Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (09:31): I understand that, pursuant to an order agreed by the Senate, I have been asked to attend the chamber in relation to a number of government responses to Senate Environment and Communications References Committee reports tabled across a period of time. This order notes the approach—since 1973, it says—that government responses to committee reports seek to be tabled or be tabled within three months of a report being finalised. I note that there has probably been a wide variation in terms of the handling of that since 1973, whether it be Labor or Liberal governments' compliance with that. I note that in that time frame there would be many such committee reports that have lapsed in different ways in terms of their relevance as a result of the passage of time and other matters along the way, and of course I'm pretty confident that the volume of committee reports being made by the Senate is probably much greater today in 2022, and in recent years, than it was back in 1973.

Nonetheless, I can advise the Senate in relation to some of the reports that have been identified in the motion passed by the Senate that work has been underway to respond to those reports. The government responses to the National Landcare Program and to the regulation of the finfish aquaculture industry in Tasmania are indeed being tabled today. And I'm sure that there will no doubt be a sense of interest from senators in relation to their contributions on Landcare—an important and very much valued program across Australia. Landcare is a program that our government has very strongly, passionately and enthusiastically supported in a range of different ways, and the finfish aquaculture industry in Tasmania is a sector that I imagine my colleague Senator Duniam is much better placed to address the merits and challenges of than I am, necessarily.

Senator BIRMINGHAM: And, yes, I am certain that Senator Whish-Wilson will have much to say on a matter such as that. So I'm sure those government responses on those two matters are no doubt going to be eagerly anticipated by the Senate and, of course, I'm sure they will add enormous value to the debate in relation to such matters. But I know that, no doubt, when I conclude speaking there will be a rather predictable take note motion that will be moved and there will be a degree of faux outrage that will come.

Senator Hanson-Young: It's not faux.

Senator BIRMINGHAM: Senator Hanson-Young, I know, is very good at turning up the dial when she needs to have a degree of outrage. I think there's a little knob under Senator Hanson-Young's desk somewhere so she can work out which level of outrage she wants to flick to on the outrage machine. So she'll have her degree of outrage. Perhaps she'll have something to say about the finfish aquaculture industry as well. But, no doubt, there will be that approach taken from the crossbench, and probably from the opposition as well, notwithstanding the fact that I'm sure that, if we were to work our way through the period of their time in government, we would equally find many different committee reports that were not responded to within the 1973 standard of three months that I suspect governments of all persuasions have honoured more in the breach in that period of time.

I wouldn't want anybody to think that that means that Senate committee reports are any less valuable. The work of Senate committees is of crucial importance in a range of ways, and that of references committees has a unique role in terms of how they operate across our parliament. References committees of the Senator operate with a certain freedom and liberty to explore issues beyond the remit of specific legislation, and the unique aspect of references committees in this place is that they not only have freedom in terms of exploring issues beyond pure legislation presented to legislation committees but, of course, those references committees are constituted with a non-government balance in this place. Oftentimes that is a good thing. Those references committees with a non-government balance—I've been there, as chair of a references committee myself, back in the dark, dim days of opposition.

Senator Stoker: I bet you did a great job!

Senator BIRMINGHAM: I think that Senator Cash would have been chair of a references committee too, Senator Stoker, and that she would have done a great job at that time. They are valuable opportunities for a constructive approach to be taken at times. However, there has been a bit of a trend over the years as well where references committees are sometimes abused. Because they have that non-government majority that they are constituted with, those references committees then operate in a way where they are used not so much for the legitimate analysis of the issues that are proposed, not so much for the pursuit of information and knowledge around those issues but instead for political purposes where a non-government controlled committee is able to pursue political attacks on the government rather than the purpose, original function and intent for which that references committee was established. I've noted that over the years there have sometimes even been attempts to have legislation referred to a references committee, if opposition parties of the day think they can get the numbers in that regard.

Those approaches, when they are used in ways that undermine the intent of those references committees, can indeed be, I think, undermining of the overall benefits we have from the very powerful and important committee system in the Australian Senate. Now, there has been a little bit happening, as there usually is in sitting weeks and in the finance minister's life. I haven't had a chance to go and have a look over each of the 18 committee reports from the Environment and Communications References Committee myself.

Senator BIRMINGHAM: I have no doubt, Senator Whish-Wilson, that others, particularly in the relevant portfolio offices, would have read the valuable work of those committees. I just, in the last day or two, haven't had the chance to go and read the reports myself. I'm sure that in some parts they are valuable additions to public policy and debate. But I equally suspect that in other parts, especially given this references committee has for a period of time had a chair from the Greens—and I note Senator Hanson-Young's enthusiasm on this topic—it is probably the case that this committee's reports are somewhat laden with the Greens' view of the world, perhaps with the support of the Labor Party—a reminder of the type of Labor-Greens alliance that we could see after the next election, where their pursuit—

Senator Keneally: Morrison-Joyce!

Senator BIRMINGHAM: Usually the Labor Party seek to deny that there would be a Labor-Greens alliance, but I note Senator Keneally didn't on that occasion. She instead drew an automatic analogy to 'Morrison-Joyce'; those were Senator Keneally's words. So there you have it; Senator Keneally sees the Labor-Greens alliance as being akin to the coalition parties.

Senator Keneally: Mr President, I'm just observing that anyone who goes in a coalition with a Joyce government has a hell of a lot of nerve trying to cast aspersions.

The PRESIDENT: I don't think that is a point of order, Senator Keneally. These are free-ranging debates. Minister you have the call.

Senator BIRMINGHAM: Well, this is quite amazing! This is quite a revelation—that, even in taking that point of order, Senator Keneally didn't seek to suggest—

Senator Keneally: I'm happy to; thank you for the invitation!

The PRESIDENT: Senator Keneally, there is no point of order.

Senator Keneally: The senator is giving me the chance to take the floor, Mr President, to deny that there is any coalition between the Greens and the Labor Party.

The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order, Senator Keneally. Resume your seat.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Keneally! Minister, you have 15 seconds.

Senato r BIRMINGHAM: A little bit of dragging, kicking and screaming there from Senator Keneally to deny that essentially the Labor-Greens relationship would be just like the Liberal-Nationals relationship—working in coalition, working in tandem, should they get the opportunity. That's what we saw for much of the last term of a Labor government, and that is the risk for Australians ahead of the next election. (Time expired)

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (09:42): I move:

That the Senate take note of the minister's response.

What a display of disrespect for the institution of this chamber in reviewing government policy and looking into issues of serious matters concerning the community. The idea that, as senators, we should just sit back, be quiet and do whatever the government of the day likes is just laughable. That is not the role of the Australian Senate. Our role is to inquire, to ask tough questions and to hold government to account. That is precisely why this motion, this request for the minister to respond today, was moved. At the time this motion was put forward, there were 18 reports of the Environment and Communications References Committee that this government had arrogantly refused to respond to, despite the rules and requirements and respect set back in 1973. During those times it was a big debate about the role of this chamber.

The arrogance of this government runs through everything, doesn't it? It's led from the top, by Mr Morrison himself, and it goes all the way down to Senator Birmingham, who is here today thinking that he doesn't have time, that it's not part of his job to have to read and consider and think about what his government's responses are to reports that are put forward by this chamber. Well, that's wrong. It is your job. If you want the gig of government, you take responsibility for copping accountability and scrutiny as delivered by this chamber.

It seems from the response of Senator Birmingham that, because governments past and current have been tardy in their response and accountability, they can be tardy now. They can be tardy in relation to responses to these serious and well-considered reports put forward by fellow senators in this place. This is the government of tardiness—spin, mistruth and tardiness—and we've just seen it from Senator Birmingham this morning.

There were 18 reports that the Environment and Communications References Committee considered, inquired into and reported into and that require government responses, some of which go back to 2014. That's how tardy and arrogant the Morrison-Joyce government are. Yesterday, after this request for the minister to come and explain the arrogance, dismissal and lack of accountability of his government was clear, the Senate received responses to two of these reports. Imagine that! So, if we were to keep asking for these, maybe by the end of the next term, if they were to be re-elected, we'd get some more responses. That is not how this process is meant to go.

There have been 18 reports with no response from this government, and why? It is because they do not believe they are accountable to anyone. They don't believe they're accountable to the people of Australia. They don't believe they're accountable to the chamber. They don't believe they're accountable to the institution of the Senate. This government, the Morrison-Joyce government, thinks that it's its way or the highway. They would like to write their own rules and not have to be accountable for anything.

Of course, we know the attitude of Mr Morrison in all of this: nothing's ever his fault, it's always somebody else's, and then, if he gets caught out, he doesn't tell the truth. The reputation of this government is in tatters because it is unaccountable. They think they are above everybody. They are above the law, and that's led right from the top, from a Prime Minister who schemes and twists and thinks that everybody can be taken for a fool. There is no accountability and no transparency, and when you get caught out you do your hardest to cover it up or lie through your teeth. These are the hallmarks of this government.

As we lead into what is going to be the next federal election, there are only three sitting days of this chamber left. All this request asks is that this government finally do its job and respond to the hard work of the committees in this place, the witnesses who have put forward evidence and the members of the Public Service who have participated in these 18 different inquiries across different issues. Many of them, yes, have to do with the environment, an important issue to many and most Australians, and with issues in relation to our public broadcasters and the rules that govern media in this country, another issue that is important to our community. But, no, this government thinks that if it doesn't don't have the numbers on a committee to get the reports and the recommendations that it wants then, bugger it, it's not going to respond. It is arrogant, dismissive, sneaky. It is always looking to blame someone else and cover up when it gets caught out. These are the hallmarks of this government, and this has just been demonstrated again here today.

On the eve of a federal election, when we have three siting days left of this chamber, the government has had an opportunity to come in and give some considered contribution to important issues that this chamber has debated, inquired into and worked on since 2014. Rather than taking that seriously, rather than being prepared to be held to account or to be transparent with the Australian people, we heard from the government minister that he didn't have time. He thumbed his nose at the democratic institution and role of the parliament and the right of the Australian people to ensure that there is accountability and transparency of their government. There isn't a level of accountability that this government likes. Every which way they try and avoid it. Of course there was a promise that there was going to be an anti-corruption commission in this term of government. Where is it? It's not happening. And why? Because Mr Morrison and Mr Joyce don't want the scrutiny. They don't want to be held accountable. They don't want anybody looking into their affairs. They don't want to be held responsible for the dodgy deals that the government have made with their mates in business, in corporations—big developers who've been given the green light to damage and destroy our environment. This government has an allergic reaction to truth, to accountability and to transparency. You can't trust them on anything.

It's not just the smirk that frustrates and alienates the Australian people from the Prime Minister; it is his arrogance to think that he doesn't have to do his job and that he never owes anyone the truth. Well, this chamber is standing up today against that arrogance not for ourselves but for the Australian people. The display from the minister today and their pathetic response just proves why this government does not deserve another day in office.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (09:52): I rise also to take note and to make some remarks about the minister's contribution just now. You would think that this government, and indeed all senators in this chamber, would be seriously concerned and worried about the declining trust in politics. It is not an overstatement to say that this is a moment of crisis. Trust in Australian politics is at an all-time low. The 2019 Australian election survey, which is an important resource for every person here, showed that just one in four Australians are willing to express confidence in their political leaders and institutions. I find that terribly sad. I've spent much of my life in volunteer capacities seeking to contribute to Australian democratic institutions and to public debate. It's built on the idea that every Australian citizen has the ability to contribute, that every Australian citizen has the right to be heard and that the Australian parliament exists to safeguard those rights, to safeguard those interests and to ensure that we continue as a democratic community capable of taking important decisions for our nation together.

Just over one in 10 Australians are willing to say that they think government operates for all people. That statistic alone should concern every person in this chamber.

So, when a minister is asked to come to this place and explain why, since 2014, report after report after report that's been prepared by senators in this place has been ignored by the government, you would think he would do the Australian people the courtesy of providing a serious explanation, because Senate inquiries are a serious political process. Senate inquiries offer the opportunity for ordinary people working alone, working in community organisations or working as researchers to provide a perspective on the questions that should be concerning us as a nation.

I tell you what: just at the human level, there might be a job for people in chamber—a job that the Leader of the Government here was willing to disparage and making mocking remarks about, with a little bit of: 'Ha, ha, ha! How funny it was back in the dim, dark days of opposition when we had to stoop to chairing committees!' Well, Minister, that's not the way everybody in this place treats committees. We treat them seriously, and we know that the people who spend their time coming before us as witnesses take them seriously as well. These people spend hours writing submissions. Then we ask them to come to Canberra and provide evidence. We ask them to sit before us, to appear on television at times and to expose themselves to scrutiny. They come. They are willing to subject themselves and their evidence to our scrutiny. They sit before us and they answer questions. At times that's not comfortable for those witnesses, but they do it. Those ordinary Australians, those good citizens, do it because they believe that our democracy matters. They believe that the deliberative processes of the Senate matter.

So why is it that a minister, the leading representative of the government in this place, would have the temerity, the hubris and the arrogance to come into this chamber and treat a motion of this kind with contempt? He failed to respond to the original request to provide a response to all of these matters and has failed to provide a serious explanation for why they have done so. It's typical of the broader approach of this government, a government which shows disrespect to evidence and to experts on every policy decision.

