Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:02): I seek leave to move a motion relating to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Leave not granted.

Senator WONG: Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Wong moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that a motion relating to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business until determined.

We in this place have been here when the IPCC reported. I was the climate minister when the IPCC reported. The report we have now received—this parliament, the government and countries across the world—demonstrates the extent to which we have to take urgent action. It is a race. The earth is hotter than it has been for 100,000 years. We are just years away from an average 1.5 degrees of global warming—a point at which human security, health and livelihoods are imperilled. This is what was reported overnight by the scientists. This is what we are already seeing. For the world and for Australia this is an emergency.

It has long been predicted. As I predicted on the basis of the advice given to me over a decade ago when we sat on that side, Australia is feeling the brunt of it. Our land areas have already warmed by 1.5 degrees on average, heat extremes have increased, cold extremes have decreased and scientists have a high degree of confidence that these trends will get worse. This is why we ought to debate this motion. We are seeing sea levels rising at higher rates than the global average. We are seeing snow cover and depth decreasing. We have seen fire like we have never seen it before. Extreme fire weather days have become more frequent and the fire season has become longer. What we are told is that the intensity, frequency and duration of fire weather events will increase throughout Australia. Of course, regrettably, as a continent that is one of the most affected on this earth, we will lurch from one extreme to another because destructive heavy rainfall and river floods will also increase. This is the compound effect of years of failure to curb emissions, to curb carbon pollution.

Those on the other side speak often about what we owe future generations, and I think all of us wonder what our children will say about this parliament. My daughter did an investigation project—I think that's what they call them these days—and she chose climate change. Her first question to me was: 'Is there anything we can do?' We have an obligation. For many years we have had this obligation and those opposite have refused to shoulder responsibility. For many years we have been in a race, and the race against climate change is a race we have to win. It is a race towards renewable energy. It is a race in which we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to jump ahead of the pack with renewable energy made by Australian workers with Australian technology—energy that could be exported to a world that needs it. As we have said so often, this is about the jobs for today and the jobs of the future, because if we invest in renewables we will create thousands of good-paying jobs in growing industries. We could make power cheaper and cleaner, but we have a government that never acts until it's too late. It's a government that misses every opportunity, a government who always says, 'It's not a race; it's not a competition.' Well, this is, and it is the emergency that so many speak of.

Finally, I would make this point: the only way, as has been demonstrated with the election of President Biden, that you will get an Australian nation that is willing to do something about climate is if you change the government. You have to change the government if you want to deal with this. Fine speeches and trying to have a go at everybody is not going to do it. We have to change the government if this country is actually going to do something about the climate emergency that we face. If our Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme had been in place for the decade between 2010 and 2020, we would have emitted 161 million tonnes less into the atmosphere. That is the difference a government that is committed to climate change can make and that is why we have to change the government if we are going to actually ensure this country acts on climate. (Time expired)

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:07): I move:

That the question be now put.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the question be now put.

The PRESIDENT (12:13): The result of the division is ayes 18, noes 18. It is 18 all. I assumed that that would close the debate, but it does not. The debate continues. With the extensive pairing arrangements, I'm sure the chamber will let me give a moment for the whips to—Senator Birmingham?

Senator Birmingham: As we know, these are quite unusual sittings with very extensive pairing lists in place. On the understanding of where senators and parties were voting, and of pairing arrangements, the expectation was for a different result. Between the whips we don't seem to be able to identify quite what caused the result to be a tied vote. I request the indulgence of the Senate for the vote to be recommitted.

The PRESIDENT: Given that 40 senators were absent from the division, they are quite extensive pairing arrangements. Is leave granted to recommit the vote? Senator Patrick, you wish to object to that?

Senator Patrick: I would object if any additional senator came into the chamber.

The PRESIDENT: I can't determine that. Leave is either granted or not to recommit the vote. Where an explanation is provided, it is the custom of the Senate. Senator Wong?

Senator Wong: We have always allowed for recommittal provided the appropriate steps are taken, which are that someone turns up and says, 'Oops, I missed it for these reasons.' We will extend that courtesy, as we expect it to be extended to us, but the government has not yet said what happened. They can't just recommit in hope.

The PRESIDENT: I've been here for that to happen too, but that has been the case where we have four or five pairs. Someone may have been erroneously asked to pair without there being an error on that individual senator's part. Senator Patrick?

Senator Patrick: I think that's fair, but that needs to be explained to the chamber.

The PRESIDENT: I have asked leave and I've got an objection, so on that basis I'm going to call for debate to continue.

Senator Hanson-Young: I'd like clarification as to where Senator Griff's vote is going on this. This is an important issue for South Australia, and I think it needs to be on the record where he is voting on the topic of climate change and action.

The PRESIDENT: It is not up to someone to speak on behalf of another senator. I don't think Senator Griff is online. There have been longstanding arrangements with respect to crossbenchers and Independents. I'm going to call for the debate to continue because I don't have leave to put the division again. Senator Waters, on the motion to suspend the standing orders by Senator Wong.

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (12:18): It's great that we're suspending the standing orders—as we should—to be debating this most crucial issue facing humanity, but it is incredibly disappointing that in the challenge put to the government by Labor all they want the Morrison government to do is finally commit to net zero emissions by 2050. I'm sure folk had a chance to read the report last night, and it is a clarion call for action by 2030. This issue should be above politics, and the report calls on us to act by 2030.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator WATERS: I'll take those interjections, but I urge everyone in this chamber to read the report. It talks about 2030—2050 is too late. We have a government that has barely mentioned a response to this report. The Prime Minister is standing up to have a press conference only to complain about protesters, who are rightly registering their concern about the inaction from this government on the climate emergency. We will shortly be moving to suspend the standing orders, once again, to talk about the need to take action on 2030. We've already seen the absolutely devastating impacts of the climate emergency—

Honourable senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Order!

Senator WATERS: I'm happy to keep going, President; it's not bothering me at all, but, if you're going to call the chamber to order, you go for it.

Honourable senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Waters to continue.

Senator WATERS: The report last night talks about the devastating impacts of exceeding a 1½ degree climate rise. We've got 10 years, and all we see in this chamber is both parties taking massive donations from the coal, oil and gas companies. Yes, here we go again, because we will keep raising this issue until we get science based policies. We will say, until we are blue in the face, that we want to see a different government, but, if you want to get climate action, you need the Greens in the balance of power to push a new government to go further and faster on the climate crisis. If you want action on the climate crisis in the next decade—which, as last night's report says, is urgent—then you need the Greens in the balance of power, because frankly this debate about 2050 is too little too late.

While we see millions of dollars sloshing around in donations from the coal, oil and gas sector, and while we see public money being given to private companies, headed up by Liberal donors, to open up new gas basins against the wishes of a First Nations community in the Northern Territory, you will not see science based climate policy. That is why it is urgent that we suspend standing orders today—not to talk about net zero by 2050 but to talk about decent climate targets by 2030, so that we have some chance of saving agriculture in this nation and of reducing the severity of awful bushfires like those we saw not two years ago, when the Prime Minister was taking a holiday in Hawaii. We've seen awful fires now hit the birthplace of democracy, Athens, and we've seen flooding in Europe. This is real. It is not something for the future. This is happening now. We've seen saltwater incursion into our Torres Strait Islands food-producing land. This is not something that can be delayed. We need action now, and, if we want to have any chance of staying below 1½ degrees, we need rapid and urgent cuts to emissions.

The government haven't even read the science; they've never met a scientist, and they're certainly not going to start listening to them now. The flaccid pressure on them by the so-called opposition for a 2050 target, which will be too late, is frankly embarrassing. We need science to be deciding policies in this place, not donations from the coal, oil and gas companies. Until such time as other parties join the Greens in refusing donations from those fossil fuel crony capitalists, then we won't get science based policies—and, in fact, that's what the Australian populace expect and deserve from us.

We had a decent carbon price; it was working to bring down emissions. The Greens want to see good climate policy, we want to see a change of government and we want to work with the next government to push them to go harder and faster on the climate crisis, because, at the minute, without the Greens, you won't see urgent action. You will see donors getting their wishes delivered upon, which is not enough. We need a decent opposition, we need a government to listen to science and you need the Greens in the balance of power if we're to have any chance of taking climate action.

Honourable senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I'm going to go to Senator Brockman.

Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (12:23): I rise to apologise to the chamber: I made an error in the pairing arrangements. I sent Senator Hume from the chamber in error. She was not included on the pair sheet. It was my error, and I apologise to the chamber—in particular, I apologise to my colleagues for making the error. I wish for the vote to be recommitted.

The PRESIDENT: On that basis, with the leave of the Senate, I'll recommit the motion. The question is the motion moved by Senator Birmingham that the question be now put be agreed to.

The PRESIDENT (12:30): The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (12:32): I seek leave to move a motion relating to 2030 targets in light of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Leave not granted.

Senator WATERS: Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Waters moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that a motion relating to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may be moved immediately and take precedence over all other business until determined.

We had a report last night that could not have been clearer in its warning. It is not the first time that we have had a clear warning and report from the world's scientists, but this one is the most urgent and the most pressing yet. I find it a little baffling that we have consternation in the chamber about the fact that 2030 is what we need to be talking about. You have a government whose targets for 2030 are so weak they are essentially one-third of what needs to occur to keep this country safe and to keep us underneath a 1½-degree tipping point, beyond which there is no return. Certainly this government's policies have on us on track for four degrees of warming. That's actually catastrophe. That is actually the end of agriculture as we know it. It's dead oceans. It's bushfires of such severity that we cannot even fathom it. It is not an option.

So, yes, we need to change the government. Of course we need to change the government. This government is controlled by its climate denialist backbenchers. They can't even bring themselves to meet with the scientists, let alone follow their advice.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator WATERS: I'm being reminded by my erudite colleagues here that it's not just the backbench that have a problem with science in the government; of course, it's many of their frontbenchers as well. So it is absolutely clear that the government of this nation, the Morrison government, are not doing what is necessary to keep Australians safe. They are, in fact, setting us on a trajectory of a death sentence for nature, for society and for our economy. Wrong way; go back.

What we cannot tolerate is discussion of 2050 without discussion of what needs to happen in the next 10 years. The report last night could not have been clearer: 2050 is too late. Net zero by 2050 is too late. We can do so much better. We can actually create a jobs boom. We can transition those existing fossil fuel workers into clean jobs that will last and that won't cause them health problems. We can actually tackle this crisis collectively as a nation and give our nation and the world the best shot at a safe future. But we need to be doing that rapidly and urgently by cutting emissions from the coal, oil and gas sector, not by opening up new coal, oil and gas fields and not by dishing out public money to help private companies do that—certainly not when those private companies are donors to either the Liberal Party or, in many cases, the Labor Party. It is about time we stopped those fossil fuel donors from exerting so much influence over policymaking. We welcome the fact that parliament has spent a short part of today—we would hope for the whole day—talking about this issue, but what we cannot stomach is the idea that 2050 is somehow enough.

We want to work with the opposition. We want them to be in government, but without the Greens in the balance of power you won't see the strong and urgent action that the scientists are saying is necessary. We had world-leading climate laws. That's what the Greens and Labor delivered under the Gillard prime ministership. It was working. It is the only time emissions have come down in our nation's history. It was world leading and it was axed by this climate-denying government. We want to work with the opposition when they are in government, and we want them to go harder and faster on the climate crisis, because we don't have any time to lose. Warming of 1½ degrees is a tipping point that we cannot go above. We know that if we even hit two degrees our global coral reefs will be written off.

I take umbrage at the quite extensive 'contributions', as I might term them, from the opposition to our suspension motion. We know 2050 is too late. Delay is the new denial. We need this parliament to be talking about 2030 targets. The government's 2030 targets are so weak that they have us on a path which is a death sentence. I'm sick of fossil fuel companies calling the shots on our nation's climate policies. So is the rest of the country. For God's sake, give the money back and start listening to the scientists when drafting climate policy, or you will be consigned to the opposition benches, as I hope you will be, and the Greens will work with the new government to deliver decent climate action.

Senator WATT (Queensland) (12:37): I want to briefly contribute to this debate to flag that Labor will be supporting the motion to suspend standing orders. We will not, however, be voting for the substantive motion, because it doesn't reflect the Labor position.

I do want to take the opportunity to also bring to the chamber's attention the very serious risks that have been outlined in the IPCC report released overnight, particularly for regional Queensland and especially for northern Australia. It is somewhat ironic that in this chamber some of the hardest opponents of taking action on climate change are representatives, so called, of regional Australia. The IPCC report makes very clear that it is regional Australia, more than any other part of the country and almost more than any other part of the world, that faces the most serious risks if action on climate change is not taken. Even in the last couple of years, whether it be the Black Summer fires, whether it be floods or whether it be cyclones, we have seen that, constantly, it's regional Australia that bears the brunt of our changing climate. It's regional Australia that pays the price for this government's lack of action on climate change, and it's regional Australia that is being so profoundly let down by a government that claims to represent it.

That's before we get to the incredible job opportunities that can exist in regional Australia if we actually start taking action on climate change. We can create jobs in regional Queensland and elsewhere in regional Australia if we take action on climate change. That's probably why every stakeholder, from the National Farmers Federation to Rio Tinto, BHP and gas companies, is backing net zero emissions by 2050. It's not because they're good corporate citizens; it's because they know that there is money to be made and jobs to be created. That's why they're backing it, that's why Labor is backing it, and that's why we need this government to actually start taking some action rather than continuing the approach we always see from them, which is to never take responsibility, to blame others and to come up with spin lines to avoid actually doing anything.

Just in closing, though, I do want to respond to a couple of the points that Senator Waters has made on behalf of the Greens. In fact, I predicted, as we walked into this chamber, that most of what we would hear from the Greens this morning would be attacks on Labor, and it was, because it always is, because the Greens exist to take votes from Labor, to take seats from Labor and to actually guarantee the re-election of LNP governments.

Now, if we needed any proof of that, let's look at the founder of the Greens party, Bob Brown, and what he had to say about the notorious Adani convoy that ran through Queensland last year, contributing to the re-election of this government. He said that he was very proud of the Adani convoy; it had achieved its objective by returning Senator Waters to this chamber. It didn't matter that, in the process, it led to the re-election of an LNP government that even the Greens say is destroying the climate. That wasn't their concern. Their only concern is to come after Labor.

As for this notion that the Greens holding the balance of power would be a good thing for the climate, let's just remember the last time there was a Labor government with the Greens in the balance of power in the Senate. They blocked Labor's initiative around the CPRS. Why on earth would you let the Greens have the balance of power if you actually want action on climate change? The only way to have action on climate change is to elect a majority Labor government, and that's exactly what we intend to do at the next election.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:40): We've had a whole wave of posturing from those opposite and certainly bickering between the Greens and the Labor Party. It's a bit like being at a bad family gathering. But the simple fact is: what we have to see and what we are committed to seeing is not the posturing of those opposite nor the bickering of those opposite, but simply calmly getting on with the job of investing in the technologies that reduce emissions whilst protecting the jobs of Australians.

Here are three quick facts. Firstly, between 2005 and 2019, Australia's emissions fell faster than Canada's, faster than New Zealand's, faster than Japan's, faster than Korea's and faster than those of the United States. Action in this country is real and is seeing a reduction in emissions. Indeed—the second fact—Australia beat our 2020 emissions reduction targets by 459 million tonnes. When we've made commitments to the world, we've honoured them—we've delivered—and we've exceeded them, and we are on track to meet and beat our 26 to 28 per cent reduction targets by 2030. Lastly, we are committed to the Paris Agreement and its goals, as well as to achieving net zero emissions as soon as possible. I move:

That the question be now put.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Birmingham, that the question be now put, be agreed to.

The PRESIDENT (12:49): The question is that the motion moved by Senator Waters to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

Senator MARIELLE SMITH (South Australia) (13:29): [by video link] The latest report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found that South Australia is already facing more extreme heat, drought and catastrophic bushfires and less average rainfall—we've already experienced less rainfall and an increase in droughts—and this will have a disastrous effect on our health, agriculture and biodiversity. The report predicts a temperature increase of 1.5 degrees by about 2030 based on our current trajectory. What will our children say to this knowing that we had this report? They'll look to us, to our policies, to the decisions made by those of us in this place and ask, 'What did you do?' The report is unequivocal: human activity is responsible for rising temperature levels, and the scale of recent changes to our climate is likely unprecedented.

