Senator THORPE (Victoria) (09:31): I seek leave to move a motion in relation to approvals for new coalmines and gas projects.

Leave not granted.

Senator THORPE: Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of Senator Waters, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Thorpe moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely, a motion to provide that a motion relating to approvals for new coalmines and gas projects, may be moved immediately, determined without amendment and take precedence over all other business for 30 minutes.

This matter is of the utmost urgency. Let's right now do what needs doing. This is the last chance that we can debate Australia's climate targets before the Prime Minister goes off to Glasgow after being shamed into attending. The Queen herself says she was irritated that leaders like our Prime Minister were intending to not go to Glasgow. It's urgent we debate this matter today, right now, before the Prime Minister further isolates and embarrasses this country on the world stage. It is of the utmost importance that the Senate of this country make a commitment that we will not allow any more new coal, oil and gas. The Pope—get this!—the Pope himself, just last week said:

In the name of God, I ask the great extractive industries—mining, oil, forestry, real estate, agribusiness—to stop destroying forests, wetlands and mountains, to stop polluting rivers and seas, to stop poisoning food and people.

That was the Pope. Come on! We just did prayers. The Pope sees the urgency of this issue. The Queen sees the urgency of this issue. The Senate surely must see the urgency of this issue and suspend standing orders. It is our chance right now to send the world a message. Article 2 of the Paris Agreement requires member countries to pursue efforts to limit global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. Everyone else got the memo—the Pope, the Queen. But our Prime Minister and his junior coalition partner in the government—I don't know what happened to their memo. By suspending standing orders, we can force the government to take the action we need, and fast.

It is critical that senators in this place suspend standing orders to talk about this now, because there is no other part of this parliamentary program where we can debate the need to stop any new oil, coal and gas projects. The government's most recent Resources and energy major projects report currently has 72 dirty coal projects and 44 dirty gas projects listed in the construction pipeline. This is unspeakably reckless.

Mr President, I just sat here and heard you and everyone else acknowledge country on behalf of the Senate. The Senate acknowledges, just now, that the country is important to our people. We need to suspend standing orders right now because, for First Nations people, climate change is a matter of the most extreme importance. Oil, coal and gas are causing our planet to cook. Our people are being impacted by this right now. Zenadth Kes, also known as the Torres Strait Islands and the surrounding seas, is the home to traditional owners who have lived with a deep connection to land, sea, sky, water and culture for over 60,000 years. This is destroying them and everything that they connect to. (Time expired)

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (09:37): I can indicate that the opposition will support the suspension motion today, even though we weren't given the heads-up that this was occurring. We do believe that this is a matter of utmost importance that the nation is dealing with, particularly in the lead-up to COP26 and the Glasgow meeting, and that this is worthy of the Senate's time for debate. I would also indicate that the motion as it stands, which we also didn't see until it was circulated in the chamber this morning—which goes to some of the questions about the Greens' motives here—isn't something that we would agree to every word of. I'm just reading it on my feet, though; so, again, I would like that on the record.

There is some frustration from the Labor opposition about the way the Greens are conducting this. If you were genuinely interested in reaching a consensus or having a debate, I think there would be other ways you would be managing this other than pulling this stunt at the beginning of every sitting morning—particularly talking to us, at least, about what you were planning on doing. I would further submit that it appears to me there's no interest in bringing a consensus position to this chamber about action on climate change. It's not in your political interest to reach consensus. The Greens' political interest is to continue the fight, to continue to stoke division, even with those of us who would share similar views—not exactly the same—but who would want to see effective action on climate change. I would submit that it's not in your interests to see that happen and that we will see the Greens continue to do this and do what they did in 2010, 2013, 2016, 2019, and stoke division. It's in your political interest to do that, as opposed to actually dealing with the issue of climate change and reaching a national consensus that will move this country forward, protect the environment and grow the economy. That's not in your political interest. You want to fight with us, you want to fight with the government, and that's displayed by the tactic here this morning. I would submit, if you want real action on climate change: change the government. Don't do it this way—by trying to have a fight with Labor and have a fight with the government. It didn't work in 2010, it didn't work in 2013, it didn't work in 2016, and it's not working now.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (09:39): Well, well, well, the Labor Party, as part of the precursor to the Albanese-Bandt coalition government, calls this a stunt. The Labor party is exactly correct. It is a stunt. The No. 1 issue here is integrity and the Greens' complete lack of integrity. They have never provided the empirical scientific evidence for their claims. First it was Greta: 'We'll rely on Greta.' Then it became, 'We'll rely on the Queen.' Now, it's, 'We'll rely on the Pope'—and most of them are atheists. My goodness, what are we coming to in this country? This mob is hijacking jobs—manufacturing jobs, coalmining jobs, farmers' jobs. This is an absolute disgrace, because they show no integrity towards the people of this country; they show no integrity towards this parliament, none whatsoever. They tell lies and they make up stuff.

We now see them calling for the science. I want the science. I challenge Senator Waters to provide the empirical scientific evidence that proves carbon dioxide from human activity affects the climate and needs to be cut. She failed to provide it 11 years ago. She ran—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe, on a point of order?

Senator Thorpe: A point of order, Mr President: the senator over here has called us 'liars', and I think that is unparliamentary, is it?

The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, he was referring to the Greens as a whole. My view is that that is not unparliamentary. I will check with the Clerk to be sure, given I'm relatively new to this role. My ruling is correct. Please sit down, Senator Thorpe.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, there is no point of order. Senator Roberts, you have the call.

Senator ROBERTS: Let's make it clear: I did not call the Queen or the Pope a liar. I called them 'not scientists'. They're not scientists. But this is what the Greens rely on in the fact that they cannot provide the science. The Greens show no respect for science, no respect for humanity, no respect for the people of this country, no respect for hardworking Australians, and no respect for the farmers that they will gut with this 2050 net zero.

I also remind the Senate that it's now day 772 since I challenged Senator Larissa Waters and Senator Di Natale in this parliament to a debate on the empirical evidence and also on the corruption of the science. I point out that there is no science that backs this up from the CSIRO, and I'll have more to say about that next week. There is no science from the Bureau of Meteorology, none from the Chief Scientist—I can tell you a story about the previous Chief Scientist if there is time—none from the Australian Academy of Science and none from the IPCC. In fact, we had the Labor Party's Kevin Rudd dancing around in 2007 saying 4,000 people in white lab coats endorsed his claim. The reality is that only five academics in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change endorsed the claim of warming, and there's doubt those five were even scientists.

We'll hear more rubbish from the Greens, claiming that they have science, but the one thing that they are always consistent on is that they never produce the empirical evidence to justify their claim. They see a picture of a tree frog, a picture of a koala, a picture of a dolphin, and they say, 'This is the science.' That's it; it's complete rubbish. This has been going on for 11 years, Senator Waters.

Let me point out, Senator Gallagher, that the issue of utmost importance is the integrity of this parliament, the integrity of this country, the integrity of state parliaments, and the integrity of the people of this country and their jobs and their livelihoods. That is of utmost importance to One Nation, and I wish it were of utmost importance to every single person in this Senate, but clearly it's not.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Ruston?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (09:44): I move:

That the question be now put.

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

The PRESIDENT (09:50): The question is that the motion moved by Senator Thorpe be agreed to.

Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (09:56): Mr President, just on a matter of order, I draw your attention to standing order 193(2), which states:

A senator shall not refer to the Queen, the Governor-General or the Governor of a state disrespectfully in debate, or for the purpose of influencing the Senate in its deliberations.

I hope you will just keep that in mind for the future debate we might hear later in the course of today's deliberations.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you for that, Senator Smith.

Senator VAN (Victoria) (12:15): A net zero transition provides Australia with abundant opportunity, but because of the fallacy that net zero equals zero emissions, the common debate around emissions reduction has been tarnished by this government's political opponents, who either do not understand or wilfully ignore the fact that, in a net zero future, there will still be emissions generated.

The only way that many developed states will reach the net zero target is by purchasing carbon offset credits and through the use of nuclear power. The use of abatement credits allows these states to quickly and cheaply slash their emissions without having to invest in the structural change that takes time to take effect and that actually cuts emissions. This approach can be described as little more than greenwashing on an international scale. They are already purchasing carbon offset credits from countries around the globe. This is in stark contrast to Australia's approach, where we have built structural changes into our energy systems and our other industries economy-wide that will actually bring down emissions and have been bringing down emissions on a scale that most other countries can only dream about. This provides Australia with a unique economic opportunity, because we are developing the technology to reach net zero and will have abundant potential to sell offset credits to those other nations. This practice is already underway in Australia through the Emissions Reduction Fund, which is going from strength to strength. This year the 1,000th project was registered and the millionth tonne of abatement was credited.

I want to be clear that Australia should be emitting as little as possible as it approaches its low-emissions targets. However, we should be working to become an economic powerhouse in selling carbon credits, and we are developing the technology that will fuel a low-emissions economy.

In the transition to net zero, we should not be abandoning the exports that underpin our regions. We should be acknowledging the fact that net zero is not zero emissions. It's the difference between giving big parts of agriculture, heavy manufacturing and resources no future and giving them a bright future. For these sectors of our economy that support thousands of jobs and play a vital role in Australian society, we need to ensure that in a net zero economy they are able to thrive. The market is already adjusting to a future where coal is no longer the main source of energy generation, but that is not going to happen overnight. Until it is no longer needed, coalmining must continue to support our economy and continue to provide good jobs for thousands of Australians.

The transition to net zero provides Australia with bountiful economic opportunities. Our technology-not-taxes approach ensures that the Australian economy will continue to thrive in this transition as we drive down emissions. Investing in the development of low- and no-emissions technologies will not only help Australia reach net zero but also, importantly, help our friends and partners around the world reach net zero. By driving down the cost to produce low- or no-emissions energy sources, developing countries will no longer have to make the choice between emissions reduction and development. These two processes go hand in hand.

Emissions reduction is a global challenge. Only by driving down the costs of clean alternatives—such as producing hydrogen at less than $2 a kilo or producing green aluminium at under $2,700 per tonne and green steel at under $900 per tonne—will these low-emission options be competitive with the traditional alternatives.

At these prices, low-emission alternatives would be available for everyone, not just Australia. Australia will become an exporter of these low-emission alternatives. These technologies will allow the globe's transition to a low-emissions economy. It is only through a global effort that this can be achieved. Developing these technologies, which our energy Technology Investment Roadmap clearly sets out, will allow Australia to remain a net exporter of energy; it will just be a different type of energy. This will ensure that the benefits of the coal export boom that we've seen recently will not be lost, and we will continue to reap the benefits of selling energy to states around the world. Similar to the LNG gas revolution which saw Australia become the second largest LNG exporter in the world, I see no reason why we cannot be a global low-emissions hydrogen or green steel exporter.

The energy transition towards net zero presents Australia with vast opportunities that we should be grasping with two hands. It is clear from the Technology Investment Roadmap that work is well underway in Australia to support an economy that is not reliant on coal, both as a source of energy and income. The Technology Investment Roadmap sets out our priority low-emissions technologies and the economic stretch goals. Those priority low-emissions technologies that have been identified are: clean hydrogen; energy storage; low-carbon materials, such as steel and aluminium; carbon capture and storage; and soil carbon.

In our efforts to reach clean hydrogen under $2 per kilogram, the conservative estimates for our National Hydrogen Strategy indicate that a domestic industry could generate over 8,000 jobs and $11 billion a year in GDP. But this is not going to happen overnight. We have phases that we're going to go through while we achieve this. At the moment, blue hydrogen is a competitive energy source, but we are working hard to get green hydrogen under that price. That will likely take 10 years, but we should be doing that work now. The exporting of our coal is funding the investments that need to go into that. It's a $1.9 billion investment package into new energy technologies, which includes commitments that will support hydrogen, including $1.6 billion in new funding for ARENA; a $74.5 million future fuels package; and a $70.2 million fund to activate regional hydrogen export hubs. This will build on over $500 million committed towards hydrogen projects by the government at the launch of the National Hydrogen Strategy. Establishing hydrogen as a priority technology and working towards this stretch goal will reinforce these commitments and ensure Australia can capture a significant share of the growing global export demand for this technology.

Senator COX (Western Australia) (12:33): In the last six weeks, four women have died on the streets of Perth. In 2020, 56 homeless people died in Perth. Forty-four people have died on the streets since August last year. One-third of those people are First Nations. I note the families of the deceased are coming together now to ask for an inquiry. We echo the families' calls for a coronial inquest into these deaths.

I am not going to sugar-coat this. There is a housing crisis in Western Australia. According to every indicator, the WA housing system is in absolute crisis, and First Nations people are experiencing firsthand the deadly toll of homelessness. The by-name list for Perth CBD, Fremantle and surrounding areas shows that 995 people are experiencing chronic homelessness, 17 per cent of whom are First Nations people. Refuges are currently turning away women and children, and staff across the entire sector are in complete distress.

Dr Betsy Buchanan is a strong advocate for Noongar people and has worked for years with First Nations families in Perth to help them advocate for housing and to generate political pressure for policy solutions to end homelessness. Dr Buchanan has described these deaths as 'Perth's own pandemic, claiming the lives of at least one of our people every week this winter'. She recently said: 'We are completely overwhelmed with families calling all day, from early in the morning. So many of these destitute families are calling for help burying their children, which costs thousands of dollars that we don't have. Others are demanding accommodation before they become the next death, desperately ill people discharged from ICUs and hospital straight back to the street. They are angry and embittered because there are so many deaths. People are terrified that they will be next. Their loved ones keep dying. This is a total crisis.'

How can we have a epidemic of deaths due to homelessness in a state with a $5 billion surplus? Housing in WA is systemically inadequate, to the point that the management represents chaotic breakdown at its best—chaotic management at the hands of the state. Last week, when I visited Carnarvon, I saw this firsthand. I went around and photographed 40 boarded-up homes. These houses were uninhabited and required full refurbishment. The population has declined from a peak of 8,000 people in 2016 to 4,000. It's now increased slightly, to 5,000 people in that town. But where's the government accountability?

The selection process to match people with housing is not being tailored to the needs of individuals and families. Research has found that First Nations applicants in WA wait longer on the priority public housing waitlist and are more likely to be evicted, especially under the state's punitive three-strikes eviction policy. If there's a breakdown between family and the department, it becomes a punitive response where people are evicted and families to longer have access to housing, and we all know that punitive approaches do not work.

Successive governments have underinvested in social housing. Homelessness in some instances is an outcome of the chaotic breakdown of social housing management. However, on the whole there is a system of unmet, unaddressed need, and we need to come up with a better prevention model for the social issues and systemic racism which, along with present, past, collective and intergenerational trauma, are often among the major and primary contributing factors. The social determinants of health are critical in addressing the housing and homelessness crisis. Issues with education, income support and mental health all play a role in compounding the issues that First Nations people experience.

There needs to be a comprehensive and forensic audit and strategic review of social housing policy, management and maintenance to match individual, family and social needs, not just in Western Australia but nationally. We also need to incorporate the design and implementation of place based, culturally guided social and emotional healing and wellbeing activities for individuals to enhance self, family and community function and to enhance their general way of being.

I have some serious concerns about the risk of overcrowding in our communities and the dangers that this poses, particularly in the outbreak of COVID. In Carnarvon in Western Australia, we are unable to actually quarantine, and we have all of those houses boarded up instead of being used as social housing. We have two places for ICU in the public hospital system. Where will these people go if we have an outbreak of COVID in a town like Carnarvon, which has 5,000 people?

The Greens have a strong plan to address the housing and homelessness crisis across this country. For decades, governments have rigged the private housing market with tax breaks that favour big developers and the rich property speculators. Our current housing system is worsening inequality. We have a plan to build one million homes, which would ensure that there are homes for all. These homes will be sustainable, accessible and affordable. Our new innovative shared equity ownership scheme will make it easier for people to own their first homes, where they want to live, for $300,000.

Senator SCARR (Queensland) (12:39): It is a privilege, Senator Cox, to follow you in this chamber. It's the second time I've done that this week, in your first week. I think you made some extremely important points there, and one is left to ponder why it is that Western Australia has a budget surplus of $5 billion when its social housing provision is in such a terrible state, as you outlined.

I was privileged to attend two celebrations over the last few weeks. When I gave my first speech in the Senate, I spoke about my passion for Australia's Pacific step-up program, and, as I've engaged more and more with the Pacific island diasporas in our beautiful country, I'm becoming even more passionate about the Pacific step-up program and its importance. So let me talk to you about the two celebrations I had the honour of attending.

The first was the Cook Islands celebration of self-government, the Te Maeva Nui 2021 celebration, which was put on by the Cook Islands Council of Queensland Inc. The Cook Islands flag, that beautiful flag with the Union Jack in the top left-hand corner and then the 15 stars representing the 15 islands of the Cook Islands, was proudly on display. The Cook Islands diaspora turned out in force. All the food you'd expect was there, and the arts and crafts—I did some early Christmas shopping—and cultural performances. It was all there to behold and it was just an outstanding event. I pay tribute to Mr Archie Atiau, who's president of the Cook Islands Council of Queensland Inc. Archie actually gave a dance, in the lead-up to his welcoming speech, which signified his enthusiasm for the celebration and how great it was for the community to come together. I also congratulate Councillor Mindy Russell from Logan City Council, who was in attendance. She gave a dance as well; she caught the enthusiasm. She is a great worker in the community in Logan City. So I pay tribute to Councillor Russell. I was the next speaker. I didn't dance physically. I was dancing on the inside; I was celebrating on the inside. I managed to restrain myself and didn't give any physical—

Senator SCARR: Senator Walsh, I didn't hear that through your mask, but I'll assume you were complimenting me on my restraint! I did manage to restrain myself. But it was a great celebration. It also reflected, in my view, the great generosity of spirit of the Cook Islands people.

I saw that the previous week when I attended BASE HQ, which has been set up by the Cook Islands Council of Queensland Inc, under the leadership of Archie Atiau. Every Wednesday they provide emergency food hampers to people in need in the community. It doesn't matter whether or not you're of Cook Islands background. They're there helping people in need, reflecting the generosity of spirit of Cook Islanders everywhere. I congratulate the volunteers who were there that day: Teela Komene, Nooroa and Terii Hagai, Tai Kairua, Justin Tautua, Danteus Roberts-Tugaga, Papa Maata Moeroa and Anita Tugaga. Congratulations, one and all. You're outstanding community members and it was an honour to be in your company.

The week before, I attended another celebration, which was for Fijian Independence Day—again, another great community event, on this occasion celebrating Fiji's independence, which occurred on 10 October 1970. Senators present in the chamber will know that Australia has a very deep bond with Fiji, and this is exemplified by the Fiji-Australia Vuvale Partnership which has been entered into during the term of the Scott Morrison government. There was a wonderful dinner on the Friday night, and I was given the great honour of participating in traditional Fijian welcome ceremonies, including the drinking of kava, which I must say I quite enjoy. I actually quite enjoy a drink of kava, especially when it's in such wonderful company.

During the course of that night and the cultural and sports celebrations the next day, a total of $5,000 was raised for a project undertaken by the International Women's Association in Fiji to provide cloth nappies and other essentials to new mothers in Fiji. It was a great example of our Pacific island diasporas working together to raise funds to send back to their island homes. I congratulate everyone involved in that event.

There were many elders of the community in attendance. In particular, I'd like to pay tribute to the President of the Fiji Community Association of Queensland Inc., Dr Vilaseri Tuicolo. Dr Tuicolo is an obstetrician. He provides outstanding medical services, especially in regional Queensland, and he's a great leader of the Fijian diaspora. I also pay tribute to the Honorary Consul of Fiji in Brisbane, Mr Hari Raniga. The Raniga family has made an outstanding contribution, in both Fiji and Australia, through community work and business work. Honorary Consul, you should be congratulated for your efforts and those of your family. It was an honour to hear the story of your family and all that you contribute to the wellbeing of Fiji and Australia.

