deserves a commissioner. It deserves a part of the Human Rights Commission institution that is unambiguously on its side. It would have made a material difference in the public debate in the past three or four or five years had this been on the statute books, and there is no reason, apart from bloody-mindedness on the part of the Labor government, for it to wait another day. The model we're proposing here is far from revolutionary.
The model proposed for this commissioner has similar functions to the existing human rights commissioners, but with that special focus on the LGBTIQA+ community. That includes raising awareness of human rights impacts, research and education, and examining existing and proposed laws to assess their likely impact on LGBTIQA+ people and the community. That's exactly what we need. It may well be that in the next 12 months we have another go at religious discrimination laws, and of course we should be thinking ahead and putting in place the commissioner who can help the community through that, can be an advocate for the community through that and can help this parliament, at the end of the day, get the laws right, if that comes again to this chamber.
The lack of such a commissioner is such an obvious oversight, and we can remedy it today. The numbers are in the house today, if only Labor had the decency and the imagination to get on board and support it. The need is clear and, in fact, there have been previous statements from the Labor Party indicating they support this reform. Well, now's the time to test that, because now's the time to see if those statements carry any weight. Do you support it or not? We'll see how you vote.
Senator Shoebridge, I am just seeking clarification on whether your intention is to move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1604 together by leave.
For the convenience of the house, I seek leave to move amendments (1) and (2) together.
Leave granted.
I thank Senator Shoebridge for his contribution. We certainly understand the strong sentiment that has been expressed by members of the community over a long period of time now about a dedicated LGBTIQA+ commissioner, but we are of the view, as I mentioned in summing up, that this bill is not the vehicle to create such a position. The government recognises that it's important to consider how the commission can best operate to promote and protect the human rights of all members of the Australian community, including LGBTIQA+ people.
There is no doubt that there will be further discussion on this proposal, as well as other opportunities to strengthen the work of the commission in the future, but the critical issue that this bill will address is restoring the international standing of our commission by urgently addressing the specific issues around transparent and merit based appointments raised by the global alliance to support the commission's reaccreditation. That is what the focus of this bill is today. As I mentioned before, it is not possible to make such changes as this and for it to go back to the House of Representatives.
On behalf of the opposition, I advise that we will be opposing this amendment. The Australian Human Rights Commission Legislation Amendment (Selection and Appointment) Bill 2022 was introduced to clarify the recruitment arrangements for the president and commissioners of the Australian Human Rights Commission, the AHRC, in order to satisfy the requirements of a global alliance of national human rights institutions. This bill responds to a technical process issue raised by that same body's Sub-Committee on Accreditation in relation to aspects of the appointments process for the Australian Human Rights Commission and potential length of tenure of commissioners. LGBTIQA+ rights are already addressed in the work of the AHRC commissioners, including in particular the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, so this amendment is not required.
Well, of course the coalition won't support this amendment, and that's one of the reasons they got thrown out of government. That's one of the reasons we have a new parliament with a majority in this chamber and a majority in the other chamber that is meant to be unambiguously committed to supporting the rights of the LGBTIQA+ community. That's one of the reasons the coalition is in opposition. And the only rationale given by the government for not supporting this urgent, necessary and fundamentally right amendment is that 'this bill is not the vehicle'. I don't think the LGBTIQA+ community cares which vehicle is used. It could be Uber, it could be a taxi, it could be a bike, it could be this bill. The vehicle isn't relevant. What's relevant here is getting the substantive amendment through, getting the commissioner in place. For the community to hear that response from the government, when they know they've got the numbers here right now to achieve the reform, and the answer is, 'Computer says no', well, that's a deeply disappointing outcome.
As I said before, of course the coalition, with their current mindset—not all, but an uncomfortable chunk of the coalition—that refuses to show decency to this community, are going to say no. But why is Labor joining with them? Why is Labor joining with the coalition to say no to this? We haven't heard an answer—well, no persuasive answer—and it's a deeply unfortunate precedent to set in this new parliament. I thought things had changed.
Minister, the bill is responding to concerns raised internationally by the Human Rights Council around the status of the commission and the commissioners. They've also raised concerns in the past about the fact that Australia, even as a signatory to the ICCPR, has not legislated federally for the protection of all parts of our community, including those who hold a religious faith. Can you update the Senate on the government's commitment or plans to address those concerns which also come from these international bodies?
We remain committed to introducing legislation to end discrimination against people with religious belief.
As this amendment is alluding to, there is concern amongst various parts of our community that the Human Rights Commissioner, with a broad remit, doesn't cover the detailed support for elements of our community, and the same concern has been raised by people of religious communities in Australia. Within the ICCPR, article 2 includes protection of people against discrimination because of their religious faith. Article 18 is specifically around having freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the ability to practise that with their community. Article 19 says that everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. Article 22 says that they shall have the right of freedom of association with others. And article 27 may in fact be applicable to communities here now. For example, the latest census says that even the Christian community is now a minority. Article 27 says that, in states where ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, members of such minorities shall not be denied the right in community with other members to enjoy their own culture or profess and practise their own religion. As the government considers its response to those encouragements from the international community and the Human Rights Council to specifically legislate for religious freedom and protection from discrimination, will it also consider the appointment of a religious freedom commissioner?
The government will consider all those matters as part of our consultation process in regard to the religious discrimination bill.
Minister, does the government accept that in the example of Mr Thorburn, which we saw just recently, where, through no words or actions of his own but by mere association, he was discriminated against and, in the opinion of some legal experts, has been subject to a constructive dismissal, such protection is required for people of faith in Australia?
I don't think it is appropriate for me to comment on that particular case but I certainly am aware of the commentary around the abandoned appointment of Mr Thorburn.
Does the government accept, in the conclusions found by the Senate Select Committee on the Exposure Draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill back in 2017, that, in order for Australia to remain a plural democracy where different views are respected and legal, action is required to protect both people who have different views on gender and people who have different views in terms of their religious faith?
I assure you, Senator Fawcett, that the government remains committed to introducing legislation that will prohibit religious discrimination.
Minister, will the government ensure there is an LGBTIQA+ commissioner in place for that community before the next round of sometimes divisive and marginalising commentary happens associated with religious discrimination? Will you ensure the commissioner is in place before this parliament goes down that path again?
As I have said repeatedly now, we understand the concerns expressed by the community. I know the Attorney-General is committed to continuing discussions on this important matter and how best the Human Rights Commission can ensure that people from LGBTIQA+ communities are protected.
The question is that the amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1604 be agreed to.
It now being 1.30 it is time to move to two-minute statements but, with the indulgence of the chamber, I would like to put the final questions first in order to finalise this bill. The question now is that the bill stand as printed.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
We will now proceed to two-minute statements.
In the Senate today I want to share some meaningful thoughts from a rally I attended in Perth for Tuart Place. Tuart Place, of which I'm proud to be a patron, supports survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. Based in Fremantle, it has occupied its headquarters at 24 High Street since its inception. That location has become a home and a haven for survivors. The organisation is now threatened with eviction.
The owners, the Christian Brothers, who it must be noted have previously supported Tuart Place, plan to sell this property. Many voices—many voices—were heard at the rally, calling for Tuart Place and its services to remain where they are. Dr Philippa White, the director, said: 'Tuart Place needs to stay right here on the ground floor of this building, where we have been since 2007. We have exhausted every option for moving and, yes, we could rent a two-room office space with a reception area, but what we would lose would be everything that we have built—everything that is special about this place and everything that is our community. People who come here often have had many different homes when they were young and it is hard to settle down after that. This is a stable, familiar, accessible place where you can just drop in and are always welcome. The staff and volunteers are warm and friendly and it feels like home,' she said of Tuart Place. 'You don't just take that away, especially now as people are getting older and need more care.'
And John Ryall, a child migrant, said, 'This building, 24 High Street, is unique as it meets all the needs of the staff and members . There are no buildings like it in Fremantle that we can afford. Many of our people feel safe and secure here.' This is a matter of great concern. This concerns many West Australians. I especially call upon the Christian Brothers today to show greater charity to this important group of vulnerable Australians.
Today in this place we launched the Women's Budget Statement, a feature of the budget which has been missing for a decade since former Prime Minister Abbott appointed himself Minister for Women and abolished it. This is a really important moment. The Women's Budget Statement is back. I'm really proud to be part of a government made up of equal numbers of women and men. Indeed, I believe, as a government, we have more than equal representation of women and men. But, more importantly, I am proud to be part of a government which is delivering for women already.
One of the key features that we see in this budget is Labor's extension of the Paid Parental Leave scheme, a scheme that Labor brought in last time we were in government, a scheme we believe in and back but a scheme which has likely been left untouched for a decade. Our policy will bring paid parental leave up to 26 weeks—six months—by 2026. This will make a tremendous difference to families as they make those judgements and those decisions early in their little ones' lives around how much time they can spend at home, how much time they can spend as a family.
By supporting families to be there with their children in those critical early months—and let's face it, those really early months are tough for many, many families—is a really special thing but it is also a really important thing when we look at productivity, when we look at workplace participation. It is just one measure contained within the Women's Budget Statement that I am deeply proud of, and I am deeply proud to be part of a government which is delivering for women and their families.
I would like to talk about the question of roster justice, an issue that affects so many Australian workers, one we have heard so much about in our Select Committee on Work and Care. We all use and rely on retail, hospitality and care services, and workers in these sectors are frontline workers. They are essential and they are the fastest-growing group of employees in the country yet these workers, often women, are low-paid and lack decent working conditions because of an absence of roster justice. Too many are forced to play a form of 'roster Hunger Games'. They are contracted for very few hours, 10 a week for example. Their hours and thus their pay are absolutely critical to their kids, families and themselves but their shift times fluctuate, often with very short notice. A lot of workers need a bit of extra time to top up their pay but they have to remain glued to their phones in a high-stakes competition to secure the hours.
These workers cannot plan their lives in advance or arrange the care they need for their children and families. This causes an enormous amount of daily anxiety and stress and it is driving many, particularly women, out of the labour market at a time of skills shortages because they are forced to choose between their job on the one hand and the care of those they love on the other. Women are left desperately trying to seek care for their kids at the last minute. The choice between work and providing care is a deeply unfair choice and it is a choice we can change. When workers ask for certainty about their rosters, too often they are penalised. They miss out on hours, they lose conditions or they may never work again in that workplace.
Large retailers can predict exactly how many and what kinds of apples we will buy tomorrow. They can predict that with certainty. They can certainly predict the hours of working time from their workers that they need tomorrow. Their employment is predictable; their rosters should be predictable. Workers need predictable rosters ahead of time, they need certainty about the minimum hours they work and they need the opportunity to negotiate rosters so they can plan their care and lives. Our workplace relations system should enable it.
Five long years of the McGowan government have driven the Western Australian healthcare system to breaking point. Labor inherited a world-class system from the Liberal Barnett government: a $7 billion investment in our hospital system, world-leading infrastructure; the Perth Children's Hospital; the Fiona Stanley Hospital; Midland hospital; Joondalup, Albany, Kalgoorlie and Busselton health campuses; world-leading staff, staff planning, recruitment and policy settings, including the four-hour rule in hospital emergency departments; and so much more. But instead of building on what we left them, they have been progressively destroying it.
The Premier cannot blame COVID-19. The rot started well before COVID-19 did. We now have the lowest number of beds in Australia per capita. Ambulance ramping is at historic highs. In opposition Labor called 1,000 hours a crisis. Today it is 7,000 hours, the highest in Western Australia's history, and it is going up. Fatal and near-fatal medical mistakes in child health services have risen by 20 per cent. There is an over 50 per cent increase in elective surgery waitlists, a chronic shortage of nurses and, sadly, the list of failure goes on and on and on. Everybody in Western Australia now knows someone who is suffering or has died as a result of these failures.
This is not a result of a lack of money—they have plenty. Under us, when we were in government, they got a 150 per cent increase in hospital funding, and the Western Australian government now has a $6 billion surplus. Political hubris really is a killer. The shadow minister, Libby Mettam, is to be congratulated for her relentless holding of the WA government to account. She is right: the McGowan government must start turning around their health failures. The lives of more Western Australians depend on it.
If there's one thing we can all agree on, it is that Aussies have been doing it absolutely tough. Australian workers have suffered through nine years of wage decline, and we've suffered a decade of the Australian middle class going backward. This is an emergency. When working families are struggling to fill up the car or to put food on the table, when they can't get secure work, when their wages are going backwards, that is an emergency. We were elected to this place to legislate solutions to challenges Australians face. That's why we're all here, and there's no greater or more urgent challenge than the decline of wages and secure work. There is no greater or more urgent challenge than that decline.
The secure jobs, better pay bill contains solutions to those challenges. The opposition and their mates in the employer lobby will always say that now is not the time. They'll always say that workers should wait a little bit longer. Australian women have been waiting for over a century to get real pay equity at work, and Australian workers have been waiting for 10 long years for a pay rise. We could wait another 10 years to pass this legislation, and the opposition and some in the employer lobby would still say it's too soon because low wages are part of a deliberate strategy that will never change for that lot.
The shadow Treasurer has been complaining that this bill will push up wages. Yes, the bill will push up wages! And we make no apology for it. Australian workers and Australian women deserve their fair share—let's get it done.
It hasn't been easy for our local wine producers these last few years. They've been trying to grow their businesses, but how can they? There have been COVID lockdowns and low tourism. There have been natural disasters, and Tassie wine producers have been struggling to keep their businesses afloat. They've got bills to pay, just like the rest of us. That's why I've been so supportive of the Australian Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant program. It's why I was so concerned when the future of this program wasn't clear. I called for the government to give winemakers some certainty over their future, and I'm very happy to see that the government listened. We got confirmation in Tuesday's budget that the program is continuing. This is very welcome news for our Tassie wine producers.
Fred Peacock from Bream Creek Vineyard was so relieved when we called him to tell him the news. He's building a brand-new cellar door near Marion Bay. With this grant continuing he can employ the staff he needs to ensure the best possible visitor experience. It's also a relief for businesses around Fred. They're reliant on his new cellar door to help bring tourists to the area. These tourists will spend money at local hotels, cafes, restaurants and shops. It shows how important these grants are to rural and regional communities—not just for the flow-on effect of tourist dollars but also for the job opportunities they create.
I want to thank Minister Watt and the government for continuing this program. I promise you, these businesses are worth investing in. I know they are, as do you. Next time you're in Tassie, Senator Watt, give me a call. I'll make sure that you get to see the best and brightest of the wine cellar door industry here in Tasmania, and I'm sure Fred will look after us.
SCARR (—) (): Senator Reynolds, I'll give you a call as well next time I'm in Tasmania!
In the lead-up to the last federal election Labor made a promise, and I'll quote it. This is from Labor's Powering Australia policy. It says Labor:
… will cut power bills for families and businesses by $275 a year for homes by 2025, compared to today.
That was the promise. This week, when Treasurer Jim Chalmers MP, the member for Rankin, was asked, 'Where did the $275 appear in the budget?' he said, 'Yep, it's in the budget,' and then he had to say, 'I misheard the question,' about the $275. That's because the $275 was not in the budget. In fact, the position is worse. Not only will power prices not go down $275 for each household but page 57 of the budget says:
Treasury has assumed retail electricity prices will increase by an average of 20 per cent nationally in late 2022, contributing to higher forecast—
inflation—
Given forward wholesale contract prices for electricity remain elevated, retail electricity prices are expected to rise by a further 30 per cent in 2023–24.
Where's the $275 promise?
The electors of Queensland didn't miss here. In the lead-up to the election, they heard the Labor Party promise a $275 decrease in power prices. They didn't mishear that promise, but what they find in the budget is that Labor has not kept its promise. In fact, electricity prices will go up under Labor. They're going up, they're not going down—another broken Labor promise.
Sadly, the floods continue to have a severe impact right across the eastern states of Australia and in my home state of Victoria. The Australian government has moved very quickly to provide payments and coordinated relief efforts with state and local governments. Those impacted by the floods in affected council areas can now claim $1,000 payments for every adult and $400 for every child. There is also disaster recovery allowance available in a wider range of council areas. This allowance is a 13-week payment at the JobSeeker rate for people who have lost income as a result of these floods.
The government has also authorised the deployment of up to 550 Australian Defence Force personnel. I really want to place on the record my gratitude for the work they are doing to assist flood-impacted communities. As of today, around 400 ADF personnel are supporting local authorities with flood related tasks right across regional Victoria, including Echuca, Shepparton, Swan Hill and Bendigo.
While these floods continue to have a terrible impact on many communities, as is so often the case in our darkest days we are seeing so many examples of Australians pulling together to help each other out. I saw a story recently, out of Skipton, about a working bee supported by the local Lions club and the Skipton Football Netball Club. The clubhouse has been used as a relief hub and base of operations for volunteers. This is another great example of the Australian spirit and how we look after each other when times are tough.
I say thank you to all the volunteers, emergency workers and ADF personnel who are out there currently, on the ground, helping the most vulnerable.
These are just three of the messages my office has been sent in the lead up to the budget:
I've used pliers to rip out a fractured tooth because I didn't have the money for the dentist.
I can only afford to pay the minimum on my HECS debt each year, and each year it increases with indexation. I'm never going to pay it off.
I can confirm my partner and I only eat once or twice a day because we cannot afford more than that.
The government had a choice to end a decade of that grinding poverty, yet they chose billionaires instead.
Millions of people voted for change. Australians voted to get rid of a Prime Minister who didn't care about the cost of a loaf of a bread, who didn't know the cost of a power bill. So how can the Albanese government even think of locking in the largest tax cuts in Australia's history and confirm that wages are going to go backwards and then flatline for years while rent, power and food prices are going through the roof? I'm sure it's not just my office but those of MPs across this place that are getting messages like that. We just had a cost-of-living and budget election; this budget addresses neither. Millions of Australians need and demand better, and we'd better stand with them.
When we talk about the 2022 floods in New South Wales, we already need to ask which ones. My state, New South Wales, is now suffering its third major flooding event, with more on the horizon. The food bowl of Moree is underwater. Farmers are out checking their wheat crops in boats as they wait for waters to subside. Gunnedah has the awful distinction of having had its fifth flood in 12 months. People in Western Sydney are looking with anxiety to see when next the Nepean will spill over its banks. The Shoalhaven is still recovering from the last floods and has been hit again. I want to recognise the important work of Mayor Amanda Findley there in supporting her community. We are in a climate crisis. Communities are on the front line of the climate crisis. They need us to act.
Yesterday, it was a huge honour to be in the chamber as the Senate passed the Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill. This is a hugely important reform that will help so many people, particularly women, be safer. As I said in my speech in the second reading debate, it was terrific to have the opportunity to consult with my community, to bring together frontline service providers, experts, the Small and Family Business Ombudsman and employer groups to talk through the details, to talk about the implementation and to nut out any unintended consequences. We had great conversations, and everyone left that roundtable knowing more. I left that roundtable with a really clear view of what my community wanted.
That consultation sat alongside a Senate committee process looking into this amendment. That committee had 28 calendar days in which to hold public inquiries, receive and consider submissions, draft a report and, ultimately, form a view. Although important, it was a relatively straightforward piece of legislative reform. Last year, for the Respect@Work amendment bill the committee had 43 days to look at the legislation, and for the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill it had 92 calendar days to do the same. Now we're faced with a massive bill dealing with industrial relations—something that it is so crucial we get right for Australians, not only for workers, whose wages need to grow, but for employer groups, who have concerns—for which the committee will have only 22 days. While I applaud the Greens' talking about more transparency, it's disappointing to see them backing having a short time to consider a bill.
Thanks to Labor, Australia is facing a cost-of-living crisis. It was always clear that they were devoid of an economic plan, but this has been reinforced by a forgettable, empty, nothing budget. You would have thought that Tuesday night's budget would have at least attempted to help families. Instead, Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Labor have already begun to wave the white flag. The test for Labor in the budget was to build on the strong position inherited from the coalition, and Labor have failed this test. Instead, we've been presented with a budget that does nothing to address Labor's cost-of-living crisis bearing down on Australian families. This budget confirms that the cost of living will skyrocket. Whether it's your electricity bill, your rent, your mortgage payment or the taxes you pay, Labor will always cost you more. Under Labor, your electricity bill is expected to go up 56 per cent—that's 56 per cent, not 5.6 per cent, not 15.6 per cent or 0.56 per cent, it's 56 per cent! That's what Labor costs you, even though Anthony Albanese promised 97 times before the election to reduce your power bills by $275. This is a classic example of the dodgy combination of lies and incompetence that underpin the non-existent ethics of Labor governments. They promise you the world and deliver you Marrickville. They simply don't care about you or the economic hardships facing your family.
Australian families need a budget that tackles the big issues of the day. Tuesday's offering falls well short of this standard, leaving Australian families $2,000 worse off by Christmas. But, oh, they'll continue to review; Labor loves reviews—lots of reviews. This is a budget about hurting Australian families and reviewing things, and not about making real decisions.
Australian beef and, best of all, Queensland beef are here to stay as Australia's main source of protein. A recent CSIRO paper published in the journal Animal, found that pasture fed beef returned 1,597 times more human edible protein than it consumed. What a wonderful way to produce natural, nutritious and affordable protein to feed our world.
The CSIRO, though, couldn't help themselves of course and went on to denigrate the cattle industry for its methane production. This fearmongering fails on the most basic of tests: the biogenic carbon cycle. Methane in the atmosphere combines with oxygen to produce water and carbon dioxide which are then reabsorbed into pastures through photosynthesis, encouraging plant growth. For those who swallow the United Nations' climate rubbish and think that nature's trace atmospheric gas, essential to life on earth, needs to be sequestered: it is being sequestered!
There's no environmental harm from cattle methane production. Cattle can be raised in a sustainable manner that not only protects but improves soil health. The war on red meat doesn't have a leg to stand on! I call on Meat & Livestock Australia to dump its Red Meat 2030 plan—a plan designed to create a false scarcity of red meat in order to double meat prices and increase profits for a lucky few large beef producers. Red Meat 2030 will end grazing in lower rainfall areas, which will then be returned to nature in a process called 'rewilding'. This land is where affordable meat is grown. Meat will become an elitist food; everyday Australians will be forced to source protein from food-like substances grown in labs or concocted on a process line from bugs, nuts and chemicals—lots of chemicals! Pick up a pack of fake meat and check the ingredients.
Meat & Livestock Australia must stop pandering to the climate change fraud and globalist elites. We are one community, we are one nation and climate change delusion is a danger to people's cost of living and to our very food supply and security.
LMAN-PAYNE () (): The right to quality and accessible health care in this country should not be a postcode lottery. Health care is a right and it should be afforded equally to all. However, we know that stark regional inequalities in health care access persist.
In Gladstone, these inequalities are seen most starkly in women's access to health care. Gladstone Hospital services a population of around 60,000 people and, usually, 600 babies are born there every year. But since 4 July it has not had a fully-functioning maternity unit. Instead, women are being forced to travel over 100 kilometres to Rockhampton to access this essential healthcare service.
Private corporations extract billions of dollars from Gladstone and Central Queensland, and all that wealth gets shipped out of the community into the pockets of investors while local services are failing. Lack of proper healthcare services also makes it harder to attract other critical workers to our community. Industry is telling us that people are not moving there because they know they can't access that service at our hospital. We have teachers who are leaving for the same reason.
The shutdown of Gladstone Hospital has now lasted for over three months, and there is still no clarity on when adequate healthcare services will resume. This is putting increased pressure on Rockhampton Hospital; now there's a risk that we're going to lose more doctors and nurses to burnout, and Central Queensland will have no functioning maternity services. I note that the Queensland government has caved in to community outrage by introducing limited services. You can currently have a planned C-section by appointment only. But the fact that a major regional hospital like Gladstone Hospital is without a fully functioning maternity unit is totally unacceptable.
Senator Nampijinpa Price, you've got a few seconds.
Just this week the ABC's Four Corners program highlighted the prevalence—
That's it. The time has expired. We will now move to questions without notice.
My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. How much more will an average Australian household be paying in electricity and other costs this financial year?
I thank Senator Cadell for the question. I can say that, with the implementation of the Powering Australia plan which we have in this budget, $21.9 billion is going to fixing the energy mess of 10 years of denial and delay. There were 22 policies, none of them landed. With the investments that we are making in Powering Australia, we will be putting downward pressure on energy prices over time. This is why this work has become more urgent than ever. We need to put all of our effort into implementing these policies and making sure that we are fixing the grid and getting more renewable energies into the system so that we actually have a government that supports the energy transformation that is needed and was denied to the Australian people by the former government. This challenge is the one that is perhaps most urgent in terms of our economy and in terms of cost-of-living pressures on households and businesses. We understand that.
The budget has forecast expected increases in gas and electricity prices over the next year. Depending on which state or territory you are in, the impact of that will differ, but we do acknowledge that it is a significant impost on households and businesses. In the ACT, for example, where we have 100 per cent renewable energy, prices between 2021 and 2022 are going down. That is the reality because renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy. We understand that, and that is exactly why we need to put more effort into cleaning up the energy mess that you guys left behind. (Time expired)
Senator Cadell, your first supplementary question?
I note the minister's inability to say how much more an average Australian household will be paying in electricity and other costs. I refer the minister to NAB's consumer sentiment survey, which says that by Christmas consumers can expect an increase of 33 per cent for grocery costs, an increase of 52 per cent in fuel costs and an increase of 31 per cent in utilities costs. Minister, do these expectations reflect the reality of the price hikes Australians can expect?
GALLAGHER (—) (): I'm sure those opposite are reading and understanding the inflation challenge that is alive and well across the Australian economy. And, yes, we have an inflation problem that we are not seeking to exacerbate with this budget. The Reserve Bank is increasing interest rates in order to reduce inflation and get it back to within normal range. The government took the very responsible decision in this budget to make decisions that did not make the work of the Reserve Bank any harder. The easiest thing to do would be to say that we could spend some of the upgrades that we got in terms of revenue. That would be the easiest thing to do. But what we did was bank 99 per cent of that, and where we did provide additional spending, we put it into services that did not increase the inflation problem in this country.
Senator Cadell, your second supplementary question?
With Australian households already hurting under Labor, and Labor's promise to cut electricity prices by $275 already broken, will the minister guarantee that they will at least keep their promise to deliver all of the legislated income tax cuts for Australians earning more than $45,000? Or will Australians face being slugged with higher taxes as well as higher costs under Labor?
This government keeps all of its promises.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Minister, resume your seat. Order, all senators on my left!
Order, Senator Henderson!