There are still those opposite who continue to deny and to question the science, but we cannot afford this. We cannot afford further delays on action on climate change. The UN Secretary-General has declared the report a code red emergency for the world. He said the alarm bells are deafening and the evidence is irrefutable. The government cannot ignore this any longer. The report made clear that Australia is in particular peril. Sea levels around Australian and New Zealand have already risen higher than the global average and will likely continue rising. Fires are more frequent, and fire seasons are lasting longer. Heavy rainfall and floods are projected to worsen, and across South Australia drought has already increased, and projections suggest this will worsen. The only way to turn this around in terms of policy in Australia is to change the government. This is a warning of the greatest urgency. This is an emergency, and I urge more action from the government.

Senator McDONALD (Queensland) (13:31): [by video link] I rise to pay tribute to doctors and health professionals everywhere, but especially those in our rural towns and those who train them. James Cook University in my home town of Townsville can lay claim to being Australia's most successful university in producing medical graduates who go on to work as doctors in regional, rural and remote locations. It is the only university contracted by the federal government to offer the Australian General Practice Training program, which delivers across 90 per cent of Queensland, servicing about 1.6 million people, including two-thirds of the state's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Seventy-five per cent of the almost 1,800 JCU medical graduates since 2005 have gone on to work in regional and remote locations for periods of 12 months or more, and of that number 1,000 are still in those locations—an extraordinary achievement. Of the 424 GP fellows who completed general practice training with JCU, four out of five were working in regional and remote locations six months post fellowship. JCU's model relies heavily on practical training in rural locations so participants can live, learn and work with qualified doctors to see what it's really like. One GP involved in this training who I'd like to mention is Dr Leonie Fromberg, from the Flinders Medical Centre in Cloncurry in north-western Queensland. She and others like her make JCU's program a shining light in medical training in this country. I'm proud to support the university's efforts in this endeavour and I'm proud to be part of a federal government that has a ministry dedicated to rural health and rural doctor training. I encourage any medical students wanting to learn the whole range of skills to go west, where the traffic is light, the air is clean and the people are friendly.

Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (13:34): [by video link] Yesterday's report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was described as a code red for humanity by none other than the UN Secretary-General. He said:

The alarm bells are deafening … greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning and deforestation are choking our planet and putting billions of people at immediate risk.

I learnt about the science of the greenhouse effect as a young student of climate science 40 years ago. It was a shocking truth that set me on my path to become a campaigner for the wellbeing of life on this planet and to being here in this place.

The first IPCC report came out in 1990, a lifetime ago for my two adult kids. They, like all young people, have lived their lives with the knowledge of the climate crisis hanging like a noose around their futures. Yet our government are still looking after their billionaire mates and their fossil fuel donors while our future is literally going up in flames. We have to kick them out.

The Labor Party? They too are looking after their fossil fuel mates and donors. Hand in hand with the government, they're hell-bent on unleashing a huge carbon bomb on the planet, with more coalmines and by fracking vast tracts of the sovereign lands First Nations peoples. They're silent about what needs to happen by 2030, when we have to have slashed our pollution. Delay is the new denialism.

But have hope, people! We can kick this destructive, planet-burning mob out of power. We can elect a new government, with the Greens in balance of power, that will commit Australia to science based targets for 2030. It will commit to getting out of mining coal, gas and oil so we can play our part in giving humanity, and all life on this planet, the chance of a healthy future.

Senator WATT (Queensland) (13:36): I'd like to commend the actions of all South-East Queenslanders over the last few days in taking serious steps to ensure that we could emerge from lockdown. I also express my concern for residents and businesses in Cairns, who also are now facing a lockdown, which hopefully won't last for too long.

Quite apart from COVID-19, over the weekend a new threat to the lives and livelihoods of not just South-East Queenslanders but all Queenslanders emerged in South-East Queensland—a new threat that is intent on coming all the way down from Queensland to Canberra and wreaking havoc, just like we've seen it do before. What is that threat? 'Hello, Newman.' That's right: it's former LNP Premier Campbell Newman. He's back from the dead, like the zombie apocalypse. He just will not go away. Now he's here to terrorise not just Queenslanders but Senator Stoker, Senator McGrath and Senator Canavan as well.

This is the former LNP Premier who cut 14,000 jobs from the Queensland Public Service; who cut health services; who closed and sold schools; who tried to privatise our power network; who abolished literary awards; who commenced a war with traditional LNP supporters, like lawyers and doctors; and, of course, who curbed civil liberties in Queensland in a way we had not seen since Joh Bjelke-Petersen.

There is a very real risk that if Campbell Newman is elected to the Senate along with the Morrison government being returned they will do to Australia exactly what they did to Queensland when Campbell Newman was the Premier. He will team up with the Liberal and National coalition to cut jobs, cut services and cut all sorts of civil liberties that we enjoy right now, just like he and the LNP did when he was the Premier in Queensland.

There is a very clear message for Queenslanders: if you want secure jobs, vote Labor in the House and vote Labor in the Senate. If you want quality services, vote Labor in the House and the Senate. If you want job cuts, vote for the LNP and Campbell Newman.

Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (13:38): [by video link] It is time to close Australia's international border to non-Australian citizens and protect our nation from state premiers obsessed with endless lockdowns triggered by imported variants of COVID-19, which the government claims are more dangerous.

More than 1.67 million people have flooded into Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic, while Australians themselves are virtually imprisoned in their own states and homes. It's an appalling double standard. Australian workers and families can't cross domestic borders, yet thousands and thousands of international workers and visitors have been given a free pass to cross the international border. The latest international visa and arrival data reveals the Morrison government issued more than 20,000 visas in June this year, and has issued more than 164,000 since April last year. These include more than 46,000 work related visas, 25,000 temporary visitor visas, almost 3,000 student visas, more than 26,000 family visas and 63,000 other permanent and temporary visas.

While the Prime Minister keeps the international border open, premiers will continue to slam state borders shut and put millions of people into lockdowns that are destroying lives, jobs and businesses, breaking our economy and leaving a huge legacy of public debt. Scott Morrison may not be able to control state borders, but he can shut the gate to foreign arrivals who are bringing COVID-19 to our shores. He should give an end date of 1 December for people to be vaccinated—if they wish, not forced—then declare no more state border closures. He should set a target to open international borders by May 2022.

It is quite evident what is happening around the world: people are learning to live with COVID. No government or business has a right to coerce, bully, bribe or threaten people into being vaccinated. That sounds like a communist regime to me, not a democracy. We can't continue with these lockdowns. Something has to give.

Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (13:40): This morning we saw some Australians exercising their democratic right to protest out the front of this building. Unfortunately some of them did not do so in a respectful way, and they deserve to have the book thrown at them. It is absolutely every Australian's right to protest and have their views heard, but it is not their right to deface public property and it is not their right to come into the heart of our democracy and graffiti their own views on the front of the building, to the exclusion of Australians with different views. This is an absolute disgrace that has been abetted and facilitated by the Australian Greens in this chamber. They should hang their heads in shame that they are associated with people who show such a lack of respect for other Australians and for the institutions of this democracy.

The reality is that the protesters who were out there today don't want to change the climate; that's not their goal. They're not there to change the climate. They're there to change our government, to change our democracy. They do not support democracy. They do not support our systems of government. The reason we know that is that, if those protesters were serious about changing the climate and reducing emissions, they would have walked down to the Chinese Communist Party embassy, just down the road, and protested against the biggest carbon emitter in this place. But they don't do that, because a lot of those activists and some of the people in the Australian Greens kind of like communism. I reckon they're kind of in favour of it. That's why they're not protesting against communists. They're not really worried about the climate; they're wanting to radically change our society and to do so in a way that shows no respect for their fellow Australians. Anyone associating with these vandals and juveniles should be denounced, and anyone who does not denounce them deserves no respect in the Australian democratic political system.

Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (13:42): [by video link] I'd like to begin by congratulating our Olympic squad on their fantastic performance in Tokyo. One thing that makes the Olympics special is its power to bring us together in one moment to share in the glory and achievements of fellow Australians. We have indeed been fortunate to experience many of these moments in the last two weeks.

But, for a great number of us, those triumphant and inspiring moments were marred by the barrage of gambling ads shown during ad breaks. Under Australian law, gambling ads cannot be shown between 4 pm and 7 pm on any broadcast and on children's programming between 5 am and 8.30 pm. But so many of our Olympic achievements, moments many Australians shared with their children, were broadcast outside of these hours and totally escaped the restrictions. It is absolutely time for us to reconsider those limited restrictions.

A report published by the Australian Gambling Research Centre showed that one in three Australians opened a new online betting account during the pandemic last year—one in three—and this led them to gamble more often and for larger amounts. No doubt many of these people were influenced by advertising, the same type of advertising seen by our children during the Olympics. Tragically, some new gamblers will soon find themselves in financial difficulty, setting off a chain reaction that can ruin—and has ruined—lives and families. It is well and truly time for this government to act to permanently remove gambling ads from television and radio and from online platforms. This is needed to help protect our young and to protect future generations.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (13:44): I rise today to speak on the 2021 census. It's a critically important survey of our nation which has tremendous impact on the work of parliament. I want to call out a campaign led by Humanists Australia in their effort to get Australians to tick the non-religious box. I strongly support every Australian answering the census as honestly as possible—people of faith and people of no faith—but I'm deeply troubled by the campaign's motives. In the Humanists Australia CEO's recent op-ed in the Age, she explicitly cites the reason for her campaign as to strip funding from religious schools and activities. This is spiteful, misinformed and wrong. We should be celebrating Australia's rich religious pluralism, not mocking it. At a time of rising anti-Semitism, we should be supporting Jewish institutions and schools to be safer. We should be supporting Islamic, Catholic, Christian and other faith and other educationally ideological schools, as well as government schools, and, to do so, we need to have the facts—hence, a truthful census.

While the gaps in our social safety net grow ever larger, we should not be seeking to curb the work of religious charities and aged-care homes, which are in greater need during a COVID crisis than ever. Religion brings joy and comfort to many Australians of the Islamic, Christian, Hindu, Baha'i, Sikh and Buddhist faiths and all the other faiths that give people meaning.

This opportunistic and spiteful campaign to take funding away from religious institutions is simply wrong. I encourage every Australian, on this census day 2021, to be honest—be honest in the census; tell the truth—because you will give us the real face of Australia. Do not respond to spite. Inform your answers with good conscience and tell Australia who we really are.

Senator VAN (Victoria) (13:46): This morning, we saw an act of complete bastardry against the Australian people here at Australian Parliament House. The Greens support group Extinction Rebellion vandalised this place—the people's house, as it is known. This is what happens when you choose slogans over actions. Labor and the Greens have continually used slogans. We, the Morrison government, choose actions—actions like beating our Kyoto target by 439 million tonnes; actions like having the most rooftop solar photovoltaic in the world; actions like reducing 639 million tonnes of carbon emissions in the last two years, the equivalent of taking all Australian cars—that is 14.7 million cars—off the road; actions like $20 billion of committed investment in new clean energy, to drive over $80 billion of public and private innovation, creating an estimated 160,000 jobs. We are a government of actions, not slogans—actions that actually reduce emissions, not destroy jobs or impose costs on Australian households, businesses and industries.

The acts of vandalism are typical of the other side of this chamber. It's their approach; it's all noise and no action. When it comes to addressing an issue such as climate change, only meaningful action will deliver the results. Slogans won't do it. The members opposite here, who have celebrated this morning's acts of bastardry, should be ashamed of themselves, and I trust that the ACT Magistrates Court will deal with the rest.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (13:48): Hardly a month goes by without a warning, a prediction or a story about a Defence project that is over budget, running late or failing to deliver. Today, again, shipbuilding is in the news. The poster child for failed Defence projects used to be the Super Seasprite helicopter; it was overtaken by the Joint Strike Fighter, and that has been overshadowed now by the Future Submarine project. Future Submarine is so big it is ensuring that its shipbuilding mates, the future frigates and the OPVs, are obscured in its shadows.

These projects have substantial project teams in the Defence organisation. It's overseen by a First Assistant Secretary National Naval Shipbuilding Office; a General Manager Submarines, a First Assistant Secretary Ships and a Deputy Secretary National Naval Shipbuilding, on top of which there's a Submarine Advisory Committee and there's a Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board, which has morphed into a Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel, and we've even got a subcommittee of the National Security Committee of Cabinet now overlooking shipbuilding.

We've just gone and paid $3 million to Boston consulting, who have decided the projects are late, and their answer is to do a restructure and employ more people. It's McHale's Navy. We're not short of overseers. The number of people is not the issue; it's the skills and experience of those people that are currently there. The leadership has failed. They pick the wrong solutions. Moving chairs is not the answer. We need to change the people. We need to start at the top and work our way down.

Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:50): [by video link] I want to update the Senate on the refugees held in Darwin. We've had big changes in the last 24 hours. Mojtaba, his wife, Afsaneh, and their son Benham, who were waiting to go to the US, were moved to Melbourne in the early hours of this morning for their medical checks after being told about the move late yesterday. They will apparently have five days in quarantine there and it is a bit unclear as to whether they will then go into detention or the community. They also haven't been told whether they will be returned to Darwin after the medical checks or stay in Melbourne until they can get on flights to the US.

This means that the Maghames family are now the only ones in the Darwin facility. They are all deeply distressed. Hajar, the daughter, collapsed yesterday evening and was taken to Royal Darwin Hospital by ambulance. Her family were not allowed to go with her. I believe they've not been able to visit. I understand she remains in hospital. Malakeh, Hajar's mother, is also deeply distressed at the hospitalisation of her beloved daughter and, no doubt, the incredible stress of still being detained here in Darwin.

I support calls by Chief Minister Gunner that the family be welcomed here in the Northern Territory. I understand he has written to the Morrison government expressing this view. I certainly call on the Senate, the Australian parliament, to do everything it can. I'm urging the Morrison government to release this family into the community here in Darwin on Larrakia country.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (13:52): Last week big, aggressive, foreign-owned, multinational corporation JBS announced it is buying into Huon Aquaculture, diving into the troubled, divisive and controversial Tasmanian salmon industry. I and many Tasmanians—those who have fought against the past decade of crony capitalism in the state's salmon industry and fought for transparency, truth, robust and independent regulation in the industry—hold grave concerns over this. This takeover of Huon Aquaculture signals a new wave of industrialisation of our beloved waterways, oceans and beaches. The JBS Global CEO told media that the takeover of Huon is:

…a strategic acquisition… Aquaculture will be a new growth platform for our businesses. We will repeat what we did previously with poultry, pork and value-added products to make our portfolio even more complete.

Why am I and so many Tasmanians concerned? During its rapid rise to become the world's biggest meat packer, JBS and its network of subsidiaries have been linked to allegations of high-level corruption—including the biggest fine in corporate history, $3.2 billion, after bribing hundreds of politicians—modern day slave labour practices; illegal deforestation, particularly in the Amazon; animal welfare violations; major hygiene breaches and price fixing, including fines.

I warn JBS that they won't be expanding in Tasmanian waterways without a fight, a significant community fight. I know JBS already exist in the beef industry in Tasmania. I know they have significant influence with government. I know many farmers have had dealings with JBS—some speak highly of the company. I say to JBS that this is an opportunity for you to put the industry on to a sustainable footprint—make sure we have an independent, robust, fully funded environmental protection agency. I ask them to support the Greens' bill to do this.

Senator SCARR (Queensland) (13:54): Yesterday in this place there was a discussion in relation to global Magnitsky laws. I think it is incredibly important that whenever we discuss these laws we remember and pay tribute to the man who inspired them, Sergei Magnitsky. Sergei Magnitsky was a son, a husband and a father, a man who uncovered a $230 million corruption and fraud scandal in Russia. He spent 11 months in jail without trial. Only eight days before he was required to be released, he died in prison at the age of 37. So, when we talk about the global Magnitsky laws, let's always remember the man who inspired them and the story of his sacrifice. Let's remember the words of his family. When Sergei was nominated for the Allard Prize, this is what they said about their husband and father:

Sergei was so outraged by the theft of $230 million dollars of taxes which should have gone to state recipients like pensioners, schools, the disabled, and hospitals, that he stood up in the belief that truth and justice would prevail. Others might have backed down in the face of the immense pressure he was subjected to, but he did not. That would have meant compromising his own integrity and sense of honesty and he could never do that. He believed that he was acting for the greater good of his country and fellow citizens. He wanted to be a shining example to his colleagues, friends and family.