It starts with the Prime Minister, doesn't it? I've given some thought in recent years to why the Prime Minister seems so pathologically incapable of responding to the public interest, because I'm actually a person who's generally generous about the motivations of the people around me. I know that I don't agree with many of the people on the other side, but I'm willing to acknowledge that they come here in a spirit of public service. But I have racked my brains to understand what it is that drives the Prime Minister. We've have had some fairly recent free character assessments offered by some of the people who know him best. According to the man who now occupies the position of Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Morrison is, in fact, just a liar; according to the unnamed frontbencher, Mr Morrison is a psycho; and, according to former Premier Berejiklian, he's a horrible, horrible person who—and I think this is the kicker and the thing which explains it the most—puts politics before people.

The PRESIDENT: Senator McAllister, please resume your seat. Senator Smith?

Senator Dean Smith: Mr President, I think that Senator McAllister is now straying very widely from the matter that is before the Senate. That matter is clearly prescribed in the Notice Paper. It refers to responses to references committee reports. So I ask you to bring Senator McAllister back to the substance of the matter before us.

The PR ESIDENT: As I said when an attempted point of order was being made against Senator Birmingham, these debates are generally allowed to be fairly free-ranging. However, I will take note of the response being provided by Senator McAllister, and I will draw her back to the matter under discussion.

Senator McALLISTER: What is needed is a leader who is willing to take responsibility for the stewardship of this place, for its functioning and for its role in a democratic nation. He could start by committing to the ordinary processes of accountability, by responding to the reports provided by this place and by insisting that the ministers in his cabinet respond to the reports that are provided by senators in this place and that reflect the evidence provided by Australian citizens. He could follow up by keeping his promise to establish some kind of national integrity body—some kind of anticorruption commission that can deal with the rorts and the scandals that have, sadly, proliferated under his watch.

He could, possibly, direct his people—his ministers and the public servants who work for them in executive government—to take the Senate estimates process seriously. We're going into estimates next week, and I tell you what: what's the bet that we'll see a repeat of the behaviour that we have seen intensify over the last three, four or five years under this government, where questions are taken on notice and then an irrelevant and meaningless answer is provided? Public servants nervously glance sideways at their minister to assess whether on this occasion they should just tell the truth about what is happening in a government program or whether there's some kind of punishment coming their way if they dare to speak up and actually explain what is happening in Australian public programs.

Whether it's responding to references reports, establishing an anticorruption commission or dealing properly with the estimates process, this is a government that is allergic to scrutiny and accountability. A minister in this place hid behind a whiteboard rather than merely be photographed in an uncomfortable week for her. A minister went to the cricket rather than attend a Senate hearing into the crisis occurring in our aged-care facilities as a consequence of the pandemic. This is a government that ignores Auditor-General recommendations. This is a government that's willing to defend its car park rorts, its sports rorts and its decision to purchase land at many, many times its value. It sees no problem with that and no questions to answer.

So is it any surprise at all that it has no interest in the matters that have been considered by the Environment and Communications Committee since 2014? These are questions about direct action, about land care, about finfish aquaculture, about online gambling and the harms it does to Australian families, and about climate change and its impact on fisheries and biodiversity. Do you all think that the Australian public don't care about this? Are these issues that you think aren't important? That is the very strong signal you are sending here. But worse—and I'll return to where I began—is your contempt for and lack of interest in securing and stewarding the health of Australian democratic institutions. (Time expired)

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (10:03): In my small home town of Launceston in northern Tasmania, we've broken yet another temperature record this summer, we had the driest December ever recorded, and yesterday it was reported in the media that an estimated 60,000 Atlantic salmon—finfish, an invasive species that is farmed in the Tamar River—died. There was a mass fish mortality, because the water has warmed to such an extent that the nitrogen levels underneath those fish pens have starved those fish of oxygen. Those fish literally choked and drowned in their own shit in those pens. That's a problem for the salmon company, but it's not just the Tamar River. We've seen hundreds and thousands of fish die in single events in Macquarie Harbour, on the west coast of Tasmania. If you think that's a lot—Senator Duniam knows this—one of the companies, Tassal, lost over a million fish in a single event in the shallow waters of the Huon Valley. Why? Because our oceans are warming. Why am I raising this now? For two simple reasons. Two of the Senate inquiries that haven't been responded to, dating back to seven years ago, firmly warming oceans and the problems with finfish aquiculture in Tasmania on the national and federal political agenda. That's not to mention the amazing work the environment and comms committee did back in 2016 into the impacts of warming oceans.

Who in here doesn't think we've seen an unprecedented period of history where marine habitats have changed because of warming oceans? I honestly couldn't think of a more important issue in the environment than this. I'm a bit biased, because I spend a lot of time in the ocean and I care deeply about our marine ecosystems, but this is an issue that this chamber and this government have ignored. They have refused to respond to these inquiries.

The 2015 finfish inquiry—and I thank Labor for their support; it was fellow Tasmanian Lisa Singh who convinced her colleagues in this place to support that inquiry—began because some secret documents were put under the Greens door in Hobart. There were leaked emails from two of the CEOs of the three salmon companies begging the state government to do their job and regulate the salmon industry. They said, 'It is a ticking time bomb if you don't act.' Companies begging for regulation—you don't see that very often.

This was a significant matter of national interest because Macquarie Harbour—where we did have a ticking time bomb; it's been an unmitigated disaster since 2015—has protected federal species and is on the on the edge of a World Heritage area. Eventually, we convinced the federal environment department, because of those threatened species, to go down there and talk to the environmental protection agency. Finally, we saw some action on destocking salmon in those harbours. The regulation of finfish and salmon aquiculture is a federal issue. Yet, this government has refused to take its seriously and now they are reaping the consequences of that, as is the Tasmanian community.

Another report that this government has sat on for six years is the report on the mitigation of shark bites in this country. It was one of the biggest Senate inquiries I've been involved in, and I'm very proud the Greens led on this one as well. We went all around the country and took evidence from small towns like Ballina in New South Wales, through to Sydney, Perth and northern Queensland. We listened to all the evidence and we pulled together the world's first inquiry into mitigating the risk of shark bites and how we can get the balance to protect our ecosystems. Sharks are critical to ocean health, yet we have these fisheries devices, like shark nets and drumlines, that are indiscriminately killing not just sharks; they are weapons of mass destruction for protected marine life, like turtles and rays and whales. That was a great body of work, but this government has never responded. There are a number of recommendations in that inquiry about, once again, how the federal government could show leadership on this issue. It is way past time for the federal government to show national leadership on this debate. We still see the media victimising sharks. We still see state governments, like those of New South Wales and Queensland, refusing to remove these last-century responses to what is a very complex problem that has much better solutions. And they're all in that report—if the federal government would just listen and pay attention.

By the way, when we were holding this inquiry on great white sharks, which are a nationally protected species, there was a big push on to open up great white sharks to fishing, all around this country. We saw Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister at the time, calling great white sharks the terrorists of the sea. I remember when Mr Frydenberg flew over to Western Australia and whipped the media into a frenzy to kill great white sharks. CSIRO did a report looking at the genetics of white shark populations and found that, contrary to the myths that this government was whipping up, shark populations aren't exploding in this country. In fact, they're not exploding; they're flatlining, at best, if not continuing to decline.

We're still catching these protected species in shark nets. We're still catching whales. Senator Waters, who's from Queensland, knows that, every year, on the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast, whales are getting entangled in these awful shark nets that are just designed to kill marine life for a false sense of security. We've recently had the tragic death of a surfer at Snapper Rocks and Greenmount, on the Gold Coast, bitten by a shark, inside a shark net. He probably had a false sense of security, like many surfers and ocean-goers do—that somehow you're safe if the shark nets are there. Well, you're not. Shark nets do not make you safe from shark bites. They are simply a fisheries device designed to reduce the population of sharks and other marine life. They're totally indiscriminate killers.

We could do so much better if we had federal leadership. I'm proud that the Greens have led on this issue, as they have with warming oceans, through this Senate committee, and as they have with trying to get some action on regulating toxic Atlantic salmon in the waterways of my home state of Tasmania. The Greens will continue to lead on these issues. Senator Duniam, I hope that you provide a response to this today and that we see some action from your government on this issue; I recognise that we are looking at Commonwealth waters and other ways of farming finfish, and you can be sure that I'm keeping a very close eye on that.

I want to finish by saying what Senator Hanson-Young has said so eloquently already: the fact that we have 18 reports from a committee on the environment that haven't been responded to—many of them on critical issues like those I've outlined today—shows this government's contempt for the environment; it shows how low a priority it is on their agenda. There's been critical work done by good people, including the amazing people who work in the Senate committee—the secretariat and all the fantastic people—as well as all the witnesses around the country. There were hundreds of witnesses in the shark inquiry, and there were even more submissions. Yet we've done nothing. We've failed to respond and we've failed to show leadership on an issue that is a significant matter of public interest. This idea of shark bites, whether our oceans are safe and how we can better protect our marine environment is still one of the issues most talked about by Australians at their barbecues in summer. Let's get some responses before this parliament is finished, so that we can give them to the people who went out of their way to make submissions and inform the evidence that we need for good policy and good decisions. (Time expired)

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (10:14): I thank senators for the contributions made on a range of important issues relating to the work of the Environment and Communications References Committee. It's a committee that I used to be a member of. Indeed, I participated in some of the inquiries that Senator Whish-Wilson and Senator Hanson-Young have spoken about. They've had their chance to say their piece, and we'll just leave that on the record.

But I do want to turn my attention to one of those inquiries that Senator Whish-Wilson referenced, and that was the one into the matter of finfish farming in Tasmania. That is something he did indicate to the Senate I would have a high level of interest in, and it is something that both he and I and Senator Urquhart and Senator McKim as well, as Tasmanians, have a strong interest in, albeit I expect Senator Urquhart and I are on a unity ticket with regard to the industry and not with Senator McKim and Senator Whish-Wilson.

Both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party support this industry in Tasmania that employs over 5,000 Tasmanians, predominantly in regional communities up the north-west, down the east coast and on the west coast. We talked about Macquarie Harbour and some of the issues that have occurred there. Down the Huon Valley, it's a huge employer in that area. It's something that both Senator Urquhart and I take very seriously and support.

The one thing with regard to this inquiry I want to focus on is the fact that this is about an industry in Tasmania, one that is regulated by the Tasmanian government and one that occurs within the waters governed by the Tasmanian government and managed by the Tasmanian Environment Protection Authority and the department of primary industries, water and the environment. That's something under the terms of our Federation that's well and truly within the scope of the Tasmanian government, not the Australian government. The committee report notes that extensively.

There are a range of recommendations that came out of the report. The three that I could see before when I was having a look through this report were recommendations for the Tasmanian government to act. The last time I checked in this place, the parliament we're in is the Australian parliament, to which the Tasmanian government is not accountable. They are the ones that those recommendations relate to.

Another point to make with regard to this industry is that there are—

Senator DUNIAM: That's a ridiculous proposition and not related to this debate at all, Senator Patrick. My point is that we've got an inquiry that at the time it was established we know the Tasmanian division of the Labor Party did not support, but the inquiry went ahead. The reason they didn't support it is that they knew it was a stunt. They knew it was just another beat-up. They knew that it was something that was going to be weaponised to try to trash an industry that, while not perfect, does a very good job of managing our environment.

This industry is proudly employing 5,000 people, something I support and something I want to see improved. If there are technological and regulatory improvements to be made in this industry, let's make them. Let's help them make them. That's why, rather than raking over some of these issues based on emotion, rather than fact and science, I'm keen to see what we can do within the Australian government's purview—that is, Commonwealth aquaculture. That's something you referenced, Senator Whish-Wilson—through you, Mr President—and I'm looking forward to having a science based, fact based discussion around what we can do to grow this industry.

I don't agree that these are a toxic, poisonous species of fish, as described by the previous speaker. These are a commodity farmed sustainably and one that we rely on for protein in diets and for economic support. This industry pays the wages of over 5,000 people. This is an important part of the Tasmanian economy and something that, as I said before—and I doubt Senator Urquhart would disagree with me—we in Tasmania are proud of. Ninety per cent of our population support that industry because they vote for the parties that actually support those 5,000 people.

I reflect on comments made by those who are opposed to it, again, based on emotion, not science and fact. They're cherrypicking stats and data rather than looking at these things in the context of the truth. We end up with these horrible emotive debates, which we need to steer clear of. As I say, that's my priority. That is what I'll be doing as we head into this work. The Blue Economy CRC is a fantastic institution bringing scientists together with industry and people who want to grow that sector and do it well. We have to remember that those industries that operate in the finfish-farming sector trade on brand. A lot of the evidence provided to that inquiry points to the fact that, in order to be successful in the marketplace, you have to be able to point to your record as environmental managers and ensure that you are doing the best you can.

I might just turn to the government senators' additional comments. Of course, it was clear at the time that the government didn't support the establishment of this inquiry because, as I've already outlined, it's a matter for the Tasmanian government. Insofar as the Commonwealth of Australia is concerned, we are heading down that path with Commonwealth aquaculture. That's something I'm very excited about and it's something, Senator Whish-Wilson, I can promise you I will engage with you on directly. We've already talked about it in brief. As work continues, I hope you and I can find a unity ticket to support a well-established industry based on science that actually will be good for the environment and the economy.