Senator Scarr, order!
Thank you, Senator Ayres! I should not have to repeatedly call out 'Order!' When you become that loud, the obvious response from the President is to call you to order. And, when I call you to order, I expect quiet. Minister, please continue.
You'll see that in the budget that we handed down two days ago. I know that it is funny to those opposite and I know that it is a foreign concept to those opposite that you would actually have a government that does what it says.
Minister, please resume your seat.
Senator McKenzie!
That was very disrespectful, Senator McKenzie.
Madam President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. I don't know if it is because the finance minister did not hear the question that Senator Cadell asked, but it was actually about broken promises.
Senator McKenzie, the minister has only just started her response. I have had to call the Senate to order twice because it's very hard to hear. I do believe she's being relevant, but I can assure you that, if she's not, I will draw her back to the question.
I acknowledge that it is a foreign concept for those opposite that you would actually, in government, do what you said you would do and deliver on the commitments you make. That's what this budget does—on cheaper child care, on cheaper medicine, on renewable energy and on delivering all of our commitments. You see them in the budget: ending the waste and rorts—we're doing that; budget repair—we're doing that; and not adding to the inflation challenge—we're doing that. And we're still delivering on hospitals, on aged care and on the NDIS. We are fixing up all of these areas that you neglected for years. This budget is a sign of our commitment to deliver on what we promised. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. Can the minister please inform the Senate how women have been placed at the centre of the Albanese government's budget?
I thank Senator White for the question and for her longstanding interest in women's policy and gender equality. In fact, all of those who sit on these benches have a commitment around achieving gender equality in this country.
After a decade of neglect by the previous government, our government is committed to putting gender equality at the core of our budget and unlocking the valuing, the talent, the potential and the contribution of women in Australia. We're investing $4.7 billion in cheaper child care. This will make it cheaper and easier for 96 per cent of families to access early childhood education and support workforce participation, especially by women. We're providing $531 million to expand the Paid Parental Leave Scheme up to 26 weeks. That is another one of the national schemes that Labor built and Labor is making even stronger. We're investing $1.7 billion to improve women's safety initiatives to support our ambition of a country free from gender based violence in a generation.
These measures form just part of our $7 billion investment in this budget to drive gender equality. These are our first steps. We will also deliver a national strategy to achieve gender equality within our first year of government, to provide vision and direction about how we can achieve gender equality in Australia. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in doing that.
We had a great event this morning launching the Women's Budget Statement. Remember when that got cancelled by then Minister Abbott, the then Minister for Women? We have put that back in place and we have made it a document of substance. That is what we will continue to do, because this is a government that takes achieving gender equality seriously.
Senator White, a first supplementary?
Thank you for that fantastic answer, Minister. Can the minister outline the government's commitment to reinstate gender responsive budgeting?
Senator White, a first supplementary?
HITE () (): Thank you for that fantastic answer, Minister. Can the minister outline the government's commitment to reinstating gender-responsive budgeting?
Thank you, Senator White, for the question. Unlike the previous government, women are not an add-on in this budget; they are at its core, and decisions that the government make, when we make them, are informed by gender analysis about how those decisions affect women. We're putting gender equality at the heart of decision-making by reintroducing gender-responsive budgeting after it had previously been abolished by the coalition government. It was something that we tried to keep up in opposition, and I pay credit to our colleagues Tanya Plibersek, Sharon Claydon and the status of women committee, who worked tirelessly in opposition with no resourcing and very little time to do the assessment that's now being led by the Public Service. It was important because it sent a message that we take gender-responsive budgeting seriously, and you see that reflected in the Women' Budget Statement released on Tuesday night.
Senator White, a second supplementary?
Can the minister explain why advancing gender equality is an economic and social imperative?
I thank Senator White for the question. Unfortunately, Australia currently ranks 43rd out of 146 countries in the World Economic Forum global gender gap index. This is where we are today. Our gender pay gap stands at 14.1 per cent; it is higher for First Nations women. It's not good enough and we know that we cannot call ourselves a fair country while one half of the population is paid less, does more unpaid care, and experiences higher rates of domestic, family, and sexual violence.
Driving gender equality isn't just good for women; it's also good economic policy. This was a resounding message from our Jobs and Skills Summit. One of the first outcomes of that meeting was that women's economic equality must be treated as a key economic imperative, that it was crucial to the future of our economic prosperity and that we deal with it that way. We have listened to that and that's why I'm proud of this budget which places women at the centre. (Time expired)
My question is also to the Minister for Women and the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Gallagher. I note you just boasted in a previous answer about your support for women. But during the election, Labor matched the coalition's commitment to subsidise the cost of assisted reproductive technology services for aspiring parents diagnosed with cancer or risk passing on a genetic condition yet this commitment has been shelved in the budget to achieve a savings benefit. Has the Albanese government broken its promise to aspiring parents in need of IVF support?
Not at all. I would say the budget also includes almost $70 million, from memory, for women's health initiatives. The assistant minister, Minister Kearney, is leading the work on a women's health strategy. She's been doing a lot of work and consulting with various stakeholder groups. But this budget is a proud budget in terms of the investments in health, in hospitals, in primary care, in—
I rise on a point of order. The question was specifically around a particular budget measure that is missing from the budget in relation to IVF for women and parents who have been diagnosed with cancer or genetic conditions. There has been no mention whatsoever of that measure.
Thank you, Senator Ruston. I don't need the commentary. I do believe the minister is being relevant. She has been talking about women's health and, if not, I will direct her to the question. Minister Gallagher.
I think it was about our commitment. I answered the question right at the front when I said, no, I didn't agree with the proposition that was being put by Senator Askew. I went on to explain the investments we're making in women's health and the work that is being done to put together a strategy around it, because we take this seriously. We understand that women's reproductive health is key to women's health overall and that obviously has flow-on impacts into our economy and our community; that is the point I'm making. I'm also making the point that we have a very positive investment in health. In dealing with some of the challenges, again—surprise, surprise—we were left by a former government that had spent nine years trying to dismantle Medicare and not investing in health.
Minister, please resume your seat.
Opposition senators interjecting—
You have a senator on her feet. Order! Order! Order! I have called the opposition to order three times. You had one of your frontbenchers on her feet. Senator Ruston?
Once again, on a matter of relevance. The question referred specifically to a budget measure in relation to people who have cancer or genetic conditions in relation to IVF. She has not answered that question.
Senator Ruston, as you know, I can't direct the minister to answer the question in a way that might be your response. I do believe, for the second time, the minister is being directly relevant.
Opposition senat ors interjecting—
Are you having another question? Because that wasn't the question. I have answered the question that was put to me straight up, and I am now going on to explain the other positive measures in the budget, including measures around women's health. It's a positive budget for women. It's a positive budget for health. It's dealing with a decade of delay and—
Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston?
Once again, on relevance: I respect your decision here, President, but the minister has not answered the question despite saying she has. I would ask you to direct her to answer the question.
Senator Wong?
If I may, President, before your ruling: I'd submit that if Senator Ruston had been paying attention the minister had actually responded directly to that point, the specific policy point, in her first few sentences.
Opposition senators interjecting—
I'm very happy for you to spend as much time on this as you wish. We're always happy to have our record on health matched up against yours, but that's a different point.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! Order!
Senator McGrath! I should not have to name senators to call you to order. My ruling is: once again, I do believe the minister is being relevant. Minister Gallagher, did you finish? Okay. Senator Askew, first supplementary?
During the election, Labor matched the coalition's commitment to fund 20 new Gidget Foundation Australia perinatal mental health and wellbeing services in every state and territory, yet the budget only provides for 12 services across Australia. Has the Albanese government broken its promise to new mothers in need of mental health and wellbeing support as well?
No. This budget delivers on the commitments we made—
An opposition senator: Apparently it doesn't!
It does. You're even accepting that it's in the budget and they will be delivered, okay?
Opposition senators interjecting—
Is this 20 questions in one? Sorry, President; I get asked one question and then I get another 10 questions given to me. I would direct people—
Minister, please resume your seat.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! I'm waiting for quiet. Senator Askew has asked a first supplementary, which the minister is endeavouring to answer. You may not like her answer, but at this point she is still being relevant. It is not helpful for any of you to be parroting other numbers across the chamber. If you have a question, speak to your side about getting on the list. I'm requiring the minister to answer the question that is for her, and that is the question from Senator Askew.
Thank you, President, for your protection there. The government will be delivering on the health commitments that we made during the election campaign. If you look at budget paper 2, which goes through the measures, you will see page after page of investment in health, particularly in areas— (Time expired)
Senator Askew, a second supplementary?
The Albanese government has shelved or cut two of your key women's health commitments from the election campaign. Will you apologise to new mothers and aspiring parents who are in need of support for prioritising other spending areas over your commitments to them?
I'm not about to accept a lecture from those opposite about women and services for women. If you look in this budget, it is a good budget for women. If you read budget paper 2, page 143, you will see that we have delivered on the commitments we've made. Indeed—surprise, surprise!—we are going to also do some work on evaluation of initiatives to make sure they are delivering the support to the communities that those programs are intended for, and that is good, responsible budgeting. That is exactly the approach I will take as finance minister. We deliver on things. We also evaluate to make sure they are delivering the support and the programs that are intended by those measures.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Senator Watt. Private schools funding across the forward estimates will now be $1.7 billion more than the amount the previous government committed in their final budget. Does the minister believe that throwing even more money at private schools at a time when public education is in dire need of support is a fair thing to do?
Thank you, Senator Allman-Payne, for the question. I speak to you as a proud product of the state education system in Queensland, as is my wife and as are both of our children. But, as I have often said in the past, I equally respect the right of families to choose the schooling environment that is appropriate for them. For my family, the appropriate choice was a state school environment. For other families it's a Catholic or independent school.
Poor old Gerard hasn't got over his prejudices about GPS schools, it would appear, but some of us move on and grow in life, and some of us stay at about grade 6 level, like Senator Rennick.
Senator Watt, I would ask you to withdraw that comment, please.
I withdraw.
Thank you.
As I said, we respect the choice of families as to the appropriate schooling environment for their children. That's why we're providing funding for both state and non-secular schooling environments. Some of the things we have delivered in this budget are $270.8 million over two years for the Schools Upgrade Fund, $56.2 million for bursaries to attract more high achievers into teaching, $68.3 million to expand the High Achieving Teachers program, $27.6 million for other measures to tackle teacher shortages and better prepare student teachers for the classroom—
Senator Allman-Payne?
A point of order on relevance: the question was directed to whether or not funding private schools at a higher level than public schools is fair.
I will remind Senator Watt of the question.
Just to provide a bit more detail on funding for different sectors, in 2022 the Australian government is providing $25 billion in recurrent school funding. The largest amount, $9.94 billion, is to government schools. There is $8.64 billion for Catholic schools and $6.67 billion for independent schools. The increase to non-state schooling in this year's budget is, I understand—and, again, I'll check this—as a result of the indexation model that already exists and has applied for some time. But I've run out of time. (Time expired)
Senator Allman-Payne, a first supplementary?
As a proportion of total funding, private school funding is growing, according to the budget, and funding for public schools is shrinking. Does the minister accept that the government's budget has moved Australia even further away from reaching 100 per cent of the minimum Schooling Resource Standard for public schools?
Senator Allman-Payne, as I was saying, one of the factors that influence the amount of funding that's provided to different schooling sectors in every budget is the indexation model. Another factor that influences it is the number of enrolments in particular sectors. We are in the process of beginning a new schools funding agreement with the states and territories which will consider a wide range of matters, including the indexation of school funding.
But I might point out that in electorates that are represented by the Greens, such as Brisbane, Griffith and Ryan, there is a substantial proportion of families who choose a non-state schooling environment for their children. We strongly support the rights and interests of public schools, and, as I say, I've reflected that in my own personal decisions. But we also respect the need for some level of funding for private schooling as well.
Senator Allman-Payne, a second supplementary?
Is the minister aware that the King's School, a private school in New South Wales, plan to use funds to build their head teacher a private plunge pool? Is the minister also aware that there has been around a 45 per cent increase in demountables in New South Wales public schools from 2014 to 2020? Does the minister believe that it is fair that Labor is giving even more money to private schools while the public system crumbles?
I am aware of those reports involving—I think it was the King's School. I think it is important for all independent schools to be accountable for the public funding that they receive and to make good decisions about how that funding is used. I don't think that taxpayers would expect public funding to be used for inappropriate purposes. It is intended to be used for what goes on in classrooms. I'd certainly encourage all private schools to approach funding that way.
There is no doubt that state schools in Australia need more public funding. They've needed it for at least the last 10 years during which the last government was in power. These are matters that we will consider further with the states and territories as we approach a new schools funding agreement.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Senator Farrell. Can the minister outline to the Senate what the Albanese Labor government is doing to clean up the mess left by the Liberals and the Nationals and get the NDIS back on track?
I thank Senator Urquhart for her question and for her deep interest in this area of policy. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is a great Australian success story. It's a scheme that exists only because of a Labor government. The NDIS is a scheme that will be protected by a Labor government.
The NDIS is an essential investment that supports those people living with disabilities and their families. The NDIS provides support for over half a million Australians with significant and permanent disability. Despite this, the Liberal and the National parties, through active disinterest, left the NDIS to wither on the vine during their long nine years of mismanagement and neglect of this position. They failed to do anything about cost increases; instead, they kicked the can down the road, as they did with so many difficult issues. They shuffled seven ministers through the portfolio over a decade and broke trust with the people and with the disability sector. And they let fraud and criminal activity sneak into the NDIS. Labor is committed to putting people with disability at the centre of this scheme. By establishing an independent review led by a panel of experts and people with disability, the Albanese Labor government is starting to rebuild this trust and get this scheme back on track.
Senator Urquhart, a first supplementary?
Can the minister tell the Senate what the Albanese Labor government is doing to reduce fraud and criminal activity in the National Disability Insurance Scheme?
Unfortunately, Senator Urquhart, I can. Under the Liberal government, fraud and criminal activity became a significant contributor to waste in the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Under the watch of those opposite, and I'm pointing at this mob over here—
Yes, over there.
Yes, that's them. There is evidence that the scheme has been targeted by serious organised crime. Currently, there are $213.9 million of NDIS funding being investigated for fraud. The Albanese Labor government has zero tolerance for fraud and is committed to stopping the waste of NDIS participant funding that should be used to give individuals choice over their lives. Earlier this year, the CEO of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, Michael Phelan, noted that 15 to 20 per cent of the scheme's funding could be—
Thank you, Senator Farrell, your time has expired. Senator Urquhart, a second supplementary?
Can the minister explain to the Senate how the establishment of a fraud fusion taskforce will restore integrity and responsible economic management in the National Disability Insurance Scheme?
I thank Senator Urquhart for her insightful question. Yes, I can explain the answer to that question. The Albanese Labor government made an election commitment to restore trust in the NDIS and ensure a better future for Australians living with disability. The establishment of a fraud fusion taskforce complements this commitment by strengthening fraud detection and by better safeguarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme from serious organised crime and other fraud. The fraud fusion taskforce will better enable intelligence sharing, identification and response by the NDIS, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Quality and Safeguards Commission, Services Australia, other departments, law enforcement agencies and regulators. The Australian government will continue to investigate and prosecute to the full extent of the laws those found to be committing fraud.
Senator Farrell, the time for this answer has now expired.
My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Minister Gallagher. Minister, the budget reinstated Medicare item 288. We wanted item 288 reinstated, but Tuesday's budget measure doesn't go far enough: it only applies to video conferencing. What are you doing to support people who don't have access to video conferencing and can't attend an in-person appointment?
ALLAGHER (—) (): I thank Senator Tyrrell for the question, and for a heads-up on the question so that I could get some advice from the minister's office. I understand that the minister for health, Minister Butler, has been engaging with the Jacqui Lambie Network on this matter and will continue to do so, and that on 6 October the department of health and members of the minister's office met with the Jacqui Lambie Network—I'm not sure if it was with your office, Senator Tyrrell or with Senator Lambie's—to have a discussion on these matters, and that will continue.
On the issue of telephone consults versus video-conference consults: it's hard to remember because of how intense the last few years have been, but phone telehealth hasn't been an option that's been available prior to the response to COVID-19. In my discussions with doctors—and I think this probably reflects the minister's position too—I've heard that the accepted view across the health workforce is that face-to-face and video services better support patient care and patient outcomes and should be the preferred forms of consultation with patients, particularly when there are Medicare items relating to more complex care arrangements. And this is particularly the case in long-form consultations of over 45 minutes.
The government is committed to evidence based care and telepsychiatry services. Consultations that are longer than 45 minutes should either be face to face or delivered via videoconferences. But I accept the point about people finding it difficult at times to get in front of videoconferencing and can find it hard to access services. I'm sure the minister's office will continue to talk about those, particularly in your local area.
Senator Tyrrell, a first supplementary?
We all know elderly people find it hard to use Zoom—well, not all of them but some—and that people in regional areas don't have good internet. Why is the government insisting on videoconferencing? Surely if it's a choice between the phone or nothing, you would rather have people on the phone.
I certainly accept that in areas across the regions and particularly where there are workforce shortages as well, which affects regional communities, accessing healthcare services can be difficult. There is a very strong regional communications package in this budget which goes to strengthening regional communities' access to internet and at good speeds. So that is part of it.
But, again, I think the clinical preference is to have face to face, in person or video presence, for consultations, particularly for complex care, and often geriatric or elderly care falls under that criteria. If there are other options available, I'm sure the minister will engage with you, recognising there are some particular challenges in Tasmania with accessing primary health care. We've got urgent care clinics and— (Time expired)
Senator Tyrrell, a second supplementary?
I think the minister actually answered my third question in answer to my second question. So I might just skip out of the third—and I know that's rare.
Thank you, Senator Tyrrell.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong, and relates to consistency in funding allocations. I refer the minister to the comments made by the Prime Minister in his budget-in-reply speech last year that all projects must really 'stack up' against the Infrastructure Australia model. When the Tasmanian government requested support for an infrastructure project in Hobart—namely, an AFL stadium—Mr Albanese said that he wouldn't consider funding until he had received a business plan. Minister, if Tasmania can't get funded for a project without providing a business plan, why does the budget allocate $2.2 billion for a Labor pet project in Victoria that also doesn't have a business plan and which the Victorian Auditor-General identifies as failing to demonstrate an economic rationale?
I thank Senator Colbeck for the question. I am pleased to get a question about Tasmanian infrastructure. The senator might be aware that the Prime Minister, with the Premier of Tasmania and former Senator Guy Barnett, in fact announced Marinus Link just this last week.
Madam President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. My question is about a Victorian infrastructure project that doesn't have a business plan and, quite frankly, doesn't stack up.
Senator Colbeck, your question, which I took note of, was quite broad ranging and had quite a long preamble. You started off talking about consistency in funding. I will listen closely to Minister Wong and direct her if necessary. But I believe she started off being relevant.
Thank you, President. I would make the point to the senator, who seems to be implying in this question some issue with funding Tasmanian infrastructure, that there are quite a deal of infrastructure commitments that Tasmania is receiving under this government. Of course, Marinus Link, which has been something that Tasmania has been seeking for years, is being delivered through a partnership between the Albanese Labor government and the Liberal government in Tasmania—something that Senator Colbeck, in government, could never deliver. I would also make the point that the budget has included in it $540 million to upgrade the Tasman Highway, the Bass Highway and the east and west Tamar highways in addition to other investments.
In relation to the Suburban Rail Loop, we've been here for some days and we've had an attempt by those—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Senator Wong, please sit down. Senator Hume, Senator Henderson and Senator Watt, we have a senator of their feet. Order! Senator Colbeck on a point of order?
Senator Henderson, I've called you to order twice. You have a senator on your own side on his feet. Senator Colbeck.
Thank you, President. I raise a point of order on relevance. My question was about the government process in allocating funding, and Senator Wong has gone nowhere near my question. In fact, I wasn't even complaining about funding of a project in Tasmania. I was talking about a project funded in Victoria.
Thank you, Senator Colbeck. As I said in response to your first point of order, your question had quite a long preamble on a number of issues. I'm listening to Senator Wong, and I do believe she's being relevant to your question. Senator Wong.
Thank you. I'm very happy for Senator Colbeck to go back to Tasmania and explain to his constituents that he's actually asking about Victorian projects, not Tasmanian projects, and that he didn't want to hear about Tasmanian projects. But that's a matter for him. I'm sure my Tasmanian Senate colleagues will have something to say about that.
As I was saying, in relation to the Suburban Rail Loop, we are honouring our election commitment to provide $2.2 billion towards early works for the Suburban Rail Loop east. The detailed business and investment case for the Suburban Rail Loop released by Victoria last year demonstrated a benefit-cost ratio of up to 1.7. That's $1.70 for every dollar invested. (Time expired)
Senator Colbeck, your first supplementary question?
My supplementary question to Senator Wong is: when the New South Wales government said it wanted support to raise the height of the Warragamba Dam to protect communities from floods, a project that is recognised as state-significant infrastructure, Mr Albanese said he would talk to New South Wales after their state election next March. Why do the people of New South Wales have to wait for flood mitigation support until after the state election in five months when the Victorian Labor Party can get $2.2 billion just one month before a state election?
I might just finish, if I may, because I was asked about Infrastructure Australia. Suburban Rail Loop will still be subject to assessment by Infrastructure Australia, under the National Land Transport Act. I'm advised that the project will also be subject to a rigorous assessment process between the Commonwealth and Victoria, and we will respect these processes like any responsible government.
In relation to Warragamba Dam, I am advised that the government is open to discussing the dam-raising project with the New South Wales government in more detail. There is no current proposal before the federal government with respect to co-funding the dam. But I will say this: we are not going to take a lecture about integrity in infrastructure from those opposite, who used taxpayers' funds as if they were their own election slush fund.
Opposition senators interjecting—
The 'minister for colour coded spreadsheets' over there can shout all she likes, but everybody knows what happened on your watch. (Time expired)
On a point of order, Madam President, the minister was directly referencing my colleague here on this side of the chamber instead of addressing her response through the chair and should withdraw.
Yes. I will remind Senator Wong to refer to all senators by their correct titles. Senator Colbeck, your second supplementary question?
Why are the people of Tasmania and New South Wales being punished by hypocritical and partisan decision-making by the Albanese government which clearly favours their Victorian Labor mates, as demonstrated by Mr Albanese throwing $2.2 billion of federal money at a Victorian project the Victorian Auditor-General describes as failing to demonstrate an economic rationale?
I have responded to the Suburban Rail Loop project questions. I have also responded to the Warragamba Dam questions. I'm now asked about partisan decision-making. Can we remember the $15 million commitment for a car park at Balaclava station, despite the fact that the land was already set aside for public housing? Can we remember the $115,000 per space for a project in the Melbourne suburb of Berwick, which the Auditor-General found was nearly three times the benchmark price? Can we remember 11 projects worth $175 million with no assessment work?
Minister Wong!
Keep asking us about partisan infrastructure funding because we are not going to forget what you did.
Order! Minister Wong.
A point of order on direct relevance. Clear rulings from previous presidents have stated that a—
What about the Brockman interregnum?
Including the last President! Previous presidents of both persuasions have ruled that, whilst passing glances at the opposition are acceptable, an answer, which is now more than halfway through, that has contained nothing but attacks on the opposition is irrelevant.
Thank you, Senator Brockman. Order! Senators! Seriously, all of you, on my left and my right. It took me a very long time to get the attention of Senator Wong, to ask her to sit down, because there was so much disorder in this chamber that it wasn't possible.
Thank you, Senator McGrath. You are the biggest offender, and I would ask you to be quiet and respectful. Senator Colbeck's second supplementary question was very broad and went to a hypocritical question about why something was favoured over another. It was not specific, and I believe that Senator Wong is being directly relevant.
Thank you, President. I'm afraid I did not hear you, and had I heard you I would have responded more quickly, but I did see Senator Brockman and sit down. I have responded on the specific projects in question, but I would remind those opposite that their record when it comes to partisanship and poor process in infrastructure is well there for all Australians to see. (Time expired)
My question is for the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong. The Australian Energy Market Operator released a report which concludes that the closure of the Liddell coal-fired power station will increase electricity prices even further next year. Australian families are already struggling to pay their power bills, and they are reeling from the news in the budget this week that power prices are set to increase by 56 per cent. Given that the experts are now revealing that the closure of coal-fired power stations will increase people's power bills, will the government commit to keeping the Liddell coal-fired power station open to give Australian families, who are struggling right now, cost-of-living relief?
There is no doubt that the problem in the energy grid, particularly the exiting of supply which has occurred over the last nine years, is one of the factors contributing to higher energy prices. It's one of the factors. I know the senator may have a different view about this, but it is very clear from advice from energy market operators and energy market suppliers that the cheapest form of new energy is renewables. I know those opposite, in particular, have such difficulty with that, and their difficulty with it has contributed to the mess and chaos that we have seen in energy markets in this country to date. I know that the senator is concerned, as we all are, by rising energy prices and the impact that has on family budgets. What we—
I'll take the interjection from Senator Rennick, who just asserted that renewables are more expensive. That falsehood is one of the reasons why energy markets are in such a mess. Under you, four gigawatts of dispatchable capacity exited the system and you put one gigawatt in. Anybody who understands basic supply and demand knows that if you reduce supply there's going to be an effect on prices; that is the case.
We may not agree on everything, Senator Babet, but I do agree with you that this requires urgent attention. We believe on the basis of the advice from the industry, so this is—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Please resume your seat, Senator Wong. This question is from Senator Babet. He is one of our crossbenchers. He gets very little opportunity to ask questions because it's on a shared basis. I would ask all senators to give him the respect he deserves and that the answer be heard in silence.
Senator Babet, I know one of the things people seek is a solution which may involve taxpayers putting in subsidies to keep open facilities which are not commercial. What is really required is a transformation of our electricity sector so we put more supply into the system and transform the grid.
Senator Babet, first supplementary?
Minister, the Prime Minister, when asked about surging power bills this week, said that we are in this position because of external factors like the war in Ukraine. How is it that, a generation after the Soviet Union was defeated, we are so dependent on Russia or anyone else for our energy needs?
There are a number of factors which are affecting energy prices. The point about—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order on both sides! I remind all senators once again that this is a question from Senator Babet, and I ask you to allow him to hear the answer.
Senator Babet, the effect of the illegal and immoral war in Ukraine is not so much an effect on Australia alone but an effect on global energy markets. What is occurring is we have a number of factors which are affecting our energy market and global energy markets, and, of course, contributing to inflation.