My good friend Ratu Alifereti Maseinawa was the sports and cultural convener. Ratu, you did a magnificent job pulling it all together. You're a great Queenslander, and your leadership in helping to pull together the sports and cultural day was just outstanding. It was great to spend time in your company on Saturday. I also want to congratulate Mosese Rauluni, who was involved in organising the rugby sevens, along with Kelevi Tuicolo and Donna Lobendahn. Thank you to the dinner conveners, Kathy Harry Jaeger, Donnalyn Sing, Susana Bartlett and Donna Lobendahn; the soccer organiser, Raj Rao; the cultural festival organisers, Pate Ganita and Netani Lesi; the organisers of the children's activities, Valami and Sera Roqica; and everyone else involved in putting on a wonderful cultural and sports celebration. It was just outstanding. So, in conclusion, I say to all my Fijian friends, the Fijian diaspora: Ni sa bula vinaka.

Senator WALSH (Victoria) (12:47): It's been said that the Morrison government has a women problem, but I think it's more accurate to say that the women of Australia have a Morrison government problem. As we near the end of 2021 and edge closer to the next election, the women of Australia are asking themselves this: What have the Morrison government done for us? What positive change have they made to the lives of Australian women? What have they done to improve the jobs of Australian women? What have they done to fight the insecurity that Australian women still face today? The answer is: not nearly enough.

This government's track record when it comes to women is absolutely abysmal. Under this government, women have been neglected, disrespected and undervalued. Australian women have been neglected in the postpandemic recovery, and women's economic security is going backwards. Despite women being the hardest hit by the COVID pandemic, there is no plan to support women's jobs or women's wages, going forward. Throughout the pandemic, women have experienced higher levels of job loss and lost hours than men. Almost 30,000 more women than men have left the jobs market during the most recent lockdowns, because women are more likely to be employed in insecure, part-time work and because women are the majority in the industries that were hardest hit during COVID—industries like hospitality, tourism and the arts.

At the other end of the spectrum, in sectors like nursing, early childhood education and aged care, essential women workers have been completely neglected by this government. These are the women who kept our essential services running, day in, day out, despite facing personal risk themselves, and for these women there was no relief on the home front. Added to the already high levels of unpaid work was the challenge of home schooling. Millions of women across the country shared in the daily struggle to balance everything—working from home, increased housework, hours of home schooling and the seemingly never-ending sourcing of snacks for bored and hungry children. It left the women of Australia exhausted and burnt out. It has also left many women poorer, because to cope with the extra workload many Australian women reduced their hours or left the workforce altogether, and many of these women are not guaranteed to get these hours back as lockdowns ease. This reduction in income from lost jobs and reduced hours saw women forced to withdraw from their super accounts like never before to survive, super accounts which were already on average half the size of men's.

The Morrison government has no idea what the women of Australia have contributed during this pandemic. The Prime Minister simply doesn't see it. As a result, the Morrison government has no plan for women in the economic recovery going forward. So, without a plan, women will see long fought for gains in equality go backwards—insecure work will get worse, the retirement savings gap is set to get worse and their earnings will go backwards. The women of Australia simply cannot afford a Morrison government.

Australian women are sick of being disrespected by this government, as was demonstrated by the 100,000 women who marched outside parliament demanding that the government listen. But what was the Prime Minister's response to this public display of anger and frustration? He said that the protesters should be grateful because 'Not far from here, such marches, even now are being met with bullets'. The women of Australia however did not feel grateful. They felt angry, and they felt angry when it took this government 15 months to respond to the groundbreaking Respect@Work report. They felt angry when the government legislated only six of the 55 recommendations of that report, and they felt angry when the government voted against employers having to take active measures to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. These are all actions which would have shown that this government had some basic respect for the women of Australia, actions which would have shown that they listened, which would have shown that they were taking real action to ensure women are safe at work. But, really, what can we expect? This is, after all, a government where former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, not globally renowned for his respect for women, appointed himself the Minister for Women. This is a government led by a prime minister who defended the now fully disgraced Minister Christian Porter, a prime minister who was accused of victim blaming by sexual assault survivor Brittany Higgins, a prime minister who has told us all that he can only relate to women as the 'father of daughters'. The women of Australia deserve to be respected, not dismissed by their Prime Minister and by their government.

Women have long been undervalued for their essential work, and it's never been clearer under this government. At the same time as women have been disproportionately impacted by COVID, they were at the front lines delivering our essential services. And how has the Morrison government valued these essential workers? Let's look at the early childhood educators. Let's look at the aged-care workers.

This year the government stood up and declared a pink budget, pointing to announcements in aged care and child care, but how much of this is actually flowing to the pockets of the hundreds of thousands of women who work in these critical, essential sectors? Nothing. The government has refused to do anything meaningful to value the work of these professionals. They have refused to support the aged-care work value case that's running in the Fair Work Commission, despite the Fair Work Commissioner asking them to. We know that the wages for aged-care workers are just not enough to live on. We have heard time and time again from aged-care workers, like Cathy who came to the Senate Select Committee on Job Security and said the following: 'Who cares for the care worker? We're the working poor and have to retire below the poverty line. We look after your parents. Remember, we're the second last stop for your loved ones.' So who cares for the care workers? Well, not the Morrison government and certainly not the same Prime Minister who praised early educators as essential one day and then kicked them off JobKeeper the next, when early childhood educators were still seeing their hours cut because of enrolments being reduced, when early childhood educators were needed to ensure that other essential workers could go to work, all while working in an environment where it was impossible to socially distance, at the height of the pandemic.

The Morrison government has never valued the essential care sectors, which are dominated by women. After all, this is a government whose own members reportedly described early learning as 'outsourced parenting'. This is a government whose own members say that women should do this care work for love and not for a living wage. But these are two of the fastest-growing sectors of the Australian economy, sectors which between them employ around 500,000 workers, sectors which are facing workforce shortages of tens of thousands of workers, driven by low pay and lack of respect. I have heard from educators and aged-care workers, as recently as last week, who are thinking of leaving the jobs that they love simply because they can't afford to stay in them. So what is this government prepared to do about that? It seems, after eight long years, that the answer is absolutely nothing.

This is a government which continually disrespects women and their invaluable contribution to our economy and our community. Australian women contribute so much to this country, but their own government continues to neglect them. Their own government continues to disrespect them. Their own government continues to undervalue them and the work that they do. This government will never stand up for women, ever. This government never has stood up for women, ever. The women of Australia have made their judgement, and they have found this government wanting.

Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (12:57): [by video link] Over the next few weeks, health insurers around the country will be busy finalising their applications to hike up insurance premiums. Of course, it's exactly the same thing every year. Insurers ask for as much as they believe they can get away with. The Department of Health spends months knocking out the most egregious claims, and the minister dutifully announces that consumers are going to cop it once again but it all would have been much worse if not for his personal intervention.

As usual, every Australian with private cover will spend March thinking about whether it's worth keeping before the hikes take effect in April. The vast majority will keep some form of coverage just to avoid a massive tax hit, but they do so reluctantly every year. They sense that something is fundamentally wrong with a system that forces them to buy a high-cost, low-value service just to avoid some tax. More and more Australians are voting with their feet and opting for the lowest-cost, lowest-value insurance products. This is a clear sign that they don't see much value in private coverage beyond tax relief.

We also see more Australians intentionally forgoing the tax benefits and opting out of private cover entirely. Many Australians, like me, grapple with the question of whether it's worth having private coverage and whether it's worth having anything more than the most basic level of cover. But that's an impossible question to answer. One reason is that our future health is simply unknowable. None of us has any idea if we'll have an accident, if we'll get sick or if we're destined to live a long and healthy life. Of course, we can look at the statistical data to get a sense of what tends to happen to people in our age group who share similar lifestyles to ours, but that only tells us about averages and tendencies; it says nothing about us specifically. Normally this uncertainty is the very reason that having insurance generally. We insure parcels against the risk of loss or theft. We insure our cars against the risk of accidents. We insure our homes against the risk of natural disasters. But what risks does private health insurance actually protect us against? It can't possibly be the risk of protecting yourself or your family from medical or financial catastrophe, because that's not what private health cover really provides.

As soon as you go to sign up for private health insurance you're confronted with a bewildering array of options, none of which simply covers everything. Even top-level coverage has exclusions, waiting periods, caps and other limitations. And, should you ever experience a catastrophe, you'll quickly learn that what you want or need and what your insurance covers are often very different things. We call it 'insurance' because it's really an elaborate scheme to partly discount a range of services you'll probably never need. It's a business that depends on confusing consumers, on massive taxpayer subsidies and on promising more than will ever be delivered.

If I sound cynical, that's because I am. I have spoken before about the horrible experiences of my late wife, Kristin, throughout her four-year cancer journey. What benefit did we get from having private health insurance? Very little. In theory, our coverage guaranteed a range of benefits that justified the huge amounts that we, along with millions of Australians, pay our insurers. But the reality was always different and always disappointing. In theory, private cover gave us a choice of specialist. In reality, it wasn't our choice; it was often our GP's choice. There is no way for patients to know whether our GPs are referring us to the top specialist in the country or just some mate they golf with. There are no data and no transparency about the performance, quality or cost of different health professionals. There is no way for patients to know whether they can trust the person who may hold their lives in their hands.

In theory, private cover gave us financial security—the comfort of knowing that we would not have to worry about money while going through the worst ordeal of our lives. In reality, my wife's operations alone left me out of pocket well and truly—way over $10,000 more than we got back. In theory, private cover also means access to premium facilities and care in private rooms in what you would think to be top-class hospitals staffed by the best nurses and allied health professionals on the market. In reality, you'd be a lot better off in Adelaide's public hospitals than in the many run-down private hospitals that we have here—and it's similar in other states. And you'd also be more likely to get a comfortable private room in a public hospital nowadays.

Australians have grown increasingly aware that the big promises of private health cover are untrustworthy. That's why we've seen the proliferation of extras in recent years—I suppose the insurers realise they have to give something back so people feel they are getting something for their money. But, even there, the insurers can't help themselves. Every time they expand the list of benefits available to their customers, they tighten eligibility, cap the benefits amounts and hike up the premiums. I wonder if there is a single private health insurance customer in this country who thinks their benefits are worthwhile—or a single one who doesn't feel a bit silly using their private cover to get a few dollars off the cost of a yoga mat. For years now, fewer Australians have been willing to pay for private health insurance—fewer people who see any value in those excessive premiums and empty promises. And, despite hiking premiums each year, health insurers are steadily becoming less profitable and less reputable—which is pretty remarkable given that the product, the service they are supposedly offering, is something that a lot of people want.

From where I'm standing, it is clear that private health insurance is becoming unsustainable. It's unsustainable financially and it's unsustainable politically. Sooner or later, politicians will realise that there is growing support for stricter regulation of health insurers, growing support for cutting taxpayer support, growing support for blocking premium hikes, and growing support for expanding the ACCC's role so they are not just monitoring insurers but actively enforcing competition in the sector or even designing standardised products which must be offered by every insurer. That's the industry's current trajectory, but it doesn't have to go that way.

If the industry wants to change course and it wants to rebuild its customer base and rebuild its reputation, it can do this. It can make that choice, but it has to make changes. It has to rebuild our trust. Cut out all the nonsense—the caps, the limits, the useless basics and everything that is meant to confuse or mislead customers. Cut it all out and focus instead on delivering what Australians want and expect from health insurance—that is, a quality product that they can rely on in times of crisis. Make it easy for people to compare your offering with the competition's and make sure they can see that you deliver true value for money. I spent many years building businesses, and that's what it's all about: building trust and delivering value. That's the outcome I want for the private health insurance industry and that's the outcome Australians want.

But if the industry stay on this path, if they choose not to lift their game, I will be a strong voice, with many others, for intervention and regulation. I will call for all their subsidies to be stripped away and channelled back into the public health system, because the public health system generally is far more effective and often doing a better job than private health systems. I will also push for premium hikes to be blocked and for the ACCC to step in. So it is time private health really look at themselves and make appropriate changes for the benefit of us all.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (13:06): On the front page of today's Courier Mail is a very alarming story that should concern every Queenslander as it is a bloody attack on democracy and free speech in Queensland. It's an attack that affects all 577 local government councillors and mayors across Queensland. The article reports how the Mayor of the Barcaldine Regional Council, Councillor Sean Dillon, is under investigation by the Orwellian Office of the Independent Assessor for comments he made at a council meeting back in February when he questioned the logistics of the vaccine rollout in rural communities. The council was discussing the Central West Hospital and Health Service, a division of Queensland Health, and its plan to vaccinate entire rural towns through one of its visits.

To paraphrase the conversation, Councillor Dillon rightly raised his concerns about the Central West Hospital and Health Service's ability to vaccinate a majority of locals in the limited time. He raised particular concerns for individuals who had mobility issues or those who were unable to attend the local hall. Councillor Dillon was concerned that the health service probably hadn't considered those particular residents. Moreover, he lacked confidence in their ability to advertise the visits and was concerned about the logistical challenges of administering the jabs to the entire community. He said: 'Someone thinking they are going to do it in one pass is someone who has got no idea of regional Queensland. It's simply not going to work.'

The OIA—the gestapo of local government in Queensland—is alleging that Councillor Dillon made comments that could be considered detrimental to public confidence in a health service provider and lead agency in the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccination program in the region. It alleges Councillor Dillon has been reasonably suspected of inappropriate conduct for making statements in a public forum that are not in the best interests of the community. The last time I checked one of the primary roles of local government councillors is to raise concerns on behalf of their local community. Indeed, if councillors and mayors are not raising concerns on behalf of their local community, they are not doing their jobs. So I say well done to Councillor Dillon. I say well done to all councillors and all mayors across Queensland, regardless of your political colour, for continuing to stand up for your local communities. The comments made were undoubtedly valid concerns of the local community. So the mayor is simply being investigated for doing his job.

I spoke this morning to Councillor Dillon. He is expecting that the sandal-wearing jobsworths in the OIA will sack him. I've also spoken to the LGAQ, who are prepared to go to the High Court over this bloody attack on freedom of speech. This investigation is a blatant attack by the Queensland government on free speech. The OIA acts with minimal oversight or review and is used for nothing more than whipping up frivolous complaints that take an inordinate amount of time to investigate and cost local councils and local ratepayers thousands of dollars to defend. So who is watching the watchdog? We have had the CCC Logan case and now we have the Office of the Independent Assessor or, as The Courier Mail rather amusingly calls them, the 'office of idiot actions'.

As a senator, I speak to lots of councillors and mayors across Queensland, and here are some of the concerns from councillors. Investigations take too long. Many go for two years, and the office of independent assessment has no benchmark or timeliness for reporting. Not enough frivolous or vexatious complaints get knocked out at the assessment stage. Trivial matters like people being blocked on the council Facebook page for making derogatory comments end up going through the OIA and sent back to council to deal with. Both sides lawyer up and it costs councils thousands and thousands of dollars to deal with the complaint, not to mention the time it takes away from councils and councillors when they want to be dealing with the real issues in their communities. Councillors who have had their cases dismissed still end up being publicly reported on a register.

Despite this gestapo organisation only starting back in December 2018, some matters go back almost a decade. The state government will say they are independent, which is a cop-out. They were established by the state government, by legislative amendments in the Local Government Act, with very little, if any, oversight. They are nothing more than a self-serving money pit who go around the state whipping up complaints. They told one council that it wasn't a good thing that there were no complaints being made in that area because people obviously didn't know about the OIA or how to make a complaint.

This mob need to be reined in, they need more oversight in the legislation or, ideally, they actually should be abolished. Councillors are now afraid to make decisions or talk about issues in their community, and that is what they were elected to do. Councils are the most local form of government. They are the ones closest to the community. We need to be supporting councils, not making it tougher for people to stand up and be elected representatives in their local areas. Not only were Counsellor Dillon's concerns valid but this latest fiasco is yet another example of Palaszczuk turning Queensland into a nanny state.

Talking about Palaszczuk, whose state Labor government continues to fail regional Queensland, I want to talk about Paradise Dam. Every sitting fortnight I talk about Paradise Dam because state Labor are doing nothing about it. Unfortunately for the farmers affected by what is effectively a neutron bomb that has gone off in Wide Bay-Burnett with the destruction of Paradise Dam through the lowering of its wall, there is no good news. Do you know what is left for the farmers in Wide Bay-Burnett to do? Just pray for rain. That is what's left in Queensland: praying for rain. They don't build dams under state Labor; they just pray for rain. I say well done to Tom Marland from Marland Law, who is leading the Paradise Dam class action. He said:

With such low water allocations and no certainty about the future of the dam, farmers are left with few options but to pray for rain to keep their crops alive.

Shame on state Labor for doing that.

Everybody here knows that I am a big fan of the ABC. I believe that the best friend you can ever have is an honest friend, and I am very honest about the ABC. I have previously talked about my reform program for the ABC, but clearly the ABC aren't listening. So I am calling upon the minister for communications to commission a commission of inquiry into whether there is a need for public broadcasting in Australia, with specific reference to the ABC, its operation and its charter.

The ABC is like a lost teenager, aimlessly floating through time and trying to find itself, unperturbed by authority, yet infatuated with its own self-importance. In the absence of any serious review over the previous decades, the ABC has evolved into a self-serving bureaucracy that is out of touch with many Australians and that costs the Australian taxpayers $1.1 billion a year. After all, since the 1930s, when the ABC was first created, it has never been beyond the reproach of government review or reform, so why should it be now? That's why we need the urgent commission of an inquiry into public broadcasting and the ABC. In particular, we need to determine the ABC's applicability in the 21st century, with reference to how large the national broadcaster should be and to what extent they should compete in the modern media market. The review must define what is and what is not acceptable by a public broadcaster which effectively upholds the Australian taxpayer as a beneficiary of the ABC.

The review will need to accommodate for the ABC charter to be reformed to make it fit for purpose. In doing so, the review can serve as a mechanism to cut through the bureaucracy and minimise any waste of taxpayers' money. Refining the scope of the ABC's operations will promote strict purpose metrics that will demand compliance and mitigate any existing lack of priority for everyday Australians. Any aspect of the ABC's operation that falls outside these purpose metrics should be consolidated, privatised or cease operating.

There is a lot of discussion in this building and in the other place about net zero emissions by 2050. Last night, I talked about why we should build the Tully Millstream hydroelectric scheme. But if you're really serious about net zero emissions by 2050, we should have nuclear power in Australia. Back in 2019, the member for Hinkler and I wrote to the Prime Minister calling for an inquiry into nuclear energy in Australia. Now, as we are building a roadmap to net zero emissions by 2050, I am calling upon the government to make sure that nuclear energy is part of that roadmap. We've got a third of the world's uranium and we are geologically stable. It is in our national interest to make sure that we have nuclear energy in this country to provide affordable, cheap and reliable power as part of our energy mix.

Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (13:16): I rise to speak about a virus that has destroyed the lives and livelihoods of decent, hardworking Australians. That virus is, of course, Alan Joyce, the CEO of Qantas, and his executive leadership. Yesterday, SafeWork NSW filed criminal charges against Qantas over the sacking of Theo Seremetidis. Let me tell you about Theo. Theo was an aircraft cleaner who had worked for Qantas. Theo was a trained, qualified and experienced health and safety representative for his team. Theo had worked in Qantas for almost seven years when COVID-19 began to spread around the world. In early 2020, before our borders closed to China, planes continued to arrive at Australia's airports from COVID-19 hotspots, including Wuhan. Theo and his team were responsible for cleaning those planes. I will quote Theo directly on what happened next:

At the start of the pandemic, we were directed to clean planes with just water—no sanitiser for the trays or anything. PPE was not mandated despite managers wearing hazmat suits. We were not even provided with masks or disinfectant. I made numerous approaches to management to ask for further PPE or for the risk assessments they had done. After everything was declined, I directed a group of workers to cease unsafe work, which is one of the health and safety representative powers … At the same time, I and other workers received threats of disciplinary action. That day I was stood down was my last day at Qantas.

This is truly a national scandal. Alan Joyce was forcing his own employees to clean planes arriving from Wuhan without PPE, without disinfectant and with nothing more than spray bottles of water. The Qantas management was so concerned that they were wearing hazmat suits, but they didn't provide any PPE to the exposed cleaning team. Theo stood up not just to protect himself and not just to protect his team but to protect every Australian who was unknowingly boarding a Qantas plane that had not been safely disinfected. For his trouble, Alan Joyce stood him down immediately. Theo has never gone back to work.