So, whenever we talk about the global Magnitsky laws, let's always remember the tale of Sergei Magnitsky and his sacrifice.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (13:56): I rise this afternoon to express my dismay that victims of the Sterling Income Trust collapse have been left out of the compensation scheme of last resort as currently drafted by Treasury. There are a few days to go before the consultations close, so I encourage people to complain. The government dragged their feet in putting this scheme together, yet, in the meantime, they encouraged Sterling victims to lodge complaints with AFCA so they could be considered under a future scheme. They also claimed that the global financial crisis meant they could not make progress on the scheme, yet, in the meantime, while encouraging people to apply to AFCA, they suspended AFCA's ability to assess those complaints.

I know the government's concerned about the system being gamed, and I understand those concerns. But these people deserve redress—the redress that they have won in the courts. They've been encouraged by the government to take their case to AFCA and to the courts; it's what the government advised them to do. The royal commission said there should be a retrospective and prospective scheme for compensation and the determinations that have been made should be honoured. Many of the people impacted by this scheme, the Stirling Income Trust collapse, have had their financial security utterly destroyed. They've seen their housing security utterly collapse. They were promised restitution, and I urge the government to act.

Senator LINES (Western Australia—Deputy President and Chair of Committees) (13:58): Today we saw a disgraceful shutting down of debate by the Morrison government when Labor, in this place, tried to move an urgency motion to discuss the IPCC's latest report. It came out last night. It should not be a surprise to anyone—it's appalling. Yet I bet that, in question time today, we will hear the Morrison government congratulating each other on how you are doing so well. You are not. One of the report's authors—Dr Meinshausen, an eminent scientific adviser—told the ABC:

I think everybody in the international community would laugh if they would hear that Australia thinks they're doing enough. Of course they're not doing enough.

He went on to say:

They neither have upped their targets for 2030 nor have they put a net zero target onto the table. They are not invited to many of the talks where international climate diplomacy is now going on because they are seen—and rightly so—as a laggard.

Yet this morning we saw the leader of the government in this place defend your appalling record: eight long years of absolute inaction on climate change. We've got business leaders, the ag sector and community leaders calling out for the Morrison government to lead on climate change, yet we have a Prime Minister who remains stubbornly ignorant of the fact that we need to act on climate change. The government have climate deniers in the Senate and in the House that are holding them back, and it's time that they looked Australians in the face and said, 'We haven't done enough.'

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (15:05): [by video link] I undertook to provide some more information on Moderna in response to Senator Gallagher's question today. The Moderna deal was announced on 13 May following the completion of negotiations with Moderna. Once the TGA received the regulatory submission from Moderna, the TGA took 23 days to review and approve it. The Australian government has secured 25 million doses of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine to further diversify our vaccine portfolio as well as to provide access to a booster variant vaccine should this be required in the future.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (15:06): At the request of Senator McAllister, I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Birmingham) to a question without notice asked by Senator Bilyk today relating to JobKeeper.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (15:06): [by video link] Earlier this year we found out that $13 billion in JobKeeper went to firms that increased their turnover during the pandemic. It went to Monaco based billionaires, to men-only clubs and to the highest-fee private schools in the country. It is a shocking amount of waste—$13 billion is more than the government spent on the childcare subsidy last year. It is more than the government spent on public schools last year.

JobKeeper was supposed to go to the firms that were suffering, to support the connection between those firms and their workforces. It was never meant to go to highly profitable firms. Like so many things offered by this government, it's a good idea implemented very badly. Just reflect on what it would have meant had the Morrison government avoided this waste: it could have afforded to extend JobKeeper to the one million casual workers who missed out on any support; it could have saved additional people from losing their jobs and their livelihoods during the first wave of the pandemic; and now it would have more to spend in supporting Australians who are currently affected by lockdowns and who are struggling to pay the rent and put food on the table.

The Prime Minister has never asked any of these recipients to pay back a single cent. He has said that calls to pay it back are 'the politics of envy'. Minister Birmingham has said that we shouldn't shame and vilify the businesses that took billions in JobKeeper while turning profits. The Morrison government continues to resist Labor's calls for transparency and accountability and refuses to crack down on businesses that won't send back payments despite turning monster profits.

It's a strong contrast with what has been reported today—11,000 people who receive income support payments have been sent debt notices of almost $33 million. Many of these are vulnerable people who sought support during the worst health and economic crisis Australia has faced in nearly 100 years. These people shouldn't be punished. There are two stories, aren't there? There is one story for the rich and powerful and there is another story for those that aren't. But it's very on brand for this government.

This is the government that set up the robodebt scheme, and it's worth reflecting on what the Federal Court thought about the impact of that scheme on those who suffered under it. Justice Murphy said:

One thing … that stands out … is the financial hardship, anxiety and distress, including suicidal ideation and in some cases suicide, that people or their loved ones say was suffered as a result of the Robodebt system, and that many say they felt shame and hurt at being wrongly branded 'welfare cheats'.

The double standard is quite breathtaking. No effort was spared to claw back money paid to some of our most vulnerable, yet no effort at all has been expended on clawing back money from big business. Indeed, the government seems pretty relaxed about handing out money to billionaire shareholders and CEOs, just as long as nobody knows about it.

Transparency is actually not a radical solution or idea, is it? Both the New Zealand government and the US government keep public databases of companies that receive income support, but the Morrison government is so opposed to transparency that it made clear yesterday that, if the opposition and crossbench insisted on transparency provisions, the government was willing to delay the job-keeper legislation that was debated yesterday. It really says something about this government. It says something about the Prime Minister that he is prepared to let the livelihoods of Australians on COVID support payments be collateral damage in his fight against transparency. That's an outcome Labor didn't want to risk, but we strongly believe that the public deserves to know how its money is being spent.

Transparency is a basic obligation, never more important than at a time when we need our citizens to have trust in our government. That is why we will keep looking for opportunities to force the Morrison government to reveal just how much JobKeeper went to firms that actually increased their turnover during the pandemic. Australian voters deserve to know.

Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (15:11): I seem to recall it wasn't all that long ago that we had Labor actually condoning the robodebt scheme. They themselves were the ones that brought in the averaging scheme, under the Paul Keating government, in the late eighties. The member for Sydney, Tanya Plibersek, said:

But if people fail to come to an arrangement to settle their debts, the Government has a responsibility to taxpayers to recover that money.

From the former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Maribyrnong:

The automation of this process will free up resources and result in more people being referred to the tax garnishee process, retrieving more outstanding debt on behalf of taxpayers.

And from Chris Bowen, the member for McMahon, who also called for a refund of overpayments through the robodebt scheme:

It is important that the Government explores different means of debt recovery to ensure that those who have received more money than they are entitled to repay their debt.

No-one is saying that the scheme is perfect and that we haven't made mistakes. We've owned up to that, but we'll never apologise for trying to automate processes in terms of the tax and transfer system in this country. When it comes to talking about subsidies for the rich, I think Labor should take a good look at themselves in the mirror. As the Treasurer pointed out yesterday, the unions themselves received $22 million in JobKeeper payments. Given the billions of dollars they collect every year from superannuation fees, they are the last people to need handouts in a time of crisis. Let's be honest. The union industry today is really nothing more than the finance-brokering arm of the industry super funds. You have to ask yourself why they aren't being taxed. I know Labor loves to complain about how the coalition loves to give tax breaks to big business, but if there is a big business in this country it's the industry super funds. It's the industry super funds and their brokerage arm, the unions themselves.

Look at the amount of money these guys in the unions collect by threatening to go on strike at these tier 1 builders. In Queensland, they're threatening to go on strike if it gets hotter than 30 degrees, which is a bit of a joke really. Anyone knows that it's 30 degrees in Queensland quite often after September, so I'm not quite sure when we expect to get anything built in Queensland. Good luck with that for the Olympic Games!

Of course, the other thing is the great big renewable energy subsidies that also go to the big end of town. We've got $10 billion—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Rennick, I have been listening carefully, and you have drifted off the taking note response. I am listening carefully for a segue back and I haven't heard it yet.

Senator RENNICK: I'm segueing back to the notion, which I know Senator McAllister was implying, that we're always giving tax breaks to the big end of town and we're looking after the big end of town. I'm merely pointing out, Madam Deputy President, that Labor should look in the mirror at how they look after the big end of town, whether it be unions, whether it be super funds or whether it be large corporations that get generous subsidies for energy.

I'm agnostic here. I don't think any energy company should be getting government subsidies. I know one of the big myths is that our agricultural industry, our fishing industry, our timber industry and our mining industry get free diesel subsidies. That's not true. They're actually rebates—that is, they've paid the money and they're getting back what they paid. It's neutral.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Rennick, you do need to get back to the taking note response.

Senator RENNICK: Okay. I'm coming back to robodebt and that technology, albeit flawed. I've worked on many IT projects myself, and I can tell you that you can always take the cost of an IT project, double it and multiply it by three, because that's how much it will end up costing. I'm happy to take it on board. I would love to look at that robodebt stuff myself, because, having come from a systems implementation program, I'm sure there are ways we could fix the system. But we were trying to do the right thing. (Time expired)

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (15:17): I am always interested in listening to the coalition talk about robodebt. They never talk about the fact that they had to say sorry. They never talk about the fact that $1.8 billion was awarded to nearly 500,000 people, victims of their robodebt scheme. They never talk about the fact that the judge said it was shameful and unlawful. They never talk about any of that. They try to blame the Labor Party, when, of course, this was a scheme designed by the Morrison government.

What is happening now, and what happened in question time today, is that we hear in responses relating to JobKeeper the rank hypocrisy of the government when it comes to enforcement and compliance measures applied against those who are most vulnerable. The interesting thing was Senator Birmingham's response. He tried to throw back to the Labor Party: 'You just look after those who can't look after themselves—the more vulnerable.' Yes, we do! Seriously!

It is quite clear in the responses we got that there are two standards here. There is one standard for big corporations that have done well from this pandemic. JobKeeper was good for people who were losing their profits. I know that. I know two companies that received JobKeeper—you can have a little chuckle behind your mask over there, Senator—but they had to show that they were going backwards in profit by, from memory, about 30 per cent. So it is really interesting when you talk about the guidelines here. We've got one standard for big corporations that have done well and another for ordinary Australians struggling through the repeated lockdowns and border closures, trying to make ends meet and trying to put food on the table.

It's just a form of hypocrisy that we really have come to expect from the Morrison Liberal government: one rule for the rich and powerful, where you get off 'Scott-free' with taxpayer support, and when businesses have never been better, and another for the working people of Australia, who are just trying to do the right thing, faced with some of the most difficult circumstances Australians have experienced in generations, because, as we have seen highlighted in this place, this is a government more than comfortable—indeed, from what it appears, overly eager—to send more than 11,000 debt notices to welfare recipients who received JobKeeper while simultaneously handing out an astonishing $13 billion in JobKeeper payments to companies that actually increased their earnings. This is what we're talking about: we're talking about companies that increased their profits. That's what we're talking about. They didn't need the JobKeeper. They increased their profits during the pandemic. Just think about that—and I really ask the senators on the other side to just think about that: $13 billion to line the pockets of businesses who didn't need the support.

Meanwhile, there are hundreds of thousands—most probably, millions—of Australians out there who've had their income smashed and are in desperate need of support, a great many of whom this government has ignored. Think about all the Australians who work in the gig sector: struggling, ignored by the Morrison Liberal government, while their industry was shuttered. In many, if not most, parts of the country, it's shuttered again. While the rest of the nation has to deal with cancelled shows, gigs and entertainment and sporting events that ordinarily employ hundreds of thousands of Australians, where is the support for these workers in our creative and arts industries? What about our academics and other university sector workers: denied JobKeeper; tens of thousands of them out of work because of the decisions made by this government—decisions made by Mr Scott Morrison, a Prime Minister who turns the other cheek when millions of Australians need support, because, you know, he doesn't hold a hose—not his problem. But when it comes to corporate welfare for the most successful firms in the nation: 'Hello! Here's a cool $13 billion in cold hard cash, no questions asked. Take it!' (Time expired)

Senator McMAHON (Northern Territory) (15:22): I would like to respond to senators who have taken note of answers to the questions from Senator Bilyk to Senator Birmingham. I must admit I am a little bit confused and perplexed—having conniptions, even. When we first talked about JobKeeper, when the Prime Minister first announced JobKeeper, those on the other side canned it: 'It'll never work. What a stupid idea.' It turns out that they were wrong. In fact, they were more than wrong. This was a revolutionary scheme. It hadn't been done anywhere around the world on the scale proposed here, and it turns out it was a wonderful scheme that saved many, many jobs and many, many businesses.

Let's face it: we all understand—well, at least, those of us on this side understand—that the vast majority of Australians who are employed in private enterprise are employed in small to medium businesses. So there's literally no point in saving jobs. You can sit someone down in a corner and you can pay them money to keep training for their job, but if they're not working for a business that job doesn't exist. You can save them and you can keep paying them and keep them ready to work, but if, in the meantime, all of those businesses that employ those workers cease to exist, then you've got nothing for them to come back to. So, despite the criticism from Labor, JobKeeper was a very, very good thing that this government brought in. I'm constantly told by businesses in the Northern Territory as I travel around: 'Thank you. It was JobKeeper that saved us. We would not be here today if it weren't for JobKeeper.'

On this side of the chamber, we seem to have not gotten the crystal ball that those on the other side have, because they seem to be able to look into it and predict what's going to happen. There was doom and gloom at the start. The whole country was locked down. There were predictions of huge levels of unemployment. We thought many people would be unemployed and many businesses would go under and we would have no economy left when we finally got on top of the pandemic. We felt that on this side as well. We thought that this was going to be a tragedy and that we had to step in and do something to stop that from happening. And we did. We stood up and we got in with JobKeeper, saving those businesses.

We couldn't predict how the pandemic would go and how the economy would respond. Some quite amazing things happened that we certainly didn't predict, that nobody predicted. I was amazed in the Northern Territory at the time of the first lockdown. Fortunately, we have only had one tiny one since. We are very lucky. But I went around talking to businesses, seeing how they innovated and managed to get through, including businesses that, in fact, thrived in the lockdown. I remember speaking to one particular business in Tennant Creek. It was a family run business and they thought that they were going to go under. But it turned out they became incredibly busy. They had a few different businesses and one of them was supplying skip bins. Who would have thought that a pandemic would create a demand for skip bins? Yet it did, because everyone was cleaning out their homes and yards and needing to dispose of things. So this business boomed. Many other businesses boomed and many have recovered and are doing really well.

Now they're trying to penalise us and criticising us for the fact that we did something that helped business not only survive but thrive. We now have an obligation to taxpayers to recover money that was either paid accidentally or in some cases claimed deliberately when it shouldn't have been paid. There is nothing wrong with that. We are not targeting poor people. This is across the board to anybody who received payments that they were not entitled to. There is nothing wrong with recovering funds on behalf of taxpayers— (Time expired)

Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (15:27): [by video link] Senator McMahon said at the commencement of her remarks that she was confused. That was the strongest part of her contribution and nothing that she said over the succeeding five minutes did anything to undermine her perspicacity in making that original remark. I think, in fact, the government itself is wilfully confused. It is absolutely determined to put its own interests, and the interests of its mates, ahead of the interests of the people in Australia who they should actually be looking after.

We are in the depths of a social, public health and economic crisis. More than half of the country is in lockdown. In some parts of the country, like here in Sydney, it's with no end in sight because of the government's failure on vaccines. In the middle of this crisis, when people are uncertain about their jobs and household incomes and fearful for the future, the Morrison government has decided to issue 11,771 of our most vulnerable Australians, the people least secure in this COVID crisis, with debt notices because of JobKeeper. These debt notices are for amounts of money that may be nothing to the people who sit on the government side of the chamber—a few hundred dollars here or a few thousand dollars there—but those notices will strike absolute fear into families right across the country. It is hypocrisy. I may well be in Sydney and not in Canberra with you today, but I can smell the hypocrisy from here. You can see the absolute misallocation of priorities and you can see the absolute wilful determination of this government to look after itself and its mates rather than looking after the interests of ordinary Australians.