Senator Rennick!
In relation to our energy markets, we have, as I said—
Senator Rennick, I have called you to order a number of times. I shouldn't have to keep doing that.
Senator Rennick! This is not your opportunity to answer back. I've called you to order. I expect order.
The war in Ukraine is affecting global energy markets. That is driving inflation and also increasing energy costs, and if you speak—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Oh my God! (Time expired)
Senator Babet, second supplementary?
Senator McKenzie! Order! I have Senator Babet on his feet, waiting to ask his second supplementary.
This week, the green German government has pulled down wind turbines to expand a coalmine across Europe. Coal-fired power stations are being reopened and there are 300 new coal-fired power stations being built around the world right now. Why don't we join the rest of the world and build new coal-fired power stations so that Australian families, businesses and manufacturers can have cheap power bills once again and we can save our standard of living?
We share your desire to reduce energy prices. I would say in relation to coal-fired power here in Australia is that the market has not funded investment in new coal-fired power. The market has made a decision.
I know Senator Canavan wants taxpayers to fund it, but the market has chosen not to invest in more coal-fired power generation because the market has made an assessment that renewables are cheaper.
In relation to Germany, I am well aware of what is occurring in Germany. It has been part of the discussion between their foreign minister and I and also discussions at the Foreign Ministers Meeting at the G20. Europe is doing the right thing, seeking to reduce reliance on Russian energy. We support that because President Putin is looking to weaponise energy supply, so it is the right thing to do for the European Union and, in particular, Germany to look to make themselves more resilient in the face of that weaponisation. (Time expired)
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! I am waiting to call Senator Ciccone.
Thank you very much, President. I appreciate that; it's a rowdy day. My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Penny Wong. Minister, how is the Albanese Labor government making Australia a stronger and much more influential partner in a very contested world, particularly with what has arisen out of our commitments in the October budget earlier this week? Could you also please inform the Senate how the Australian government is building a stronger Pacific family?
I thank Senator Ciccone for his question, and I thank him also as chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade committee. I know he is particularly interested in these matters, which go to ensuring Australia is safer and more secure in our region and in the world. What I would say is that you will see in this budget the government's commitment to renewing our closest relationships and the government's commitment to advancing Australia's interests and Australia's values. You will see in that budget, consistent with what we have been doing since we were elected, the work that the government is undertaking to make Australia the partner of choice for the countries of our region to ensure Australia's security, to ensure Australia's economic strength and to shape the world for the better.
Our intention is to do what we are able to do to help build a stronger Pacific family. We want to help our regional partners become more economically resilient, develop critical infrastructure and provide their own security so that they have less need to call on others. The investments outlined in the budget include an additional $900 million over the next four years to support Pacific development and resilience. This follows a decade of Liberal cuts which undermined the national interest. That is the pity of the approach that was taken—against Ms Bishop's advice and, I assume, against Senator Payne's, but that's a matter for her—by the previous government to reduce Australia's development assistance because that was a reduction in Australia's influence in the region.
The additional ODA and other measures will advance our interests by tackling poverty and supporting stability, prosperity and security in our region. Likewise, we are also intent on improving and expanding Pacific labour mobility to help Pacific economies still struggling with the aftermath of COVID. (Time expired)
Senator Ciccone, first supplementary?
I thank Minister Penny Wong for that comprehensive answer.
Senator Scarr, come on! Senator Ciccone, continue your question, please.
Could I also ask the minister: what steps is the government taking to deepen Australia's security cooperation with our Pacific partners in the region?
This is a very important domain for Australia to continue and deepen its engagement, and I thank the senator for recognising that. There are a number of measures in the budget which go to our commitment to supporting the security needs of our Pacific partners and giving life to our commitment and our view that security in the Pacific should be an issue for Pacific family. This includes the continuing AFP deployment in Solomon Islands in 2023 delivering—
Senator Scarr!
I would have thought some of this might have bipartisan support—really. I'm talking about and AFP deployment and you want to interject on an Australian Federal Police deployment that has bipartisan support.
Honourable senators in terjecting—
Order!
delivering a new Australia Pacific Defence School to boost training for defence and security forces across the Pacific and doubling funding for our aerial maritime surveillance in the Pacific.
Senator Ciccone, a second supplementary?
I again thank Senator Penny Wong for that answer. How is the Albanese Labor government's budget building a more stable, prosperous and resilient region?
I would like to talk, if I may in the last minute, about two Pacific Island Forum members who are important neighbours for us.
The first is Cook Islands, the incoming Chair of the Pacific Island Forum, and I thank them for their hospitality last week. Whilst I was there, I signed the Oa Tumanava partnership with Prime Minister Brown which paved the way for deeper cooperation between our two countries. Cook Islands, as I said, is the incoming chair of the forum. We have elevated our engagement with the Pacific Island Forum as the key regional architecture within the Pacific. It is one of 11 countries which I have had the privilege of visiting since my appointment as foreign minister.
In relation to Fiji, I would like to inform the Senate that we are building on our new Status of Forces Agreement between Fiji and Australia signed by the Deputy Prime Minister and his counterpart last week. That marks an important milestone in our defence relationship with Fiji. (Time expired)
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.
I would like to start by talking about infrastructure and how Labor are gutting rural, regional and remote Australia. What they're doing is terrible. Labor have got a giant vacuum cleaner over rural, regional and remote Australia and it's sucking all the money out and sending it to Marrickville. That's where the money is going.
I want to talk about some projects in Queensland because we've got some Queensland Labor senators who think they know about regional Queensland. I want to talk about some projects. Let's talk about the dam in Etheridge Shire Council at Forsayth—the Charleston Dam, which I want to be renamed the Noeline Ikin Dam, by the way. Ten million dollars went into this dam through the Building Better Regions Fund. But, according to Labor, this is a rort. That $10 million to build that dam allowed the people of Forsayth and Georgetown to have drinkable water. Until the dam was built, in summer they would get water out of the river which was dry and they would be drinking sludge. That's what Labor want regional, rural and remote Australians to drink—sludge. That is what Labor gives to regional Australians, but we deliver. That dam means there is potable water for the people of the Etheridge Shire Council.
Let's talk about Murweh Shire Council and a little place called Morven, which none of these buggers have ever been to. Morven has a population of about 100. We've put some money into some cattle yards, but they don't care about that because, according to Labor, their food comes from the fridge at Coles or Woollies or IGA or whatever organic fruit shop they happen to be going to that day. But this is so important for that community because two jobs came out of those cattle yards, and that means a pub has been rebuilt in Morven. If you go to Morven now, there is a new pub there. It's so important for the sustainability of a small rural community.
That is what the Building Better Regions Fund has done for Queensland: it is ensuring that those people who live beyond the Great Dividing Range—I declare a conflict of interest; I am one of those people, and so is Senator Davey—it means that those Queenslanders and those Australians can have the quality of life that people in the city take for granted. That's why infrastructure is so important. That's why Jane McNamara , the Mayor of Flinders Shire Council, fought like a tiger or a lion to make sure that she got millions of dollars through the Building Better Regions Fund to build a lake in Hughenden. You might think 'So what?' about a lake in Hughenden. It means that the people who live in Hughenden, which is a remote little township, have a recreational facility where people can go fishing and walk around. They can have a life. One thing COVID has shown us is the benefit of living outside the cities.
That is why this budget is such a let-down for all Australians—because of the abolition of the Building Better Regions Fund and also the partisanship that has come through the politics.
It is really interesting how Labor are happy to give $2.2 billion to Daniel Andrews to help his re-election but they are not prepared to give little grants of money to little regional communities—a little community like Wondai. That mob over there doesn't know where Wondai is. Wondai is a beautiful little community. Wondai got about $50,000 for the art gallery there. That mob over there think that they are the artistes of politics, but it is our side who stand up for regional art galleries. It is our side who understand that Elaine Maddill, who is the doyen of the Wondai Art Gallery, fought like a mother tiger to get $50,000 to rebuild the kitchen for the Wondai Art Gallery. But, according to Labor, that is a rort—that is a terrible thing.
I say to Elaine and to Jane and to the people of the Etheridge Shire Council that this side of politics will always fight for all Australians, but we will particularly fight for rural, regional and remote Australians, because we know that you are doing tough. We know that you are the engine room of the Australian economy, and we know that more money should be spent on your roads, your bridges and you dams. A damning indictment on this government is what they are not doing in relation to Urannah dam. It is a brilliant dam. It has a hydro pump and everything going for it, but that mob over there have taken the money away from it and are going to let this dam sink. That mob over there do not believe dams, because they need preferences from the pixies at the other end of the political spectrum to ensure that they get re-elected each time. Shame on Labor for that—because dams mean money and money means that we can do more for all Australians.
Senator McGrath, I would like you to withdraw your use of the term 'you buggers'.
I withdraw.
If anyone were new to the conversation here, they would think that these 'pillars of virtue' and 'everything good about Australia' had an argument. But, seriously, you mob had nine years. What the heck did you do for nine years? It is fantastic to talk about all these so-called great nation-building projects, but you didn't fund them and you didn't make any effort to build them.
Mr Deputy President, please indulge me, because this has been a wide-ranging question time today, and those over that side really talked some nonsense about infrastructure. I have been tied up in the infrastructure portfolio through Senate estimates for over 17 years.
A long time.
I know; I don't know what I did wrong in certain parts of my previous life, but I do remember a lot of stuff. But, seriously, how can we look at that side of the chamber, the opposition, and see any credibility. Let's talk about a certain infrastructure project—and I bet that mob over there doesn't raise it in Senate estimates this time around. Remember Leppington Triangle? Remember that piece of land that was valued at $3 million? And what about the new airport being built in Sydney? I am not pointing figures, but that lot over there have their fingerprints all over it. That land was valued at $3 million and was owned by no less than a well-known LNP donor.
Opposition senators interjecting—
I will take 25 steps out there. I do not need the protection of parliament to make this statement because it is damn true. Do you know what they bought it for? I think Mr Barnaby Joyce was the minister at the time. It was valued at $3 million. Did they pay $3 million or $3.5 million? No. Did they pay $5 million? No. You'll notice that no-one over there is interjecting. Did they pay $6 million or $7 million? No. Do you know what paid? Do you know what they took out of our pockets—out of the pockets of Australians; out of the pockets of all you out there in the gallery; and out of the pockets of all you out there in radio land? They paid $30 million. Do I hear any objections? Where are the big voices on the opposition benches? Not one of them is saying boo. There are some decent people on that side of the chamber.
I am not accusing my good friend Senator Scarr—who has to fire up and take one for the team. Don't lower yourself, Senator Scarr. You know that you are better than that. Do I hear The Nationals? There are couple of Nats on that side of the chamber. They are very decent people. I have worked very closely with a couple of them, and I look forward to working closely with them in Senate estimates for the next few days or week. Do I hear any objection? Do I hear, 'Sterle, you big mouth; you're telling lies'? Fancy that. $30 million. On a more serious note—I know, there's a lot more. Nine years of rorting and waste. You've got to give it to Senator McKenzie, she's got more front than Myer. We remember her situation there when she got dumped as the minister for—what was it, the 'Minister for Colour Coded Sports Rorts' or whiteboards or something like that? Spreadsheets. That's what it was.
Let me share another with you, Mr Deputy President. It is very difficult, on a serious note. It's none of my business who the opposition choose as their leadership team, and thank goodness I don't get a vote in that madhouse. But I do struggle looking on the television each night—I'm sorry, I don't know Ms Ley's seat. If anyone can tell me the seat, I'll refer to her as the member for—
Farrer.
Thank you very much, Senator Davey. The Minister for Farrer—who was a government minister on a very attractive wage and remuneration. She was sacked from the ministry. It's a well-known fact, very well documented. I think it was eight taxpayer funded trips she had to the Gold Coast.
Senator Sterle, I have a point of order. Senator Davey?
I think you'll find that she resigned from the ministry. The shadow minister for industry and member for Farrer resigned for the ministry, at the time. She was not fired.
It's not a debating point, Senator Davey, it's a point of order. Senator Sterle, if you're going to talk about another member of the two chambers, please turn your mind back—
Deputy President, it's not gossip; it's not hearsay. It's well documented. Let's go with 'the minister resigned' because she used her taxpayers' dollars for eight trips to the Gold Coast to buy a unit on the Gold Coast from, I'm led to believe, if my memory serves me right—let me see; it might have been a friend of her husband's or partner's—an LNP donor.
Seriously, you attack us? You come in here and throw barbs about credibility! Nine years? No wonder the Australian public do not have faith in politicians and the political system. Can you dare even think why I would be wrong? No, because that's the scene that was set on that side. I could go on hour after hour about the rorts, the $650-odd million carpark rorts.
Thank you, Senator Sterle.
Twenty-four hours after the budget, Labor is waving the white flag. They have surrendered on the fight to combat inflation, they have surrendered on their promises to generate wage growth, they have surrendered on providing cost-of-living relief to Australian families and they have surrendered on low unemployment—because the budget papers show 150,000 job losses over the forward estimates. What audacity, for the finance minister to say at question time that the government keeps all of its promises. The promise to keep inflation under control, the promise to keep employment low, the promise to provide cost-of-living relief—gone or disappearing.
Why is it that the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, can spend much of his commentary before the budget, in his budget speech and following his budget delivery, talking about the need to combat inflation but has not taken one hard decision? He's not taken one hard decision to combat the scourge of inflation that is now bearing down on Australian families. As the weeks and months progress, Australian families are going to have to face the very real economic challenges that no hard decisions have been taken by this government in its first budget—perhaps better characterised as a mini-statement or economic statement—to combat inflation. My colleague, Senator Cadell, from New South Wales—
A great place!
A great place—I'm sure it is, second only to Western Australia. My colleague, in his question, talked about the National Australia Bank Consumer Sentiment Survey. Let me share with you what the consumer sentiment survey says. It says higher consumer stress associated with the cost of living is now at its highest point since 2018. It says that cost-of-living pressures are resulting in consumers changing the way in which they spend. Sixty-one per cent of consumers surveyed are now switching to cheaper brands or shopping around for cheaper products; 54 per cent of those surveyed said they were cancelling or cutting back on food delivery services; and 47 per cent of survey respondents said they were cutting back on entertainment. But there's more.
The survey says a growing number have also cancelled or cut back other subscriptions like newspapers, magazines and audiobooks. People are now cutting back streaming services and gym, sports and club memberships. That is where the rubber is hitting the road, and Australian families are now having to change their decisions because they are feeling the real impact of inflation. They know they must prepare for the worst because the government has failed to deliver on any real, meaningful measure that will put downward pressure on inflation. And, if there is a meaningful measure that the government can point to that is putting real downward pressure on inflation, then I invite them to nominate it. We've got Labor senators in the chamber now. I invite them to nominate it in their future contributions.
What does this mean for people's hip pocket? The consumer sentiment survey says consumers, on average, estimate—so this is consumers themselves—that they will be paying around $239 in three months time for groceries when they're currently paying $180. The consumer sentiment survey says that for fuel, where they're currently paying $67 a week, that is expected to climb to $102 in three months time. For utilities like gas, electricity and water, consumers estimate they are currently spending around $244 per month, and this is expected to rise by $320.
People deserve a better plan from this Labor government.
I rise to take note of questions asked. There was a bit of confusion from my perspective today about what some coalition senators' questions were really about, but I'm going to start with the question from Senator Askew, who was asking about women's reproductive health and assisted reproductive technology. It is true that we had to delay the commencement date of the assisted reproductive technology storage funding commitment. It was delayed to 1 July 2023 because—and this is something that people really need to understand—the measure cannot be delivered by 1 November 2022, which was the date originally announced by the former government. The delay will provide time to consult with the sector and develop the detailed administrative design of the measure.
With nine years of incompetence from the former government, I'm in a bit of a pickle about what I really want to talk about here today. Electricity prices also were brought up today, but I did speak about them yesterday or the day before. We've got these issues where the opposition come in and act as though they have no responsibility for anything that happened in the past nine years. I know they were a pretty lazy government and I know they were really good at announcements. They like power—I'm not talking about the electricity type of power; they like power for power's sake. But, when it came to electricity, to renewables and to things like climate change, they were just all over the place. In the past nine years, they had 22 different policies on power, but they didn't implement them. I think they had nine ministers—if I'm correct.
There was no strategy and no real approach to anything, except to make great big promises to people. They promised the world to everyone. They were spending money like they were drunken sailors. Seriously! Now we have to come in and clean up the mess. You don't have to be Einstein to work out that, if I were to promise my granddaughter a $700,000 present and I didn't have $700,000, someone would have to help me clean up that mess. That's what we're doing. We are cleaning up the mess of the previous government.
With regard to the health issue, jumping back to Senator Askew's question, the previous government neglected our healthcare system for the last nine years. They absolutely neglected it. You provided funding for cancer patients to access Medicare subsidised reproductive services, but you were all talk about it; there was no delivery. That is typical of those on the other side. I know they haven't taken well to being in opposition. We understand that. They act like kindergarten children throughout question time because they cannot come to grips with the fact that they are no longer the government. I'm not sure how long it's going to take them to move on from denial, but it's taking a bit long in my books. They need to grow up a bit. They need to treat this parliament, this chamber and, in fact, the President with some respect, and they need to start taking responsibility. They say, 'Oh, the Labor Party's done this,' and, 'The government's done that.' You had nine years; you did nothing.
I think back to when Mr Abbott was campaigning for one of the elections—I can't quite remember which election it was. He said, 'No cuts to education; no cuts to health.' And then he came in and razor-ganged the health area, as well as the education sector and others. 'No cuts to pensions,' he said. He just came in, took no account of what he had promised and made the health area so much worse.
I rise to take note of the answers to the coalition's questions during question time today, in particular relating to electricity pricing and infrastructure. In April next year, the turbines at AGL's Liddell station in the Hunter Valley will spin for the last time, and with it 1.2 gigawatts will come off the market. In 2025, the Eraring station will also close, taking another three gigawatts of power off the grid. This is more than four gigawatts of energy, or 20 per cent of the electricity in New South Wales, coming out in this term of parliament. These losses to the market will occur after an already predicted 56 per cent electricity price rise, according to the budget. How high will electricity prices go after that? Who knows? It is clear that energy prices, just like petrol prices, interest rates and household bills, have no clear limit under Labor. When the campaign ad said it wouldn't be easy under this Prime Minister, maybe it should have said, 'It's just going to be bloody tough.' Under Labor, everything is going to go up except your wages.
Senator David Pocock spoke in this place earlier about people in the gallery who had chosen between heating and housing, and he asked Minister Farrell what he would say to them. That minister said he would say hello and give them a wave. As useless as that advice was, it was perhaps a sign of what was to come in this budget: no care, no support and not even a realisation of the burden that families are feeling across Australia What did they get? They got the scrapping of Labor's promise to lower electricity prices by $275 that was repeated 97 times during the election, the ending of the petrol excise rebate and, now, confirmation in the budget papers of massive rises in electricity prices over the coming years.
Labor wasn't content with knocking a hole in the budget of the country; they were lining up mums and dads—our seniors—and putting a hole in their budgets. In fact, to follow the lead of Minister Farrell, I might give my own gratuitous advice to those in the gallery: 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42. You are more likely to win the lotto with those numbers on Saturday than you are to get a proper answer from this government about the steps they will take to lower electricity prices.
Minister Gallagher stated that renewables are the cheapest form of electricity. But the more renewables enter the market, the more expensive our electricity becomes. I was working on an energy project in the Hunter to build grey hydrogen. Grey hydrogen made in an electrolyser would cost me $2.90 per kilo. Green hydrogen is $9.40 per kilo. How is that cheaper? Reviewing the budget papers, I read that the price of thermal coal is now expected to drop by $438 a tonne, to $60 a tonne. If this is the case, how are prices meant to rise by 50 per cent over that same time? To quote the Muppets from Sesame Street:
One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong …
We then move to infrastructure. This quote is from the Prime Minister:
Labor will make sure that those investments really stack up using the Infrastructure Australia model that I established.
That was in his budget reply speech in March this year. But just like the broken promise of $275 off bills, it seems Labor and the Prime Minister have broken another promise. We learned that, in the budget, those opposite are funding a suburban rail loop for the Andrews Labor government. It is a flagship commitment of the Andrews government. The Auditor-General's report into the business case concluded that this project was not sufficient, nor were businesses cases provided in a timely manner on four of the projects it reviewed.
I go to three of the notes in the Auditor's report:
But they:
If we were guilty of pork-barrelling, this is a bacon box beyond belief. This is nothing more than buying votes for an unpopular premier who locked people down, and more of the rail loop money should be spent on letting people get out of Victoria so they can live their lives.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Watt) to a question without notice she asked today relating to funding for private schools.
Figures from March 2020 showed that approximately 12 per cent of classrooms in New South Wales public schools were in demountables. That represented a 45 per cent increase in demountables in New South Wales public schools from 2014 to 2020. Governments consistently tell us that, while demountables may not be ideal, they're not the demountables of yesteryear and they actually offer decent amenities. Well, if demountables really aren't that bad, why not make them available to private schools instead of splashing ever-increasing amounts of public money into ever more grand private school buildings?
Why is it that public schools are always the ones that have to scrape by on scraps while the private sector gets more and more public funding? Gledswood Hill Public School in Sydney is a relatively new school which opened its gates in 2020. By 2021 it had 13 demountables taking over its open fields, leaving kids with nowhere to play. Nearby, Oran Park Public School had 27 demountable classrooms as of last year. School populations are exploding, but the government is chucking $70 billion over the next four years into the private system.
Of course, the private education sector will tell us that capital funding and recurrent funding are separate streams. The reality is that that's complete rubbish. Every dollar of public money given to a private school by the government offsets the costs of teachers' wages and other current expenses directly related to educating students. It also frees up money that the private schools would otherwise have to spend on educating students, allowing them to spend money on capital works. Yet, despite the huge amount of money that governments provide to private schools both in general funding and in capital works grants, the average independent school has raised their fees by over 50 per cent in the last decade and some by as much as 80 per cent. So much for the idea that funding private schools relieves pressure on fee-paying parents. And so we see story after story of largesse from the richest private schools in Australia: plunge pools for headmasters, trips to watch a rowing race in England, a 50-metre Olympic pool because their 25-metre one wasn't quite good enough for the water polo team.
To be clear, I believe that Australian students deserve those sorts of amenities. I want to live in a country where schoolkids, no matter their parents' income, have access to pools, auditoriums, state-of-the-art theatres, technology and excursions. But when rich private schools—and I note that it is just the rich ones; many private schools do remain poor due to the decisions made by the Catholic and independent block grant authorities—get public money while the public sector crumbles, that is a moral wrong.
Private schools funding across the forward estimates will now be $1.7 billion more than the amount the Morrison government committed in its final budget. As a proportion of total funding, private school funding is growing and funding for public schools is shrinking. The government's budget has moved Australia even further away from reaching 100 per cent of the minimum schooling resource standard for public schools, something that was suggested by Gonski over a decade ago. A greater proportion of federal funding for schools is now going to private schools, and that is worse than it was under the Morrison government: over $70 billion for private schools over the next four years compared to only $45 billion for public schools. Labor has clearly given up on fighting for a fair education system. At a time when our public schools are in dire need of adequate resourcing and upgrades and are experiencing teacher shortages, this is not only incredibly disappointing but disgraceful.
The Greens won't give up on our public school students and teachers, and we will continue to fight for public money for our public schools.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I incorporate a tabling statement in Hansard relating to Delegated legislation monitor 7 of 2022 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, which was tabled yesterday.
The statement read as follows—
I rise to speak to the tabling of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation's Delegated Legislation Monitor 7 of 2022.
This Monitor includes 77 disallowable legislative instruments and 20 instruments exempt from disallowance. It also details the committee's ongoing consideration of instruments registered in previous periods, and concludes its engagement with the relevant minister in relation to five instruments.
I would first like to draw the chamber's attention to the committee's comments on two instruments in relation to which it has sought the responsible ministers' further advice.
The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Rules Amendment Instrument 2021 (No. 2) amends the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter- Terrorism Financing Act 2006 by specifying conditions that, if met, will exempt an interest in a litigation funding scheme from that Act. Further, the instrument is exempt from sunsetting. Consequently, the exemptions will remain in place indefinitely, unless later amended.
The committee has been engaging with the Attorney-General about these issues, as its longstanding view is that delegated legislation should not be used to create exemptions to primary legislation and, where it is absolutely necessary to do so, the relevant exemptions should be time-limited, so as to facilitate regular parliamentary scrutiny. In response to the committee's concerns, the Attorney-General advised of his view that it is appropriate to include the exemptions in delegated legislation, to ensure greater flexibility to make, amend and repeal exemptions as needed. He further advised that there is no intention to time limit this exemption, in order to maintain regulatory certainty for industry, noting the exemptions will be subject to an ongoing review process.
While noting this advice, the committee reiterates its longstanding view on this issue and, accordingly, is seeking further advice from the Attorney-General as to whether the provisions can be time-limited to a period of five years. Such a time limit would appear to address the immediate regulatory gap and enable time to consider future legislative amendments, while ensuring parliamentary oversight.
The second instrument I would like to speak to is the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Franchising) Amendment (Franchise Disclosure Register) Regulations 2022. This instrument requires a written report of a review
into the operation of Part 5A of the industry code regulation to be provided to the relevant Minister by June 2024. However, the instrument does not require this report to be tabled in Parliament. In response to the committee's scrutiny concerns regarding the limitations this creates to parliamentary oversight, the minister justified the absence of a requirement to table the report by citing the review's operational focus, and the fact this is consistent with the approach taken for other industry codes. Further, she advised that Parliament will be able to scrutinise the new provisions resulting from the review when the code sunsets. While noting this advice, the committee considers that the measures included in this instrument follow recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, which indicates the significance of this issue. Accordingly, the committee emphasises the importance of facilitating formal parliamentary oversight over significant matters and therefore is reiterating its request to the minister that the instrument be amended to include a requirement for the report to be tabled in Parliament.
Finally, I would like to draw the chamber's attention to the Biosecurity Amendment (Strengthening Biosecurity) Bill 2022, which was introduced into the Senate on 28 September 2022. This Bill amends the
Biosecurity Act 2015, including to introduce three new provisions which are exempt from disallowance, some of which may trespass on personal rights and liberties.
In this regard, both this committee and the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills have consistently raised scrutiny concerns about the exemption of delegated legislation from disallowance and its impact on parliamentary oversight. The committee has written extensively on this issue, including in its 2020 Inquiry into the exemption of delegated legislation from parliamentary oversight and in its delegated legislation monitors since then.