A few months later, Theo was one of the 2,000 Qantas workers who woke up to learn their jobs had been outsourced, in the middle of a pandemic, at the same time that Qantas was receiving $2 billion in public money to keep the workforce intact. Alan Joyce outsourced those jobs to cut costs, to cut wages and to cut conditions for his employees. Some of these workers had been working for Qantas for many, many decades.

Of course, many of the companies he outsourced those jobs to are notorious for their poor labour standards. One, Swissport, was subject to an expose by the ABC which revealed its workers are living in makeshift camps in Sydney airport between split shifts. That's how low their wages are, and those are their conditions. Swissport workers were sleeping on sheets on the concrete floor and on dirty mattresses beneath baggage carousels. Last week, Qantas appeared before the job security inquiry. I asked whether Qantas even knows whether the outsourced workers it uses are receiving a living wage. The response I received was telling: Qantas's chief counsel responded, 'What's a living wage?'

This illegal outsourcing is another national scandal. The Federal Court agrees, which is why it has ruled that this outsourcing decision was illegal. It wasn't simply a right, as has been claimed by those opposite—in particular by Senator Stoker, who made criticisms of these workers because they had failed to keep their jobs with Qantas. She criticised those workers because they had decent wages and conditions that had been negotiated, many without any action, directly with the company. That company signed off willingly and then turned around, double-crossed the workers and did such deals as it did.

Senator SHELDON: I can tell you this, Senator Stoker: I would suggest you go back through Hansard, because I certainly will. The Federal Court agrees, which is why it has ruled the outsourcing decision was illegal, Senator Stoker.

There aren't enough hours in the day to go through the long list of crimes that Alan Joyce has committed against his employees. I'm thinking now about Peter Seymour, and I ask those opposite to consider this story. Peter had worked at Qantas for 31 years when he was diagnosed with stage 5 prostate cancer in late 2019. Peter continued working as long as he could before, in early 2020, he was eventually forced onto sick leave. At this point, Peter was getting radiotherapy treatment almost every day. When the pandemic reached Australia, Alan Joyce booted Peter off the sick leave he had accrued over 31 years at Qantas. He was stood down and, when he tried to recover that sick leave, Qantas fought Peter, a cancer victim, in the Federal Court. Peter said that he had been forced to borrow money from family members to pay his medical bills.

What Alan Joyce has done to Peter, Theo and those 2,000 workers who saw their jobs illegally outsourced is un-Australian. The ACCC should be investigating Qantas for false advertising over its use of the tagline 'Spirit of Australia'. Alan Joyce said he needed to sack those 2,000 people to save Qantas. Well, I say we only need to sack one, and that is Alan Joyce. Instead, he continues to pocket millions of dollars year after year, regardless of the performance of the company. Of course, we've seen subsidies squeezed out of taxpayers and the Qantas workforce as part of his strategy of bonuses. When are the Morrison government going to utter a single word in defence of workers like Peter and Theo? I won't hold my breath.

What's quite clear is that the prosecution is the first of its kind anywhere in Australia under the uniform WH&S laws. TWU NSW state secretary Richard Olsen said that the regulator's decision to prosecute Qantas was 'a landmark moment for health and safety across Australia'. He said:

SafeWork's prosecution of Qantas for these offences is the first of its kind and is a massive step forward for work health and safety in NSW and across the nation … Qantas stood Theo down simply for trying to protect himself and his colleagues from COVID, and now the company is rightly facing criminal charges for doing so.

He said this was the same company that had been found, as I said, to have illegally dismissed those 2,000 workers, and he said:

We hope the Court throws the book at Qantas for their outrageous decision to stand down a worker who was simply trying to keep himself and his colleagues safe at work.

While the number of charges laid is unknown, each offence attracts a maximum penalty of $594,000.21, meaning that Qantas could face fines running into the millions, not including any compensation potentially awarded to Mr Seremetidis. The case is listed for its first hearing in the New South Wales District Court on 6 December.

In addition to SafeWork prosecution, Qantas is also facing an adverse action case in the Federal Court brought by the TWU relating to Theo's being stood down, as well as the separate ongoing Federal Court case about Qantas's illegal decision to outsource 2,000 workers. A SafeWork NSW spokesperson says the charges relate to QGS standing down a worker who raised concerns about a potential exposure of workers to COVID-19 while cleaning aircraft in early 2020. The TWU have put forward that they believe that the prosecution is the first of its kind anywhere in the country. They went on to talk about the importance of making sure that this adverse action is properly dealt with in the courts. This company could turn over a new leaf. It could actually do what predecessors to Alan Joyce did and engage with the workforce, have a relationship with the workforce, a workforce that took standdowns without pay on many occasions during crises, but not at the point of a gun. (Time expired)

Senator WATT (Queensland) (13:26): We're now into hour 70,100 of the longest-running soap opera in Australian politics, and that is the soap opera of the Liberal and National parties trying to work out where they stand on climate change and net zero emissions. As I said on ABC Capricornia radio today, this soap opera has been running so long that it makes Days of Our Lives seem like a miniseries. This has been going on for the entire life of this government, and the only people who are losing out as a result of this government's failure to deal with this issue are regional Australians, who are seeing jobs that should be going into our regions disappear offshore to countries who are getting ahead of us.

Let's be very clear: this pantomime that we are seeing in Canberra this week—where we have Liberals fighting Liberals, Liberals fighting Nationals, Nationals fighting Liberals, Nationals fighting Nationals—is a farce. We all know that the government is going to reach net zero emissions. Senator Abetz must be just shaking in his boots about the fact that he has built his political career on fighting against climate change action and he knows that the government is going to sign up to it. He knows that this is a foregone conclusion and he knows that those people from the National Party who are carrying on day in, day out, are just playing up for the cameras and yet again are going to prove that they are completely inadequate when it comes to the task of representing our regions.

Let's be clear: the government's net zero emissions plan, which is coming any day now, is a fake plan from a fake Prime Minister, supported by fake farmers and fake miners. This is a government full of fakes from top to bottom. Senator Canavan at least had the decency to call it out yesterday when he pointed out that this government's slogan 'Technology not taxes' is complete crap, complete rubbish, completely meaningless. He likened it to rainbows and puppies. So, for every minister that we see get up in question time today and rabbit on about technology not taxes, just substitute rainbows and puppies. That's what they're talking about and that's what they've been called out for by one of their own members.

Net zero is not the only example where we see the Nationals letting down our regions. They have let down their regions even on regional development grants, where it's just been revealed that more than half of this government's regional development grants have gone to the major cities. One of these regional development grants went to that famous regional football club called Collingwood. That's how regional this National Party government is when it comes to supporting the regions. They've let down the regions on casualisation, they've let down the regions on disaster management and they've let down the regions on GPs and aged care, and now they're doing it again by letting jobs disappear. (Time expired)

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (13:30): It's my pleasure to be able to read this speech that was written by an 11-year-old boy in my electorate, named Sujaan, as part of the Youth Voice in Parliament Week. Thank you for taking the time to write about such an important issue, Sujaan. I can't wait to see you in politics in years to come. Here is Sujaan's speech:

Hi. I'm Sujaan, I'm 11 and I am from the Canberra electorate.

Can you think back to when you were my age, and what you wanted the world to look like in 20 years' time?

You might have imagined flying cars, or hoverboards, or a world where everyone has access to healthy food and clean water. But would you have imagined the only living structure you can spot from outer space, our very own Great Barrier Reef to be at risk of dying because of carbon in the atmosphere?

The current generation of adults needs to fix the problems in today's world, so when people of my generation are adults we don't have to spend our time fixing the problems that we have now. We will have to spend our time solving problems or inventing new ways to do things in the future which we haven't even begun to imagine yet.

There are small things we can all do, like not littering, turning off lights when you leave the room and not buying products containing palm oil. But there are bigger things that people and governments can do to reduce the destruction of nature. For example, encouraging everyone to use renewable energy sources and making sure forests and natural areas are better protected from logging and deforestation.

In 20 years, I want to be able to see a world where no one is destroying forests, killing wildlife, and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.

When you were young, did you hope the leaders would do a better job to help fulfill your hopes about the future? Now that you're the leaders, do you think you could help the children of our generation to fulfill ours?

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (13:32): Three thousand, one hundred and thirty-nine Australians lost their lives to suicide last year. That's about nine Australians every day. On top of that stark figure, a staggering 65,000 attempted suicide in 2020. One of the risk factors for suicide is relationship breakdown. Research confirms that separated people have a higher risk of attempting suicide and developing suicidal thoughts. In short, relationship breakdowns have their consequences. They are real, they are deep and they are potentially very destructive. That's the bad news. The good news is Parents Beyond Breakup.

Parents Beyond Breakup is a national suicide prevention charity focused on supporting separating parents experiencing trauma through family breakdown. This charity has effectively gone about its vital task for two decades. One wonders what the statistics would be without their highly effective work. Under the able leadership of Brendan Blomeley and CEO Gillian Hunt, Parents Beyond Breakup is making a real difference, keeping separating parents alive and in their children's lives by providing hope, support and a voice.

Parents Beyond Breakup has an impressive delivery model based on lived experience. It only supports separated parents and grandparents in distress through relationship breakdown and child access issues. It ensures the safety of parents coming to groups, and in the last year it has supported for 1,451 face-to-face engagements, 1,429 online engagements and 1,778 helpline calls. Parents Beyond Breakup does wonderful restorative work. It deserves our support.

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (13:34): This week is Youth Voice in Parliament Week. It has been wonderful to hear my colleagues across the chamber read out so many heartfelt and articulate statements from young people setting out their vision for 2041. I'm delighted today to be able to share this speech from Gillian Gerry. Gillian is a 21-year-old student from Brisbane who is currently studying commerce and politics at the University of Canberra and who hopes one day to be standing in this chamber herself, but only if the toxic culture changes. Gillian says: '"A lying cow", "stop shagging men", "a menopausal monster", "deliberately barren"—these remarks would be reprimandable in any ordinary workplace, so why on our parliamentary floor are they acceptable? Picture this, a young girl in a study of society class being told that, as of 2015, female representation in parliament was a mere 30 per cent, and all the media could care about what the way each of these women looked—too old, frumpy, ugly, a slut. She took this as her call to action. Campaign after campaign says the future is female, yet we sit here hoping that women's interest in politics will simply reignite after she's had children, once she's finished in the workforce or after her duties as a Stepford wife at complete. Meanwhile, all she reads are derogatory headlines. Currently, there are young women, like myself, willing and ready to take on the call to action, but our concern is the Australian commentary. A young man, he has ambition. But a young woman, what could she possibly know about the world. Picture this, in 20 years, nothing has changed in our political sphere. That is a call to action.'

Thank you for letting me share your powerful words and your call to action, Gillian. I, along with my Greens colleagues, hear you, and we'll keep working to make this place somewhere young women know is a place for them.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (13:36): I'm proud to give this speech by Arya Moodley as part of the Youth Voice in Parliament Week campaign. It is a sentiment that I very much agree with. In the words that she gives the chamber today, she says: 'My name is Arya Moodley, I am 16 years old, and the electorate of Curtin is my home, the land of the Wadjak Noongar people. It is a place that I am proud to call home. My vision for Australia is that, in the next 20 years, we will have our first female Prime Minister of colour. As a young woman, a person of colour and of migrant parents, I believe that diverse leadership is paramount. Diversity is a powerful tool for unity, a symbol that we have evolved and are ready to invite the most marginalised to the table and celebrate their attributes. For this vision to be a reality, we need action; we need to empower that young girl out there now through education so that in 20 years, she will confidently stand on a national stage. We need to close the gap, ensuring that the government provides equitable resources so that no girl, no woman, no individual is disadvantaged by their geographical location or their ethnicity. We need, as a society, to change our perception of women in politics so that we foster an inclusive environment that lifts them rather than one that tears them down. It is through education, equity and positive role models that we will allow that young girl of colour in 20 years to represent the great country of Australia.'

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (13:38): How would Australia fare under a Greens government? In 'Greensland', water will be limited to 120 litres per day, per person. After that, smart meters will shut the water off. With no water allowed for gardening, home gardens will die. Rural restrictions will shut down family farms. Productive land will be used to farm carbon, breeding feral pests and noxious weeds, not food.

The Greens' policy of a smaller farming footprint will lead to big corporations centralising near-city production of food-like substances sold through corporate supermarkets. End-to-end corporate supply chains will exploit this monopoly to create deliberate shortages and raise prices.

The Greens' policy of unlimited immigration will make these shortages of everything worse to enable more government control. Family homes will be turned into so-called environmentally friendly small homes—boxes—stacked in high-rise blocks in megacities with mass transit replacing the freedom of private car ownership. Travel for recreation will be limited to interurban travel; the bush locked up and returned to the gyre. Electricity will be rationed. Smart meters will remotely switch off unauthorised activity. Real wages will fall as businesses increase prices to meet rising power bills, brown-outs and green imposts.

In Greensland, gender is not related to genitals and can change daily unless a child permanently changes their gender from one to the other using gender mutilation surgery. The inconsistency of that logic escapes the Greens. Sex education will start in kindergarten and drive the Greens war on gender. The Greens are blindly advocating forced vaccinations that enrich foreign drug companies. My Body, My Choice is no longer a Greens's value. Greens-land is a world of total corporate control without freedom, without joy, without opportunity—a dystopian nightmare for our families and our communities.

Senator McDONALD (Queensland) (13:40): [by video link] Crocodiles and guns might get big headlines, but they do nothing for North Queensland's regions crying out for facilities and services. I rise to congratulate Better Together Community Support in Atherton in Far North Queensland on their successful application to the Building Better Regions Fund and to highlight just how important these grants are to our smaller towns. Building Together is a vital service in Atherton, providing domestic violence support, counselling and online psychology sessions, family mediation, youth programs, suicide prevention, and drug and alcohol awareness, just to name some. CEO John Russell and board members such as former regional Mayor Joe Paronella, David Duncan and Graham Wardle have been tireless in their desire to expand and improve our new community centre, which the town sorely needs.

I'm delighted to say that, thanks to the Building Better Regions Fund, a $2.2 million contribution will be made to a $4.4 million dollar project to build a fit-for-purpose community centre in the Atherton Tableland. Criticism has been made of these grants, describing them as purely political. Well, try telling that to the grateful recipients. I will never stop fighting for local councils, especially when their local member doesn't.

These councils don't have the rates base to afford all the facilities that make their areas more liveable for residents and attractive to tourists. They need representatives in Canberra to constantly push their case for town improvements so they can concentrate on budgeting for other core responsibilities. Effective representation isn't about self-promotion or blaming others for your failures; it's about delivering for people who need it most.

This BBRF funding, plus the billion set aside for regional roads, upgrades and town improvements, is crucial for our regions and they deserve every cent. These regional councils are achieving extraordinary outcomes.

Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (13:42): [by video link] If there's one area where this government is absolutely world-class it is in creating solutions to problems that don't exist. Take the new charities regulation ACNC 2021 Measures No. 2. These apparently solve a problem of uncertainty when charities commit minor legal infractions. It's not something the public have raised, it's not even something the charities are worried about and it's not even something the regulator has called for, but this government has bravely soldiered on and created a solution for a non-problem. Not surprisingly, they've managed to botch it.

The regulations mean charities will be deregistered if officers commit some re-offences or if a charity's resources are used in offences. A charity can also be deregistered if the regulator thinks they may break the laws. So charities will have to steer clear of any work where there is even a risk of minor legal infractions. That means no involvement with protests, no involvement with civil disobedience and no involvement with anyone released from prison.

In solving a problem that doesn't exist, the government has created huge new problems. There is a real frustration with this. There are genuine problems with the charities and non-profit sectors. There are dodgy non-profits out there—organisations set up purely to exploit the generosity of Australians—but that is where the government really should be focused. Instead, we get these other measures which will harm legitimate charities and make it harder for them to do their good work. A disallowance motion has already been circulated, and I hope the Senate joins me in voting down these harmful and unnecessary regulations.

Senator MARIELLE SMITH (South Australia) (13:44): [by video link] Today I am so proud to be giving a speech written by Shania Gamble, from Adelaide, as part of Youth Voice in Parliament Week. Here's Shania's speech:

As of 2021, the Australian population accounts for approximately 13 million females.

Of this population, an average of 306,000 have given birth to a child this year.

My name is Shania Gamble, I am 20 years old, and contribute to the population that support women in their birth as a student midwife.

I have been inspired, amazed, appalled, and disappointed at times observing the care women receive.

The health system needs help, going backwards isn't an option and standing still is not enough.

In 20 years, I envision Australia to improve the care of the 13 million women in their pursuit to start a family.

My passion for helping women in the most vulnerable time of their life may not be enough however, improved resources for maternity care can.

I raise my voice for the women who sit in waiting rooms for hours because there isn't enough staff to attend to her.

For the parents who want the same midwife throughout their pregnancy but cannot because they 'didn't make the cut'.

For the unborn babies who deserve the brightest future.

Women will continue to give birth for the rest of time, how long are we going to deprive them of the care they deserve?

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (13:46): [by video link] I would like, at this moment, to contribute also to the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign that seeks to bring into this place youth voices that are so urgently needed. I read now a speech on behalf of Winter.

My name is Winter and I'm a 17 year old from Tangney, Western Australia. There are many aspects of the Australian experience that I wish to see evolve, but there is one area that I am particularly hopeful to see change in the next 20 years. I have spent my highschool years surrounded by some of the most wonderful people, many of whom happen to be queer, trans, non-binary, or otherwise gender diverse. And I have watched them, my friends struggle to be accepted and have their feelings and identities taken seriously. I am hoping that as a society we can normalise the non-conformity to gender norms, as well as increase the availability and normality of gender neutral bathrooms. Similarly, I hope to see increased funding for services that provide gender diverse youth with guidance and acceptance so that they may live a life that feels authentic and fulfilling to them. Through facilitating societal evolution in this way I hope to see that the youth 20 years from now will not have to struggle, as my friends have, to find acceptance and understanding from Australia.

Thank you, Winter. Thank you for your words and your courage in putting them forward to parliament today.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (13:48): Today, as part of Youth Voice in Parliament Week, I deliver Shaziyeh Samadi's speech.

In 20 years' time I hope that Australia continues to be a place of equality; where people treat each other with respect and kindness.

I value the way people treat each other, and the way the Government treats people because it is so different to the way it was in my home country (Afghanistan).

When I lived in Afghanistan I could not study or go outside alone; women do not have the same rights as men. Australia gives women and girls the opportunity to study and work.

I am excited for my future and what I can achieve in the next 20 years in Australia and hope to be a businesswoman one day.

I hope that Australia continues to provide these opportunities to everyone.

I hope that in 20 years every city in Australia has a high school that operates the same way as Thebarton Senior College. Many young people arrive in Australia when they are past the age of being able to attend mainstream schools, or experience barriers to education that mean they miss out and might want to study again when they are a bit older. Being able to attend a flexible but supportive school environment that treats them like adults, but at the same time gives them a supportive school experience is so beneficial.

I would also change the legal age that people can buy cigarettes, vapes and alcohol. I believe that 18 is too young, and that increasing the age would help prevent young people from accessing harmful substances.

Thank you, Shaziyeh, for your kind words.

Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:50): The safeguarding of our prosperity and peaceful way of life will only ever come from the strength of our enduring friendships with other like-minded nations. The recent announcement of the new regional security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States is a testament to our ability to bring such nations together in defending our sovereign interests, but many questions still remain.

Whilst I lament the typical bungling of the coalition's handling of the Future Submarine program, I nonetheless also welcome the prospect of the acquisition of a nuclear-propelled submarine fleet for the Royal Australian Navy and the role that these vessels will play in the Asia-Pacific and Antarctic regions. The transition away from diesel-electric to nuclear propulsion for Australian submarines represents a significant challenge; however, having spent some time aboard HMAS Collins with Senator Hughes, who is also here in the chamber, I also know that our submariners will welcome the opportunity to meet this task.

The development of advanced submarines also promises new opportunities for Australian industry. It is my hope that, by demonstrating the capacity of industry to put this new technology to sea, we might also come to appreciate the opportunities it presents outside of a defence context, as many, including the Australian Workers Union, have advocated, because there is no denying that our prosperity in the future will depend on our ability to access cheap, abundant energy to power the Australian economy in a clean and emissions-free manner, and the peaceful atom, as it has been termed, may very well have a role to play in achieving this.