Contrast the approach of the government in terms of compliance and going after welfare recipients with its approach on two other issues. Previous senators have pointed out that the government's approach to corporate recipients of JobKeeper is entirely different. One company, Harvey Norman, received $22 million. It recorded a $462 million profit—half of that on the back of taxpayer receipts. Mr Harvey alone received $78 million. Thirty ASX companies recorded higher profits and received hundreds of millions of dollars in JobKeeper allowance, a complete misallocation of resources and priorities—problems that were easy to foresee.

Contrast this with the government's approach to public money when it's looking at its own interests. Every week there is another rort scheme. It was sports rorts—over $100 million—where public money was misdirected away from the interests of community sports clubs to the Morrison government's own re-election prospects. There were the community development rorts—hundreds of millions of dollars allocated in an entirely partisan way. There were regional rorts—hundreds of millions of dollars allocated in an intensely partisan way for the government's own narrow political priorities. There were infrastructure rorts. And, of course, this week we discovered car park rorts, where the government has allocated money in an entirely partisan way and has ignored all the recommendations of the department to allocate money to marginal electorates, some of which didn't even have a railway station adjacent to the car park they were building. The money was allocated in an entirely political way.

There's no interest in accountability for hundreds of millions of dollars—billions of dollars—misused for the Morrison government's narrow partisan interests. There's no interest in public accountability or in recovering billions of dollars that's been shovelled out the door—not to achieve its purpose of protecting people's jobs but to lift corporate profits, lift shareholder dividends and lift executive salaries—and produced zero jobs in the process. This government has entirely lost its way. It has lost its capacity to act in the public interest. It's got no interest in that accountability. It just wants to put pressure on ordinary Australians who are the most vulnerable. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (15:32): I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hume) to a question without notice asked by Senator McKim today relating to climate change.

Senator McKim was asking the very important question: does the environment minister of Australia have a duty of care to our nation's children? The reason this is an important question is that right now we are confronted with some of the most damning and serious scientific facts that humanity has ever seen. We are facing catastrophic climate change, catastrophic weather events and a threat to the whole of humanity. Yet what we see from this government is a response that is glib, that is full of spin and that is more of the marketing regimes of Mad Men than it is of a responsible government. And, while this is unfolding, we have right on foot an appeal to the Federal Court of Australia of our own environment minister to deny that, as a minister of the Crown, she owes a duty of care to Australia's children for the impacts of global warming and climate catastrophe.

Last night the UN's IPCC handed down a very chilling summary of what our world faces if we do not act. It is crystal clear that this is the decade in which we need drastic action to cut carbon pollution if we are to give our planet and humanity a fighting chance. I think about the responsibilities as adults in this place, as parents, as politicians, as leaders, to not just the next generation but also today's young people when we are facing a cliff, and, if we go over, it's going to be very difficult—in fact, near impossible—to return. We have to get out of fossil fuels. We have to end the expansion of coal, oil and gas and we have to transition faster than ever to renewables and clean energy sources if we are to get our climate back on track. We need to be investing in our environment and biodiversity to help Mother Nature repair herself.

And all the while we have the Prime Minister spinning and spinning and spinning, pretending that he is doing everything in his power—gaslighting the entire nation; undermining the health and the safety of our children and putting at risk our economy and our trade relations across the globe. Who is the Prime Minister trying to fool? The climate is reacting because it is in trouble. The environment is in collapse because we are polluting it. Our children are demanding action because they have been taught the science, understand it and want better from our political leaders.

The marketing and the spin is not going to get us out of this crisis. What we need are deep cuts to carbon pollution, and we need them now. Current policies have us on track for a four-degree warming of our planet. That is a catastrophe. We are running out of time. If we don't turn this ship around, we will face even more severe bushfires, more severe flood events, and more severe weather, famine, drought and disease. That is why we owe our children a duty of care—because we have been warned. We can't pretend we don't know. Having a nice, pithy line in a press conference from the leader of the nation does nothing to help reduce the pollution and put our climate back on track. Australia needs to get with the program. Our Prime Minister needs to read the science. His government need to stop the denial and stop the delay. They owe our children a duty of care.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT (16:01): I inform the Senate that at 8.30 today 14 proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the letter from Senator Waters proposing a matter of urgency was chosen:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The world is rapidly warming and, unless emergency action is taken, could reach 1.5C above pre-industrial temperatures within the next decade, putting Australians at risk of more frequent and more intense heatwaves, fires, droughts and floods.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

The PRESIDENT: It is. I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (16:02): I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The world is rapidly warming and, unless emergency action is taken, could reach 1.5C above pre-industrial temperatures within the next decade, putting Australians at risk of more frequent and more intense heatwaves, fires, droughts and floods.

In fact, it poses a risk to humanity. As was commented yesterday by the IPCC and the UN Secretary-General, this is a code red for humanity. For some of us, we have been saying this and urging for action and campaigning for action for years. I personally have been campaigning for this for over 32 years with basically the same message: climate change is coming. Climate change is happening. We risk everything on our planet through our inaction on the threat of climate change, and now we are facing the reality. There are bushfires around Australia, bushfires in northern Europe, bushfires in northern America. Floods and lots of rainfall: that's been happening in my home state in Western Australia, in the south-west of WA, for decades. You can see it step down, yet what happens? There's no action. This should be a time when this place comes together and shows leadership in the face of this massive crisis, the catastrophe that we face. As a species we have threatened every species on this planet. It's not just about us, folks. This is about every species on this planet.

The IPCC's sixth assessment report is clear: climate change is widespread, rapid and intensifying. Climate change and its impacts are accelerating across the planet. Unless we make immediate and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees will be beyond our reach. That goal is fast disappearing.

The report sets out five new emissions scenarios illustrating possible climate futures. It paints a terrifying picture for Australia, one that we have been warned about for years. The intensity, frequency and duration of fire weather is projected to increase throughout Australia. As global temperatures rise from 1.5 degrees to two degrees and beyond, heatwaves, floods and other extreme events will become more widespread.

If that hadn't broken my heart already, my heart would have broken when I learned about what's going to happen to our oceans. There will be a further increase in marine heatwaves and ocean acidity in Australia. This poses severe challenges for our beautiful, world-renowned marine ecosystems, including precious places like Ningaloo and Shark Bay, places that we in Western Australia hold dear to our hearts. Scientists are virtually certain that global mean sea level will continue to rise over the 21st century. Even under the most ambitious cuts to emissions, the world's oceans will probably rise between 28 and 55 centimetres, but, if emissions remain very high, seas will rise between 63 and— (Time expired)

Senator McMAHON (Northern Territory) (16:06): I rise today to speak on this matter of urgency. The motion today warns of more intense heatwaves, fires, droughts and floods, but I can tell you now that what we are going to see more of is the despicable behaviour that we saw out the front of this building this morning. We're going to see more of this vandalism, criminal behaviour and terrorism—yes, terrorism, because what these people are doing is terrorising employees who are just going about their daily jobs, doing their work. They do not expect to be confronted by people bearing cans of paint and buckets of goodness knows what, supergluing themselves all over the place—with glue made by the oil and gas industry, by the way. These people should not have to expect to have this sort of terrorism perpetrated at their workplace. We saw it not just today but last week at the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. We saw employees going about their daily work—working for the people of Australia, working for the government—being terrorised by these despicable bunches of people.

These people over here to my right condone this sort of behaviour. Not only do they condone it; they encourage it. They think it's a good thing. Some even choose to congratulate these terrorist groups for perpetrating this sort of behaviour.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator O'Neill ): There is a point of order, I understand, from Senator Siewert. What is the point of order?

Senator Siewert: These groups are not terrorist groups, and Senator McMahon is instilling fear into the community. It's outrageous.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Siewert, that is a debating point. Please resume your seat, unless you're willing to articulate what it is that you are making a point of order on. Is it on relevance or another matter?

Senator Siewert: It is the fact that Senator McMahon is labelling environment groups as terrorist groups.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, that is a debating point. Sorry, Senator Siewert.

Senator McMAHON: Senator Siewert, I use the word 'terrorist' in the true meaning—they are terrorising. That is exactly what they are doing. They are terrorising people. They're terrorising employees, they're terrorising people in this building and they're terrorising the general public. That is exactly what they are doing. They are inflicting fear and terror on the general public.

This government does take environmental change—climate change, warming, cooling, whatever is going on—seriously, and we are committed to doing our part to fulfil Australia's commitment. We are on track to not only meet our 2030 targets but, in fact, exceed them.

I think it's important that we play our part in addressing all types of pollution, whether it's emissions or plastics. There's a whole range of factors that are affecting our environment. We must play our part. But, throughout history, the temperature of the earth has been dictated by sunspot activity. We have no control over sunspot activity. There has been the medieval warm period, where the earth warmed. There have been ice ages, and, in fact, a lot of scientists predict currently that we are heading into a period of low sunspot activity. That doesn't take away from our obligation to play our part, but it is certainly not the case that the temperature of the earth is completely controlled by carbon emissions. That is a falsehood. That is not a fact.

If we are serious about lowering our emissions and if we are really serious about Australia meeting and exceeding our targets, lowering our emissions and still having reliable, affordable, dispatchable energy, then I refer to Senator Lambie's question during question time: why are we not looking at nuclear power? This has to be a consideration in our energy mix if we are to meet our targets and not destroy our economy and our way of life. If we look at the developed nations around the world that have low emissions—countries in Europe, the UK and America—they all have nuclear power as part of their energy mix. In fact, all of the developed countries that have low-emissions footprints have either nuclear power in their energy mix or access to large hydro schemes. So I would say that, if we are serious about meeting and exceeding our targets, we should be looking at nuclear power: Canada, 15 per cent; the UK and America, 20 per cent. We have an abundance of fuel here in Australia. (Time expired)

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (16:12): In a way, Senator McMahon's contribution highlights again the failure of all of us, really, to work out a way forward on how we deal with the issues that are raised in the IPCC report. It is with some sadness and despair, actually, that I have to give a speech today trying to argue about the need for change and the need to address climate change. This is the sixth report based on the science that clearly makes the case for the urgent need for change. Yet here we are in this place—leaders. All of us here were elected to do a job, and we still can't agree on the way forward. That has been the problem that has plagued this parliament for more than a decade. Meanwhile, the science keeps coming in and the evidence keeps coming in. Every summer, we see the bushfires get worse. Every winter, we watch the fires in the Northern Hemisphere get worse. We see the floods and the natural disasters that come and hit our shores. We see the plight of people in the Pacific. It's commonly understood. Even the ACT resident climate-change denier today—now with ministerial responsibility—kind of acknowledges that.

This is the world that our children are growing up in, including my children, who had to remain inside because the smoke was so thick in the ACT. We had the worst air pollution anywhere in the world, about two years ago, from the fires that were all around our borders. This is the world that my children are growing up in. They get it. The overwhelming majority of young people get it, because they see it and they've got a stake in what happens. Yet, here we are, the leaders of the country in a political sense, and we're still working out what to do, whether to convince each other and pointing the finger. It's just devastating.

I used to believe in good policy being made in chambers like this. That's why I got into politics: to make a difference, to be part of the debate. I used to believe that governments could bring people together, that they could show leadership and could, when they reach across the aisle and bring stakeholders together, make good policy in the national interest. Yet, for the past eight years, I've watched the politics of climate change get kicked around, weaponised.

There now seems to be, from the government's point of view, a moratorium on good policy. They're not even interested, because it's about power; it's not about policy. It's not about the future. It's not about making sure the decisions we make today give us a fighting chance of making sure that our kids and our grandkids don't inherit a dying planet. It's not about that anymore; it's about power. It's about dealing with division and disagreement from within the government.

Every time Labor has said, 'We will support you on this policy,' on one of the many different policies you've tried to get up—let's pick the one that you used before you necked Malcom Turnbull—when we reach across the chamber, even when it's not what we would have done, but it's a step in the right direction, what's the response? You get rid of the Prime Minister and completely walk away from it, and another two or three years is lost.

Meanwhile, we get these reports that tell us we've got to act and if we don't act it's going to be a disaster. Then the government just trots out its three dot points that it's been using for the past few years: one, our emissions have gone down; two, Australia beat its 2020 targets—I think the language is 'meet and beat'—and three, we're committed to Paris and we have a flimsy commitment to 2050 as soon as possible or preferable. That's the only answer we've got. Surely we're better than this.

We have to convince people from here. I get that not everybody across Australia agrees with where the Greens are. A lot of people don't; the majority don't. So lecturing from that side doesn't work. There has to be somewhere in the centre where people from your side and our side and their side can find some common place to deal with the disaster that this report clearly shows will happen if we don't do more. That's what the community expects from us: to engage with those who don't believe, to understand their worries. I get that there are people worried about their economic future and what it means for them, for their job, for their kid's job, for their livelihood.

Change is hard; leading change is hard. Being in government is hard. I get all that. But someone has to lead, and people expect the elected government of the day to lead, not to point the finger at everybody else and use slogans like 'technology not taxes' and keep saying it and saying it and hoping that this is the message that gets through but to go deeper, convince people, talk to people, tell them what it's going to be like in their region when climate change, as outlined in this report, lands on their doorstep.

But the people in power now don't care. They'll be gone. It won't be Scott Morrison answering to people as fires and flood and drought change the way we live. It won't be him answering to that. It will be some other person, probably not in the parliament yet, who'll be faced with explaining why there was a decade of lost opportunity from this government. It will be up to that person to explain to generations why the changes that are brought in then are going to be harder, their lives are going to be harder and livelihoods are going to be harder because we didn't take the message seriously.

I don't want to have to listen to another government member saying: 'We take this seriously. We are acting.' It's a load of rubbish. It's absolute rubbish. They're working out how to stay in power. That is a disgrace, when this is one of the biggest issues facing this country. You can pretend all you like that it's not coming, but the history books will show we were warned and we should have done something more. It won't reflect well on this government, not that I think that will matter to them. I don't think it does. It probably won't matter to Senator Roberts either, who is smiling through this presentation. But it matters to people who want good policy in this country, who want to make sure that future generations have jobs, livelihoods, that can compete in a global world. That matters. It matters to me that my kids and their kids think that this generation tried to do something, or more than tried and actually did something. That's what motivates people to actually call for serious action on climate.

This report is damning. It is scary. I know people will try to pass it off and say, 'It's just another report. It's not true.' I'm sure we'll have a presentation like that from Senator Roberts soon. But the reports have been right so far. Anyone who has watched the floods, fires and other natural disasters criss-crossing between the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere knows it's true. We should be better. We should be able to do something. We should be able to work together to do it. It might not be exactly what we want, but we should do something more. It should move beyond slogans of power and into actually doing the job that we've been elected to do, which is to look after not only people now but also generations in the future. That's the big failure of this government today.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (16:22): This is not a matter of urgency. Even the Greens' motion says the temperature 'could' reach 1.5 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels. So what? It does not say anywhere in that report, from what I've been told—and I will be reading it—that it will. Senator Gallagher is completely wrong. This is not an emergency and not a matter of urgency. The report does not show what will happen. It says what could happen. There is no empirical scientific evidence that backs this up. Science is decided not by emotions or whims or daughters saying, 'There's smoke in the air, Mummy; that must be climate change.' That's not it. It's not decided by Senator Watt and Senator Wong having an all-out battle with the Greens this morning. Not once did anyone talk about the science. Not once did that happen. Instead they were talking about each other and who was going to get their votes off the climate alarmists. That's it.

We are now at day 701, almost two years, since I challenged Senator Waters and Senator Di Natale in this place to provide the empirical scientific evidence that shows that carbon dioxide from human activity affects the climate and needs to be cut. I also challenged them at the same time, 701 days ago, to debate me on the science behind the climate alarm and also the corruption of climate science. Not once since has Senator Waters presented any such evidence proving causation of human induced climate change. I also challenged her almost 11 years ago in public. I've never seen a person move so quickly. She jumped to her feet and said, 'I will not debate you.' Why? It's because, like Extinction Rebellion damaging this parliament, the Greens are just spouting out emotion, fluff and nonsense. But it's emotion riddled nonsense. That's what gets people in.

Let's look at the facts. I've challenged the CSIRO to provide me facts. Firstly, over the course of three presentations, the CSIRO have admitted that they never said that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger.