The disallowance process is the primary mechanism by which Parliament maintains oversight and control of laws made by the executive through delegated powers. In the previous Parliament, both committees raised concerns about the exemption from disallowance provisions in the Biosecurity Act, specifically because many of these instruments have had significant implications for personal rights and liberties such as, regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, to restrict freedom of movement and to prevent Australian citizens from returning home.
For this reason, the committee has resolved to write to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Minister for Health and Aged Care
asking that the Bill be amended to remove the exemptions from disallowance to facilitate appropriate parliamentary scrutiny over these matters.
With these comments, I commend the committee's Delegated Legislation Monitor 7 of 2022.
On behalf of the President and on behalf the Standing Committee on Appropriations, Staffing and Security, I present the committee's 65th report concerning the 2022-23 estimates for the Department of the Senate.
Bear in mind that any documents to which no senator has risen will be taken to be discharged from the Notice Paper.
I rise to speak about the interim report of the Work and Care Select Committee. On a day when the Labor governments has introduced one of the cornerstones of its election promises to reform the workplace relations system, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill, I want to talk about how this bill must address the crisis in our work and care system.
The world has changed. The census tells us that five million Australians are dealing with putting together their job with care for someone else: their child, someone with a disability or an aged parent. Carers are under stress. They feel guilty about whether they're a good enough worker or a good enough parent or carer. The Australian work and care system, as it stands, has let them down: it's broken. The architecture of work and care needs to change to address our current and emerging challenges. We're an ageing population; we have more and more women at work and we need more men to step up and take their share of care responsibilities.
The Select Committee on Work and Care handed down its interim report on 18 October. We're halfway through our inquiry. We have had over 100 submissions and we've heard about the lives of thousands of Australians. We're heading shortly to Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia, and we're seeing a very consistent picture. The evidence is clear: there are several things we could do right now in our workplace relations system that could make a difference.
The interim report recognised the need to lift wages across the care sector, in disability, child care and aged care. We need to ensure wages are lifted fairly and comparatively across all forms of care. We also need to introduce multi-employer bargaining to allow care workers, often powerless in small workplaces, to bargain effectively. Women are the backbone of the care economy, yet they're leaving in droves because of their low wages and poor conditions. The interim report recommended improving roster justice for workers, who, too often, are forced to compete in a kind of rostering Hunger Games to secure the hours they rely on. Workers need stability, predictability and the right to negotiate their rosters ahead of time with their employers. Roster justice particularly affects women, who are forced to juggle unpredictable shifts and care for their families.
Workers also need an enforceable right to request flexibility. For some this is easy, but for many it is not. Too many workers don't feel comfortable asking for flexibility, because they know they'll either never get another shift or be sacked or otherwise disadvantaged in their jobs. As a researcher who analysed these issues for decades, I know that the right to request flexibility introduced in 2009 made no difference to the number of workers who requested flexibility or to the flexibility they got, because they knew they didn't have meaningful protections in place to support them when they asked for it.
We also need a right to disconnect from technology, which pulls work into our homes and which many people, while they like working at home, struggle to turn off or stop using outside their contracted hours of work. The changing ways of work in recent years, with the advancement of technology, have created what we can call an 'availability creep', where employees feel they need to be available all the time, to answer the emails and calls, and to simply deal with their workload. This has been exacerbated by the pandemic. Victoria Police have a clause in their enterprise bargaining agreement containing a right to disconnect, which means that, once their paid hours are done, the employer can only contact them outside their hours in an emergency or for a welfare check. We need this kind of protection for all workers.
Of course, looking beyond workplace relations, we need a lot more than just changes in the law, important as they are. We need to improve the availability and the quality of child care and preschool and to extend paid parental leave to 52 weeks, in line with international standards—including superannuation—and lift it closer to the pay rates that parents actually receive. We also need to look to the tax system, which imposes very high levels of marginal rates of tax on working carers and makes it simply uneconomic for many of them to work once they've paid their childcare bills.
I'm really looking forward to working with the Labor government on their workplace relations reform. We've got a lot to do to secure the kinds of changes I've talked about. They are decades overdue. We've had governments which for decades have ignored the shift in our workforce, with the increasing participation of women and their need for support as they work in their jobs while also caring for those they love. This legislation matters to the quality of work for millions of working Australians—I mentioned five million today—who put together their own jobs and their care for others. But it goes beyond that. It matters to the quality of life for our kids. It matters to our productivity. It matters to those we love, and it matters to the participation rate of women in our economy.
There's a lot to do, and I'll be back here in February to tell you more about the select committee's report and what we've learned. In closing, I want to thank the senators who have worked so hard alongside me and the many people who have brought their stories to the parliament through this select committee. Your stories are not wasted. We have heard them. We will act on them.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I want to begin this contribution by making the observation that in reading the report, Australia's sovereign naval shipbuilding capability: All at sea, I was reminded of that baseline reality that weapons of war are the physical manifestation of one of the greatest failures we can commit as a human race—that being, to fail to be able to resolve our conflicts, our disagreements, peaceably and have to plunge our resources, our collective energies, into the task of murdering each other on an industrial scale. Over time, we have allowed, politicians have allowed, governments have allowed this failure to be turned into an industry, an industry that stokes profit, that stokes violence for its own ends.
It seems very much as though Australia is now fully within the grips of its own military industrial complex and that this new Labor government is happy to continue this business as usual. This is regardless of the reality that we are, right now, in an unprecedented time in history. We are seeing the devastating effects of climate change across the nation, a distribution of wealth becoming more uneven and superpowers that are treating the South Pacific as their own personal playground. You would think that, given this context, the Albanese government would seize the opportunity to chart an independent foreign policy focused on peace and non-violent conflict resolution. Unfortunately, the plan put forward by the government and the facts spoken to in the report speak to a government that is instead recommitting to the spending of billions of dollars on the procurement of capabilities such as nuclear-powered submarines through a dangerous, dangerous deal with the US and the United Kingdom. Indeed, the Labor government is continuing the position established by the right-wing hardliners of the Liberal Party that will see the nuclearisation of our naval fleet, nuclear submarines off the shores of Rockingham, not far from where I call home and where I have spent most of my life. This will precipitate a drastic rise in tensions in our region. It is a disgusting and deluded compact with two nations whose judgement in matters of foreign and defence policy is little more than an international joke.
The Greens will continue to raise serious questions about the AUKUS deal, about who in this country is benefitting from it and about who is being put at risk. We will not sit by while the two major parties in this place put our communities at risk of being stuck in the middle of a region with tensions rising precisely because of the decisions that the government itself is making. We will not sit by and allow the arms manufacturers, the weapons dealers, to continue to talk as though the amount of money they divert from other public funding is in fact being spent in the public good when the reality is that the money that is spent on weapons of war goes to lining their pockets and increasing the probability that we will end up in a violent conflict. We will continue to push the conversation and the absolute moral point that public resources should be spent on the peaceful and non-violent addressing of the underlying determinants and causes of conflict and that the wisest course of action is always to seek peace.
Debate adjourned.
tor STEELE-JOHN () (): I wish to take note of Auditor-General report No. 3 of 2022-23, Performance audit—Australia’s COVID-19 vaccine rollout: Department of Health and Aged Care.In making this contribution to what is a report which, each time I read it, makes me more and more frustrated sitting here as the Greens health spokesperson and as a disabled person, I note that on 8 November the national cabinet made the decision to remove the requirement for people to isolate while positive for COVID-19 from 14 October. We are now living in the reality where somebody that tests positive to COVID-19 is under no obligation and neither is supported to isolate while they are infectious—while they are in fact at the peak of their infectiousness.
In the face of one of the longest existing public health measures that humanity has ever come to understand—that being that, when you are sick with an infectious disease, you should isolate from others, which is a rule so basic that a schoolchild, let alone a public health officer or an expert in public health, would be able to recommend it to the public—and in the face of these basic public health realities, the national cabinet decided to put the profits of the big corporations of this country and the political convenience of its leaders ahead of community public health. That is the reality of today. That is the reality of the COVID-19 response in Australia in 2022.
I attended an online meeting of hundreds of older people, of disabled people and of the immunocompromised in the aftermath of this decision, coming to gather, outraged and terrified that their governments, state and federal, had completely disregarded their safety in making this decision and had seemingly made it in the face of all basic public health understandings. I was joined in that conversation by public health experts that shared our concern.
From those requests from the community, the Greens have the following 20-point plan, which I will read for the information of the Senate, because these are the steps that should have been crafted on the back of the dangers listed in this report. listed in this report. No. 1 is the release of unredacted medical advice that was considered by the national cabinet in making the decision to remove the isolation requirement. No. 2 is the immediate reinstatement of a mandatory isolation period for five days for people with COVID infection, to be reviewed after 12 months. No. 3 is to continue with the pandemic disaster payment for five days isolation, to be reviewed in 12 months, and an end to mutual obligations for people on JobSeeker and other in-kind support. How is that, if you are COVID-19 positive, the federal government would require you to go into the public realm to mix with people? It is outrageous!
Also included in the 20-point plan is: that other government agencies must have a non-contact service framework, particularly Centrelink; the provision of rapid antigen tests free on request and the continuation of free PCRs; an amendment to relevant regulations to require COVID-19 testing for those working in, particularly, the care and support industries, if requested by the person they are caring for or supporting; the funding of an ongoing public health campaign, including bringing attention to the importance of prevention, treatment and the importance of mask-wearing in indoor spaces and the health risks associated with COVID-19; increased funding for telehealth and the reinstation of healthcare items that were invested in during the 2021 period; and, among other things, proper diagnosis of health based supports for those living with long COVID.
I know that there are so many out there that feel abandoned by the government because of this decision, and I want you to know the Greens are with you. We're going to continue to keep working with you to keep each other safe.
Debate adjourned.
I table a document relating to the order for production of documents concerning the Hells Gate Dam. I table the documents responding to continuing orders.
I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
I move:
That these bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (2022 MEASURES NO. 3) BILL 2022
SECOND READING SPEECH
Schedule 1 to the Bill delivers on the Government's 2022 election commitment to double financial penalties that relate to foreign ownership of residential property in Australia.
Non-compliance with the residential land obligations by foreign persons has flow-on implications for Australia's housing stock and housing affordability.
This increase to residential penalties will ensure that these penalties effectively deter foreign persons from contravening the residential land provisions in the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975.
Schedule 2 to the Bill amends the taxation secrecy provisions to enable the ATO to share taxation information with an Australian government agency, including States and Territory governments, for the purposes of administering major disaster support programs.
This will assist Australian government agencies to address the needs of individuals and businesses significantly disrupted by a major disaster event more efficiently and effectively.
The sharing of taxation information will only be authorised if the Treasurer is satisfied that the program supports individuals and businesses affected by a major disaster.
Schedule 3 to the Bill extends the operation of a temporary mechanism that has been operating during the COVID- 19 pandemic, which allows arrangements for complying with information and documentary requirements under Commonwealth legislation to be altered, including requirements to give information in writing and produce, witness and sign documents.
These provisions address continuing difficulties experienced by individuals, businesses, and government agencies in complying with information and documentary requirements, including requirements to witness and sign documents.
The mechanism is temporary and will expire at the end of 2022. The effect of this measure will be to continue the operation of these provisions until the end of 31 December 2023. Any determination made under the mechanism will cease to operate after 31 December 2023.
Schedule 4 to the Bill makes amendments to set out tax arrangements of foreign resident workers participating in the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme.
The PALM scheme will help meet workforce shortages in Australia as well as support the economic development of Pacific nations and Timor-Leste.
Under the new PALM scheme, eligible businesses can recruit workers to help fill unskilled, low and semi-skilled workforce shortages in any sector, including the agriculture, meat processing, hospitality and tourism sectors, mostly in rural and regional areas.
Schedule 4 specifies that foreign resident workers participating in the PALM scheme will pay a final withholding tax of 15 per cent for each dollar of income earned under the scheme, from the 2022-23 income year. PALM scheme workers who are Australian residents for tax purposes will pay ordinary resident tax rates.
This ensures that such workers pay tax at an appropriate rate on program income, consistent with similar migration programs.
Schedule 5 to the Bill will require the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to take account of religious obligations when conducting the performance test.
Trustees will now be able to apply to have their faith-based products face a supplementary test that considers their faith-based investment strategy, if they fail the original test.
A faith-based product that passes this supplementary test will not be subject to the consequences of failure.
Faith-based products will not escape scrutiny under this amendment. Products will be assessed to ensure that their investment is in accordance with their faith-based strategy. Faith-based products that fail both the original and supplementary test will face the same consequences as any other product.
This measure was a 2022 election commitment, reflecting Labor's commitment to working with communities of faith.
In developing this measure, I met and spoke with faith leaders around Australia. They spoke to me about the importance of being able to live their faith in every part of their lives.
This is why this measure is so important. It will ensure that Australians of faith are able to participate fully in our superannuation system, without compromising on their values or on performance standards.
I know that many Australians of faith are watching today to see whether this Parliament supports them.
These changes to the performance test will strike a balance. The amendments give members back the ability to invest in faith-based products while continuing to hold trustees to account for the investment performance they deliver and the fees they charge to members.
Full details of the measures are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
FOREIGN ACQUISITIONS AND TAKEOVERS FEES IMPOSITION AMENDMENT BILL 2022
SECOND READING SPEECH
The Bill amends the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Act 2015 (FATA Fees Act) to align the indexation of the fee cap under that Act with the indexation of fees in the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Regulations 2020 (FATA Fees Regulations).
As part of the Government's commitment to double foreign investment fees and penalties, legislation was made to double foreign investment application fees from 29 July 2022.
The doubled fee amounts incorporate the cumulative total of indexation prior to the doubling. The Bill amends the FATA Fees Act to similarly incorporate the cumulative total of the indexation for the same time period into the fee cap amount to ensure the fees and the fee cap indexations remain in lock step. The fee cap is not doubled.
Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
INCOME TAX AMENDMENT (LABOUR MOBILITY PROGRAM) BILL 2022
SECOND READING SPEECH
The Income Tax Amendment (Labour Mobility Program) Bill 2022 makes amendments which support Schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022. Together these Bills ensure that foreign resident workers participating in the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme will pay a final withholding tax of 15 per cent on income earned under the scheme.
Schedule 1 to the Bill specifies that the term 'the Seasonal Labour Mobility Program' will be substituted with 'certain labour mobility programs' to enable relevant workers in the PALM scheme and workers in potential future visa schemes (for which the same tax treatment is appropriate), to access the final 15 per cent withholding rate, from the 2022-23 income year.
The PALM scheme will help meet workforce shortages in Australia as well as support the economic development of Pacific nations and Timor-Leste.
Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.
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—
FAMILY ASSISTANCE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT {CHEAPER CHILD CARE) BILL 2022
SECOND READING SPEECH
It is a privilege to introduce the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022.
This Bill will cut the cost of child care for around 1.26 million Australian families.
Early childhood education and care is incredibly important.
It's also expensive. Anyone who has a child in care knows that.
Costs have gone up by 41 percent in the past 8 years.
The cost of child care is a massive roadblock for a lot of Australian parents who want to head back to work, or work more hours or more days.
Last year 73,000 people who wanted to work, didn't look for work according to the ABS—because they couldn't make child care costs work for them.
Right now, where both parents are working and have two or more children in child care, one parent can lose between 80 and 100 per cent of their take- home pay for working a fourth or fifth day each week. And those parents are overwhelmingly women.
If the cost of child care is almost what you earn for working a fourth or fifth day it's no surprise that many Australian women decide it's not worth it.
What we do here matters.
In 2005 female participation in the workforce was 57%. Today it's 62%.
That's an improvement, but the number hides an important fact.
Australian women are more than twice as likely as men to be in part time work because of caring responsibilities.
A typical Australian woman with children under 12 works two and a half days a week.
That's paid work.
If we make child care cheaper it will make it easier for lots of women to work more paid hours and more paid days.
And that means they earn more now and have more superannuation when they retire. It's good for careers and it's good for families.
It's also good for our economy.
Making child care cheaper isn't welfare. It's important economic reform.
It boosts participation. If you make child care cheaper, businesses get thousands of skilled workers back at work.
That's good for business and good for productivity.
Treasury estimates that these measures will increase the hours worked by women with young children by up to 1.4 million hours per week in 2023-24. That is the equivalent of up to an extra 37,000 full-time workers.
That makes a real difference for our economy. That's families generating extra income. That's building the careers and the retirement savings of Australian women.
That's why we made cheaper child care a key part of our election campaign, and this Bill implements the promise we made to the Australian people.
It will make early education and care cheaper for approximately 1.26 million families.
Around 96 percent of families with children in early childhood education and care will be better off. None will be worse off.
Schedule 1 of the Bill sets out the increase in subsidies for families. From July 2023, families with a combined household income of $80,000 will receive a Child Care Subsidy up to 90 per cent for their first child in care.
Subsidy rates for families earning less than $530,000 a year will also increase.
The rate of subsidy is tapered, reducing as household income increases.
These are real benefits for Australian families. A family on roughly the Australian median combined income of $120,000 with one child in care will save $1,780 in the first year of this plan.
For second and subsequent children five or under, this legislation retains the Higher Child Care Subsidy. This recognises the increased financial burden on families with multiple children in care and provides a subsidy of up to 95 per cent for eligible families.
I'm proud to say that the Bill also provides additional support for Indigenous Australian families in accessing early childhood education and care. Schedule 3 of the Bill introduces a base level of 36 subsidised hours per fortnight for Indigenous children whether their families meet the activity test or not.
This is an important step in supporting education outcomes for Indigenous families. According to the 2021 Australian Early Development Census, two in five Indigenous children are developmentally vulnerable in one or more domains when they start school. That's compared with one in five children who are from a non-Indigenous background.
Last year the proportion of Indigenous Australian children assessed as developmentally on-track in all five domains was 34.3 per cent. That's a drop from 35.2 per cent in 2018, the first time this metric has gone backwards.
We need to turn this around.
That's why we have included this measure in this Bill. It will help more Indigenous Australian children get access to early childhood education. 6,600 Indigenous families will benefit from these measures over the first year as their base level of subsidised hours increases from zero or 24 to 36 hours per fortnight. And these measures will make it easier for other Indigenous families to access more early childhood education for their children, or to access it for the first time. We have developed this Bill listening closely to the advice of SNAICC—the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care, who are tireless in advocating for improved access to early childhood education and care for Indigenous families.
The subsidy measures in the Bill commence on 1 July 2023, with the first payment in the Child Care Subsidy fortnight of the 2023-24 year commencing on 10 July 2023.
The previous government's Higher Child Care Subsidy for families with multiple children policy included another measure which was to commence from July 2023. That measure reduced the period families could continue to access the Higher Child Care Subsidy for a child after their sibling left care.
That measure is forecast to save $34 million over four years. The problem is that the same measure is forecast to cost more than $89 million to implement. That's almost three times what it was meant to save.
That is an expensive saving. That measure is therefore removed in this Bill.
In its place, in Schedules 2 and 4 the Bill introduces measures to improve transparency and strengthen integrity within the early childhood education and care sector.
Schedule 2 increases transparency around large child care providers, helping families understand where their child care fees are going. The Bill requires large child care providers, regardless of the type of service they operate, to report financial information about revenue and profits to the Department of Education. This information can be made available online to families choosing a provider.
The Bill also strengthens the integrity mechanisms which underpin the sector.
Schedule 4 requires that payments of child care gap fees be made electronically. The gap fee is the amount a family must contribute to the cost of child care.
A requirement that these payments be made electronically will work together with existing record keeping obligations to help test whether gap fees have been paid. It will be a significant obstacle for fraudulent schemes where a service tries to claim a subsidy for care that isn't occurring.
The Bill allows for exemptions to be made to provide flexibility around cash payments in exceptional circumstances. Over the coming months my Department will continue to engage closely with the sector on these provisions to ensure appropriate exemptions are in place in Minister's Rules.
Schedule 4 also strengthens requirements that approved child care providers have good governance arrangements in place. The Secretary may also make rules for information that providers must report each week to receive subsidy payments from the Government.
Schedule 5 of the Bill supports our early childhood educators by confirming the Educator Discount agreed in 2021-22 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook.
This will give child care providers the option of offering a discount on child care fees for the children of their educators, without this affecting the amount of Child Care Subsidy payable. This will support the retention and attraction of early childhood educators in the sector.
Schedules 6 to 8 of the Bill make minor amendments to improve or clarify the operation of Child Care Subsidy. These include clarifying the impact of gap fee waivers on the amount of subsidy payable, allowing discretion around the payment of subsidy for absences in exceptional circumstances, and extending time periods for services to pass on subsidy amounts to families in certain situations.
The Government has proposed that the Bill be referred for inquiry by the Senate Education and Employment Committee and I have foreshadowed this approach with the Shadow Minister for Education and the Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education and Youth. I look forward to the report of the Committee.
This Bill is only one part of the Government's work in supporting Australian families with young children.
Prior to the election we also announced that we would ask the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission to look at child care costs. Last week with the Treasurer, I announced that this Inquiry will kick off in January and deliver its interim findings before 1 July to guide the implementation of this legislation. It will deliver its final report by the end of next year.
We will also task the Productivity Commission to conduct a comprehensive review of the early education and care sector with the aim of implementing a universal 90 per cent subsidy for all families. This review is expected to
I want to acknowledge and thank those who have had a hand in the creation of this Bill.
We have consulted with the sector through the Early Childhood Education and Care Reference Group and I want to thank all of these organisations for their insights in the drafting of this legislation:
and
It's important that we listen to the experts and that is what we have done.
Their feedback and advice have made this a better Bill.
My sincere thanks to my friend the Minister for Social Services, who crafted this policy in Opposition, and to my friend the Minister for Early Childhood Education and for Youth.
I also want to thank the Prime Minister. It is his vision and willingness to prosecute the case for greater investment both in female workforce participation and in our kids' futures that has brought us to this point today.
As the Prime Minister said at the CEDA conference in this building a few weeks
"Equality for women - in participation, in pay, in leadership opportunities, in financial security- isan essential precondition for Australia's future economic growth.
A key part of this is re-framing the national conversation about child care, recognising its power and value as an economic reform.
An investment that benefits two generations of Australians, simultaneously:
1. Early edu cation for a great start in life;
2. Flexible support for modern families;
3. And a multi-billion dollar boost to productivity and participation -
without adding to inflation.11
That is what this Bill does. It's good for our children. It's good for families. And it's good for our economy.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.
The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees.
by leave—I move:
That senators be appointed to committees as set out in the document available in the chamber and listed on the Dynamic Red:
Cost of Living — Select Committee —
Appointed—
Senators Grogan and Sheldon
Participating members: Senators Bilyk, Ciccone, Dodson, Green, O'Neill, Payman, Polley, Pratt, Marielle Smith, Sterle, Stewart, Urquhart, Walsh and White
Education and Employment References Committee —
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Allman-Payne to replace Senator Faruqi for the committee's inquiry into school refusal
Participating member: Senator Faruqi
National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation — Joint Select Committee —
Appointed—Participating members: Senators Ciccone, Dodson, Green, Grogan, O'Neill, Payman, Polley, Pratt, Sheldon, Marielle Smith, Stewart, Urquhart and Walsh
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 78, relating to the establishment of a Select Committee on Australia's Disaster Resilience in the terms circulated before moving the motion.
Leave granted.
I move the amended motion:
1. That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Australia's Disaster Resilience, be established to inquire and report into the following matters:
a. current preparedness, response and recovery workforce models, including:
i. the role of the Australian Defence Force in responding to domestic natural disasters,
ii. the impact of more frequent and more intense natural disasters, due to climate change, on the ongoing capacity and capability of the Australian Defence Force,
iii. the direct costs and opportunity costs of Australian Defence Force high availability disaster recovery operations, and
iv. the role of Australian civil and volunteer groups, not-for-profit organisations and state-based services in preparing for, responding to and recovering from natural disasters, and the impact of more frequent and more intense natural disasters on their ongoing capacity and capability;
b. consideration of alternative models, including:
i. repurposing or adapting existing Australian civil and volunteer groups, not-for-profit organisations and state-based services, and
ii. overseas models and best practice;
c. consideration of the practical, legislative, and administrative arrangements that would be required to support improving Australia's resilience and response to natural disasters; and
d. any related matters.
2. The committee present its final report on or before the last sitting day in September 2023.
3. The committee consist of six senators, as follows:
a. two senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;
b. two senators nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;
c. one senator nominated by minority party or independent senators; and
d. one senator nominated by the Jacqui Lambie Network.
4. That:
a. participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator; and
b. participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee.
5. In the event that the Senate is not sitting and is not expected to meet for at least a week, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, minority groups or independent Senators may nominate any appointment or discharge of a member of a committee in writing to the President. The change in membership shall take effect from the time the President received the written nomination. At the next sitting, the President shall report the change to the Senate and the Senate shall resolve that membership of the committee.
6. If a member of a committee is unable to attend a meeting of the committee, that member may in writing to the chair of the committee appoint a participating member to act as a substitute member of the committee at that meeting, and if the member is incapacitated or unavailable, a letter to the chair of a committee appointing a participating member to act as a substitute member of the committee may be signed on behalf of the member by the leader or whip of the party or group on whose nomination the member was appointed to the committee.
7. That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.
8. That the committee elect as chair the member nominated by the Jacqui Lambie Network, and as deputy chair the member nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
9. That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.
10. That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, may appoint another member of the committee to act as chair during the temporary absence of both the chair and deputy chair at a meeting of the committee.
11. That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.
12. That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to examine.
13. That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings, the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.
14. That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.
15. That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such documents and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.
Our days start to get long in Tasmania at this time of the year, and God bless that! We'll get sunset at nearly 9 pm by Christmas. It used to be that you would look forward to the long daylight hours. When I was a kid we'd count down the sleeps until December. We'd go on holidays from school and know we were in for the fun. I spent the days and nights roaming around with the other neighbourhood kids. Nothing was better than mucking about and enjoying late twilights and warm evenings. Our only fear was what we'd get under the Christmas tree!
I wonder what it's like to be a young kid in Australia during the summer these days. We've had three years of one-in-100 natural disasters: fires, floods, storms—you name it, we've had it, with three years of watching the news and seeing people pick up the pieces from disaster after disaster and having their lives turned upside down. That's what summer is for our kids these days; it's what they think is normal. It is their reality.