Senator THORPE (Victoria) (13:52): I would like to contribute to Youth Voice in Parliament Week. These are incredible young people. They are our future. I have 12-year-old Leila Todd, who wants to send this message to everybody, so I will be backing Leila all the way. Leila says:

I am Leila Todd and I am 12 years old.

Imagine Australia in 20 years time …

There is a Treaty agreed by both the Aboriginal Elders and their communities, and the government. Aboriginal people feel respected and connected to their culture and land.

Non-Aboriginal people are learning from Aboriginal knowledge. The Aboriginal flag is owned by Aboriginal people, and they are free to use it as they wish.

Australia is close to recycling 100% of its waste and using 100% green energy.

Whenever a new house is built, it is easier and cheaper to build with solar panels, and other renewable energy sources.

All money that was invested in coal mining, is now put towards renewable ways to produce energy.

Nothing is wasted and there is a sustainable cycle for the things we use.

In schools, students of all year levels are assessed not only on their test results, but all their other skills too. They feel they can show who they are.

There is more student choice and they are learning things that will help throughout life.

Australians feel happy, healthy, safe and respected.

This is my vision.

I say to Leila: please come and join me in this place, because you have more sense, vision and courage than half of the people in here. Thank you for sharing your vision.

Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (13:54): This month is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. I would like to pay tribute to the Hunter Breast Cancer Foundation, which is a Newcastle based and founded not-for-profit organisation which provides support services for both men and women living with breast cancer in the Hunter region.

The Hunter Breast Cancer Foundation is incredibly passionate about delivering the best level of support and services to those who are dealing with the effects of breast cancer. During the pandemic, they've been busier than ever. While many charities and support services went into hibernation over the pandemic, they've had one of their busiest years ever. They provide extensive, practical support services for those who are dealing with the effects of breast cancer. This includes patient transport, house cleaning and lawn mowing but also wigs and headwear. They've seen a significant increase in services and client numbers. They've had an 80 per cent increase in the number of people supported just this year alone—that's over 135 people—with over 600 services delivered this year.

More than 20,000 Australians will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year—that's around 55 every day—and, sadly, more than 3,000 of them will lose their life to breast cancer this year. Organisations like the Hunter Breast Cancer Foundation are vital to supporting our communities. I commend them for their ongoing support and dedication to the Hunter Community. I encourage all men and, in particular, women to have those check-ups early and regularly, because early detection is the best cure.

Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:56): This year marks the 30th anniversary of the 1991 Paris Peace Agreements that brought peace to Cambodia after 25 years of catastrophic civil war, invasion and genocide. In 1975, as the war was ending in Vietnam, the Khmer Rouge took control in Cambodia and embarked on a horrific campaign of executions, displacement and forced labour in which nearly two million were murdered or died of disease and starvation. The invasion of Vietnamese forces in 1979 drove Pol Pot's regime from power but began a new decade of destructive civil war. With the country desperately divided internally, and ASEAN, China, Russia and the United States all supporting different sides, the conflict proved utterly intractable—until Australia's foreign minister, Gareth Evans, identified a new way forward, in 1989, built around giving the United Nations an unprecedented role in governing the country in its transition.

The detailed plan that Gareth and his department drafted—and pursued with relentless diplomacy, working closely with Indonesia in particular—culminated in the Paris Peace Agreements signed by 19 countries on 23 October 1991. These agreements are among the greatest achievements of Australian foreign policy. As Gareth Evans said at the time:

Peace and freedom are not prizes which, once gained, can never be lost. They must be won again each day. Their foundations must be sunk deep into the bedrock of political stability, economic prosperity and, above all, the observance of human rights.

Indeed, we still hope that the achievement of peace can be matched, as has not been the case so far, with the achievements of democratic pluralism, inclusion and respect for human rights for all Cambodians. Australia takes inspiration from the courage and resilience of the Cambodian people and will always be a strong supporter of their aspirations for not only a durable peace but a just peace.

Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (13:58): Namaste. I stand before you this afternoon to congratulate the Indian Society of Western Australia on the official opening of the first Indian community centre in Western Australia, and I'm delighted that $2.5 million was able to be provided by the coalition government in support of this community centre. For 50 years the Indian community in Western Australia has been dreaming of having its own home. I'm delighted that the coalition government—supported by me and Ben Morton, the member for Tangney—has been able to bring this dream alive for such a wonderful diaspora in Western Australia.

No matter where we live in Australia, all of us know the tremendous vitality the Indian community brings—whether it's in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Hobart or, as I well know, Perth. Having established a new Indian centre in Willetton, which my Western Australian colleagues would know is south of the river, I'm delighted to be the first person to begin arguing for an Indian centre north of the river so that the wonderful Indian diaspora can continue to celebrate its rich culture by providing language rooms and performance centres for all of its wonderful people. I congratulate the Indian Society on their great work and leadership in bringing this very worthy community project alive.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It being 2 pm, the time allotted for senators' statements has expired and we will move to questions without notice.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:01): Under standing order 74(5)(a), I seek an explanation from the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham, as to why questions on notice Nos 236, 238, 240, 242 and 255 from the finance and public administration estimates hearings remain unanswered.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (15:01): I thank Senator Keneally for advice shortly prior to question time in relation to these matters. As I informed the Senate earlier this week, there have been an unprecedented number of questions posed through the life of this parliament—both questions on notice provided through the chamber and questions on notice through estimates committees. In fact, if my recollection is correct, those coming through the chamber are close to being in excess of the total number handled in the two previous parliaments combined, showing the many thousands of questions that have been presented. Overwhelmingly, those questions are answered in as timely a manner as possible. We will look into the particulars in relation to the questions that Senator Keneally has highlighted, and no doubt efforts will be made to provide responses to those in as timely a way as possible.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:02): Under standing order 74(5)(b), I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

Well, what will happen first in Australian politics? Will the Prime Minister hop into his Comcar and head down to the Governor-General's to call an election, or will he and his ministers finally answer the questions put to them here in the 46th Parliament? It's disturbing how easily those opposite ignore their duties as public servants in this place. 'Accountability', 'transparency' and 'responsibility' are all nouns without a home in the Morrison-Joyce vernacular. 'I don't hold a hose, mate,' said the Prime Minister. Well, apparently he doesn't hold any answers either. He doesn't appear to do much of anything. We know that the Prime Minister failed on the two jobs he had this year: roll out the vaccine and set up fit-for-purpose quarantine.

Today I have picked five questions that have been ignored by this Morrison-Joyce government, but there are hundreds. There are over 500 questions unanswered, dating back to March 2020. There are pre-pandemic questions for which no answers are yet provided. Those unanswered questions from March 2020 were asked of the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Morrison. The Prime Minister won't answer them. If that's the example he's setting, no wonder the Morrison-Joyce government acts the way that it does. A fish does rot from the head down, after all, and this rotten behaviour undermines the community's faith in our democratic institutions.

There are some in our community who might think this is all business as usual, but an increasing number of Australians are growing disillusioned with the way Mr Morrison plays politics in this country. They see the bad behaviour of the Morrison-Joyce government go unpunished and think that it represents the parliament at large. My message to those people is this: This is not normal. This is not the status quo. This is how bad government operates. The Morrison-Joyce government have plumbed new depths in every aspect of accountability and transparency.

Compare this government to its most recent predecessors. I personally never thought we would pine for the days of Prime Minister Turnbull, but a comparison between then and now just shows how quickly the standards have deteriorated under Mr Morrison. Dr Parkinson, the former Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, put the real value on accountability and transparency. That standard was set from the very top, and it flowed down accordingly. There was an expectation that you would do your job as a minister. They got it wrong—a lot—under the Turnbull government, but at least people were disciplined on occasion. They were disciplined for misconduct; they were disciplined for their lack of accountability. The current Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, does not punish bad behaviour; he rewards it.

Look no further than the current Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience. This is an unlimited debate, but I still wouldn't have enough time to go through the intricacies of the sports rorts scandal. The sports rorts scandal saw Minister McKenzie forced to resign, but she was quickly brought back by Mr Morrison, and now she is deciding Australia's climate change policy. She is one of the gang of four that's going to decide how many millions, or perhaps billions, of dollars of pork are going to flow through to allow Mr Morrison to secure a deal on climate change. Maybe he will; maybe he won't. Today we saw the minister openly threatening her cabinet colleagues—quite an extraordinary performance in question time.

But Minister McKenzie is only one of the many scandal-prone ministers who've made startling comebacks under Mr Morrison: Ministers Taylor, Joyce, Colbeck, Cash, Ley, Dutton, Fletcher, Robert, Tudge, Hunt, Ruston, Reynolds and Porter. If you want to work out what they did, go to our website notonyourside.org.au. If you're a backbencher in the Morrison government, if you are stuck looking at the back of someone's head in question time, you have got to be asking yourself, 'What have I done right to be stuck up the back here?' It's truly staggering what gets rewarded on Mr Morrison's watch. Ministerial standards are dead under Mr Morrison. We will see that again, I predict, when, after the cabinet adopts net zero by 2050, Minister McKenzie and Minister Pitt don't have to abide by the ministerial guidelines. Let's see if they get a free pass. Comparing the days of old with the current standard is truly an exercise in despair, a stark contrast between a bygone era when ministerial standards and government accountability existed and the utter mess that we are in today.

This Prime Minister doesn't like answering questions, because he knows the Australian people won't like the answers. This Prime Minister governs by focus group. How do we know that? Because one of his own colleagues told the media, 'At the heart of the Morrison government is a focus group.' His own colleagues, including Senator Fierravanti-Wells, call the Prime Minister's office the 'prime marketing office'. So the hundreds of unanswered questions on notice are a massive red flag to the Australian people. Let's be clear: if the answers were good news for the government, they'd be shouting them from the rooftop. The Prime Minister can't build a chicken coop without a ribbon-cutting ceremony and a social media post. That is because he is all photo-op and no follow-up.

There's very little substance to what goes on in the Morrison government. There's no big, grand plan. There's no ambition for the Australian people. The Morrison government—Mr Morrison and his ministers—are not interested in Australians' jobs; they're only interested in their own jobs. Mr Morrison doesn't care about anything except his own political agenda, and he is certainly not on the side of the Australian people. If Mr Morrison were, he would be upfront with the Australian people. He would answer the questions put to him in this parliament. He would hold ministers to account for their actions and behaviours. He'd be proud of his work, rather than hiding the answers in the shadows.

The Australian people have a right to know, in a democracy, what decisions are being made in their name and how their taxpayer dollars are being spent. The problem for Mr Morrison is that, on the rare occasions he and his ministers do answer questions, the Australian people don't seem to like their answers, so they know that being truthful to the Australian people will jeopardise their own job security. There's an election right around the corner. Do we seriously think these 500 questions on notice that haven't been answered are somehow 500 good-news stories kicking around the ministerial wing that they're going to roll out in the advent of an election? Of course not. That's absurd. These are questions they don't want to answer before an election because they don't want the truth to come out.

So the Australian people have a right to know how their government's being run. Scrutiny of the Morrison-Joyce government is essential. It's essential for our democracy. It's essential for restoring the public's faith in democratic institutions, because on this government's watch we have had sports rorts, robodebt, the Ruby Princess, safer seats rorts, the Leppington triangle, car park rorts, jobs for mates, Paladin, the Great Barrier Reef Foundation grant, Helloworld and the JobKeeper rorts, where they gave $13 billion of taxpayer money to companies that turned a profit during the pandemic and they're not lifting a finger to try to get any of that money back. Under robodebt we saw the pursuit of the penniless, in some cases to their deaths, but the government don't lift a finger against their corporate mates. They don't even suggest they might want to pay the money back—$13 billion, wasted. A trillion dollars of debt has been run up, with so little to show for it.

What did we see last week? The Building Better Regions Fund rorts. What a joke! The money overwhelmingly went—90 per cent, I think it was—to government-held or marginal seats.

Senator KENEALLY: Of course, let's not forget, as Senator Green points out, that some of it went to areas that could only in the wildest of imaginations be considered regions. I think my personal favourite in New South Wales was the regional funding that went to refurbish the North Sydney Olympic Pool. Right there under the Harbour Bridge, next door to Luna Park and directly opposite the Opera House, a regional fund was used to build a swimming pool. I don't know. Maybe they think people from the regions in New South Wales like to travel all the way into North Sydney to have a swim.

Anyway, we know about billions and billions and billions of dollars of rorting, scandal, waste and mismanagement under this government's watch. Every time they appear before Senate estimates, what do we get? Another colour coded spreadsheet. What did we hear last week? Anne Webster, the member for Mallee in the other place, basically belled the cat. She inadvertently let it out of the bag. There was a green spreadsheet and a pink spreadsheet, but only government members got told about the green and pink spreadsheets. If you wanted your project to move from the pink to the green, you had to lobby some government minister really hard. Well, no wonder about 90 per cent of the funding went to government or marginal seats—because they were run in a colour coded spreadsheet scheme!

This is why the Morrison government ministers and the Prime Minister himself are not answering questions put to them through the finance committee. I can't imagine how bad this is all going to look when the ANAO inevitably reports on all the dodgy pork-barrelling that's going to happen to get to a deal on net zero emissions by 2050. What was it one of the government members called it—a giant green rainbow that's going to spread across the regions with crocks of pork sprinkled about? We've got a minister here in the chamber, the Minister for Finance, who won't even tell us how much money they're prepared to spend for this political fix, who won't even tell us if it's in the budget. That trillion dollars of debt—nothing to show for it going up and up; just a political outcome. But this is an inevitable outcome when you have a prime minister who views every act of governance as a marketing opportunity. There's nothing that can't be solved with a catchy slogan, no storm that can't be weathered.

Look at what we saw in the chamber here today: the Morrison-Joyce government sought to politicise domestic violence victims. I strike a deal with the minister, Alex Hawke. After two years—two years I've been trying to get a meeting with the minister for immigration—finally, I get one. Finally we get a deal, an agreement. We're going to deliver this piece of legislation. We're going to fix some things for women and children who are suffering domestic violence. We're going to deal with the problem of low-level offending. We're going to try to address the concerns raised by New Zealand. We strike a deal. We're going to come to a conclusion in two weeks time. What happens? Mr Morrison pulls the rug out from underneath his own minister, because what would he rather have? A political outcome, not a practical solution—and what a low act. Women and children who are victims of domestic violence: is there anything this Prime Minister won't politicise?

The Morrison-Joyce government does not, as the Prime Minister once said, 'burn for' Australia; they simmer in self-interest. The Australian people are waking up to the Prime Minister's schtick, his adman approach and his prime-marketing office. And there's something to see here with these unanswered questions. There must be, because they wouldn't be so intent on hiding the answers if there wasn't.

Being the Prime Minister of Australia actually requires leadership. It means making the tough decisions and being held to account. It means bringing people with you and holding them to a standard. So the malaise that's swept through the cabinet is a choice made by this Prime Minister because it's the easy way out, and it's the Australian people who are worse off as a result. This Prime Minister won't hold himself or his ministers accountable. I hope the ministers and secretaries listening today do take notice and take time to prepare thoroughly for Senate estimates next week. We can't expect questions to be answered when they're taken on notice, so we're hoping for a lot more cooperation in the room next week.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (15:18): I rise to also take note of the minister's answer to Senator Keneally. There's a great difficulty taking place in the chamber. We are asking questions, as we do as part of our oversight role. It's an important role of the Senate—to ask questions, to inform itself as to the conduct of government such that we can do our job properly, we can discharge our responsibilities properly, in the oversight of government. Yes, questions are asked, and there's a time requirement placed in the standing orders—or, in the case of estimates, time requirements placed by the committees themselves—for the return of those answers, and it is disrespectful for ministers not to supply those answers within the recognised time frames. It's disrespectful not just to the senators who ask those questions but to the people whom those senators represent.

I ask many questions on the basis of an email I receive in my electoral office from a constituent that just wants to know something. I'll happily put a question on notice if a South Australian asks me a question and I don't know the answer. It's an important process.

Of course, we could stop questions on notice if indeed the government found some other source of money to pay for the things that it does, but, you know what? It gets its money from taxpayers. It gets its money from the citizens of Australia, from the businesses of Australia. And, until such time as you find some alternative source, I'm sure senators will continue to ask questions.

Minister Birmingham stated on Monday and again today that the number of questions that are being asked and answered in this parliament are significantly more than in the last two parliaments. In fact, I think he said that the number of questions answered this parliament equals the same as the last two parliaments combined. Let me just talk about that. There is a fundamental difference between a response to a question and an answer to a question. I can give one example in relation to the cost of some proceedings that concluded over a year ago, and I've had to ask three times—three times for an answer! So, maybe, that explains the reason why there are more questions to this government, because they simply don't answer the question; they respond to it. That means I have to go back and now ask a second question, and sometimes I have to ask it again. So please, Minister, do not stand up in this chamber and suggest that there's something untoward going on here, on this side, in terms of how many questions we're answering, because, on your side, you're simply not answering the questions properly. You're responding, but you are not answering. When you start lifting your game, maybe these problems will disappear for you. Maybe, Minister, you can go back to the party room, to the cabinet, and suggest to them that they take the obligation of properly answering questions seriously.

I was at a Senate inquiry last Friday in relation to submarines, and I asked Admiral Mead, the head of the task force that informed the government before it made its announcement on 16 September to go down a different pathway to where they were going before, a simple question about the advice that had been given to government about simple things like cost and schedule. One would think, if you're cancelling one program and moving to another program, that, in actual fact, you would only do so if you had at least some fundamental advice as to the cost and as to the schedule. I would ask the question about advice that was given to government, and the answer I got was an answer to a different question. I had to ask it several times. Not only did I have to ask it several times, I then had to remind the Admiral that he wears a naval uniform and he serves the Australian public and not political masters.

The culture that we're seeing when we carry out estimates is getting worse. We're getting officials turning up refusing to answer questions, pretending they're answering when they're only responding. We have to go again and again and again to get the answer. I know that the select committee on COVID has sought answers in relation to national cabinet information, and, despite a ruling by Justice White that national cabinet is not a committee of the federal cabinet, the committee is still not getting answers back. That's disgraceful. That's a judicial officer that's made a ruling that's being ignored by the government. The Senate needs to observe what's happening here: answers coming back that aren't answers—they're responses—and going to estimates and not getting proper answers from officials. All of that is led from a culture at the top which is about secrecy. We can see that in the COAG amendment legislation where the Prime Minister, having lost the battle between me and him in the AAT, is now seeking to introduce a new secrecy law—obsessed with secrecy. Just answer the questions. Just be open and honest. In actual fact, I pressed the admiral. I actually had to say to him, 'You are running very close to being in contempt of the Senate,' before he finally answered. The answer he gave me was quite reasonable, but why do we have this culture in there of, 'Let's not answer questions'?

We've got two matters before the Privileges Committee now, the first being the government's refusal to provide documents to the economics committee, which relates to naval shipbuilding—to one of the biggest government expenditures ever. The documents that were requested were not confidential. They're not secret. They're not top secret. They were simply documents provided to the government in order to help make a decision about which shipbuilder was going to get the job. These are documents that go to what these shipbuilders promised Australian industry. The government has refused to provide those documents to the committee. It's gone off to privileges, and there is some progress being made in relation to that. But how did we get to this point? How did we get to this point where—even with documents being given to a committee, who are willing to accept them in camera, such that they are protected by criminal sanction in the event of a leak—the executive says, 'We're not going to provide those documents to the Senate'?

Then we have a statutory official who receives a lawful order from the Senate. The Senate makes an order for production. The Senate's always very reasonable in the way it conducts its business, much like a court who might issue a subpoena. The person subject to the subpoena or the order is given the opportunity to step forward and say, 'I don't think I should respond to the subpoena or the order for production for these reasons.' What happens, in the case of an OPD, is that the Senate considers that response and makes its final decision. That's exactly what happened in relation to the tax commissioner: the Senate made a decision that the balance of the public interest lied in disclosure. It disagreed with where the balance lied in terms of public interest, and made a lawful order.

To anyone who thinks that I'm making this stuff up, go and read the 1998 High Court case of Egan v Willis. I know Senator Keneally knows that, because it relates to Mr Egan in the New South Wales parliament. The High Court affirmed what was always known through section 49 of the Constitution: that houses of parliament have the ability to acquire or require the production of documents from the executive in order for it to be able to discharge its functions.

