Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Government Services and Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) (09:56): Yes, thank you—just to indicate that the government will not be supporting these amendments.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1443 by leave as moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate and Australian Greens Whip) (10:03): I move the amendment standing in the name of Senator Steele-John and Senator Farrell on sheet 1444 revised.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:03): I'd just like to indicate that the government will not be supporting these amendments.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 1444 as moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate and Australian Greens Whip) (10:10): by leave—I, and also on behalf of Senator Steele-John and Senator Farrell, move Australian Greens and opposition amendments (1) to (13) on sheet 1426, revised:

(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (lines 3 and 4), omit "a threat (whether current or future)", substitute "a current threat".

(2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (line 9), omit "past", substitute "current".

(3) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 10), after item 8, insert:

8A After subsection 60(2)

Insert:

(2A) For the purposes of paragraphs (2)(e) and (f):

(a) a threat is current if the threat exists at the time of the making of the record, or the disclosure or use of the information; and

(b) the person must, in determining whether the threat exists, have regard to whether the individual has a particular vulnerability because of:

(i) the individual's age, membership of a minority group, physical or mental health, intellectual capacity, or ability to communicate in the English language; or

(ii) the extent to which the individual is able to access supports and services from family, friends, carers and NDIS providers; or

(iii) the kinds of supports or services provided to the individual by the individual's NDIS provider or providers; or

(iv) any other matter prescribed by the National Disability Insurance Scheme rules for the purposes of this paragraph.

Note: For example, an individual may have a particular vulnerability because the individual receives supports that require a level of intimate personal contact with the participant (such as showering and toileting), or that are delivered in an environment in which there is limited external visibility or direct supervision.

(2B) To avoid doubt, a threat is not current if, at the time of the making of the record, or the disclosure or use of the information:

(a) the threat no longer exists; or

(b) the threat does not exist, but may exist in the future.

(4) Schedule 1, item 11, page 5 (lines 3 and 4), omit "a threat (whether current or future)", substitute "a current threat".

(5) Schedule 1, item 12, page 5 (line 9), omit "past", substitute "current".

(6) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 10), after item 12, insert:

12A After subsection 67A(1)

Insert:

(1A) For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(e) and (f):

(a) a threat is current if the threat exists at the time of the making of the record, or the disclosure or use of the information; and

(b) the person must, in determining whether the threat exists, have regard to whether the individual has a particular vulnerability because of:

(i) the individual's age, membership of a minority group, physical or mental health, intellectual capacity, or ability to communicate in the English language; or

(ii) the extent to which the individual is able to access supports and services from family, friends, carers and NDIS providers; or

(iii) the kinds of supports or services provided to the individual by the individual's NDIS provider or providers; or

(iv) any other matter prescribed by the National Disability Insurance Scheme rules for the purposes of this paragraph.

Note: For example, an individual may have a particular vulnerability because the individual receives supports that require a level of intimate personal contact with the participant (such as showering and toileting), or that are delivered in an environment in which there is limited external visibility or direct supervision.

(1B) To avoid doubt, a threat is not current if, at the time of the making of the record, or the disclosure or use of the information:

(a) the threat no longer exists; or

(b) the threat does not exist, but may exist in the future.

(7) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 17), after item 13, insert:

13A After section 67G

Insert:

67GA Notification and recording of disclosures etc.

(1) This section applies if:

(a) a person (the discloser):

(i) makes a record of information; or

(ii) discloses information to any other person; or

(iii) otherwise makes use of information; and

(b) the discloser is authorised or required by or under this Part to make the record, disclosure or use of the information that is made by the discloser; and

(c) the information is:

(i) protected Agency information; or

(ii) protected Commission information.

(2) The discloser must notify the person to whom the information relates of the making of the record, or the disclosure or use of the information:

(a) in writing; and

(b) as soon as practicable, and no later than 3 business days after, the making of the record or the disclosure or use of the information.

(3) The discloser must keep a written record that:

(a) sets out:

(i) the identity of the discloser; and

(ii) details of the information that the discloser made a record of, disclosed or used, including a copy of the information and a record of any oral disclosures; and

(iii) the circumstances of the making of the record, or the disclosure or use of the information, including to whom the information was disclosed, and the method, time and date of the making of the record or the disclosure or use; and

(iv) a clear description of the factual information the discloser relied on to establish that the making of the record, or the disclosure or use of the information, was authorised or required by or under this Part; and

(b) sets out details of any outcomes resulting from, or actions taken as a result of, the making of the record or the disclosure or use of the information, including:

(i) whether changes were made to a participant's plan; and

(ii) whether a police force or service, fire service or ambulance service was notified, and if so, the actions taken by the force or service; and

(c) complies with the record-keeping requirements specified in an instrument made under subsection (4).

(4) The Minister must, by legislative instrument, specify record-keeping requirements for the purposes of paragraph (3)(c).

Offences

(5) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (2).

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or 120 penalty units, or both.

Note 1: If a body corporate is convicted of an offence against this subsection, subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 allows a court to impose a fine of up to 5 times the pecuniary penalty stated above.

Note 2: If a person who is a member of the staff of the Agency or the Commission contravenes subsection (2), the person may also breach the Code of Conduct under the Public Service Act 1999 and may be subject to sanctions under that Act.

(6) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (3).

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or 120 penalty units, or both.

Note 1: If a body corporate is convicted of an offence against this subsection, subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 allows a court to impose a fine of up to 5 times the pecuniary penalty stated above.

Note 2: If a person who is a member of the staff of the Agency or the Commission contravenes subsection (3), the person may also breach the Code of Conduct under the Public Service Act 1999 and may be subject to sanctions under that Act.

67GB Annual repo rts to Information Commissioner about disclosures etc.

(1) As soon as practicable after the end of each reporting period, the Board members must prepare and give a report to the Information Commissioner that includes:

(a) whether, during the reporting period, a person (a discloser) made a record of, disclosed or used protected Agency information as authorised or required by or under this Part; and

(b) details of the information that was recorded, disclosed or used; and

(c) when the person to whom the information relates was notified of the making of the record, or the disclosure or use of the information; and

(d) if the consent of the person to whom the information relates was sought to the making of the record, or the disclosure or use of the information:

(i) when the consent was sought; and

(ii) if the consent was given, when the consent was given; and

(e) details of the identity of the disclosers; and

(f) details of any outcomes resulting from, or actions taken as a result of, the making of the record or the disclosure or use of the information, including:

(i) whether changes were made to a participant's plan; and

(ii) whether a police force or service, fire service or ambulance service was notified, and if so, the actions taken by the force or service.

(2) As soon as practicable after the end of each reporting period, the Commissioner must prepare and give a report to the Information Commissioner that includes:

(a) whether, during the reporting period, a person (a discloser) made a record of, disclosed or used protected Commission information as authorised or required by or under this Part; and

(b) details of the information that was recorded, disclosed or used; and

(c) when the person to whom the information relates was notified of the making of the record, or the disclosure or use of the information; and

(d) if the consent of the person to whom the information relates was sought to the making of the record, or the disclosure or use of the information:

(i) when the consent was sought; and

(ii) if the consent was given, when the consent was given; and

(e) details of the identity of the disclosers; and

(f) details of any outcomes resulting from, or actions taken as a result of, the making of the record or the disclosure or use of the information, including:

(i) whether changes were made to a participant's plan; and

(ii) whether a police force or service, fire service or ambulance service was notified, and if so, the actions taken by the force or service.

(3) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, prescribe particular information that must be included in a report under this section.

(4) For the purposes of this section, each of the following periods is a reporting period:

(a) the period of 12 months starting on the day this section commences;

(b) each subsequent period of 12 months.

(8) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 17), after item 22, insert:

22A Before subsection 73Z(1)

Insert:

(1A) If a reportable incident occurs, or is alleged to have occurred, in connection with the provision of supports or services by a registered NDIS provider, the Commissioner must provide persons with disability affected by the reportable incident with information regarding the use of an advocate (including an independent advocate) in relation to an investigation into the reportable incident.

(9) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 23), after item 24, insert:

24A At the end of subsection 73Z(2)

Add:

Note: The matters dealt with by the National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may be subject to provisions in the Privacy Act 1988 relevant to the use and disclosure of information.

(10) Schedule 1, page 10 (after line 14), after item 42, insert:

42A At the end of su bsection 172(2)

Add:

(d) de-identified information about:

(i) the number of times a person made a record of, disclosed or used protected Agency information as authorised or required by or under Part 2 of Chapter 4; and

(ii) the number of complaints made to the Agency in relation to the making of the record, or the disclosure or use of protected Agency information; and

(iii) whether a person made a record, disclosure or use of protected Agency information that was not authorised or required by or under Part 2 of Chapter 4, and any actions (including civil, criminal or administrative proceedings) taken against the person as a result.

42B Subsection 174(2)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(2) The report must include:

(a) information (including statistics) that relates to either or both of the following in the period to which the report relates:

(i) participants in each host jurisdiction;

(ii) funding or provision of supports by the Agency in relation to each host jurisdiction; and

(b) de-identified information about the number of times a person made a record of, disclosed or used protected Agency information as authorised or required by or under Part 2 of Chapter 4.

42C Subsection 174(3)

Omit "subsection (2)", substitute "paragraph (2)(a)".

42D Before section 175

Insert:

174A Annual report

The annual report prepared by the Commissioner and given to the Minister under section 46 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 must include, for the period to which the report relates, de-identified information about:

(a) the number of times a person made a record of, disclosed or used protected Commission information as authorised or required by or under Part 2 of Chapter 4; and

(b) the number of complaints made to the Commissioner in relation to the making of the record, or the disclosure or use of protected Commission information; and

(c) whether a person made a record, disclosure or use of protected Commission information that was not authorised or required by or under Part 2 of Chapter 4, and any actions (including civil, criminal or administrative proceedings) taken against the person as a result.

(11) Schedule 1, item 46, page 11 (lines 15 and 16), omit paragraph (3)(a).

(12) Schedule 1, item 46, page 12 (lines 1 and 2), omit paragraph (7)(a).

(13) Schedule 1, item 46, page 12 (after line 8), at the end of the item, add:

(9) Section 67GA of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to the making of a record of information, or the disclosure or use of information, on or after the commencement of this item, whether the information was obtained before, on or after that commencement.

Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Government Services and Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) (10:10): The government won't be supporting these amendments.

The CHAIR: The question is that the amendments (1) to (13) on sheet 1426 moved by Senator McKim, on behalf of Senator Steele-John and Senator Farrell, be agreed to.

Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Government Services and Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) (10:15): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:15): I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021 and a related bill. Labor will be supporting the regional comprehensive economic partnership agreement implementation bills.

The partnership, RCEP as it is known, was signed on 15 November 2020 by 15 countries. It is a partnership that includes the members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam; as well as five non-ASEAN nations: Australia, China, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea. These countries make up 29 per cent of world GDP and 30 per cent of the world's population. RCEP is, quite simply, the biggest trade agreement in history. Negotiations for it started in 2012 at the 21st ASEAN Summit in Cambodia, and the negotiations were commenced by Labor, by Prime Minister Julia Gillard and trade minister Craig Emerson on behalf of Australia. From the beginning, Labor has supported Australia being actively involved in the negotiation of this partnership. Importantly, the process has been led by ASEAN.

RCEP includes nine of Australia's top 15 trading partners and economies, which account for more than half of Australia's total two-way trade and more than two-thirds of our exports. Ratifying RCEP will mean Australia is part of the biggest trade agreement in the world. As Dr Jeffrey Wilson of the Perth USAsia Centre has argued:

RCEP will be the world's second-most important trade agreement on arrival, ranking behind only the WTO itself.

In essence, RCEP creates new regional architecture for economic integration and strengthens the rules of many of Australia's existing free trade agreements. Importantly, RCEP includes core investment protections—rules requiring payment of compensation where an investment is expropriated; minimum standards of treatment of investors under international law; and compensation for losses due to conflict and civil strife. The agreement provides avenues for reducing non-tariff barriers, including in areas such as quarantine and technical standards, by promoting compliance with World Trade Organization rules and further improving cooperation and transparency. And, finally, it supports economic capacity building and, in particular, provides a dedicated chapter addressing the capability of small and medium enterprises in the region to benefit from the agreement.

These protections and transparency provisions will provide greater certainty and confidence for Australian businesses looking to invest in the region, and they will be helped by the partnership's single set of rules for exporters to use, rather than having to rely on the multiplicity of different rules and procedures under the existing free trade agreements. This cuts or simplifies a great deal of red tape for Australian SMEs and opens up opportunities for Australian firms looking to utilise regional supply chains.

There are aspects of the RCEP that we think could be better, and valid concerns have been raised, and I propose to go through some of these. RCEP, as it stands, does not have an environment chapter or labour chapter. When Labor was last in government, Craig Emerson, as trade minister, sought to include these provisions. Regrettably, other RCEP members were not amenable to this, but opting out and retreating to the sidelines was not an option, and to do so would have set back our relationship with ASEAN significantly.

A number of other concerns have been addressed, including ensuring that the partnership does not expand waivers of labour market testing for foreign workers. Further, the government has provided assurances that RCEP does not restrict domestic procurement arrangements in Australia at any level of government; it does not require privatisation of any Australian public services; it does not undermine the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, it does not undermine state or Commonwealth workplace laws or occupational licensing arrangements; it does not undermine Australia's antidumping regime; it does not include provisions that limit the right of the Commonwealth to regulate in the interests of public welfare or in relation to safe products; and RCEP does not include investor-state dispute settlement provisions.

Labor commends the work of civil society and the trade union movement in steering the government away from implementing ISDS as a basis for dispute settlement in all trade negotiations. The fact that we are seeing ISDS less and less in our international treaties is a testament to the campaigning of the ACTU, AFTINET and other organisations. Recent media reports that Clive Palmer is exploring the use of ISDS mechanisms to sue the Australian government reaffirm our opposition to them as a general provision in international trade deals. Having already forked out a million dollars in legal fees because the Prime Minister supported Mr Palmer's attempt to sue Western Australia, Australian taxpayers certainly don't want to be stung again by another vexatious suit.

Unions and other civil society stakeholders have also expressed concern regarding the potential for public regulation to be constrained under RCEP. DFAT and Minister Tehan have clarified this is incorrect and that there are reservations in RCEP, like in any FTA, that allow Australia to regulate in the public interest, which includes for aged care or climate change action. Labor doesn't support agreements which would inhibit the government's ability to implement in full the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety.

While aged care and other concerns have been responded to by the government and resolved, the Morrison-Joyce government still needs to respond to community concerns in relation to Myanmar. Myanmar, as an ASEAN nation, is a signatory to RCEP, but the actions of the Tatmadaw to undermine Myanmar's democracy, to detain thousands of political prisoners and to crack down against peaceful protests and opposition are unacceptable. They are completely unacceptable. Labor condemns the military coup of 1 February and the subsequent violence engaged in by the Tatmadaw. On 2 February, we called for the Australian government to review its military cooperation with the Tatmadaw, and over a month later this cooperation was suspended. Labor has also called for targeted sanctions against those responsible for the coup. In April, Labor called on the government to provide visa pathways for at-risk Myanmar nationals to remain in Australia. Once again, a month later, the government said those on temporary visas could apply to extend their stay.

But the Morrison-Joyce government has still not implemented any additional targeted sanctions against those responsible for the coup and for human rights abuses in Myanmar. This is despite many of our like-minded partners taking strong action, and it is despite the government chaired Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade recommending sanctions against the Tatmadaw in June, and, in August, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties embarrassingly having to remind the Morrison-Joyce government again of the need to act. Labor members of the JSCOT worked hard to amend the final report to reflect stakeholder concerns on Myanmar. I thank all of the Labor members, and I especially thank Senator Ayres and the Deputy Chair, Mr Khalil, for their tireless efforts in this committee.

In the committee's report, the government was urged to make a declaration as to Australia's response to the situation in Myanmar at the time of RCEP ratification. All the minister has indicated is that he will consider it. Well, we say the time for consideration has well passed, given ratification is assured with the passage of the bill today. We urge the government to make a declaration, as the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties urged. More broadly, the Morrison government's refusal to implement any sanctions since the coup sends precisely the wrong message. It sends a message that we don't care and that we are mere bystanders to the democratic backsliding in our region, in a nation where many Australians over many years have worked so hard to support Myanmar's democratic transition. So it is time for Mr Morrison and Minister Payne to act.

The Morrison-Joyce government's failings on Myanmar reflect their broader failings to understand the region and to sufficiently deploy our diplomacy to shape the region we want: a region that is stable, prosperous and respectful of sovereignty. Labor recognises that Australia's security and prosperity relies on our continued economic engagement with the world and engagement and integration with our region, including through trade and investment. International trade creates jobs. These are facts that sometimes some in this chamber and some in the community fail to recognise. One in five Australian workers are employed in a trade related activity. That is more than 2 million Australian jobs. As an open trading nation, Australia has not just been a beneficiary of the multilateral rules based system that has operated for decades; we have helped shape it and we have worked to shape it for our interests. We have to understand that our recovery and the region's recovery from the pandemic requires open trade based on agreed rules of the road.

Of course, our ongoing success as an exporting nation also demands that we better diversify what we export and where we export. Despite all of his tough talk, Prime Minister Morrison has overseen Australia becoming more dependent than ever on one market—that is, China—for our exports and for Australian jobs, such that we depend on the Chinese market more than any other country in the world. Under Mr Morrison's prime ministership, trade with India and Indonesia has gone down. When trade diversification should be the highest priority for this nation, Mr Morrison has put at risk our trade agreement with the European Union. We all know, in the context of his flashy announcement on nuclear powered submarines, that Mr Morrison neglected to do any of the diplomatic legwork around ending Australia's contract for the Attack class submarines with the French. It really highlights how perilous it is for Australia, for our economy and for the national interest to have a man in the office of Prime Minister who really only cares about the photo-op and the politics.

Trade diversification and more open trade are in our national interest. Our economic welfare, our strategic opportunities, our national security and our cultural dynamism will all depend on how deeply and well we integrate with the fast-growing economies of Asia not only in traditional goods trade but also in investment, tourism, services, supply chains and people-to-people links.