Senator DUNIAM: Sorry, I can't understand what Senator Whish-Wilson is saying, but my point is that I would hope we can find a way past the division and we could agree on that industry. I assume that's something you would like to see, Senator Whish-Wilson. I would invite you at some point in the future to come and stand with Senator Urquhart and me as Tasmanians to support the growth of this industry in Commonwealth waters. I think that would be fantastic. Imagine doubling the size of the industry and having 10,000 Tasmanians employed in this industry! That would be fantastic. We could do it based on science. I'm going to take a little punt here—not that I'm a gambling man—but I don't reckon I'll get any unity with the Tasmanian contingent of the Australian Greens. I don't think they'll stand with me, no matter what the science says, and they won't be standing with Senator Urquhart either to support growth, no matter what the Blue Economy CRC says. I expect we will be facing opposition to growth in that sector.

I'll go back to the government senators' additional comments. Obviously the government was opposed to the inquiry because it would be used as a platform for anti-industry attacks. Quite clearly that was the case; it happened. We noted also that the Tasmanian division of the Labor Party didn't support the inquiry. The points made by the government senators include the fact that there were appropriate systems and regulatory frameworks in place but, most importantly, that it was a matter for the Tasmanian government.

There's concern around the lack of response to this, but I think it's important to look at what has happened in Tasmania since that point in time, under the auspices of the Tasmanian government. They are the ones who are actually charged under regulation and legislation to regulate and manage that industry, to improve its future, to improve its impact on the environment and to ensure that it remains a strong industry. There have been a range of changes made to how they do business down there; not all of them, I have to say, have been supported by sections of the community.

No matter what we do, no matter how far we go to try and ensure an industry is sustainable, they will never ever be happy because trashing the brand of these businesses and the future livelihoods of these 5,000 Tasmanians who work in this industry is important for them, because it's about politics; just like this report was about politics. It's not about actually improving the future for Tasmanians and making sure that regional communities can survive. Senator Urquhart and I—and I hope she would never disagree with me on this—stand for those jobs. They are based on sustainable practices and science, and they improve every year. Every year those businesses get better at what they do. We support them to ensure that they can continue to improve and provide that important commodity to the Australian marketplace and, of course, exports.

As I said before, none of this is about committee report responses; it's about politics, it's about division and it's about running down Tasmanian jobs and businesses. I say to those who keep doing this and who keep highlighting divisions and trying to run these entities down: stop it. It's not what the majority of Tasmanians and, indeed, Australians want. They want us to get on with creating conditions that are actually supportive of jobs and creating environmental outcomes that are based on science, not emotion.

Senator THORPE (Victoria) (10:24): As a graduate of the Australian Institute of Company Directors, one of the highest governance training organisations in this country, I learnt a lot about accountability and transparency. Coming out of that training and coming into this place, I see a very real lack of accountability and transparency, which is the very essence of how you govern an organisation, a corporation and—I thought—a country. Obviously that isn't the case, and maybe they should include in that training that, when you get to the place of governing the country, accountability and transparency just does not apply, particularly to this government.

To hear the government's contribution and excuses as to why they can't be accountable and transparent to the people of this country is an absolute joke. To hear the government talk about science and sustainable practices while there are black senators in this place who come from over 65,000 years of sustainable practices in this country is also an absolute insult. You want to think about whether or not to stand for the acknowledgement of country the next time we sit because, if you can't acknowledge the over 65,000 years of sustainable practices and our survival as First Peoples in this country, then you should sit down for the acknowledgement. An acknowledgement of country is about obeying the law of this land. The law of this land is about not harming the land, not harming the water, and not harming the animals and everything that belongs to these lands. So sit down to the acknowledgement to country. And, of course, take down your dot paintings, because I'm sure you've got some animals and totems in your dot paintings that are in danger of becoming extinct right now. So, while you have your hand on your heart and you're standing up to acknowledge us, you're actually stabbing us in the back and murdering our totems and our land and our water in the same breath.

You talk about 'commodity' and the land and water being 'your commodity'—stolen land, stolen water and stolen wealth from our commodity. We don't see it in the same way. The land is our mother. The way we look at our land and our water is the same way we look at our mother. If you can sell your mother as a commodity, then you're gross. It's disgusting that you could sell off your own mother and treat your own mother the way you treat our mother in this country—raping and pillaging our mother. I ask you: would you do that to your own mother? Look at it through the eyes of the First Peoples of this country and understand the hurt and pain you're causing our water, our land, our air and our people.

Those reports that you refuse to acknowledge or answer to are part of the solution to healing these lands and these waters. I know you're not interested in that. I know Labor aren't really interested either—only when it suits them. But we know your position on protecting country, and you treat us like a bunch of greenie activists when the greenie activists, or the Greens Party, are in step and absolutely respect the first people of this country. So, if anyone is guiding the Greens Party on how to care for this country, it's the first people of these lands. So don't refer to us as some breakout party that causes you grief because you're doing the wrong thing with your mates over here: Labor. Look at us in a way that you can stand for the acknowledgement of country, because you need to have a bit more respect and you need to account for the destruction and desecration that you are causing and creating for our future generations. You've been doing it since you arrived on your boats. Since you arrived on your boats illegally to this country, the colonisers, who only see our land and water as a commodity to destroy and make money from so that you're comfortable in your privilege, and your mates, who are giving you the money who run all of these outfits to destroy and destruct, all sit back with your privilege. You know what? Your children and your grandchildren are going to look at you in 10 or 20 years time and they're going to say: 'What did you do? What did you do for us?' What are you going to say to them? I want to know what you're going to say to your grandchildren when they don't have clean water to drink, when they have to stay inside because the heat is so unbearable that people are dropping like flies. What are you going to say to your children and grandchildren? What are you going to say to the young people of this country who are out there fighting for their lives, trying to tell Labor and you, the Libs and Nats, that you need to do more to sustain our future?

We want clean air. We want clean water. We don't need fossil fuels. We don't need the destruction and desecration of country and water. There are other ways to do this. Do you think all those young people marching for climate change and climate action are going to take up one of your jobs in your departments to destroy and destruct? No. No. They're going to be looking after your children and your grandchildren. They're the ones putting their arms around your grandchildren and saying: 'Come with us. We just have to try and survive for another couple of years before the wave comes or the heatwave comes or the dirty water comes'—which we know is already happening. We know communities don't have clean water because of the decisions that are made in this place. We know that you're stealing land off traditional owners to destroy and destruct. What does that say for our future?

What do you want left? What? Really? Because you've had free run to destroy and destruct, and you've made a lot of money out of it. What are you going to leave us? What are you going to leave the First Peoples of these lands? What are you going to leave the children and young people of this country? You're going to leave them in an absolute mess, an absolute dire mess where they'll be gasping for their air, where they'll be desperate for clean water. Wake up! Why can't you see this? It's happening now, and you can't even provide any feedback about the importance of protecting country. Why can't you protect country with us? Why can't we protect country together for all Australians? Why is it such a big ask?

Why do these fossil fuel companies and companies that are set up to destruct and destroy have precedence, because money won't matter when we are fighting for our life? Your status won't matter when we're fighting for our life. COVID shows that. Rich, poor—it affects everybody. You will be affected. What are you doing for your children, I ask. We are fighting every last breath to maintain the survival of our young people in this country and our old people, because our old people drop from the heat. What are you going to say to that? (Time expired)

Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (10:34): I must say Senator Duniam obviously missed a memo of the Labor-Greens scare campaign with his performance before—on a unity ticket with Senator Urquhart and supporting the Tasmanian fishing industry, as plenty of other senators do in this place. I'm sure he'll get a rap over the knuckles for that. I wasn't really going to come in and contribute to this debate—until I saw the performance of Minister Birmingham before. It was, as Senator Hanson-Young said, a disrespectful and arrogant performance. You can understand that he's probably not in a good mood this morning; the government haven't had the best of weeks. But it's not as though he's been busy passing legislation. I don't know what else he has been up to this week if they couldn't respond to these important 18 reports of the Senate committee. I have had the misfortune of being on the Senate committee with Senator Whish-Wilson on and off over the last couple of years as well and I recently just came back onto it. I was astonished to see that there were still so many reports outstanding that the government have not responded to. It really is astounding that they have been so derelict in their duty that they haven't responded to some of these important reports. I will come back to this later. You might think, 'Oh well, these are just Senate committee reports,' but they do touch on really important issues and they have real life consequences for people. I had an experience of that recently—and I will come to that later—on the road trip I did through North Queensland and Central Queensland with the federal Labor leader Anthony Albanese.

The Australian community take these Senate reports very seriously. Anyone who has been involved in these committees knows that the experts and the Australian people who participate, who have lived experience and turn up and give evidence, take this very seriously. They think it's important that they get the opportunity to express their ideas or their experience or their knowledge so that the senators can take that and put it into their report. And I think we've seen from the debate on this today that there often is contestability—Labor and the Greens will disagree or Labor and the government will disagree. That's exactly what you want when you're preparing these reports; you want some contestability. But it's also why you want the government to respond. They are actually looking at the evidence that has been gathered from experts and from those with lived experience so they can actually use that and implement it and turn it into policy.

This goes to the arrogance of this government and it also goes to the lack of accountability of this government—the fact that we're having this debate this morning, in the same week they have announced that they are going to junk, and not actually pursue, a federal integrity commission. It is no surprise when you look at the way they treat Senate committees, when you look at the way they treat the Senate, when you look at the way they treat accountability and integrity issues. This government always looks the other way. And they do it in so many areas. It's quite remarkable when you think about it: they haven't responded to 18 important Senate committee reports from environment and comms but they took half an hour in a meeting, with no due diligence, to give almost half a billion dollars to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. They can go and do that with half a billion dollars, with no notice, with no due diligence, yet they can't respond to these important reports despite some of them having existed for more than seven years.

I want to go to the real-life consequences of this and some of the reports that I've been involved with. If you look at the retirement of coal-fired power stations, what triggered that was the closure of Hazelwood—something that had a significant impact on regional Victorian communities and something the government has not responded to. You'd think there would be something in it they could learn, something in it they would be able to better respond to, yet there has been no response from the government on this important issue.

The other report that I had some recent experience of is in relation to the impact of feral deer, pigs and goats in Australia. This is something I had some involvement with when it was before the committee. On that road trip I did with the federal Labor leader early in January, we stopped at a banana farm near Tully that was run by Stephen Lowe. For those who don't know, Panama disease has had a significant impact on the banana industry in North Queensland. Stephen, the owner of that farm, was talking to us because he is so concerned that the Panama disease is only one farm away from his. And one of the things that is transporting the Panama disease across farms is feral pigs.

You might think, 'What's the real-life consequence?' Well, this is someone who has put his life into building this farm. He knows that feral pigs are causing the problem of spreading Panama disease across farms in North Queensland, yet this Liberal-National government can't find the time to respond to such an important issue in Far North Queensland. So here's a farmer—he employs plenty of people; he provides good support to the local community—who's doing the right thing by his farm and trying to build a long-term operation in North Queensland. He knows the risk of Panama disease from feral pigs. These are issues that were tackled in this Senate report, yet the government—the Liberal-National parties, who are supposed to look after farmers—can't take the time to respond.

When you think about these reports you might think: 'They're abstract. They don't really contain real-life experience.' But they do for this farmer near Tully. They do for these banana growers, who know that government action to stop feral pigs spreading Panama disease is going to be the difference between them keeping their livelihoods or falling by the wayside. Senate reports are not just glory exercises by senators; they have a real impact on real people with real livelihoods, and on communities. Banana farming in North Queensland is a significant industry. It employs hundreds of people. It is something that the government need to turn their attention to.

They are just a couple of examples about the real-life consequences of the government not responding to these reports and not adequately addressing these issues. It means people's livelihoods and communities are at risk.

This motion goes to the accountability and transparency of the government. And the way they have come here today and treated the response to senators raising this important issue goes to the arrogance of the government. We see it more and more. It is really troubling that there are so many reports outstanding. There are so many issues on which the government's integrity and accountability can be called into question, yet they continue to run, continue to hide. It is absolutely disgusting that this week they said they would be abandoning a federal integrity commission.

There's no doubt that the Australian people are sick and tired of this government. They're sick and tired of the rorts and the waste. They're sick and tired of the arrogance. Today we've again seen examples of an arrogant government, an arrogant minister, and an arrogant performance, when they really have nothing to be arrogant about.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Davey, you have about 20 seconds.

Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (10:42): The first thing I will say—very briefly—is: don't cast stones when you're in glass houses. Can Labor honestly stand there and say that they effectively and efficiently responded to every single report that was produced by a Senate committee when they were last in government? I can assure you that, no, they did not.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Davey, the time for the debate has expired.

Question agreed to.

Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (11:15): I present the first report of 2022 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

The report was unavailable at the time of publication

Senator DEAN SMITH: I move:

That the report be adopted.

Sen ator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate and Australian Greens Whip) (11:15): I flag that the Greens have a number of amendments to this report. After the two amendments that I will shortly be moving, Senator Rice and Senator Waters will have amendments. I move:

(1) At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Social Media (Anti-Trolling) Bill 2022, contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 March 2022".

(2) At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cyclone and Flood Damage Reinsurance Pool) Bill 2022, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 March 2022".

These two amendments are critical. I will speak first to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cyclone and Flood Damage Reinsurance Pool) Bill 2022. This bill, in effect, creates a system where the government becomes an insurer of last resort. It will only apply to a relatively small geographic part of the country. The reason the government has to do this—or wants to do this—is because insurance companies are vacating the field. The reason insurance companies are vacating the field is because of climate change. What we are facing is a climate that is breaking down around us. Governments are going to have to come to grips with this, because, more and more, we will see insurance companies—driven by the massive, global, multinational, reinsurance companies—vacating the field. This will mean that ordinary Australians won't be able to get insurance on their homes, their properties and their businesses.