So we're now in a situation where we have a couple of matters on foot with the Privileges Committee. I'm hopeful that this is a Senate mojo moment. I look at how the US Senate conducts its inquiries, and I see officials that turn up to the US Senate. They dare not not answer a question. They dare not not provide a document which the US Senate orders, because they know that the US Senate will act. In some senses, there's a test running in the background right now for the Australian Senate. We can push ourselves back into a position where we are treated with the absolute respect that the US Senate is treated with in the US, or we can fail to deal with what I say—as a question of fact—is a contempt: the delay of the naval shipbuilding committee's proceedings for well over a year. That can't go unaddressed. I hope the Privileges Committee finds that to be a contempt and issues a fine or applies a sanction. We have to change the culture. Whilst I assert that there is a culture of secrecy in the Morrison government, driven from the very, very top, in some senses the Senate, when it seeks answers and doesn't get them, basically lets the executive get away with it and becomes part of the problem. I’m hopeful that we will see a change and see some Senate mojo.

I refer back to a situation with Facebook a couple of years ago when the UK House of Commons wanted access to documents from Mr Zuckerberg. He refused. Of course, he's outside their jurisdiction. Someone turned up to the UK and the House of Commons said, 'We've got someone who's got the documents,' and they sent out the Serjeant at Arms, met up with the gentleman, invited him to come back in a very insistent way to the House of Commons and offered him two choices: 'Hand over the documents or you can sit in the jail for a while.' The UK House of Commons got those documents because it stood up. It exercised its powers. You don't have to do it many times. It is a little bit like freedom-of-navigation exercises. Every once in a while you have to sail a ship through international waters despite a country saying that they think it's their waters in order to be able to assert a right and to remind people of your rights. I hope the Senate stands up in these two instances, with these two privileges matters, to send a very strong message to the executive that they must respect our need to be well informed in what it is that we do and our need to be able to get access to documents when we ask for them.

What we're seeing today on the issue raised by Senator Keneally is in fact part of a much broader problem. I'd ask the minister to consider all of the things that I've said in relation to that today and understand the responsibilities of answering questions on time. It is really important and, again, it's disrespectful when you don't do that. I'll foreshadow to the minister that tomorrow I will also use the same standing orders in relation to the four answers to estimates questions I asked that haven't been returned. So consider that notice under the guidelines in respect of the standing order. Hopefully by tomorrow I will have all those answers; otherwise we will be back here having another conversation about the responsibilities of the government and the need for them to be able to respond to the Senate in a timely fashion.

Question agreed to.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (15:32): Under standing order 74(5)(a) I seek an explanation from the minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham, as to why 2020-21 additional estimates questions on notice Nos 1, 3, 5, 6, 501 and 519 to 531 inclusive placed on notice with the finance and public administration committee in the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio remain unanswered.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (15:33): I thank Senator Gallagher for her question. As I indicated in response to Senator Keneally and have already indicated this week and on previous occasions, the government has been dealing with quite unprecedented numbers of questions posed through the parliament and, in doing so, the government has been providing quite unprecedented numbers of answers to questions posed through the parliament. We're not talking about hundreds of questions. We're not talking about thousands of questions. We're actually talking about tens of thousands of questions in the life of this parliament. The government work to try to provide answers, when we can, to those questions.

I know there are some senators who seek to be quite diligent and earnest in the approach that they take most of the time. I acknowledge in Senator Patrick's remarks that he just made that he stuck broadly to the question before the chair around accountability and government responsiveness. He addressed issues in terms of the particular nature of particular answers that are given. So, although I don't accept the premise of all the statements that Senator Patrick made in that regard, I acknowledge he at least stuck to the broad thrust of the debate.

I think, if the chamber reflected upon the remarks made by Senator Keneally immediately preceding Senator Patrick, we'd find that it was a much more politicised contribution, reflecting the fact that many times, particularly from those opposite, the questions asked are more about cheap pointscoring, more about trying to advance political agendas, more about trying to seize a cheap headline or the like. It's the right of those senators to spend their time asking those questions, and, again, of the many thousands of such questions that come about, the government responds to them, even where there's a whole swathe of hypocrisy attached to them.

Senator Keneally, in her remarks, jumped across many issues beyond the questions that she was asking about. She spent some time talking about grant programs and recent comments in relation to grant programs. I note that among the grant programs that were the subject of such commentary by Senator Keneally and others were the Community Development Grants Program and the Stronger Communities Program. I can't help but notice that so many members of the opposition quite happily take advantage of such programs, promote such programs and advocate for grants under such programs, but then of course, if there's a cheap headline to be had, they're lining up, forming a conga line, to try to go after a cheap headline in the national political debate, while trying to seek out a good headline in their local media or their social media.

The Leader of the Opposition himself had the fabulous social media post 'Grants for Grayndler: could your community organisation use a grant?' And there were not one, not two, not three, not four, not five but half-a-dozen different photos of Mr Albanese posing happily with different grant recipients, just in the one post there. Much of the commentary from Senator Keneally and others in this debate has been about whether too many of these grants have been going to city electorates rather than regional electorates. If I'm correct, the electorate of Grayndler is—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, Senator Birmingham. Senator Patrick is on his feet. Senator Patrick?

Senator Patrick: On a point of order: I note that the minister has wandered off the question that has been asked by Senator Gallagher and is actually referring to debate that took place in relation to a previous question.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: This part of the standing orders is about taking note of unanswered questions, so it's a wideranging debate. I don't have the unanswered questions, so I'm not really in a position, but he's not answering a question; he's responding.

Senator Patrick: I was just moved by his statement that it's a good idea to stick to the topic of the question.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thanks, Senator Patrick. I'm sure the minister was listening to your words.

Senator BIRMINGHAM: Touche, Senator Patrick. Deputy President, indeed I am responding in a little lengthier way than I did to Senator Keneally's question to me about unanswered questions, because of the way in which Senator Keneally sought to then elaborate more broadly in relation to those matters. I don't wish to take up the time of the Senate at length. I was simply making the point around the highly politicised nature of some questions. In other cases, we have seen, particularly this year, that questions often are in pursuit of sensitive matters, sometimes legally sensitive matters, that do pose extra challenges in responding or answering them. That requires either extra advice being taken by government in response, extra care, or, sometimes, highlighting the fact that such details are difficult to provide without compromising or prejudicing legal proceedings.

I again come back to the substantive point that I made, which is that this government, in this parliament, has responded to more questions than were posed in the previous parliament or were posed in the parliament before that. We have been more responsive than any previous government has been asked to be. We continue to seek to be so. We have been handling literally tens of thousands—something close to 35,000—questions posed through estimates or Senate chamber processes. That doesn't take account of House of Representatives questions. It doesn't take account of Senate select committee, Senate standing committee, House of Representatives standing committee, joint standing committee or joint select committee questions. They're all on top of the 35,000 that we have sought to handle to date. Indeed, we'll continue to do so and provide responses in as timely a manner as possible, but it is in the face of record levels of questioning and, in some cases, highly sensitive approaches too.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (15:40): Under standing order 74(5)(b), I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

When I listen to the Minister for Finance, I think the argument about the questions that I have asked for, which are, I think, 166 days overdue now, is essentially that the government has had a lot of questions asked of it—more questions than previous governments. I would submit that some of the explanation for that is that we've never had a government that has been so intent on not answering questions.

Many of the questions that I've asked that are now 166 days late could have been answered in the estimates committee, but they weren't, because this government's approach to transparency and accountability is to have public servants appear and, if there is anything that it is not in the government's interests to answer, have them take it on notice or find another way not to answer the question. There is a problem with the openness of this government, which now has a consequential effect on the number of questions that are being taken on notice, which now the senator, who is leaving the chamber, has used as an excuse to say, 'We're overworked.'

It's right that the Senate should not only get a reasonable explanation—other than, 'Sorry, we came to work and we're really busy and we haven't gotten around to it,' which was essentially Senator Birmingham's submission to the Senate—but demand that this information be provided. You are the government. You are responsible, as the guardians of hundreds of billions of dollars in public funds. You are making decisions on the nation's behalf. There are senators in this place elected to hold you to account. You answer those questions. You don't come in here and cry fake tears, saying you're a bit busy and you haven't got around to it. That is a completely useless explanation.

Prime Minister and Cabinet, which answers to these questions would emanate from, is the worst offender in my experience. The Prime Minister's right-hand man, the butler who runs to serve his every need when the bell gets rung by the Prime Minister, leads that department, and that is the standard they set. They take things on notice and then have no intention of answering to the Senate. That forces us to come in here and expose them and embarrass them, and I still don't think it'll matter to Mr Gaetjens or his crew, because that is the leadership that, under this Prime Minister, is shown about accountability, honesty, transparency and responsibility to the parliament and accountability to the parliament, not just to executive government. When PM&C are led like that and behave in this way, why should any other department be any better? It's clear they get rewarded.

We're heading into estimates next week. Let's see how many senior public servants, who are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, turn up and don't have information available or 'aren't able to take that question right now; we'll get back to you', knowing full well that they can take 100 days or longer because there is no consequence and because they're rewarded by the leadership for doing that. That's my prediction of what will happen, and that's why we're here now, using up precious time in the Senate to make the point that this is unacceptable. That's why you just had those contributions from Senator Keneally and Senator Patrick, and I associate myself with the comments Senator Patrick made as well, because they were spot-on. I think what this government hopes is that this explanation, 'Oh shucks, we got to work and we're a little bit busy,' will keep it at bay until the election. You can see what's going on. But after eight years of this type of approach these institutions, these conventions—the parliamentary practice that has developed over time and enshrined these processes as part of our democracy—are getting chipped away at. It's important that we stand up for them and important that we call it out. Even if Mr Gaetjens isn't going to answer my letter asking him where these answers are, even if they come to estimates next week and refuse to answer, it is important that the Senate stands up, calls it out and tries to protect it.

When you whittle away the Public Service, as this government has done; when you whittle away the FOI Act, which this government has done and continues to attempt to do; when you disempower the Auditor-General, as this government has done, in punishment and retaliation for the audit reports that it puts out on the government's rorting of grants schemes; and when you start wearing away the integrity processes of the parliament, there will be consequences for our democracy and our access to information. That is what we are standing up for. That is what is happening here. My questions 1356, 501 and 519 to 531, asked at March Estimates 2021 might not seem much, but the fact that this is a systemic approach to dealing with questions on notice is about whittling away those parliamentary practices, the scrutiny role of the Senate, because it suits this government. That's exactly what it's doing. They've done it to the Auditor-General, they're doing it to the FOI Act, they're doing it to the way they deal with OPDs in this place.

It's all pretty obvious. Maybe, taken on their own, people don't see that it's that big a deal; but put it all together and there has been an eight-year-long assault on the scrutiny and accountability functions of the parliament. That's why we're raising these points today. It's not about an overworked government; it's about a secret government. It's a government that will do anything it can to keep information away from the public eye regardless of the fact that it is paid for with public dollars. If it's not in their political interests, they will withhold access to that information. That's why we're raising these points today.

The issues that are covered by my questions actually relate to a lot of questions around the matters surrounding Ms Brittany Higgins and the role of the Prime Minister's Office. There is a whole range of questions now that it didn't suit the Prime Minister to ask at the time and it doesn't suit him to answer them now. But the option available to the department is to provide an answer—for example, 'We are not in a position to provide this answer because there is a police investigation ongoing.' They could do that, but they don't bother doing that either. It's just a blanket refusal to respond to reasonable questions asked of officials. It suits the government to have this approach, I have no doubt about it. But we must stand up, we must ask for reasonable explanations, and we must demand that officials attend estimates with the answers to these questions; they are 166 days overdue.

I hope that, when you guys are on the opposition benches, you will seek to protect these conventions too but that you won’t have to fight so hard because you would be working under a different arrangement with a government that actually understands and respects these practices. So I don't accept Senator Birmingham's explanation in any way that this is just because they've got a lot of questions. They've got a lot of questions because they don't answer the questions when they're required to show up, and they don't provide the information they should provide without having to take it on notice. For example, the Doherty modelling that we spoke of yesterday. Why hasn't that been released? Why do you have to put in an FOI request and questions on without notice and questions on notice about accessing that information? There's a little saving on the count of questions on notice for Senator Birmingham. You could cut them down right now if you actually start releasing the information that you should release in the public interest. You should answer the questions that are being asked. Senators should be treated with respect and be able to fulfil their responsibilities for their roles in this parliament, including holding this government to account. That's what this is about.

To Mr Gaetjens: I hope I do get a response to the letter that I wrote. I'm looking forward to receiving all those answers to questions on notice that are now 166 days overdue before estimates meet on Monday. There is no reasonable explanation that I will accept about why these questions have not been answered and why they shouldn't be answered on time by close of business tomorrow afternoon, other than you are just wilfully obstructing the work of the Senate. You've had plenty of notice. You were reminded of the obligations in a letter. As per the guidance around this standing order, you were reminded again today that we are interested in the answers to these questions. I look forward to receiving them by the end of this week.

Question agreed to.

Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (15:52): I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience (Senator McKenzie) and the Minister for Families and Social Services (Senator Ruston) to questions without notice asked by Senators Keneally and Gallagher and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wong) today relating to targets for carbon emissions and to Cabinet solidarity.

It's clear from the answers to questions from Senator McKenzie today and, indeed, throughout this week that at the heart of this faux negotiation between the Nationals and the Liberals—the will they or won't they—is the very existence of the National Party. There are only two reasons that the National Party actually exist these days. One is for pork-barrelling; the other is for culture wars. Senator McKenzie has brazenly confirmed with her answers in question time today and this week. They're stringing things along in an attempt to extort as much pork as they can out of the Liberal Party. They've even appointed a four-person committee to actually look at how much pork they can get and what they can do with it. That is what the National Party are up to this week. That is why they are stringing things along in this faux negotiation. Exhibit A in this is actually Senator McKenzie herself, the person who lost her job over pork-barrelling and has now been brought back into the ministry. It's only the Nationals that could be capable of doing something. They don't punish someone who's been engaged in pork-barrelling; they actually reward them and get them back in cabinet, and then put them at the heart of what they are up to this week. That says all about the National Party that that is what they are trying to do this week. They're trying to extort as much as they can out of the Libs and then go about pork-barrelling in the lead-up to an election.

The second reason why the Nationals exist these days is the culture wars. That's all they've got to offer the people of regional Australia—not a vision for the future, not setting out something they want to achieve. All they want to do is engage in the culture war. They never attempt to have a positive vision for regional Australia; it's all about the scare campaign. We can see elements of that. We can see the way that Senator Canavan's behaving. They want to ensure that they've still got that ability. Again, Senator McKenzie let the cat out of the bag. In her answer to a question yesterday, she said, 'The only reason they exist is to try and stop Labor from being in government.' There's no actual positive vision; there's no actual reason for being in government. The only reason they exist is that they want to try to stop Labor from being in government. That is how sad the National Party have become in this place. I spend a lot of time in regional Queensland. I've got a second office in Gladstone. I spend a lot of time in Gladstone, in the seat of Flynn. I do a lot of travel through Central Queensland. And what is so frustrating, why we are so frustrated by this motivation of the National Party, is that there are so many opportunities that are out there in regional Queensland—be it jobs, be it the future—and there are businesses that are actually going about taking those opportunities, but with no help from the federal government. Businesses are actually spending their own money because they see opportunities and they want to do the right thing by the planet in the long term, so they're actually investing their own money in these opportunities.

I was in Emerald a couple of months ago with the shadow Treasurer. We visited an Emerald bus company that does a lot of charter work. It does significant amounts of work for the mining industry—taking in workers, taking out workers and doing it safely so that the workers aren't driving tired after a shift. It's spending hundreds of thousands of dollars converting its bus fleet to hydrogen with no help from the government whatsoever. This is a bus company, a business group, that wants to do the right thing by the country. It sees opportunity, it's prepared to spend its hard-earned money transitioning its fleet because it's the right thing to do in Emerald, in the seat of Flynn.

We saw what the state government did with Fortescue Future Industries just a couple of Sundays ago. It was a really exciting announcement in Gladstone about hydrogen. Hundreds of jobs are at stake there. I was in Gladstone a few days after that announcement and I actually got the sense that the people of Gladstone saw this as a real initiative. They know this is going to deliver jobs. They know it's going to have a beneficial impact for their local community. This is what the future looks like—but, again, without any help from the federal government. The state government has had to go it alone.

The week before that in Gladstone, we saw the joint announcement made by Rio Tinto and the state government, once again, about the future of their refineries in Gladstone. They're looking at clean energy that is actually going to power those refineries into the future. Those refineries use about 20 per cent of Queensland's electricity. They're significant energy users, but it shows you, again, that they're looking at what the future looks like for them and they understand the role that clean energy will play.

It is so frustrating that the Nationals are having this faux war while regional Queensland and other parts of the country are getting on with the job of transitioning the country. If only we had a federal government that was actually prepared to work with them! How much more could we achieve then?

Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (15:57): I thank the Labor Party for raising this very important issue, because, from what I have just heard, what has just been highlighted to this chamber is that our tactics are working. We are on a path to lowering emissions through technology, not taxes. Private enterprise is working with government to achieve a lower emissions future. It is exactly what this side of the chamber has been saying for the last couple of years. Everyone wants to focus on the fact we haven't got a carbon tax and that, therefore, without a carbon tax, we're not addressing net zero, we're not addressing carbon emissions without a carbon tax. Well, what a crock. What an absolute load of rubbish, which has just been proven by Senator Chisholm's contribution.

Yes, through our road map to a lower emissions future, through our technology not taxes policies, private enterprise is getting on with the job, as are our government agencies. Australia has reduced its emissions by 20 per cent since 2005, the majority of which has occurred since we took government in 2013. That is only one per cent less than what has been achieved by the EU. We have done it through technology, not taxes. We have done it by expanding consumer choice, not restricting it. We have done it by partnering with the private sector, not hitting them with a big stick. We have done it by consolidating our advantage. We have done it by seeing Australia adopt rooftop solar panels at a rate higher than anywhere else on the planet. That is because we have not taxed people out of the market. We have not made it impossible.

What I hear on the ground, even from people who absolutely believe in climate change, who absolutely support moving towards a low-emissions future, is that they are scared for their future. I've heard from farmers who acknowledge climate change, who live with climate change, who've lived through drought and with flood, who deal with the threat of bushfires year in, year out. What they don't want to see is them being locked off their farms for some arbitrary native vegetation target that does not achieve carbon abatement that is as good as its alternatives. But that's what we saw the last time the Labor Party was in power. We saw farmers lose their right to farm. They ignored the potential for soil carbon capture and storage through cropping enterprises. They ignored the potential to reduce methane emissions from livestock by changing dietary requirements. Since we've been in power the CSIRO, working with James Cook University, have developed fantastic seaweed based feedstock for the livestock industry that is achieving huge emissions reductions, phenomenal emissions reductions. These people should be rewarded, not lambasted because they haven't implemented a tax.

I've heard from miners worried that we're just going to shut the industry overnight, which is also a crock. There are 129 new coal fired power stations currently under construction by countries that have signed up to net zero. Guess whose coal they want. They want ours, because ours burns more cleanly and more efficiently. So I'm not shutting the coal industry, and I won't support any moves that do. I back the mining industry, because that's where we get our lithium from for the batteries that underpin our renewable energy.

Thank you, Labor, for highlighting all the progress that we as a nation have made. I wish we would all get behind the achievements that both private enterprise and government agencies have made to get us to 20 per cent reductions, to get us on the pathway to Paris. (Time expired)

Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:02): This week has been an interesting one to say the least. On one hand we have had the coalition, in particular members of the National Party, say that they have a plan to reduce emissions, but on the other hand they still want to support some of the biggest polluters in this country. It is a reasonable statement to make that we as parliamentarians are by no means strangers to conflict, particularly in this place here in the Senate, but today in question time there was a prominent illustration of this, where our passion and our disagreements with each other on what is best for our nation's future were on full display for all to see.