What is so often lost in the trade discussion in this country is a recognition of the benefits that open trade has for working people. Trade benefits working people by contributing to economic growth. Trade benefits working people by improving national productivity. Trade benefits working people because it creates better-paid, more-rewarding and more-secure jobs. It benefits working people by offering lower prices and greater choice for working people as consumers. You see, we don't pursue trade opportunities out of blind adherence to abstract theories; we in the Labor Party pursue it because it delivers real benefits for the people we represent. Trade raises living standards, so because I am a progressive I support trade and I support free trade.

But I also recognise trade places uneven pressures on our society. That is why we have to have proper social democratic institutions and progressive economic policies, and it means existing on high-quality trade agreements that maximise local employment. It means ensuring that trade agreements do not undermine public policy—for example, in the areas of health care, environment or labour rights. It means trade agreements must be supported by policies that have at their heart the expansion of opportunity and investments in health, education, innovation and infrastructure to ensure the Australian people continue to prosper in a more open economy. This combination of open trade supported by the government investing in its people is central to how we ensure Australia and working Australians can be the beneficiaries of a changing region and a changing world.

Senator COX (Western Australia) (10:28): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021. These two bills implement Australia's obligation under the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement, RCEP for short. The agreement was signed between Australia and 14 other states: China, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea and the 10 members of ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

The Greens won't be supporting these bills, as we oppose binding treaty action being taken. As is consistent with our approach to free trade agreements, we continue to hold serious concerns around the transparency, consultation and human rights regarding trade agreements processes, as I will articulate further. There are no additional market access benefits for Australian exports that come out of the RCEP. Australia already has free trade agreements with the RCEP members. India's withdrawal from negotiations means that agreements offer no additional export markets for Australian businesses. Even the government acknowledges the minimum value of RCEP. The regulation impact statement prepared for this bill clearly states, 'Given the relative quality of Australia's existing free trade agreements with its RCEP partner parties, including the CPTTP, we do not expect that RCEP goods market access commitments to provide Australia with additional market access with our current free trade partners.' The government also acknowledges that under our existing free trade agreements, Australia will already have illuminated tariffs on imports from RCEP parties by 1 April 2021. So if there is neither additional market access nor any benefits in the form of a reduced tariffs, why is Australia entering into this agreement in the first place? The government has not commissioned an independent study of the economic or social costs and benefits that will come from this agreement, so we have no way of independently verifying the government's claims.

As is usual practice, RCEP trade negotiations were conducted in secret. Neither parliament nor the wider community have had any input into the development of this agreement. The final text of the agreement was not made public until after the government made a decision to sign it. While the community and civil society are kept in the dark, business groups get the advantage of having a seat at the table. The EU has developed a more open process when it comes to negotiating free trade agreements and that includes the public release of documents and proposed text used during those negotiations before they are signed.

Australia can and should strive to have a more open process when it comes to our free trade negotiations. This includes not only the publication of our negotiating text but also the independent evaluation of the economic health, gender and environmental impact agreements before we make a decision to sign these agreements. The community and civil society should have a role in providing feedback through an open and transparent process. The RCEP contains no minimum requirements for a signatory government to uphold human rights, labour rights or environmental protections. This is entirely unacceptable when it comes to the context of the climate crisis, the significant human rights violations occurring in states who are signatories to the agreement and the inconsistent approach taken by signatory states to the implementation of labour basic rights as defined by the International Labour Organization.

Unfortunately, global trade models encourage competition to provide the lowest labour and environmental costs for exports. This model suits global corporations and big business but does come at the expense of labour rights, especially in low-income countries. We should be using trade agreements to improve the rights and conditions of workers, not eroding them. The absence of commitment to human rights and labour rights means there is no obligation on signatories to take action to end human rights abuses.

The greens echo the deep concern of AFTINET, the ACTU and others about entering an agreement with Myanmar. As noted by AFTINET, the RCEP would legitimise a brutal military regime in Myanmar at a time when the US and other allies are implementing serious sanctions and withdrawing from economic agreements with Myanmar. The RCEP also ignores violations of human rights and labour rights China, the Philippines and other RCEP countries. Australia should not be entering into preferential trade deals with Myanmar; we should be imposing targeted sanctions and showing our support for the return of the democratically elected government. The Greens strongly support the inclusion of our international labour standards and human rights standards as part of our free trade agreements.

This agreement also represents another missed opportunity to include commitments by governments to implement international environmental standards. This is not a new suggestion. The Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement includes the environmental chapter in which parties made commitments not to reduce environmental standards. The RCEP does not include an environmental chapter. This is a serious shortcoming in this agreement. We cannot afford to entrench bad climate policies and sell out workers rights through our trade models any longer. Now is the time to include enforceable commitments to climate action in our trade agreements.

Many concerns that have been raised with the RCEP, including rules on trades and services, as they will apply to aged care. The current rules freeze regulations at current levels for most services unless they are listed as exempt. Unlike other publicly funded essential services, aged care has not been specifically exempted from those rules. The Greens are deeply troubled that these rules will lock in current levels of regulation and restrict further changes. This places significant and unnecessary limitations on any government to be able to regulate in the public interest and could restrict the implementation of the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. Our trade agreement should not restrict the provision of essential services like aged care.

I want to move now to the issues around investor-state dispute settlements. While the RCEP does not include investor-state dispute settlement provisions upon ratification, this will be considered two years after the agreement comes into force. These provisions allow foreign investors and corporations to bypass national courts and sue governments directly for compensation if a change in law harms their investment. They do not serve the interest of the community but instead protect the interests of multinational corporations. If investor-state dispute settlement clauses are agreed in the RCEP in the future, Australia could face both state-to-state disputes and ISDS disputes from international aged-care companies if it increases regulation, particularly in the aged-care sector.

The RCEP provides no clear economic benefit to Australia. It fails the human rights test, the environmental standards test and the transparency test. For too long, free trade agreements have come at the expense of human rights, labour rights and environmental rights. I know that we can do better. We can implement free trade agreements grounded in democratic transparency and accountability to serve the interests of our communities, not greedy multinational corporations. I urge those in this chamber to stand with the greens in opposing the ratification of the RCEP.

Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (10:38): I want to make some comments from the perspective of my participation in the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties deliberations on the RCEP agreement. I want to thank those Labor senators and members who participated in that committee, who've done careful work in the labour interest, in the labour movement's interest and in the national interest to continually improve Australia's participation and the quality of these agreements.

I want to deal with a few facts. The debate about trade is too often a fact-free debate. The key issues that we prioritised in the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties were, firstly, the legitimate issues raised by people in aged care wanting to ensure that the impact of the RCEP wasn't to limit the Australian government's capacity to regulate in aged care. It is crystal clear that there is no impact from the RCEP on the capacity of the Australian government to regulate aged care if this government or a future Albanese government chooses to implement the full recommendations of the aged-care royal commission—no impact on labour mobility and the capacity to regulate temporary work, no investor-state dispute settlement procedures, and despite what we heard a few minutes ago, a commitment in writing from this government that is binding that Australia will not pursue investor-state dispute settlement procedures at the two-year review.

The issues around Myanmar are a top priority for the Labor members of the committee, and in no way is Australia's participation in the RCEP a legitimisation of the Tatmadaw regime in Myanmar. It is an assertion of ASEAN centrality. And, if you're concerned about issues like the brutal takeover in Myanmar and you want a pathway to resolve those issues, ASEAN centrality is critical; collective action in the region is critical.

We do have some criticisms of the government's approach to Myanmar. We on the Labor side do believe that a stronger statement at this point would be of value. We would support Magnitsky-style sanction regimes; they would allow more targeted, agile and effective sanctions of Tatmadaw figures. But in no way should Labor's support for the RCEP be taken as a tacit endorsement or legitimisation of that regime. Environment, labour and human rights are all provisions supported by Labor when we commenced negotiations for this agreement, and we will continue to seek improvements in those areas.

Now, our region is not composed of entirely democratic countries. That may be a newsflash for some people in this place. From some of the language about alliances with like-minded nations, it may be a newsflash for people in the government and in the Greens, but, you know what, the region's a bit more complicated than that. Diplomacy and seeking peace, freedom, relationships and security in our region involve deepening relationships with countries that are very different to ours and have very different styles of governance to us. And we should be focused on that. If you're interested in security and peace, that is the strongest argument, in fact. There is not a very strong economic argument for RCEP. Not even its principal opponents would argue that there are any significant advances in RCEP in economic terms or market access terms. The strongest argument for RCEP is continuing to build our relationships in the region. That is the strongest argument. If you're interested in peace and security in our region, you cannot be against our participation in the largest piece of regional architecture that has been developed in recent times.

It does lead me to make a couple of observations about the government's approach to trade agreements more broadly. It is the case that the government has, at the very least, overstated the economic case for each of the agreements that it has participated in and led. I think the closest the government's going to get to achieving net zero this week is RCEP, where there is net zero economic benefit—no real benefits, no real costs. They won't get much closer to net zero in any other terms this week. There is no independent economic analysis, and it is a problem for building confidence in the Australian community that the government's secret deals approach to trade agreements is actually in the national interest when the government cannot demonstrate one extra job from its trade agreements—in fact, the reverse. There have been too many cows-for-cars agreements. There have been too many agreements that privilege the export of raw commodities and don't actually act in the interests of jobs.

Australia has been forced further down the global value chain over the life of this government and become less and less economically diverse. You have jokers like Mr Christensen chairing this Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth, worried about our economic diversity—the diversity of our trading relationships. If you were remotely interested in Australia's economic sustainability and diversity, you would be focussed on lifting us up the global value chain and making our economic exports more complex, not less. What have we seen? We've seen the car industry close down. We've seen incomes decline. We have seen no wage growth. This is because of the free market ideology that's attached to the government's approach.

The second element of the government's approach that is a problem here is a focus on ribbon-cutting and announcements and not delivery. That's why you see people performing and putting a big amount of emphasis on agreements like the Uruguay agreement. Our trade volume with Uruguay is $24 million, at its highest, a year, but we devoted resources to pursuing an agreement with Uruguay. The IA-CEPA is the most recent significant bilateral agreement. It was supported through this place by the Labor Party. There was a big announcement and all the razzle-dazzle, all the press conferences, all the claims made about the economic benefit, but where is the follow-through from this government? Where is the increase in commitment to resources from trade offices to support Australian businesses to participate in economic activity in Indonesia? The short story is: nothing; zip. The government's focus is on the instrument itself and not the object.

We've seen, I think, a government that's approach to trade agreements has let Australia down, a government that's approach to trade agreements is stuck in the 1990s and the 2000s. We've slid much further. We are repeating the certainties and sureties of the 1980s and 1990s, and things have been allowed to slip, decline and deteriorate since then. What we see in the Australian community on issues like temporary migration, for example, is that there is an association in people's minds with the amount of temporary migration and the trade agreements. Well, the truth is trade agreements are now irrelevant in temporary migration terms; it's this government's approach to temporary migration that is the problem. There is no effective local training and no regulation of temporary migration. Former Treasurer Peter Costello said in the early 2000s that Australia would never become a guest worker nation. I don't think you could travel in the streets of Sydney or Melbourne, or in our agriculture sector, and say that that is still the case. There is a deep complacency that has infected the government's approach. It's still stuck in the early 2000s when we had, essentially, a benign economic environment and a benign geopolitical environment. With that complacency and that sense of confidence, the coalition government has not caught up with the big shifts in the region.

What would be different about the Labor approach in government? Well, the first thing is that we would be results based—not measuring our effectiveness on the number of trade agreements or the number of press conferences, but having a focus on actually deepening trade and market access, particularly for Australian firms higher up in the value chain. We would be supporting businesses, rather than just signing the agreements and saying, 'Job done.' That has been the approach of this government.

The second thing we would do to rebuild confidence in these issues is clean up temporary labour. We would be focused on permanent jobs and permanent migration and eliminate the abuses, the rorts and the rip-offs that have been perpetrated by this government in temporary labour. We should be prioritising permanent migration. We don't want a guest worker economy; we want to be supporting permanent migration. And for temporary workers who come here, their experience of life in Australia should be a good one. They should be able to come here and work in confidence and then be able to return to their countries and tell a good story of their lives in Australia, not a story of desperation and hunger and lining up in food queues, which has been the experience of temporary migrants over the last couple of years.

Fix agriculture, train apprentices, look after temporary workers and make sure we actually recognise the soft diplomacy asset that there is in our region and look after Pacific workers properly when they come here, instead of the current approach of all care and no responsibility. What do you think people say when they return about their experience if there have been 14 people stuck in a flat in Inverell paying exorbitant rents and working in a meatworks? What do you think they say about the Australian government's commitment to the Pacific when that happens? We have to improve that.

There will be no ISDSs under a Labor government's trade approach. They are not in RCEP. They are a declining feature of the global trading environment, in any case. We will not permit them. There will be no agreements that undermine our sovereign capacity to provide and protect public services or to regulate in the interests of Australians.

An Albanese government will build local. We will use the power of our government procurement capability at the Commonwealth level and encourage the states to build locally. Just like President Biden, in the COVID recovery we will build back better and build Australian industry. That means more trains in Queensland, with no more Campbell Newman approaches to outsourcing or Mr Baird or Ms Berejiklian approaches, where all the trains, buses and ferries were built offshore. There'll be billions of dollars spent and local jobs in places like Maryborough and Newcastle. There'll be defence procurement, supporting our small to medium enterprises.

We will rebuild Australian manufacturing under an Albanese Labor government. Under the government opposite, good jobs in manufacturing have declined. The car industry has gone offshore. Manufacturing now sits at 5.7 per cent of GDP. You can't wander around this place wittering on about national security and pretend that it's sustainable for Australia to be strong and secure in the region when our economy is diverse and hollowed out and manufacturing hovers just above five per cent. It's completely inconsistent, it's completely reckless and it will leave Australia a weaker and impoverished place if we allow it to continue.

An Albanese Labor government will support good-quality trade agreements, but we will not allow free trade ideology to capture our approach to industry policy or to regulating and protecting the Australian national interest.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (10:52): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I say that One Nation supports fair trade agreements. Is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement the spawn of the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Is it free trade or fair trade? It's certainly not free trade. Each of the signatories have carved out substantial areas of their economies from the agreement. This information is tucked away, hidden away in annexes where it would seem not enough have looked. Tariffs are being defended. Schemes that protect the power base of local politicians are being defended, at Australia's cost. There are hundreds of pages of carve-outs in this agreement. Many of them are ours. That's probably a good thing. But the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement is not a free trade agreement. It is at best slightly freer trade.

In the Productivity Commission submission dated July 2022 to the inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties into certain aspects of the treaty-making process in Australia, the Productivity Commission comes out and basically supports what I'm about to say. The government prepared a national interest analysis on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement and found it did provide a net benefit to Australia. This was relied upon by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and subsequently endorsed by the Morrison-Joyce government and the alternative Albanese-Bandt government. This consensus of the establishment parties is disconcerting. Despite their name, free trade agreements are never free. These agreements always come at a cost to someone, and that's usually everyday Australians, workers and business owners. Underdeveloped countries do not sign free trade agreements with industrialised nations in order to give away what they have. It's the industrialised nations that give away their wealth, our wealth, through lower tariffs, greater market access of cheaper goods and greater incursion of foreign workers into our Australian economy. They're facts.

Free trade in this situation is a race to the bottom. The nation with the worst environmental protections, the lowest wages, the worst working conditions, the crudest and most unsafe working conditions will win every time, in effect dragging our conditions down at the same time as dragging theirs up. Our environment loses. Our wages lose. Everyday Australians lose.

I saw nothing in the National Interest Analysis that constituted a genuine attempt to identify who the winners and losers will really be. That's probably a design feature to allow the establishment parties to take all the electoral gain and protect themselves later from any electoral loss in this election cycle, because all too often in this country, in this parliament, it seems to be about looking good, not doing good.

Once signed into existence, these agreements are not subject to sufficient scrutiny. The last Productivity Commission inquiry into a free trade agreement was in 2010. The last review into Australia's most important free trade agreement, the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, was in 2018. Before Australia enters into future trade agreements, this parliament must address the lack of transparency in the trade negotiation process and the signing of an agreement before this parliament ratifies it.

My next concern is to the new regulatory environment that this agreement will create. In his submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, Bryan Clark from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry highlighted: 'There are five separate trade agreements with Malaysia. Businesses are getting very confused trying to work out how to use these agreements, and the best outcome for Australian business would actually come from sorting out all this red tape and creating clear rules for Australian businesses.' I agree completely.

Here's a specific example of this, thanks to the Australian Fair trade and Investment Network. The United Nations Central Product Classification system used by the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement— with the UN it's always a mouthful, isn't it; they twist and turn and hide and bury and camouflage in acronyms and long titles that confuse people, so I'll start again. The United Nations Central Product Classification system used by the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement has a separate classification for aged care, which implies that without a specific reservation by Australia any increase in the regulation of aged care would be a breach of this agreement. So if we find something we need to improve and regulate it, it could be a breach of this agreement. The NSW Nurses and Midwives' Association agreed that: 'At worst, aged care is exposed to the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement. At best, there is sufficient ambiguity to allow overseas companies to exploit the framework for their own benefit.' The globalists, the elites, moving our industries—whole industries, whole sectors, workers, farmers—as pawns in their game of 'central', of control and money, and parliaments in this country, without accountability, are their tool. They work through us—this parliament.

The government has responded that there is provision for a review of unexpected consequences so we should not worry aged-care standards will drop under the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement. There is, though, no framework in place to ensure this action actually occurs. In the years ahead, we will read stories that the parliaments' mates, be they union bosses or crony capitalists and globalists, are exploiting loopholes in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement for their own benefit. That's how they get through unaccountable parliaments. Resolving that will be at the discretion of the minister. This is a terrible system. The benefit of a free-trade agreement must be tested annually. I call on the government to introduce a system of annual review of the economic gains and losses for each of the agreements. Australia will not restore its position as a leading world economy by exposing Australian businesses to unfair competition and multiple layers of red, green and blue tape. Red tape is the bureaucracy. Green tape is pseudo-environmental regulations, impositions, under the guise of environment but really with the intent to control. And blue tape is UN policy on behalf of the UN's masters, the globalists, who move industries and people around the globe at will.