This shouldn't just be limited to one small part of the country; this is a valid and growing area of concern around the whole country. It's only going to get worse. So it's critical that this bill be referred to an inquiry, so that Australians from right around the country who will not benefit from this bill can have their voices heard, and Australians who are extremely worried about the lack of climate action and climate ambition with both major parties in this place can make those views heard.

What needs to happen on this bill, ultimately, is that we should be putting a levy on the companies that massively profit from burning fossil fuels, logging our native forests and producing massive carbon emissions as a result. We should be levying them to pay for schemes like this. That's why this needs to go to an inquiry, and that's why the Greens have moved this amendment.

In the short time left to me, I will quickly indicate why we believe that the Social Media (Anti-Trolling) Bill 2022 needs to go to an inquiry. Of course something needs to be done to address some of the online harms that are caused by trolls. This bill does not do that. This is actually not an antitrolling bill, as is claimed in the title. What we've seen from this government is the continued erosion of rights, freedoms and liberties over the last couple of decades. This bill is yet another step in that dangerous path down the road to a surveillance state and a police state. On that basis, if on no other basis, this bill should be referred to an inquiry so people can have a say about that.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: Unless there is someone who wishes to vote separately, I will put these two amendments together. Is that acceptable? I put the two amendments moved by Senator McKim.

Question agreed to.

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (11:21): I seek leave to move three amendments to the Selection of Bills Committee report as circulated in the chamber: Nos (3), (4) and (5).

Leave granted.

Senator WATERS: I move:

(3) At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Foreign Influences and Offences) Bill 2022, the bill be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 March 2022".

(4) At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Authorisations) Bill 2022, the bill be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 March 2022".

(5) At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Electoral Legislation Amendment (COVID Enfranchisement) Bill 2022, the bill be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 March 2022".

These amendments pertain to removing the three latest electoral bills from being rammed through this chamber, because we would like to refer those three electoral bills to a committee for scrutiny in the ordinary manner of all legislation, because no-one should be passing legislation that they haven't even seen until 24 hours ago. So these amendments refer each of these three electoral bills—one about COVID enfranchisement, one about authorisations and one about foreign influences—to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry by 25 March. This is a fairly tight inquiry time frame as it is, but—people are looking at me strangely.

The PRE SIDENT: Senator Waters, I will just interrupt briefly. Apparently these haven't been circulated.

Senator WATERS: I'm sure our chamber attendants will do their very best to circulate them. That is the effect of the amendments: to refer those three electoral bills to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for an inquiry by 25 March. That will be with you on a piece of paper shortly.

The reason that we need these bills to be properly inquired into is that no-one should pass laws that they've only just seen in draft form 24 hours ago, particularly laws that relate to people's ability to vote and choose the government of the day. Some of these bills sound innocuous. Maybe they are, but we will never know unless we have time to scrutinise them and hear from experts and potentially find loopholes or nefarious consequences that the Senate might then seek to amend and close and change. That's the whole point of an inquiry, so it's kind of ironic that we need to argue for basic process here.

I might just point out that these three bills follow 10 electoral bills that we've seen in five months, so we have had a flurry of attempts by the government to change very fundamental rules about voting and elections in the shadow of an election that they are desperate to attempt to win, because they are so deeply unpopular throughout the entire community—in particular the Prime Minister. This is not the way to win an election—trying to rig the system at the last minute and ram through bills that suit your own purposes. It's pretty shameless, folks, even for you. So we'd like these bills to be inquired into.

I might add that, the last time we dealt with electoral legislation, this government was proposing to bring in the requirement that voters show identification before they voted and to then set up a convoluted, impractical process in the event that someone couldn't provide identification. It was a pure attempt to disenfranchise people. It would have had the effect of disenfranchising First Nations people, people without a home and women fleeing from violence. These are people who might not have their ID papers with them. They might not have ID papers at all, and they might not have a person who can come along to the polling booth and vouch for them, so that they can get a declaration vote. It was a shameless way of trying to deflate the vote of people who traditionally don't vote for the Liberal Party.

A deal was done between the two big parties. In the course of dealing with that bill, the government were also trying to silence the genuine involvement and advocacy of not-for-profit organisations in the contest of ideas that is an election campaign. They were trying to bring an additional layer of bureaucracy to non-government organisations which advocate for their purposes—sometimes, charitable purposes—and which are already covered by a schema that heavily regulates charities. The government were essentially seeking to silence dissent and silence voices that call out their terrible policies. In the course of dealing with that bill, the two big parties did a deal together, as they so frequently do, and pushed off voter ID laws. Yesterday in this chamber, we saw Senator McGrath introduce his own voter ID bill, so this issue is not dead.

This government is once again trying to rig the electoral system to benefit themselves because they've got nothing left. They've got no policies that anybody likes. They don't have any representatives that anyone likes much any more, if the latest polls are anything to go by. And now they're trying to ram through three more electoral bills which may have consequences that this chamber isn't across without having an inquiry to find out.

We are moving for these three electoral bills to go to an inquiry, as they normally would, in the usual manner. It's particularly important when bills are about voting and the right of people to have their say about who runs this country and protects their future or sells it out to big corporations and political donors.

The PRESIDE NT: Does anyone require these three amendments to be split? Are you happy for them to be voted on together? The question is that amendments (3) to (5) be agreed to.

Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (11:34): by leave—I want to move two amendments to the motion to adopt the selection of bills committee report; however, I want to amend what has been circulated, just to change the date from 25 March to 24 March for both motions. With that, I move:

(6) At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Social Security Amendment (Improved Child to Adult Transfer for Carer Payment and Carer Allowance) Bill 2022, 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 24 March 2022".

(7) At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Workforce Incentive) Bill 2022, 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 24 March 2022".

Here are two bits of legislation. It is standard practice for legislation to be sent to a committee for inquiry. It's a really basic part of our job as the Senate—to inquire into bills. It is not acceptable that this legislation is being introduced and not being sent off to a committee for inquiry. By referring these bills for inquiry, we're basically just asking the Senate to do its job so that we have transparency on two bits of really important legislation that are going to affect people's lives—in particular the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Workforce Incentive) Bill 2022, which is in the space of income support and workforce incentives. There is a whole nexus between supporting people who are seeking employment, supporting people who need to be supported by government with income support and the actions that the government can take to support people to move into employment. It is a very complex space, and it's one where we know the government is doing very badly at the moment.

We have people living on income support who cannot find work, who are living in poverty, who are living well below the poverty line, who cannot afford to put food on the table. We've got people who should be on the disability support pension who can't get on the disability support pension—because maybe they will recover from their brain cancer!—who are then on JobSeeker. We've got other people who should be on the disability support pension who are on JobSeeker who are being forced to comply with so-called mutual obligations. Even in COVID we have now got people being forced to go and have face-to-face meetings with their employment services provider; they are being told, 'No, you can't have these meetings over the phone or via videoconferencing; you've got to come in, in person.' We have so many people jumping through hoops which are supposedly meant to help them find work. They feel they are being asked to do so many things which are not helping them find work; it is all just a matter of them having to do crazy things and apply for jobs they know they haven't got a hope of getting and they haven't got the skills to do, but their employment service provider is telling them they've got to do that.

These are the sorts of things that this bill is in the middle of. We really need to get our employment incentives right, with what really works to get people into employment. We need to make sure that people who, for whatever reason, are not able to work get the support they need. We need to at least double the current rate of JobSeeker from the pitiful $43 a day that it is at the moment. The Greens' position is that we need to double it to at least $80 a day so that people are not left living in poverty.

It is critical that everybody in Australia has support and that government can support them so that they can live a decent life, not be in a situation which so many people across Australia are in today—of not being able to afford to put food on the table, of only being able to afford to eat one meal a day, of their kids not being able to have shoes on their feet, of kids not being able to go on school excursions, of people being homeless because they can't afford skyrocketing rents. This is the reality for far too many people in Australia. Yet we have this government saying, 'We'll just invent some other useless workplace incentive and workforce incentive to try and get them into work.' But people know that they need to be lifted out of poverty and be supported to help get their lives in a good place, to help them get the education they need, to help them have a roof over their heads, to help them afford to eat healthy food. These are the sorts of basic measures that will allow people to really live their life to the fullest, to genuinely participate in the workforce. These are the sorts of fundamental measures that need to be inquired into. (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (11:47): I ask that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 4 be taken as a formal motion.

The PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?

An honourable senator: Yes.

The PRESIDENT: I'm sorry; formality has been denied, Senator Patrick.

Senator PATRICK: Pursuant to contingent notice of motion, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion being moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the suspension of standing orders be agreed to.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (11:54): I, and also on behalf of Senator McKim, move:

That the Treasury Laws Amendment (Greater Transparency of Proxy Advice) Regulations 2021, made under the Corporations Act 2001 and the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, be disallowed [F2021L01801].

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (11:54): I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave not granted.

Senator DUNIAM: I table the statement.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (12:17): I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (12:18): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Schedules 1 to 4 to the Bill will establish the regulatory framework for the Corporate Collective Investment Vehicle (CCIV) regime, commencing 1 July 2022.

A CCIV will be a new type of corporate structure for funds management, featuring an umbrella company with all its assets and liabilities segregated into 'sub-funds'. It is designed to be an alternative to the commonly used trust-based managed investment scheme.

Schedule 5 to the Bill will establish the tax framework for the Corporate Collective Investment Vehicle regime.

The general objective for the CCIV is that the tax outcomes for an investor in a sub-fund of a CCIV align with the existing tax treatment for an investor in an Attribution Managed Investment Trust.

Together, these changes aim to enhance the international competitiveness of the Australian managed funds industry and attract greater levels of foreign investment into Australia's financial markets.

Schedule 6 to the Bill extends the temporary loss carry-back measure introduced by Government in the 2020-21 Budget by 12 months, allowing eligible companies to claim a loss carry-back tax offset in the 2022-23 income year.

The Government implemented temporary loss carry-back in 2020 to promote economic recovery by providing cash flow support to previously profitable companies that fell into a tax loss position as a result of COVID-19.

The law currently allows eligible companies to carry back tax losses from the 2019-20, 2020-21 or 2021-22 income years to offset previously-taxed profits in the 2018-19 or later income years. Passage of these amendments will allow eligible companies to carry back tax losses from the 2022-23 income year. Tax refunds are limited to earlier taxed profits and the carry-back of losses cannot generate a franking account deficit.

Companies with aggregated annual turnover of less than $5 billion are eligible for temporary loss carry-back on election when they lodge their 2020-21, 2021-22 and, with passage of this Bill, their 2022-23 income tax returns.

Companies that do not elect to carry back losses under this temporary measure can still carry losses forward as normal.

Extending temporary loss carry back is estimated to deliver $2.8 billion in tax relief to companies over the forward estimates.

Schedule 7 to the Bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to include the Greek Orthodox Community of New South Wales Ltd, Australian Associated Press Ltd, Virtual War Memorial Limited, and SU Australia Ministries Limited on the list of deductible gift recipients. This Schedule also extends the specific listings of Cambridge Australia Scholarships Limited and Foundation 1901 Limited.

Deductible gift recipient status allows members of the public to receive income tax deductions of $2 or more for donations that they make to these six organisations.

Schedule 7 to the Bill also amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to remove The East African Fund Limited from the list of deductible gift recipients, as requested by the entity.

Schedule 8 to the Bill makes a number of amendments to Treasury portfolio legislation to ensure that Treasury laws operate as intended. The amendments variously clarify the law to ensure it operates in accordance with the policy intention, make minor policy changes to improve administrative outcomes or remedy unintended consequences, and correct technical or drafting defects.

The amendments made by Schedule 8 to the Bill further the Government's commitment to the care and maintenance of Treasury laws and will make it easier for Australians to comply with current laws.

Schedule 9 to the Bill requires superannuation fund trustees to have a strategy to assist their members who are retired or approaching retirement.

In the 2018-19 Budget, the Government committed to introduce a Retirement Income Covenant to codify the long-standing expectation that trustees consider the retirement needs of their members. By requiring trustees to increase their focus on the retirement phase of superannuation, member outcomes will be improved while enabling choice and competition.

This Schedule amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to require trustees of superannuation funds to develop a retirement income strategy for their members. Trustees are expected to have a strategy formulated in writing, and a summary publicly available, from 1 July 2022. Trustees are not required to give effect to all the components of their strategies on 1 July 2022; implementation of the strategy is an ongoing process that is required from 1 July 2022.

The strategy will be a high-level governance document and will sit within the existing regulatory framework trustees already know well. The retirement income covenant is one step in the Government's reforms to better develop the retirement phase of superannuation. The covenant builds on existing reform and will kick-start improvements into the future.

Schedule 10 to the Bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to remove the cessation of employment taxing point for the tax-deferred employee share schemes (ESS) that are available to all companies.

These amendments will help Australian companies attract and retain talent.

The changes will apply to new and existing ESS interests that have not yet reached a taxing point, for employees that cease employment from the first income year after the date of Royal Assent.