I have been here for only two years, but from my time previously in another capacity, it is very uncommon for us to see publicly such great levels between members of the government itself—division between the opposition and the government, sure; but public division between ministers and backbenchers and between the Prime Minister and his own Deputy Prime Minister? That is not a common occurrence. Yet that is what has been on show to the Australian public right in the middle of a global pandemic, right in the middle of our economy's start to recovery. In fact, division between the two coalition parties has been on display for quite some time now. Those sitting on the opposite side of the chamber from them have been fortunate to have front-row seats, so to speak, to the great climate stoush between the Liberals and the Nationals, to see firsthand and live in colour the continued fraying of the already delicate coalition agreement.

What a debacle it has been. The quiet little meetings becoming public press conferences in the hallway, the private sledging spilling out onto our television screens—one could be forgiven for thinking that this stoush was some kind of valiant defence by the junior coalition partner of a policy position that was at the heart of the concerns of their own constituency. Regrettably, it is not. What it is, in reality, is the resistance of a few against not just the tide of history but the wishes of their own supporters. Whilst those Nationals opposite would wish to have you believe that they are standing up for the battling farmer in refusing to come to the table on climate policy, in reality this is not what is happening on the ground.

What is happening here is the Nationals are again proving themselves to be an island on this issue—cast adrift, all on their own, with barely a stakeholder to keep them company. Take, for instance, the National Farmers Federation, who themselves have already committed to a net carbon zero by 2050. Take, for instance, the grain growers, who themselves have endorsed the National Farmers Federation's own plans and are committed to developing a grain specific target for 2030—not 2050, but 2030. Take, for instance, the red meat industry, which I love and support wholeheartedly, who, themselves, have set a target of carbon neutrality by 2030. So exactly who is it the Nationals are purporting to stand up for, and what exactly is the cost of their resistance? I know that there are many farmers, who I have met, who are lamenting the fact that those opposite are failing to take the issue seriously, failing to accept the challenge and invest in their future prosperity.

Farmers are disproportionately effected by climate change. They will gain directly from reducing emissions and they will be better off through increases in productivity, whatever the global effort does to limit further warming. So, where is the plan from the Nationals? Australia's farmers want more climate action. They want to be part of the solution. It is no wonder why regional Australians are wary of the Nationals. Refusing to provide our agricultural producers and the regions with the tools they need to prosper in the years to come is not a plan. They are failing in their own leadership. (Time expired)

Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (16:07): I am relieved to hear Senator Ciccone express his support for the red meat industry, and I look forward to not only having a steak with him soon but also perhaps enjoying some of that Grains Council barley used to produce some pretty cracking beers. But I do welcome the end, hopefully, of the ALP targeting the cattle industry with their ridiculous notions around methane emissions from cows.

The Morrison government absolutely understands that Australians are looking to reduce emissions into the future. They're looking for a future that is clean air and clean water and a great environment for their children, their children's children and even their children's children's grandchildren. However, we do understand the pressures that everyday Australians and their families face, and we stand here looking to technology, not taxes. The reason we want to look to technology is that we will never support the imposition of a carbon tax on family. We will not support the imposition of an ETS—or whichever acronym, you guys, on the other side want to dress it up as. Heaven forbid the government benches are ever graced by those opposite again, because we know the first thing we will see is an effort to tax those everyday Australians.

What we do also understand on this side of the chamber is that net zero by 2050 does not mean zero emissions. I know the far end of this chamber have a little bit of an inability to decipher that fact, but we know that families rely on energy to keep their homes and their businesses running and the certainty that, when they need the power, they can turn it on, but this security is not achieved through taxing them and by pandering to some left-wing anti coal and gas agenda. What's also important to note, as Australians, is that 40 per cent of our emissions are actually the result of our export products. They're actually the result of how this country engages with the world and, in fact, the only two countries that have similar economies to us in this matter are New Zealand and Canada. When it comes to reducing emissions, we are streets ahead of both of those countries. We have done this through adopting a suite of technology products and continuing to support the markets and businesses to invest in this technology to drive emissions lower, without imposing additional tax burdens on families, small businesses and everyday Australians.

One of the things that this government is incredibly enthusiastic about is seeing the hydrogen sector grow. We've only recently opened up a new round of grants for seven potential hydrogen hubs, one of them in the Hunter region, an area that I get to spend a great deal of time in, and I am absolutely thrilled to see that a bus company from the Central Coast Hunter region is already looking to move its fleet of buses to hydrogen. We are going to see more and more hydrogen as part of the heavy vehicle, energy and transport mix.

I also had the privilege and the absolute pleasure to work with Energy Renaissance and turn the sod on the first ever lithium-ion battery storage factory being developed in Australia. For those who don't understand the importance of this, what this means is that when we start to develop lithium-ion battery storage we will actually be in a position to capture energy. One in four households currently have solar panels, as Australia has led the way in solar panel uptake. By bringing lithium-ion battery storage into the mix, particularly at the household level, you can then harness that energy; you can hold that energy that's created at two o'clock in the afternoon when the sun's at its highest and use it when you're watching Netflix at 9.30 that night. By using storage facilities and with that storage becoming cheaper and more portable, we will see household emissions reduce.

But we do understand that heavy industry, like aluminium smelters, require affordable, reliable baseload power. That's why those opposite saw the resignation of the fantastic member for Hunter—who I am going to miss—Joel Fitzgibbon. Joel knew the importance that coal was going to have in this energy mix for a substantial period of time to come. Coal is not going anywhere soon. I know it upsets these guys—they are very upset about it—but coal will be with us for a while. Do you know why we need it as well? It's not only for our heavy industries. It's actually racist to want to take it away. Our coal helps developing nations move their countries forward.

Senator WALSH (Victoria) (16:12): Who is in charge of your climate plan this week in Canberra? Who is in charge of the government's climate policy? At the start of this week, everyone thought that it was the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, actually leading the government's plan on net zero—to the complete horror, or course, of most Australians. But now what we hear from the government is that Mr Morrison is back. He's back in charge. But the question is: is he really back in charge? He's clearly not so much back in charge that he feels confident that he can take his plan for net zero emissions to his joint party room for sign off. He is not back in charge quite enough to even dream of legislating net zero emissions, because he cannot count on the members of his own government to vote for that plan. The Prime Minister is not in charge enough to keep the Nationals in his coalition government remotely in line. He's not in charge enough to stop his own Deputy Prime Minister from issuing threats: threats of 'a very hard time' for the government ahead. He is not in charge enough to stop the Nationals from issuing threats that things will 'get ugly', threats that were doubled down on by the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate today, when Senator McKenzie repeated these claims that things are going to get ugly in the government on climate change policy. The Prime Minister is not in charge enough to stop the threats to undermine harmonious government. He's not in charge enough to stop the threats to undermine cabinet solidarity coming from the members of his own team. He's not in charge enough to stop the threats of members of his own government to resign from that government. And the Prime Minister is not in charge enough of his resources minister, Mr Pitt, who still refuses to say that human induced climate change is actually real and actually happening.

All of this today, this complete mess, Senator Ruston describes as a respectful discussion. You would hate to see what a backroom brawl looks like for this coalition government if this is a respectful discussion. Perhaps the government should be more supportive of the Respectful Relationships program in our schools, and perhaps some of the members of the government should go back to school and take a few units of that course if they want to learn how to have respectful discussions. But apparently this is how it's done in the Morrison government today. This is how they deal with the biggest challenges that we'll face in our time. At 10 minutes to midnight, literally days away from Glasgow—days away from one of the biggest decisions this country will ever make—the people of Australia don't even know who is in charge of our climate action plan, just days away from COP26. The people of Australia don't know who is in charge of their jobs, of jobs for the future.

What the people of Australia do know is that their government are in complete meltdown at one of the most critical times in our country's history. They are a complete shambles, a complete stinking mess. They are a hot, steaming mess right now on one of the most important issues that our country faces. And all of that after eight years—eight years for a stinking mess at 10 minutes to midnight. That is the best that the Morrison government have. That is what they have to offer on one of the biggest challenges that we all face.

But, as we all know, and as Australians know, it's always too little, too late with Mr Morrison. It is Australia's workers who are paying the price, because there is a global race on right now to seize the opportunity that climate action provides us. But we know how the Prime Minister feels about races: he doesn't like to get into them too quickly. This is just another race that the Prime Minister is losing for our country, with absolutely catastrophic consequences.

This government is a complete stinking mess when it comes to action on climate, and a complete steaming mess when it comes to the jobs of the future that we should be embracing. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (16:18): I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for International Development and the Pacific (Senator Seselja) to a question without notice she asked today relating to climate finance. The world is cooking, and the Morrison government is sitting on its hands: no targets, no plan and no action. While nature may not have intended to discriminate, geopolitical boundaries that divide the world into the Global South and the Global North make sure that patterns of systemic discrimination continue, as the impacts of climate change, natural disasters and pollution fall disproportionately on communities in low-income nations. The insatiable appetite of wealthy nations like Australia for digging up and burning coal, oil and gas is sealing an unpalatable fate for billions of people around the world. We are witnesses to an intergenerational and global theft that will deprive future generations of the opportunity to make a dignified life and where countries least responsible for the climate crisis are already living through the worst of it.

Pacific islanders are watching their homes and their homelands sink as their very existence is threatened by sea-level rise, flooding and coastal erosion. Their children and grandchildren will bear the brunt of Australia's inaction. They've urged the Morrison government to take urgent action on climate. They have pleaded with us. They have condemned us for our weak and unambitious targets. They are demanding we honour the global climate accord.

In 2009, during the Copenhagen Accord, wealthy nations committed to US$100 billion in international climate finance funding each year, by 2030, but they have fallen far short of this. They have failed the nations which they have used as dumping grounds for their greenhouse gas emissions.

Australia too has failed to pay our fair share of climate finance and reparations commensurate with our historical and ongoing contribution to the climate crisis. The Liberal-National government have not made a single payment to the Green Climate Fund since 2018. Today, a group of NGOs have called on Australia to rise to the challenge and immediately double climate finance contributions to $3 billion over the period from 2020 to 2025. That's the very least we can do. The Greens believe that we should add another $1.5 billion to this in direct reparations for the damage already done.

The inequality between the Global North and South is rooted in the exploitative, extractive and destructive legacy of colonialism and imperialism. This is an issue of global justice. It is about righting historic wrongs. These payments are not favours bestowed, they are debts owed.

The Morrison government is not at all interested in honouring commitments to the Green Climate Fund or paying its fair share of climate finance. Australia is dead last on climate action out of 193 UN member countries. It is so embarrassing, sad and heartbreaking to see that we have become such laggards on climate action and protecting the environment. When the world was debating solutions to climate change, the Liberals were still fighting over whether it exists. Now we are in a critical decade and the world has moved on to talking about 2030 targets, but the Liberals and Nationals are fighting over 2050.

Public poll after poll reveals how the vast majority of people living in Australia want real action on climate. Even that is not enough to wake up the Liberals from their climate stupor. But they are getting better at greenwashing, like their partners, the News Corp media. They're both trying to rewrite history with their miserable commitments on the one hand, while still pushing dirty coal, oil and gas on the other. Here's a newsflash for you: no-one has forgotten that News Corp and the Liberals and Nationals blocked climate action for decades.

It's time to stop digging up coal, gas and oil. It's time to stop handing millions of dollars of public money over to billionaires, hoping they will save us from the climate crisis. This is utter stupidity. It's time to aim high, to legislate a 75 per cent emissions cut by 2030 and net zero by 2035. It's way beyond time to take responsibility for the role that we have played in creating the climate crisis. We must fulfil our obligations. We must pay our fair share. Let's go to Glasgow COP26 with our heads held high as leaders, not as outliers. It's time for climate justice.

Question agreed to.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (16:23): On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for seven sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening Information) Regulations 2021.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (16:23): I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move a motion in relation to an order for production of documents, and I expect that it will be delivered.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (16:23): I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 1255, relating to consideration of the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2021.

The PRESIDENT (17:06): Pursuant to order, I now call Senator Grogan to make her first speech, and I ask honourable senators that the usual courtesies be extended to her.

Senator GROGAN (South Australia) (17:06): As I rise to make my first speech, I'd first like to acknowledge that the lands we gather on today are those of the Ngunawal and Ngambri people, and I pay my respects to their elders, past, present and emerging. I would also like to pay my respects to the Kaurna elders, past, present and emerging, on whose land I live. I pay my respects to the elders of all the lands surrounding the Kaurna land: Ngadjuri, Peramangk, Ngarrindjeri, Narungga and Nukunu—all these nations surround the Kaurna nation—and the 40-plus nations that comprise South Australia. I understand that your lands were never ceded and that it always was and always will be Aboriginal land. I also understand the dire consequences of colonialisation and dispossession and what was done to First Nations people, and I am committed to working to right these wrongs. And this starts with a commitment to genuine and meaningful voice, treaty and truth.

I come to this place under sad circumstances with the passing of Senator Alex Gallacher. I offer my condolences to Alex's family, and I pay my respects to the hard work he did and dedication he had in this place.

I am honoured to be here today as a representative of the people of South Australia. It is a vibrant, progressive and inclusive part of this country, and I am proud that I have been calling South Australia home for 20 years. I was born to a large Irish Catholic family in south-west London. I grew up in a housing estate at the world's end, and I spent my summers in Ireland with my extended family.

My father, Larry Grogan, was a shop steward with the Transport and General Workers Union, and he was the one that introduced me to the Labor movement and the class struggle. He taught me the potency and power of working people acting collectively to improve their circumstances and that of their workmates and their communities.

My mother, Kathleen Grogan, taught me the value and importance of community. She spent her life looking after other people. She instilled in me a deep belief that I could do anything and has always, always stood beside me regardless of the scrapes I got myself into. Mum, without you, I wouldn't be here. You are my strongest supporter, and you give me strength.

Given my parents' influence it's probably not surprising that I spent my working life focusing on social and economic justice, fighting to improve the rights of low-paid and vulnerable workers, fighting for better primary care, early intervention in health, a fairer education for all of our kids and an increase to social services and opportunities for those who don't have them. But it was my earliest experiences in Australia that ignited a passion to fight for change.

In 1990 I came to this country. I bought a 1967 Holden station wagon, and I drove around Australia. My love for Australia's spectacular and diverse environment was born. I picked mangoes in the Northern Territory, I worked as a labourer in the vast cane lands of North Queensland, and I ironed shirts in Brisbane and poured beers in bars all over the country. I fell in love with Australia and its vast cultural diversity, and I was lucky enough to be able to emigrate here.

Four years later, as an Australian citizen, I was employed, I was independent, I was in a relationship that I thought was good, I had a safe place to live, I was pregnant and I was really excited for the future. But, in the space of a few short weeks, all that changed. My unborn baby was very sick. My partner couldn't handle the thought of a sick baby, so he left. I was a contract worker, and, because of my baby's sickness, I could no longer work. I ended up sleeping on the floor of a friend's place. I was 14,000 miles away from my family, and I was scared. I needed help. I was lucky I had very good friends who, along with Medicare and our social welfare system, where there for me and my son in those really difficult times.

My son, Brendan, is 26 now. He is healthy, funny, compassionate and a great joy in my life. But that experience of feeling powerless, feeling scared, being judged for being poor, being treated differently because I was a single parent and being at the mercy of the health system made me absolutely determined to make things better for other people. I've seen firsthand the challenges and inequities that people face. Indeed, I have lived them. Without the stalwart policies of previous Labor governments, I don't know what would have happened to us.

So the path I chose from there was research, policy, advocacy and fighting for those who are marginalised in our community and who are without a voice. I have worked in many of the key areas of Labor's road map for the future: environment, climate, mental health, education and social services. Working in these areas, I have seen the challenges, but I have also seen the opportunities and I have seen the solutions, and I want to be part of the team that is fighting to bring those to fruition.

I have been fortunate. I have had an interesting and varied career. But I have also worked very hard. I spent time as the head of the South Australian Council of Social Service, championing social justice issues. I've sat on the board of ACOSS. I worked in the university sector, developing pathways for people from disadvantaged backgrounds to both access and succeed in higher education. I worked for the Central Land Council in Alice Springs, fighting for the rights of First Nations people. I spent time as the head of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists to tackle climate change and protect the River Murray. I have also worked within the ALP: first as chief of staff to the then federal minister Mark Butler, working on aged care, mental health, climate and energy policy; and then for the former South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill, where I was responsible for social services, environment and the River Murray. I would like to thank Mark and Jay for their support, wisdom and friendship and for believing in me.

My last job before entering the Senate was as a senior official with the United Workers Union, representing some of the most vulnerable and low-paid workers in our community. I will continue to be a proud member of the Australian trade union and labour movements and will continue to fight for workers' pay and conditions during my time here. I remain a proud member of the United Workers Union, and I offer my thanks to Gary Bullock and the politics team at UWU, for being such staunch advocates for their members, and also to the Australian Services Union—a big shout-out to Abbie Spencer and the South Australian team.

My experiences, my family and my work history have all led me to this place. They've given me the deep passion to want to fight for vulnerable people and vulnerable workers. I want to be in the room where the decisions are made, where policy is developed and where change can truly happen to make our country more equitable. I am here to represent the people I have spent my career working with and for. Those people want decent, well-paid, secure jobs so they can have a stable roof over their heads. They want decent, secure jobs for their kids so they can have hope for the future. They want a hospital bed when they need it and a COVID jab so that they can help get our economy back on track. And, more than anything, Australians want a reliable system that gives people a hand-up when they most need it: when health issues strike or when they lose their job.

We're not seeing that leadership in Australia. In fact, we seem to be going backwards. Social services are being cut, people on welfare are being victimised and, for those lucky enough to find a job despite the struggles they face, their work is precarious and it is low-paid The policies that have been implemented in recent times have made it even harder for people doing it tough. Harder to access services, with more and more hoops to jump through.

Like many parts of the country, in South Australia there are just not enough employment or training opportunities—and an alarming number of jobs are casual and insecure. The number of people in full-time work in South Australia fell by 2,300 in September, earning us the nation's highest unemployment rate, at 5.1 per cent, for the sixth time this year. Meanwhile, South Australia's youth unemployment rate rose from 9.2 per cent to 11 per cent and the underemployment rate increased to 8.4 per cent.

Despite inequities in the labour market, where you can work 50 hours a week and still struggle to put a roof over your head and a meal on the table, the government of the day continues to attack workers pay and conditions. COVID-19 has highlighted how fragile and precarious our industrial relations system is.

The binary approach to the haves and the have-nots ignores the fact that the success of a business is reliant on the strength of its workers. Whether you are a cleaner, a childcare worker, an accountant, or a farmhand your role is essential in the success of the organisation you work for, and you should be respected and valued for that role. I do believe in the role of business to help build our economic future, but it must be built on a fair relationship with workers.

COVID-19 has also highlighted how fragile and precarious our health system can be without proper funding and resourcing, including our mental health services. I will fight for more services to deal with the increasing mental health impacts of COVID-19.

Young people in particular are finding it too difficult to access appropriate mental health services. We owe it to them to have help available when they need it most, and I applaud Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews for his recent introduction of mental health specialists in Victorian schools.

I want to be part of an Albanese Labor government that is committed to creating decent, well-paid, secure jobs; one that values universal access to health care and an equitable education system; a government that understands the importance of everyone having a roof over their heads, so they can envisage a fair future for themselves and their family.

I want to be part of a generation of Australian politicians that works to rebuild faith in our democratic systems, a generation that uses their precious time here to extend our imaginations in order to resolve the complex societal and environmental problems we face.

I intend on being staunch advocate for the River Murray and the communities that rely on it for sustenance, and a thorn in the side of those vested interests who continue take more than their share. Our state's social, cultural and economic life is closely entwined with the river and therefore its health and our long-term survival.

Before I finish, I would just like to thank just a few of the many people who've supported and inspired me. Everyone in the SA Labor Party, but most particularly Mark Butler, Jay Weatherill, Penny Wong, Kyam Maher and Susan Close. I thank the great people in the environment and climate movement, particularly the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, who are truly dedicated to a sustainable future. And I thank Felicity Wade and Lyndon Schneiders for always inspiring me, uncomfortable as it may be at times.