But it's not normal. This is not what our country is supposed to experience every year. We're not supposed to have one-in-100-year weather events happen every year. Regional communities aren't supposed to get smashed by floods, drought then floods again and again, but that's what we're getting and we've got to get used to it. I can say that Tasmania has copped it bad this month. Our rivers are getting pummelled; our office is full of talk every day about the roads that are closed, how to get into work safely and the bridges that can't be used anymore. All of us are wondering if this is what's going to happen every year from here on in. Will we be having these conversations forever?
These disasters keep coming and coming, and they're getting worse every year. The Tassie floods were so strong, they picked up giant concrete slabs and washed them away—concrete slab weighing tonnes and tonnes floated off just like paper boats. Our wildlife hospital was flattened, people have lost their homes again and family photos, furniture fences and gardens are all gone. Tasmanian businesses have had to close, and that's after months of closures thanks to COVID. And I can tell you, we'll be feeling this and cleaning this up for a long time, and Tassie hasn't even been hit with the worst yet.
Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland have taken an absolute hit—again. I have no idea what it does to a person's mental health to have their house flood every six months, to watch their paddocks get washed over and over, to watch their stock go up in flames or go down under the water. We've got farmers who have had to leave fruit and veg to whither on the vines because they can't put heavy machinery on flood affected roads. Heads of cattle have died in floods this year, and there have been thousands of them. My heart goes out to all of you. It must feel like your clean-up is never-ending. You're getting whacked again and again, and those floods are only getting worse, and it's so not fair.
The really crazy thing is that disaster season is starting earlier and running for longer. Those Black Summer bushfires in 2019? They started in June. The country was burning in June, during winter. The fires burnt for more than six months. I will never forget what it was like up here in Canberra when those fires were burning. The sky was a weird yellow-grey colour for weeks and weeks. The smell of smoke got into everything and you could not get away from it. It sunk into your skin. It was terribly hot, but you couldn't open a window, because that would mean more smoke.
My staff had family in fire zones. We were up here in parliament writing speeches and moving amendments while we watched the fire maps move, hoping the wind wouldn't change direction and send the front towards old childhood homes. We cheered at news of the tiniest little sprinkling of rain, and we held our breath when we saw the fires spark back up again. Australia lost 34 people to those Black Summer bushfires, and the fires burned more than 46 million acres of land. Nearly 2½ thousand homes were destroyed in New South Wales alone. Entire towns are still traumatised from what happened in those months. The Victorian town of Mallacoota will carry those scars forever; I have no doubt. So will the Blue Mountains, near Sydney, and East Gippsland's Hume and Armidale. Half of our country was on fire.
Massive-scale disaster like that is going to be our norm, apparently, and I hate to say it, but I think it's true. All of us are going to live through more disasters like that in our lifetimes, and I tell you what, it scares the hell out of me, and I'm sure that for those people who have been through it not once or twice but now three times it's starting to scare them as well. But we do have some things working for us. The thing I love most about regional Australia is the way we pull together when we have to. Where I'm from, you know your neighbours. If they're in trouble you help them; if you're in trouble they will help you. That's what we do. And as much as we might get on each other's nerves about someone's dog being a pain—usually mine, by the way—or early-morning noise or whatever else, we pull together when we have to.
That's what we've seen in Lismore. It was Lismore residents who got on with saving people when the floods first hit in February. The waters went up so fast that lots of people woke up to find that the levy had broken and they were already trapped. You couldn't get through to 000. The SES was way too stretched to get to everybody. On one morning they took 374 calls in less than an hour and a half—100 calls every 10 minutes. The normal processes were broken. If we'd played it the way the government wanted to play it, more people would have died. Instead, a bunch of guys and girls hopped in their tinnies and went to action and jumped in those floodwaters. The residents of Lismore did it on their own. Regular people went out and picked up neighbours in wheelchairs. They found elderly people stuck on their roofs and a mother and her three-year-old who'd been trapped in a kayak in their backyard for four hours. All those people could have died if the community in Lismore hadn't pulled together to fix those things themselves. I reckon that's pretty bloody amazing, to be honest with you.
I reckon that's the kind of bravery and loyalty we should look up to in this country. But I also reckon we can't keep dealing with disasters this way, just off the cuff. In the Army we have this saying called the six Ps: proper planning prevents piss-poor performance. And we keep getting hit with our pants down—let's be honest. We're not prepared. We know these disasters are coming. We know they're more frequent and they're more severe. It's not fair to leave it to the neighbours in regional Australia to figure out how to deal with a fire or a flood at the time that it's happening. That's not their job; it's our job. We're leading the country. We're not doing the proper planning. The six Ps tell us what our performance looks like and, I can assure you, it is not very good. That's why I'm moving this motion, hopefully today.
It's time for a conversation about how we deal with climate change in our own backyard—not the climate wars, not more bickering about targets and emissions reduction. We need to talk about how we look after our own people, our own backyard, because we are getting absolutely smashed. It doesn't matter if we hit net zero by 2050. We could turn off all our coal-fired power stations tomorrow and we'd still be up the creek in a barbed wire canoe without any paddles. The planet is warming. It doesn't matter if it's by one degree or 1½ degrees or two degrees. Things are going to get hotter and regional Australia is going to feel it most of all.
That's what this inquiry is about. How do we prepare? How do we fix our poor performance? What do we need to do to get more boots on the ground to protect our country and our people? Right now we're in nowhere land. We're flying by the seat of our pants. We send the ADF in every summer. We have cadets who have been deployed out to sandbag rivers every year. They're running evacuation centres, handing out water bottles to people who have lost their homes. Those guys are meant to be in training. Service men and women who signed up three years ago have had every summer disrupted by domestic deployments.
Defence is extremely worried about this, and so am I. They told the new minister they can't keep doing it, and they cannot. It's too much to put on them, especially when we have China breathing down our throats, especially when we have Russia threatening to use nuclear weapons on Ukraine. We need the ADF to be on their toes more than ever, right now. That's their job. Their job is to protect us and our allies from other countries that want to do us harm. We can't keep running to them when climate change hits us again and again, and we need to be better prepared for that.
The other problem we have is that no-one wants to volunteer anymore. How sad that the country has got to a point where we can't get volunteers anymore. Nobody wants to do it. We've become a country of selfishness. That is what we have become. It's all about self. It is really sad. It does not build community spirit, and neither will we remain the lucky country that we are if we're going towards that way of life, I can assure you. I will tell every Australian out there: you will always rely on somebody; you can't always do it by yourself. Volunteering Australia says the number of young people volunteering dropped by 10 per cent between 2019 and 2020. Nearly half of all our volunteers are 45 or older. Retirees are going into disaster zones to rake up mud. Little old women are making sandwiches for people who have lost their homes and to feed people battling fires and floods.
We need to build more resilience as a country. We need to pull together. That's what this inquiry is about. I have ideas on how we could do it; those views are on record. I reckon we need a national guard to clean up after disaster strikes. The guard would be formed as a standby force, similar to the Army Reserve. We'd train people up to go into disaster zones and do what the Army does now. That's all we're asking of you people out there who have never worn a uniform. We're now asking you to give back to your country.
We are all responsible for the floods and fires that are going on in Australia right now, and they will continue. It means all of us. Us in here, and no matter what age you are out there, we are all responsible for looking after each other and looking after this country. Logistics, emergency management and rescue—go in and help the states make it happen. Young people who want to give back to their country can do so. Here's your opportunity. Let's see what you're made of. Come on! Get off those games out there, and get out there and learn what it's like to survive in the real world. Give back to your country. I'll tell you what, it's the hardiest thing you'll ever do in your life. Take it from somebody who knows. It will give you bragging points. Veterans who aren't ready to end their service could keep a connection to defence, and the communities who have lost everything wouldn't have to organise everything off their own bat. That's my idea. I'm open to others. I don't have all the answers in this; I'm open to others. But it's going to take a whole nation to pull this together. That's why we have set this inquiry nice and broad; we've left it right open. If you think you can contribute to this inquiry and you can make a difference, when this country is in dire straits, when it is under flood or in fire, then, please, let's see what you've got. Put your hand up. Let's see you. I want to hear from residents who have lost their homes to the fires and the floods, and the community coordinators who pulled up their socks when the federal government went missing in action. They'll know better than I do about what we need.
The other thing I want to do is work closely with the government to figure out what we do over the next 12 months to get this done. Minister Watt knows what we need to do to make changes. I was glad to hear this week that he has asked his department and the defence minister to put some thought into this. Regional Australia deserves better than the suck-it-up-and-see approach we've had to natural disasters up to this point, and the ADF deserves better.
We can all sit here and talk about when we are going to cut down emissions, and all the rest. This is the easy work. The hard work, the grunt work, is putting your boots on. We've all got to be part of that. If that means at times we've got it happening in our own backyard, we need to be helping; we can't be sitting here, especially if there are two of us and only one can come up. That is what we've got to give back to this country. It is time for a nation-building exercise here. We've seen our kids' resilience through COVID. We've got to build this resilience up and we need to look after this country. If somebody has a much better idea than I do, please voice your opinion because I'm not hearing you. This needs to be done now. We need boots out on the ground. Please come and tell me how we, as politicians, make that happen. It's a whole-of-country contribution. Get off your butts. I want this to happen, and I'm happy to sit here and lead it. Let's move.
I would like to congratulate Senator Lambie on this proposed Select Committee on Australia's Disaster Resilience. The importance of making sure our country and communities are resilient is critical to the successful future of our country, and it's happening right now. We know that the disasters we face within this country, the natural hazards, are becoming more and more regular. As climate change hits us, it hits communities and hits real people. It hits the country and those within the country.
In supporting Senator Lambie's proposal for the Select Committee on Australia's Disaster Resilience, it reminds me of a very important point raised with me by some wonderful activists, community people, in the Cobargo area—like Zena Armstrong, who I met at Cobargo in the Bega Valley. In capturing some of the language Senator Lambie was using before, these are the first responders—the people taking a great deal of pressure day in and day out, making sure the community is not only responding but recovering. When others leave to go to the next emergency, the next response, they're still organising the resilience within their community. They're still organising the human recovery, from the humanitarian disaster, which happens after these events.
Zena is a fantastic local activist in Cobargo and the Bega Valley who rose up after the 2019-20 Black Summer bushfires—and I'm sure she'd be embarrassed but I am very pleased to talk about her because she is such an activist and has been so involved in the community since then, and been very public about it. There are so many people like Zena who have been so active as well. I want to concentrate on Zena because she embodies a lot of that strength that's now permeating throughout not only Cobargo but also so many other disaster areas that have turned into humanitarian disasters around the country.
As a result of her being involved in 2019-2020 and being on the receiving end in her local community of the Black Summer bushfires, her town is now well underway to recovery. However, Zena told me that it helps to have a good stock of social capital before the disaster hits. I asked her what her view of social capital is, and Zena said: 'A community's capacity to face immense hazards and overcome disasters, however adverse the circumstances are.' She went on further to say, 'This is a capacity derived from community cohesion and an ability to adapt to quickly changing circumstances.'
When disaster strikes, who responds first? Who is it that you call for support? Who is it that you check in on? Often times, it's those in your very own community who'll be the first to support with immediate recovery. They will lend a helping hand and be able to talk about the events over a cup of tea once in a while—and for months and years onward. As we know, in mental health there is really a two- to five-year response when these natural hazards that turn into humanitarian disasters hit.
She went on say, 'Ongoing building these connections in relationships in advance sets a strong foundation for building social capital.' That was her description. To my mind, she couldn't have captured more beautifully the necessity of how we, as governments and as a community, approach the ongoing disasters that are occurring across our country not only as we speak but increasingly in the coming months and years.
When I visited the Hawkesbury, what stood out to me was the incredible sense of community spirit and camaraderie. There was an understanding of the local risks, which was exemplified by a story from Susan Templeman. Susan, who actually is a member of the Labor party, is a very active member of parliament and very active in her community, but I could also include in this those I've met in the Lismore area in the National Party, along with wonderful people, including the state member up there from the Labor Party.
The reason I'm talking about different political parties is that what binds us together is that sense of making sure we make a difference, which goes beyond politics. It's not just a question of areas where there's a degree of consensus, such as in national security or in defence. It goes beyond that. This is an issue that should also have that same sense across all political parties, whether it be the Independents or any other political party. We need to make sure that we get it right and that we build community resilience and understanding. Part of building that is also saying: 'There isn't a lack of desire to fix it straightaway. What are the steps we're taking as we learn together from each experience?' That is what makes resilience and capacity in the future so much more powerful.
Susan Templeman shared with me a story about a mum who was contemplating selling after the recent floods. And, Senator Lambie, I'm going to capture your spirit in this, because I think the speech that you gave was very powerful. I think Susan captured part of that in the story that she gave me. She said that, as she was talking to that mum who was contemplating selling after the recent floods, her 10-year-old son said, 'No, Mum, we can't sell, because, even if we do, we'll have to come back and help, because the next people will get flooded too.' And that says what I'd like to think, and what I'm confident, so many of us not only in this place but also right across the country believe.
That's why we need to be building back better and that's why we actually need to have build capacity within our communities. One of the things that has particularly struck me is that, whilst these natural hazards of floods, bushfires and violet storms are becoming more frequent and more severe, the humanitarian disaster is being met—I wouldn't describe it as being in a haphazard way, but it needs to be met in an even more consistent way, and that should be the desire of everybody here.
I'm not going to suggest that there are simple solutions, but there certainly are solutions. There certainly are answers, and an important part of the inquiry of this select committee will go to another aspect: the important answers to the challenges right across our communities. Again, I won't point the finger at any political party from the past or the present. I try to avoid that because this is a lesson for us about what we are going to do today, tomorrow and the day after that. I have only been involved directly in this space for 12 weeks now. There are a lot of experts out there. The experts are people like Xena. Susan relayed that story and many others to me from people across those communities.
But these aren't natural disasters. A disaster is by no means inevitably a natural disaster. When a disaster hits, when a flood hits, that doesn't mean it is a natural disaster. It can be a humanitarian disaster if we don't prepare our resilience for what is occurring. If we don't prepare our best selves to work out how to respond when those events hit our communities, whether it be flood, fire or cyclone, then we have to make sure, for the next round, the next occasion, that we do. I'm talking beyond the politics. I will hold out Queensland's response to disasters as a good example that we can all learn from right across the country. The unfortunate consequence for North Queenslanders from the consistent disasters they face is that they are battle-weary but battle-hardened. This is the message I was getting from Senator Lambie. We can be battle hardened as a community if we pull together and make sure that we find those answers, and this inquiry would be an important step in finding them.
The commitment to recovery and preparedness by all of us here and certainly by the government is critical when we are dealing with future fires. Look at Cobargo, with the Bega Aboriginal Land Council and the importance of cultural practices. There is low-hanging fruit, but we have to all come together and say, 'Let's make sure that our programs are heading towards an outcome that will make us battle-hardened,' because the battles are going to come more and more often, with more and more communities affected. We have to be able to listen to communities and strengthen our coordination and disaster prevention projects to ensure we are ready for what is to come.
By preparing for natural hazards, we can also protect lives and livelihoods and lessen damage. The Disaster Ready Fund is part of that program, but we're talking about something in addition to that, the real community response and capacity. When the Disaster Ready Fund is made available, there needs to be a real understanding of how that money is utilised to build up capacity, to make sure that we are not just putting in another bridge to be washed out 12 months later because it is the same.
The government are building back better so that communities can be connected, so that businesses can be connected. These are critical parts of the transformation we are doing across the government but are also something, I'm pleased to say, that are shared by many across the political spectrum and across communities that would describe themselves as anything but political but that are very outspoken in making sure that their communities are even stronger. We need to make sure that we have the capacity, for example, for Disaster Relief Australia. Again, I don't want to conclude these as the answers in toto because they are not.
As a parliament, as a government, as the opposition, as the crossbenches, as other political parties here, this is about finding the answers to make sure that we can build a more resilient community right across the board. But I will give a shout out to Disaster Relief Australia because a lot of us here share a lot of confidence in the great work that they do. Previous governments have supported Disaster Relief Australia, but I am proud to say that this government has also budgeted a grant of $38.3 million over four years, which will support and build the skilled volunteer workforce by more than 5,000 to help communities during a disaster. But I am saying more than that, which is why this select committee is so important to all of us in the critical areas, as has been pointed out in the select committee's terms of reference.
I am confident that I share with everyone on the committee that we have a great deal of confidence in the Defence Force personnel who in recent weeks have been doing such wonderful work across the east coast of Australia. Our service personnel do a critical job supporting communities in the immediate recovery period. Across disaster affected areas, in communities from Lismore to Cobargo to Windsor, I've heard firsthand the appreciation and support for the Australian Defence Force now, although it's so many years later. It's like it was yesterday. We all remember the scenes during the Black Summer bushfires when over 1,000 resident and holidaymakers were stranded in the East Gippsland town of Mallacoota. This town was devastated by bushfires and was cut off by an out-of-control bushfire. People started leaving the area by sea because roads in and out of town were blocked for weeks. Families were under stress.
There is a need for that capacity and that ability right across our communities not only to build on the fantastic work that's been done by defence personnel but also to look at what capacity and resilience we can build across the community. One thing that struck me as well was that, during the Black Summer bushfires, the ADF provided assistance across the period from 6 September 2019 to the 26 March 2020. This operation was known as Operation Bushfire Assist. Assistance included logistics, bases for firefighting aircraft, catering, recovery efforts, engineering assistance, evacuation operations, search and rescue and surveillance. These areas are going to be critically important in the future, but we also need to make sure that we are not just relying on the wonderful, powerful work the ADF has done. We need to build on those strengths and the strengths in our community to make sure that our capacity in these times of humanitarian disasters in this country are met.
I'd like to thank Senator Lambie for bringing forward this motion and this inquiry. I think it covers a lot of really important areas. I also want to take the opportunity to thank Senator Sheldon who, since he's taken on the role as special envoy in emergency management, has been out on the ground meeting with our communities. He's been to Lismore and he's been to communities in the Hunter region. He's been on the ground talking to people and he's really listened. I genuinely appreciate that because that's what our people in the regions want to see. They want to see that they are being heard. They don't want to see us playing political games and partisan games. They want to know that we are actually trying to ensure that we can make things better in the future, that we are learning from each and every disaster, because we will not always get it right. The expectation that somebody could have had a crystal ball in March and had the ADF out in affected communities a week before the rain actually fell is ludicrous. But we are learning, and it is in everyone's interests for us to work together to understand, from what we have done in the past, where we've gone wrong and where we've gone right. We need to develop the best systems going forward, and they must always be evolutionary because every disaster is different.
Thinking about my home area, I'm from the Deniliquin, in the southern Riverina. I moved there in 2010, and we had floods in 2011, floods in 2012, floods in 2016 and we are now flooded again, as we speak. Not one of those floods has looked the same and not one of those floods has had the same impact or the same results, other than that every single one of those floods brought the community together, with neighbours helping neighbours, volunteers coming out to fill, shift and stack the sandbags. We've seen it across the board. We've seen it in Lismore earlier this year. Unfortunately, Broke, in the Hunter, has been flooded five times in the last 18 months. In the Rochester, Shepparton, Echuca and Moama areas I hope the river has peaked and is now going down. And obviously it's flooded in my home town.
We've seen it before—we've seen it through bushfires and we've seen it through previous floods. One thing we are learning more and more is that once upon a time disasters were a regional thing—it was something that happened in Far North Queensland when a cyclone hit, and it didn't really impact us, and it was all, 'She'll be right'—but I think the flooding disaster in Brisbane in 2011 really brought home that natural disasters are not limited to the regions. This year we've seen it multiple times in Western Sydney. This is no longer a regional issue; this is an issue that impacts every single one of us. That's why it is important that we do look at how we address these issues and that we do look at how we respond.
I've been meeting with SES volunteers and SES coordinators in the various states, and they have told me there is no consistency in training and there is no consistency in call-out methodology. There are limits on what someone in one state can and can't do in their SES role compared to what someone in another state can do. One thing we are in Australia is good neighbours, and when there is a disaster in one state we do have volunteers from other states—other rural fire brigades or other SES services put their hands up and come to assist, but they're talking different languages. They're coming together for the same purpose, with the same good hearts, but they've got different training and different languages. They don't even use the same hand signals when directing vehicles, which is a real work health and safety issue.
One area where the ADF does have it over those other volunteer organisations is that in the ADF it doesn't matter whether you joined up in Western Australia, Queensland, New South Wales or Tasmania—as Senator Lambie did—you are trained in exactly the same way. If you are in their transport unit, your hand signals are exactly the same as the hand signals of someone who joined NORFORCE in Darwin. That is why in times of emergency when the ADF are called in you know that it doesn't matter where they come from; they have the same level of high-quality training, they understand logistics and how to move it across state borders. They haven't got those issues because they are a federal force.
One of the issues is that responding to natural disasters is not the ADF's core business. Their core business is to protect Australia, but not from natural disasters. When I talk to my colleagues in the ADF they are so proud of what they do in times of natural disasters but they are concerned that it is becoming more and more common, and instead of it being the exception for them to be called out, it is now almost the rule.
I note that now Senator Watt is the emergency management minister he has changed his tune a bit. When he was on my side of the chamber, in my role as shadow emergency management minister, he never missed an opportunity to play politics with this. He never missed an opportunity to sit here and heckle and say, 'Call in the Army.' Now that he's on that side of the chamber he realises that actually there are processes that must take place and that it's not for the federal government to swoop in, over and above the sovereignty of the states, and declare martial law.
The Army should not be our first port of call. As much as we appreciate the Army's assistance and as much as I want to acknowledge that when our communities are in crisis and they see that uniform walk into their communities it is a morale boost because they see it, they recognise it and they go, 'Someone's listening.' So I want to thank the ADF. I am so proud of the ADF for having that reputation in Australia.
But let's look at when we have used them. Back in 2004, when Canberra was surrounded by bushfires, we didn't have a call-out for the ADF. A call was put out for volunteers in the reserve forces in Canberra, and many of them took up that call and came because they had the right training and they could come in. But it was not a call-out. Since then, we have had them called out during the Black Summer bushfires, we had them called out during the Lismore floods and we had them called out during COVID. We called on our defence forces during COVID-19 to knock on people's doors, for lockdown, to man border patrols and to staff aged-care facilities. This was at the request of the state because the federals cannot march in and say, 'Here's the Army; you will use them.' And now they are in hospitals. So we really need to look at what we're doing.
We also need to look at our volunteer organisations. If we continue to rely on a professional outfit like the Army, we are actually undermining the willingness of people to volunteer, and we don't want white ant these fantastic volunteer organisations that have fantastic volunteers. We also have to look at the charity models we have. I note in the budget that Disaster Recovery Australia has received funding, and I welcome that because they do really good work. There are similar charities out there, like BlazeAid, the Salvation Army and the Red Cross. These people man the recovery centres, they provide assistance, they provide advice and they help point people in the right direction.
But the one thing that I hear from them is that there is no coordination. They are often flying blind. They are using Google as much as anyone else to try and find out where to go for information. We hear that time and time again when we investigate natural disasters. Most recently, both the bushfire royal commission and the New South Wales flood inquiry pointed out the need for streamlined processes and consistency so that we do not have the double-ups, the duplication, but we also do not have the confusion. The ideal would be a single portal for all information, a single call-out mechanism and a staged call-out mechanism.
At what point do we say that we will call in the ADF? It should not be our first response. It should be our last response, because we do have the volunteer organisations and we do have the state organisations. This may mean that every state emergency management minister should get together around the table—and I would happily accept being your wingman, Senator Watt, because, as I said before, this is not about politics; this is about getting the systems right so that we do it better and we do it better for all of our communities.
I think it is fantastic that strangers, friends and families all work together. That will never change, particularly in the regions. If you see someone on the road with a flat tyre, you pull over and say, 'Do you need help?' That's effectively what we see. I actually don't like it when people say, 'Why was it left to the community to have their dinghies out and be helping people?' I don't want to live in an Australia where we don't help our mates. If they are the first people on the scene and they know somebody needs assistance, then I say, 'Thank you for getting in your dinghy and going to help.' I say, 'Thank you for not waiting for the wheels of bureaucracy to turn and for all the boxes to be ticked so we can have the call-out.' This is exactly why we have the volunteer organisations in situ. This is why we've got a Deniliquin branch of the SES and a Lismore branch of the SES: because you can't have an Army base in every single town, and you can't wait. Even though the Army is very efficient, and they can get things moving in a very short amount of time, those hours that you may have to wait could be the difference between someone getting off that roof and not. That's what it comes down to.
How do we do it better without white-anting and undermining the systems and people we have in place? We don't want to undermine our communities. We want to make sure our communities will always be there to pack the sandbags, to hold the hose, to drive the fire trucks and to support their neighbours. At the end of the day, this is what it's about. It's about neighbours, it's about communities and it's about doing it better. Thank you, Senator Lambie. Thank you for listening.
I am very pleased to stand here today and speak to this motion, and I thank Senator Lambie for bringing it to the Senate. I don't rise here and speak with the same authority or expertise as some of our speakers who have had the opportunity to speak today. We have our Special Envoy for Disaster Recovery, Senator Sheldon, who has been doing an excellent job since being appointed to that position. He has spoken with real knowledge of what is going on in those communities and is working very hard with our minister. The shadow minister also has a deep understanding of some of the issues that we are facing.
I know that we are having a real debate about the role of the Defence Force in dealing with these recurring disasters. I know, Senator Lambie, you have a working knowledge of and a real passion for our Defence Forces and a real understanding, from a mental health point of view, of the toll that participating in these types of exercises does take. So I quite humbly rise to speak in the context of people who are working in this space, but I do so as someone who lives in a state that has experienced natural disasters and continues to experience natural disasters. I live in a place prone to cyclones. It's a real, live experience for people living in northern Australia, particularly, about how we deal with ongoing natural disasters and the threat and the cost of cleaning up these disasters.
I think it's really important to point out that we have seen the climate change. We've seen changes to the way disasters impact our countries. I think the proposal from Senator Lambie to develop this select committee, importantly, comes at a time when there is a very different position from the parties of government on what we should do to deal with climate change and the cost of not dealing with climate change, particularly in relation to natural disasters. The government supports the proposal to establish a select committee on Australia's disaster resilience.