Full details of the measures are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (12:19): The Labor Party supports the Corporate Collective Investment Vehicle Framework and Other Measures Bill 2021. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (12:19): I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The PRESIDENT (12:20): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (12:20): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (12:20): I rise to speak to the Parliamentary Workplace Reform (Set the Standard Measures No. 1) Bill 2022. The Greens will be supporting this bill as it is a tiny step in the right direction by implementing two recommendations of the Set the standard report. There's still so much more to do, but this is a start.

These amendments will prevent staff from being arbitrarily fired for no reason other than that they've become a political problem for their employer. We know the sweeping powers for parliamentarians to fire staff have caused significant barriers for staff coming forward, fearing that their job, not the job of their abuser or harasser, would be at risk. We know that the change made by this bill alone will not change the culture of shaming and silencing that stops staff coming forward. That cultural shift requires full implementation of the Set the standard recommendations—a robust, independent and well resourced complaint process; trauma informed training for parliamentarians and senior staff; a code of conduct with meaningful options to sanction abusers and those who facilitate or ignore abuse; and genuine work for a more inclusive and representative parliament and parliamentary workforce.

The bill makes clear that all parliamentarians have obligations under the Work Health and Safety Act to provide a safe workplace. We welcome that, but the Respect@Work report couldn't have been clearer that these obligations are not enough to protect staff against harassment, bullying and assault. What is needed in this workplace—and in all others around the country—is a positive duty on employers to ensure that staff are safe, where there's a zero tolerance policy in action, not just words, and where appropriate support is available. A positive duty was the foundation of the Respect@Work recommendations for making workplaces safe, and without that duty all other reforms are built on very shaky ground. The government voted against amendments moved by myself and Senator McAllister last year to introduce a positive duty, and despite vague assurances that they're working on it we're yet to see progress on it, and I have no confidence that Australian workers will also get protection from the government before the election. We will continue to push for a positive duty so that every worker in every workplace can feel and be safe and respected.

The final thing that this bill does is to ensure the MOP(S) Act staff are covered by the Age Discrimination Act and the Disability Discrimination Act. This is an important reminder that the abuse detailed in the Set the standard report was extensive. The attention has been on sexual harassment and assault, but we must not ignore the reports of racism, ablism, ageism and classism in this case. People of colour, people with disability and older women have all reported that their harassment was compounded by discrimination and that they were targeted more, believed and supported less and too often driven from this workplace. I cannot look around the room and pretend that we don't have a representation problem.

We know the faces of Rachelle Milla, Chelsey Potter, Brittany Higgins, Josie Coles, Saxon Mullins, Chanel Contos and Grace Tame; we know these courageous women not because they're the only ones who have been abused, not because they're the only ones who've come forward but because they look most like the people that we know, that we can identify with. This does not diminish in any way the significance of their experience or the importance of them coming forward. The fact that these women came forward is a key reason that we're even having this discussion today. But, as each of these women has themselves acknowledged, as Brittany Higgins and Grace Tame said in their phenomenal address yesterday, as Amy Remeikis has said so eloquently so many times, 'So many survivors are missing from the public conversation because they don't look like me.' This has to change.

Today I want to share a story that should remind us all why this legislation and immediate action to implement the recommendations of Set the standard in full are needed A New South Wales parliamentary staffer assaulted his colleague, Dhanya Mani, in 2015. The assault happened after many months of harassment, which she'd reported to her supervisors. She had been repeatedly told that she was overreacting, that he just had a bit of a crush, and that maybe she should just go out with him. Then he violently assaulted her. For reasons familiar to so many survivors, particularly women of colour, she didn't make a police report, fearing she would not be believed, that her name would be made public, that it would affect her job and reputation, that only she would suffer the consequences and that the justice system would not deliver her justice. Instead she made complaints through her work and her political party. She was largely ignored, placated and passed on. Meanwhile, her abuser continued to work in a senior role in the party.

Dhanya Mani and Chelsey Potter told their stories to the media in July 2019. They founded a non-partisan movement for survivors called 'Changing our Headline', which was later renamed 'Kate's List' in honour of the woman who alleges Christian Porter raped her. Through that movement, they heard story after story from women working in state and federal politics about abuse and harassment and the lack of support when they reported that abuse. In 2019, Dhanya phoned the Prime Minister's office. She explained that, through Kate's List, she had received many complaints from women in federal parliament, including in the Liberal Party, who had been harassed and abused. Each of those women had confided in a senior person with power to resolve their complaint or they had followed formal complaint mechanisms. None of the women felt that they had really been heard or that there had been consequences for their abusers.

Dhanya contacted the Prime Minister seeking two things. Firstly, she sought support to elevate a resolution of her own complaints, after they had stalled in the New South Wales Liberal Party and the New South Wales Premier's office. Secondly, she sought a meeting to discuss the complaints from women working in the federal Liberal Party and what the PM and the party could do to avoid any other staffers suffering as Dhanya, Chelsey and all those who'd shared their stories had suffered. She was raising concerns on behalf of current and former political staff from all major political parties in Australia. She was reaching out to the Prime Minister and trying to offer constructive advice about how to lift the standards within his own party. She was sharing her own trauma to help prevent others from having to experience it.

The response was telling. The Prime Minister's private secretary, Yaron Finkelstein, contacted her and suggested it was not a matter for the Prime Minister. He maintained that the existing processes were working well. He refused to facilitate a meeting with the Prime Minister, instead suggesting that she write his office a letter. He obfuscated. He declined to provide an email address. He said that he would call back the next day. She never heard back. Dhanya spoke with 7.30 in late February 2021 about her experience in trying to raise issues with the Prime Minister's office. The PMO denied that Dhanya had mentioned complaints in federal parliament to Mr Finkelstein. I have listened to a recording of that conversation, and I heard Dhanya repeatedly and categorically talk about these complaints and her hope to meet with the Prime Minister to discuss them.

This is more of the 'don't ask, don't tell' approach that we've heard so much of in this parliament: 'Pretend it isn't happening, gaslight and belittle those who come forward and background against them if you have to.' That wilful disregard for survivors is why a toxic culture has persisted in this place for so long. They all knew it was happening. They just didn't care enough to make it stop. Dhanya wrote to the Prime Minister in February 2021, in the week following Brittany Higgins bravely coming forward. She wrote to again seek a meeting to discuss complaints that she'd received and recommendations for reform. She didn't hear back.

Dhanya wrote again to the Prime Minister in April 2021. She said in her letter: 'I detailed to you my own personal experiences of sexual misconduct. I explained the steps I took to seek justice and assistance. I explained that I had approached your senior aid Yaron Finkelstein for help. I summarised two years of research, advocacy and work on behalf of survivors of sexual crime, harassment, abuse, bullying and other serious misconduct in parliament and in Australia's workplaces more broadly. I took the time to write to you because I'm passionate about creating change and will never stop fighting for survivors. I requested a response from you. I have not received any acknowledgement from your office. This is unacceptable.' Dhanya didn't receive a response to that letter either. She was not invited to attend the statement of acknowledgment on Tuesday. Dhanya's experience is a stark reminder of the damage that a toxic, misogynistic culture that disregards harassment and abuse can cause. It shows how futile the efforts to bring concerns to those in power have been for so long. They knew. They didn't care.

Thankfully, we are now starting to see action. This is because of the strength of women like Dhanya Mani, Tessa Sullivan, Chelsey Potter, Rachelle Miller, Brittany Higgins, Grace Tame and so many others, and it's despite the barriers that powerful men have tried to put in their way. Dhanya has asked for me to share a message with you about what she hopes you took away from her story today: 'Earlier this week, there was an apology delivered by Scott Morrison to survivors of sexual abuse in politics. He spoke about the power of apologies to create reform and change. That statement is true; it just does not apply to his offensive and whitewashed excuse for an apology. Scott Morrison not only failed to genuinely consult or consider survivors in the wording of his apology; he rewrote and whitewashed Australian feminist history in the process. Tessa Sullivan, a woman of colour, who was the first to tell her story of sexual violence in politics when the Me Too Movement began to gain ground in Australia in early 2018, inspired me to speak out. Yet many Australians fail to recognise we would not be here without her. I continued Tessa's work, launching my campaign Kate's List when I told my story. My campaign was, and remains, designed to support survivors and end sexual violence in Australian politics and workplaces. Yet women like myself and Tessa are largely erased from media commentary, culture and history. Even now, in 2022, after the lessons of Me Too, politicians and the mainstream media almost solely centre the stories of cisgender, able-bodied and conventionally attractive white women at the expense of all other voices. But this cultural moment of reckoning in Australian politics and feminism is built on the sacrifice, advocacy and unpaid labour of women of colour like me, like Tessa. We came first. Failing to acknowledge the labour of culturally and linguistically diverse women sends a message: sexual violence and other forms of abuse only impact white women. But we know that these crimes disproportionately impact CALD and First Nations women. In a country where colonisation is ongoing, we cannot allow this distorted and incomplete picture to form the sole foundation for the Australian public's understanding of male violence against women. If this parliament fails to act, it is tacitly endorsing and aggravating impenetrable barriers to equality for diverse, minority, identifying Australians. This country cannot achieve inclusive healthy progress for women in political life until and unless we start recognising and validating the vital work of women of colour and First Nations women in making opportunities for feminist cultural reckoning and reform possible. This speech is all for minority women, and women of colour, who do not feel seen in political life. I will keep fighting for us. I deserve to be seen. Tessa deserves to be seen. You deserve to be seen. This historic moment belongs to us, too. I will not stop until skin colour and minority status do not determine whether we are acknowledged, whether we are recognised by politicians in the media and whether cultural and historic milestones build on our advocacy and labour belong to us.' Those were the words of Dhanya Mani, which she wanted you all to hear. I'm honoured to be able to say them in this chamber, albeit belatedly, many years after her assault that was so mishandled by the political party that she belonged to.

Coming back to this bill: it is a step in the right direction but it is a tiny one. It finally does some of the things that Dhanya and others have been asking the government to do for years. The Greens will work to ensure that this parliament urgently takes the rest of the steps needed to turn things around properly and to make parliamentary workplaces—all workplaces—safe, equal, inclusive and respectful.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (12:35): Labor supports the Parliamentary Workplace Reform (Set the Standard Measures No. 1) Bill 2022, and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (12:35): I thank the opposition and the Greens and, I understand, all parties for their intention to support this and for the endorsement of this legislation. The Parliamentary Workplace Reform (Set the Standard Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 would make initial changes to four pieces of legislation in order to implement recommendations 17 and 24 of Set the standard: Report on the independent review into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces—the Jenkins report. The bill will progress important and significant reforms to help ensure that Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces are workplaces where expected standards of behaviour are modelled, championed and enforced, where respectful behaviour is standard, and in which any Australian, no matter their sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, disability or age, feels safe and welcome to contribute.

The bill would amend the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 to strengthen and clarify the employment rights of MOP(S) Act employees. The bill removes any doubt that the Fair Work Act 2009 applies to MOP(S) Act employees by making this explicit, and would require parliamentarians to provide written reasons where they dismiss an employee from employment. These amendments result in additional information being provided to employees who are being terminated, which will result in an update to current arrangements and forms around the termination of employees, consistent with the recommendations of Commissioner Jenkins. Grounds around dismissal continue to include—very clearly specified—the restructure of an office which calls for a different set of employee skills; unsatisfactory performance or conduct by the employee; where a parliamentarian has lost trust or confidence in an employee; and where the employee has a significant conflict of interest.

The bill would also amend the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 to clarify that parliamentarians are officers of the Commonwealth for the purposes of the Work Health and Safety Act. The bill would also amend the Age Discrimination Act 2004 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 to put beyond doubt that MOP(S) Act employees have protection from age and disability discrimination, consistent with the recent amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act.

The government have on a number of occasions indicated our support for Kate Jenkins's recommendations. We have worked with the opposition, other parties and Independents, and I acknowledge the work in this chamber of Senator Waters, Senator Gallagher, Senator Farrell and Senator Payne as fellow members of the leadership task force along with those from the other place. The first meeting of the leadership task force, independently chaired by Ms Kerri Hartland, was held last week, and the task force will be integral to ensuring progress on all of the Jenkins report recommendations, noting that not all of them are solely for government to implement as, of course, a legislative change like this is. For the recommendations that are solely within the government's responsibility and control, our intention is they be implemented within the recommended time frames. Thus far, that is on track for all of those recommendations. We are conscious that the recommendations are complex, but they are also important, especially those such as establishing the office of parliamentary standards and culture.

This bill will provide additional protections to MOP(S) Act employees and a clear intent that not only the government but also the parliament, working together as we have demonstrated, are committed to implementing the recommendations of the Jenkins report. Significantly, the reforms and the legislative package would ensure Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces are safe and respectful, and that the nation's parliament serves as a model workplace for our nation. They help to contribute to those objectives as they work in tandem with the other reforms that have been put in place and others that are still to come, as we seek to ensure the prevention of, and appropriate responses to, any instances of bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Askew ) (12:39): No amendments have been circulated. If no senator requires a committee stage, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (12:39): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Askew ) (12:40): The committee is considering the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021 and amendment (12) on sheet 1519 moved by Senator Canavan. The question is that sections 28F and 28G in item 17 of schedule 1 stand as printed.

(Quorum formed)

The CHAIR: The question is that sections 28F and 28G in item 17 of schedule 1 stand as printed.

Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (12:50): At the request of Senator O'Neill, I move amendment (1) on sheet 1540:

(1) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 37), after item 10, insert:

10A At the end of Division 1 of Part 2

Add:

9A Minimum data required before clinical practice stage

Before the Governor-General makes regulations declaring a mitochondrial donation technique for the purposes of the definition of permitted technique in section 8, the Minister must be satisfied that:

(a) there is sufficient clinical evidence that the technique has been used on at least 20 trial participants; and

(b) the outcomes of the use of the technique on the trial participants have been published.

This amendment proposed by Senator O'Neill will introduce a threshold where outcomes on 20 trial participants are required and published before the mitochondrial donation clinical licences are granted. The lack of data from the United Kingdom, the only jurisdiction where these practices are legal, should impel us to raise the threshold on these experimental gene editing techniques before we proceed in granting them a licence. The impacts and efficacy of these proposed techniques are still in theory, and thus a large number of trials should be undertaken and the results should be shared before these techniques are permitted to go ahead.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (12:51): I urge senators to vote against this amendment. This bill already effectively requires successful clinical outcomes from the clinical trial phase before moving to stage 2, the use of mitochondrial donation techniques in clinical practice. As outlined in the revised explanatory memorandum, stage 2 will only commence after the clinical trial has demonstrated success over a number of years and the results have been evaluated by experts. Over that period of time it is expected that significantly more data than the minimum data proposed in this amendment will be acquired.

Proponents of this amendment may say, 'Then why not put a minimum requirement in?' However, that may create the false impression that it would be appropriate to move to clinical practice once this minimum threshold has been reached and raise misplaced expectations in stakeholders. It is an important area in which we should rely upon expert assessment of the appropriateness of movement from the clinical phase of trials into clinical practice, and that we have that expert assessment of all available data, whatever is deemed to be required, to make sure there is confidence in that regard.

In addition this amendment could also create further legal uncertainty, as it might be that this would be the only consideration that could legally be taken into account when deciding whether to move to stage 2, with an implication that the broader range of factors intended to be taken into account couldn't be considered. I urge senators to oppose this amendment. The bill as drafted sets out very clearly the high standards required to move from trial to practice and that it is, rightly, for scientific experts to make sure those standards have been met.

Senator WATT (Queensland) (12:53): I also urge senators to oppose the amendment, for the reasons put forward by Senator Birmingham.

Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (12:53): We discussed at length last night the fact that, as drafted, this bill has only minimal regulatory oversight of these processes. Indeed, there isn't really a regulator as such—certainly not a solely devoted regulator—in charge of issuing the licences associated with mitochondrial donation. It is governed completely by the NHMRC and the minister, neither of whom are themselves a dedicated regulator. That would have been ideal from the perspective of myself and others in this chamber; ideally we would have preferred to have independent arm's-length regulation through the OGTR, as we discussed last night. Those amendments have failed. It would seem, in that environment, to be prudent to put some quantitative hurdles before proceeding to a widespread clinical practice.

Just like our amendments last night, none of the amendments here stop, prevent or slow down the provision of mitochondrial donation services. Of course we'll need to have participants go through these trials, which will include, potentially, live births. There are clinical trial licences that can be issued before reaching this 20-participant threshold, so we can have real outcomes for parents going through the trials in terms of not passing on mitochondrial defects to children, if these processes work. That can happen all through the trial period; there's no limitation, through this amendment, on that occurring. We can still do all of that.

If this amendment is accepted, we just have to do 20 trials before we would proceed to widespread clinical application outside of a more monitored trial framework. We think that is a more than reasonable number. I dismiss the arguments put by the government, through Senator Birmingham, that somehow this would be an artificial hurdle. It seems a pretty weak argument that somehow, just because we reach 20, everybody thinks we have to go to stage 2. There's nothing in this amendment which would suggest that at all. Indeed, this amendment does not get rid of the provision that Senator Birmingham highlighted which requires successful trial applications to occur before moving to stage 2. So, just because we have 20 trial participants, if none of those are successful, there are other provisions in this bill which would prevent stage 2 from occurring.

I am concerned, though, that the term 'successful' that Senator Birmingham is relying on is not defined in the bill. Potentially it could mean just one success would be sufficient to meet that hurdle before proceeding to stage 2. It doesn't need to be plural. We know from the evidence received through the Senate committee that there is a risk through these processes of so-called off-target genetic modifications, which may not become apparent through simply one, two or a small number of mitochondrial donation processes. So it would make sense to do some larger number. The number 30 is normal in statistics. Thirty participants tends to get you a low-confidence interval when you're dealing with risk and uncertainty. We haven't gone quite as high as 30, but 20 seems like a reasonable number of participants to go through this trial, so that we have clear, risk-adjusted data on whether or not these donation processes can succeed in the broad, before proceeding to the stage 2 process.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (12:57): There are a couple of points that I would like to make in speaking to this amendment this afternoon. First of all, as we discussed a little bit last night, I think it's important to acknowledge the structural conservatism of the legislation before the chamber currently. That is to say that, if this bill passes today, it will trigger one of three stages of this overall legislative process.

Stage 1 is a trial of 10 years in duration. As I observed last night, on average, 56 kids are born with severe mitochondrial disease every single year. That means before we get to the point 10 years down the road of broadly offering the public and parents the opportunity to make a choice to undergo a procedure that may save the life of a child, about 560 kids may well have lost their lives. A decision has been made in the course of the crafting of this legislation—informed as it has been by multiple Senate inquiries and community consultation—that the duration of that waiting period and, therefore, the potential for that loss of life which may have been prevented by the earlier provision of these services to the public, is the correct balance to be struck. That's the proposition that has been put before the chamber by this legislation. The proposition of such a long trial period is why the proponents of this bill and the community organisations that have been campaigning for this bill see this moment as bittersweet. That's because, even if the legislation passes, they know that their suffering and sadness will be perpetuated, year on year, through many families before such a medical opportunity for the prevention of that suffering is offered to the community.

Within that context, we consider Senator O'Neill's amendment. I will note two aspects of this amendment. Firstly, that it asks us to, in addition to that 10-year trial period, and the conclusion of that 10-year time period, add another barrier to the provision of this technique to the community. It asks that we add the barrier that the procedure, the technique, has been used on at least 20 trial participants, meaning that, at the conclusion of the 10-year period, there would be another benchmark to be met. I ask the chamber, and I have asked myself, whether such a number is inherently arbitrary in its nature.

We saw in the House of Representatives Mr Andrews offer an amendment which was different in its nature. It asked for five positive outcomes. That's rather than 20 trial participants. But it was no less arbitrary in the selection of its number. It was five positive outcomes. It could have been 10, four, 15, 20 or 34. It was up to him. It was about what made him feel personally comfortable. So it is, too, with this amendment. Twenty trial participants are offered to us today. It could have been 15, it could have been five or it could have been 40. The proposition in this amendment is that, regardless of what has been gained through the clinical studies carried out by the NHRMC by, as we heard last night, some of the eminent minds in the nation in relation to IVF treatments, who have been doing this work so well since the early 2000s, we should add an additional barrier of an arbitrary nature.

Given that constant ticking clock of life and the suffering that will be the reality of kids that will already, as I said, be born in their hundreds between the passage of this legislation and the provision of this service to the community, I personally believe that that is an unacceptable and unnecessary additional barrier. I do not think it adds value to this legislation to insert an arbitrary number simply because it meets a level of personal comfort. This is not a scientifically informed number. This is an arbitrary number for personal comfort. We here this afternoon are considering a piece of legislation which turns upon the axis of science. So let us have faith in the experts, as we have had faith in the experts during the pandemic. Let's not put arbitrary barriers in the way of the provision of this legislation.

The second point I will make is in relation to subsection (b) of the amendment, which seeks to have the outcomes of the use of the technique on the trial participants published. We circle back again to this question of public scientific data. Last night I read into the Hansard a letter sent by one of the eminent scientific experts leading the work in the United Kingdom setting out explicitly that the absence of scientific publication of the outcome of this legislation is to in no way be interpreted as anything other than the impact of COVID-19 combining with the complexity of the United Kingdom's privacy requirements in relation to assisted reproductive techniques and that those privacy requirements are being worked through. In due course, those findings will be published. We in this Senate have no reason to believe that statement to be anything other than a true and accurate reflection of what has taken place in the United Kingdom.

We also know that this legislation gives us 10 years in which to see the findings of the UK processes that are playing out and to play our role as scrutinising legislators when making inquiries of the NHMRC. So many avenues are available to us to scrutinise this process, and we should apply ourselves to that scrutiny, not place arbitrary barriers in the way of a much-needed advancement in medical science. For those reasons I will be opposing the amendment, and I urge the entirety of my Senate colleagues, including those across the chamber, to join me in that opposition.

Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (13:06): Just briefly, I want to respond to some of the, I think, errors or misinterpretations of this amendment in Senator Steele-John's statement and to some of the accusations made. Senator Steele-John said that this legislation gives us 10 or more years to evaluate the trial and research phase. The legislation does not do that. The government estimates in the explanatory memorandum that the research and trial phase may take 10 years, but there is nothing in the legislation which prescribes that the research and trial phase will last 10 or more years. It could be done in two or three. There is no limit at all placed on the number of years.

I also want to respond to Senator Steele-John's statement that this was not based on science at all. I only briefly mentioned this in my original contribution, but I will just lay out here that in fact there is a statistical, scientific basis for the number of 20 trial participants that we have settled on in this amendment. As I mentioned before, the outcomes that are going to come from mitochondrial donation techniques are going to be different for different people, absolutely for sure. Almost all medical treatments have different effects on different people. It would normally be possible to express the effects in some kind of normal statistical distribution, in terms of their success or failure or other attributes. When something is uncertain or provides outcomes that do not deliver a definitive result, in scientific statistics the common rule, as I mentioned in my original contribution, is that, if your sample size is at least 30, you generally will have a sample size that accords with the overall population. It's known as the central limit theorem, and the rule of thumb is that, once you get to about 30, your so called t-stat, which is what you get from a sample population, will start to converge on the limit of the z-stat which is what you get from the—almost always hypothetical—population distribution. So 30 is usually the figure used.

We didn't choose 30, because we can see that in the UK, after almost eight years of work, they have only had eight participants go through, so, if 30 were chosen as a threshold, it might be a generation's time before we go into that clinical phase. So, even though 30 would be the statistical, scientific number, we thought it would be more reasonable to choose a lower number: 20. Keep in mind that you've already had eight go through in the UK, without a single successful live birth, so an additional 12 on top of that number of participants seems a fairly reasonable request of the science in this regard. Yes, that will take a number of years, but in no way, as I said before, will that hold up the provision of these services, because the provision of the services can occur right now. Once the bill passes—if the bill passes—the provision of mitochondrial donation services can occur straightaway, not through the clinical practice process but through a trial process. So no-one will be denied or unnecessarily delayed in their provision of the services. Of course, while the trial is occurring, they'll be subject to significant monitoring and oversight, which are the conditions that are placed in this bill. I do think it's reasonable that 20—or at least something like 20—participants go through such a trial phase so we understand all of the different potential effects that might occur in different people with different genetic structures as best as we can before going through to the clinical practice stage, where there is less oversight and less intense activity than would be associated with a trial phase.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (13:10): I would like to make a number of comments on this in support of Senator O'Neill's amendment. First of all, I would like to commend Senator O'Neill and Senator Canavan. I support his earlier comments of 20 minutes ago and will not be repeating them. I support them very strongly.

I want to draw attention to Senator Birmingham's comments and in particular to Senator Birmingham's assumption that parliament will make the right decision ten years from now, well into the future. That has been misplaced, unfounded. In fact, we see that quite often in this parliament it has a history—and I don't just mean this parliament; I mean parliaments for many decades now—of senators and members in the lower house making decisions that not only weren't based in data but contradict the data. Now, here we are, forecasting what will be the case in ten years time. That's why Senator Canavan's and Senator O'Neill's amendments and their speeches are so important. We have a history of ignoring and even contradicting the hard data, and now we're forecasting ten years into the future, so we're assuming success. And, as Senator Canavan said, without the definition of success that's not scientific, that's absurd. Uncertainty and risk abound everywhere. We haven't seen what's come out of the United Kingdom yet. The level of confidence in this is very, very low. I'm reminded of President Eisenhower warning us of the military-industrial complex. In that same speech, which most people know about—they don't know about this statement—he also warned us about the science and technology agenda and to not assume that experts know what they're talking about.

We're sitting here in masks, and there's no evidence anywhere that they have any effect. There's plenty of evidence showing they don't. Many of the senators right now have been double injected, whatever that means—fully injected, whatever that means—because that'll change; we haven't had any evidence on that and we've seen evidence of severe adverse effects.

We see protesters out the front, some of whom who have been injected, saying that they are opposed to the coercion. Will we see this coercion continue for the next ten years and fulfil Senator Canavan's concerns? I'll read a text here from someone coming down from Queensland: 'We're on our way to Canberra today, taking a car full of people. Thanks, once again, for everything we're doing for truth in this most critical time.' Truth in a parliament! Fancy being thanked for telling the truth. 'Whoever would have thought in our lifetimes we would see the removal of our freedoms and the destruction of our democracy.' This lady is a mature, very strong, very intelligent lady who has concerns about what is happening to our country and the loss of freedoms.