I thank the COSS movement and all the people who've supported me in the community sector, most particularly Ian Yates. And my deep thanks to the beautiful people I call family: my amazing mum, my sister, Liz, and all my family overseas; my son, Brendan, and the other beautiful children so dear to my heart—Aaron, Ruby, Tom, Adele, Paddy, James and Pippa; my fierce goddaughters, Maddie and Jess; and also Samantha, Krista, Brodie, Ben, Bethany, Alisha, and Lou. And, within that family, a particular shout-out to the two women who have stood beside me for decades, who shared the tears, the laughter, kicked my butt when I needed it, who have never ever ever let me give up, Lesley Parker and Caroline Gaston. I am here because of you all.

These speeches are a time to place on record who you are so that the people of Australia know more about those who are representing them: I am a feminist; I am a unionist; I am a community activist; I am an environmentalist; I am an immigrant; I am a South Australian. I believe in truth, treaty and voice for First Nations people, and I believe in the value of each and every South Australian. I will fight for the rights and opportunities of our community. And I will fight for a Labor government, led by Anthony Albanese, to realise a fair and equitable future. Thank you.

The PRESIDENT: I extend my congratulations to you, Senator Grogan.

The PRESIDENT (17:23): I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, 19 proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter was received from Senator Hanson-Young:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The fact that the Government is failing to do its fair share of limiting global heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial temperatures by continuing to approve new coal mines and gas fields and refusing to adopt strong 2030 emissions targets of 75% below 2005 levels."

Is the proposal supported?

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

The PRESIDENT: 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 clocks accordingly.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (17:24): I move:

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

The fact that the Government is failing to do its fair share of limiting global heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial temperatures by continuing to approve new coal mines and gas fields and refusing to adopt strong 2030 emissions targets of 75% below 2005 levels.

I rise to contribute to this debate today, and it is an important debate because, in less than two weeks time, the Prime Minister of this country is going to be travelling to Glasgow to meet with world leaders in relation to the biggest threat that humanity has seen, and that, of course, is climate change and the climate crisis, a crisis that has been brought about by the enormous amounts of pollution that are pumped into our atmosphere because of the burning of fossil fuels. Of course, one of the key elements that world leaders like the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Scott Morrison, are being asked to contribute to this most important global meeting is a commitment to cut pollution and to stop expanding the projects that make climate change worse.

The International Energy Agency has said in no uncertain terms that there can be no more new oil, gas or coal projects opened, created or built if we are to achieve zero pollution and a target for net zero pollution in order to keep temperatures at below 1.5 degrees, which is what we know we need if we are to stop the most dangerous elements of climate change. Only a couple of months ago, last time the Senate was meeting here in this place, we were discussing and debating the recent report by the world's leading climate scientists. They said we have less than a decade to take the urgent action needed—less than a decade to cut pollution to keep the rise in temperature below that important element of 1.5 degrees—if we are to have a fighting chance of stopping runaway climate change.

We can already see the effect of climate change all around us. Only two summers ago we saw those devastating bushfires rip through bushland in regional and rural Australia. We saw billions of hectares of Australia's forests and wilderness areas go up in smoke. We saw three billion animals in this country perish because of those bushfires. We saw dozens of towns and cities in this country choked with smoke.

COVID-19 has brought about an enormous amount of concern and fear right around the world. Governments have been called to take urgent action to stop the spread of this most devastating disease. Governments, largely, have responded—of all political persuasions, at all levels. Governments and political leaders have listened to the science, listened to the experts, and taken the swift action needed to stop the spread and the escalation of this disease. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we saw the same type of response from our political leaders that we've seen in relation to COVID-19 for action to save the climate and our planet—listening to the science, taking the swift action that's needed, showing leadership and investing in the transition to an economy and a society that is cleaner, greener and safer.

If we thought that the crippling effect of COVID-19, a disease that has ripped through not just our communities in Australia but around the world, was bad, just wait until we see the diseases that rip through our communities when climate change really hits. The experts tell us that's what's coming—unless we take the action that's needed in the next decade to cut pollution. That's why, as a country, we need to be taking to the world's most important summit— (Time expired)

Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (17:29): Yet again we have the Greens wanting us to strive for some ideal at the expense of jobs, industry and our community. Make no mistake: this is what we look forward to, potentially, under an Albanese-Greens coalition government. Seventy-five per cent emissions reduction by 2030 is the target the Greens are saying. Senator Gallagher refused to say that Labor would have a target for 2030 or to announce their target yet—but the Greens are doing it for you, Senator Gallagher. They want 75 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. But what the Greens like to keep ignoring is what we have already achieved to date. I've spoken about it already today in this chamber, and I will continue to speak about it time and time again because I am sick to death of people ignoring what Australians have already done. I am sick to death of people from this nation saying Australians are laggards and denialists when so many Australians are not—not the National Party and certainly not regional Australians.

Of the 20 per cent emissions reduction that we have already achieved to date from 2005 levels, 71 per cent has come from agricultural land use changes and a reduction in agricultural emissions. Our agricultural industries have done the heavy lifting, and yet we have people over there on the crossbench trying to tell us that we should stop eating meat because cows fart. Well, excuse me. They're saying we should stop planting crops like rice because it uses too much water. They're saying we should make sure our farmers can't clear their land but that it's okay to clear 125 square kilometres in the centre of Australia for solar farms. The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

I want to focus today on agriculture and forestry, because forestry is part of the solution that keeps getting ignored by those on the crossbench. Forestry keeps getting closed down by those opposite and their state counterparts. Forestry is the best carbon sequestration you can have. The trees grow and they absorb carbon. Then you turn those trees into furniture, like what we are surrounded by here today. This room is sequestering tonnes of carbon forever. But those on the crossbench would rather us lock up land and just walk away. I can tell you, while that absorbs carbon in some stages, it plateaus at a certain point in time and it is not sequestered for good. It actually starts to become carbon positive.

We need to focus on what is actually going to achieve real outcomes, and what is achieving real outcomes is what our agricultural industry is doing. The work our meat industry has done with the CSIRO and James Cook University, developing new feed regimes for livestock, is leading to world-leading outcomes. Net greenhouse gas emissions from the red meat sector in Australia are less than half what they were in 2005. The red meat sector have cut their emissions by 50 per cent already. It is by far the greatest reduction by any single sector in Australia's economy. I congratulate them, and I congratulate the CSIRO for its world-leading work in this area.

Through our government's commitments, we are providing over $1 million to an agricultural science company called Sea Forest. This grant will allow them to upscale their production of seaweed additive for livestock feed so the livestock sector can continue to cut emissions. The work that CSIRO is doing with the agricultural sector on soil carbon sequestration through cropping regimes is world leading. Why aren't we talking about this? Why aren't we talking about these ground-breaking innovations that support existing industries and create new jobs and new research that we can sell to the world? But, no, they'd rather focus on the negatives. They would rather focus on the fact that we still have coalmines. And so we should. Because our coal is the highest-energy, lowest-emission coal in the world. I would rather see one of the 129 new coal-fired power stations currently being constructed around the world—in net zero countries—burn our higher-energy, lower-emissions coal than dirty brown coal from another nation that emits more. I would rather see Australia use our gas—our natural resources—to produce blue hydrogen than burn dirtier products with higher emissions to do the same.

We've got Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson going around saying, 'Aren't we good.' They're flying off into space in, yes, hydrogen powered rockets. Congratulations. The only pollution from those rockets is oxygen and water—very clean. Read the fine print. With that hydrogen that they are using to produce enough hydrogen to power those rockets, they need to burn fossil fuel. That's because industry isn't ready and can't yet produce enough green hydrogen for those rockets. But we're all putting Bezos on a pedestal because he's exploring the new frontier. I actually agree with Prince William on this. We need to focus on this planet, before we start ruining other planets.

I have grave concerns about the thought of mining the moon. I don't want to mine the moon. But I have no problems, in this country, when we know we need more lithium to produce the batteries that will underpin our renewable energy. I am very proud that Australia is one of the largest lithium producers in the world. I am very proud of our mineral sands resources sector that is producing the silicon, the silica and the other core ingredients so that we can actually have renewable power and electric vehicles.

So mining always will be part of the solution, and that includes our coalmining. Agriculture is part of our solution. Agriculture has already done the heavy lifting in Australia. The worst thing we can do to our agricultural sector is a repeat of what we signed up for with Kyoto. The worst thing we can do is tell our farmers: no, you can't clear that paddock that has the opportunity for soil carbon sequestration and food production. Let's not forget: Oxfam released a report in August raising red flags, because to plant enough trees to reach net zero—if you're just relying on planting trees—you will stop feeding the world. We are at risk of a food shortage. We need to work out how our agriculture can be a part of the solution, so that we can continue to feed the world. I'm not just talking about meat. Vegans need plants. It takes a lot of water to grow a soy crop. It takes a lot of soil carbon for that soy crop, but then it can be put back into the soil. We need to be working with our industries and embracing the innovations and the new technologies they have, and embracing the opportunities that a low-emissions future presents. I am not against a low-emissions future. What I am against is a blank cheque that allows people to trounce our industries, our people, and our communities, and that says, 'We will sign up to net zero at any cost.' I don't believe in ' at any cost'. I believe in opportunity. I believe in technology, not taxes.

Senator LINES (Western Australia—Deputy President and Chair of Committees) (17:39): Listening to Senator Davey, you'd think that the Morrison government has some radical plan for our future and climate change, but we all know that it will be a plan to do very little. So I'm not quite sure what all of that carry on was about.

I want to talk about some of the points the senator made before I get to the motion itself. Eight years in office, 21 energy policies, yet all we've heard from the Morrison government this week is that a part of the Morrison government, the National Party, need more time. Australia hasn't got more time. We are sending the Prime Minister of this country to Glasgow in a few short weeks. And what's he got? Nothing at this point. He keeps saying that apparently he's going to make a decision with or without the Nationals. If you read between the lines, apparently the cabinet will make that decision. But some of the Nationals are in the cabinet. So, what are they going to do? Resign their commissions? Quite frankly, if they're not prepared to sign up to cabinet solidarity, that is what they should do. Otherwise, they're not entitled to stay there.

One of the senator's comments was that we need to work out how agriculture contributes. Guess what? A lot of farmers are already contributing. How out of touch are you? How out of touch you are. I invite you to speak to the AgZero2030 group in Western Australia. They're a group of farmers and primary producers who are leading the way. They're not hobby farmers. They're farmers with broadacre who are leading the way. And, yes, some of them are planting trees. They want to see the Morrison government sign up to a net zero target. They want the research and development money. They want to stop doing it themselves and stop spending their own money. They want to have that research and development. That's what they want to contribute to. When you talk to them, they've got no idea where the Nationals are. In fact, Simon Wallwork, who owns a farm of almost 4,000 hectares with his partner Cindy in Corrigin, a farm I visited last year, believes that you're out of step. That's what he said on the ABC yesterday.

Today, when Senator McKenzie tried to represent the National Party as all-encompassing, I noticed that farmers were about fifth or sixth on the list that Senator McKenzie claimed to represent. You don't represent all of regional Australia. You didn't have a federal senator or MP in Western Australia the last time I looked, and you haven't had for quite some time. In fact, the leader of the state Nationals in WA, Mia Davies, is quite alarmed that Mr Joyce is the leader again. She's been very public about her comments. In 2018, she was one of the first to say that Mr Joyce should resign. When Mr Joyce topped Mr McCormack recently, she was the first to come out and say that he's got a lot of bridges to build, and she's still standing by the comments that she made in 2018.

The other thing you wouldn't have noticed Ms Davies say—because you're so obsessed with yourselves—was that Mr Joyce is a destabilising influence. She said that at the time. She must have had a crystal ball. What are we seeing right now? We are seeing that destabilisation absolutely on display. Ms Davies also went on to say that the Nationals were focused on themselves, on their own internal matters. Well, that's all we've seen this week—the Nationals breaking out, trying to hold not only the Morrison government to ransom but Australia to ransom.

I want to talk about this motion from the Greens. It demonstrates, once again, that they're not serious about being part of an Australian climate change solution. Instead, they're playing their immature game of making themselves the story for a moment of social media glory in a week when the Morrison government is in disarray over climate change. Seriously, is this motion the best they can do? It doesn't even name the government. It certainly doesn't name their recalcitrant rump—that handful of members from the National Party who claim to represent regional and rural Australians, yet don't have a single National representative in the vast state of WA.

So let's have a look at what is really going on here. We know that Mr Morrison is being held captive by the Nationals, holding Australia back and not allowing Australians to focus on the things that are really of interest to them, but let's look at the Greens' record when it comes to backing in good climate change policy. Who could forget the dirty deal the Greens did with the Liberal opposition when, together, they voted down Labor's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme? Without this scheme, the Greens have added about 218 million additional tonnes of carbon.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator LINES: Yes, you'll hear them carping, because they don't like to be confronted with the truth, but that is the truth. That's what killing off Labor's CPRS scheme has done. Thanks to the Greens, even though they'll carp, carry on, interject and try to put another spin on it, it's their actions, not ours, that have added millions of tonnes of carbon pollution. Let's also not forget that two Liberals were prepared to cross the floor to support Labor, so disgusted were they with the Greens and their dirty deal with the Liberals. That's how bad that deal was. Now the Greens are in here trying to present themselves as honest brokers. I'd say they're green with envy, not green environmentalists.

In Mr Morrison, we've got a PM who has zero credentials on any commitment to mitigating climate change. We've got a PM who, instead, wants to cling to power at all costs. Who could forget that it was this Prime Minister who brought a lump of coal into the parliament, proudly declaring, 'Don't be afraid. Don't be scared. It won't hurt you'? He is a PM who won't support renewables, as he's on the record claiming that wind and solar are unreliable. Remember when he said that the wind doesn't blow all the time and the sun doesn't shine all the time? Then there was his scare campaign against electric vehicles, ably assisted by Senator Cash. The claim was that we'd all lose our weekends. Well, Mr Morrison and Senator Cash, I've recently purchased an electric vehicle. I did that because—guess what?—there's not one electric vehicle on the government's lease vehicles for senators and MPs, not one. So I went out and got my own. It's not one of the expensive ones; it's an MG, at about $44,000—still unaffordable for most Australians because the Morrison government don't put one ounce of subsidy behind that car. But, for the record, my weekend just got a whole lot better with that car. My MG is at home right now and, if my partner's been using it and it needs charging, on most days it will be taking advantage of the solar panels on my roof. I'm a lot better off already.

As I said at the start of my contribution, WA farmers are pushing back against the Morrison government's failure to take emissions seriously. They really are. If you haven't introduced yourselves to AgZero2030, make sure you see the sort of work that they are doing.

One of the things that I am most proud of is the WA Labor government. Again, you won't hear the Greens going on about the sorts of energy policies it's pursuing. I'm also proud to say that, despite many years of the Liberals trying to sell off and privatise WA power, it's probably the key thing that got McGowan across the line the first time we won the state election. Colin Barnett and the Liberals were hell-bent on selling Western Power, and Labor was hell-bent on making sure it wasn't sold. The WA Labor government is investing in solar panels. We had Onslow off the grid recently because of the use of solar panels, storage and good systems controls. We're doing microgrids, not just in the rural areas but in metro areas as well.

But, as I say, you won't hear the Greens congratulating WA Labor and other governments on that, because it's all about their moment in the sun. With this motion, which is completely over the top and absolutely designed to get them a little moment on social media, they're another party focused on their internals and not on what is really happening.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (17:49): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I note this government's turn to the dark side. Pushing a zero carbon dioxide economy is gaining steam. 'The dark side' means sitting in the dark, because unreliable technologies like wind and solar will cause us all to be sitting in the dark, as is proven repeatedly overseas. These green boondoggles exist only to farm taxpayers' money, not energy. It's the ultimate irony that, when the Greens talk about a farm, they don't mean one that grows food and fibre; their wind and solar farms are made from communist China's industrial processes creating steel, fibreglass and concrete, the very things you can't make with green power. The Greens vision for Australia has no integrity because they claim so-called science has no integrity. It does not exist.

It is 772days since I first challenged the former Greens Leader, Senator Di Natale, and the current Greens Leader in the Senate, Senator Waters, to provide the empirical scientific evidence justifying cutting carbon dioxide from human activity—nature's pure, clean trace gas essential for all life on our beautiful planet. I challenged them to debate me on the science and on the corruption of science. Senator Waters has been running from my challenge for 11 years—since I first challenged her as a joint panellist at a Brisbane climate forum.

The Liberal Party should know that there's no compromising with the Greens, who responded to the Prime Minister's gutless, unfounded major shift in the way that any extortionist does: the Greens upped the ante. Rewarded, the Greens now call for 2035 carbon dioxide output to be 75 per cent of 2005 levels. Today, the media is reporting that a deal has been done between the Nationals and Prime Minister Morrison so he can jet to Glasgow with net zero and get his pat on the head from the elites, from his globalist masters. Mark my words, net zero will become 'Nat zero'. Minister Hunt won't even be able to claim the resulting death of the National Party as a COVID death; it's very assuredly suicide.

As a result of the government's capitulation to green lunacy, many things will happen. Prime agricultural land will be put over to farming carbon rather than food, increasing feral animals and noxious weeds on productive land. Abandoned. The Howard-Anderson Liberal-National government's theft of property rights to implement the UN's Kyoto protocol will now be buried, so it cannot be restored, and there will be hundreds of billions of dollars in compensation. Buried. Farmers will experience more green tape and more blue UN tape, stealing more of their rights to use the land they bought and own. Family farms will disappear, a process well underway already. No new base-load power plants will be constructed. Mining industries will shut down and regional cities will be gutted.

Already, the cost of renewables to Australian taxpayers is $19 billion a year—$1,300 a year for each household. To implement this agenda, this burden will more than double. It will savage the poor as a capricious, regressive tax. Every job created in the green economy costs three jobs in the productive economy—jobs lost to communist China. I expect we'll hear more about so-called clean smelting using hydrogen, an exhibit in the sideshow alley of green dishonesty. It will never be feasible without taxpayer subsidies or extreme inflation in the cost of building materials and housing. Adding the reduction in government revenue from a devastated regional economy, new energy subsidies and new subsidies for industries producing green boondoggles, the net zero policy's mountain of taxpayer debt will be visible from space. Net zero will require as much taxpayer money as we are now spending on health or education. What will that do to the health and education budget? Or is the Prime Minister planning to 'borrow, tax and spend' in the worst traditions of the Labor Party?

Unreliable, expensive, parasitic malinvestment in so-called renewables—monstrosities that only last 15 years before they become toxic heavy metal industrial waste that cannot be safely disposed of. Every solar facility and every wind turbine in existence will need to be replaced before 2040. What a windfall that will be for the corporations that own this parliament—tens of billions of dollars in construction and operational subsidies to rebuild the national generating capacity from scratch, for no impact on earth's temperature! It is a great reset not just of electricity generation but of our entire economy. We're not transitioning from dirty industry to clean industry; we're transitioning from a somewhat free economy to a controlled economy. The winners will be large corporations; the losers will be every Australian trying to get ahead to survive. It is madness, it is inhuman, it is insanity. We will continue to oppose this nonsense.

Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (17:54): The Greens really need to get with the times. They are falling behind the world, because the world can't get enough of Australian coal and Australian gas from your area, Mr Acting Deputy President O'Sullivan. They can't get enough of coal around the world. There is record demand for fossil fuels right now.

That is why there are record prices for our fossil fuels. Gas is trading at well over $30 a gigajoule in our region; it's up three times what it was a year ago. Coal prices are absolutely through the roof at record prices. No-one ever thought they'd see prices at over $200 a tonne for thermal coal and over $600 a tonne for coking coal from my area in Central Queensland. In each one of those trains that goes out past my place in Central Queensland, there is $5 million dollars for our nation at these prices. The rest of the world is just desperate for fossil fuels.

Let's go around the world and see what's happening. We've heard a lot this week about other countries signing up to net zero—doing something in 2050. But I think the best test of what someone's going to do in 2050 is probably what they're doing today, because talk is cheap. Countries can say whatever they like; what they do is much, much more important. So let's go around the world.

