
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2020-02-26</date>
    <parliament.no>46</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>2</period.no>
    <chamber>Senate</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" background="" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;"></span>
            <a type="" href="Chamber">Wednesday, 26 February 2020</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Scott Ryan)</span> took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tabling</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Meeting</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the Senate for the opportunity to again talk in relation to this document. As I have previously advised the Senate on several occasions in relation to this document, as the Minister representing the Prime Minister in the Senate I claim public interest immunity over the document referred to in the motion, on the grounds that this document was prepared for, informed and was the subject of cabinet deliberations. As is well recognised in the Westminster system, it is in the public interest to preserve the confidentiality of cabinet deliberations, to ensure the best possible decisions are made following thorough consideration and discussion of relevant submissions to the cabinet or cabinet committees. Disclosure of the document subject to the motion is not in the public interest as it would reveal cabinet deliberations. However, I again note that the report was the subject of a press conference from the Prime Minister on 2 February 2020, which is on the public record, and, further, that the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has provided an extensive and detailed public submission on this matter to the Senate Select Committee on Administration of Sports Grants.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the minister's response.</para></quote>
<para>This is another day, another failure by this coalition government to meet any kind of basic standard about transparency and accountability: 'Nup, we're not showing. Nah, nah, nah, we're not giving it to you!' I mean, what have they got to hide? There is absolutely no justification for public interest immunity. There is no justification for this document to be considered cabinet-in-confidence. But hiding behind secret documents is actually par for the course for this government, to use a sporting analogy. But this one we are not going to let go through. That is why we are here this morning—to unpack why this document matters, why having some transparency from this government matters. We are here this morning because the Australian community expect fairness. They expect a level playing field and for everyone to have a sporting chance, to use another sporting analogy.</para>
<para>Let's go back to why this matters. Somehow this report which we are not allowed to see, which the Australian community is not allowed to see, exonerated the sports minister from charges of rorting the sports grants program. This was despite a scathing report from the Auditor-General that clearly uncovered a 'distributional bias'—that was how they put it—in the awarding of grants; that is, pork-barrelling to win votes. If pork-barrelling were an Olympic sport, absolutely this government would be gold medal winners. But, sadly, the clear losers are the sporting clubs and the volunteers who live in safe seats such as where I live in the western suburbs of Melbourne. There, despite hours and hours of volunteer work and filling out applications, despite having really deserving projects, they were completely hobbled, completely nobbled, destined to finish at the back of the pack, because, as we now know, there was a secret process. What mattered wasn't the quality of your application; what mattered was whether the minister and, in particular, the Prime Minister decided your project could help them win the election. We need to see the Gaetjens report. If the Prime Minister is going to use it to defend his office and his government from claims of corruption then it needs to be made public.</para>
<para>As the minister said, Mr Gaetjens has made a submission to the select committee on the sports rorts. That is a first step. That submission at least acknowledged that the minister's office undertook a separate and non-transparent process in addition to the assessment by Sport Australia, but there are a number of key issues that the submission does not address. Firstly, and importantly, there is the role of the Prime Minister's office. The submission doesn't even mention the PMO. If the secret Gaetjens report also doesn't mention the PMO then clearly it was ignoring key facts that the Auditor-General could not ignore. The submission doesn't mention the ineligible grants. That is a key defence that the government are claiming: that every project was eligible. Well, as we now know, there were more than 200 grants—that is, 43 per cent—which were actually ineligible. But Gaetjens's submission doesn't mention those. The submission doesn't talk about fairness. It doesn't even address the issue of fairness or how to make things right for the clubs that missed out. The coalition should start by funding the clubs that would have been successful had the coalition not rorted the scheme.</para>
<para>But there's another issue that we need to address here as well—that is, the late projects, the ones that were successful even though they arrived much later than the others. Let's review what we already know from the ANAO report. The Prime Minister's office, we were told in the Auditor-General's report, told the minister's office that there were some projects that had missed the deadline, so on 4 March 2019 the minister's office asked Sport Australia for a blank copy of the application form. Keep in mind that applications had actually closed six months earlier. More than six months after the application deadline, the Prime Minister's office specifically intervened. And on 5 March, in response to concerns from Sport Australia, who said, 'Why should you be asking for forms now, six months after the applications closed?' the minister's office said they needed the forms to advocate in the budget process. But we know from the ANAO report that the funding of $42.5 million for a third round of projects had been sought and approved for the 2019 budget that same day. They didn't need it to advocate in the budget process. So it really looks very like the minister's office were actually lying to their portfolio agency about why they were requesting these application forms, lying in addressing the very reasonable concerns that Sport Australia had raised.</para>