I'll go to another: 'Compliance and blind faith have been the problem. People have been taught to trust people in positions of power.' Here we are, going into the future unknown and making forecasts as to what'll happen and what will be successful and won't be successful. I have no faith in experts—it is just a label. I have faith in data. I have no faith in parliamentarians. That's why I will be supporting Senator Canavan and Senator O'Neill.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:14): I rise in support of Senator O'Neill's motion. I acknowledge and give support to the comments of Senator Canavan. I think it's important for senators to remember the lack of data around the very scheme that we are being asked to legalise. There is a significant lack of data. It is the case that this technique would create a human being the type of which is expressly prohibited from being created today—that is, a human being with three people contributing to its genetic make-up. In this debate I've heard some senators make claims that none of the mitochondrial DNA actually affects the unique characteristics of who we are. That's not entirely true. In fact, I would encourage senators to read the report that came out of the 2018 Senate inquiry. We simply do not know the scientific effects on future generations of altering mitochondrial DNA. We simply do not know.

The Senate report went into this in some detail. The Senate report said this was 'a foundational question to be answered prior to any legalisation of mitochondrial donation.' Let me repeat that. This is a Senate report. These are not dissenting comments; this was a cross-partisan report from an inquiry chaired by our former colleague Greens senator Rachel Siewert, who did remarkable work. I was a member of that inquiry. It said that this is 'a foundational question to be answered prior to any legalisation of mitochondrial donation'. I would argue, based on the lack of evidence available to us—in fact, I did argue this in my speech on the second reading—that we have not answered that foundational question. In being asked to vote on this bill, we have a foundational question that has not been resolved.

I will come to how this amendment improves slightly on the bill by helping us try to put in a stage where that foundational question is resolved. Allow me to remind senators: in the United States, this technique is expressly prohibited. It is not permitted in the United States. The only jurisdiction that has legalised mitochondrial donation is the United Kingdom. We know that from the debate. In 2015, they legalised it. The department of health in the United Kingdom states on its website, 'We have limited evidence on risks and success rates,' of mitochondrial donation. That is undeniably true. In over six years, no baby has been born in the United Kingdom using mitochondrial donation. There have been reports—unverified reports—of babies born in Mexico and Ukraine. They have not been subject to any independent scientific verification or determination of whether or not the children are healthy or, indeed, whether they were born alive and healthy. We are literally legislating in the absence of evidence.

I've heard some senators make the observation that we should rely on science. I would be quite happy to rely on science. The reality is there isn't much science available to us in legalising this. I understand—and the arguments that Senator Steele-John puts—that this is a multistage process and we're going to have these clinical trials and we're going to get the science. If we're going to get it, what is so wrong with this parliament ensuring that there is a robust evidentiary base and that it is publicly verifiable? That is what this amendment does. It is this parliament's way of saying that if we are going to move to the next stage then we should be sure that there is a robust evidence base and that it is publicly verifiable.

It's not just about trusting the science; we also need to share it with the public. We need to take the public with us if we're going to make changes like this. Imagine where we would have been in COVID if we hadn't had information available to us to make decisions about booster shots, about vaccination, about mask wearing and about social distancing. We took the public with us, because we were able to share the science with them. That is what this amendment does.

In the United Kingdom, there have been 21 licences granted for mitochondrial donations since 2015, and as many as eight have been subsequently approved for treatment. However, there is no public reporting available for these outcomes. Senator Steele-John posits the argument—I'm not quarrelling with him—that this might be because of COVID and it might be because of privacy concerns. If we take the latter—privacy concerns that haven't been resolved—that's a failure of the UK parliament that we should not repeat.

Senator Canavan moved an amendment about the clinical trial stage not automatically moving on after ten years. That was voted down by the Senate. We also sought last night to put in a stronger regulatory regime through amendments. That was also rejected by the Senate. I acknowledge that. But what I would say in response to arguments put by Senator Birmingham is that there's nothing automatic in here. This does not automatically move us, after 20 trials, to the next stage. And this is the kind of thing we do in legislation all the time—we put in things in the legislation so that, if something is going to move on to another stage, appropriate benchmarks have been met before that happens.

So my frustration here is that this is not a barrier to moving on to the next stage of a mitochondrial donation; it is actually a safeguard. I do think, when we are legalising a technique where there is almost no verifiable scientific evidence to answer what our own Senate committee found to be a foundational question, that is it is entirely legitimate—indeed, it's entirely unremarkable—for the Senate to ask that there be some robust evidentiary base and that it be shared with the public. That's all this amendment does. It doesn't seek to create a legal barrier. It doesn't seek to exclude any other consideration. I've heard some senators raise a concern that perhaps you need more than 20 trials. Perhaps you do, but how will we know that unless we're able to be confident that 20 have happened and we're able to see the evidence for ourselves and take the public with us.

So I would encourage senators to just consider that we are legislating for something that is going to go for more than ten years. We are legislating for something where decisions are going to be taken by executive governments. People who might sit in those positions may not have even been elected to parliament yet. We have given away our capacity to have that decision come back to the chamber. We did that last night in rejecting one of Senator Canavan's amendments. We missed an opportunity to get a stronger regulatory regime in place for what is a novel and untested technique.

This amendment is simply making the rather unremarkable request that we have a solid evidence base and that it is publicly verifiable and able to be examined by the parliament and by the Australian people.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (13:24): I wanted to quickly respond to a couple of things in relation to the contributions from Senators Canavan and Keneally. First of all, in relation to the view that Senator Keneally has put to the chamber that we as a body should take note of the absence of the legalisation of these techniques in the United States, I put to the chamber that that is not a factor that should factor into our consideration. There are many legislated differences between Australia and the United States, which I'm sure we all welcome. At the top of my mind is gun control. We have very good gun control in Australia; there is a catastrophic absence of that in the United States. The United States's legislative framework shouldn't feed into our considerations.

Secondly, I turn to the comment that Senator Keneally made in relation to the privacy settings that exist in the United Kingdom and whether they should be fixed before the legislation passes. Privacy in relation to facilitated reproductive techniques is paramount. It's paramount in IVF techniques across the board. Why is it paramount? Senator Rice will be very familiar with this phenomenon as well. People born of medically facilitated techniques are often considered, in religious contexts, to be abominations and are subject to profound discrimination. So it is very important that we guarantee the privacy of those individuals. On Senator Keneally's point, I would also say that this is a trial. What's so wrong with inserting a number?—simply because it is arbitrary. It is an arbitrary number, as Senator Canavan said—something like 20. Well, why not 10? Why not five? Why not nine? It is arbitrary and there is no place in a scientific trial for us to insert ourselves in that process.

Finally, I make mention of the contributions made last night and today that touch on the rights of a child born of more than two parents. I simply put to you that we have two choices before ourselves today: to pass this piece of legislation or to not pass this piece of legislation—to pass it in a form that works or to put it in a form that hampers this work. If we take the path of passing these amendments, or voting down this bill, we will never have the opportunity to ask the individuals potentially born of these techniques what they would wish in relation to these rights. However, if people in this chamber are really very interested in having conversations with individuals born of complicated facilitated medical techniques then let us pass this bill and, in a decade, have the opportunity to ask them.

Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (13:27): I will be very brief. I was originally quite sympathetic to this amendment, and in fact had informed Senator O'Neill that I'd probably support it. I now think it is not an appropriate amendment to support. I can see where it's coming from—the need to ensure there's appropriate scrutiny, accountability and transparency—good data and really good scrutiny of the trial. But the arbitrary nature of 20 participants doesn't provide that appropriateness. There's a much more complex lot of factors that you need to take into account, rather than having an arbitrary 20 participants go through a trial.

The other part of the amendment that I was sympathetic to was the need for published data. It is an issue that, for whatever reason, we have not got any published data out of the UK trial. That said, essentially we're beginning a trial. Yes, we absolutely need the scientific evidence—that is the whole purpose of this first stage of the trial. I also note that we do, in fact, have NHMRC at every estimates—if we want to have them—where they can be questioned, and if the Senate feels that they are not doing an appropriate job of oversighting this trial then it is open to us to put more measures in place. So I put on the record that, having considered this very thoroughly, I've decided not to support this amendment.

Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:29): For clarity on the remarks that Senator Rice made—and I'm not privy to the discussions she may or may not have had with Senator O'Neill—is reducing the number from 20 to another number something that the good senator would be considering?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Rice, would you like to respond?

Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (13:29): No, because I think the number of trial participants is an arbitrary measure. It's not the right metric that you need to be using to determine whether the trial is successful.

Progress reported.

The CHAIR (15:30): The committee is considering the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021 and the amendment on sheet 1540, moved by Senator Ciccone at the request of Senator O'Neill. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Se nator CANAVAN (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (15:30): I think it might just be worthwhile to repeat very briefly what is this amendment is about. This amendment would require a minimum of 20 participants to go through the trial phase before proceeding to the clinical stage of mitochondrial donation. I repeat that nothing in this amendment would delay or prevent Australian parents from accessing mitochondrial services. The bill, if amended, would still immediately allow the trial processes to occur, including the full suite of mitochondrial donation processes through to live birth, so parents can go through that process. The intention of this amendment is to ensure there is a sufficiently large amount of data such that we can have information about the risks of this revolutionary and novel technique before proceeding to provide it in a wider clinical fashion, where there will be much less oversight and involvement of researchers on a day-to-day basis as per the trial phase.

It's a simple amendment. It provides some protection for us as legislators in that there'll be sufficient information before the minister, who will make regulations to go to the clinical phase. As discussed last night, some senators here would have preferred if we had required legislation to come back to this place before we could proceed to the clinical phase, that we did not delegate that power to the minister, but those amendments have not been proceeded with. This is a sensible approach that would still allow the minister the delegated power to proceed to the clinical stage, but after 20 participants go through the trial.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 1540 be agreed to.

Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (15:39): The amendments that I and other colleagues have moved through the committee stage have pretty much solely been focused on trying to improve the accountability, monitoring and oversight of what are revolutionary and novel technologies. Many of the amendments have been aimed at providing more oversight from this place, in this institution. I'm obviously disappointed that we have chosen not to strengthen our arm in providing more oversight but instead leave it effectively to the scientific community to make these decisions.

I am intending here to move another set of amendments which, while would not really provide much oversight or monitoring, would at least provide to us some more information on what is occurring in these trials than what is currently prescribed in this bill. The bill, as amended in the House—and I do give credit again, as I did in the second reading speech, to Mr Kevin Andrews. He and others pushed for some more reporting, and I thank the government for agreeing to those amendments and providing some additional reporting than what was there originally. However, the reporting that is there now on a six monthly basis does not have to prescribe any particular information, so there are no guarantees that this will include details of how many trials have occurred, how many participants have gone through those trials, how many have been approved, whether or not there have been adverse events associated with the donation techniques or even what types of donation techniques have been used, and we'll come to those later in other amendments. I don't think it's appropriate that, for something as novel and revolutionary as this, it should ultimately be up to the people that are regulating this area what information they provide us—and I use that with a lower case 'r' as they're not a regulator exactly; they're overseeing this area.

The CHAIR: Senator Canavan, it may assist the Senate if you move the amendments. I'm guessing it's the ones on sheet 1520.

Senator CANAVAN: I'm happy to move those at the end of my contribution. I do intend to do that, but of course I would like to explain the reasons for them, and I'm sure we'll have a discussion.

We need to make sure here that the regulators do provide the information so we can assess what's going on. This is really important, because we've seen from the UK experience there hasn't been a lot of information provided about what's going on. In the UK, they legalised mitochondrial donation techniques in 2015. We have extremely limited information from the UK about the outcomes of the donations that have occurred to date or at least that people have been going through them. We don't even know if mitochondrial donation has occurred in any real sense. We know that I think 20—maybe 21—participants have been approved to proceed through the process and there have been eight, apparently, who have actually received some services. But, as I say, we're not sure of the content of those or what has occurred or the outcomes. To my mind, it is completely inadequate that after almost seven or eight years now we have not received information on the barest of details about what is occurring in the UK. It's an issue here for us. It was an issue in the Senate inquiry that I participated in that there wasn't a lot of detail about exactly how these revolutionary techniques have been used in the one jurisdiction in the world where they are legalised.

As I and some other colleagues thought through this, we thought that we should actually try to specify, as a parliament, at least some minimum information that should be in reports. We have decided annual reports are fine. As I mentioned, the government had decided on six monthly reports, but, given the slow pace of these technologies overseas, we didn't think six monthly reports were absolutely necessary. So an annual report would be fine, but we do think it should require some minimum information that can provide people with an oversight of what is occurring and how these are being developed.

By leave—I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 17, page 34 (after line 11), at the end of Division 4A, add:

Subdivision G — Other requirements relating to mitochondria l donation licences

28Y Annual reports

(1) The NHMRC Licensing Committee must, within 1 month after the end of each reporting period, give the Minister a report in accordance with subsection (2).

(2) The report must include the following de-identified information in relation to the reporting period:

(a) the number of each kind of mitochondrial donation licence issued under section 28J; and

(b) the outcomes of the activities carried out under each licence issued under section 28J, including:

(i) the number of births of children as a result of pregnancies achieved using a mitochondrial donation technique under a clinical trial licence or a clinical practice licence; and

(ii) the number of adverse events notified to the NHMRC Licensing Committee under paragraph 28S(3)(a); and

(c) all clinical data obtained as a result of the activities carried out under each licence issued under section 28J, including:

(i) experimental data obtained from the use of the permitted technique specified in the licence; and

(ii) clinical data about each child born as a result of a pregnancy achieved using the permitted technique specified in the licence.

(3) The Minister must table a copy of the report in each House of the Parliament within 10 sitting days of that House after receiving the report.