In China over the past week, Premier Li came out and said that coal supply is crucial to people's lives. He made these remarks while urging coal power stations to go full throttle. They need them to fire up in China because they are running out of power, their lights are going off and electricity has been cut in many regions. At the same time, Premier Li also said that, given these energy security concerns, China would review its emissions targets. They would review when they are going to commit to emissions peaking. At the moment, China actually doesn't have to do anything. Their promise under the climate change agreements is to keep emitting until 2030, and then, they say, they're going to reduce emissions—they're going to do it in 10 years time! Now they're saying that they might not even do that. This whole climate cabal is falling apart before our eyes. Premier Li said that energy security would be China's priority.

In India, the government has mandated that 10 per cent of all coal used in power stations must be imported. Typically, India doesn't import that much coal or tries not to. It wants more imported coal to shore up their energy security. Thank God an Indian company was allowed to build a coal mine in North Queensland at the Carmichael mine site. That was pretty lucky for our country, because coal's in high demand and it's going to make a lot of money when those first trains go through Carmichael and out from Abbott Point later this year.

We hear a lot about the US—it's apparently the reason we've got to sign up to net zero. Apparently President Joe Biden has demanded that we do this. Well, in the US, President Biden has actually asked OPEC to increase oil production. He's asked OPEC—Middle Eastern countries—to increase oil production. His administration itself has put more restrictions on oil production and fracking in the US. The woke Wall Street bankers won't finance the fracking anymore through Texas and Oklahoma and other places, but they need the Middle Eastern countries to drill-baby-drill. Once again the Western world has been put at the behest of Middle Eastern oil sheikhs. It's an absolute disaster.

While the US wants us to commit to net zero and change our policy settings—apparently demanding it, we're told—they can't even pass legislation to implement their own climate commitments. It looks very likely that the US will go to Glasgow empty handed. That is despite the US Congress currently being Democrat controlled—the party of the President. The President has a clean electricity plan that he's trying to get through the Congress, but Senator Manchin from West Virginia is holding this up because, in relation to coal mines, he said: 'We want to make sure we have reliable power. They are not going to close.' That's what the people in the US want. That's probably what is going to happen in the US. So they can lecture us all they like, but there will be almost certainly no action there.

Let's go over to the UK because that is the most instructive country in this example. In fairness to the UK, they have acted; they have actually done stuff. They've closed coal-fired power stations, they're shutting down their North Sea oilfields and they've banned fracking across the whole country. They have reduced emissions more than any other developed country in the world—a gold star to the United Kingdom! How is it working out for them? Well we've all seen over the past couple of months that, if you're a resident in the UK, you've got to line up for petrol. It's back to the 1970s for the United Kingdom. They're lining up for petrol. Factories have closed all around the UK. Power companies have gone out of business because of surging energy prices and locked in retail prices. In the ultimate comical irony, they are running out of food because they are short of carbon dioxide. You need natural gas to make carbon dioxide and you need carbon dioxide to refrigerate food and transport it from the country to the city. They don't have enough carbon dioxide because Vladimir Putin is not sending them enough gas. They are running out of food. The UK government has had to bail out a major producer of carbon dioxide in the UK, CF Fertilisers. So taxes will go up more to subsidise something that used to be done without government subsidies.

At least the UK are being been upfront about this. As I say, you can see the cost to their economy. Last night, the UK government released modelling of how much it would cost. They didn't actually outline the costs, but they did release modelling on the impact of pursuing a net-zero agenda. I give them credit for that. That modelling showed that, to reach net-zero emissions, you would need a carbon price of A$295 a tonne. That is outrageous. That will put a wrecking ball through any economy. If you put $300 a tonne on people's power bills, on people's petrol costs and on farmers' methane emissions and shut down our cattle industry, that is going to be an economic disaster.

They also revealed that there would be a fiscal shortfall thanks to net zero as well because taxes on a variety of things would fall. That would leave them 1.5 per cent of GDP short. If that was in Australia, you would have a $1,000-a-year impact on Australia wages. It would mean we would have to put up taxes just to offset the fiscal impact, let alone the power bills and petrol costs. Just the fiscal impact would be an extra $1,000 a year. That is the disaster that net-zero emissions are spreading through the world in any country that is trying to do it.

What you won't hear in the mainstream press is that just nine countries in the world have legislated net-zero emissions. The US can't get legislation through. Those include countries in Europe that are living through a disaster right now. Canada has legislated net-zero emissions but—guess what?—emissions this century in Canada have gone up. They had a reduction due to COVID last year, but until 2019 Canada's emissions had gone up under the Trudeau administration. You wouldn't realise that if you just listened to our mainstream press. In New Zealand, they have also legislated the net-zero emissions target. They have exempted their agriculture industry, which accounts for half of their emissions. What a joke! The rest of the world is not doing this thing. They are walking away from it.

We are lagging behind the world. The rest of the world is building coal-fired power stations. We are not doing anything. We need to build these modern, clean, coal-fired power stations, just like the rest of the world is. Four countries that have signed up to net zero are building, combined, 129 coal-fired power stations. China is committed to net zero, apparently. We are told they are committed. And, of course, I believe the Chinese Communist Party; they never lie! They are building 95 coal-fired power stations right now. Indonesia have also apparently signed up to net-zero emissions. Between us and them, we are the first and second biggest coal exporters. They sometimes get the top prize. They have committed to net-zero emissions, apparently. They are building 23 coal-fired power stations. Japan is building seven coal-fired power stations even though we are told, 'They're not going to buy our coal anymore.' They are building coal-fired power stations now. Korea is building four. Demand for Australian coal has never been stronger, and it is going to keep growing for years to come. We as a nation should take that opportunity. We should be building more mines so that we can meet this demand and bring more people out of poverty.

The biggest environmental issue in the world is not carbon emissions. It is air pollution in our region. It kills four million people a year. What we should do to help avoid those deaths is provide reliable electricity that does not create the smog and ash that causes these deaths. Our coal industry does that because it helps electrify countries and remove them from the use of organic matter that causes these deaths. To fix the environment we should be building more Australian coalmines today.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (18:04): Well, clearly we have in Senator Canavan a man who has the courage of his convictions—so much so that he's prepared to hold the whole government hostage in his race to get what he wants in his unscientific version of what is in the national interest. But there is no doubt that we are in a very real race across the globe to act to the benefit of both our environment and the economy. Leaving it—as some would argue and as this government wants to do, it seems—to 2049 to decide how you're going to get there means funeral bells for both our environment and our economy. 'Let's do this with technology,' they say. They haven't given any kind of indication of the framework under which industries will need to lower emissions in order for us to reach any such goal. Happily, federal Labor is well underway in planning a more ambitious medium-term emissions reduction target than the coalition, as well as committing to net-zero emissions by 2050. We know that a net-zero target by 2050 is not nearly sufficient. Targets have to be backed by policies and mechanisms that deliver the promised abatement that we need to get to that point.

We know, as we move towards renewable energy and move to lower the carbon intensity of our economy, that good climate policy is also good jobs policy. It's all very well for Senator Canavan to bemoan, from his point of view, the lack of stability and the level of income that might be attached to such jobs. The simple fact is that this is a government that undermines the industrial relations system and people's ability to get good wages in new industries. It's only the established industries with long histories of unionism where we have such well-protected working conditions. So the real challenge here is to enable our economy and those jobs to transition so that we have those productive and well-paid jobs of the future. We also know that regional and rural areas are the centre of the new jobs in a new climate future and a new energy future.

We don't need to be told by the Australian Greens about the urgency of this problem and the need to act now, but I don't mind backing the Greens up in their message to the government, which is that we need to get on with our transition. We don't need to be told that Australia's climate policy doesn't matter because we only represent a small share of global emissions. We know that we are one of the highest per capita emitters in the world, and I think my own home state of Western Australia is perhaps the highest. We know the livelihoods that are damaged by climate change, including in farming communities, as weather patterns change, as bushfires rage through and as extreme weather events take their toll on agricultural production, tourism, infrastructure and so much more—livelihoods in the regions.

Australia should be in a position where we're able to persuade others on the world stage to take stronger action on climate change. To be credible, we must have our own house in order. The decarbonisation of the global economy is indeed the greatest economic transformation since the Industrial Revolution. We've heard in recent weeks from the Business Council, the ACTU, the Conservation Foundation and the WWF, who have asserted that there are 395,000 clean-energy jobs that could be created by 2040. In fact, the likes of the ACTU, the ACF, the WWF and business have been banging on about this for a decade or so now. The proof is in the pudding. There are already real jobs in these sectors, but we have a government that's holding us back.

Every minute, every day, every year and every term of this government has cost us jobs, brought forth more emissions and held us back. We know that the environmental and economic transformation of the energy systems in our nation will take time. The longer we leave it, the less of an advantage we have and the harder it will be. We need to take responsibility and invest in the opportunities we have right before us before we have trade sanctions against us, before people don't want to take our exports because of our nation's emissions profile. There are so many scenarios that this government refuses to recognise, some of which are already in play.

As someone from Western Australia, I know what an energy intensive and successful economy looks like. It's an economy that this country currently depends on to get through COVID, but in WA we know we have to adapt. We have a bright future ahead in renewables, but will we be able to build those markets as a nation with the kind of leadership we are seeing here now? Perhaps we'll be subject to trade sanctions. Perhaps the world won't be able to accept our gas or our clean energy and hydrogen, because we'll be a pariah on the world stage for our lack of action. We can't stick our heads in the sand the way the National Party wants us to do. The rest of the world might not always want our gas and our coal, despite what Senator Canavan says. This is bad news for both the economy and the environment. I truly wish we had a better head start in adjusting our economy even now. We've already seen right here in Australia that green energy is cheaper than fossil fuels.

It doesn't help coalmining communities to put Australia behind in the race towards climate action. It will simply make their situation worse. We know there are well-paid jobs for our communities, but we can't deliver them if we keep doing what we are doing, if we don't change, if we keep producing coal and fossil fuels until we can't, because we're forced to stop, without a plan to transition. We already have people expressing concern about simple things, important things like accumulated leave entitlements. What happens to them if the coal or gas company they work for becomes a stranded asset? What happens if we have houses that aren't worth anything because there's no job in that community? This is the kind of future that the likes of Senator Canavan would have us look towards. But we know we can do better than this. Australian communities know that a clean energy and a renewable future is inevitable. The sooner we act, the more we reduce the cost of action—acting sooner, rather than later.

I'm not against using technology to help our economy transition, but we have to have a real framework to get us there. This government haven't given us any. They've been there for eight years, and we still do not have a plan for climate action. Even now, at the eleventh hour, when Prime Minister Morrison is finally able to say, 'Yes, I'll go to Glasgow and to the international meetings,' we're yet to see whether the National Party will continue to hold the government, our nation and our whole economy to ransom. It has been eight years, and we still don't have a plan. But is it any wonder why, when we look at the nature of the debate we've had in the chamber today and listen to the likes of Senator Canavan decry a carbon restraint future? (Time expired)

Senator COX (Western Australia) (18:14): I rise to make a contribution on today's matter of urgency. This week the Prime Minister has made it clear that the coalition won't take 2030 targets to Glasgow, so don't be fooled by the coalition's sudden interest in those 2050 net zero targets. It's all smoke and mirrors. Net zero by 2050 is too late and, worst of all, it's based on expanding coal and gas. Just this month in my home state of Western Australia—and also don't be fooled by the two Labor senators who have left the chamber who have already spoken about the 'wonderful' Labor government in my home state—an exemption was granted to a Texan company called Black Mountain to drill for gas in the Kimberley. This is despite the government having announced an onshore gas export ban in August 2020. What's the point in having a ban on gas exports if the government can just go ahead and overturn it and approve them anyway? It's estimated that fracking in the Canning Basin alone could release 13.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent gases into the atmosphere. Australia's emissions budget is compatible with the Paris Agreement, which is only 5.5 billion tonnes of CO2e, which is three times that, just for the maths.

At a time when we should be dramatically reducing emissions, it's unbelievable that the McGowan government is giving the green light to new gas developments in Western Australia. The community don't want fracking in the Kimberley. The traditional owners are sending me messages saying, 'We do not want fracking in the Kimberley.' No-one in this community has invited gas companies into their region. Fracking poses a risk to the health of the waterways, our land, our country. The damage it will cause the Kimberley will be absolutely horrific. And to what end? So we can wreck the planet and line the pockets of billionaires? As we move closer to the point of no return on climate change, we need urgent action and leadership from all Australian governments and all sides of politics. Although people in this chamber will argue, the science is clear: a safer climate means no coal and gas, and they must go. We need formally legislated 2030 targets of 75 per cent, and we need a plan to phase out coal and gas, starting today.

Action on climate change won't hurt our economy, contrary to what others have said. In the UK, emissions have plummeted by 40 per cent since 1990, while their economy has doubled in size. The UK have a population three times the size of Australia's, and yet they make only two-thirds of the emissions that we do. A clean energy revolution will create hundreds of thousands of well-paid, long-term jobs, enabling workers in fossil fuel industries to transition. To unlock this revolution, the government must lead the way with a public investment in renewable generation, storage and transforming the power grid. WA has the opportunity to be a powerhouse for renewable energy. Now is the time to start planning for a just transition, in partnership with communities, so we can harness this opportunity. Even the Nationals leader in Western Australia, Mia Davies, has talked, only nine days ago, about committing to those targets. We have Victoria and the National Farmers Federation talking about these targets and committing to those targets, alongside the Minerals Council of Australia.

Last week thousands of young people across the nation participated in the School Strike 4 Climate. I joined hundreds of those young people at the front of Parliament House in Perth, talking about and taking part in that collective action. Using their voice to demand change, young people are the next generation of decision-makers and leaders, and they are our inspiration and our hope. So let's work together to kick out the Liberals at the next election, alongside the Nationals. With the Greens in shared power, we'll be able to push the next government further and faster on climate action.

Senator THORPE (Victoria) (18:19): I rise to speak on this matter of urgency today, because we would not be here, with a cooking planet and rising seas, if you fellas cared for country the way we have always done. You fellas brought this mess here, right! We looked after these lands for thousands and thousands of generations. And then what happens? The boats roll in and it's, 'Let's dig up as much as we can and destroy as much as we can and make as much money as we can, because money's going to save our lives, at the end of the day, and it's going to give us oxygen'—right?

These big problems that have been caused by burning dirty, dirty fossil fuels need big solutions—solutions that our people, the true experts, First Nations people, the oldest continuing living culture in the world—right here. Right here, right now you've got two of us. We've been here forever. We know how to look after the land. We didn't dig the coal. We didn't frack the gas. In blackfella way, you don't do that. You don't pull the heart out of your mother's chest. You don't pull the eyes out of your kid's head. Yes, it's horrible to think of that, but that's what is going on in our mother land, in our Mother Earth. There are resources being extracted that are equivalent to pulling your mother's heart out of her chest, or your kid's eyes out of their head. The mother is alive—our mother is alive—and every time you dig for coal or dig for gas, that is exactly what you're doing. Our mother is, to us, alive as a person.

Our law and our moral legal kinship and ethical obligations to country are older than your Magna Carta. To solve the climate crisis, we need to give country back its personhood. And this week I promise the Green's solution to care for country, which is to give personhood status to the environment. That's one way of solving the climate crisis. Environmental personhood is about giving the environment, or parts of the environment—like our rivers, lakes, forests and oceans—the rights, protections, privileges and responsibilities that actual people have.

For our people, we are no different to the environment. We don't see ourselves as different from the lakes and the rivers, the animals and the sky. We are them, and they are us. This is why giving the environment personhood is a solution that we must urgently adopt. This is not a new idea, despite some legal professors trying to pass the idea off as their own—as they do; this is how we've always done it for thousands of generations. And if corporations—the word literally means 'to have a body'—which actually only exist on paper, can have personhood, why can't our environment?

Of course, granting personhood to nature is a moment that isn't being led by academics or lawyers. Who's it being led by? It's being led by indigenous people all around the world. In 2014 Te Urewera, a beautiful forested area in the North Island, in Aotearoa, was given legal personhood. It owns land in its own right. It is also a special place for our Maori family, and I honour and salute them in the right to protect their country. The Whanganui River in Aotearoa was declared a legal person in 2017. The river is recognised as an individual, living whole from the mountains to the sea, incorporating the physical, spiritual and metaphysical environment. We need to do it, and we need to do it now. (Time expired.)

The PRESIDENT (18:29): The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to.

Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (18:33): I move:

That the Senate take note of document no. 43.

This body, the Office of the Special Investigator, has been established to 'thoroughly and independently address the alleged criminal offences which fall within our remit'—that is, war crimes in Afghanistan. As my colleague Senator Steele-John said in November:

It is alleged on the public record that innocent people have lost their lives at the hands of Australian soldiers; the individuals responsible must lose more than just their medals and the Australian people must know to what extent those allegations are true.

But the sad truth is that, beyond the war crimes that we've heard reports of, we need a much more honest accounting with the Australian public, and that goes to both Australia's role in the invasion of Afghanistan and Australia's response to the collapse. Australia invaded Afghanistan in support of the US and as part of a coalition. As my former colleague Scott Ludlam pointed out, if the goal was to align ourselves closely with the US, we have succeeded. We have seen more of that since, with our buying into the AUKUS alliance and the critiques that have come from all quarters on that move. But, if the goal was to stabilise the country or the region, we have failed. And not only that but the coalition forces killed thousands of Afghans. The figures are difficult to compile and even harder to comprehend. One estimate based on UN figures suggests that between 2006 and 2020 there were 3,610 civilian casualties killed by international air forces in Afghanistan. That is merely part of a broader estimate of total civilian casualties killed by pro-government forces—8,617 killed tween 2009 and 2020. It's no wonder that we failed to stabilise the country. It's no wonder that the result was the Taliban invading again. All the while, Australia has denied asylum to Afghan people seeking refuge. We have turned away people at our borders and used cruel, heartless detention policies.

As well as the questions that have to be answered about Australia's invasion, we need answers to the Australian government's actions in the months leading up to the collapse of Kabul. We know from public information that the Australian government expected Kabul to fall to the Taliban months before it happened. At the same time, there was a chaotic, turbulent process for people seeking to leave Afghanistan, including people who had worked with the Australian government, such as interpreters. We heard the tragic news this morning that an Afghan interpreter who had worked with the Australian forces was murdered by the Taliban. He was killed. This is the fate of people who worked with our forces who have been left behind. This is their fate at the moment. Yes, during the weeks after the fall of Kabul we got 4,000 people out. But, for those who are left behind, the situation is tragic and the outlook is so bleak.

I want to share just one story with you sent to me a few days ago—one story from the thousands of stories that our Greens offices have received over the past month. This is from an Australian citizen whose wife is trapped in Kabul. In his letter, he told me how the Taliban has been going house to house in Kabul, hunting for his family because they are Hazara Shia people. His wife was an educator of young girls and his father-in-law was a community leader who spoke out against the Taliban's crimes. This person, this Australian citizen, has applied for visas. He has emailed and called upon our government and governments all around the world. He is desperate. His wife is desperate. Their whole family is desperate. But there's been nothing. He cannot even get his wife an emergency humanitarian visa from our government.

We know that since the airlift finished there have been so very few people that the Australian government has supported to get over the borders. We know that the Australian government can do more. It must start with committing to a special intake of at least 20,000 refugees. It's the least we can do. We invaded Afghanistan. We are part of the problem that is now there. The very least we can do is accept a special intake of at least 20,000 refugees, at least matching the actions of other governments around the world. We need to be providing genuine support for those people. It's the least that the Australian government must and should be doing.

Question agreed to.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (18:39): I seek leave to table a nonconforming petition relating to mandatory sentencing for false allegations with 5,853 signatures.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator O'Neill ): Is leave granted? Senator Roberts, I understand that perhaps this has not yet been seen by the whips of either of the major parties.

Senator ROBERTS: The whips have seen it, and both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party have endorsed it.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We have that by report from you but not from anyone else. If you could just give me a moment to check with the Clerk, unless Senator McAllister can shed some light on this matter.

Senator McAllister: I do appreciate, Senator Roberts, that ordinarily we would seek to facilitate something like this, but we would ordinarily also expect to see it beforehand. It may be that there is some misunderstanding. Oh, it appears we are now informed that, at least on our side, we have seen it and we are happy for this to proceed.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, thank you very much. We've been advised by the Labor whip that it has been seen and approved. We are just waiting for a quick approval, I hope, from the government on this matter.

Leave is granted.

Senator ROBERTS: I table the document.