Australia will not emerge from our self-inflicted COVID-19 recession by destroying business and increasing reliance on government welfare. To restore the wealth of everyday Australians, we must get the government out of the way and let personal free enterprise create wealth again. Ideas, effort, energy, heart—that's what brings life to an economy when it is a free economy with fair trade. Fair trade has an important role to play in that process—fair trade.

Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (11:01): I want to make a few comments about trade policy and where RCEP fits in. For over 75 years the Liberal Party has largely been a champion of free trade. This goes back to the Menzies government opening up trade with Japan with the commerce agreement that was delivered in the 1950s. That led to, predominantly, iron ore being shipped to Japan. So the pivot to Asia—trade in an economic sense—started under the Menzies government.

Over the current period of coalition government, you'd have to give great credit to prime ministers Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison for pursuing an agenda on free trade which has seen us deliver the TPP, the RCEP and also bilateral agreements with a number of key Asian partners. The point of free trade is that it is about opening up markets for Australia. This is a wealthy country with a relatively small domestic market. Therefore, we depend on our ability to trade offshore to pay for our lifestyle. I've said many times that Australia has relied upon foreign people, foreign capital and access to foreign markets for the past 240 years. That is a fact. So the job of government is to ensure that the Australian people can trade into these markets., which we can now do at much greater rate thanks to these new trade deals.

The RCEP is setting Australia up for another generation of prosperity. It builds on the bilateral trade deal agenda. As we are trying to set up the country for a decarbonised economy, trade is a key economic lever. It's always easy to run an agenda against free trade through a protectionist lens but the reality is that we will not be a wealthy nation by selling stuff to ourselves—and that is the same for goods and services. What I like about the RCEP is that it goes beyond just cutting tariffs on goods; it also opens up the prospect of Australian services exports going into, mainly, the Asian region. It is important that we, as a diverse economy that is predominantly a services economy, can look to export financial services; that we can look to export accounting services, professional services; that we can look to export architecture and engineering through mutual recognition, through the creation of schemes that allow qualifications and regulatory systems to be recognised in other jurisdictions. We have a lot to gain from services exports as well as goods exports.

In closing, I will just make two points. The thing with these trade deals is that it really is the end of the beginning. Yes, it's true that the signing ceremonies and the media coverage are important. Getting the legislation through means that there will be, eventually, lower tariffs and more access for goods and services. But it is a real grind to get the gains of these trade deals, and that relies upon the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade engaging closely with industry and making sure that the real gains are being achieved, that we are getting access into these markets and that, when the cameras and the caravans and so on move on, the real work continues, because that is the key of a free trade deal.

Finally, without risking being accused of being too partisan, I don't believe the Labor Party would have delivered these trade deals. They are too frightened of ISDS and union bogeyman. Unfortunately, Labor weren't able to deliver big trade deals with Japan and with China when they were in government. They weren't allowed to. Their union bosses said no. I hope in the future, if there is ever a Labor government, that they use their own brains and assess the relative merits of trade deals rather than being told what to think by people who aren't elected. But, in our case, we always act in the national interest. These are good developments, and I commend this legislation to the Senate.

Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (11:07): I will begin by taking up a couple of issues raised by the previous speaker, Senator Bragg, before I start on the substance of my speech. I always find it intriguing when Menzies gets mentioned, particularly when it comes to trade matters. I recall being taught at school that his nickname was 'Pig Iron Bob' because he fuelled, at that time, the non-democratic Japanese army's imperialistic intentions for the rest of Asia. So if you're trying to recite that one as an example of the successive capacity of the conservatives, it's certainly wanting. When it comes to the other comments that Senator Bragg made, I will deal with them in a moment. As the Senate would recall, it was Gough Whitlam, who was the Prime Minister at the time, who actually began the very important process of engaging with China.

I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021. The RCEP countries include nine of Australia's top 15 trading partners, accounting for 58 per cent of our two-way trade and 67 per cent of our exports. It includes our near neighbours, the ASEAN countries; New Zealand; and major trade partners China, Japan and South Korea. The RCEP will provide a single set of basic rules for Australian exporters, including small businesses, to these countries. Labor support the measures that encourage small businesses to boost exports and create more Australian jobs as a result. Already, one in five Australian workers, more than two million people, are employed in a trade-related activity.

Australian exports will be an important feature of any economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, and currently small and medium businesses only account for 14 per cent of Australia's exports, whereas the G7 average is 25 per cent and the European Union average is 35 per cent. Clearly there is more to be done to support small businesses in this country. Lifting small and medium business exports to 25 per cent of our exports would increase Australia's GDP by $36 billion. So there are potential economic benefits to the RCEP, which is why Labor cautiously supports the ratification of this treaty. But that support is not unqualified and it's not without our serious concerns. I'd like to thank the shadow minister for trade, Madeleine King, who has raised some of those concerns directly with the minister for trade.

The first of these concerns is that the potential economic benefits I've just outlined are exactly that: potential. The Morrison government has refused to commission independent economic modelling for the RCEP, despite being pressed by Labor to do it. It is unclear why Mr Morrison is so opposed to knowing the economic impact of his own treaty. It raises concerns that we do not truly know the economic and social impact that this will have, particularly on Australian workers.

Another issue raised by Labor is the use of investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS mechanisms. ISDS mechanisms give private companies the power to sue the Australian government when it exercises its democratic mandate to enact legislation. Famously, this was used by the tobacco giant Philip Morris to attempt to sue the Gillard government over the introduction of tobacco plain packaging laws. The Gillard government vowed to end the use of ISDS mechanisms and remove them from existing agreements in 2012. Since then, agreements signed by both the Abbott and Turnbull governments have reintroduced ISDS. I would love to hear how those on the other side would argue that it's in the best interest of the Australian people to give multinational companies like Philip Morris the power to sue the Australian government.

The RCEP, as currently drafted, does not have an ISDS provision. However, it could be added at a later stage. I understand that the Morrison government has said it does not intend to add an ISDS clause to the agreement at the two-year review. If Australia is unfortunate enough for this government to still be in charge at that point, I am certain that Labor will hold Mr Morrison to that promise.

Another concern that Labor has consistently raised surrounds the actual treaty-making process. The RCEP, as with other agreements made by this government, was negotiated behind closed doors. The final treaty text was not publicly released until after Mr Morrison had signed up. That is fundamentally contrary to some of our major trading partners—for example, Europe—that have an ongoing process of engagement. Unlike Senator Bragg, we think talking to employers and unions that represent millions of workers in this country, and the aspirations of many more, is not a weakness in any process of making a trade agreement. In fact, it's a strength to make sure that an appropriate and proper trade agreement is put in place.

Of course, the public eye on those processes is critical to a final treaty that the public support. As we know, treaties have become discredited in some of the more populist public areas primarily because of the lack of transparency, and also some of the critical issues I've already raised.

This is just the latest long-running saga of Mr Morrison running away from transparency. Whether it's JobKeeper, the national cabinet, the widespread rorts or our trade agreements, this is a Prime Minister who prefers to operate outside of any public or parliamentary oversight. Like mould, like rot, he thrives in darkness.

On the other hand, Labor believes that greater transparency in the development of trade agreements is a good thing. We see transparency and openness as vital to developing a real public license to enter into these sorts of agreements. That public license is in danger.

While there have been economic benefits to trade liberalisation, there have also been victims. Workers in our manufacturing industry in particular have lost out as successive governments have made it easier and cheaper for production to be sent offshore. Workers across all sectors of the economy have lost out as big business, with the support of the Liberal Party, have used underpaid, temporary migrant labour to drive down wages for Australian workers.

There are very valid concerns about the impact of the RCEP on Australian jobs, wages and conditions. Thankfully, the RCEP does not include commitments in relation to waiving labour market testing. It is absolutely essential that we do not go any further down that path. It is absolutely essential that we do not make it easier for big businesses to import and exploit cheap, temporary, migrant labour, because, when that happens, the impact is twofold. Firstly, it results of the sort of horrible exploitation we've seen time and time again—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Sheldon, I will have to interrupt you there. You will be in continuation.

Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (11:15): I present the 12th report of 2021 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 12 OF 2021

21 October 2021

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Dean Smith (Government Whip, Chair)

Senator Perin Davey (The Nationals Whip)

Senator Stirling Griff (Centre Alliance Whip)

Senator Malcolm Roberts (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip)

Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator Anne Urquhart (Opposition Whip)

Senator Raff Ciccone

Senator Katy Gallagher

Senator Jacqui Lambie

Senator the Hon James McGrath

Senator Rex Patrick

Senator the Hon Anne Ruston

Secretary: Tim Bryant Ph. 6277 3020

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 20 October 2021 at 7.20 pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Economic Empowerment) Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 November 2021 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b) the provisions of the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 November 2021 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(c) the provisions of the Corporations Amendment (Meetings and Documents) Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 18 November 2021 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(d) the provisions of the Offshore Petroleum (Laminaria and Corallina Decommissioning Cost Recovery Levy) Bill 2021Treasury Laws Amendment (Laminaria and Corallina Decommissioning Cost Recovery Levy) Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 18 November 2021 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(e) the provisions of the Telstra Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 18 November 2021 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral).

3. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:

Aged Care Amendment (Registered Nurses Ensuring Quality Care) Bill 2021

Air Services Amendment Bill 2018

Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2021

Biosecurity Amendment (No Crime to Return Home) Bill 2021

Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021

Customs Tariff Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021

Customs Legislation Amendment (Commercial Greyhound Export and Import Prohibition) Bill 2021

Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018

Electric Vehicles Accountability Bill 2021

Fair Work Amendment (Improving Paid Parental Leave for Parents of Stillborn Babies) Bill 2021

Federal Environment Watchdog Bill 2021

Governor-General Amendment (Cessation of Allowances in the Public Interest) Bill 2019

Great Australian Bight Environment Protection Bill 2019

Health Insurance Amendment (Enhancing the Bonded Medical Program and Other Measures) Bill 2021

Health Legislation Amendment (Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021

Human Rights (Targeted Sanctions) Bill 2021

International Human Rights and Corruption (Magnitsky Sanctions) Bill 2021

Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020

Migration Amendment (Temporary Visa Extension and Reinstatements) Bill 2021

National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits Transparency and Cost Recovery) Bill 2021

National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Funders of Last Resort and Other Measures) Bill 2021

Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021

Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Improved Grants Reporting) Bill 2021

Ransomware Payments Bill 2021 (No. 2)

Regional Forest Agreements Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2017

Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Amendment (No New Fossil Fuels) Bill 2021

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Better Targeting Student Payments) Bill 2019

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2019

Spam Amendment (Unsolicited Political Communications) Bill 2021

Statute Law Amendment (Prescribed Forms) Bill 2021

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Exempting Disability Payments from Income Testing and Other Measures) Bill 2021.

4. The committee considered the following bill but was unable to reach agreement:

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Participant Service Guarantee and Other Measures) Bill 2021.

(Dean Smith)

Chair

21 October 2021

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bi ll to a committee

Name of bill:

Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Economic Empowerment) Bill 2021

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Insufficient consultation on the proposed bill with affected First Nations communities and Traditional Owners

Potential weakening of First Nations land rights

Potential weakening of consultation with Traditional Owners, particularly in relation to mining and exploration processes

Strengthening of Land Council powers

Implications of changes to the ABA and establishments of NTAI

Redefinition of Aboriginal person

Possible submissions or evidence from:

NT Traditional Owner groups

NT Land Councils

NT Prescribed Body Corporates

National Native Title Tribunal

NIAA

Australian Human Rights Commission

Law Council of Australia

concerned Australians

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration

Possible hearing date(s):

Weeks of November 8 and November 15, 2021

Possible reporting date:

2 December 2021

(signed)

Nick McKim

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2021

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Large, complex bill with significant implications for the aged care sector

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Leading Age Services Australia

Council of the Ageing Australia

Health Services Union

Older Persons Advocacy Network

Anglicare

Uniting Care

Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation

National Aged Care Alliance

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs Committee

Possible hearing date (s):

Possible reporting dat e:

22 November 2021

(signed)

Nick McKim

Appendix

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2021

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Very substantive legislation partially implementing key recommendations from the Aged Care Royal Commission.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

ANMF, UWU, HSU, COTA, AC3A, Catholic Health, Dementia Australia, Professor Joseph Ibrahim- Monash University (Department of Forensic Medicine).

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs

Possible hearing date(s):

8, 9, November

Possible reporting date:

16 November 2021

(signed)

A. Urquhart

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Corporations Amendment (Meetings and Documents) Bill 2021

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideratio n:

To understand the impact the Bill would have on corporate accountability and shareholder democracy.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Listed companies.

Shareholders.

Investment managers.

Proxy advisers.

Academics.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Economics

Possible hearing date(s):

18 November

Possible reporting date:

January 2021

(signed)

Nick McKim

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Corporations Amendment (Meetings and Documents) Bill 2021

Reasons for referr al /principal issues for consideration:

Significant change to the governance arrangements for companies and corporations.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Australian Shareholders Association, Australian Council of Superannuation Investors, Australian Institute of Company Directors, the Governance Institute, the Treasury, ASIC

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

8, 9, 10 or 11 November

Possible reporting date:

18 November 2021

(signed)

A. Urquhart

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 4

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Treasury Laws Amendment (Laminaria and Corallina Decommissioning Cost Recovery Levy) Bill 2021

Offshore Petroleum (Laminaria and Corallina Decommissioning Cost Recovery Levy) Bill 2021

Reasons for referra l /principal issues for consideration:

To consider the impact of the proposed levy on the offshore gas industry.

To consider the impact of the proposed levy on jobs in the offshore gas industry and associated sectors, including shipping and port workers.

To consider the estimated revenue that the proposed levy will bring to the Commonwealth, and the estimated cost of the decommissioning project.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

ACTU and/ or unions such as AWU, MUA

APPEA

Gas industry

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Economics Committee

P ossible hearing date(s):

Week of 8th November

Possible reporting date:

18 November 2021

(signed)

A. Urquhart

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 5

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Telstra Corporation and other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021

Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:

Complex bill that requires scrutiny

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Department

Telstra

Committee to which bill is t o be referred:

Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Early in the November break, subject to the availability of Senators.

Possible reporting date:

Before 18 November 2021

(signed)

A. Urquhart

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Senator DEAN SMITH: I move:

That the report be adopted.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate and Australian Greens Whip) (11:16): I have an amendment to the motion currently before the chair, which I understand has been circulated. At the request of Senator Steele-John, I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Participant Service Guarantee and Other Measures) Bill 2021, contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 December 2021".

I understand that Senator Steele-John would like to speak briefly to that amendment.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Steele-John, are you on the line? We might need to continue Senator McKim.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:17): I would like to move an amendment to Senator McKim's amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report in regard to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Participant Service Guarantee and Other Measures) Bill 2021 to change the date for reporting of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry to 25 November 2021. I move:

At the end of the motion, add "and, in respect of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Participant Service Guarantee and Other Measures) Bill 2021, contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the bill be referred to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 November 2021".

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the amendment moved by Minister Ruston to the amendment proposed by Senator McKim be agreed to. To be clear, this is the amendment to the motion from Senator McKim. This is Minister Ruston's amendment.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: The question now is that the amendment as amended.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (11:29): I move general business notice of motion No. 1249:

(1) That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 26 October 2021, the internal review of ASIC's handling of the Sterling Group produced by a litigation counsel in the chief legal office which contains a factual analysis of the work undertaken by the relevant ASIC business units in relation to Sterling Group.

(2) If the Senate is not sitting when the documents are ready for presentation, the documents are to be presented to the President under standing order 166.

Notice of motion altered on 19 October 2021 pursuant to standing order 77

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:29): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator RUSTON: The government opposes this motion. ASIC is undertaking an ongoing investigation into the conduct of a number of entities and officers within the Sterling Group of Companies. The government does not wish to prejudice the independent work of ASIC. I refer to the comments I made yesterday, on a similar motion, that matters relating to the Sterling Income Trust have been subject to litigation and the government does not want or wish to prejudice any possible future proceedings.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (11:30): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator PATRICK: Responding to the minister—just because ASIC is conducting an investigation into something doesn't absolve the Senate from its responsibility to oversight government. Secondly, in relation to prejudicing the potential litigation, nothing tabled in the Senate can be adduced in evidence in a court. The threshold for prejudicing judicial proceedings is in fact 'substantially prejudice'. So, unless that's made out properly, the order should be complied with.

Question agreed to.

Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (11:31): Before moving general business notice of motion No. 1257, I ask the Senate to note that Senator Farrell is going to be co-sponsoring this motion. I, and also on behalf of Senator Farrell, move:

(1) That the Senate notes that:

(a) the Select Committee on the Administration of Sports Grants tabled its final report on 18 March 2021; and

(b) while government responses to committee reports are due within three months, the government response to the administration of sports grant inquiry has not been forthcoming seven months after the report was tabled.

(2) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 3.30 pm on 22 November 2021, the government response to the final report of the Select Committee on the Administration of Sports Grants.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:32): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator RUSTON: The government will provide its response once it's finalised.

Question agreed to.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (11:32): At the request of Senator Hanson, I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to prevent discrimination in relation to COVID-19 vaccination status, and for related purposes. COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2021.

Question agreed to.

Senator ROBER TS: I present the bill and move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (11:33): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

Senator ROBERTS: I table an explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

It is with a heavy heart that I have introduced this legislation to the Senate, a Bill for an Act to protect the right of Australians to make their own health decisions in relation to COVID-19 vaccination.

I do not introduce this Bill lightly.

I introduce this Bill because I see no other alternative for halting the pandemic of discrimination that has been unleashed in Australia against individuals who don't get vaccinated against COVID-19.

It's in the best Westminster tradition that I introduce this Bill to enshrine individual rights in law.

Introducing this Bill is also a response to the disturbing trend of Australian prime ministers too frightened - or simply incapable - of exercising true leadership when their country is crying out for it.

Australians who stand for their right to choose vaccination are just like any other Australians.