<para>And then, two weeks later, in an amazing coincidence, these forms came back as applications for the project, with the minister's office directing Sport Australia to assess the four resubmitted and five totally new applications. Keep in mind that this wasn't another open round. Nobody else got the chance to put in applications. No-one else got the opportunity to resubmit their proposal or rewrite it. No-one else got the opportunity to do a late application, other than those that the minister's office had specifically sought out. The ANAO report notes:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Sport Australia reiterated its concerns that accepting the nine applications and assessing them without the involvement of an assessment panel would be outside the program guidelines.</para></quote>
<para>Then, on 3 April 2019, days before the election was announced, the advice from Sport Australia about which projects should be funded under the third funding round was provided to the minister. They recommended that only one of these nine late projects should be funded. But, stunningly, what did the minister decide? Every single one of those nine late projects would be funded. Again from the ANAO:</para>
<quote><para class="block">While higher scored applications from the competitive process undertaken in August to September 2018 remained available for approval, each of these new or resubmitted applications were approved for funding as part of the third round.</para></quote>
<para>So there are even more questions to answer here. What role did the Prime Minister's office play in relation to these late or resubmitted applications? And why were these projects, these special projects, given an opportunity that no-one else was? Is this addressed in the Gaetjens report? We don't know, because it's all secret.</para>
<para>In Victoria, we know that there were 56 applications that Sport Australia said should have been funded that missed out on $18.4 million in funding. Ron Cole from the Kyneton District Soccer Club said: 'We were very disappointed when we didn't get it, but we thought it was because our application wasn't good enough. Now we are gutted.'</para>
<para>There was one particular club, the Gippsland Ranges Roller Derby, in Traralgon, that provided an excellent submission to our select committee that's worth reading from:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Over a seven year period, Gippsland Ranges Roller Derby struggled to find a venue to operate our club and conduct our training from. We made 40+ separate enquiries each year since our inception and could not successfully secure a council or community provided space to train … The costs of the professional skating rink near us became prohibitive and we were forced to seek another venue or fold.</para></quote>
<para>They didn't make an enormous application; it was for $44,000. They received a score from Sport Australia of 98 out of 100—the highest score of any application that was put in—but they didn't get funding. Again, they have an excellent question. There remains no explanation of why funds were awarded to applicants with considerably lower gradings on their applications for 10 times the amount requested by their clubs. If the criteria and merit based scoring are not relevant to the awarding of grants, it begs the question: why do applicants need to perform against them?</para>
<para>This is disgusting behaviour by this government and it should be ashamed of itself. It is not sporting behaviour. It is corruption. It is rorting. And it's done because the government thinks it can get away with it, because it thinks there will be no consequences. Things would be different if we had a federal anticorruption commission; governments might then think that there might be some consequences for such behaviour. And what do you know? There's a Greens bill that has been through this Senate, that the House of Representatives could vote on right now, that would provide a federal independent anticorruption commission. That would be an important first step. We need a system that's independent, that politicians can't use to try and buy elections.</para>
<para>The truth is that community sports matter, and fairness and transparency and accountability matter. Sports help people connect with their community and provide tremendous physical health benefits and mental health benefits. Everybody should have access to community sports but the sad truth is that not everybody does, because of the corrupt decisions made by the minister's office and potentially influenced by the Prime Minister's office. Worthy people, people who deserve to have access to community sports, have missed out.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What a sordid affair this whole sports rorts scandal is for this government, and it's being made worse every day with this government's determination to cover up exactly what happened through the sports rorts. We know that this is a government, and a Prime Minister, that is totally allergic to scrutiny. Ever since he's been elected, we've had a Prime Minister who doesn't want to answer questions from the media. Every time he's asked an inconvenient question, he says: 'That's something in the bubble. That's just a bit of gossip. I'm not going to provide an answer,' thereby refusing to answer legitimate questions from the media on behalf of the Australian people.</para>
<para>This is something that we have seen not only from the Prime Minister but over the life of this government. We've seen it repeatedly. One of the best examples of that was the behaviour of Minister Cash through the scandal involving the leak of information about a police raid on union offices, where she and another minister, former Minister Keenan, simply refused to be interviewed by police about their role and their knowledge of what had occurred in that scandal. Whether it be the Prime Minister's answers to questions or whether it be Minister Cash's behaviour, the government just don't want to be accountable to the Australian public. They just don't want to have any scrutiny and they just don't want to follow the conventions of a democracy, which is what we live in here in Australia and what should be upheld by the people in this chamber.</para>