Secondly, they admitted that today's temperatures are not unprecedented. 'Not unprecedented'; it's happened before. In fact, they've been four degrees warmer before. We're not worried about 1.5 degrees. One point five degrees would be beneficial to the planet and to human society.

Thirdly, the CSIRO cited papers that do not show the rate of temperature rise is unprecedented. When they couldn't prove that the temperature was unprecedented, they said the rate of temperature rise is. We've gone 26 years without any increase in temperature—just normal cycles.

Fourthly, the CSIRO relies not on science, on data, but on unvalidated models giving erroneous projections, the same as the IPCC that Senator Gallagher was referring to. The CSIRO—and this is the clincher—have never quantified any specific impact from human carbon dioxide on climate. They have never quantified it. They can't tell us what our carbon dioxide will do. But we've blown on our power bills a staggering $13 billion a year in additional costs, on subsidies, for climate change and so-called renewables. That is $1,300 per household. That is what is staggering. That is the catastrophe that's looming in this country because of the gutless Liberal-Nationals, the dishonest Labor Party and the insane Greens. That's the crisis we're facing.

Senator SMALL (Western Australia) (16:26): I note colleagues like Senator McMahon who have raised in this place today the unlawful protests and desecration of our national parliament by criminals earlier today. I also note the shamefully vocal defence of those criminals mounted by the Greens in this very chamber. In fact, it almost leads me to channel Peter Costello in asking: 'How do the Greens sleep while their prams are burning?' This is a government that can walk and chew gum at the same time. Not only are we taking meaningful action on the very real challenge of emissions reduction—which I'll get to in time—but we've also undertaken very significant reforms, important reforms, to the Australian charities and not-for-profit sector to ensure that no organisation that hides behind the tax deductions and the legitimacy of the charitable status afforded to it undertakes and resources the sorts of profoundly illegal and offensive behaviour that those Greens over there support in this place today.

We've also heard criticism from the Labor Party today. Somehow, achieving emissions reductions in real terms—such that our emissions today are lower than they were in 1990—achieving emissions reductions of 20 per cent on 2005 levels and beating Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States and South Africa in achieving emissions reductions since 2005 aren't enough for them. It would seem that the only things they're looking for are job-destroying taxes, blank cheques and meaningless international commitments. Well, this is a government that won't stand for that. We stand for ambitious action on climate change, but only where it can be met and supported by a clear plan, a costed plan and one that supports Australian jobs. That's why the Morrison government stands proudly behind its technology road map that supports a lower-carbon-intensity future, not only for the Australian economy but also for the rest of the world.

The reality is that climate change and emissions reduction are a global problem. The developing world accounts for more than two-thirds of carbon emissions, and China alone accounts for more emissions than all of the OECD economies combined. That is to say that reducing Australia's 1.1 per cent contribution to global emissions can't, of itself, solve this problem. But we have a very legitimate place at the global table when these matters are discussed, because of our impressive track record of actual emissions reductions and because of our ambition to reach net zero as soon as possible and preferably by 2050.

That is a powerful message and one that resonates with the Australian people—the Australian people who enjoy jobs in the resources sector, who enjoy jobs in advanced manufacturing and who see opportunities that loom on the horizon as this government makes investments in things like hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, electric vehicle infrastructure and heavy vehicle efficiencies, which those opposite joined up with the Greens to vote against. Just six weeks ago in this very chamber, those opposite voted against a $192.5 million investment in renewable technologies. That exposes the hypocrisy and the baseless lies that are trotted out each day. They contrast most starkly with the actions of a government that has achieved not only real emissions reduction but such a significant level of emissions reduction that we stand proudly at the forefront of the global effort on this issue.

Senator WATT (Queensland) (16:30): For anyone who takes the time to look at the IPCC report released yesterday, it is genuinely concerning reading. In some respects it simply repeats things that we have known for some time—that we do face an extremely big challenge around climate change—but it is brought into stark relief when you look at the data and the evidence that that report presents. In particular, the evidence in this report regarding the likely impact of climate change on our regions makes for very stark reading.

Even if you just look at what it has to say about northern Australia, one of the regions, anyone who cares about the future of northern Australia should really have pause for thought and should really be committing themselves to taking action. I will note just a couple of things that the report has to say about northern Australia. It observes that northern Australia has already seen a rise in annual rainfall and heavy rain events and that the region will face heavier rainfall in future. The report states:

Heavy rainfall and river floods are projected to increase in Australia in the future.

It has similar things to say about sea levels, coastal flooding, seashore erosion, bushfires and cyclones as well.

It is very clear from this report that it is our regions in particular which will bear the brunt of our failure collectively as a nation to take action on climate change. Every LNP politician who likes to come in here and bang on about how much they care about the regions is actually betraying the regions. They are betraying regional Australians through their continued refusal to take action on climate change. When we see bushfires, they don't happen in the Sydney CBD and, when we see cyclones, they don't happen in the Melbourne CBD—they don't happen on Collins Street; they happen in regional Australia. Bushfires, cyclones and floods overwhelmingly happen in regional Australia. It's our regions that are on the front line when it comes to the effects of climate change, and it is our regions who are being so grossly let down by a government that pretends to be on their side.

What is the government doing to protect our regions from climate change? Well, the answer, as with so many other things, is nothing. This is a government, this is a Prime Minister, that never takes responsibility whether it be for COVID, whether it be for bushfires through the black summer or whether it be now, when we face this big climate change challenge. It's a government that is always slow to act. We saw the Prime Minister ignore repeatedly warnings and requests for meetings from fire chiefs before the black summer bushfires. All they wanted to do was warn him about the risks and encourage him to take action. He ignored them and refused to meet them, and we saw the devastating effects afterwards from this Prime Minister failing to take responsibility, failing to lead the nation and being so slow to act. This government's ongoing ignorance of the risk of climate change and ongoing refusal to take action on climate change are literally putting Australians at risk, especially in regional Australia. At the same time, the government's refusal to take action on climate change is denying regional Australians opportunities—because there are opportunities that come for our regions if we take serious action on climate change.

We are already seeing businesses around regional Australia come to grips with the challenge, adjust and, in fact, make money and create jobs out of this. Not that long ago I was at the Sun Metals Zinc Refinery in Townsville, one of the biggest energy users in Queensland, which is already progressively moving its power sources to solar and is on track to convert to carbon-neutral power in the next couple of decades. This is happening now. Companies are creating jobs in regional Australia by making this adjustment now. It's why groups like the National Farmers Federation are on board with net zero emissions. It's why Rio Tinto, BHP, Santos, Origin and every big energy producer and consumer in the country is on board. The only group that isn't on board is this government. This government, because it doesn't take action on climate change, is chasing jobs out of regional Australia and into other countries' arms. I want to see these jobs created in places like Gladstone. I want to see them created in Rocky, Townsville, Darwin and Cairns. I don't want to see them created overseas. But we need a government that is prepared to take action on climate change and grasp this opportunity.

Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (16:35): [by video link] It's a 'code red for humanity'. That's what the United Nations has called the IPCC's latest warning on climate. The world is heating faster. We're closer than ever to catastrophic change, and, once we hit the tipping point, the climate dominoes will fall, threatening our very existence. The new IPCC report is our starkest warning yet, but the Prime Minister's lack of action on the climate emergency heralds a death sentence for our lands, our forests, our rivers, our oceans and our animals. There is literally not a second left to waste. It's not too late. If we heed the warning and take urgent action, we can still avoid the worst impacts.

The report does make for grim reading, though. It warns that catastrophic floods and fires we are already living through will become the norm, heavy rainfall and river floods are projected to worsen across Australasia, and the intensity, frequency and duration of bushfires will increase throughout Australia. Experts say that Australia needs to reduce its emissions by 75 per cent by 2030 to avoid irreversible climate change. So, at this time of climate collapse, where are Mr Morrison and his government? They are busily fudging numbers and misleading people about our emissions. They are lobbying to override scientists at UNESCO who recommend the Great Barrier Reef be listed as endangered. They are doing dirty deals to dig up more dirty coal and gas with public money. You are the criminals, not the activists trying to save the planet and pushing you to take responsibility.

And while the Liberals are burning through Australia's carbon budget at the risk of catastrophic climate damage, Labor is giving up on the climate action needed and is letting them off the hook. The alarm bells are ringing, yet both major parties have decided to look away. They've sold out to their pals and donors in the fossil fuel industry. What a victory for the coal, oil and gas corporations in their race to stockpile profits while the planet burns! Being slaves to the coal barons is turning all our futures into ash. Millions of lives depend on our response to the climate crisis. Generations across the world will be deprived of the opportunity to live a dignified life if we don't act. You are stealing their future from right in front of their eyes, and they will have to live with the wretched reality of your inaction.

Morrison and co are perpetrating an intergenerational theft so enormous that it wouldn't be believable were we not witnessing it with our very own eyes. If there's no action, the report warns, we will hit 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming by 2030. Our forests will burn, sea levels will rise, rivers will dry up and also flood, and our wildlife will suffer. Who has forgotten our last summer when deadly and tragic bushfires in our own backyard ravaged our forests and wildlife and consumed lives? These climate disasters will only intensify as the earth continues to heat up.

I can barely contain my anger when I say that we are sick of you, Mr Morrison. We are sick of your drivel. We are sick of your inaction. Do something, Prime Minister—literally anything—to turn back the clock on your criminal inaction. But you won't, so you and your lot need to be kicked out. Having the Greens in shared power is the only way we'll get emergency action on the climate crisis.

Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (16:39): Now, theirs is a party that clings to the idea of globalisation, with open borders or no borders at all—just opening up all the countries across the world, or one world, or whatever it is that you believe, out on the fringes. They love to say that Australia should open up to whoever wants to come, whenever they want to come, with no need to embrace our Australian culture—in fact, they openly and actively talk Australians down. But, when it comes to climate change and the discussion around that, Australia can do it all and there's no need for any global response or participation by any other nation. There's no need for the rest of the world to participate at all! So they sit idly by—and perhaps it's because they've been superglued to something!—as their ideologically aligned China continues to build more and more coal-fired power stations. But perhaps Communist emissions don't count when it comes to this lot! I just don't see what other reason there could be.

Here's the thing, though. I'll let you in on a little secret. If we, as a globe, are going to tackle global emissions, it needs to be a global effort. I know that sounds crazy and way out there and just a little bit too much for you all to handle, but half of the G20 member nations actually increased their emissions whilst Australia's fell faster than those of Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Korea or the United States. Yet, here we are, as you can contribute hot air, and pretty much that's it, to this current conversation.

But you're well and truly keeping the current Leader of the Opposition company, as those opposite abandon their 2030 target and so, in effect, walk away from the Paris Agreement. When asked about this, all the current Leader of the Opposition could muster—and I do hope that I do this justice—was: 'Well, what we do is, in government, of course, what we're doing is that we're encouraging the current government.' I mean, um, thanks—I think! It seems to be hot air, indecision, paralysis and the beating of the leadership drum. I guess that, in part, could explain why, just last week, those opposite voted against the Technology Investment Roadmap. They voted against technology, because we know that, for those opposite, it's purely about taxes and nothing else.

Not for us, on this side of the chamber; we're here for technology. We're looking to the future—investing in innovation; investing in our regions. I've personally been thrilled to see the $20 billion that's been invested by the Morrison government across the country up to 2030, and this $20 billion over the next decade will drive $80 billion of total public and private investment over the decade. This investment will create around 160,000 new jobs. But yes, sure—you guys over on the other side, you just keep on voting against those jobs! And keep on voting against the jobs of those workers in the Hunter region, as you walk away from the miners, but, on top of that, walk away from the energy hub that the Hunter region is becoming—all as you continue to march to the drum of the inner city latte left. Not us, on this side; we are looking at technology, not taxes; not destroying jobs or imposing taxes and new costs on households, businesses or industries.

In fact, in the Hunter, we have organisations like Batt Mobile and Energy Renaissance, as the region moves towards becoming a hydrogen hub, with partnerships between industry and the University of Newcastle. So I thought I might take the time to explain to you what some of this investment looks like and what some of this innovation looks like, because I'm not quite sure the intellectual fortitude and the depth of understanding exist for you to understand how some of these things look.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator O'Neill ): Order! Senator Hughes, could you make your remarks through the chair and cease using the word 'you'? Thank you.

Senator HUGHES: Thank you, Chair. I apologise. I will just explain a few things around some of the innovations that we have invested in. We all know that Australia's resources sector is world class. And through the Morrison government's $1.3 billion Modern Manufacturing Initiative we're actually helping to unlock enormous potential by providing targeted supports for projects that would deliver big rewards for local economies, not only creating more jobs but also generating export opportunities. In July we announced a grant of $4½ million for Batt Mobile Equipment in the Hunter to build heavy battery electric vehicles for underground hard-rock mines. This will deliver Australia's first commercially operationally viable alternative to a diesel fleet. It will catalyse the electrification of global hard-rock mines and deliver emissions reduction as well as safety and productivity outcomes.

One of my favourite organisations that's showing itself to be so innovative throughout the Hunter region is a company called Energy Renaissance. They've been working some great partnerships with the CSIRO, amongst others. They're demonstrating that here in Australia we have all the right skills, natural resources and expertise, and an abundance of solar energy, to create batteries and a renewables manufacturing hub. We know that the economic impact of COVID has created a greater urgency to build industries, create jobs and accelerate our economic recovery, and Energy Renaissance has seen this opportunity for battery manufacturing to take the lead in this. They're building an exciting future where the world is powered by clean, stored energy everywhere, and they're building it right here in Australia.

Back in 2017 Energy Renaissance announced that they would develop Australia's first advanced lithium iron battery manufacturing facility, with funding from private investors and their foundation customers. They're continuing to work with the CSIRO and technology partner Cadenza Innovation as they ramp up their capabilities and capacity to manufacture batteries in Australia that are safe, affordable and optimised to perform in hot climates. The company's supercell and superstorage family of products are designed to perform in hot climates and to be used to power infrastructure, buildings, businesses and homes in both stationary and transport applications. I was absolutely thrilled to visit the site twice this year, including turning the first sod of what will be the lithium iron battery manufacturing centre. This scale and the anticipated market will see their export opportunities grow to an estimated contribution of around $3 billion per annum once our battery market is up and exporting across the world.

Hydrogen hubs are something else the Morrison government is focused on. For those who don't understand, hydrogen is actually a zero-emissions gas. Yet when we wanted to invest in the technology road map and we wanted to look at technology, not taxes, those opposite were more upset about hydrogen, I think, than they were about coal. I just don't understand what's wrong with you people. We know you don't like nuclear and won't put it back on the table at all—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, can I just remind you about the inappropriate use of the word 'you' in that context. Make your remarks to the chair.

Senator HUGHES: Those opposite aren't very focused on looking at actual zero-emissions forms of technology, including things like nuclear. The ideological opposition of those opposite is longstanding—it's nice to see that something in their value proposition is longstanding. There is a continued opposition to hydrogen hubs and net-zero-emissions gas, an opportunity for the regions to develop jobs where we have plenty of natural resources. In fact, the great thing about hydrogen is that it can actually contribute to our waste reduction. There's another company up in the Hunter that is looking to burn excess timber products—waste timber—and create a hydrogen hub and generate more and more energy for that region. It's nice to think that from those opposite we at least have one member, the member for Hunter—Mr Fitzgibbon, out there on his own. He must be just thrilled, listening to Senator Faruqi talking about a shared power arrangement. I can't wait to catch up with the member for Hunter for that one! I might have to expedite that membership form to him sooner rather than later. I think he's the only one opposite who still understands that mining has a future in this country. (Time expired)

Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (16:49): [by video link] The Sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is very clear. It's clear about the impact that years of Liberal-National government inaction on climate policy is having on Australia.

According to the IPCC, Australia has already warmed by 1.4 degrees Celsius since 1910. Heat extremes have increased and cold extremes have decreased, and these trends are projected to continue. The frequency of extreme fire weather days has increased and the fire season has become longer in many, many locations around this country and around the world. The intensity, frequency and duration of fire weather events are projected to increase throughout Australia. And, of course, we're already seeing the consequences of inaction on climate. We lived through the black summer bushfires, which ravaged so much of New South Wales and other parts of Australia. Months before the black summer bushfires, a group of 23 former fire chiefs and other emergency services leaders tried to meet with the Prime Minister to raise their concerns. Mr Morrison refused to meet with them. Then, as Australia burned, Mr Morrison went on holiday to Hawaii. As the bushfires continued to ravage Australia, he was finally forced to cut his holiday short. When he did return, he griped that he 'doesn't hold a hose, mate'. The verdict is in. The failure of the Morrison government and the Liberal-National governments before it to take any action have condemned Australia to future bushfire seasons like the 'black summer'.