It would be remiss of me to not speak about this important topic without extending my sympathies to those Australians who are currently dealing with natural disasters. I know we can stand in here and have quite an academic debate, but there are real families, real communities and real businesses that are dealing with the impacts of flooding across the country right now, flooding that has seemed almost relentless in a new way, to which we are needing to come up with new ways to respond. Government is having to deal with new ways of preparing for disasters because, while it is important to be there when disasters occur, when families are cleaning up and when communities are facing the aftermath of a disaster, what we now know—and what I think was particularly important about the contribution from the then shadow minister Watt—is that being prepared for disasters is a real necessity and should be the emphasis of any government that holds itself out to care about communities. It is important to turn up the day after, but what were you doing six months before? I think that is the question and it's the emphasis of this government and, particularly, the minister, who has only recently taken on this role.
It feels as though there has been no end to Australia's incidence of natural disasters, and the frequency of these disasters don't dilute their devastating impacts. Every time we hear about another event, there are families, communities and workplaces contending with these terrible events. I express my deepest condolences to all of them. I also express my appreciation for the ADF, emergency services personnel and all volunteers who have put themselves, or are currently putting themselves, in harm's way in the service of these impacted communities. I know there are personnel particularly from the defence forces who are currently doing this work, and we could not be more appreciative of the contribution they make to our community.
As natural disasters become more intense and more frequent due to climate change, we need to think more seriously about what we can do to support emergency management workforce. When severe natural disasters hit, the ADF do play an incredibly critical role in responding to natural disasters. Speaking with the Guardian last week, Minister Watt said: 'You can't underestimate the morale boost that it gives communities to see those camouflage uniforms in there lending a hand.' Not only does their presence bring comfort and reassurance to communities but we've seen time and time again how they supercharge the recovery. In recent weeks, the Albanese government deployed Defence Force personnel across the east coast of Australia. Our service personnel do a fantastic job supporting communities in their immediate recovery.
The efforts of our ADF personnel on the ground are incredible, and I thank them for their sustained and tireless service. Still, we do need to acknowledge that our increasing reliance on the ADF may not be sustainable. Minister Watt has already flagged the government's intention to investigate how we can bolster Australia's emergency management workforce capability. A more coordinated response to more frequently occurring disasters, including the possibility of a standby workforce, is an important part of that as well. We're having this conversation at a time when there are skills shortages across the country. We will have political debates about who has been responsible for some of those skills shortages and for not training people, but we know that, certainly, where there were cracks in the system—and COVID created chasms—there is a real lack of skilled, trained workforce that isn't already completely exhausted and unable to participate in these types of work. The idea that there's this army of volunteers just waiting with nothing else to do—we all know that that's not the case. It's not a matter of there being a workforce that is ready and willing. There is a discussion that we need to have about where this workforce comes from, how this workforce is engaged, what this workforce is going to be required to do and what is the emphasis in terms of preparedness versus recovery of this workforce. Australia needs to be able to rely on a systematic response every time these kinds of events occur, instead of relying on ad hoc, last-minute arrangements.
I think the debate today has been very respectful and has really stayed away from too many political assessments, but it would be remiss of me not to comment on the previous government's response. It felt like, over a few years of disasters, there was a real reluctance to put in new systems that would allow there to be rapid response preparedness and mitigation. I am loath to say the 'M word'. I know the previous government didn't believe in investing in mitigation, as opposed to other methods. But this is all part of the conversation that we need to have, and it will be investigated by this select committee.
With disasters occurring more frequently, communities should be able to know what help to expect from government. I think there's definitely a case to be made that after a disaster there's an awful time period where people are waiting to see press conferences, to see what sort of help will be available. It would be nice to know, the day after a disaster, that the type of response and assistance available to you is going to be the same no matter where you live, no matter whose electorate you live in and no matter whether you live in a state run by a Liberal or a Labor government. If you live in Australia and you are affected by a natural disaster, there should be a federal response and a combined state and local government response that is the same no matter where you live.
Already, the Albanese Labor government is implementing these structural changes. In only five months of government, our government has established the new national Emergency Management Fund and a new resilience fund. I know that Minister Watt is very proud of these achievements in such a short time. I think this goes to some of the weather forecasts we've been getting and the high-risk season that we're heading into—or that we've already met. This has really exacerbated the need to get these things happening. That's why our government has been so quick to deal with these changes.
This is unlike the previous government, which focused on announcements and not delivery—even when it came to disaster recovery. We have every intention of ensuring that these funds and corresponding agencies are used. We don't want to have funding sitting in a bank when it could be spent on mitigation projects that would reduce the impact of natural disasters. That is not helpful to any community. A press release does not help you after a flood; a mitigation project that has been designed, planned, investigated and implemented is what communities want to see from a proactive government.
We have also established the $1 billion Disaster Ready Fund to support long-term preparedness and response to natural disasters. I'm sure there will be many submissions to Senator Lambie's proposed select committee for what this fund could possibly be used for and how this fund could be used to benefit preparedness and response. Just this week, with the handing down of the first federal budget under the new Albanese Labor government, we have renewed our commitment to a more proactive approach to disaster recovery, an important role that the Australian Defence Force and also Australian veterans play in this situation.
On Tuesday evening, the Albanese Labor government committed $38.3 million to the veteran led Disaster Relief Australia. This budget allocation proposes to enhance the existing operations of veteran led Disaster Relief Australia. This money was allocated with the concerns raised in the committee referral in mind. Adequately resourcing a range of groups will help to reduce the pressure on the Australian Defence Force when disasters hit. These funds aim to support 5,200 more disaster response volunteers.
I don't pretend to know about, nor have lived experience of, the lives of veterans, other than to have spoken to many communities and many people, particularly in North Queensland, who support and work very closely with the veteran community and who are looking for ways to deal, particularly, with veterans' ongoing mental health and also with their employment situation. The Oasis Townsville is one really good example. John Caligari, who I'm sure Senator Lambie and other ministers and other members of the opposition have had the chance to meet when they've been in Townsville, is really clear on giving veterans jobs that provide purpose and meaning, somewhere to go, someone to love, something to do. That is why we seek to engage veterans in this really important work. It's a two-pronged approach, and I think it's something that should receive support across this chamber.
Finally, the success of our emergency management system should not be a partisan issue. We'll all have a stake in making sure it's done and ensuring the full capacity of the Public Service provides communities the best possible support in their most difficult moments. That's why our government welcomes the intention to look into this issue through the Senate and work constructively across the chamber to deliver a more sustainable emergency management workforce capability. With the impacts of climate change on our doorstep right now, with communities across the country facing a high-risk weather season, with the reluctance of previous governments to invest in mitigation and preparedness, there could not be a more important time for this inquiry.
It gives me great pleasure to stand here today in the Senate and express not just the government's support but my personal support to Senator Lambie's proposal to establish a select committee here in the Senate into Australia's disaster resilience.
Indeed, earlier today, I was standing here in the Senate making a short contribution in senators' statements about the floods that are impacting many of the eastern states, particularly my home state of Victoria. I talked about the amazing efforts of all volunteers, the emergency workers and our ADF personnel, both those who are engaged on a full-time basis in the ADF but also our reservists, who have a dual role—a role of not just working in their own private lives but also the other very important role that they play in assisting the full-time ADF officers when they're needed in some of these dark times. I really do take off my hat to the role that our reservists play when it comes to natural disasters. All these people do an amazing job, all working together on the ground, as we speak, to protect many communities and to begin the recovery efforts. Again, I want to thank them all for their courageous and essential efforts.
I also just wanted to briefly note the earlier contribution by a good friend of mine here, Senator Sheldon, especially in his capacity now as the Special Envoy for Disaster Recovery. This is a new position that was created by the Albanese Labor government since we were elected about five months ago. It really reflects on how seriously the government is taking this policy area, an area that does need reform, as noted earlier by Senator Davey and Senator Sheldon. He's been out and about, out there on ground zero, dealing with many communities, as has our Minister for Emergency Management, Senator Murray Watt, talking to those who've been directly impacted by the flooding, as well as those communities that have been preparing for some time, dealing with the various state and local government authorities about how they can best manage the flood situations at hand.
Natural disasters, as we know, devastate communities. They absolutely smash them to pieces, particularly in our regions. We've heard, and we no doubt will continue to hear, from many senators in this place who represent those communities. The devastation and havoc of disasters uproot lives, lay waste to homes and businesses, and often, tragically, result in fatalities. Sadly, there have been a few fatalities in my home state of Victoria from the recent floods. Thousands of people in Shepparton are currently homeless. There was an article recently in the media, which highlighted that a particular individual is currently living in a tent with her family of five children. She says it's unlikely that her family will be able to stay in that area. We could just imagine the situation that she and her family are going through right now. I really hope that all of the various local and state government authorities are offering all the support they can to this individual and to others in the community.
Beyond the economic damage that's been caused by the natural disasters, there is also this enormous and disruptive impact on the fabric of many communities. Families are forced not just to move but also to change jobs and change schools. It's not as simple as, 'We'll just wait for the water to subside, and then we'll go back to normal.' This has some real long-term impacts, not just on people but also on families, communities and the social fabric of that community. Neighbours have instead become distant friends, and connections to various sporting clubs and community groups are disrupted. This is what is at stake, and when we're talking about emergency management, it is so important that we get the reforms right.
It was really good to see Minister Watt earlier this year announce a new agency to deliver that support before, during and after those kinds of disasters. While we as a country prepare and respond and recover from these natural disasters, it was really comforting to know that the new National Emergency Management Agency was established on 1 September. NEMA brings the capabilities of Emergency Management Australia and the National Recovery and Resilience Agency into a single agency. This is the first time that has happened. This change is delivering a more coordinated approach to Australian government responses to emergencies and to preparing for future hazards. The minister said at the time that the new NEMA would lead Australia's disaster and emergency management efforts working in partnership—and I think it is important that it is in partnership—with state and territory governments and local councils right across Australia.
NEMA will provide informed strategic oversight and guidance on how we deal with and prepare for emergencies in this country. Previously, the Australian disaster response, while good, was in some ways very ad hoc and patchy. The work of the select committee proposed by Senator Lambie will no doubt look at those important issues—how are we going, in terms of how we are responding to natural disasters, to floods, to bushfires and to the other disasters that will, no doubt, happen in this country? It was comforting to see that there's been a much improved response from the Australian government in times of emergency, giving people in our community the support that they need to recover and to recover quickly.
NEMA will also drive long-term resilience and preparedness, which is increasingly important in the face of the longer and more intense natural disasters that are due to climate change. I think also it would be great to see NEMA considering the costs for our economy—and the livelihoods that are affected—due to floods and other disasters. It is claimed that these cost around $38 billion a year. It is important that we consider the economic impacts and the livelihood impacts that this has for many people around the country.
I've touched on our regional communities, but let's talk about the farmers. We see on the nightly news—calves being washed away, farmers breaking down in front of media crews when they are interviewed, entire harvests being lost—the devastating impact disasters are having on the agriculture industry in this country. That will no doubt play a role in increasing our food costs, and also in reducing the supply in the economy. Everything that we've heard so far indicates that there is a real threat to our food security. Despite those concerns, and it's important to stress this: I would urge people not to rush to our supermarkets and not to panic-buy, because our agriculture industry is very resilient. But it is important, with the reforms that Minister Watt indicated earlier this year, that we look at and inquire into other areas of improvement. There is no doubt the contributions by Senator Lambie and others in this place will play a pivotal role in ensuring that we have a system in place where Australians are confident that the Australian government, in partnership with the state and territory governments, can manage these disasters in the best way they can and provide all the support that people expect when things go wrong.
Of course, these disasters are deeply traumatic for communities around Australia. But I also want to highlight that the awful events bring out the very best of many Australians. I know many of us, particularly senators from the south-eastern states, have been glued to the news about the floods. For every story about another town that has been impacted, there is another story about communities that are coming together to help each other out. Whether it be the local churches, the local sport clubs, community groups or charitable organisations, they're all doing an amazing job. They are acting as relief centres, distributing food and providing shelter for those who need it. They're also coordinating volunteers, acting as a base camp for those in the community who are putting their hands up to help out their neighbours.
I was recently reading about the local football and netball club in Skipton in Victoria, whose clubhouse had been acting as a base of operations and providing a barbecue lunch with the Lions club every day for volunteers. They're also a source of relief for families who have tragically lost everything in their lives. Australians all over are providing such great comfort and great support to one another. Our great country has been incredibly generous with the donations to flood relief efforts from those who were touched, as I'm sure we all were, when we saw those reports of floods in communities across New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and now Queensland. This charitable reaction was so immediate and so generous that state governments had to scramble to point donors in the right direction to ensure that their donations were actually going to help communities affected by the floods. It would be great to see if the committee does look at that aspect of support that has been offered by many Australians. Whether it is the volunteers in Skipton or donors from around the country, these are just some of the great examples of the Australian spirit, demonstrating that we are always willing to lend a hand, whether it's by picking up a sandbag or by digging into our wallets to help out our fellow Australians.
While these efforts should be celebrated, and the government's response to these floods has been swift, continuing to respond every day to the evolving situation on the ground, that does not mean that we should not review Australia's ability to respond to disasters. Our emergency management systems cannot rely entirely on the abundance of the Aussie spirit. Indeed, the generosity of the volunteers can be made necessary by a lack of sufficient resources from governments. I really think this goes to the heart of what is being put here today. What then happens to communities that don't have enough volunteers? What happens when all the people who would have volunteered are instead occupied defending their own families, homes and businesses? We cannot rely on ad hoc arrangements or on the hope that volunteers will be able to just plug gaps in government responses, as we do from time to time. We're constantly relying on the ADF and our reservists to somehow fill that short gap in times of need. The stakes are far too high, when bushfires are approaching properties or flood levels are rising, to rely on the generosity of Australians who may not be in a position to help.
We know that when we formed government our country's ability to respond to events like the current floods was far from perfect. Unfortunately, these events seem to be getting more frequent, not less. Too many communities hadn't recovered from the last disaster before they were hit with another one. The announcement by Minister Watt of the $1 billion Disaster Ready Fund to support our long-term preparedness and responses to natural disasters is a significant investment. We have made that in the last five months since we've come to government.
In the budget that was handed down this week, the government also committed $38 million to veteran led organisation Disaster Relief Australia. I hope that the role of veterans and the role that many veteran led organisations play in how we handle disaster resilience in this country is also looked at. I know there's a group of fine veterans in Victoria who are currently helping out with the resilience efforts up north in Victoria. They have sent a delegation of people there, former veterans who are helping other fellow veterans who are in need of help at the moment with the floods. But it is also comforting to see that the government has come to the table, providing financial assistance to those who have been affected in council areas, offering $1,000 per adult and $400 for every child. In addition, there is the disaster recovery allowance, which is available in a wider range of council areas and works out to be a 13-week payment at the JobSeeker rate for people who have lost income as a result of these floods.
I would note that the Minister for Emergency Management, Murray Watt, has also flagged his intention to look at bolstering Australia's emergency management workforce capability, which is welcomed and, again, is another area that could be looked at by the committee we are dealing with today. So I want to thank the minister, and I want to thank Senator Lambie for her initiative in bringing this matter for the chamber's consideration. I really do look forward to the report the committee will hand down late next year.
We think about climate change as though it's nothing, as though it's something that's happening to someone else, far away, a long time from now. It's easy to get focused on the day to day, to kick hard decisions about things like climate and emissions down the road. But it's happening now; it's happening here, to us. We're experiencing the effects of climate change in Tasmania. We've had floods this week—homes and businesses underwater, literally in an instant. But these are the latest in a long line of climate related disasters. While the rest of the country faced floods at the start of this year, Tasmania faced droughts. Some parts of western Tasmania had their most extreme droughts on record. Droughts dry everything out, and when you get lightning like we had you get fires like we had. We had fires burning through old-growth forests, destroying trees that have stood for more than 1,000 years.
Tasmania's experience is a story told at different scales, because we're actually at net zero already, but we're a small state, so our climate isn't decided by us alone. We're doing our bit, but we're at the mercy of the rest of the country, too. And, like all of Australia, we're at the mercy of the rest of the world. That's not to say that we don't have a role to play; we do. We've got a growing economy and we've got net zero emissions. We're a model for the rest of the country. It's achievable. We should achieve it as a country. But even if Australia reaches net zero tomorrow, our emissions reduction will not end climate change, because this is a global problem, and it's going to require global action. Every country that drags its feet undermines the ability for us to fix this. We have to set an example, because it's what drags others into action. That's why it's so important that we take steps to reduce our emissions here, because we need to be able to apply pressure to other countries, to say, 'If we're doing it, you have to as well.' Tasmania is setting an example for the rest of the country, and Australia should set an example for the rest of the world. But, in the meantime, climate change keeps on happening to us.
Two weeks ago I sat down and watched helicopter footage from over Latrobe. Half the town and surrounding area was underwater, and it broke my heart. It made me think back to 2016, when we lost three people to the floods in Latrobe. Hundreds of houses were damaged so badly that they had to be rebuilt. Launceston, our second-largest city, was half underwater. It was a one-in-100-year event, experts said. But it's just happened again. These floods weren't as bad as the last ones, and we're thanking our lucky stars for that. We learned a lot from the last time. But we still had houses hit hard for a second time. We've got businesses that have lost pretty much everything, and they don't know whether they'll recover. People who have lived in Latrobe all their lives are now thinking about moving. They can't put themselves through this again.
Natural disasters are a kind of trauma that most people will never recover from. For the people directly affected, it's months of clean-ups and temporary accommodation. It's years of rebuilding your home. It's the photos of your children and precious sentimental objects that you couldn't grab before you had to evacuate. There are some things you just can't get back and you can't replace.
For those indirectly affected, it's the concern for family and friends, not knowing if they're okay because there's bad phone reception and they can't get back to you. My older son had to evacuate his home two weeks ago. We were lucky, his place was fine in the end. But I remember the moment he called me to tell me his area might be in the flood zone. As a mama, knowing your child might be in danger is one of the worst things that can happen. It's not a feeling I will ever forget. It's a feeling we're coping with across the country. The recent floods will have long-lasting impacts in ways that we couldn't imagine. Roads are warped and bent out of shape. Some have potholes so they're barely roads anymore. They won't be able to be fixed in a day.
One of the biggest battles in the north-west coast has been the damage to the Cam River bridge at Somerset. This bridge is the only access point for people from Circular Head and the west coast to get to Burnie and beyond. You can take the back roads around, but I wouldn't recommend it; it takes a long time. It can be a trip of an hour and a half for something that should take only 20 minutes. This bridge has heavy traffic all day, not just people heading to work and appointments but we're talking about school buses full of kids and heavy trucks delivering loads.
Because of the damage from the floodwater, the bridge is sagging. One lane is too dangerous to drive on, so they've had to close it. To say this has caused chaos would be putting it mildly. It's like trying to empty the ocean with a medicine cup. You can have a crack, but it's never going to happen. What was once a 15- or 20-minute drive is now taking people two hours and more. One person on social media said they flew from Melbourne to Wynyard and then drove from Somerset. Their mum left Burnie at the same time they got on the plane, and they got home before their mum. It was quicker to fly from another state than to drive across the Cam River bridge. That's pretty hard to get your head around.
Expecting mums don't know what will happen if they're go into labour. Women stuck on the wrong side of the bridge are scared they'll give birth on the side of the road. The state government is telling people to plan and allow for their trip. Good luck planning your trip when you wake up in the middle of the night having contractions. Emergency vehicles can't get through to help people on the other side. People are missing vital medical appointments because they were stuck in traffic. Some schools told kids to stay at home because it would take them too long to get to and from school. The north-west coast has been divided into which side of the bridge you live on because of floodwaters we weren't prepared for.
Managing natural disasters involves immediate rapid response work. That's an emergency, and then there's the clean-up. The longer that takes, the harder it is, the worse the damage can become. Finally, there's the prevention. That might not be emergency work, but it's constant because it requires constant work to do what we can to disaster-proof the things that are most precious to us: the places, people and things that we love. To protect them, we have to do the work. It requires work all the time. It requires someone to do it, so who do we tap on the shoulder? Right now we're relying on emergency services, like state fire services, and in a pinch we call on the ADF, who do great work. But they do a lot of it. Don't forget: we relied on the ADF to help with the vaccine rollout. We deployed the ADF into aged-care homes. Every fire and flood, they are there too. We keep deploying the ADF over and over every time, but it's not their core business.
The recent royal commission into natural disaster responses found that the ADF does not have the capacity or capability to fight bushfires. It found there is a public perception that the ADF is always available and always has the resources to help with natural disasters. It found that neither of those perceptions are correct, but we do what we can with what we have. The ADF do an incredible job. This is not to criticise that work, but Defence itself acknowledges that what we're doing right now is unsustainable. We need a new approach. Like every other department the Department of Defence has to put together an incoming brief when there's a change of government. It is a lie-of-the land summary of what's going on, and a bit of an 'around the grounds'. Defence's incoming brief warned the newly elected Labor government it was under intense pressure due to the need to respond to near persistent natural disasters. Defence has pointed the finger of blame at the impacts of climate change as where this strain is coming from.
This is not core business; this is what we need to fix. We need to get organised and we need to get real. If what we're doing is unsustainable then we have to do something different. A permanent standby capacity of well-trained disaster relief workers would take a huge strain off the ADF, not to mention state emergency services. It could be deployed wherever it's needed and whenever it's needed. That's what we want to look at in this inquiry. Senator Lambie and I have ideas about how it could work—those are on record. We're keen to hear what everyone else thinks too. Let's get everyone in a room and thrash it out. Let's find a way to start doing disaster relief and to clean up better after fires and floods.
Minister Watt was right this week, when he said that our current system isn't going to work in the long term. Climate change is here; it's happening. That's not a question anymore. The question is: how do we learn to live with it?
The government supports Senator Lambie's proposal for the Select Committee into Australia's Disaster Resilience, and I congratulate the senator for her passion and drive on this critical issue.
We know how devastating the impacts of fire, flood and drought can be, both in terms of the economics but also in terms of the impact on people's lives. Losing a home, your school or your workplace; being unable to find your pets; and losing your favourite photo and the memorabilia from your family and your lifetime—items that cannot be replaced—is tragic. And while communities pull together in these situations, which is excellent to see, the impact that it has on their lives is tragic.
In my home state of South Australia, we're holding our breath at the moment—waiting, but not knowing, how the floodwaters are going to come down. How will they impact on us? How high will the water go? We had a report today that it's going to be much higher than we thought it was going to be last week. People wait, and prepare and wait. It's a terrible situation and a terrible fear about what is going to happen next. The modelling shows us that it's going to be the highest flood since 1975, and everyone's concerned.
What we've seen in other states in the last couple of months is that we rely on the herculean efforts of our emergency services personnel and our Australian Defence Force personnel. They work to support our communities when they're at risk and when they're in crisis. In recent months the ADF has stepped in, responding to natural disasters, as they always do. For those communities, seeing the ADF roll into their region is a welcome sight—it's a sight that tells them that help is there. It is a relief to know that there's someone there to help prepare, to help clean up and to help protect their community. At the moment, as we're all in here, the ADF personnel are supporting the local authorities with flood related tasks across both those areas that are waiting for floods and those areas which are currently in flood. They're also in those areas where the floods are now receding. They're assisting with flood preparations, relocation support, community engagement and sandbagging. They have helicopters assisting with reconnaissance, and the evacuation and relocation of communities are also on their list. They're lifting and moving heavy equipment, and they're providing support to locate and deliver supplies. They're filling sandbags and they're supporting those communities. They're supporting our farmers with provision of feed for livestock and also relocation of livestock, and the other critical issues that need to be covered on a farm that's looking down the barrel of a flood.
Earlier this week I was talking to some farmers who were telling me what the impacts were on their properties. I spoke to one who said they were looking at a bumper crop—I know this, I've heard this for months from a range of farmers telling us that this was going to be one of the best crops they'd seen in a very long time. They were saying that they had lost everything and that the only thing for them to do now is to plough that crop into the ground and start again next year.
We have to acknowledge that our increasing incidence of fire, flood and drought are placing a corresponding increase of pressure and reliance on our emergency services and the ADF. As these things happen more frequently, a one-in-100-year flood happens every 10 years.
Excuse me, Senator Grogan. I draw your attention to the time. We've reached the hard marker of 5.30.
I rise to speak to the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022. I have listened carefully to the debate, and I will be opposing the passage of the bill.
The arguments in favour of the passage of the bill through the Senate do not find favour with me. The arguments advancing the bill are twofold, as I understand it. Firstly, there is a need to restore to the territories a democratic right to legislate for issues such as legalising euthanasia. Further to that, as the states have chosen to legalise euthanasia, this of itself has created an imperative that the right to access a legislative regime allowing euthanasia should be made available to everybody living in Australia.
A territory is not a state. The Senate and the other place are the democratic chambers that have ultimately been entrusted under our Constitution to make decisions for the people residing within the border of a territory. In my view, it is not possible to abrogate that responsibility. We have an obligation to inform ourselves of the consequences of the passage of this bill and make our own judgements accordingly and in accordance with our own conscience. We cannot seek to avert our gaze as to what will happen should this bill pass.
The positions on euthanasia of Territorian parliamentarians are clear and in the public forum. On the same journey of reasoning, I do not warm to the view that, in voting against this bill, I'm in some way diminishing the franchise of those residing in our territories. This debate is inevitably about the legalisation of the practice of euthanasia. To think otherwise is, I respectfully suggest, being wilfully blind. Further, I do not believe that the states that have passed such legislation should have embarked on that legislative path. If I'd remained in the South Australian parliament I would have voted against the proposition. I therefore do not agree with the assertion that euthanasia is a universal right in Australia and that citizens will be disadvantaged in the event access is not legalised and subsequently facilitated.
My views opposing legalising euthanasia are informed by my work in the law, particularly in the area of securing informed consent, and the communities I've lived, worked and volunteered in, as well as my beliefs and ethical understanding of the meaning and value of human life. I acknowledge that arguments for and against euthanasia are complex, and their articulation has filled books, reports and journals. Nothing I say in this contribution will do this issue justice.
The advocacy for legalising euthanasia is grounded on a value placed on individual autonomy, with any associated risks mitigated by imposed safeguards. My strong view is that parliament should not seek to legislate for the taking of life except in circumstances of collective or individual self-defence. A democracy must always have, as its principal concern, value for the lives of its citizens. Representative bodies should never seek to topple or undermine this fundamental pillar that supports our community compact, or seek to normalise the termination of life.
I quote an old adage: 'An act tends to forms a habit, a habit tends to form a character, and a character tends to form a destiny'. Assisted dying is not a private act; it requires the assistance of others. Legalisation of euthanasia blurs the bright line between intending to kill and intending to heal. Such legalisation creates a new permission which will inevitably lead to a shift in professional and legal standards that will not favour the same respect for the sanctity of life. In a just society, no-one is entitled to act on the opinion that the life of another is not worth living. In preparing my comments, I acknowledge the writings of Professor John Finnis that have assisted me in the deliberations on this bill. I do not support the bill.