They are doctors, nurses and paramedics caring for our health.

They are police officers enforcing law and keeping us safe.

They are soldiers, sailors and aviators defending our sovereignty.

They are people who work alongside us in an office, in a factory, at a mine, on a farm or in a shop.

They are volunteers helping their communities.

They are people in line with us at Centrelink, and they are people sitting next to us in corporate boardrooms.

They are people who live next door, down the street, across town and interstate.

They are people born here and overseas, indigenous and non-indigenous, men and women, adults and children.

They are our people.

They are our fellow citizens.

They are Australians just like you and me, with families and mortgages and worries and hopes and dreams.

The pandemic of discrimination which has been unleashed upon our fellow Australians has taken many forms.

They are demonised by elected governments and unelected health bureaucrats, a message amplified by a disturbingly compliant and complacent media.

They are physically beaten by police for protesting vaccine mandates and hair-trigger lockdowns destroying their families, jobs, businesses and the economy.

They have been attacked in parliaments by their own elected representatives.

They face a bleak future in which they are treated as second-class citizens unable to enjoy whatever freedoms will be returned to us - freedoms we all took for granted before 2020, like going to a movie or on an interstate holiday.

Many of these people have already lost their jobs and their livelihoods, with little to no prospects on the horizon.

Many more jobs are under threat from this discrimination.

Last week the Northern Territory government ordered people to receive a jab by 13 November if their jobs involved public interaction.

Not content with this demand, people were told they would not be allowed at work without it and would be hit with a 5000 dollar fine.

This is pure, naked coercion - not only will you lose your job and your income for standing for your right to choose, but you will have your savings account cleaned out also, right when you need it.

In other words, do what you're told or we'll put you out on the street.

Or in prison, maybe, if you don't have 5000 dollars just lying around.

Not a lot of Territorians do.

All this discrimination and coercion against people who won't be vaccinated against COVID-19, which has affected just over 200 people in the Territory and caused no deaths.

It's appalling.

Influenza kills people in the Territory - one person died last year and five the year before - but similar discrimination and coercion is not in place for people who won't get a flu jab.

No, discrimination is being solely reserved for those who won't get the COVID-19 jabs.

All of this discrimination has amounted to one clear message: the rights of the individual will be protected only so long as they do not conflict with the state.

There is nothing - not even a global pandemic - more dangerous to a free society.

Our nation's history is replete with people who recognised this danger and acted, from the miners who rebelled on the Victorian goldfields and the drafters of our Constitution, to the young men and women who enlisted to fight wars against fascist or communist tyranny and the legislators who passed landmark laws against racial and sexual discrimination.

Our nation's history is also replete with the extension of equal rights to disenfranchised sections of Australian society - firstly men without property, then women, then indigenous Australians.

This legislation follows this proud tradition but, more importantly, will help prevent us from going backwards on protecting individual human rights in Australia.

This legislation is all about principle, something which has been abandoned by the major political parties.

There sit senators of the Labor Party, the so-called champions of the working class, the political arm of the union movement now under attack from its very own members for failing to stand up for their right to choose.

They won't act to prevent discrimination against Australians standing for the right to choose.

There sit senators of the Liberal Party, the so-called champions for personal responsibility and economic integrity, failing to stand up for personal responsibility and spending public money like none have done before.

I recently asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Birmingham, if the government would mandate COVID-19 vaccination for Liberal MPs.

His response was that it was a personal choice for Liberal MPs.

So the privileged members of the government are allowed the right to choose but not millions of members of the public.

How does this make the government anything more than a gang of hypocritical control freaks?

They won't act to prevent discrimination against Australians standing for the right to choose.

Only One Nation is acting to prevent discrimination against Australians standing for the right to choose, because only One Nation stands firmly for this principle.

It is the birthright of every Australian, and we must be able to exercise it safe from threats to our livelihoods and public freedoms.

Safe from discrimination.

Discrimination used to be a dirty word, but this pandemic has exposed it as a new virtue to be signalled.

How far we have fallen in this pandemic, which has left its mark on all of us.

One Nation is determined this mark does not linger in the form of ongoing discrimination against Australians standing for the right to choose vaccination.

The COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2021 will prohibit discrimination based on individuals' COVID-19 vaccination status by the Commonwealth, state and territory governments, statutory authorities, local government and businesses.

It will make it unlawful for the Commonwealth to discriminate against a person on the basis of whether the person has received a COVID-19 vaccination.

It will make it unlawful for the Commonwealth to enter an agreement with, provide public funds or grant licences, permits or authorisations to entities if they are reasonably likely to discriminate against a person on the basis of whether the person has received a COVID-19 vaccination.

The Bill has the same provisions for state and territory governments and local government.

This legislation will make it unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person - in relation to the first person employing the other person, on the basis of whether the other person has received a COVID-19 vaccination.

It will also make it unlawful for a business to discriminate in the provision of goods or services, or access to business premises.

This principle will also apply to volunteer bodies with respect to people's membership, participation in volunteer activities and the provision of goods or services.

The penalties will be steep for a breach of this law.

This is because the right to choose is fundamental and must not be compromised, regardless of the choice that is made.

It's a shame, really, that I am compelled to remind the Senate the right to choose is the foundation on which democracies like Australia are built.

It's the reason each of us are here - because Australians freely chose us to represent them.

You may not always agree with the free choices other Australians make, but that doesn't entitle us to take their right to choose away from them.

And it most definitely doesn't entitle us to punish those whose free choices we do not agree with by taking away their livelihoods and restricting freedoms other Australians have.

And it may very well be unconstitutional to take the freedom to choose away.

I draw Senators' attention to Section 51 (23A) of the Australian Constitution which says Parliament can make laws with respect to:

" … the provision of maternity allowances, widows' pensions, child endowment, unemp loyment, pharmaceutical sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services ( but no so as to authorise any form of civil conscription ) … "

What is the vaccination mandate if not the conscription of the Australian people in a war against the coronavirus?

The response to this pandemic has already imposed restrictions on movement and basic freedoms not seen in Australia since the Second World War.

It's also been replete with wartime propaganda exaggerating the danger of the enemy that is the coronavirus.

It's only right for Australians to question much of the propaganda which has been selectively spoon-fed to them by unelected health bureaucrats and populist premiers.

Fatalities in particular are an open question when the average age of people we're told have died from the coronavirus is 86, higher than the average life expectancy for Australians.

Did they die from COVID-19 or with COVID-19?

When a patient in their 90s in palliative care is said to have died from the coronavirus it's only fair to assume other factors were in play.

This is not a standalone case.

Many cases were reported as a COVID death when they had many underlying health issues.

I suspect this is a reality which health bureaucrats are keen to hide from the Australian people who have borne the brunt of hair-trigger lockdowns imposed by premiers running rampant in the face of the Prime Minister's impotence.

We hear more about COVID deaths than we hear about deaths caused by adverse reactions to the vaccine. Why don't we be utterly honest with the people?

This gutless PM's lack of leadership and authority is enabling these rogue premiers to destroy families, jobs and the economy with lockdowns while Scott Morrison, in his impotence, turns a blind eye.

One Nation is not blind to the plight of Australians suffering under lockdowns and losing their jobs for standing for the right to choose.

We have been told a load of rubbish and exaggerated figures from so-called health experts from the beginning.

I have had enough, and so have the people.

One Nation stands with them.

Senator ROBERTS: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (11:34): I move general business notice of motion No. 1259:

(1) That the Senate notes that:

(a) the interim report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation for its inquiry into the exemption of delegated legislation from parliamentary oversight was tabled on 2 December 2020 and the final report was tabled on 16 March 2021;

(b) the reports contain recommendations of vital importance, including in relation to the ongoing exemption of significant COVID-19 response measures from disallowance by the Parliament; and

(c) the government responses to both reports are now significantly overdue.

(2) That there be laid on the table by the Attorney-General, by no later than 6 pm on Monday, 22 November 2021, the government responses to the interim and final reports of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation for its inquiry into the exemption of delegated legislation from parliamentary oversight.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:34): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator RUSTON: The reports by this committee covered matters that impacted a number of portfolios. The government's responses require extensive consultation across a number of departments and offices. The government will be tabling its response to each of these reports in the coming weeks, and it will guarantee they are tabled no later than 22 November 2021.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (11:34): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator ROBERTS: The bipartisan Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation has an admirable track record of defending the Senate's duty as the house of review. The Australian people deserve nothing less. This motion results from subsection 476(2) of the Biosecurity Act 2015, which allows the minister to make the declaration of a pandemic without needing parliamentary approval. The minister may need to issue a pandemic declaration quickly, yet the parliament should come along afterwards and decide if that declaration was appropriate or not. The report that this motion is trying to shake loose is the government's response to the committee's recommendation that this regulation be made disallowable so that the parliament can do its job.

Yesterday I presented to the Prime Minister, and published on my website, 70 pages of data, facts and questions which prove beyond a doubt that the Morrison-Joyce-Hunt COVID measures are deeply flawed—which is what happens in the absence of parliamentary scrutiny. One Nation support the committee's recommendation, and we thank them for their work.

Question agreed to.

Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (11:36): I seek leave to move a motion relating to the failure of the government to comply with the order for the production of documents No. 1,251.

Leave not granted.

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

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion to provide that a motion relating to the failure of the government to comply with the order for the production of documents No. 1,251—may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business until determined and be determined without amendment or debate.

On this motion, the Senate may or may not recall that the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction was subject to an order for production of documents by motion of this chamber with which the government has not complied. The order for production was moved by Senator Canavan and Senator Patrick, and the requirement was that this be tabled by 10 am today. Unsurprisingly, for a government that avoids all accountability—as we saw in the House of Representatives yesterday, with the voting to protect Mr Christian Porter—this government has failed to comply with the provision of the modelling. It seems passing strange that a government that has spent so much of the last eight long years saying to people, 'You can't have a target without a plan; you can't have a target unless you know what it means,' is going to such lengths to hide the economic modelling it is doing, or has done, for its climate plan.

Senator Canavan has been rightly calling for the release of this modelling by his own government. We don't agree on very much, Senator Canavan and I, but we do agree on this. We do agree that the government should provide the modelling, and I remind the Senate of Senator Canavan's tweet on 19 October 2021: 'If this modelling is so good why does it have to remain a secret?' As everybody knows, Senator Canavan and I have different views on climate change, but what we do agree with is that this government shouldn't keep this a secret. The problem is that this government is addicted to secrecy, addicted to covering up and addicted to not providing information to this chamber. Time and again, the chamber calls for documents—calls for information—and we see the government refusing to provide them.

It is the same attitude that this Prime Minister demonstrated yesterday. Yesterday, Mr Morrison used the power of his office to instruct every coalition MP to vote against an inquiry into an anonymous million-dollar donation to Mr Christian Porter. It is extraordinary. You only need to outline the facts of yesterday to be struck by how extraordinary it is. And there's a higher point here that I think is worth making: what does the office of Prime Minister mean and what should it be used for?

Too often with Mr Morrison the power that is associated with the office of the Prime Minister is used to cover up, to protect people and to avoid transparency and accountability. We saw that yesterday when, for the first time in 120 years, in the House of Representatives the government voted against the Speaker on such an issue.

Coming back to the modelling, we have had a long discussion in the media between the National Party and the Liberal Party about net zero emissions by 2050. We had extraordinary scenes here in this chamber, with a cabinet minister threatening the government with things getting ugly and a cabinet minister refusing to back the Prime Minister in. I have never seen a cabinet minister campaign against a Prime Minister in question time before, but that is what this week has been like. We have a member of the government, Senator Canavan, and a member of the crossbench, Senator Patrick, rightly calling for the economic modelling associated with the government climate policy.

I say to the chamber and to all senators that the government are now saying that they have had a change of heart on climate. I don't believe them, and I think the Australian people don't believe them. We all remember what Mr Morrison was like, bringing in his lump of coal and saying that electric vehicles would end the weekend and that renewable storage was a big banana. We know all that. We know this is all fake. But what we do want to understand is the economic modelling that the government is predicating its policy on. If Mr Morrison is serious about net zero emissions by 2050, if he is serious about demonstrating that he actually wants to do something to get there, if he is serious about his belated assertions around jobs, he will get over his addiction to secrecy and he will disclose the modelling that he has been talking about. As Senator Canavan— (Time expired)

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (11:42): There are a number of quite predictable things in this place. It is predictable, indeed, that the Labor Party and the Greens will always seek any opportunity to play politics and do a bit of grandstanding and pursue different stunts. So of course we have a motion to suspend standing orders to bring on matters that weren't listed for debate today because they want to pursue another stunt to have a debate and do all of the different things that Labor will do just to make some sort of cheap political point along the way. It is predictable, and no doubt we will hear it in other contributions.

The opposition, the Greens and others will always seek to talk down Australia's contributions, particularly when it comes to areas such as emissions reduction. They will overlook the fact that Australia has managed to meet and beat our emissions reduction commitments over the years, that we continue to be on track to do so and that the scale of emissions reduction in Australia exceeds that of so many other nations. They will overlook the fact that there is a good point to going through the processes of having clinical debate and teasing out issues, including difficult issues of dissent and dispute that may exist across communities in Australia and right across political debate, and to doing that in a way that enables people to put their perspective and have their views heard.

That's not the Labor Party way. The Labor Party way is to try to make sure that everybody just toes the line. That's why when people dissent in their party they ultimately have to leave their party. Of course, in the Liberal and National parties, we enable people to have a freer perspective and to actually have views, to have dissent and to work through those different issues.

I have been reminded multiple times this week of former senator Doug Cameron. I remember Dougie Cameron—not always fondly—but I particularly remember a time when former Senator Cameron, speaking about life inside the Labor Party, said that it was 'a bit like having a political lobotomy'. He said:

You can't speak your mind. You can't think about some issues because they are all off the agenda.

That's how former Senator Cameron described life inside the Labor caucus, that it was a bit like having a lobotomy because you weren't allowed to speak your mind or to think about other issues. That's not the way our parties work. That's not how the Liberal and National parties work. We proudly enable our members to speak their mind, to bring different perspectives to the table and, in bringing those perspectives to the table, to be in the best possible position to address real issues. That's what we are seeking to do on the position that we will take to the Glasgow climate change conference. We will be addressing the real issues of emissions reduction and how we make sure we as a country track a pathway to build on the gains we've made in emissions reduction to date, to build on the gains we're continuing to make ahead of 2030 and to track the course towards net zero. But we will do it alongside clear plans around how we take communities with us, protect jobs and ensure that we achieve that in ways that give Australia the best possible potential for the future. We will release in relation to what we take to Glasgow those commitments, those plans, and we will do all of that when we've concluded government processes and before the Prime Minister provides those commitments in Glasgow.

For those opposite to be calling out and demanding that we do that ahead of finalising those processes is to ignore the proper processes that the government is rightly going through in addressing all of these issues. For them to be calling for us to release further modelling evidence or otherwise betrays the fact that they haven't released any such evidence. They've made commitments. They've said there will be a commitment to net zero by 2050, but I don't see any the plans, any of the modelling or anything else coming from the opposition as to how they are going to get there. As I said the other day, the opposition's policy is a bit like jumping out of a plane first and then checking to see whether your parachute has been packed. We in the government are making sure that we do all of the leg work necessary to protect regional communities, protect the jobs within them, ensure they can transition and support them. That's what we'll continue to do in the proper process, and we urge those in this chamber to oppose the opposition's attempt to disrupt business today. (Time expired)

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (11:47): I rise to speak to the suspension motion. We will be supporting the motion. What we are seeing is the government yesterday agree to disclose some documents and then today fail to disclose them. This is not the first time this government has done this. We passed an order for the production of documents relating to the Beetaloo basin and the cosy meetings that members of this government have had with donor companies who were then worded up about the grant arrangements on a first-in, best-dressed basis. We passed that OPD, and then we waited a good eight weeks before this government complied with it. So this is their form. They'll say, 'Sure, fine,' and then just not comply with it. The reason they said, 'Sure, fine,' yesterday and let the OPD pass was that they didn't want Senator Canavan to cross the floor and further embarrass the government. This is a government that cannot disclose these sorts of documents because they are so compromised by what those documents would say.

This particular transparency measure relates to the famed 2050 modelling that, naturally, the Prime Minister does not want to release because he is allergic to transparency and is obsessed with secrecy. The reason he doesn't want to release it is that the modelling is absolute crap. How on earth could any modelling say that you can somehow address the climate crisis that we're in by increasing coal and gas? The International Energy Agency has done this work. It looked at the countries that currently buy our fossil fuels and compared them with the 2030 targets those countries have made, and it found that fossil fuel usage will peak in 2025 and then fall. That's why we want to see this 2050 modelling, because it will be revealed as absolute rubbish. It's somewhat ironic that Senator Canavan with Senator Patrick's support want to see this modelling, because they too think it will be rubbish, although for completely different reasons.

The government could solve this by simply releasing the modelling, but it won't do that, because it's utterly compromised and embarrassed on the climate. Glasgow is a week away, and this Prime Minister is still talking about a date that's 30 years in the future. For the rest of the world, the whole ticket to Glasgow, the whole point of Glasgow, is to talk about 2030, and this Prime Minister is having a phony war with his coalition junior partner—which suits the electoral outcomes of both of them, I might add—to distract from the fact that Australia is now the only comparable nation that is not addressing 2030 and has no science based targets for 2030.

The Climate Targets Panel have advised us that, if we want to stay within 1½ degrees of warming, we need to triple our 2030 targets. The Prime Minister's pathetic 2030 targets—which are the targets established by Tony Abbott, that great climate saviour—are one-third of what we need to do our bit in the global effort to keep to 1½ degrees. If we don't keep to that, you can kiss the Great Barrier Reef goodbye. You can kiss our agricultural productivity goodbye. We already know that studies indicate that agricultural productivity in the Murray-Darling Basin will fall by more than 90 per cent if we don't seriously address the climate crisis and constrain that warming to 1½ degrees. These are the people that the Nationals still occasionally purport to represent, and this government is throwing them under the bus. It's not only throwing nature under the bus—we're used to it doing that—but throwing the productivity of our agricultural sector under the bus as well, and it is imperilling the future of our communities who have faced devastating natural disasters already.