It's a great shame because, as the world moves rapidly towards renewable energy, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Australia to jump ahead of the pack. Australia's abundant natural resources—wind, solar, hydrogen and gas—represent an incredible additional export opportunity for the Australian economy. A federal government which actually backs our local energy sector with investment and policy certainty could create thousands of good-paying jobs, while making power cheaper for homes and businesses alike. Instead, we have the absurd situation, as the Australian Workers Union has highlighted, where Australians are paying more for our own gas than we charge customers overseas. This is the energy policy legacy of the Morrison government.

Australia needs a government that gives the energy sector the policy certainty to invest. After eight years of Liberal government, we still don't know what their 2050 target is. Every state and territory government, Labor and Liberal alike, and all leading businesses, industry and agriculture groups are united in committing to net zero by at least 2050. The only major organisation left in Australia opposing this position is the Morrison government. Without a target, the Morrison government does not have a plan. It is just floundering around. They don't have any answers for coalmining workers, either. The Morrison government dares to pretend that it's looking out for them while it comes to Canberra to pass legislation to support labour hire firms that are driving down the pay and conditions of mine workers. And the Morrison government spends $300,000 supporting WorkPac in the High Court in a case against one of their exploited casual employees. The truth is that the Morrison government is not on the side of mine workers; Mr Morrison and the rest of this sorry government are only here to represent themselves.

The truth is that the world's climate emergency is Australia's job opportunity. Renewables jobs are important to us. It's important to us to make sure that they work, because, quite clearly, we have an opportunity to turn around and engage nearly 27,000 extra workers—and an expected 45,000 by the year 2035—yet the Liberal-National government has failed to give rights to those workers. One of the reports talks about sharing the benefits with workers. We're not getting lower energy prices, and workers aren't getting the benefit. The report talks about the fact that these jobs are insecure jobs because of the way that they're arranged under this government. (Time expired)

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (16:55): [by video link] Hearing the latest climate report and then listening to the debate that followed in this chamber today—the avalanche of nonsense; the insulting, degrading bilge that has been spewed into this place for the last day—leaves me frustrated and leaves me furious, quite frankly. This report is crystal clear. It may be inconvenient to the major parties in this place, who are funded by the perpetrators of the climate crisis. It may be inconvenient to face the reality that the people who fund your campaign are destroying our planet. It may be inconvenient that the question before the Labor and Liberal parties is whether they value the donations which drive their campaigns more than they value the lives and futures of the young people of this nation. Nevertheless, that is the truth laid bare by this report.

This report is a signpost at a crossroads, presenting us with a clear choice. It shows us very clearly that the climate crisis which we are now enduring is a creation of politics—a political creation with a political solution. The choice is to invest in renewable energy, keep coal in the ground, keep gas in the ground, create jobs in the transition to renewables or to continue doing what you have doing now: selling out our future in favour of donations from the gas giants—from the Woodsides, the Gina Rineharts and the Twiggy Forrests. Put them first, value their profits and you will continue to sell young people down the river, destroying our future and condemning us to battle a climate apocalypse. It is our future as a generation that is on the line, and only the Greens are willing to advocate the reduction in emissions necessary to keep our planet safe and to guarantee a safe future for our generation, as young people.

To have such a vital report as this greeted by such hollow nonsense is a disgrace and a shame on this parliament, which should be taking swift and urgent action to address the climate crisis that is now our lived reality. The inability to do that is why so many young people are so deeply frustrated with Australian politics. It is why so many of us are absolutely disgusted with and turned off the major parties. It is why so many of us are looking for alternatives. It is why, I'm proud to say, so many of us are supporting the Greens and why so many of us will be working together in the lead-up to the next election to ensure that the Greens are returned to this place with more members among us to deliver for the community the climate action which is so urgently demanded and needed.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Carol Brown ): Senator Stoker, a point of order?

Senator Stoker: Madam Acting Deputy President, in the interest of consistency with rulings made earlier in the day, could you please indicate whether you will be directing Senator Steele-John to comply with the standing orders, in relation to refraining from putting posters and slogans into what is, in effect, the chamber, when he is appearing via video link?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Steele-John, to be consistent with the ruling that was made earlier today, when you're called on for your next contribution to the Senate, you need to ensure that there are no signs visible other than signs that you would be able to have in the Senate.

Senator STEELE-JOHN: Sorry, Acting Deputy President, could I just get some clarity on that? My understanding was that you weren't allowed to have, say, Labor or Liberal or those kinds of signs. But, plainly, we've just got the 'disabled and proud' thing. It's not a—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: To be consistent with the ruling that was made earlier today, I would think that the sign that's there would not be a sign that would be allowed to be brought into the Senate, but I'm happy to ask the President to give you a further ruling if you would wish.

Senator STEELE-JOHN: I would wish that, only because, as you can see there, it just says 'disabled and proud'.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I'll refer it to the President for you.

Senator THORPE (Victoria) (17:02): We cannot separate climate justice from First Nations justice. Before I begin, I want to thank my colleague Senator Waters for bringing this important public urgency matter to this place and for her staunch calls for climate action this morning.

Last year, we watched this country burn as we experienced one of the worst bushfire seasons in our recorded history. The sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us that First Nations knowledge is a vital tool in the struggle for climate justice. First Nations people have cared for and protected our lands and waters, including our totems, for tens of thousands of years, but, due to disregard for traditional forms of land management, we are seeing a breakdown of traditional forms of land preservation. Recent breakdowns of ecological systems and harms to biodiversity have been linked to a disregard for traditional forms of land management and their displacement by imported and harmful practices, like when the colonisers came over on the boats and destroyed everything they touched.

The IPCC report acknowledges the contributions of First Nations people and First Nations scientists in helping record historical as well as current observations of a changing climate. This First Nations science enables climate scientists to paint a whole picture and understand holistically what we're doing to the planet. We know that First Nations land management reduces the risk of catastrophic fire damage. We know that our land protectors out there play a crucial role in reducing the risk of wildfires and mitigating shifts in the fire season. We need to lead with what we know is most effective. We must put First Nations knowledge at the forefront of our climate action and policy to safeguard our country and the people that call this place home.

Now is the time to build a better normal out of this crisis. Together we can change politics in this country. We can kick the Liberals out and put the Greens in the balance of power. Greens in the balance of power means that there are enough Greens in parliament that the government needs to consult with to make laws. That way we can make laws that are good for people and our country, because we know that 'Lib' and 'Lab' are pretty much the same these days, particularly when it comes to climate. With the balance of power, the Greens will push the next government to go harder and faster on climate change. The last time the Greens and Labor were in shared power, we passed laws to bring down pollution.

Coal and gas are causing the greatest damage to people, and we know that the Liberals and the Labor Party continue to take those dirty donations from the oil and gas companies. That's why they won't talk about their target, and that's why they're all talk and no action. We can continue to enjoy our lives in harmony, with plenty of energy from clean sources like sun and wind, or we can become a climate denier, a climate criminal, or the climate terrorists that the previous senator spoke about— (Time expired)

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Carol Brown ): The question is that the urgency motion be agreed to.

Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (17:18): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I present the committee's Final Report of the inquiry into Australia's skilled migration program.

Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (19:20): Tonight I'm going to speak about two important initiatives: Australia's national action plan for pain management and Painaustralia's updated National Pain Services Directory. Both were launched recently at a parliamentary friends of pain management event here in Canberra. Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, said at the launch, 'Chronic pain is something which can be agonising and debilitating. It can have an impact on mental health. It can simply impair one's life in the most devastating of ways.' Like Minister Hunt, my hope is that the national strategic action plan will give a sense of hope to the almost 3.4 million Australians who live with chronic pain each and every day.

One of those Australians injured in a serious accident nearly three years ago, and well known to many in this building, recently sent me a message, after her first visit to the Launceston pain management centre, saying: 'Thank you so much. My appointment yesterday has opened up so many more options than I ever even knew I had.' She went on to finish with: 'I can't believe all the options there are once you talk to the right people.'

Painaustralia was tasked with developing the National Strategic Action Plan for Pain Management with financial support from the Australian government. The resulting action plan lays out a national approach towards support for chronic pain management and has been endorsed by health ministers from every state and territory. The National Strategic Action Plan for Pain Management outlines the key actions Australians should take to tackle chronic pain, including managing pain through holistic methods. The plan recommends eight goals that focus on reducing the burden of disease, improving the quality of life and care for patients, educating Australians on understanding and managing pain and supporting health practitioners to deliver the best treatment and care for pain patients.

The Australian government has provided $2.5 million for early implementation of this plan, including funding to educate and train health professionals in offering effective pain management care, as well as providing further funding to Painaustralia for consumer education and awareness programs. As one of those 3.4 million people living with chronic pain, author, advocate and Painaustralia pain champion Tara Moss described how pain restricts her activity and impacts her day-to-day life. Tara was diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome after an injury five years ago. She described how her condition was invisible, but explained, 'Pain is invisible, but the fact that it is invisible does not mean it's not here.' Tara said that 'Living with CRPS is a daily mountain I need to climb and the pathways change all the time. Some days I might make it to the top of that mountain, but frequently I never make it out of base camp or I might not make it out of my bedclothes. That's the reality of living with chronic pain.' She's a great advocate. Like Tara, the Australians who live with chronic pain know how it can determine whether they can go ahead with their plans for the day or whether those plans will have to be put off until a time when their pain is more manageable. They know how chronic pain impacts their work, health, sleep and relationships as well as creating flow-on effect for their families, carers, friends, colleagues and their wider communities.

Through the Parliamentary Friends of Pain Management Group, my co-chair, and ACT local, David Smith, and I have worked hard to raise the awareness of chronic pain and managing that pain, both here in parliament and within our own communities. Our group works to help health professionals access pain management education and training as well as reduce the discrimination, misunderstanding and stigmatisation of people living with chronic pain.

One pain management initiative the group has promoted is the National Pain Services Directory, which was initially launched in 2019 and updated this year. This new and improved Pain Services Directory contains information on services offered by more than 200 facilities throughout Australia. This directory puts the information about pain management services and facilities in a format that makes it easy for consumers and GPs to find what they need. The directory search function allows people to find clinics by state and territory, by specific geographic location, by pain condition or by whether a public or private facility is needed. It means those living with chronic pain, their carers and medical professionals can make informed decisions around pain management options and pathways located in their regions. Chronic pain costs the Australian economy more than $70 billion each year, but the cost of persistent pain goes beyond economics to quality of life. The updated National Pain Services Directory and the national action plan give us tools and future direction in the support we provide for Australians living with chronic pain.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (19:25): I rise today to reflect on the Olympic Games in Tokyo, which finished on Sunday. Like Senator Chandler, I witnessed performances which, as Senator Chandler put it, captured 'the essence of the Olympic spirit'. It's just a shame that Senator Chandler demonstrated the exact opposite in her contribution—to use the word loosely—last week, when she misgendered a transwoman athlete, Laurel Hubbard, and denigrated both her and her qualification to represent her country at an Olympic Games.

Principle 4 of the Olympic Charter states:

The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practising sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.

Further, principle 6 states:

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Olympic Charter shall be secured without discrimination of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

The Australian Human Rights Commission and Sport Australia hold the same vision for sport. In their Guidelines for the inclusion of transgender and gender diverse people in sport, they state:

Participation in sport is a human right. We are all born free and equal in dignity and rights.

Senator Chandler would have you believe people affirm their gender identity for the specific purpose of excellence at a sport and to dominate women's sport. Transwomen affirm their gender identity to live as their true selves. They should not lose their human right to participate in any social and cultural practice, such as sport. This so-called trans dominance of women's sport is a myth which people like Senator Chandler use to cause fear, distrust and division in our society.

We saw at the Tokyo Olympics a number of firsts. Senator Chandler chose to focus her discrimination on one athlete, but there were a number of trans and non-binary athletes competing at the Tokyo Olympics, including Alana Smith and Quinn, a member of the Canadian women's football team. In fact, Quinn became the first trans or non-binary athlete to win a medal at an Olympic games, when the Canadian women's football team beat Sweden to claim the gold medal. Their accomplishments should be celebrated, not denigrated, as Senator Chandler did last week in this place.

As Senator Chandler has said, the IOC has noted that there is no evidence of an unfair advantage for transwomen over their cisgender counterparts. This is true; there is no evidence of this. There are no studies comparing the performance of transwomen athletes to those of cisgender athletes. As participation in sport is a human right, we should always start from a position of inclusion. The IOC have developed protocols and policies regarding transgender athletes in sport. It is these standards which athletes such as Laurel Hubbard met in order to qualify for these games. She was humble and thankful and showed real courage at her press conference after the competition at the games. Laurel Hubbard exemplifies the Olympic spirit and should be celebrated as an Olympian, without the question mark Senator Chandler and her ilk would seek to put on this status.

This should not have to be continually said, but, for Senator Chandler's benefit, I will state it for the record: transmen are men, transwomen are women and non-binary people are non-binary. Their gender identities are valid, and they should not have to tolerate blatant discrimination, unchallenged, in this place from the likes of Senator Chandler.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (19:29): I rise this evening to speak about this government's relentless debt collection against people on income support. It was revealed through questions on notice through estimates that the government issued 11,771 people with a debt notice after a review of their income support payments and any JobKeeper income that was paid to them by their employer. It is unconscionable and frankly outrageous that the government is chasing income support recipients for so-called debts when billionaires collected millions of dollars in JobKeeper while turning significant profits. There is a clear double standard between the individuals receiving income support and businesses who claimed JobKeeper. The government is clearly demonstrating these double standards. I'm certain that the vast majority of those so-called debts will be genuine mistakes in a confusing system, if in fact they are debts at all.

I raised this issue again and again in the COVID committee and at estimates, trying myself to make sense of the system. The government knew that people on both JobSeeker and JobKeeper might receive over-payments. The government says that they were doing checks, and I question how significant and how effectively those checks were carried out. The same agency that was responsible for robodebt, Services Australia, told me they were undertaking a compliance review of so-called high-risk customers. But, with the rate of coronavirus supplement decreasing and the stepping down of JobKeeper, people were confused about the rules and requirements. There were hundreds of thousands of people who were dealing with Centrelink for the first time. It's no wonder there was mass confusion. There are still so many unanswered questions. Did Centrelink do their due diligence and get in touch with every single person they thought might be at high risk? Why weren't the rules clearer? How can we trust the government that was responsible for robodebt to raise debts correctly and fairly? The short answer is we can't.

Meanwhile, the government is allowing big businesses that made huge profits while receiving JobKeeper to keep those funds. When will those billionaires get their debt notices? It is simply unconscionable to allow them to keep the millions when they have made significant profits and when the government has chased people on income support. It is simply a joke for the government to say both JobSeeker and JobKeeper programs had strong compliance frameworks. Clearly they failed. We had huge corporations and exclusive private schools getting millions in payments and they don't have to pay anything back. I simply cannot see why the government can't see why this is nonsense, and apparently they can't be shamed into giving the money back.

Meanwhile, people who are doing it the toughest are the ones that are getting treated this way. People who lost their jobs in the pandemic and who received assistance when they needed it most are now getting a kick in the teeth. If billionaires can keep their JobKeeper payments while making huge profits, then people who sought support during the pandemic and may have made a mistake should not be punished. The government should focus on giving people on income support higher payments to get through the latest lockdown, instead of chasing others, some of whom may be in lockdown. The government couldn't answer that question from me today about whether and how many people that are currently in lockdown have received these notices. People in lockdown right now in New South Wales and Victoria who couldn't find more than eight hours work are living on just $44 a day. They can't afford to pay rent, put food on the table or buy essential items. People are in serious financial distress. They are being pushed to the limit, and what does this government do? It sends them a debt notice. It is unconscionable. The government should write to those people and withdraw those debt notices and send the debt notices to the billionaires, who should be paying back that JobKeeper money out of the profits that they made during the pandemic. I'm not against people making profits. I am against them making profits through JobKeeper.