I too seek to make a contribution to the debate on the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022. It's interesting, and I reflect on the contribution made by my colleague Senator McLachlan. It's an important distinction to make around the eventual intent of the bill relating to, specifically, voluntary assisted dying as opposed to putting the territories of this Commonwealth on the same footing as states.
Before I turn to that issue, I want to start my contribution by reflecting on how difficult and complex this issue is for many Australians, for those who've had personal experiences—family members or friends who have experienced a terrible end to their life and who have sought the services that would be available to them under a legalised arrangement, such as this bill would enable to be contemplated in territories in Australia. I don't want to diminish that at all. I acknowledge the pain that so many people have felt, and friends of my own have gone through some terrible journeys. We've heard many accounts in the debate on this bill thus far and, indeed, in previous versions of it.
In doing that, I think it is important to reflect on what this bill does, what it seeks to do and what consequences may flow from affirming this bill, by passing it and enabling territories to perhaps legislate on the issue of euthanasia. Reflecting again, though, on the fact that the bill does talk about restoring rights to territories, I think it is important to focus on the fact that this bill does singularly enable territories to legislate with regard to one issue, and that is the matter of assisted dying.
It doesn't alter other constitutional arrangements. It doesn't alter issues around resourcing and responsibility for service delivery in the jurisdictions we're talking about here. It doesn't change any of those matters. It simply allows territories to legislate on the matter of voluntary assisted dying, on the matter of euthanasia. It isn't about equality between states and territories. It is important to remind ourselves of that as we proceed to eventually vote on this bill.
Turning to that substantive issue, the ultimate end point here about legislating to enable people to access assisted dying, as this bill would enable contemplation of, I think does deserve serious contemplation. I don't know that the bill does it justice, given that's where we end up. If this bill is passed, the reality is that we are legislating for assisted dying.
At the outset, I want to indicate that I won't be supporting the bill. There are a range of reasons for that, that I've given great thought to over a long period of time. This is not the first time I've thought about this issue. This parliament debated this issue in 2018. With my involvement in politics over many years, I've observed this debate occur in different parliaments, including this one, and have considered the views that have been put forward.
For many across Australia, faith is a reason to vote against such legislation. I'm one of those. As a Christian I believe that life is a gift from God and one that you must be very grateful for and take very seriously. It's on that basis that I fundamentally find great difficulty in what's proposed through this bill. I put this very personal aspect to my thinking on this on record because it is a conscience issue. It is a matter that we are dealing with in conscience.
I want to reflect on the respect with which the debate has occurred in this chamber. It shows that on serious issues we as a parliament, senators in this place, can operate with respect of one another's views while holding different ones ourselves. For me, one of the central reasons I will not be supporting this bill is because of my faith and how I view life. I know I'm not alone in that view and why I hold it, but there are a range of reasons. Many Australians have concerns about, or objections to, this bill and what it will do.
This debate is one that has happened, as I said before, in many, many parliaments across this country and, indeed, across other legislatures across the world. In the United States, for example, between the years 1994 and 2011, there were 122 attempts in Congress and different state legislatures to legislate for voluntary assisted dying or euthanasia. As I examined the issues that have previously been canvassed, I think it's important to note that a lot of the issues that have been raised in these previous debates haven't been addressed satisfactorily to my mind and certainly, I know, to the minds of others that I've corresponded with as I've engaged with members of the community on this issue. Fundamentally, I have to say I remain very concerned that there'll never be a way to completely ensure that any abuses, malfeasance or any other negative activity that might occur can be prevented from occurring by legislating.
I was drawn to an article authored by Mark Powell nearly four years ago now in a publication here in Australia. He outlined 10 non-religious reasons which I thought sum up many of the issues that have been raised in other debates around the country and around the world that I think we do need to consider and pay attention to if we do intend to legislate on these issues, as this bill—if passed—would enable certain parts of our country to do. And I think, going through those reasons, it's important to draw breath and weigh up what actually will happen here.
I know others have considered the issue of the role of the medical practice. What are medical professionals to do? The first concern, of course, is around bioethics: are doctors healers, helpers or killers? In the United Kingdom, a survey showed that the majority of doctors didn't support the practice of euthanasia. Indeed, here in Australia, the AMA has been critical of the practice. Dr Chris Middleton stated:
… I think it would completely change the mindset and the ethos of medicine in Australia because in their practice in training, doctors tend to see themselves as agents of hope and healing and comfort and certainly not as agents of death …
That does change the focus of the role of the medical practitioner who is seeking to heal and to help. That is one thing we need to consider. Does a change of this nature change that relationship and the role of the doctor as well?
Secondly, there is the potential for elder abuse. The European Court of Human Rights stated that that the risk of abuse inherent in a system which facilitated assisted suicide should not be underestimated. Jeremy Pritchard wrote in an op-ed in the Examiner in my home state of Tasmania:
In coming decades we face a rapidly aging population, a shrinking tax base and increases in health problems like dementia…euthanasia could form part of government planning for service provision for people nearing end-of-life…If that sounds far-fetched, consider two cases from Oregon where patients' applications for medical treatment were rejected, but followed by departmental notifications informing the patients they were eligible for assisted dying.
I think those sorts of examples are things to be very concerned about. When these options are available, perhaps government entities might well turn to them as a way of dealing with some of these issues.
Psychological pressure is a third concern to consider around ending one's life. There were statistics taken from the state of Oregon in the United States. Oregon, of course, legalised euthanasia in 1997. There was a study undertaken around people's attitudes in this case on the issue of pressure—a concern around wanting not to be a burden to their family or friends and citing that as a reason to elect to be euthanised. In 1998, 12 per cent of those surveyed indicated that that was a reason for their electing to voluntarily suicide. In 1999, that went up to 26 per cent. In the year 2000, that was at 63 per cent. Fast forward to 2012 and, according to the statistics available to me, that was at 57 per cent. So people are citing wanting not to be a burden as a reason to elect out of this life.
The fourth reason is the negative societal perception of those who have a disability, with death being treated as an act of compassion. As stated by Jeremy Prichard and another author, there is a claim or an 'implication that some people are "better off dead" and that "some lives are not worth living"'. They're phrases that I think we need to be very wary of, but they're ones that have been used in this debate across the globe.
The issue of bracket creep is another concern, and it's something that has been observed in other countries where euthanasia has been legalised. If that is the wish of the family, and they've pressured a patient to choose to be euthanised, what sorts of practices are we enabling to be included in that? What sorts of reasons are we enabling to be included as legitimate reasons to elect to voluntarily end one's life? Bracket creep is something very, very serious that we need to take into account.
Safeguards are of course something that we need to consider. Again, I mention this point around never being able to properly ensure that there will never be any abuse of these laws. The same document I've already referred to by Jeremy Prichard states:
In the Flanders region of Belgium approximately half of euthanasia cases are not formally monitored as doctors do not report them to authorities. The rate of underreporting in the Netherlands appears to be between 20%-23%.
It also says that in the state of Oregon the number of people being referred for psychiatric evaluation has decreased markedly. It went from 31 per cent in 1998, the year after voluntary assisted dying was legalised, to two per cent in 2012—the same period of time.
Obviously, there are concerns around non-voluntary euthanasia in Belgium, where euthanasia has been legal since 2002. It's been claimed that people have been put to death without consent. Providing surety around preventing that from happening is I think something we'll never be able to do, given the nature of relationships between carers, patients and family members. We've already talked about some of those concerns.
I could go on with a lot more around the concerns and claims that have been experienced in other jurisdictions as reasons not to head down this path. I cannot find one reason to do so, as I said before, on the basis of my faith and my belief in the sanctity of life. Also, importantly, I cannot find one reason to wave through legislation that would enable jurisdictions in this country to legislate for something that I don't think can ever be done safely or can ever be done in a way in which we can prevent there being abuse, malfeasance, bracket creep and pressure on individuals to end their lives for reasons not entirely pure.
I acknowledge the difficulty so many in our community face with this issue, with family members who've experienced extreme pain as they have ended their lives and with people who've witnessed family members suffering terribly. I acknowledge the difficulty and the complexity of the issues they've faced. But, for those reasons and the risks I've outlined, I cannot support this bill.
I oppose the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022, because I believe there's nothing more important than protecting the sanctity and sacredness of life. I am concerned that going down a path to legalise or sanction the removal of one's life elevates, above life, issues that are not to do with the sacredness of life. Once we get onto that path we move down into a utilitarian world, which can be very dangerous.
I will come back to those points, but first I want to deal with the fact that of course this bill itself doesn't seek to legalise euthanasia; it simply seeks to give those rights and powers back, or reinstate them after an amendment in the late 1990s, to the ACT and the Northern Territory. A lot's happened in the past 25-odd years. The rationale for this restriction 25 years ago was a strong one because at that time no other jurisdictions in Australia had legalised euthanasia. The territories being smaller jurisdictions, I don't think it would have been proper for them to make such a monumental change first. It was right and proper to see that change occur in jurisdictions with a larger percentage of the Australian population.
Since then, many jurisdictions have legalised euthanasia, so perhaps the original justification for this restriction is not as strong. But I take up the points that Senator Duniam made here that this is not quite a black-and-white question and it's not simply a decision to legalise euthanasia or ban euthanasia, because—as we have seen in countries that have longer experience with this—once euthanasia is made legal there are extremely difficult circumstances that arise. There are not clear lines about who should have access to assisted suicide and how the arrangements around that might be regulated. In fact, what we have tended to see in countries that have legalised euthanasia is a continual expansion of the availability of assisted suicide to more and more people.
For example, in the Netherlands euthanasia has been legal since 2006, and the number of deaths from assisted suicide has risen from two per cent to four per cent of all deaths over that period. There was also a case in recent years where a dementia patient who had not consented to being euthanised was given a sedative. She actually woke up during the process, though it was later concluded with additional drugs, I believe. Also, a survey done in the Netherlands in 2015 found that six per cent of euthanasia cases were carried out without the explicit request of the patient. In Oregon, the rate of complications of cases where circumstances are known was almost seven per cent in 2020. This raises the question that, if we are to allow the territories to not simply legalise euthanasia but also, of course, design the regulations around it, what protections are there in place to ensure that we do not go down the paths of other countries? I don't think this is being proposed by most people who've made contributions to this debate. I think most of the people who support euthanasia come in good faith and seek for it to involve circumstances at the end of life where there are few options for people. But clearly in other countries there has been this expansion of the use of euthanasia to cases in which those circumstances clearly do not apply. How can we ensure that it is properly administered in the territories in question, where there are unicameral parliaments—there are not upper houses—and there is not the same parliamentary rigour associated with changing laws in these circumstances? I realise this is a tough issue for the territories, who would understandably think, 'We deserve to decide on issues in our regions.' But given their smaller numbers, and the fact that they do not have a bicameral system and are representing a much smaller percentage of the Australian population, I remain of the view that it's still right and proper for the Australian parliament to set any regulations for the territories.
We could, of course, debate a bill in this chamber that did legalise euthanasia in the ACT and NT. We have the power to do that, just as the states do, and I would recommend that would be a much better pathway here because that would allow us to go through a full Senate committee process and weigh up all of these very difficult questions with due consideration.
I also think that right now, given the circumstances, especially in the Northern Territory, we have other issues we should be focused on, especially on life matters. There is a shocking outbreak of violence in many areas of the Northern Territory and there is a real deterioration in social and community conditions. A year and half or so ago, I was there in Darwin. In the outer circuits of Darwin, not just in communities, there is barbed wire around people's fences in the suburbs because of out-of-control crime and violence. I come back to my original point here that right now we should be fighting steadfast for the protection of every human life, the dignity of every human life, and the minimisation of that is one of the ills that is creating a breakdown in communities and societies in the Western world.
We have been founded as a Judaeo-Christian country. The preamble to our Constitution is done so, humbly, under God, and those words were said by our founding fathers because they believed we were all created in God's image. That preamble—while not saying it explicitly—effectively embodies the Judaeo-Christian view that every human life is sacred and should be protected and not sacrificed for other ends. In saying that, I recognise that in the difficult cases that we often discuss with legislation like this, there should be the provision of appropriate palliative care to make the suffering at the end of life no harder than it otherwise should be. But as soon as we break the glass on that principle that life is more important than anything else then we open the question to what else should be treated for it? Because, effectively, what we are saying with legislation seeking to eventually deliver legalisation of euthanasia is that the human suffering that occurs at the end life, which is terrible and very difficult for people to go through, is more important to avoid than the protection of life.
I am trying to give the best of the demonstration of the argument of my opponents of this debate. They are ultimately saying that the human suffering at these times can be so great that it outweighs the principle that we should protect life. I'm not saying my opponents don't want to protect life. I'm sure they do but they are introducing a circumstance where the suffering at the end of life is more important than the actual protection of life itself. I worry about the can of worms it opens because it is a utilitarian calculation.
I oppose this bill because I believe in the natural law we get from Moses and the 10 commandments especially. But wherever you get it from, the ethical system is a natural law that says there are certain axioms, certain beliefs or ethical behaviours that cannot be avoided, that cannot be offset through some other circumstance. So the protection of 'thou shalt not kill' is one of those that we must adhere to in everything we do. I think the communities, the societies based on a natural law, be it a Judaeo-Christian one or another one, have tended to be the most generous, compassionate and, ultimately, cohesive societies because we are all on an equal footing before God, or because we all agree to certain principles. Once you introduce some kind of utilitarian ethic that someone's life is less important than another's, well, that does open a Pandora's box of ethical questions that often lead to the greatest demonstrations of evil that we have seen on the earth.
I believe there is something special and unique about human life, about humans. We should do everything we can to reduce human suffering, but breaking and breaching that principle of human life opens us up to the kinds of calculations that would occur in a spreadsheet, not the humane principles of caring for and loving every human being. We should, through the laws passed in this place, seek to celebrate human life and to demonstrate a love for human life, including for those who suffer on this earth. By sanctioning in any way the removal of life violates, in my view, those principles. The best ethical system has given us the country that we sometimes take for granted.
As I said earlier, I do think that the issues that are important to the people of the ACT and the Northern Territory definitely deserve consideration in this parliament. I would encourage my colleagues that would seek to change the principles around this issue to bring forward legislation that we could consider properly. I do think that the ways and methods by which we're seeking to do this will not provide the proper parliamentary scrutiny this issue deserves. For example, through this particular process, we really haven't been debating these weighty issues of who should have access to euthanasia, who has to approve it, how many doctors have to be involved, or whether people have to be of a certain age or consciousness to make a decision to conduct assisted suicide. Those questions have not been canvassed in this debate—they really haven't been—in a proper parliamentary way, because we're focused here on the process, not the particulars of euthanasia.
I go back to where I started here: I do think we are a mature enough body to weigh those issues up ourselves. We could do so in a way that takes into account the views and considerations of the territories. Our Constitution gives us that right for a reason. We have the absolute constitutional right to make laws for the territories. That was put in our Constitution for a reason—the reason being that this parliament has got a scale that gives us the capacity to potentially deal with issues of this greatness that aren't always available to smaller jurisdictions. Of course, if those jurisdictions do and want to become states themselves, that particular constitutional hurdle will be removed too. The Northern Territory has had the opportunity, at least, to acquire statehood. That wasn't supported when it was put to their people many decades ago. That would be another process that could obviate this need. If one of these territories becomes a state, we would no longer have the power over them. But while they are territories, there is a good reason in our Constitution, in my view, for oversight from this body—not just the House of Representatives but the Senate as well. I think that would be a much better way to deal with these sensitive but very, very weighty issues.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 18:03 to 20:15
I seek leave to have the Leader of the Opposition's 2022-23 budget reply speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
INTRODUCTION
We live in the best country in the world.
But for millions of Australians, things aren't easy right now.
We're facing increasing financial pressures:
In your mortgage repayments, insurance premiums, visits to the supermarket, filling-up at the petrol station, and especially in your power bills.
Cost-of-living is skyrocketing.
And it may seem out of control.
Yet it can be kept in check.
But not while this Labor Government makes bad economic decisions.
Labor's Budget was a missed opportunity to help you at a time when you need help.
It didn't address our economic challenges or inspire confidence.
It's a Budget which breaks promises, rather than keeps them…
A Budget which weakens Australia's financial position, rather than strengthens it…
And a Budget which adds to, rather than alleviates your cost-of-living pressures.
Peter and Lee are pensioners from Bankstown in New South Wales.
They've been with the same energy company for more than 30 years.
Their bill is set to rise by $753 dollars in just 12 months.
Kel runs a multi-generational family-owned IGA supermarket in Mapleton, Queensland.
He negotiated a Commercial and Industrial energy contract when the Coalition was in Government and power prices were much lower than they are now.
Today, Kel's business is threatened as he faces an increase of $160,000 dollars on the power bill from last year.
Peter, Lee and Kel's energy costs will go up further, that much we know.
Under Labor's Budget, electricity prices are set to rise by more than 56 per cent and gas prices by more than 44 per cent.
We all know these are difficult times.
Nations around the world are contending with economic challenges born from the pandemic and amplified by Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
But thanks to the Coalition Government's record, the fundamentals of the Australian economy are strong.
Costs-of-living are going up partly due to global conditions.
But also due to this Labor Government's bad decisions.
The Treasurer said his Budget 'makes hard decisions for hard times'.
But his Budget makes bad decisions—making hard times even harder for all Australians…
Whether you're young, raising a family, or retired…
Whether you're an employee or running a business.
On Tuesday, the Treasurer failed to mention in his speech what Labor's Budget papers revealed.
'Everything is going up, except your wages.'
Cost-of-living, power prices, taxes, interest rates, unemployment, and the deficit are going up, or will be going up under the Government's predictions.
The same Budget papers confirmed that real wages are forecast to go down.
This means that, by Christmas, a typical family will be $2,000 dollars worse off under this Budget.
And you have every right to be anxious and disappointed.
The Prime Minister has broken faith with you.
RESPONSE TO BUDGET MEASURES
The job of an Opposition is not to oppose for the sake of it.
We don't disagree with everything in the Budget.
Policy must be judged on its merits.
If it's good for you, we will support it.
If it's bad for you, we will stand against it.
So, we commend several good measures in Tuesday's Budget:
The extension of the childcare subsidy to more Australian families…
The commitment to reduce the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Co-Payment to lower the costs of medicines…
The support for housing for of our Veterans…
The initiatives to combat domestic violence…
And the funding to help Australians recover from devasting floods.
Tonight, we will tell you about some of the Coalition's priorities.
And we will also highlight where the Budget is failing you:
In energy, tax relief, housing, filling job shortages, industrial relations, and infrastructure in our regions.
Labor's Budget makes life more difficult for millions of Australians.
And it shows—yet again—that Labor can't manage the economy when it forms Government.
THE COALITION'S ECONOMIC RECO RD
There's a historical pattern of Labor creating a mess and the Coalition cleaning it up.
Liberal Prime Minister John Howard and Treasurer Peter Costello inherited a damaged economy from Paul Keating's Labor Government of high interest rates and unemployment.
They turned the economy around, showed financial restraint, introduced reforms like the GST, and left our nation with a Future Fund.
In 2013, Liberal Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Treasurer Joe Hockey inherited a broken economy from Labor's Rudd-Gillard-Rudd tenure.
They commenced Budget repair and prepared for a rainy day.
And this work was continued by Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Treasurer Scott Morrison.
By 2019, the Coalition brought the Budget back into balance for the first time in eleven years.
Then, in 2020, COVID-19 hit.
That once-in-a-generation pandemic caused the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression.
It was only due to our economic management over the seven years prior to the pandemic that we were in a strong position to implement a suite of support measures.
With 2020 hindsight, we didn't get everything right.
And some of the state government lockdowns went on for far too long.
Australians are still bearing the wounds of those lockdowns today.
But Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Treasurer Josh Frydenberg's policies kept our nation afloat.
JobKeeper assisted 1 million businesses and kept 4 million Australians in jobs.
Our cash flow boost helped 820,000 businesses.
On almost every economic and health measure, Australia was either world-leading or performed better than other countries.
The Final Budget Outcome for 2021-22 revealed a $48 billion dollar reduction in the deficit…
And a $115 billion dollar reduction in debt compared to the Budget handed down in March.
In just one year—2020-21 to 21-22—the Budget improved by over $100 billion dollars—the largest turn-around since Federation.
There are now 596,000 more Australians in jobs than prior to the pandemic.
Other economies fared much worse than ours.
This Labor Government talks down our economy, but could not name a single country whose position they would rather be in.
They're vocal in criticising our pandemic response.
But they remain silent on the fact that their own measures would have cost taxpayers an extra $81 billion dollars, including further extending JobKeeper and paying people to get vaccinated.
As for Labor's claim about '$1 trillion dollars of debt', even the ABC's Fact Check didn't support the claim.
Every democratic government around the world, left or right leaning, incurred COVID debt.
Yet Australia emerged from the pandemic in an economic position the envy of most nations with debt lower than any other major advanced economy.
So, when you hear Labor's spin, when you hear them carry-on about a 'wasted decade', it's a distraction from the fact that this Government has no economic plan.
And Labor will continue to misrepresent the truth until the next election to mask their own bad decisions.
Most notably, their bad decisions on energy policy.
ENERGY COSTS AND SECURITY
In the Rudd-Gillard Labor Government years, power prices rose on average by 12.9 per cent per year.
Over nine years of Coalition Government, they rose on average by 0.3 per cent per year.
Six months ago, the Australian public heard the Prime Minister very clearly.
He said he had a plan to help with your cost-of-living pressures, especially your electricity bills.
On 97 occasions he promised to you that your bills would go down by $275 dollars.
In this Budget, instead of going down by $275 as promised, Labor's plan will see your electricity bill go up by more than 56 per cent over the next two years.
Not only that, your gas bill will go up by more than 44 per cent.
Pensioners can't afford that level of increase.
Not just pensioners, but self-funded retirees, families and small businesses too. In fact, most Australians.
In Europe, we're hearing about people—particularly pensioners and low-income earners—having to choose between paying their power bills or putting food on the table.
Between "heating or eating" this winter.
There, electricity and gas bills are spiralling out of control.
Countries are rationing power.
Not just because of the invasion of Ukraine…
But because governments in several countries in recent years have made catastrophic energy decisions.
They have turned off the secure supply of electricity and gas before the technology and system are ready for more renewable energy.
Despite those warnings and lessons, this Labor Government is following in the footsteps of those countries.
Investing in renewable energy, reducing emissions and doing so credibly to protect our environment is crucial.
Indeed, we want a sustainable and sensible pathway to reduce our emissions.
But when the Prime Minister says that the sun and wind are free energy sources, your power bill tells a different story.
It's much more complicated than what the Prime Minister wants you to believe.
The technology doesn't yet exist at the scale that is needed to store renewable energy for electricity to be reliable at night, or during peak periods.
That is just the scientific reality.
'Firming-up' means using coal, gas, hydro, hydrogen, nuclear or batteries as an energy source or to store power when renewables aren't feeding the system.
But Labor is going to phase out coal and gas before the new technology has been developed and rolled out.
The Energy Minister calls gas pipeline projects 'BS'.
Indeed, in this Budget, the Government makes it harder for more gas supply at a time when we need it most.
On Tuesday night, we saw the Government rip-up funding for gas exploration and cancel gas infrastructure projects which would eliminate shortfalls and make your bills cheaper.
They handed over funding to environmental activists who want to overturn gas project approvals.
Higher gas prices will be baked-in for the foreseeable future, putting high-paying jobs in regional communities at risk.
Competitively-priced hydrogen is at least a decade away.
And the best batteries in the world today—like the Victorian Big Battery—provide only 30 minutes of power at full discharge.
Labor's push for 82 per cent renewables by 2030 comes without a plan to ensure reliable baseload power.
Its policy will see hundreds-of-billions-of-dollars spent on rolling-out poles and high transmission wires in towns and suburbs.
Labor is misleading Australians when it says it can roll-out billions of dollars' worth of transmission wires, cables and towers for renewable energy in the next few years.
Regional communities and farms will be carpeted with up to 28,000 kilometres of new high voltage transmission lines.
That's almost the entire coastline of mainland Australia…
Or the distance of travelling from Melbourne to Perth and back four times.
Every dollar spent on new transmission lines will be paid for by consumers through higher electricity bills…
Bills your Prime Minister promised would go down by $275 dollars.
The Energy Minister himself outlined the reckless rush to renewables.
He acknowledged that to reach Labor's legislated 43 per cent 2030 emissions target, forty wind turbines must be built every month…
And 22,000 solar panels installed every day in our country for the next eight years.
And these costs will considerably ramp-up your power bills over coming years.
So the 56 per cent hike in your electricity bill under Labor is just the beginning.
As the Australian Workers' Union noted, struggling manufacturers will be forced to move their operations offshore.
Should that occur, there will be no net benefit to the global environment…
Only a net loss of Australian jobs, income and sovereign capabilities.
Meanwhile, Canada, France, Japan, South Korea, the UK and the US are all investing in next generation, zero-emission nuclear Small Modular Reactors.
They are doing this to shore-up energy security and to meet their zero emissions targets.
The UK plans to triple the size of its nuclear generation by 2050.
The imperative to create affordable, reliable, and emissions-free energy is why the Coalition is seeking an intelligent conversation on the role these new-age nuclear technologies might or might now be able to play in the energy mix.
TAX RELIEF
Your cost-of-living relief is interconnected with tax relief.
To help you and your families to plan and get ahead, the Coalition believes in a core principle:
That you should keep more of what you earn.
Hard working Australians should be rewarded.
The best reward for hard work is lower taxes.
Due to our tax relief in government, a person earning $90,000 dollars paid $3,000 dollars less tax than they did under Labor, each and every year.
Stage 3 of our legislated plan will lower tax for more than 10 million Australians.
It will simplify our tax system, abolishing the 37 per cent tax rate in its entirety and reducing the 32.5 per cent tax rate to 30 per cent.
It means those earning between $45,000 dollars and $200,000 dollars will pay no more than 30 cents in the dollar.
For a hairdresser earning $60,000 dollars a year, it means $400 dollars more in your pocket.
For an executive assistant earning $80,000 dollars a year, it means $900 dollars more in your pocket.
For a qualified diesel mechanic earning $100,000 dollars a year, it means $1,370 dollars more in your pocket, than in Labor's.
For 95 per cent of workers, it means a top rate of no more than 30 cents in the dollar.