Perhaps the Prime Minister's planning on going to Hawaii again when he opens up the international borders. Maybe he won't be around for the next bushfire season. But Australians won't forget, and that's exactly why they deserve to see this climate modelling which this government is not disclosing. These folks just love running protection rackets. They did it yesterday in the House over former Minister Porter. They've done it today. They did it on the Beetaloo basin. They are obsessed with secrecy, and they are failing us on climate. Let's vote them out.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (11:52): This is an important motion. We do need to understand that this is about a transparency measure. We know the government, even if they did comply with the order, would have advanced a public interest immunity claim in relation to cabinet. I just want to remind the chamber that we saw the Doherty modelling going to the national cabinet, where a similar claim is made. We know it's a false claim; it's not in accordance with law. National cabinet doesn't attract cabinet protections. But, nonetheless, the Prime Minister, despite having claimed that, then released the modelling, because it was in the public interest and people are entitled to see modelling as it's presented to government. What we're asking for here now is some other modelling that relate to a very important topic that is being debated. There's lots of argument going on. It's great to put facts on the table such that the debate can be informed. The Prime Minister has the ability to simply authorise the release of this information, and that's what he should do. I ask that the question now be put.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Patrick, you cannot move that motion at the end of a speech.

Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (11:53): I support the substantive motion that Senator Wong wishes to move, but I will not support the motion to suspend standing orders. I support the substantive motion, although a little reluctantly. I think we have to be clear here that all this really does is provide 60 minutes of debate for this. It doesn't necessarily force the minister to do anything different. We've already had a minister explain the government's position here for five minutes. I doubt that will shift all that much over 60 minutes. But it is important to stand up for transparency, so I will support that approach.

It's particularly important in this case given there remain a lot of questions about the modelling behind the strategy, or at least the preference, of the government to move towards a net-zero 2050 target. As I said the other day, I had a small briefing on the modelling that saw some results, but I did leave the room thinking that I was being asked to marry a girl I hadn't met. There was very little detail.

Senator CANAVAN: She probably would say no, Senator Watt, but we in the Nationals at least believe in chivalry. We do believe that you should take her out for dinner or a drink or something before you sign the marriage contract.

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

The PRESIDENT (12:04): The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Wong to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being run g —

Senator Wong: We seek one minute. We all know there is a hard marker. Everybody was in here. We ask for a one-minute division.

The PRESIDENT: I had an indication from one of the whips.

Senator Wong: Which whip? The government are running down the clock because they haven't got the numbers. I would ask that the President not collude with it.

The PRESIDENT: I had an indication from the whip. I can see senators at the door. Senator Smith?

Senator Dean Smith: Mr President, whips deciding on one- and four-minute bells is absolutely the prerogative of the whips, and it has been the custom and tradition of this chamber for as long as I have been a whip.

Senator Wong: Standing order 101(3) reads:

When successive divisions are taken, and there is no debate after the first division, the bells for each ensuing division shall be rung for one minute only.

Mr President, I ask you to uphold the standing orders.

Senator Birmingham: Mr President, the practice, by successive presidents, has been to provide warning to the chamber if one-minute bells are going to be provided. That warning was not provided. As the Chief Government Whip has indicated, that practice equally extends to the fact that the whips themselves provide indication, something I know that the opposition has done on numerous occasions.

The PRESIDENT: As I have already ruled, there is a clear convention in this place where there is time for senators to leave the chamber. I cannot be always aware when senators leave the chamber. Therefore I take guidance on this matter from the whips. The fact I can see a number of senators waiting at the door indicates there were senators outside the chamber. Senator Abetz, on the point of order?

Senator Abetz: Mr President, I would invite Senator Wong to withdraw the imputation in relation to you. Irrespective of whether your ruling may be right, wrong or indifferent—I happen to think it's right—to suggest collusion by the chair is highly inappropriate and deserves to be withdrawn.

Senator Wong: I withdraw.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Wong. The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (12:12): We can see the opposition continuing on their attempt to make this all about playing stunts and undertaking distractions. The government will make no apologies for the fact that our approach will always be about making sure we protect all aspects of the interests of Australians.

Senator Gallagher: A point of order!

The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Gallagher?

Senator Gallagher: There's no question before the chair, so Senator Birmingham is not entitled to just freewheel at the lectern. There is no question before you. He is out of order.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (12:16): Australia is a major regional economic player. In my own home state of Western Australia our iron ore provides the base material for steel mills in South-East and East Asia. Our food products are exported around the region and feed millions of people. Our education and training sector is world leading, and an Australian education is sought after right around the world. One in five workers, or more than two million working Australians, are employed in a trade related activity, working to create the exports that keep our nation strong. Indeed, many of those Australians are in Western Australia and an overwhelming value of exports comes from there.

As an open trading nation, Australia has been the beneficiary of the multilateral rules-based trade system that has operated for decades. But, as we know, the world is becoming an increasingly challenging place to do business in. The effectiveness of cornerstone institutions of global trade, like the World Trade Organization, are, concerningly, under threat. How we sell the things that we produce here into overseas markets is changing fast.

We need a government that thinks deeply about Australia's place in the world and how we navigate the next decade of change in a way that delivers better standards and conditions for Australian workers. We can't go about this alone. We need to work with like-minded nations to reform and modernise our regional economy and make sure that Australian working people are always central to any of the plans that we make.

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement will be the world's second-most important trade agreement. I know people have expressed concerns about it, and the Labor Party have listened to those concerns. We take them very seriously and work through them. We simply can't be missing from the table in such an important trade agreement. The World Trade Organization will have greater scope and coverage over a larger chunk of the global economy than the current RCEP. The RCEP will create a dispute resolution and settlement process that will prevent economic or commercial disagreements from spiralling into conflict. If we look at the nature of the nation states that are part of this regional comprehensive partnership, having this infrastructure in place is particularly important. Therefore, it's particularly important that Australia is at the table.

We want an agreement that strengthens the rules based environment so that Australia, as a trading nation, can flourish within it. The RCEP will tie our economy even closer to near neighbours like Indonesia, Malaysia and New Zealand. We can be seen to advance the opportunities for export growth through our major partners like China, Japan and South Korea. RCEP countries already include nine of Australia's top 15 trading partners. This accounts for some 58 per cent of Australia's two-way trade and 67 per cent of our nation's exports. But enacting the RCEP should not mean that we sit on our hands like the Morrison government has done, like the Morrison government has believed we should do as a nation. No single trade agreement, regardless of its scope, will shore up our economic future as a nation. The COVID pandemic has shown the critical role that regional supply chains have in ensuring products make the timely transition from raw material to consumers hands right around the region, consumer products that Australia needs.

Australia must take advantage of the growth opportunities that the RCEP provides to diversify our trade both in markets and in products. Our small and medium enterprises are responsible for only 14 per cent of Australia's exports, and we can and should grow this as a nation. To put this in context, the G7 country average is 25 per cent and the European Union is 35 per cent of their exports coming from small to medium enterprises. So we must see this trade deal as an opportunity to boost the capability of Australia's SMEs and to grow Australia's manufacturing sector. It's interesting and important to see that the Australian Food and Grocery Council very strongly sees a future in growing exports to the region of their currently domestically focused household goods.

We need to continue doing this by harnessing the unique opportunities we enjoy to become also a green energy superpower. We have the skills and capacity to become a renewable energy powerhouse, and a strong Australian manufacturing sector can deliver world-class products. We want to incorporate and innovate cutting-edge technologies and provide good, secure jobs that Australian workers need. This is the future 'Made in Australia' that we deserve as a country. But it's not one that we're going to get under this failed Morrison government, as we've seen. This is a government that can't even come to a decision in its own ranks on the future of energy generation in Australia.

Just reflect for a moment, we have a coalition government that is so divided, so riven with internal conflict, that they cannot even come to a decision on how they plan to keep working Australians' lights on into the future and the energy supply we need to manufacture our own goods for Australia and the region, let alone our households. This has massive implications for Australian businesses, workers and the future of Australian exports.

As we've seen, the Grattan Institute has told this chamber in submissions to the upcoming inquiry into the Australian manufacturing industry that the case for gas led manufacturing recovery isn't viable any longer. As we've seen, the source of low-cost gas in the eastern states is now very much depleted. The remaining gas is too high a cost to meet our manufacturing needs. So this gas led recovery can employ only a small number of people. If we're a nation that seeks to set ambitious climate and emissions reductions goals, then we need an energy future plan now—a plan to meet our targets and a plan to transform our economy. Making these plans now is much cheaper than waiting to the death knell of climate change in 2050, and we've wasted many, many years already.

We cannot continue to see the burning of gas and coal to generate the electricity Australian industry needs. Why? Because it's, frankly, more expensive than the other energy sources that we have at our disposal. We need a government that wants to use its spending power to invest in renewables technology designed and manufactured right here at home, to diversify and grow our export markets overseas through the rules based trading system that the RCEP maintains. This is not an opportunity we can let slip past.

A report jointly released in recent weeks by the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Australian Business Council, the WWF and the ACTU suggests that investment in clean exports could generate some $89 billion in new trade by 2040. That is more than we currently export in fossil fuels. We need a future made in Australia that we can export to the world, and so it's alarming when we see this trade deal that we're debating before the parliament. Yes, we can make a step forward here, and yet we are held back by the internal division of this government when it comes to our energy future. Those opposite are too busy having their ideological brawls in their party room to put a step forward to govern in the interest of Australian businesses and workers.

The World Bank says India needs to create 8.1 million jobs per year just to maintain its current employment rate. It is critical, therefore, to see Australia's energy supply is accessible to those nations. We know that renewables will be important to their energy future, and a lack of green energy supply, let alone coal, will constrain India's growth. We can become a world leader and a significant regional player in the export of materials and technologies needed to transition economies around the world to greener and more sustainable energy generation. This includes a decarbonising China and a quickly industrialising India.

The trade deal before us strengthens this opportunity, but the Morrison government will leave us asleep at the wheel in terms of being able to make the most of these contributions. We've previously raised concerns over the Morrison government's refusal to release the final treaty text to allow it to be scrutinised before the agreement was signed. We have a government that is notorious for secrecy and notorious for a lack of transparency, and this is very damaging for how Australians view their leaders. Is it any wonder that we have parts of the Australian population captured by conspiracy theories when this government does nothing to promote transparency in government?

But it also means Australian industry cannot plan ahead. Greater transparency and the development of trade agreements is critical to building community support for fair and open trade. Labor have been in consultation with the union movement, civil society and economics groups throughout the negotiation and eventual signing of this agreement. And we do this because we believe in allowing people to plan ahead. A future Albanese Labor government would use the opportunity the RCEP gives us to work in collaboration with Australian business and workers to grow the Australian manufacturing industry.

Now is the time to invest in Australian manufacturing. We might not get a chance as good as this again. Enacting the RCEP should function as an opportunity to take action and diversify what we export. Let's not lose this opportunity that we have in this agreement because of a failed climate change agenda here within Australia. This failed government needs to stop sitting on its hands, quit fighting amongst itself and start getting on with growing Australian manufacturing.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (12:29): I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021. I've been listening to the debate in the chamber and listening to the comments of the Greens, One Nation, Labor and of course the government. But interestingly, particularly on the Labor side—and I'll accuse One Nation of this as well—they are standing up and pointing out all of the things that they believe in, yet this particular agreement presents risks to all of those things. So they're hoping there's an upside in trade without really examining the risks to the very principles that the Labor Party purport to support and, indeed, One Nation purport to support.

I always listen to Senator Roberts when he says we have to base our considerations on data and facts. I agree with that principle. But this is a situation where there is no evidence of an economic benefit that flows from entering into this agreement. There is no independent economic assessment of the cost and benefit of RCEP, and there is no additional market access for Australian exporters. Don't we have a responsibility to look at a piece of legislation and ask: what are the pros and what are the cons? Here we have no view as to the economic benefits. Part of the problem here is, as Senator Pratt mentioned, whenever these deals get negotiated it is done in secret. There is no opportunity to see the text of them such that people can then do a proper analysis and present the parliament with information such that it can make an informed decision. None of that is there. Time and time again, I see the Labor Party stand up and say, 'We want transparency.' But the government just keeps going off and doing what it does, which is to negotiate these things in secret.

If we go back and look at the better advice bill, it was a bill that was recently in play where the government presented it to the parliament without any of the regulations attached to it. Do you know what? The Senate stood up. The Labor Party, the Greens and One Nation stood up and said: 'Do you know what? We're not going to let this bill pass until such time as we get to see all the data.' The government then pulled the bill. They saw the second reading debate. They worked out they did not have the numbers. They pulled the bill and had to go away and then table the amendments. That is what happens when the Senate stand up and says, 'We are not going to do things without proper analysis.' Yet that's exactly what we are doing here—there is no analysis that suggests that this gives us an economic benefit.

Interestingly, this bill involves China. China has, in recent times, been acting in a manner that is quite harmful to Australia. We can see the wine industry suffering. I hope Senator Farrell chips in and gives me a 'Hear, hear!' in relation to this. The wine industry is suffering as a result of changes that have occurred, with China acting outside of our trade agreement. The problem that arises here is that we are effectively entering into further agreements with a country we know doesn't comply. So what happens is they do not comply but we are the model party to these agreements. So, for the next two or three years, Australian agriculture will suffer because we'll have one party not playing the right way and then we'll have Australia being a model party in the way it conducts its international affairs. That's the danger we have in further signing up to an agreement that may well benefit a country that is acting in a manner that is harmful to us.

There is also the issue of human rights. Some of the countries involved in this are in breach of human rights. The Labor Party stood up and affirmed its support for stopping slave labour, for stopping the import of goods that come from slave labour. The Senate passed a bill in support of that, despite the government's opposing it. Yet here we are entering into an arrangement with some of the countries engaging in slave labour, and it doesn't address that problem. It's money before human rights, it would appear, not that we even know that there's money involved in this for us. Typically, we've negotiated these sorts of agreements and we haven't done well. That's what typically happens. We're signing up to an agreement with Myanmar, which is currently governed by a military junta that took power in an illegal coup in February this year. Seriously? That's what we're doing. We're engaging in commerce and engaging in negotiations with an illegitimate junta. I don't understand some of these things.

This agreement may well restrict local industry development by, basically, entrenching the rules that discourage government assistance to local industries. We already have a perverse situation—I see this on the other side of the chamber all the time—where those opposite talk about competitive advantage, which is an economic theory that says that if you can do it more cheaply somewhere else that's where you should do it. What happens is that the government says: 'You've got to have leave loading. You've got to have long-service leave. You've got to have minimum wages. You've got to have occupational health and safety. You've got to have environmental standards. You've got to build your product according to an Australian standard.' I don't object to any of those things, but we've got to recognise that they impose a cost on Australian businesses. We then look at the price of goods and say, 'Hang on, it's cheaper to buy that from Vietnam or Burma or somewhere', where they don't have any of those rules. I don't mind the theory of competitive advantage, provided that it is provided in a practical manner and not in a completely theoretical manner. This bill entrenches some of those principles. Every time I stand up and say I'd like to see the government supporting Australian industry by way of procurement, I get confronted with: 'I'm sorry, Senator, that's going to breach trade agreements.' Yet we sign up to these things. It doesn't make sense, particularly in circumstances where there is shown to be no economic benefit, just a downside risk. We shouldn't be doing that. The Labor Party say that they support manufacturing, but they're now going to help sign up to an agreement that fetters the ability of the government to assist in rebuilding the very lows of manufacturing that we have.

I have talked on many occasions in the chamber about the need for us to stop exporting our rock—stop exporting just iron ore, stop exporting just our lithium and instead build and export steel and build and export lithium-ion batteries. There is much greater value in that, and it generates intellectual property, generates jobs and generates value. Do that here. But every time we try and do that here we get confronted with competitive advantage. We say someone else can do it more cheaply. That's because we impose all of these costs upon Australian industry. This treaty would embed that even further. That's why, when it comes down to it, I can't support this. I'm all for fair trade, but it has to be fair, and it has proven not to be fair in many, many circumstances. It risks increasing the number of temporary workers coming to Australia who might be exploited. I thought the Labor Party cared about workers being exploited.

This can assist in that regard. It only takes the Labor Party to stand up once on a treaty and, suddenly, DFAT will have to change its conduct, just as Treasury had to change its conduct in terms of presenting bills to this chamber without the regulations attached. It just takes standing up once or twice and saying no. Then DFAT will have to go back and negotiate these treaties in a different way, knowing the views of this chamber—knowing the views of the representatives of the Australian public.

There are other concerns I have in relation to this. This does not invoke ISDS, but that will be reviewed in a couple of years time. For people who don't understand what ISDS is, it's a schema whereby if the Australian government changes regulations or does something in the public interest that harms an international investor here in Australia, they can seek compensation for that. We saw that attempted in the case of tobacco advertising. There was a health measure introduced to basically make sure we didn't make cigarette packets attractive. The cigarette manufacturer took us to the High Court, lost in the High Court and then sought to set up a company in Hong Kong to exploit the ability to then invoke ISDS—investor-state dispute settlement. In that particular instance, we were quite fortunate that the tribunal ruled that the company had been set up, essentially, for the purposes of engaging in an ISDS. So the tribunal did not agree with the company's claims. But we were up for, potentially, billions of dollars. This is a situation where the taxpayer underwrites the risk for public companies. So companies can come here, make an investment and make an assumption that there will be no changes in the law or in public policy, because if there are they will invoke ISDS.

This is a risk that flows from this particular agreement, because there is a proposal to review this again. Again, that is likely to be done in secret and just presented as a fait accompli in a couple of years time. It's part of the Labor Party's platform to not support ISDS, but on several occasions they have wandered in here and voted for trade agreements that actually invoke ISDS. It is a bit of hypocrisy that is harmful to Australians, because, again, it sees the public underwriting the risk of companies.

I will conclude by saying that I support international trade. I recognise its benefits. But when something is presented to this parliament that is, in effect, an agreement that does very little except expose us to risk, you have to stand back and say: that is not in Australia's best interests. And that is what I will be saying when the bells ring.

Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (12:43): There is no way that Australia should be signing this—absolutely no way. I was a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties when we had the hearings on this. It was pretty clear that signing RCEP basically achieves nothing for us in terms of trade. No.1, they won't actually release any independent modelling that shows the details. But, basically, on the evidence presented to us, there were no claims that it would see a massive improvement in our trade. There was no modelling presented to say, 'Yes, this is going to be really good for Australia.' Basically, in terms of our relationships and trade relationships with the countries that were part of RCEP, it was all going to stay much the same. So, No. 1, the benefits are basically zero.

Then you've got to look at the costs, and the costs of signing RCEP are immense, because basically it means that Australia is signing up to trade arrangements that are unfair, that are environmentally really damaging and that have no labour rights provisions or human rights provisions. It is basically an incredibly old-fashioned last-century way of doing trade that does not even stand up for the standards in most trade agreements that are now being negotiated around the world.

I want to talk about four things that are fundamental problems with RCEP and reasons why Australia should be saying: 'No. Come on. Yes, fair trade's good, and we're happy to enter into fair trade agreements, but RCEP is not that.' The first is the total lack of transparency in the negotiations and in the whole process, basically. The second is the lack of human rights standards. The third is the lack of labour rights standards. The fourth is particularly important this week, the last week that we are in this parliament before our Prime Minister goes off to Glasgow, before this immense time of the world coming together to tackle our climate crisis. Yet here we are, signing up to a trade agreement that has no environmental standards. It hasn't even got an environmental chapter. It basically says climate doesn't matter.

First of all, I will talk about the lack of transparency in the negotiations and in the whole process. I think the easiest way to summarise that is to read from the submission that AFTINET, the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network, made to the inquiry into RCEP. They said:

Australia's current procedure for negotiating and ratifying trade agreements is highly secretive and is not compliant with the basic democratic principles that underpin our domestic policy-making processes. Trade negotiations are conducted in secret and neither the Parliament nor the wider public had input into, or oversight over, the development of Australia's negotiation mandates. This was the case with the RCEP negotiations.

Negotiation texts were secret throughout the negotiations and the final text of the agreements was not made public until after the government made the decision to sign the agreement.

That in itself is a reason why we should be saying no. We should be renegotiating our entire trade negotiation practices so they do not conflict with basic democratic engagement in these processes, and you can do it. Other countries in the world have processes that allow for much more input from civil society and from their parliaments before the agreements are signed. So it's not as if we would be out on our own in insisting that this be the case.

The second area, as others have already noted in this debate—interestingly, although the Labor Party note this, it doesn't seem to influence how they vote—is the lack of labour rights standards. Again, they are not there. AFTINET say:

… trade agreements should include commitments by governments not to reduce labour rights, and to implement internationally-agreed labour rights which are defined by the International Labour Organisation (ILO). These should be enforced by the state-to-state disputes process of the agreement. These rights intersect with UN human rights obligations and include freedom of association, rights to collective bargaining, health and safety in the workplace, no forced labour, no child labour and no discrimination in the workplace …

Again, this is what trade agreements should include. RCEP does not. Why should we sign an agreement that does not include standards that are recognised as what should be in trade agreements?

The third area that I want to get to as the lack of human rights standards. I am absolutely stunned that we are signing a trade agreement with countries including Myanmar, China and the Philippines. And why? It achieves no increase in our trade. We are signing a trade agreement with Myanmar, at the same time as countries around the world are trying to work out what is the most pressure that they can put on the junta that took over Myanmar, in a brutal attack on people, democracy and human rights that has killed over a thousand people. There are people who are fleeing the Myanmar military forces. We know that the pressure is on—not that Australia has done anything about it—to apply sanctions. The EU, Canada, the US and the UK have all applied sanctions. We at least have said that we're not going to continue any military cooperation. We need to be having economic sanctions. All of this is necessary to try and do something about this brutal attack on democracy in Myanmar. That's what Australia should be doing in relation to Myanmar. But, no, we are signing a trade agreement with them. Why on earth would we sign a trade agreement with them? It can only be taken as us being complicit, as us giving tacit support to the Myanmar military's takeover and the junta in Myanmar. That in itself should be reason enough to say we're going to put this on hold, we're not signing a trade agreement with Myanmar as part of it. It is just something that is unacceptable for Australia to do.

We've got a free-trade agreement with China that they are blatantly breaching. There are bans on our goods going into China because they are unhappy with us because we are speaking out about some of their human rights abuses and their expansionism. So they've decided to block our exports into China. Given that behaviour by China at the moment, given that is so live, given that the Australia-China relationship is at such a low ebb at the moment, there are many other things that we should be doing with China to work out how we improve that relationship. But blatantly signing a trade agreement that doesn't require any of that negotiation is just ridiculous.

Thirdly, there are other countries—and I've been hearing speeches about this today: essentially, we're signing this trade agreement because ASEAN nations are the main nations that are involved; we want to keep sweet with ASEAN and it would be a snub to them if we didn't. We need to work out how to work with ASEAN without supporting brutal military totalitarian governments. Frankly, we are maintaining nice polite relationships with brutal totalitarian governments that are destroying the life of their citizens. We have heard so much on this in the parliament over the years—me in particular in my role as foreign affairs spokesperson over the last year. Frankly, we should not be kowtowing to them and basically saying, 'Okay, we'll sign trade agreements.' Yes, we need to work out how to work multilaterally, how we can work together where we have common interests; but signing free-trade agreements that do not require anything from them in terms of human right in particular, as well as labour rights and environmental rights, is not the way to go.

Fourthly, there is the lack of environmental rights standards. The other three areas I've talked about are pretty amazing and astounding, but the lack of environmental rights standards in the RCEP trade negotiations are just gobsmacking. We are in a climate crisis. We are in a time in humanity—possibly this year and certainly this decade—in terms of the future of humanity on this planet, where the climate crisis is the No. 1 thing that we need to tackle. Yet we are signing a trade agreement that doesn't even have an environmental chapter in it. It doesn't have any constraints in it, any measures in it, to require governments to take climate seriously and for that to impact on our trade relationships.

Of course, other countries in the world are very much linking climate and trade. It's quite right that they should do that. It is not just for a moral reason that we should only be trading with countries that are tackling the climate crisis appropriately, given it is a shared issue for all of us; it is also an economic issue. That's what the European Union are realising: if they are taking action to slash their carbon pollution by more than 50 per cent by 2030, why should other countries freeload on that? There will be costs, over the coming years, in making those huge cuts in our carbon pollution. The benefits are, of course, immense—it means humanity will actually have a future—but there are costs. So why shouldn't the European Union, which is taking those actions, say to other countries, 'If you're not taking those costs into account, if you're just letting polluters pollute for free, we're going to put some tariffs on you to account for that'?

We had our trade minister, just yesterday, noting that Australia is likely to be liable for carbon tariffs for goods that we try to export into the EU. And it is very appropriate that we should be. What that means is that, instead of having a price on carbon here in Australia that we could be reaping the benefits of, with the revenue raised supporting the transition to a zero carbon economy here in Australia, supporting programs for jobs for workers who need to transition out of the mining of coal, gas and oil—instead of that revenue being able to be allocated to that, it's going to go off to the European Union so that they can use it.

Basically these things are linked. We are in a climate crisis. There is action that needs to be taken. Multitudes of international mechanisms all around the world are being developed to work out how we can work together as a world to tackle climate. The COP26 conference in Glasgow that starts in 10 days time is obviously one of the prime mechanisms to get countries to up the level of their national contributions to slash our carbon pollution. Here we have a government that's doing nothing. It's going off to Glasgow with a completely empty basket. We're offering nothing in terms of increasing our ambition to tackle the climate crisis. At the same time, we are signing a trade agreement that says zero about carbon, zero about climate. It is just unthinkable. It shows that we have got it completely upside down when it comes to how we think about what it means to be a good global citizen, what it means to act in the global interest, what it means to act in our national interest. All of those three things are the same.

At the front and centre of everything we are doing we need to put human rights, labour rights, the extinction crisis, the huge pressures that the world's environment and biodiversity are under and the huge pressures that the world is under because of climate, because they are existential crises that the world is facing. With every global mechanism that we are part of, we should be saying, 'Is this going to help or is this going to hinder action on tackling the climate crisis?'

There are so many things we could be doing to help. We could be going to Glasgow and saying: 'Yes, Australia is going to play its part. We are going to slash our pollution, as the science says should happen—by 75 per cent by 2030 at least, and to zero carbon as quickly as possible thereafter.' We could be doing that. We could be signing up to the Powering Past Coal Alliance, which has got 41 countries who are committing to get out of coal by 2030. We could be signing up to the Global Methane Alliance. We could be taking any number of actions internationally. But instead what are we doing? We are signing a free trade agreement that basically is blind to all of these issues that the world is facing. The Australian Greens support fair trade. We support having good relationships with our neighbours. But we don't support the sorts of arrangements that are in the RCEP and absolutely should not be supported.

Senator FARRELL (South Australia) (12:58): Labor will be supporting the Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021. The partnership, or RCEP, as it's known, was signed on 15 November, 2020, by 15 countries. It's a partnership that includes the members of ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations—Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam—as well as five non-ASEAN nations: Australia, China, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea. These countries make up 29 per cent of the world's GDP and 30 per cent of the world's population. RCEP is, quite simply, the biggest trade agreement in history.

Negotiations for RCEP started in 2012 at the 21st ASEAN summit, in Cambodia. Prime Minister Julia Gillard and trade minister Craig Emerson commenced negotiations for RCEP on behalf of Australia. From the beginning, Labor has supported Australia being actively involved in the negotiations for this extraordinary example of regional trade infrastructure, which, very importantly, was led by the ASEAN nations. In a big deal for the world and a big deal for Australia, it includes nine of Australia's top 15 trading partners. It includes economies which account for a total of 58 per cent of Australia's total two-way trade and 67 per cent of our exports. Ratifying RCEP means Australia has a seat at the table in the biggest trade agreement in the world.

Importantly, Australia will be able to influence the rules as the agreement continues to develop. As Dr Jeffrey Wilson of the Perth USAsia Centre has argued:

On arrival, RCEP will be the world’s second most important trade agreement, behind only the World Trade Organization itself.

In essence, RCEP strengthens the rules already developed through a number of Australia's existing free trade agreements and creates new regional architecture for economic activity, with the potential to act as a forum for ongoing dialogue and cooperation. Further, RCEP includes core investment protections, rules requiring payment of compensation where an investment is expropriated, minimum standards for treatment of investors under international law, and compensation for losses due to conflict and civil strife. The agreement provides avenues for tackling non-tariff barriers including in areas such as quarantine and technical standards, by promoting compliance with the WTO rules and further improving cooperation and transparency

Finally, RCEP supports economic capacity building and, in particular, provides a dedicated chapter addressing the capability of small and medium enterprises in the region to benefit from the agreement. These protections and transparency provisions will provide greater certainty and confidence for Australian businesses looking to invest in the region. The advantage of RCEP is that it provides a single set of rules for exporters to use rather than having to rely on the multiplicity of different rules and procedures under the existing FTAs. This cuts or simplifies a great deal of red tape for Australian SMEs and opens up opportunities for Australian exporters looking to utilise regional supply chains.

Regional supply or value chains are an essential component of the contemporary global economy; I know you know that, Madam Acting Deputy President Chandler. They are a cross-border industrial network for producing goods where countries specialise in different stages of reduction associated with a finished product. The Apple iPhone is a classic example of a product dependent on global value chains. The iPhone was designed in the United States, and iPhones are made from hundreds of individual components, all sourced from various specialised suppliers in 43 countries across six continents before final assembly in China for sale to world markets. RCEP as a trading bloc will render such value chains cheaper and easier to access for Australian companies.

While bilateral trade agreements are lucrative in terms of tariff reductions, they render value chains difficult due to the differences in rules, standards and procedures from country to country. As a multilateral trade agreement, RCEP is designed to streamline these rules, encouraging the development of deeper value chains. For example, businesses will be able to use a 'made in RCEP' origin certificate with standardised rules for how much local content is needed to qualify. In this context, RCEP will make the Indo-Pacific the most attractive location to build value chains in the global economy, and a strong, vibrant and prosperous Indo-Pacific is good for Australia.

As an open-trading nation, Australia has been a beneficiary of the multilateral rules based trading system that has operated for decades. Labor recognises that Australia's security and prosperity relies on our continued economic engagement in the world and integration with our region, including through trade and investment. One in five Australian workers is employed in a trade related activity—more than two million Australians. Labor knows that open trade will be the integral component of Australia's economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Labor acknowledges that open-trade agreements and comprehensive economic partnerships have become matters of strategic and geopolitical significance. Labor will at all times act in the national interest and in accordance with Australia's international obligations in dealing with open-trade agreements and comprehensive economic partnerships.

As the WTO appellate body stagnates and reform is stalled, regional agreements such as RCEP are integral to creating an even playing field between Australia and its trading partners around the world, but particularly in our vibrant region, from which future prosperity will be earned.

But Labor knows that the community is rightly sceptical about the Morrison-Joyce government's approach to economic change and trade agreements. We all know that the Liberals and the Nationals treat trade agreements like trophies to put on a shelf—ink the deal, get dressed up for the photo op but then no follow-up.

Labor's approach to international trade and trade agreements will be very different. To talk about the ALP platform, an Albanese Labor government will promote Australia's international competitiveness, maintain a commitment to an open economy and work to increase the volume of Australia's trade with other nations. Labor has a long record as an advocate of an open global trading system. Reducing barriers to trade creates more competitive industries and benefits consumers through lower prices and greater choice. Trade is a pathway to a high-skill, high-wage future for working Australians. Labor in government will set out an ambitious open-trade agenda aimed squarely at increasing the complexity of our exports in order to create more well-paid, secure jobs, strengthen economic resilience and ensure that every trade deal we sign will increase the living standards of the Australian people. Labor will promote services sector innovation and identify the capabilities needed to establish Australia as a leading global trade-in-services economy.

The benefit of trade can and must be fairly shared both at home and abroad. Labor will invest in education, training, skills and innovation, building Australia's national infrastructure and promoting the health and welfare of the community so Australians benefit from the opportunities created by trade.

We know from our own history that, while the benefits of trade liberalisation are significant, they can come at a cost to sectors, workers and regions that are disadvantaged by structural change in our economy. In the short term in particular, adjustment support is needed for some sectors, workers and regional communities to ensure that they are lifted up and not left behind by economic change. An Albanese Labor government will not leave those workers and those communities behind. Our industry policy will include structural assistance to sectors of the economy, workers and regions which are impacted by any economic change. When multilateral trade negotiations such as the WTO are not making satisfactory progress, Labor will consider high-quality regional or bilateral trade agreements that are in Australia's national interest and that support the multilateral trading system.

Labor is committed to trade policies consistent with Australian values of justice and equality, community views, workers rights' and the interests of developing countries. Trade agreements must be consistent with Australia's social and economic values, be based on widespread consultation, provide for appropriate minimum and enforceable labour and environmental standards, taking account of social and economic impact, and allow sovereign governments to make decisions and implement policies in the interests of their citizens.

Economic growth has been good for developing countries, but in many economies these benefits have not been fairly shared. More equal economic growth will create decent jobs, lifting people out of poverty, giving them economic independence and supporting human rights.

RCEP, as it stands, does not have an environmental chapter or a labour chapter. When Labor was in government, trade minister Craig Emerson sought to include these provisions. However, other RCEP members were not amendable to this. Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Minister Emerson and the Labor government at the time rightly decided to proceed with negotiations despite this setback to ensure Australia continued to be involved in the creation of regional trade architecture. Opting out and retreating to the sidelines is absolutely not an option and to do so would have set back Australia's relationship with ASEAN significantly.

The intent of RCEP is capacity building, bringing emerging economies in line with established economies like ours. This stands in contrast to other more ambitious agreements with developed economies which include labour chapters with enforceable international labour standards. However, RCEP includes measures with the ability to continue to develop provisions in these areas through successive reviews over time.

Labor in government will not enter into trade agreements that undermine the Australian government's capacity to govern in the interests of all Australians, including any provisions that: remove Australia's protection of local jobs through the regulation of temporary work; waive labour market testing; further limit the capacity of governments to procure goods and services only; require the privatisation or contestability of public services; undermine Medicare, the public health system or the pharmaceutical benefits system; undermine state or Commonwealth workplace laws or occupational licensing arrangements; or undermine laws that relate to antidumping. Labor's shadow minister for trade, the very professional Madeleine King, has sought clear advice from the minister for trade and investment, Mr Tehan, that RCEP broadly complies with these terms and that ratifying the agreement will not undermine the Australian government's capacity to govern in the interests of all Australians.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Chandler ): I have the minister next on my call sheet, but Senator Watt is seeking the call. I have been provided with advice from the clerk that the speakers' list is conventional. I did see Senator Watt and the minister jump to their feet almost simultaneously. Based on advice from the clerk, I will allow—Senator O'Farrell, are you making a point of order?

Senator Farrell: Only that my name isn't O'Farrell.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Apologies, Senator Farrell.

Senator Farrell: I know there's been some controversy about New South Wales premiers in recent times and it's easy to confuse. But, respectfully, the point of order I was going to make was that we should apply the convention, and I understand that's what you're intending to do.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is the advice I have received. Apologies for misusing your name. I will give the call to Senator Watt, but I will discuss this matter with the whips offline.

Senator WATT (Queensland) (13:15): Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. I appreciate you providing me with that opportunity. I might elaborate a little further on some of the points that my colleague Senator Farrell was just beginning to make, particularly in relation to matters of labour market testing. Labour market testing is always a contentious issue when it comes to free trade agreements. It's something that the Labor Party, the labour movement and I think the community, more broadly, do have serious concerns about whenever free trade agreements are being considered. Obviously the Labor Party's position is to strongly support the ability of local workers to obtain employment. We've got a very strong tradition of supporting that, and we do need to make sure that whatever free trade agreements are entered into by our country do respect the rights of local workers.