Senator HENDERSON (Victoria) (19:35): [by video link] This evening I raise the case of my constituents Mary-Anne and Billy Hemsley, who live in Curlewis in Geelong, the mother and stepfather of 15-year-old Tahlia Wale. Tahlia travelled to Fennell Bay, New South Wales, on 11 July to stay with her aunt for a short holiday at the end of the school holidays. Several days after departing Victoria, a statewide lockdown, that being lockdown No. 5, was imposed across Victoria. Over the past seven weeks, Ms Hemsley has applied for three permits for Tahlia, who has received a negative COVID-19 test, to enable Tahlia to return to Victoria, but these applications have been repeatedly denied. As the days and weeks drag on, Ms Hemsley and Tahlia have become increasingly stressed, anxious and depressed about Tahlia's forced separation from her family.

Late last week, I wrote to Victoria's chief medical officer, Professor Brett Sutton, urgently appealing to him to issue a permit to Tahlia so she could fly back on a flight booked for last Sunday. I received only an automated reply and no response to my follow-up email. At the time I was assisting the family, a friend of the Hemsley family contacted the office of Bellarine MP Lisa Neville and was advised on the instructions of the MP acting for Ms Neville, who is away ill at the moment, that the Department of Health processes would need to be followed and there was nothing further that could be done.

Given Tahlia is a minor, a child, only 15 years old, I consider this to be an untenable situation. Tahlia's mental health was in such decline that yesterday her mum drove to Fennell Bay to be with her daughter. Ms Hemsley has applied for permits for both herself and Tahlia, but they have not been issued, despite regional Victoria coming out of lockdown No. 6. Section 17 of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 provides for the protection of the family and the rights of the child. A large body of international and domestic law makes it clear that the rights of the child are absolute. I believe the refusal to provide Tahlia with a permit to return to her family may constitute a breach of the charter. That's why I'm referring this case to the Victorian Ombudsman, Deborah Glass, who has done a first-class job identifying human rights breaches by the Victorian government under the guise of public health orders and has called them out. She's still waiting for an apology after the shocking incident last year when the public housing tower in Melbourne was locked down with minutes of notice and people were left in their units with no food or medicines.

Public health orders are necessary during a pandemic, but they must be proportionate and, during a pandemic, human rights matter also—the right not to be locked in your home 24/7, as happened in the northern curfew, the right not to be locked in your house with no food or medicines or support for those with a disability or the right of family and friends to say their final farewell to their child, as in the case of the beautiful Cooper Onyett, who tragically drowned whilst on a school camp hundreds of kilometres from the nearest case of the virus. There was no funeral exemption given, and that was an absolute disgrace. Professor Sutton explained his decision was simply 'a matter of equity', which is incomprehensible.

What about today's case and the right of a mother to see her daughter, stricken with cancer? A mother who is fully vaccinated cannot cross the border to be with her daughter with cancer. Last year I advocated for the family who lost their precious 16-year-old to suicide and was told by the most senior departmental health official that an exemption would not be granted because it might be a breach of human rights, which was of course absolute rubbish.

As we work together to get through this crisis, I say to the Victorian government: please, do not forget the importance of compassion towards Victorians facing sickness, grief and separation. I am determined to fight for Tahlia. She must come home. She must return to school. I call on Daniel Andrews to do the right thing and issue her with a permit. (Time expired)

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (19:40): The United Nations food systems presummit last week in Rome recommended a dietary limit of 14 grams of red meat per person per day. That's one bite. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I'm appalled, and I'll explain how this is an attack on our farmers and on every Australian.

The presummit recommended the introduction of a worldwide environmental tax on meat of $1.60 per kilo for cattle grazing on pasture, yet not for cattle raised in intensive feedlots. That distinction reflects the influence of large multinational feedlot operators and the lack of influence that family farms have in the UN's eyes. As my colleague Bob Katter rightly pointed out, this UN measure will take 2.4 billion kilos of protein off the market, starving 80 million people of protein. Yes, go the UN!

The third recommendation of the food systems presummit is to move food production within reach of population centres and produce whatever protein and nutrition is possible in that region. It's called short chain food supply. We did it 200 years ago. People starved. Nutrition was poor. Life expectancy was less than half what we enjoy today. Then along came long chain food supply, allowing countries like Australia to grow crops to feed and clothe those in need. World hunger fell to less than 10 per cent. The only reason there are still areas of poverty and hunger in 2021 is because of war and civil unrest—you know, the things that the United Nations were supposed to solve. World peace has eluded the UN, yet cows have not. The United Nations is proposing to eliminate global food chains that have brought good food to the world for hundreds of years.

I recently spoke about the false water shortage brought to you thanks to the UN's directive to not build new dams. This is the start of a false food shortage. The motivation is to eliminate broadacre agriculture, eliminate food exports and return all that land to nature.

Rural voters will be annoyed to hear that the Morrison government bankrolled this attack on our farming community with a $64 million donation. The Liberal-National government is funding our own demise—the betrayal and demise of our farmers, of our country. Australian farms employ 326,000 people directly. They contribute $75 billion to the economy and $60 billion to our exports. Without the bush, we'd be stuffed, broke and hungry. These three United Nations proposals will destroy rural Australia, wipe out family farms, crash real estate prices and further hollow out country towns for no benefit to us.

There's no better source of protein than red meat, yet our supermarkets stock protein and fake food products made from crickets. Why? It's because billionaires can't make enough profit out of cattle. It's a variable industry, with good times and bad. Billionaires can, though, make money on intensive cultivation of bugs for protein. This breaks the reliance on nature's weather and allows scheduled production of a food-like substance with great profit margins and low fulfilment costs. This satisfies the UN dictate for short chain supply. The United Nations food and agriculture organisation is literally directing the replacement of red meat with bug protein. Sceptics can even attend one of the regular UN bug tastings, where journalists are encouraged to extoll the virtues of bug cuisine.

The CSIRO has fallen in line behind the UN, publishing a 64-page love letter on the delights of eating bugs entitled Edible insects: a roadmap for the strategic growth of an emerging Australian industry. Looking through the glossy pages, we see that the CSIRO advocates our future should include insect milkshakes, bug ice-cream and granola bars made from dried cockroaches.

I'm not making any of this up. It's real. This is happening, and we taxpayers are paying for it thanks to the Morrison-Joyce government.

For those who think they're eating an environmentally friendly product, think again A fake hamburger patty using plant or bug protein contains 20 chemicals found in pet food. That's all the UN and their quislings in our federal government think the public deserve: pet food. How does it make sense to grow good food and, instead of eating that food, feed it to crickets and then eat the crickets?

Fellow Australians, there is no protein shortage. There will be, though, if the UN succeeds in wiping out red meat production so that they can hand the protein industry over to their big business, corporate partners. One Nation rejects this attack on our farming community. We reject state and federal parliaments around our country continuing to demonise and isolate farmers. We will continue to oppose the UN dictating to federal and state governments. One Nation will continue to oppose ideology over humanity. We will continue to stand up for a fair society based on a citizen's right to exercise free choice about diet, health and business. We have one flag. We are one community. We are one sovereign nation. It's time to withdraw from the United Nations.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (19:45): Annastacia Palaszczuk and Queensland Labor continue to fail Queensland farmers. First, they made the decision to destroy Paradise Dam, in what is Australia's greatest infrastructure fail. They have refused to even consider repairing the wall to the full height, leaving farmers high and dry, and now they have no plan for water security in the Wide Bay-Burnett region, again kicking the region's farmers right in the guts. You just have to ask Tom Marland from Marland Law, who's running the legal action against the Queensland government, as to how low this government has gone. The farmers who once relied on Paradise Dam are almost down and out. Meanwhile Queensland Labor have the audacity to rub lies in their face by refusing to tell the truth about any future plans for the region. These farmers have battled drought, fire, flood and, in some cases, pestilence, yet the reprehensible actions of Queensland Labor have reduced water allocation to as low as 16 per cent, crippling the farmers' ability to produce crops in the coming seasons.

If this were not dire enough, the Queensland water minister showed his true colours last week when he was asked how the Queensland government intended to assist farmers with reduced water allocations. Glenn Butcher, who is the minister in question, said that he was expecting greater rainfall this year. So there it is, folks: Queensland Labor's solution to the drought situation in Queensland, to the lack of dam building in Queensland, is that their water minister is going to do, basically, a rain dance. He's going to put on a grass skirt and a coconut brassiere and shillyshally all around George Street, hoping that it's going to rain in Queensland. He's not going to build dams. He's not going to rebuild Paradise Dam. He's going to act like some deranged feral minion, dancing all around the place and hoping it rains. Minister, two-thirds of Queensland is in drought. Your government's actions in the Wide Bay-Burnett region have effectively let loose a neutron bomb of $2.5 billion worth of damage to the economy. Instead of sitting down with the community in the Wide Bay-Burnett region and talking about how to rebuild the dam wall, the Queensland Labor government just want to go and play politics. I say, 'Shame on them.' This is destroying people's lives. It's destroying the lives of farmers and it's destroying the lives of those in the towns in the Wide Bay-Burnett area.

Labor still don't have a plan for water security across Queensland. If we don't start doing something about water storage capacity in Queensland, our water storage capacity is going to fall by 30 per cent before the decade is over. Tasmania has built 16 of the 20 dams in Australia over the last 20 years. We need dams in Queensland. I don't care if it's a dam, a weir or a large pond; I just want dams built in Queensland. I want the Queensland Labor government to stop worrying about—

Senator Chisholm interjecting—

Senator McGRATH: Senator Chisholm has woken up over there. Welcome back to daylight hours, Senator Chisholm. Your mates in state Labor are refusing to build dams in Queensland because they hate rural Queenslanders, they hate those people on the land. The only way state Labor ever get into power is by sucking up to the Greens, because they know they can only get into power with the Greens' preferences. No dams are ever going to be built in Queensland while Palaszczuk remains Premier, especially with this shillyshallying, rain-dancing water minister who believes the answer to water security in Queensland is not building dams but pretending he's some sort of shaman and dancing around the place.

This is ridiculous, ladies and gentlemen listening at home. This is modern Labor. They don't want dams built in Queensland, because they're all concerned about Greens preferences. I say to everybody: only the Liberal National Party believe in dams and only the Liberal National Party want to build dams in Queensland. We say to state Labor: 'Stop playing politics. Do the right thing by the people of Queensland and build dams. Be on the side of the farmers. Be on the side of the people who want to make our state a better place, not those moss munchers who live in South Brisbane. (Time expired)

Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (19:50): [by video link] Tonight, as I do most Tuesday nights, I want to speak about human rights, because the Australian Greens believe that universal human rights are fundamental and must be respected and protected in all countries and for all people.

I want to talk first about the rights of LGBTIQA+ people here in Australia to be free from discrimination and particularly how damaging the approach in tonight's census has been for LGBTIQA+ communities. By not asking the right questions, the census is erasing the identities of queer people. Nathan Anastasi is a trans man who spoke to the ABC about what the gap in the census means to him. He said:

I've been excluded. For me, the census is the biggest data collection that occurs in this country and, so, it should be designed to include a collection of data on all Australians …

Anna Brown, the CEO of Equality Australia, wrote last week:

… the Australian Bureau of Statistics will collect a whole heap of data about my personal life – how much I earn, my religious affiliation and even my history of chronic health conditions. But they won't learn about something that's important to the picture of who I am – my sexual orientation.

In fact, once again, lesbian, gay, transgender, intersex and queer people won’t be properly counted in this year's census, because the ABS and the responsible minister – Michael Sukkar – failed to add in questions about sexual orientation, gender identity or variations in sex characteristics.

This erasure hurts every individual member of our LGBTIQA+ communities. And this erasure flows on to policymaking, as the Australian LGBTIQA+ community census declaration noted in the their powerful statement:

We condemn the 2021 Census for continuing to render LGBTIQA+ Australians invisible and to make it harder to address the stigma, discrimination and lack of services we experience.

We call on the Federal Government to commit to following its own guidelines on recognition of sex and gender by including in the 2026 Census the best practice questions already developed in consultation with the LGBTIQA+ community.

This matters because of the impact it has on so many people's lives across health services, mental health provision, housing services, employment outcomes and more.

The government has already promised to introduce a religious discrimination bill by the end of the year, and when the census is done we will have detailed data on the religion of every person who chooses to answer that question. But for LGBTIQA+ people there is no question in this year's census that enables them to make their voice count. Equality is not negotiable, and we fight the stigma and discrimination that, tragically, LGBTIQA+ communities still experience.

Last week marked the second anniversary of Kashmir's loss of its special-autonomy status, and the Australian Greens share the grief and sorrow of activists around the world at the ongoing tragedy of human rights abuses in Kashmir. From well before 2019 we've seen very serious human rights abuses in Kashmir. We've seen a communications blackout, which is an incredibly serious violation of Kashmiris' human rights. We've seen weapons fired at crowds—incredibly dangerous and a fundamental attack on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. There have been extrajudicial killings. The Indian government's security forces in Kashmir have operated with impunity and are not being held accountable due to special protections in law. Worse than that, the Indian government's actions have been compounded during the COVID-19 crisis. Kashmir was not provided with resources to respond to COVID-19 and had fewer doctors and ICU beds than other regions of India. Many prisoners who should have been released were held for political reasons and placed at increased risk of COVID.

The attacks on human rights are horrifying and they must stop. We call on the Australian government to do everything it can to directly raise the issue of human rights internationally, both bilaterally and multilaterally, including with the Indian government. This is something I've raised multiple times here, and I will continue to do so. Most importantly, we call for the full right for self-determination for the people of Kashmir, as a fundamental human right both under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Senator THORPE (Victoria) (19:55): [by video link] Every person in this country should be absolutely ashamed that the so-called Prime Minister of this country—a man absolutely committed to not doing his job—today refused to commit to a target of net zero emissions by 2050. The Sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us that First Nations knowledge is a vital tool in the struggle for climate justice. First Nations people have cared for and protected our lands and waters, including our totems, for tens of thousands of years. Recent breakdowns of ecological systems and harms to biodiversity have been linked to a disregard for traditional forms of land management and their displacement by imported and harmful practices. The IPCC report acknowledges the contribution of First Nations people and First Nations scientists in helping record historical as well as current observations of a changing climate.

The year before last, we watched this country burn as we experienced one of the worst bushfire seasons in our recorded history, and what did the so-called Prime Minister do? He took a holiday to Hawaii! He doesn't hold a hose, mate. He went missing when it was time to get this country vaccinated. What—and he doesn't hold a needle, mate? Today, when the IPCC recommended urgent action, he's gone missing again. Where is he? Get him out from under that desk! He just has no idea, mate.

We need to get rid of the Morrison government. We can kick the Liberals out and put the Greens in, with the balance of power. Greens with the balance of power would mean that the Greens and our advocacy for black justice and climate justice in the parliament could not be ignored. It would mean that our people-powered movement would need to be consulted on all laws before this place. Imagine that! Look at the Greens' policies and see what we stand for. We leave the rest for dead. This way we can make laws that are good for the people and for the country. With the balance of power, the Greens will push the next government to go harder and faster on climate change. If we get a Labor government—they don't even know what their target is and they're still getting donations from the fossil fuel industry—they're going to need a true party that will hold them to account, and the only way we're going to do that is with the balance of power. The last time the Greens and Labor were in shared power, we passed laws to bring down pollution. Yes, we did. Coal and gas are causing the greatest damage to people, country and communities because Labor and the Liberals are being bought off by the coal and gas corporations. Seriously, you guys, stop taking their money, because when you take their money you have to do their work.

The Greens don't take dirty donations, so, with the balance of power, we will make big corporations and billionaires finally contribute their fair share of tax so that we can all live a better life. Right now, we live in a society where a nurse pays more tax than a multibillion-dollar corporation. What the hell? My politics—green politics—is the politics of hope. We dare to plant a seed and make these big, bold, visionary plans come true. Right now, we have a chance to build a country that works for everyone, not just the chosen few. My promise to the people of Victoria is that only the Greens will fight for your future.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (20:00): 'A code red for humanity' and on the edge of an 'irreversible disaster' if we don't act—they were the exact words from the IPCC AR6 report on climate, their sixth assessment, released last night. That science has been like a lighthouse guiding us through a decades-long smokescreen put up by the fossil fuel industry and their lackeys in governments all around the world. It's been a tough day for the many people who care about our planet and care about future generations, following the release of that report. The reality is hitting home. The report is from some of the world's best scientists, over 200 of them, a very conservative bunch who used consensus decision-making to provide their report. The reality of this hitting home has been difficult for many people to comprehend, because for so long now—indeed, for decades—so many people have been campaigning for climate action, and yet here we are in 2021 having the same debates. It's been especially frustrating for people today witnessing the government's continued indifference to the climate emergency.