Our plan means that the top 5 per cent of income earners will pay 33 per cent of all income tax.
For millions of Australians, you can work hard, take an extra shift, or get a pay rise or promotion, without suddenly being pushed into a higher tax bracket.
Our legislated tax plan future-proofs your income.
When your income rises over time, you won't be pushed into higher tax brackets or be hit by tax increases by stealth.
Stage 3 tax relief comes into effect in July 2024.
As economists point out, after interest rate rises, that's when our economy will need it most.
That's when Australians especially deserve it.
Labor took our tax plan to the election.
They promised unequivocally not to reverse it.
But now they are laying the groundwork to break this promise.
This Budget provides no certainty for 10 million Australians expecting tax relief in 2024.
The Budget is intended to soften-up Australians.
It gives the Government time to come up with excuses by May next year to tax you more.
The Treasurer, didn't mention this on Tuesday night, under Labor, tax paid will increase by $142 billion dollars over the next four year of taxes that comes from you.
Labor can't manage money.
Which means they want more of yours.
The Coalition will continue to fight for your tax relief because it's your money, not theirs.
HOUSING
Normally, family members are present to watch a Budget Reply speech.
But Mr Dutton's boys are at home with their mum, who is ensuring they're studying for their exams and not watching TV.
But Mr Dutton wanted to speak of his parents.
His Dad, Bruce, started out as a small businessman—as a bricklayer.
His Mum, Ailsa, was a secretary.
By the time five kids came along—of which Mr Dutton the eldest—his Mum was at home raising them and doing the books for his Dad.
But she also took in local kids as a day care.
Mr Dutton's parents had a strong work ethic.
They taught their children to appreciate the value of money.
They were raised with a lot of love and support, but not much money.
They lived in what is still a working-class suburb.
It was a time when Labor was presiding over high interest rates and unemployment.
And it was a terrible time for the building industry.
Mr Dutton was encouraged to get a part-time job.
From Grade 7 until he started university, Mr Dutton worked in a local butcher shop—after school and on Saturday mornings.
Scrubbing floors, washing up, and serving on the counter was tough work.
But it gave him an appreciation for many different perspectives.
He saved like crazy.
One of his proudest achievements was buying his first home.
It was nothing flash at $90,000 dollars.
But it was his.
Today, it's much harder, almost impossible, for young people to afford their first house—even with hard work, sacrifice and saving.
Tonight, we recommit the Coalition to assisting first home buyers by accessing their superannuation through the Super Home Buyer Scheme.
Currently, a super fund can be used to buy a residential or commercial rental property…
To buy shares or even livestock.
In fact, it can be used to buy almost any asset class except a home to live in.
Taking money out of super before retirement is a bad investment decision, unless you put the money back in before retirement.
Take this example:
A 30-year-old couple withdraws $50,000 dollars each from super to help buy a home.
Over a decade, the $100,000 dollars would be worth about $188,000 dollars if it had remained in super.
Without the $100,000 dollars from super, the first home buyer wouldn't have been able to afford the house.
But with the access to super, they have a home to live in.
If the house was sold after a decade, the $100,000 would be worth around $214,000.
And if the $214,000 was reinvested back into super—as we would require—the couple would end up with a balance from that amount in their super when they retire with over $1 million dollars.
Under a Coalition Government, we will extend the same opportunity to women who separate later in life; women with very few housing options and those who are increasingly left homeless.
Your super is your money.
This Government thinks it's their money—something we have seen in this Budget.
They want your super to invest in someone else's home—not your own.
At the same time, they want super funds to be less transparent with what they do with your money.
The Coalition has a strong record when it comes to getting first home buyers and single parent families into their own home.
We support initiatives to increase the supply of housing.
But the Government's initiative has no detail.
The Labor Government has promised one million additional homes in five years costing $10 billion dollars.
Does anyone believe that?
It's Kevin Rudd-esque in design.
Remember the pink batts?
Remember the school halls?
They were designed when this Treasurer was the Chief of Staff to the then Treasurer, Wayne Swan.
Sadly, this program has a familiarity.
Sadly, this proposal looks like it falls into the same category.
The design features will end up wasting billions of dollars and deliver little, if anything, to home buyers.
JOBS ENCOURAGING PENSIONERS AND V ETERANS
Another feature of this Budget not in the Treasurer's speech was Labor has no plan to save a predicted 140,000 Australian job losses.
But it plans to employ another 20,000 public servants in Canberra over the next 4 years.
Across the economy, employers are crying out for workers.
In June, the Coalition announced our policy to double the Age and Veteran Service Pension Work Bonus Scheme from $300 to $600 dollars per fortnight—or to $1,200 dollars for couples.
It's a policy to allow older Australians and veterans to work more, if they choose to do so, without losing their pension payment.
It not only fills job vacancies and adds to the economy, but helps older Australians and veterans to supplement their fixed incomes and to deal with Labor's 56 per cent increase in electricity prices…
Those bills the Prime Minister swore to you would go down by $275.
Labor's policy is about 25 per cent less than the Coalition's proposal.
Right now, more incentive in the system to get people to work—not less—and to mobilise a ready workforce.
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Australians were hoping that this Budget would help to lift productivity.
Instead, Labor's changes to multi-employer bargaining threaten to undermine productivity and will be a throwback to the 1980s.
Labor's changes will impose industry-wide, 'one size fits all' conditions which empower unions.
Where union ultimatums are not met, however unreasonable, multiple sectors will be able to engage in crippling economy-wide strikes, where parties unaffected by disputes join in on protests.
Don't take my word for this. Even Paul Keating has criticised the plan.
The last time that unions used industry-wide strikes to pursue sector wide ultimatums was in 1982.
In that year, unemployment reached 9.4 per cent, inflation 12.4 per cent and 2 million working days were lost tin industrial disputes.
SUPPORTING WOMEN, CHILDREN AND THE NDIS
We are all here in Parliament to improve the lives of Australians, especially children.
We are all influenced by our experiences in life.
Mr Dutton was a police officer and saw the best and worst society has to offer.
He attended countless domestic violence incidents.
He said there is nothing worse than hearing calls for help from women or children as you hop out of a police car and run towards a house.
We are proud of the record-funding both sides of politics have provided to services supporting these families.
The Coalition will invest significantly in these family support services.
And also to protect women and children from sexual assault.
Mr Dutton worked in the Sex Offenders Squad.
What has stayed with him—even to this day—is the horrific details of victims' statements and ensuing investigations.
As Minister for Home Affairs in charge of the Australian Federal Police, Mr Dutton led the cause.
We provided $70 million dollars to establish the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation.
It's now internationally recognised and works with global partners to protect our children on-line and off.
It's estimated to have so far saved more than 500 children.
We acknowledge Bruce and Denise Morcombe—it is Day for Daniel tomorrow—along with Sonya Ryan and others—who have inspired us as parents to fight back against those who seek to hurt our children.
They work hand in glove with the police to prevent children being harmed.
Prime Ministers require a strength of leadership to make tough decisions to keep our people and country safe.
Our record in the area of child protection and the safety of women will be enduring priorities of a Coalition government.
The Coalition has always been a strong supporter of choice.
And that's why we supported increased access to childcare for working families.
We nearly doubled childcare investment.
Women's workforce participation reached record highs…
Women were earning more than ever before…
Women's unemployment was at its lowest levels since 1974.
And this is a record we are proud of.
But we know we can do much more.
We will also work with the Government to combat the scourge of domestic violence in Australia.
Ending violence against women and children within a generation is an ambitious but worthy goal.
But one our nation should and must strive for.
As is continuing to support those with disability.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme is an important initiative for the most vulnerable in our society.
The Coalition has supported it since its inception.
We cannot allow, however, for this important program to become unsustainable.
To do so would deprive those in most need of care.
The Coalition is prepared to support sensible government proposals to strengthen the NDIS and ensure its sustainability.
This provides structured reform of the Budget and certainty to people with disabilities and their families.
BORDER SECURITY AND IMMIGRA TION
We celebrate our migrant story, and it is a key strength of our economy.
As the Minister for Border Protection, Mr Dutton made tough decisions to keep our borders secure.
But also brought in record numbers of people from India, China and many other countries.
Mr Dutton instructed his department to undertake an operation to resettle Yazidi women.
More than 4,000 Yazidis now call Australia home.
And we're proud to call them Australians.
Not all Australians will know the plight of the Yazidis.
These women were persecuted.
Many lost their lives at the hands of Islamic State.
We're incredibly proud that members of the Yazidi community were in the gallery for Mr Dutton's reply.
Many of their scars will never heal.
The sense of loss of their loved ones will remain with them forever.
But they will be able to tell their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren that Australia offered them a home.
They took it.
They started a new life.
And they are a wonderful part of our country.
It was disappointing, in Tuesday's Budget, to see that $50 million dollars set aside for Round 7 of the Safer Communities Funding was cut.
Earlier rounds of the program supported the safety of our multicultural communities.
For example, to provide security cameras at places of worship and programs to help youth at risk.
A Coalition Government will restore that funding.
EDUCATION
As a nation, we celebrate our wonderful Indigenous history.
But we need to be equally proud of our British heritage and our migrant story.
Many parents from across the country are increasingly concerned about the education their children are receiving at school.
Despite great teachers and record funding going into schools—government and non-government—our nation's literacy and numeracy levels are falling short.
In our school curriculum, it's important to include studies of the environment and other social policies.
But the system has allowed ideologically driven advocates too much influence over what is taught to our children.
Teaching a sanitised and selective version of history and the arts—and radical gender theory—is not in our children's best interests.
What is needed is a focus on making the basics a priority—reading, writing and maths…
Fostering a love of our country and pride in our history and democracy, without sugar coating the past…
Where the teachers lead the instruction and are supported to have orderly classrooms…
Where students learn respect, discipline, and 'how to think' not 'what to think'.
A Coalition government pledges to work with families to reflect their values and perspectives in our schools.
ONLINE SAFETY
So much of our lives are already online, be it through internet banking or sharing personal messages, videos and photos.
While children and the elderly are most vulnerable, none of us are immune.
A Coalition Government Mr Dutton leads will do more to help families deal with the threats online.
Our laws need to be tightened and social media companies held to account for what happens on their platforms.
It needs to be a safe environment.
We expect no less online than what we do in real life.
DEFENCE
Our threats aren't only online.
Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine is a devastating reminder that we shouldn't take for granted the 80 years of relative peace since the end of the Second World War.
As Defence Minister, Mr Dutton provided more than $285 million dollars in support to President Zelenskyy and the people of Ukraine.
It's a signal of our values and sends a statement to the world.
We stand shoulder-to-shoulder with this Government in providing even more support…
Including the announcements made today.
The threat of conflict in our own region is real.
As many military leaders have warned, we have to be realistic about the increasing prospect of that conflict.
The AUKUS deal negotiated by Prime Minister Morrison and Mr Dutton will give our country the best chance of peace.
It provides deterrence.
Not just through the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines.
But through collaboration with our two most important allies in the areas of artificial intelligence, space, cyber, hypersonics, and the interoperability of our respective forces.
With threats in the region, Labor and the Coalition must be on a unity ticket.
Australia must not only be a credible defence partner in the region, but also ensure our men and women in uniform have the capabilities they need to credibly deter aggression.
We take this opportunity to thank members of the Australian Defence Force…
Along with first responders, local councillors, community leaders, volunteers, and many more…
For their efforts in supporting Australians and communities affected by the recent floods.
VETERANS
In Government we invested a record amount in our veterans.
We thank the Government for continuing that investment.
The number of veteran suicides in our country remains far too high.
It's a national tragedy.
The Coalition strongly supports the Government's commitment to expand the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme.
One moment as Defence Minister Mr Dutton will never forget was attending the funeral of Private Tom Halloran.
Tom was 21-years-old—an incredible young man with everything ahead of him and a proud digger.
He took his own life on the 26th of April this year.
Entering the chapel, Mr Dutton and his wife spoke with Tom's parents—John and Robyn—and their daughter Annie—Tom's sister.
They put on a brave face but were understandably crushed and looking for answers.
On Tuesday this week, John gave evidence to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.
He wants a better system of support for our diggers.
We all do.
Mr Dutton raised some suggestions the family have made with the Minister for Defence and the Chief of the Defence Force.
And we will work with the Government to do whatever is required to turn this situation around.
INFRASTRUCTURE, THE REGIONS AND FARMERS
Infrastructure investment drives economic growth, creates jobs, encourages investment, boosts productivity, busts congestion, and supports resilient supply chains.
That's why the Coalition committed record funding of $120 billion dollars for infrastructure over the next 10 years.
In contrast, this Labor Government's first Budget axed $2.8 billion dollars of infrastructure projects and delayed a further $6.5 billion dollars' worth of projects.
It's essentially an end for projects like the Rockhampton Ring Road—something which the current Prime Minister promised in 2019.
Labor has cancelled and delayed over $5 billion dollars of investment in water infrastructure, including dams like Hells Gates, Dungowan, Urannah, and Wyangala.
This Government has slashed $10 billion dollars from regional Australia.
In so doing, it's put the interests of Premier Dan Andrews and Labor's commitment of $2.2 billion dollars for the Suburban Rail Loop ahead of the one-in-three Australians who live outside of capital cities…
Those Australians who generate much of the wealth that benefits our country.
Speaking of regional Australia, farmers have been left in the lurch with this Budget.
At a time when they're grappling with rising costs of inputs, like fertiliser, Labor backflips on its methane pledge.
Labor's intent to reduce methane emissions by 30 per cent will drive-up the cost of meat at the supermarket.
It's bad for our farmers and just another added cost to your grocery basket.
CONCLUSION
Australians will recall that prior to the election, Prime Minister Albanese promised that he would be a leader who wouldn't run from responsibility.
He promised to lead a government that steps up, does its job, and doesn't always blame someone else.
For all their moral posturing and all their promises, Labor shows—time and again—that their rhetoric in Opposition never matches their actions in Government.
You are never better off when Labor has its hands on the Budget.
As an Opposition, we will stand against Labor's broken promises.
We will have a clearly defined, positive and bold plan ahead of the next election to take our country forward.
We will support hard-working Australians.
We will support all Australians.
And we will rebuild a strong economy for your family and for our country.
I seek leave to table a response to the budget from Senator Pauline Hanson on behalf of One Nation.
Leave granted.
I would like to speak about a lovely, beautiful place in North Queensland, the Pioneer Valley. I had the privilege last week to travel up to Eungella and its surrounds around the Pioneer Valley and I thank all of the local residents who came out to meet with me. A few weeks ago, the people of the Pioneer Valley had their world turned upside down. The Queensland government announced that it would flood around 50 homes in the Pioneer Valley, and the people of Pioneer Valley found out in the news that their homes would be flooded. I spoke to one family whose daughter found out from others and had to go home after school and ask her parents what was going on. This is no way to treat people. Whatever your view on this particular project, the way the Queensland government has treated Queenslanders here is despicable, making them find out from the news, from their own children, that their family homes would be flooded under a Queensland government plan.
The situation is that the government announced in big flashing lights a new $62 billion energy plan, a component of which was a $12 billion investment in a Burdekin-Pioneer pumped hydro system. Not one minister, official nor anyone else connected with the Queensland government had visited the Pioneer Valley to inspect this scheme before committing $12 billion of taxpayers' funds to it. This is fiscal recklessness on steroids, because if anyone from the Queensland government had gone to the Pioneer Valley, they would have seen a subtropical rainforest and they would have known that there would be endangered species in this area. They would have seen that there are regular mudslides on the mountain they want to put this pumped hydro scheme on, which may just raise the question of whether it is safe to do. Before they commit billions of taxpayers' dollars you would think they would drill a few holes, walk the ground, ask some engineers. But, no, this is not how the Queensland government operate. They are more interested in a press release than a project.
I don't think this project will ever proceed because it has been designed on the back of a postage stamp but I am standing with the people of the Pioneer Valley to ensure this project never goes ahead, because the way they have been treated is absolutely terrible. Up there in the Pioneer Valley last week I had meetings in Finch Hatton and Eungella and visited a number of people's residences and homes. They expressed to me their love for the area, the beauty of the area, and the complete contempt with which they have been treated by the Queensland government. Not only had they found out through the news; a few days later swarms of bureaucrats in new shirts, just freshly ordered from RB Sellars, turned up, each with a little embroidered Queensland Hydro logo on their chest.
This organisation didn't exist a month ago, and now there are dozens of public servants based in Brisbane trying to tell people what to do in the Pioneer Valley. Worse, those people couldn't answer simple questions for the people of Pioneer Valley. For example the Queensland government hasn't been able to clarify for the people of Pioneer Valley if they can access legal assistance funded by the Queensland government. The Queensland government is acting worse here than the worst mining company in Queensland. Best-practice mining companies today will offer to fund the legal assistance of landowners affected by their own projects, yet the Queensland government has failed to offer even that basic protection to people who stand to lose their homes.
Last week, after my visit, I wrote to the new CEO of Queensland Hydro, Chris Evans, asking him, as a matter of good faith, to restore some degree of faith and trust with the community of the Pioneer Valley by offering such assistance, and offering it in writing, making it very clear that local residents can choose their own legal assistance, funded by the Queensland government.
Madam Acting Deputy President, people are being asked and pressured to sell their homes in the next few months. I've heard that they're being asked to resolve these acquisitions by March next year—over Christmas—and they've been threatened with compulsory acquisition if they don't do so. I ask the Queensland government to take compulsory acquisition off the table, because it is not fair to make people find out that they're going to lose their homes and to then come and threaten them with an army of bureaucrats when they don't have legal representation and don't know their rights. They're trying to hoodwink these people into selling out their livelihoods at a cheap price.
This project has to stop for now. This project should be sent back to the drawing board. If they want to proceed with something like this, there should be more than a desktop study done at ANU in Canberra. That was the foundation of this—a desktop study on Google Maps. They need to actually take the Queensland people into their trust before they do anything. (Time expired)
I will just remind you that it has been a long time since I was Acting Deputy President.
This week, Treasurer Jim Chalmers handed down the Albanese Labor government's first budget. Throughout the term of the former government, women's voices were ignored. Women knew that the former government were not interested in representing their interests, and I heard time and time again while campaigning that the Liberals were out of touch on issues like women's safety in the workplace and at home. They abolished gender-responsive budgeting, a Labor legacy. But now, with the first Labor budget in nearly a decade, we have finally restored it, putting women back at the centre of our budget.
It was a special moment on Tuesday night, hearing this Labor government's budget indicate a true understanding of what will improve the lives of women in Australia, such as making early childhood education more affordable and accessible; providing six months of paid parental leave, with flexibility for it to be shared between both parents; tackling the gender pay gap; and investing in women safety. As a Labor senator, I am so proud to be part of the team that will be driving gender equality, and as a young woman, I feel incredibly lucky that our country's government is recognising and rewarding the work of women. When you support women's equality, our ability to participate in society and our contribution to the economy, you support the entire nation's progress and prosperity. The Albanese government knows this. We know that women's equality is central to building a stronger economy and a better future for all Australians.
I want to take this opportunity to reflect on the disturbing trend that we are witnessing globally of the erosion of women's rights. In Afghanistan, girls and women are being denied their God-given right to education. They're being denied essential social and economic participation. In India, the incidence of sexual crimes against women continues to rise, and female feticide remains an ongoing tragic concern. In almost every conflict around the globe, crimes against women are used as a tactic of war. In Iran, the human rights violations have long been a concern for Australia. But the recent death of the young and innocent Mahsa Amini has sparked widespread protests. My heart goes out to Mahsa's family and loved ones, who have endured the loss of their daughter, sister and friend.
As I stand here today, in this chamber, advocating for greater opportunity for women and greater respect for women and calling for equal rights and equal pay for women, better education for women and change in the global perception of women, I must point out that I am doing so with my hijab on my head. This hijab is an integral part of my identity and expression of my faith. It is the crown I wear with pride. It was with her hijab on her head that Malala Yousafzai stood up against the Taliban and became a global advocate and hero for female education and progress. It was with her hijab on her head that Senator Ilhan Omar entered the US Senate. It was with her hijab on her head that Kubra Dagli won gold in the World Taekwondo Championships. The hijab does not oppress; lack of opportunity oppresses. Lack of education oppresses. Lack of access oppresses. Ignorance oppresses. Outdated perceptions oppress. Oppressive regimes oppress. It does not help women and girls in Iran or anywhere in the world to misunderstand the issue and falsely label the hijab as oppressive. I stand here strongly in solidarity with all women and girls around the world in their struggle for equality and recognition.
I rise to speak about the first Albanese Labor federal budget, a proud moment after nine years of rorts and policy drift under the former Liberal government. Tuesday night's budget was a budget for Australian families and working people—a budget that addresses cost-of-living pressures that all Australians are feeling. It is a budget that is responsible. It's a budget that is the right budget for the times. And it's a budget that is right for our future.
This budget will deliver cost-of-living relief, including cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, expanded paid parental leave, more affordable housing and getting wages moving again. The most important thing that we are doing in this budget is ending the waste and rorts of the previous government. For nine very long years, the Liberals piled on waste and rorts and left Australia $1 trillion in debt.
The budget delivers our election commitments. The Australian people voted for us to deliver on our promises, so that's what we're doing, through our cost-of-living policies and also other big, important policies like fee-free TAFE and bulk-billed urgent-care clinics. We're delivering for Australians. This first budget will strengthen Medicare and restore dignity in aged care with an extra $11 billion to be spent on health over the next four years. It will ensure more affordable housing, and it will get wages moving again.
At the May federal election, in my home state of Tasmania, the Albanese opposition outlined a strong plan for jobs and health care across my state and, in particular, the area I'm responsible for representing, Northern Tasmania. In the budget on Tuesday night, the funding commitments were delivered. The Albanese government has a plan to deliver secure, well-paid jobs for Northern Tasmanians. Already we are so far ahead of those on the opposite side, who were very good at making announcements, getting in the media and getting all of the photo opportunities but never delivered. They failed to provide the essential leadership that was needed so urgently in Tasmania and particularly in the electorate of Bass around health and secure jobs. But our plan is to invest in local and secure jobs that will bring manufacturing back to our shores. An Albanese Labor government will strengthen the jobs market. In Northern Tasmania, our economy will prosper under our leadership.
On Tuesday night we invested $3.4 million in FermenTas, to allow the purchase of additional equipment for their Legana facility and ongoing jobs growth; $6.1 million in Waverley Mills, to preserve the historic wool mill, improve safety and support another 120 ongoing jobs; $2 million to support Costa's berry distribution and workforce; $5.5 million in LINE Hydrogen, to assist the green energy future and hydrogen powered trucks and buses; $70 million in the Green Hydrogen Hub, to assist with the infrastructure for this really important start-up phase; and $35 million in the TRANSlink intermodal facility at Launceston Airport, to assist in securing long-term tenants for the site and increase support for our very important tourism industry.
Along with this investment in the jobs market, the Albanese Labor government is delivering on infrastructure commitments in Northern Tasmania, investing $15,000 to support the upgrade of the Ravenswood skate park to keep park users safe, including through the construction of a boundary fence, and investing $150,000 in the Port Dalrymple Yacht Club slipway environmental upgrade.
All of these investments, only a few of which I have touched on tonight, are crucial for Northern Tasmania. We will deliver on our health commitments. There's funding to ensure that people have better support in aged care. We need to invest in the care economy. We need to support Tasmanians in secure, well-paid jobs. Part of that has been supported by this government for aged-care workers, but there's so much more to be done.
We will not leave Australians behind. The Albanese government is and will continue to be a very strong supporter and friend of Tasmania. I look forward to rolling out the rest of our commitments to ensure that all of Labor's commitments— (Time expired)
Before I make my contribution, I would like to acknowledge the extraordinarily important points made by Senator Payman in relation to the plight of women in many parts of the world. In particular, I say to our wonderful Afghani-Australian community that our thoughts and prayers are with the women of Afghanistan at this extraordinarily difficult time.
On Saturday 22 October I was delighted—indeed, honoured—to attend the 20th anniversary celebration dinner of the Buddha's Light International Association of Queensland Loving Care Group. This is a group that has been providing charitable support to all sorts of organisations across Queensland for the last 20 years. I want to provide you with three important reflections on my attendance that evening.
The first is the extraordinary number of charities which this group has supported over its 20-year existence. In their beautifully prepared presentation booklet for the 20th anniversary dinner they list a number of those charities which were supported in just the last 12 months. They've supported the Lord Mayor's Charitable Trust, Foodbank, Logan SES, GIVIT storms and flooding appeals, the Lord Mayor's Charitable Trust again, the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Foundation, the Children's Hospital Foundation, the Australian Koala Foundation, Surf Life Saving Queensland, Gold Coast Youth Service and many, many more, just in the last 12 months.
There are many more dozens of charities that have been supported by this group. As the Mayor of Brisbane, the right honourable Adrian Schrinner; the Mayor of Logan, Darren Power; the Lady Mayoress of Brisbane, Nina Schrinner; and the Director General of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Brisbane, Edward Tao, all mentioned, the association have provided outstanding service to not only our community in Brisbane and the wider Queensland community but also the international community.
The second reflection is on the bond between the members of the Loving Care Group. United by their Buddhist faith, many of them have been attending the same temple in Logan in the greater Brisbane area for the last 20 years, the Chung Tian Temple in outer Brisbane. You can just see that through their faith, love and compassion that they have formed a family bond that is truly inspiring and deeply moving on so many levels. It's something we could all be inspired by.
I'd like to pay tribute to a number of individuals who participated in the evening and whose names should be put on the Hansard of this place as a positive example for all Australians. Firstly, the Chief Abbess for Australia, the Venerable Man Ko, was there and made a presentation, as did the Abbess of the Chung Tian Temple, the Venerable Man Wang. There was also the current group leader of the chapter, Mrs Pei-Lien Hsueh, who made a moving presentation. I'd also like to give my deep appreciation and respect to the chair and founding adviser of the Loving Care Group, Mrs Yuan Fu, who has provided outstanding leadership of this group through her personal example, her character, her care and her commitment. She has been an outstanding leadership figure in this group over many years.
I congratulate all the members of the Loving Care Group on their 20th anniversary and on their celebration on Saturday night. During the course of the celebration we were all given a leaf, which came from what's known as the Buddha tree. I made a commitment on the night that I'll keep that leaf in my drawer in this place to remind me of the great work that so many Australians are doing and of the great charitable work which this group and others are doing to make a better Australia, along with their love and compassion.
Senate adjourned at 20 : 37