Senator Farrell had just begun to make the point that my colleague and friend the Shadow Minister for Trade, Ms King, has sought advice on this point from the minister for trade and investment, Mr Tehan. The advice that she was seeking was as to whether RCEP broadly complies with a range of considerations that Labor thought were important. Ms King also sought advice that ratifying this agreement would not undermine the Australian government's capacity to govern in the interests of all Australians. I'm pleased to confirm that, based on that advice that we've received, RCEP does not expand waivers of labour market testing for foreign workers. There are a range of stakeholders who have rightly queried the inclusion of an instrument in the Migration Act which mentions a change to our domestic labour market testing regime. We have clarified with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade that this is merely a technical measure and there are no changes to labour market testing in this country as a result of participating in this Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. Indeed, the instrument under the Migration Act that was foreshadowed in the national interest assessment establishes that the obligations set out in RCEP form part of Australia's legal obligations. Such instruments are made under the Migration Act for every international trade agreement that Australia enters into.

Further, RCEP does not restrict Australia's domestic procurement arrangements at any level of government, it does not require the privatisation of any Australian public services, it does not undermine the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, it does not undermine state or Commonwealth workplace laws or occupational licensing arrangements, it does not undermine Australia's anti-dumping regime, it does not include provisions that limit the right of the Commonwealth to regulate in the interests of public welfare or in relation to safe products, and it does not include investor state dispute settlement provisions, better known as ISDS provisions.

I particularly want to join with my Labor colleagues in commending the work of civil society and the trade union movement in their ongoing campaign, which has led to this government moving away from implementing ISDS provisions as a base for dispute settlement in all trade negotiations. That is something that has been an issue of serious contention within the community—the potential for these clauses to limit the application of Australian laws to overseas companies as a result of entering free trade agreements. The fact that we are seeing such ISDS provisions less and less in our international treaties is a testament to the tireless campaigning of the ACTU, the broader labour movement, AFTINET and others. Recent media reports that Clive Palmer is exploring the use of ISDS mechanisms to sue the Australian government reaffirm our opposition to them as a general provision of international trade deals. Having already forked out $1 million in legal fees because the Prime Minister supported Mr Palmer's attempt to sue Western Australia, Australian taxpayers don't want to be stung again by another vexatious suit from Mr Palmer.

An Albanese Labor government will ensure that trade agreements signed by the Commonwealth require skills assessments, including practical and theoretical testing, to be undertaken in Australia and not restrict such skills assessments for temporary visa holders. We will include in any future bilateral, regional or multilateral trade agreements a labour chapter with enforceable, internationally recognised labour standards.

The Labor Party supports rigorous, independent economic analysis of trade agreements and, in government, will ensure that such analysis is conducted. Labor will also require that an independent economic assessment of the impact of each agreement be included in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties to the parliament. I want to put on record my appreciation to the members of JSCOT—including my good mate Senator Ayres; Mr Khalil, the member for Wills; and many others—for the good work that they've done on this trade agreement and many others.

The JSCOT report into treaty-making, report No. 193, which was tabled in August of this year, recommended:

… the Government consider implementing a process through which independent modelling and analysis of a trade agreement, at both the macro and sectoral levels, is undertaken in the future by the Productivity Commission, or similarly independent and expert body, and provided to the Committee alongside the National Interest Analysis to improve assessment of the agreement, increase public confidence in the benefits of trade agreements, and facilitate the longitudinal assessment of actual trade outcomes.

Labor calls on the government to implement this recommendation.

This important review by JSCOT into treaty development would not have happened but for Labor. In discussions with the government in relation to the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, the government, through the then trade minister, Senator Birmingham, agreed to Labor's request that JSCOT be asked to undertake such a review. We are glad that the government supported this and gave the parliament an important opportunity to examine the manner in which it addresses free trade treaties and agreements. This demonstrated the community desire for more openness and transparency from government in relation to free trade negotiations.

Labor in government will ensure that Australians are informed about trade negotiations and will undertake full community consultation before entering new agreements. The provision of public updates will follow each round of negotiations. Where feasible, draft texts will also be released. Labor will legislate to ensure transparency in future trade agreements through the tabling of national interest assessments; consultation with industry, unions and community groups during negotiations; and the tabling of negotiation material in parliament where feasible—again, as recommended by JSCOT in its report into treaty-making. Labor will also commission an independent national interest assessment which includes a comprehensive social, economic and regional impact assessment of the negotiated treaty text, and we will mandate 10-year reviews of existing free trade agreements.

It's a very important principle to Labor that trade agreements not be used to undermine Australian working conditions and that foreign workers should be used only in situations where specific skill shortages are present and only for the period it takes to train and develop the capacity of an Australian to do the job.

It is disappointing that the underinvestment and the cuts made by this government to our training system—about $3 billion worth of cuts to TAFE alone—have at times caused skills shortages, which, of course, have been exacerbated recently by the closure of Australia's international borders. There are many employers who have been able to overcome the lack of skills in a particular area, whether that be a particular industry or a particular region, by bringing in foreign workers. Sometimes that has been to the detriment of Australia workers who haven't been able to obtain the training that is needed for such positions as a result of the cuts this government has made to skills and training. We're now paying the price. I know there are many businesses around my state of Queensland that are screaming for skilled workers at the moment, and that is a direct consequence of this government's to cuts to training.

Labor does not support the inclusion of provisions in trade agreements that confer on foreign businesses legal rights that are not available to domestic businesses, but while these are our principles, Labor is not yet in government and, as we know, international treaties are the remit of the executive arm of government.

It's worth our thinking about the Liberals and Nationals' record on trade agreements in the time they've been in office. Labor called for the final treaty text of RCEP to be publicly released before the agreement was signed so as to allow it to be scrutinised by the public, but the Morrison government refused in another example of their aversion to transparency. Labor has previously raised concerns over the Morrison government's refusal to commission independent economic modelling for the RCEP. This is nothing new from this all talk, do nothing government. At a time when calm and skilful diplomacy is needed to resolve our trade tensions with China, the Morrison government has given the member for Dawson, George Christensen, and many others in its ranks free rein to spout inflammatory comments and spread misinformation about China. Under Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Australia is more dependent than ever on China for our exports and jobs. In fact, we depend on the Chinese market more than any other country in the world. That is a result of this government's policies.

When trade diversification is of highest priority for this nation Prime Minister Scott Morrison is putting at risk our trade agreement with the European Union due to his diplomatic ineptitude on the recent nuclear submarines decision. Labor knows that achieving genuine trade diversification will require a long-term, whole-of-government commitment and a plan. Every portfolio in government should be thinking about what it can do to contribute to a national effort to diversify what we export and where we export goods and services to. In health and finance, for example, Australia has remarkable capability that it has already exported, but more can be done. Australia has $1.3 trillion worth of funds under management through our superannuation system. We have developed an industry that is envied around the world, and economies like Japan are looking to Australia for funds management expertise. Similarly, in health, Australia is expert in providing health care into remote areas, which could be replicated in the complex and challenging geography of Indonesia and its many islands.

Labor is prepared to make that commitment and build that plan in conjunction with job-creating export industries. We would work with exporters to build relationships and secure the markets that Australian jobs depend on. Diversifying export markets is more than a photo op for a free trade agreement-signing ceremony. Labor knows that our relationships with our trading partners cannot be just set and forget, as they are under the Morrison-Joyce government. Signing a free trade agreement is not the end of the story. In 2019, the Morrison government committed to a range of measures to secure Labor's support for the Indonesian comprehensive economic partnership agreement—namely, compelling the JSCOT to review the way our country negotiates trade agreements. We are satisfied that the JSCOT treaty-making review has been completed and thank all members of the committee for their work in undertaking this process. We call on the government to implement as a matter of urgency the remainder of these commitments, in particular those related to worker exploitation.

Two other major issues that have been raised in connection with this agreement—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Watt. The time for this debate has concluded. You will be in continuation. We will now proceed to two-minute statements.

Senator HUME (Victoria—Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy and Minister for Women's Economic Security) (15:02): Mr President, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the order for the production of documents discussed during a public hearing of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on 19 July 2021, agreed to in this place yesterday. I note that the documents sought under this order were also sought under order for the production of documents No. 1217. I also note that the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts, through me, responded to that order on 2 September 2021.

With regard to clauses (1)(a) and (1)(d) of this order and further to the minister's correspondence to this place of 2 September 2021, I am advised that the documents subject to this order, reliant on the description during a public hearing of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on 19 July 2021, cannot be tabled, as no document matching this description has been seen by either the minister, his office or his department.

With regard to spreadsheets sought under clauses (1)(b) and    (1)(c) of this order and further to the minister's correspondence to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee of 4 August 2021 and, to this place, of 2 September 2021, I remind the Senate that the documents subject to these clauses of the order are subject to a public interest immunity claim on the grounds that the release of those documents would disclose the deliberations of cabinet. I table that document relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the Urban Congestion Fund.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:04): I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Well, you can set your watch to it: the Senate orders the Morrison-Joyce government to produce documents relating to a dodgy grant, and the Morrison-Joyce government just flat-out refuses to deliver. They are shameless, are they not? They're addicted to secrecy and allergic to accountability. There is no standard so low that they can't limbo underneath it. They think they are above the law.

Senator KENEALLY: Senator Patrick points out there are blind trusts. Perhaps, as we saw in the House yesterday, there is a new low standard. Well, here we go. We know that the Morrison-Joyce government members break the rules that they don't care about and they change the rules that they can change.

The Senate ordered that the minister lay on the table emails, spreadsheets and maps related to the car park rorts scandal. We know from the ANAO that the projects under the car park rorts program were picked from a list titled 'The top 20 marginal electorates'. You can't get more blatant than that. We know that hundreds of millions of dollars was shovelled out the door on projects announced during the 2019 federal election campaign, and we know that 77 per cent of the car park sites ended up in coalition electorates and not in areas where they were most needed. The ANAO found out—surprise, surprise!—that none of the 47 project sites selected for funding commitments were proposed by the department of infrastructure—none of them. This is egregious. This is wholesale rorting.

The government that Mr Morrison leads is littered with examples of scandal, rorting and waste. I have lost track of the number of ministers who've been exposed for their misconduct and their dodgy dealings: Taylor, McKenzie, Colbeck, Cash, Ley, Dutton, Fletcher, Robert, Tudge, Hunt, Ruston, Reynolds and Porter. All of these ministers have been linked to one scandal or another. I wish car park rorts were an anomaly, but this is the new normal for the Morrison-Joyce government. They spend taxpayer money as if it is Liberal-National Party money. The sheer quantum of misconduct by those opposite is simply staggering. I don't think it's about to get any better, by the way. There's a federal election right around the corner, and this tired eight-year-old Liberal-National government doesn't have any other tricks up its sleeve. There's never been a better time, in fact, to be a colour coded spreadsheet than under Mr Morrison and his mates.

Anne Webster, the member for Mallee, had an uncharacteristic moment of honesty from the Morrison-Joyce government, but she's new; she might grow out of that. Anyway, she had an uncharacteristic moment of honesty when she belled the cat on the Building Better Regions rorts. She revealed that coalition MPs can basically just ask for any money they want, regardless of the rules of the grant. Depending on the whims of the minister on any given day, they might just get that money.

I've been in politics long enough to know that there is a view out there in the community that grifting, graft and dodgy deals are just par for the course, the nature of the beast and the cost of doing business. I think the former Premier of New South Wales Gladys Berejiklian said: 'What's wrong with pork-barrelling? Everybody does it.' She might have a different view about that these days, by the way. This view is supposedly factored in by voters, because 'all political parties do it and all politicians are in it for themselves'. But what is clear from car park rorts, sports rorts, Building Better Regions rorts and all 22 of the slush funds in Mr Morrison's recent budget is that we are experiencing an all-time low for government accountability in this country. This is uniquely bad. We've had grants for rural and regional communities handed to projects that are literally next door to the Sydney Harbour Bridge. We've had sports clubs in marginal seats given money for female change room facilities when they have no women's teams. We've had funding for community safety grants cut so the minister could spend cash in an election announcement.

The behaviour of the Morrison-Joyce government is brazen. Mr Morrison appears to have a blatant disregard for the rules and institutions of our democracy. The Australian people have a right to know what their government gets up to. They have a right to know how their money is being spent. They have a right to expect a higher standard from their elected officials.

But Mr Morrison and his mates don't even try to hide it anymore. Asked about the car park rorts earlier this year, the Minister representing the Prime Minister in this place, Senator Birmingham, simply shrugged and said: 'The Australian people had their chance and they voted the government back in at the last election.' They're not even trying to hide this anymore. Why attempt, by the way, to defend the indefensible? You have to admire the hide of the whole thing. They're just hoping that no-one pays close enough attention to their bad behaviour. As long as they get re-elected, what do they care? It's a disgraceful attitude. It is beyond contempt, particularly when we see communities that need community safety funding not getting it, particularly when we see areas that are affected by congestion neglected for a car park because they just happen to be in a Labor-held seat.

Frankly, though, people are catching on. Look at what we saw yesterday in the House of Representatives. For the first time since Federation, a government has voted against the Speaker. It voted against a motion that the Speaker had given precedence to—namely, that former minister Christian Porter should be investigated for his failure to declare a million-dollar blind trust. We're all public servants in this place. We all have to follow the rules. We all have to be accountable to our constituents and the broader public. Christian Porter's decision to accept this money without declaring it constitutes at least an investigation. It looks like an outrageous breach of office, and he should be investigated. That was the view of the Speaker, a Liberal Party colleague of Mr Porter, who ruled there was a prima facie case for referral, and Labor supported the referral. It was Mr Morrison, the Prime Minister, and Mr Joyce, the Deputy Prime Minister, and all of their mates in the government who didn't. They held their noses and they voted against the Speaker for the first time in nearly 120 years, in a blatant display of disregard for transparency and accountability. It's extraordinary. It is quite literally without precedent in this country.

The member for Pearce is being protected by the Prime Minister. That's the only explanation here. He's the only Western Australian this Prime Minister has ever stood up for, and that speaks volumes of this Prime Minister. The Morrison government will hound people to their death with robodebt, but they'll help a disgraced former minister cover up his million-dollar blind trust. No wonder they don't want to fund a federal ICAC! No wonder they don't even want to present the legislation for a national anticorruption commission! No wonder they don't want to answer questions on notice! No wonder they don't want to abide by orders of the Senate to produce documents! This Prime Minister doesn't like answering question, because he knows the Australian people won't like the answers. If the documents requested by the Senate today could make the government look good, then we'd have seen them by now. So what are they hiding?

When voter cynicism in government grows, politicians like Mr Morrison flourish. Blokes like Mr Morrison have made a career out of exceeding ever-shrinking expectations. The only way we can restore the Australian people's faith in our democracy is by showing this lot the door, because, unless we get a government that is serious about a national anticorruption commission, these types of rorting, scandals, blind trusts, disregard of the Speaker, not answering questions on notice and not producing documents are simply going to continue. After eight long years of this tired Liberal-National government, the Australian people deserve a government that is on their side. Let me be clear in this chamber and with the Australian people: an Albanese Labor government will deliver a national anticorruption commission—one with teeth, one that will bring the transparency and accountability so long lacking in this tired eight-year-old national Liberal government. We will bring that to the national level, because the Australian people deserve to know what's being done with their money. They deserve to have accountability and transparency in their government, and they deserve a government that is on their side.

Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (15:14): I was so disappointed with this minister's response to my order for the production of documents—incredibly disappointed but not surprised. This government has got form. They have got so much form with hiding information—hiding the fact that they make decisions based on their political interests, what suits their interests. They make decisions based on the interests of themselves, their mates, big business. They make decisions based on what they think it's going to take to win them seats rather than what's in the interests of ordinary Australians. This is the second time the minister has failed to present the documents that were set out in this order. I was particularly disappointed that they didn't even attempt to give any extra reason as to why they shouldn't give these documents. Basically, they simply resent a letter stating that, in relation to some of the requests, neither Minister Fletcher, his office or the department have seen the documents.

May I remind people that this is despite the fact that these documents were referred to by the Australian National Audit Office at a hearing of the rural and regional transport committee. The ANAO aren't making it up. The ANAO are there as the Audit Office to inquire into actions and programs of departments. They don't make stuff up. The Auditor told us there was this document that referred to the top 20 marginal seats. Yet Minister Fletcher and Minister Hume are saying that no-one happens to have seen these documents. How closely have they looked? The letter says the documents 'aren't to hand'. How convenient! Maybe they just fell into a shredder or something!

Of course, what makes this so upsetting is that this isn't the first time. This government has got form. Let's take us back to sports rorts. In January 2020, when the Prime Minister was asked about sports rorts at the Press Club, he said, 'All we did was provide information based on the representations made to us, as every Prime Minister has done.' And in March 2020 the Prime Minister said, 'We provided information based on the representations made to us, and that included information about other funding options or programs relevant to the project proposals.' It wasn't until two months later, in May 2020, after significant new information had come to light, that the Prime Minister admitted they'd been involved in providing approvals for those sports rorts programs. 'The only authority sought from the Prime Minister's office and from me was in relation to announcements,' they said, but what we subsequently learnt through the committee process was that Minister McKenzie's office had sent dozens of spreadsheets to the Prime Minister's office and had sought approvals for particular rounds of funding. And the sports rorts funding was expanded after a meeting between Minister McKenzie and the Prime Minister following spreadsheets being sent to the Prime Minister's office. So let's be very clear, when it comes to hiding information, being slippery with language and conveniently forgetting things until they're forced to acknowledge them, this government has got form.

When it comes to the information in these documents, this is not the end of the matter. There is a long way to go. We've got Senate estimates next week and we've got a committee into these car park rorts. I'm confident that more information is going to come to light. The refusal by this government to be transparent with the truth doesn't change our commitment to actually getting to the truth and holding this government accountable. We will use the Senate. We will use the information that we have got from the ANAO. The rorting of this grant scheme matters on multiple levels. As I've been saying, it's consistent with the government using government processes, using government funding and using grant processes to serve their own political interests rather than the interests of the community. But it also matters when it comes to just good governance and making good decisions.