I had thought it was a tough day for me until I got a message tonight from Helen Taylor. She is the mother of one very special young Australian who I'd like to acknowledge tonight in the Australian Senate—a young fella, a climate activist who had a firecracker for a heart, who dedicated his short life to taking action on our climate crisis. He was riding his bike around the country to raise awareness of the need for climate action—another young person galvanised, riding and having conversations with anyone and everyone to change the world. His name was Leif Justham. He popped in to meet me in my electorate office in Launceston this summer, but, sadly, I was away. I heard he had a fantastic meeting with some of my staff, who, of course, were blown away by the energy and commitment of this young fella. He died only a few months ago, riding his bike across the Nullarbor. Leif was just 21—the same age as my son—when he was, tragically, hit by a truck. At his funeral, his family said Leif was a passionate lover of the planet and all life that came from it.

I'd like to dedicate this speech to Leif and his mum, Helen Taylor, who reached out to me today. She wanted to thank me and my colleagues for the work that we'd done on fighting for climate action for so long. She told me it was Leif's birthday this weekend and he would appreciate the work that we do and everything we fight for. If people want to know more about Leif, they can go to www.leifjustham.com. There's a collection of information there about his life work. Or you could check out 'Change Your Super', which was one of the many causes that Leif was campaigning on, to get people to use their investments and try to channel that into climate action.

I wanted to do a few things tonight. I wanted to start, after acknowledging Leif and his mum Helen, by also acknowledging the many climate scientists—indeed, all our scientists, but especially climate scientists tonight—on this day that we've received the IPCC report. It can't be easy being a climate scientist; it really can't be. They spend so much of their time looking at a subject that is so difficult for many people to comprehend and that delivers so much bad news. As reported in The Canberra Times recently, dozens of Australian scientists have also been targeted by vicious, unrelenting campaigns because of their work. They're often ignored, they're censored and they are politicised. According to a survey conducted in 2020, more than half of the environmental scientists working for the Australian federal government and state governments reported having been prohibited from communicating scientific information. Some respondents said that they had suffered negative health impacts after having their work suppressed and others reported that their career advancement was stifled.

I'd like to thank those scientists for all the work they've done—not just the hundreds that contributed to this report with the IPCC, but all the scientists out there that do this work. We can go home to our families and to our lives, but they have to see this every day. They've committed their life to giving us a better understanding of what we need to do as decision-makers, as leaders, in a place like this where we have a platform and a privilege to change things. I wanted to honour them tonight for all the hard work that they've done.

I think it's well and truly justified to say that this IPCC report is the most important report in our time. It has laid out the facts: that in just 5½ years time the world collectively will have spent its carbon budget; that in 5½ years time we will be on track to exceed 1.5 degree warming; and that, by 2030, we will have reached a tipping point 10 years earlier than our best climate models had previously forecasted. If that is the case, and that is what the best scientists tell us, then we have got 5½ years to turn this ship around. That means that we simply cannot afford to have a government in power in this country or anywhere else that continues to ignore the science and that puts the environment and future generations of this country at risk. I would argue that, if this is one of the most important reports in human history, this next federal election is, without a doubt, the most important federal election in our nation's history.

I'd say to all those Australians out there today who are despairing, who are angry, who are frustrated and who are anxious: action is the best antidote to despair. There are lots of things you can do to take action. You could be like Leif and decide that you're going to do something with your life to change the world. You can do small things. You can change the way you live. You can electrify your transport. You can get renewables for your home power. You can do lots of things to reduce your carbon footprint. That all matters. But, at the end of the day, we have to change a broken system, a broken political system, a broken economic system—that nexus between political donations and special interests that keeps us locked into this cynical, death spiral that this planet is in now.

The most important action that any Australian can take is to vote for change. Vote for the change you want to see in the world. Your vote is powerful. Do not believe that your vote isn't powerful. Voting for change is the most important thing you can do, because one of the only things politicians will listen to is votes. Vote for the change you want to see in the world. I am proud to be in a party that has, for 40 years now in this place, campaigned for climate action. We have never relented, nor will we ever. The Greens could hold the balance of power in this government in the 47th Parliament. Vote for it. (Time expired)

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (20:10): I rise to speak about the prosecution in the ACT courts of barrister and former Attorney-General of the ACT Bernard Collaery. The prosecution has proved very controversial for two reasons. The first is that the matter involves four charges of contravening section 39 of the Intelligence Services Act—that is, unauthorised communications of information relating the Australian Secret Intelligence Service—and one count of conspiring to do so.

The information in question relates to ASIS spying on Timor-Leste. Before and after a round of negotiations relating to the proposed maritime boundary between Timor-Leste and Australia took place in Dili, from 24 to 27 October 2004, Prime Minister Alkatiri and Secretary of State Jose Teixeira outlined to their cabinet colleagues the negotiating position of Timor-Leste and the importance of the issue affecting their country. The Australian government arranged for these cabinet discussions to be clandestinely monitored by listening devices surreptitiously and unlawfully placed by ASIS in the Timor-Leste government's cabinet meeting room. Working closely with elements of the Australian Embassy in Dili, ASIS recorded and transcribed the Timor government's internal deliberations. This enabled the Australian negotiating team to become aware of the private discussions of the Timor-Leste negotiating team and its position in relation to various issues arising in connection with the negotiation of what became the 2006 Treaty on Certain Maritime Arrangements in the Timor Sea, signed by Australia and Timor-Leste.

It is scandalous and un-Australian that we would spy on a new, independent neighbour—the newest country in the world, an impoverished country and one that gave great assistance to Australian forces in World War II—in circumstances where we had agreed to negotiate with them in good faith. That someone who called out this immoral conduct is now being prosecuted for blowing the whistle is unconscionable.

The second reason for the controversial nature of Mr Collaery's trial is that much—indeed, almost all—of the proceedings are taking place in strict secrecy. In this country we have a system of open justice. Someone passing by a court should be able to wander in and hear what the charges are, what evidence has been laid out by the prosecution, what the witnesses have to say, what the defence's evidence is and what he or she may have to say. Importantly, an open court allows the public to keep an eye on the judge as well. Open courts go to the community's confidence in the courts, and the courts must be rooted in that confidence. Sadly, this trial is taking place behind closed doors—or at least it will unless the full bench of the ACT Supreme Court reverses the decision of Justice Mossop to close the court.

So what's it all about? Australians do have a right to know. As mentioned in my opening remarks, in the context of good faith negotiations, Australia spied on Timor-Leste in 2004. That's the first and dominant reason the Commonwealth want to close the court—they don't want to admit to the spying operation. Strangely, this is in circumstances where the government of Timor have acted in a manner consistent with the operation having taken place. Those words I read at the start come from Timor-Leste's memorial in The Hague. These are also circumstances in which the Australian government have themselves responded to these proceedings with a team full of lawyers and negotiators. They've prosecuted a former ASIS officer for conspiracy to reveal a bugging operation in an affidavit that was tendered to the Timor-Leste v Australia Permanent Court of Arbitration proceedings.

On that front, it's worth pointing out that on 2 April 2019 I asked the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department, Chris Moraitis, whether he was aware of the allegations in respect of Australia spying on the negotiating team of the East Timorese. He replied:

I'm aware of that. There's a criminal case in the ACT. I'm well aware of it.

Now, interestingly, he made the link between the spying and the case in the ACT, and that's not unexpected, because it turns out that he was in the Australian negotiating team that would have been a recipient of the product of the bugging activity. I went on to ask him if I would be correct in presuming most criminal cases were not launched on the basis of a fictitious operation. He responded: 'I would hope not.' So the dominant reason for the secrecy is to avoid having to publicly acknowledge the Australian government did the spying, when everyone knows—it's just plain—that we did it, and that it would be appropriate to acknowledge it, for the healing of East Timor and indeed so that Australians can rightfully ask why it was that it was done. Indeed, I understand public interest rests, in most cases, in neither confirming nor denying intelligence operations, but in this case it swings the other way.

What we know about what's happening right now is that there are confidential briefs flying around inside the court, and I'm going to give you some hints as to what they go to. The Commonwealth's position will be to say: 'There was an operation.' Behind closed doors, they will say: 'There was an operation in East Timor,' and that Mr Collaery disclosed it—that's what's going to be said. And Mr Collaery, by and large, will agree with that particular proposition, that there was a spying operation. They will, I understand, contest whether the operation was lawful and whether the operation was lawfully initiated. These are two different questions, but they go to our national interest and indeed our moral constitution. I have no doubt that it was neither legal nor initiated properly.

The question doesn't involve our national security sensitivities. It involves the sequence of events that led to the approval of the operation. As to the way in which these operations are approved—I'm not telling you anything that's classified; it's in the Intelligence Services Act—there's a sequence; there's a proper process. Firstly, one of the ways in which to initiate one of these operations is for the executive, the collective, the national security cabinet, to basically state a government requirement. That government requirement must centre on some pretty crucial principles: it must be in our foreign relations interests, our national security interests or our economic interests.

A reasonable question one can ask is: 'How can an executive government, in a democracy ruled by law, ever make an activity that would breach a solemn, signed undertaking to act in good faith, breach international law, cheat a fiduciary commercial partner and breach Australian criminal laws a government requirement?' It's likely that there's going to be difficulty in relation to that particular requirement, because the Commonwealth has opposed—and this is available in open court—the request or the subpoenas for cabinet documents. But there is a second pathway: a minister—particularly the foreign minister; in this case, Mr Downer—can make a decision, provided he is satisfied and has consulted with other relevant ministers, and they may have been Mr Howard, the Prime Minister; Mr Ruddock, the Attorney-General; Mr Hill, the defence minister; and perhaps Mr Minchin, who was the minister for science and industry and also Minister Assisting the Prime Minister. All of those ministers should have been asked and there should be a written directive. I understand there isn't—and that doesn't surprise me, after my national cabinet case, because the court was scathing as to the record keeping of the Commonwealth government. So I suspect that all of those people I've just named—all those ministers—will be on the subpoena list to give evidence.

We have specific controls placed on the intelligence services by this parliament, and my view is that they haven't been followed. My view is that this operation was instituted by Mr Downer, not properly authorised and done for the benefit of Woodside. We've seen in evidence before the parliamentary committees on treaties that the Commonwealth government has a view that Woodside's interests are the national interests.

So we need to watch this case. I hope the court opens up the case, because the only thing that's really secret that will be talked about, and it's not secret, is the fact that the operation took place. Disclosure of the basic fact that the operation was conducted and who did or did not authorise that action would go towards healing the rift between East Timor and Australia and satisfying the Australian people. (Time expired)

Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (20:20): [by video link] A few short weeks ago my beautiful wife, Kristin Griff, passed away after a long and distressing battle with an aggressive form of breast cancer. She was not alone. A shocking number of Australians die from cancer each and every year; 50,000 died last year, and there were a further 150,000 who were diagnosed with cancer. These are unimaginable numbers.

Some Australians have a genetic predisposition to cancer, and this is often triggered by environmental factors of some kind. Others, like my wife, Kristin, have no apparent genetic predisposition. When they are diagnosed with cancer, it is usually because they were exposed to an environmental factor, or factors, of some kind. The best-known example is smoking, where an individual ingests a number of potent carcinogens which later develop into lung cancer. A great number of chemicals in our environment are carcinogenic or otherwise harmful. Many are known. Many are not. Just like malignant mesothelioma, it can be 30 to 40 years after exposure before it develops.

My wife, Kristin, was an active, nature-loving and health-conscious person. As an adult, she was careful about what she ingested and what she was exposed to. As a mother, she was just as careful about our family's health. But her childhood was very different. She grew up in a small seaside town and had a childhood that was generally happy and carefree. But now we can look back with fresh eyes and new knowledge and recognise the many risks this carefree childhood exposed her to. I will quote from some notes that she wrote to our daughter and her siblings to allay any fears they might have about them suffering the same fate as her via a genetic flaw: 'I was always wandering around at the depot with dad, the uncles and grandpa, or on the fuel truck for farm deliveries with dad. Bare feet, like most of my childhood prior to school age, from running around barefoot at the depot, except for yellow rubber boots in winter. I used to get in trouble all the time for leaving black smears all over the white enamel inside the bath. Leaded petrochemicals, kerosenes, sump oil, DDT and other farm crop chemical pesticides, many subsequently banned for use. Sheep dip and drenching chemicals. We swam in sheep dip, as many of us country kids did. Kids in the sheep run, to push sheep through. Ant and spider dust, surface powder, hessian sacks of improved seed for crop planting. Dad smoked indoors and in the car every day of my life until I went to Finland at age 16.'

It is staggering what people were exposed to in decades past, but only in hindsight. At the time, these exposures were commonplace. Parents were not believed to be negligent for exposing their children to second-hand smoke or to DDT, as they would be today. The harms were not known at the time. In many cases, it took decades of widespread use before it became clear that certain chemicals were carcinogenic. By then, it was too late for too many.

In the postwar decades, we made great advances in chemical science. In every facet of life, new chemical products were developed and brought quickly to market. Everything from pesticides to toothpaste was improved, again and again. These products rapidly became better, cheaper and more widely used. But our understanding of chemical safety did not advance anywhere near as quickly, and we individuals and government failed to act with care. We assumed products were safe until they were shown to be unsafe. For example, DDT was released to the public in 1945. By the 1950s, it was widely used in Australia to wipe out mosquito populations and to protect crops from insects. But, by the mid-1960s, its harmful effects were becoming widely understood. It was toxic: a danger to human health and ecosystems. In 1972, it was banned in the United States, but it would take another 15 years before Australia followed suit. However, the harm didn't stop then. The toxic effects of DDT are long-lived. More than 30 years on, there are still accumulations in our natural environment which will persist for decades to come. This means there are many Australians living today who were exposed to DDT in their childhood, just like my wife, Kristin, who have toxic accumulations in their body and who are unaware it could ultimately cause the cancer that may take their lives.

The challenge we face today is not regulating and restricting the use of DDT. That battle has been fought and won. The battle today is ensuring that the other chemicals available in Australia safe for the people working with and around the chemicals, safe for the people or animals who may consume or be exposed to the chemicals and, most importantly, safe for our natural environment. We need to ensure that governments act with respect to the precautionary principle—that is, assuming chemicals are harmful and prohibiting them until they are shown to be safe. It can't be enough for a company to assert that its products are harmless. Too often, we see companies using dishonest studies with secret commercial-in-confidence data to evade regulation. Why else would it have taken 15 years for Australia to follow the US in banning DDT? Were governments ignorant of the danger? Of course not! Lobbyists and corporate interests acted to protect their business.

Every one of us in this chamber has had some experience where a rent-seeker has tried to slow down or kill off regulation. Most recently, we have seen it with big tobacco and vaping products, which they want legalised because they are less deadly than their other products. Such companies care nothing for the public and only care for their profits. This is why government must ensure that chemicals are independently evaluated in Australia and, most importantly, re-evaluated over time. We should never rely on a study, as we have with glyphosate, that was over 30 years old. We need to re-evaluate studies over time. The evaluation methods and data must also be made publicly available, so that academics and researchers can verify those results and give the public confidence that their governments are working properly to protect them. Acting today won't stop a single case of cancer this year or next year or the year after, but it could help to prevent thousands of cancer deaths in 2030 and beyond. We can look back at parents in the postwar decades and say they acted responsibly, given the knowledge available at the time. Decades from now, will our children be able to say the same about us?

In the past 18 months, Australia has had slightly less than 40,000 COVID cases and 1,000 deaths. We mobilised our entire health community, locked down cities and states, and closed our borders to protect our community from the threat of COVID. During the same time, we have had more than 220,000 new cancer diagnoses and 75,000 cancer deaths. We don't need COVID policies for cancer, but there are reasonable steps we can take today to protect the community. Radically better chemical regulation and testing is one of those important steps. We owe it to our constituents and to our children to make sure we act today and, this time, we get it right.

Senate adjourned at 20:30