(4) For the purposes of this section:

(a) each of the following periods is a reporting period:

(i) the period of 12 months beginning on the day this section commences; and

(ii) each subsequent period of 12 months; and

(b) information is de-identified if the information is no longer about an identifiable individual or an individual who is reasonably identifiable.

(2) Schedule 1, item 55A, page 47 (lines 10 to 22), to be opposed.

The details of this amendment are not restrictive—more information can be provided than what is outlined here. But, as I say, we are just seeking a bare minimum of information that should be provided. In that information, we would like to see the number and kinds of mitochondrial donation licences that have been issued under section 28 J of the act. We would like to see the reporting include the outcome of the activities of each licence issued under that same section, including in this information the number of births of children as a result of pregnancies achieved by mitochondrial donation techniques. Additionally we would like to see the number of any adverse events notified to the licensing committee under a specific paragraph in the bill.

I don't see these amendments as being at all controversial. They should not be controversial. It should be a basic requirement for the reports to include this kind of information. As I say, there seems to be a risk that we may not get this type of information given the experience of the United Kingdom over the past seven or eight years. I'm sure we will hear other speakers say, 'We don't need this because it will be provided anyway,' but I'm a little bit concerned that may not occur given what has happened in the UK.

I want to make a broader point here, too, that goes harking back to the arguments we have been making. We have effectively established a system, through rejecting other amendments, of self-regulation for gene therapy research here in Australia or at least a precedent of that, in this case, on the mitochondrial donation techniques. The only regulation oversight of the mitochondrial donation techniques will be done by the organisation that is commissioning and funding the research in this field. That is self-regulation. The people at the NHMRC are great people, intelligent people, but they are directly involved in the research itself and they are being asked under this bill to regulate themselves, to be the only people actually overseeing what is occurring.

I wanted to make the point sometime in the debate, because I've noticed that the debate in this place has evolved over the past day, that a number of speakers have seemingly suggested that scientists are somewhat of an infallible species among us, that we don't need to question or oversee the work of scientists because they are very intelligent, know what they are doing and can be trusted. Some of those things are true. No doubt scientists are extremely intelligent. No doubt the successes of science are things we can learn great lessons from. No doubt the successes of science are things we have all benefited from in some way. But to suggest there are no risks involved with scientific research blinds you to the history of scientific development among the world and, indeed, the history that we are living through today.

To date, we still don't exactly know where the coronavirus came from, but we are absolutely sure that the relationship standards and oversight of research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were definitely deficient. There were issues. Perhaps the coronavirus itself and this whole pandemic came from that lab and deficiencies associated with that the lab. We had a situation where we only learnt after the event that our own researchers at the CSIRO were cooperating with and training researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology on coronaviruses in bats. They were doing that. It's all come out since. They were regulating themselves and deciding this themselves. There wasn't any oversight of this. It is a bit complex, of course, and we didn't know about it. Ministers I have spoken to didn't know about it. We know now, from evidence in this place and other work by journalists like Sharri Markson, that our own CSIRO, a great organisation, with really great people, trained Shi Zhengli, the so-called bat lady, at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. They collected samples of coronaviruses in bats here in Australia and helped Wuhan Institute of Virology scientists work out how to identify which coronaviruses would be more effective in infecting human cells. They provided human stem cells to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to do further work on coronaviruses in bats. That all happened here.

That's before you get to what happened over in the United States with their scientific organisations, which seemingly had an even stronger and closer relationship with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, including funding people that did work there. We have all seen the potential cover-up that has occurred since. The complete lack of oversight over those processes may have caused the deaths of millions of people around the world and untold economic damage to almost every country.

We do need some oversight of what is occurring here. This is a bare minimum. It's just asking for some specific data. It is commonsense, and it will not in any way stop or prevent mitochondrial donation techniques occurring. I ask the Senate to approve this amendment.

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (15:49): I discourage senators from supporting this amendment because the bill before us already provides some very clear reporting requirements; section 19 of the Research Involving Human Embryos Act requires the Embryo Research Licensing Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council to report to the parliament about the operation of the act and the operation of licences issued under it every six months and also when required by either house of parliament. So it's been very clearly established that there is to be frequency and even on-demand, where required, reporting arrangements put in place. Others have noted the role that the NHMRC has in relation to accountability to the parliament through estimates and other vehicles as well.

The second reason as to why I discourage support for this is that, as well as it potentially being duplicative and confusing, it runs the risk of undermining some of the privacy considerations that are clear. This amendment would remove the provisions that ensure that reports that are provided do not identify any person or are not capable reasonably of being used to identify any person. Clearly those privacy considerations are important, and so I would urge the Senate to support the existing quite comprehensive reporting arrangements.

Senator WATT (Queensland) (15:51): For similar reasons to Senator Birmingham, I would also encourage senators to vote against this amendment. This amendment I accept on the surface seeks to increase transparency, but the risk is that it does the very opposite. Under Australia's Privacy Act any information provided about a cohort of less than 10 people, even if de-identified, does not achieve anonymity and therefore is not permitted. As a result, in the event that there are fewer than 10 live births in any given year, instead of receiving more information, as is suggested by the amendment, no report would be able to be tabled at all. So, again, I encourage senators to vote against this amendment.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 1520 be agreed to.

The CHAIR (16:00): The question is that item 55A of schedule 1 stand as printed.

Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (16:03): I want to move on to a slightly different topic in this bill. As I've mentioned earlier—

The CHAIR: I beg your pardon. Senator Steele-John.

Senator Steele-John: I just draw you attention to Senator Rennick who is not wearing a mask, in line with the requirements of the chamber.

The CHAIR: I advise all senators to please wear a mask if you intend to participate in the chamber. Senator Canavan, please continue.

Senator CANAVAN: As I was saying, I want to move to a slightly different topic. The previous amendments were focused on topics around monitoring and reporting, oversight—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator McLachlan ): Senator Thorpe, on a point of order.

Senator Thorpe: Senator Rennick is not wearing a mask. We have people with health issues in this place. You ask everybody to respect the rules, including me. Why does a middle-aged whitefella have to get away with it?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I understand that there's been no motion in the Senate in relation to masks, although there has been a direction from the Presiding Officers. So all I can do is respectfully ask Senator Rennick to place a mask on. That's the extent of the authority that I have. Senator McKim?

Senator McKim: Point of order.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I did clarify that with the Clerk, Senator McKim.

Senator McKim: I understand that you've clarified that with the clerks, but you have just informed the committee that there is a direction from the Presiding Officer, the President of the Senate. I just would like to place firmly on the record that this is a workplace and that people are entitled to a safe workplace here, and part of a safe workplace is, for people who may have health issues which would lead to extremely serious consequences for them if they were to contract coronavirus—I think that it should be enforced that senators in this place, unless they are on their feet speaking, should wear a mask. It's just common courtesy, apart from anything else, but it is also essential to provide a safe workplace for other senators.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I've just consulted with the Clerk. Again, I don't have authority to issue a direction from the chair to Senator Rennick. It's a matter for him, but I encourage senators to raise it with the President. I will take on board your matters of concern and raise them directly with the President at the first available opportunity.

Senator CANAVAN: As I was saying, I wanted to move the discussion on to a slightly different topic. The other amendments we have moved to this date relate to oversight, monitoring et cetera.

H onourable senators interjecting—

Senator CANAVAN: I might just pause.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Keneally?

Senator Keneally: I would just seek your guidance as to some of the audible conversation in the chamber. It's very difficult to hear Senator Canavan.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: On the point of order, Senator Roberts?

Senator Roberts: I support Senator Keneally, because people are being rude to Senator Rennick. There is no evidence for these things, and I'm only doing it as a courtesy to—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I ask honourable senators to understand that this is not a debate. We're debating a particular bill. I appreciate various views. There are no standing orders that are available, and I will refer it to the President. Senator Keneally?

Senator Keneally: I was not concerned about the rudeness of otherwise of the conversation—just the volume level.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Yes, I appreciate that, but we moved on from the volume.

Senator CANAVAN: I will try again. The amendments previously moved related to regulation, oversight and accountability. I wanted to move the discussion on to a different part of the bill: the techniques of mitochondrial donation that are permitted by this bill. I need to set up a little bit, for my arguments, a brief explanation of those techniques. There are five that are outlined in this bill. Broadly speaking, as is clear in the explanatory memorandum, those five techniques can be divided into two different types. One type, including the pronuclear transfer method and the second polar body transfer method, relates to making the mitochondrial donation after the fertilisation of two different eggs. In that situation, two eggs are provided: one from the expectant mother and one from the donor mother. Sperm, of course, are provided from the father, and those two eggs are fertilised. Once that fertilisation occurs, a zygote—personally, I would refer to it as an embryo, but the bill refers to it as a zygote—is formed and mitochondria are transferred between the two fertilised eggs at that stage. Following that process, one of those zygotes, or embryos, is discarded before the other embryo is implanted through normal IVF techniques, hopefully for a live birth. That's one type of those techniques—the second polar body transfer and the pronuclear transfer.

The other set of techniques—most commonly, the maternal spindle transfer method—makes the mitochondrial donation before the fertilisation of the eggs. So two eggs, in the same way, are harvested from the expectant mother and the donor mother. The mitochondrial transfer occurs at that stage. One of those eggs is then discarded, and the other egg proceeds to be fertilised, there's the creation of the zygote, there's implantation through IVF and a live birth, hopefully, ensues.

As was outlined in the second reading speech, some view these two different types of techniques as having quite different ethical implications. In the former techniques—most commonly, the pronuclear transfer technique—there is the creation of an embryo, or a zygote, for the sole purpose of being used as an instrument to help another life, another embryo, and it is then destroyed. That particular life, as I would call it—but if others want to call it a zygote, then that particular zygote—has no potential, no plan and no possibility of becoming a life in and of itself. It is created only for the purposes of trying to improve, in this case, the life of another.

Some of us have ethical issues with the potential of using one life as an instrument or tool to help save other lives. Of course, this occurs at a very early stage of life, but, as was outlined in the second reading speech, there's no scientific distinction between the conception or creation of a zygote and other stages of life. No discontinuity has been identified by science such that at that point, this is something and, at the other point, this is something else. All the chromosomes and all the potential for life are there at conception; once conception occurs, it is, potentially, a viable life under the appropriate nurture and conditions.

Some of my colleagues, in discussing these issues, think it would be better at the trial stage to start with the techniques that have fewer ethical implications and fewer concerns for many Australians. So, in a second, I will move amendments on sheet 1518 which seek to simply remove those two techniques—the pronuclear transfer technique and the second polar body transfer technique—that would of necessity involve the destruction, in my view, of a life. I know, from discussions I've had with others around these issues, that there is a view that removing those types would limit, and possibly obstruct, the development of mitochondrial donation techniques; however, I do not think that accords with the evidence. Some have even put that it's the pronuclear transfer and the embryonic transfer of mitochondria that have shown more success and that, therefore, we must keep them in the bill, because there are only limited possibilities of the egg transfer method—the maternal spindle transfer method—being successful. I don't think that accords with the evidence at all.

Unfortunately, in this debate, when the government and others put forward their support of this bill, a lot of the time it's been very much through an assertion of certain facts, like the one I just provided: that maternal spindle transfer is somehow a failed technique or uncertain and may not work. In fact, a report released very recently in a medical journal called Annual Reviews, titled 'The regulation of mitochondrial replacement techniques around the world', looked at all the different techniques around the world, including pronuclear transfer and maternal spindle transfer, and the regulations of the environment around the world. As has been discussed, only the UK has specifically legalised mitochondrial donation techniques. But the report identified that, around the world, there had actually been three births from using the techniques outlined in this bill, although not always for mitochondrial donation. There have apparently been live births, according to these scientists, in Mexico, in Greece and in Ukraine, in the past four or five years. Two of those three live births involved the use of maternal spindle transfer techniques—the technique involving the transfer of genetic material at the egg stage. Only one of the three used the pronuclear transfer technique. The government and proponents of this bill are saying this pronuclear transfer technique must be included because it's the only way we can do it, or the most prospective way we can do it. Well, that's not the evidence around the world.

I should say for full information that, of those three live births, only one was from mitochondrial donation. That was the birth in Mexico. In the case in Greece, which was done with Spanish scientists, and in the case in Ukraine, the genetic transfer techniques were actually to overcome infertility issues in the mother, but the same techniques were used to transfer genetic material to correct for infertility defects. Others have referred to this in the debate: the only live birth that actually occurred to overcome mitochondrial disease occurred in Mexico, and that was using a technique that involved the transfer of material between eggs, not embryos. That one, according to this article, was a maternal spindle transfer. It was the technique that the amendments I'll move would leave in this bill, leaving it possible to start research and trials with it.

It seems to me that, given the revolutionary and novel techniques we are legalising here, we should start with those techniques that have been the most prospective and raise the fewest ethical issues and we should see how that goes first. The government or others could always come back and seek to legalise the other techniques if maternal spindle transfer—the egg transfer technique—does not prove viable. Again, while these amendments go a little bit further than what many other senators have proposed previously, they do not in any way stop the progression of the development of mitochondrial techniques. They just seek to prioritise the development of those techniques that have been proven so far to be the most successful—or, at least, the ones that have been most used—and that clearly have fewer ethical issues. Wherever you fall on this balance, there are fewer ethical questions with the transfer of mitochondria at the egg stage compared to the embryonic stage.