I want to talk about the transport policy, before going on in a bit more detail about the corruption. This whole grant fund was the Urban Congestion Fund. The whole point of this grant fund is supposedly to be busting congestion. Let me share one of the submissions we received in the car parks inquiry that we've just set up on this issue. It's from the University of Melbourne transport experts. They say that after years of research on how to solve urban congestion:

The overwhelming conclusion of these investigations is that congestion reduction has failed because of the bias to solutions based on expanding road capacity. Put simply, the experience all over the world since the 1970s confirms that additional capacity induces new demand. This ensures congestion returns to or exceeds initial levels very soon after additional capacity is added. In the case of bottlenecks (a specific focus of the UCF), when one bottleneck is removed the choke point simply moves to the next.

It is now widely accepted by transport planners that building additional road capacity is not a cost-effective means to reduce congestion. More success has been achieved through measures that address demand such as pricing reform and strategic land-use planning.

Sadly, we haven't seen that road pricing reform, despite years of waiting for it. The submission then goes to what is so tragically wrong with this rort: building new car parks, just like building new roads, will not solve congestion. When we asked in Senate estimates what the justification was for even spending money on car parks in order to solve congestion, the officials of course had no clear answer about how they identified these car park projects or how they linked into broader infrastructure planning, including the work done by Infrastructure Australia.

But we know why that was—the officials had to try to pretend that there was some rhyme or reason or semblance of connection with transport policy behind them. But it was because the entire program is a rort. They didn't pick the car parks on any kind of sensible plan. Basically, they sent around yet another spreadsheet with a list of electorates each project was in. So it wasn't at all a surprise to learn that the same staffer who was involved in sports rorts was involved with the car park rorts.

We also saw government moving projects between programs—shifting them from the community support infrastructure fund to the Community Development Grants fund and the Urban Congestion Fund. It seems increasingly clear that this isn't a case of just a single rort multiplied multiple times: it is basically the Prime Minister's office serving as a coordination point between the Liberal Party election campaign and different programs that are being run across different portfolios. This is one mega rort being run out of the Prime Minister's office. That's why the wish lists that were used for sports rorts mattered. They weren't just wish lists for changing rooms; they were wish lists for election projects across multiple types of projects. As Michael West Media has noted, often these projects, particularly the car parks projects, follow a pattern. First, the MP organises a petition to harvest contact details. Then, hey presto, suddenly they've got a grant to announce right before the election. It's almost as if there was a systematic, coordinated process to use public announcements to bolster their election chances without doing the hard work of genuine consultation and policy development!

The scale of the Liberal Party's approach to these funds is so awful that there are layers of misspending. We saw that in New South Wales with the recent ICAC inquiry. One of Mike Baird's staff has questioned the advocacy by the then Treasurer of New South Wales, Gladys Berejiklian, and questioned why they were spending money in a safe seat. Clearly they saw the value in spending public funding in marginal seats for their electoral benefit. On top of that layer of corruption, the former Treasurer wanted a pet project. Entirely coincidentally, it appears it was in the electorate of someone she was in a relationship with! The sad truth with this government is that it's genuinely hard to keep track of all the different programs they've tried to rort: sports rorts, car park rorts, the Community Development Grants fund—the list goes on. It's exactly why we need a federal ICAC with teeth. It's exactly why we need to have something that goes to the heart of the corruption in this government, highlighting the inaction of this government and their refusal to pass an ICAC, despite the fact that the Greens bill for a federal ICAC passed the Senate two years ago and is there on the books ready to be implemented, if we only had an honest rather than a corrupt government. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:25): I seek leave to move a motion relating to the failure of the government to comply with order for the production of documents No. 1251.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (15:26): The government will not deny leave. We sought to deny leave earlier today in relation to this motion. I recognise the vote of the Senate at that time, which agreed to suspend standing orders at that stage. We won't prolong debate in the Senate. The government still believes that consideration of this is just a stunt by the opposition, is completely unnecessary on their behalf and, in doing so, is simply seeking to further politicise debates in relation to climate change in its introduction and is seeking to get ahead of matters that are rightly being considered by the government to take a fully informed position to the Glasgow climate change conference. However, recognising that the will of the Senate has already been expressed, we won't object by way of leave denial at this time.

Leave granted.

Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:27): I am moving the motion which has been circulated in the chamber, which I am happy to read if the chamber so wishes. I move:

That the Senate:

(1) Notes:

(a) the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction did not table a response to the order for production of documents 1251 moved by Senators Patrick and Canavan by the specified time of no later than 10 am on 21 October 2021;

(b) the Senate requested the detailed modelling that the Government has that forecasts Australian exports in gas, resources and agriculture under the Government's 2050 net zero emissions reduction strategy;

(c) Senator Canavan has been calling for the release of this modelling, tweeting on 19 October 2021 "If this modelling is so good why does it have to remain a secret?";

(2) Requires the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction attend the Senate immediately to provide an explanation of no more than 5 minutes, of the Government's response to the order contained in paragraph (1) or for an explanation of the Government's failure to comply with the order;

(a) in the event that the minister provides an explanation, any senator may move to take note of the minister's explanation;

(b) in the event that the minister fails to provide an explanation, any senator may move to take note of the minister's failure to provide an explanation; and

(c) any motion under paragraph (a) or (b) may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes and have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for no more than 5 minutes each.

The motion relates to the failure of the government to respond to order of production of documents 1251, moved by Senators Patrick and Canavan, and requires the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction to attend the Senate immediately to provide an explanation. The terms of the motion have been circulated in the chamber.

Question agreed to.

(Quorum formed)

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (15:29): by leave—With reference to Senator Patrick's order for the production of documents of 20 October 2021, I table a response.

I might just read the tabled document: 'As Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction, I write with regard to the Senate order for the production of documents No. 1251, moved by Senator Patrick and agreed by the Senate on 20 October 2021, on the matter of modelling relating to the government's emission reduction strategy. Noting sensitivities incumbent on a request for cabinet documents and the time frame provided to respond, I advise that more time will be required to comply with the order. A more detailed response will be provided to the Senate by Friday 29 October consistent with standing order 166, and I enclose a letter from the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction confirming this advice.'

Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:31): Pursuant to the motion, I rise to take note of that response and make a few points. One is just to be very clear that the government spent some time today filibustering and running procedural games to avoid having a vote on the motion that they've just now had to have a vote on, and the reason the government conceded that vote is that it knew that a number of its senators were, to their credit, prepared to cross the floor to support a motion requiring the minister to attend. Recall that the order for production of documents that is the subject of this motion that was not complied with by Minister Seselja, was not complied with by the government, was a motion in fact supported by Senator Matt Canavan, so a government senator moving a motion against his own government or requiring his own government to provide the economic modelling that they have been talking about. So all of the shenanigans today were to avoid a vote that the government has just conceded. Just to be very clear what has occurred: Senator Canavan made clear he was prepared to cross the floor, as, I have to say, was the private indication from a number of other Liberal senators. This is a government utterly divided.

I want to make some comments. Senator McKenzie, how are you? I do want to make some brief comments, if I may, about the approach of the government to secrecy and the approach of the government to transparency and the approach of the government to accountability. The government want to keep this modelling secret, because they know that they have cost Australia billions of dollars by standing in the way of action on climate and renewables. And it's not the only secret, of course, that we know the Morrison-Joyce government is determined to keep from Australians. Recall that yesterday Mr Morrison got every one of his MPs to vote to protect Christian Porter and his secret donations, but he can't get his divided government to vote for net zero emissions by 2050. The fact is Mr Morrison never takes responsibility, he leaves it to others on vaccines, on hospitals, on quarantine, on bushfires, on climate and on renewables, and he's not even in the room when his government's policy on climate and renewables is being decided by Mr Joyce and the Nationals. But, when it comes to protecting Mr Porter, that's the job Mr Morrison puts his back into. If only Mr Morrison put the same effort into fighting for the Australian people as he puts into fighting for Mr Porter! If only he put as much effort into tackling climate change and ensuring we support renewables as he puts into protecting Mr Porter!

The whole reason for this government's existence over eight long years has been to stand in the way of action on climate and renewables. And, make no mistake about it, any deal that Mr Morrison comes up with now with Mr Joyce's support will be nothing but political spin to get Mr Morrison through Glasgow and to get him through the election. I say to the government: Australians are on to you. They've seen what Mr Morrison is like, and they know he isn't the real deal.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (15:34): I also rise to take note of the answer. It would be too easy just to be wearily resigned to the secrecy and the endless and naked politicking from this tired, clapped-out government, because we've had eight years of it. Years ago, the government tried hiding the modelling that related to its tax cuts, and it hasn't let up since. We've seen relentless rorting—car parks and sports rorts—all with accompanying colour coded spreadsheets, and, when the government are queried about it, we've seen a bullying and uncompromising assertion that this is fine—that this is what government looks like.

Yesterday in the other place, the government voted to protect Mr Porter from scrutiny, an unprecedented decision to shield a sitting government MP from the scrutiny of the Privileges Committee about unprecedented circumstances where that person sought to establish a legal mechanism to hide his financial interests—unbelievable. This morning here in this place, it's just more of the same. We spent hours on this this morning. Remember, we were all here in the chamber waiting while these people voted to scuttle an attempt by a member of their own coalition, Senator Canavan, to access important modelling about possible climate commitments and the economic consequences of those commitments.

This government says it's all about the economy. It says it's all about the economic interests of regional Australia. It says it's all about Australia's economic future. But it's not interested in a serious public debate about those questions. It's not interested in a serious debate about our future and, as demonstrated this morning, it will do anything possible to prevent such a debate taking place here in this chamber, the very place where such a debate ought to be happening.

It matters. This kind of secrecy is just wrong, and it's reflective of the culture of the government: a relentless, unending pursuit of political solutions and deal-making in response to genuine policy problems. It's all tied up together, because it's easier to do a deal in secret. It's much easier when there are just a handful of actors in the room—a nice little subcommittee of cabinet, with just a handful of people who can cut a deal to shunt money off in one direction in exchange for another kind of commitment that may or may not be in the national interest. When you have cut your deal, it's a lot easier to spin it when there are very few facts about the content of that agreement, about the content of the negotiation and about what has actually been agreed and the consequences for Australia and Australians. It is much easier to spin when there aren't facts out there to contradict your narrative, but it's not what the national interest requires.

This is a big, serious and consequential challenge. It's one that our peers all around the globe are willing to take on. Around the globe, when we see serious climate action, it's not the product of secret meetings or some new augmented schedule to the coalition deal between the Liberals and the Nationals. Serious climate action is a consequence of bringing people along. Serious economic reform requires a conversation with the very communities whose lives will change—an honest and open conversation that reassures people that you have their interests at heart and are not just skating through to the next election in order to keep your job, your ministry, your cosy spot and your big car.

What's needed is a serious public conversation to grapple with an existential challenge that every serious country in the world—all of our peers—is grappling with at this very moment. Mr Morrison is going to go to Glasgow, he says. He should go with a serious plan to take Australia into the future—one that has been the subject of public discussion. The pathetic, endless attempts to reduce this to a grubby deal do no-one any credit. (Time expired)

Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (15:39): I rise to speak on this motion. I want to again draw the attention of the Senate to the response by Senator Zed Seselja. A commitment has been made to providing a more detailed response to the Senate by Friday 29 October, consistent with standing order 166. Let me remind you that this OPD was received only yesterday. Deliberations are ongoing. You want us to pre-empt outcomes of deliberations by releasing modelling that underpins current discussions, negotiations and considerations—and this is coming from the Labor Party. Let's not forget that the Labor Party took to the last election a commitment for a 45 per cent cut in emissions by 2030 without releasing any modelling, without releasing any costings and without any consideration of what impact that would have on jobs, including jobs in regional communities—farmers, miners, and the local bakers and newsagents who depend on those jobs for their businesses.

I hear Senator McAllister saying we're doing a deal in secret. Well, we are having very serious discussions because we have been talking to our constituents. We are taking back our constituents' considerations. We don't do deals like the Labor Party, in caucus, and then foist them upon the Australian public and expect them to fall in line behind us. And, unlike Senator Watt, we actually know who our constituents are. AgForce is a Queensland organisation that Senator Watt doesn't even realise is a member of the NFF. This is the AgForce that used to run a fantastic campaign: 'farmers—every family needs one'. AgForce are a wonderful organisation, and you should know who they are, Senator Watt. You should understand what they have asked for.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Davey, I remind you to make your remarks to the chair, not directly to any senator in the chamber. Thank you.

Senator DAVEY: I stand corrected. Thank you very much, Deputy President. I'll go back to the important issue at hand. Earlier on, Senator Wong said this government was full of inaction—inaction! You're talking about a government that has seen massive reductions in emissions since coming into this place and taking on government in 2013. We've done this through technology, not taxes, and through working in partnership with industry. Instead of hitting industry over the head with a big stick, like an ETS or a carbon tax, we've sat down with industry and said: 'How can we all work together? How can we lower emissions? How can we incentivise innovation?' We're partnering with the private sector to bring a portfolio of low-emissions technologies into parity with their current alternatives. We're working on what is available today, but also with an eye on the future, because, when we're talking about a 2050 target, that is 30 years away. Imagine if we'd sat down 30 years ago and said, 'This mobile phone that I have in my handbag today'—because it wouldn't have fit in my pocket—'is going to be the mobile phone we're using in 30 years time.' It is ridiculous to try and cement us into a position.

What we are doing is laying the foundations for a road map, but we're not doing it blindly and we're not doing it deafly, and that is why the Nationals are negotiating. That is why the Nationals are looking at protections to underpin the very jobs and industries that have kept our economy strong through COVID. If it weren't for our agricultural and mining sectors, if it weren't for our exports of iron ore, coal, beef, wheat and rice—in the last year, we've had a good rice harvest as well—we wouldn't have made it through COVID with the economic strength that we have. We wouldn't have been the first country to return to the same number of employed people as pre COVID. So the Nationals— (Time expired)

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (15:44): I rise to take note of the minister's response, along with my colleagues. I do concede that, as Senator Davey has indicated, the letter that has come to the chamber gives some hope that there may be disclosure. I just want to remind the chamber that the position of the Senate has always been—and I've just had a quick look at Odgers to refresh myself—that it is the deliberations of the cabinet that are accepted as being the basis of a proper public interest immunity claim. That is, it is the conversations that take place, and the reason for that confidentiality is the collective responsibility. The ability for ministers to argue across the table and for that to be held secret is in some sense sacrosanct, and I accept that. It doesn't extend to cabinet documents. The Senate has never accepted that. All too often we see ministers sprinkling the cabinet secrecy dust over things that it shouldn't be sprinkled over. Perhaps with the finance minister's $40 billion discretionary fund they bought a whole bunch more secrecy dust because they had to extend it to national cabinet. Even though we know national cabinet is not a cabinet, they're still definitely sprinkling the cabinet secrecy dust over that.

There is some hope in the letter that has been provided to the Senate. That's a good thing. I urge the Prime Minister to release this information and to do so as early as possible, because there is a debate that's taking place, and debates are always better if they're informed debates. Let's see the modelling. Let's see where everything lies rather than having everyone guess. The statements made by the Prime Minister have even caused Senator Canavan, a member of his own coalition team, doubts. I supported that. Hence we combined to move the motion in the first place.

I'll just remind senators that, in New Zealand, cabinet secrecy doesn't exist. There's something like a 30-day time limit, and then everything is released. Unless it relates to national security, it's released—and their democracy hasn't fallen over. Maybe it's time that our parliament started to consider whether or not we want to move towards adoption of the New Zealand system. It's a responsible system of government and it seems to manage okay—in fact, I'd argue that in many cases it does a lot better—through the openness and transparency that its cabinet regime offers the New Zealand people. There is an example that we should adopt there.

I'll just point out what the hard reality is. Yes, cabinet deliberations have public interest immunity. Cabinet documents do not, but, in any circumstance, the Prime Minister is authorised to release cabinet documents. He did it for the Doherty modelling. He should also do it for the modelling that is the subject of this order.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (15:48): I rise to take note of the minister's response as well, but I want to discuss more the concerns I have leading up to the government acceding to the Senate's request. I also make note of Senator Patrick's comment then that debates are better if informed. That's where I want to go to. Senator Birmingham said earlier on today, 'The government is doing the legwork.' If that's the truth, why don't they show it? Why have we gone through this charade for the government to capitulate anyway? Then the government argued, through Senator Birmingham, that they won't do it because Labor won't do it. That's got nothing to do with the issue at all. Our record is 10 consecutive quarters of year-on-year CPI reductions in retail power. The Labor Party's record is not only a carbon tax and not only a mining tax but also 23 consecutive quarters of year-on-year increases in household electricity costs, and they have the hide to come in here and lecture us. Well, the Australian people can see straight through that. They understand that this is the same old Labor Party, because recently we've seen the Labor Party put their dirty little secret out there into the public. Asked on Sunday by David Speers, Senator Gallagher said, 'We are looking at everything.' That was in response to a direct question as to whether or not a carbon tax—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Small, I will remind you of the question. It was a question from Senator Watt to Senator McKenzie and it was largely around net zero emissions by 2050 and comments made by Fiona Simpson and the Minerals Council of Australia. You were on track, but you have well and truly strayed over the last minute or so.

Senator SMALL: I'm delighted to return to talking about the Morrison government's plan to achieve net zero with technology, not taxes. That is the ironclad guarantee that the Prime Minister has given the people of Australia. There is no plan from the Morrison government that includes a carbon tax. Not only does it not include a carbon tax; in fact, it includes no penalties. We have been clear with the Australian people that we will achieve net zero emissions with technology, not taxes, with choice, not constraint, with incentive, not penalty, and we will deliver it in partnership with the private sector—the private sector that generates the jobs that Australians depend on, the private sector that will export new energy technology to the world. That is what this government is about.

We are delighted to stand on our track record. We put our plans to the Australian people each election, and that is the accountability that matters. Before the next election, the Prime Minister has been clear that we will, in fact, have a very clear plan for the Australian people. It'll be costed, it'll be achievable and it will be based on the outcomes that we have delivered. The Labor Party's plan, which doesn't exist, includes a legislated target which is a blank cheque. With a blank cheque and a carbon tax on the table, I think I know who the Australian people will trust.

Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (16:22): Enough from the junior burgher from Bunbury—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Ayres, I ask you to withdraw that and address the senator by his correct name.