<para>We see it again now in relation to the sports rorts scandal. It's now very familiar to most people in the Australian public what went on there: the wholesale rorting of hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds, simply to ensure that the government was returned at the most recent election. We saw multiple examples where sporting clubs were scored as most deserving for funding and were then rejected by the relevant minister in consultation with the Prime Minister's office, and instead money was handed to less deserving projects because they happened to be in more deserving seats according to the government's election strategy.</para>
<para>The way that the government are dealing with this ongoing sports rorts saga, refusing to make information available to the Senate and to the Australian people, just shows that not only are they willing to completely rort a funding program for the government's own benefit but they're prepared to cover that up. This, again, is a government that has been well known for trying to cover up all sorts of scandals. I have only been in this chamber for a relatively short time—</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Ruston interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Not long enough for Senator Ruston's liking—but I have already seen multiple examples of this government's determination to cover up scandals, rorts and anything else that is inconvenient to the government's agenda.</para>
<para>Surprisingly, we are also seeing it now from the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Cormann. Senator Cormann has been here a long time. Again, if there is one person in this chamber who wants to uphold the conventions, the traditions and the scrutiny that the Senate has always applied to the government of the day, you would think that would be the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Cormann. Senator Cormann is someone who I know prides himself on his integrity, on his respect for Senate conventions, and yet he is willing to completely trash those conventions in order to perpetrate a cover-up on behalf of the government. I've been watching Senator Cormann answer questions about this ever since we got back to parliament this year, and you can see that he is distinctly uncomfortable with the role that he is having to play in covering up the Prime Minister's office's behaviour, the behaviour of various other ministers and, it would seem, the behaviour of senior officials within the Liberal Party. You can see that Senator Cormann is uncomfortable with the role that he's playing in this cover-up, but he has no choice, it would seem, because of the lack of integrity of this government. He has no choice but to play a leading role in perpetrating that cover-up himself, and he's doing that again now in relation to these orders to produce documents.</para>
<para>There have been two motions for orders to produce documents that have been passed by the Senate which have included a request that the government provide to the Senate a copy of the full Gaetjens report, the report commissioned by the Prime Minister and completed by his now departmental secretary and former chief of staff, into this sports rorts scandal. To this day, not one person in Australia, apart from the Prime Minister, Mr Gaetjens himself and perhaps a few other selected government officials, knows what Mr Gaetjens had to say about this scandal. The Prime Minister has selectively quoted from that report, and he's cherry-picked the bits that suit his agenda, that suit what he wants to say to the Australian people, but you can't possibly see the entire report, according to the Prime Minister, to see what else this report contains. As I say, there have been two motions passed by the Senate with orders to produce documents. The first was moved by Senator Lambie on 5 February, and the second was moved, I think, the same day, by Senator Waters. On both occasions the government has claimed public interest immunity over the Gaetjens report on the grounds that it would reveal cabinet deliberations.</para>
<para>It is understood that the fact that a document has been the subject of cabinet deliberations can warrant the use of a public interest immunity on certain conditions. I must admit that I wasn't aware until today that one of the conventions that govern the use of public interest immunity claims is an order of the Senate dating back to 2009. This order has a very interesting name. The order is called the Cormann order. The Cormann order was passed in 2009 and was led by Senator Cormann, who was then in opposition, because he was trying to put some rigour around the government of the day's use of public interest immunity claims. So, when the Liberal Party was in opposition, Senator Cormann moved an order of continuing effect governing the use of public interest immunity claims. Again, you would think that if an order were named after you, you might actually have some interest in upholding it. You might have some interest in making sure that its terms are followed, if only to ensure that your integrity as an individual is upheld. Not only did Senator Cormann go to the trouble of drafting this order and having it passed by the Senate; it's actually named after him. So you would think that he would have some interest in making sure that it is now observed. Senator Cormann says he has respect for the Senate, its rules and its conventions. You would think that he would have respect for an order that's named after him. But, no, he's simply willing to trash that in an attempt to cover up this sports rorts scandal on behalf of the government.</para>
<para>I will quote a couple of things from the order. Firstly, it notes that ministers and officers have continued to refuse to provide information to Senate committees without properly raising claims of public interest immunity as required by past resolutions of the Senate. Senator Cormann back in 2009 thought that there was such a problem around ministers and officers of the parliament and the Public Service refusing to provide information that it required a new order governing the use of these public interest immunity claims. This order says that, if a minister concludes that it would not be in the public interest to disclose the information or document to the committee, the minister shall provide to the committee a statement on the ground for that conclusion, specifying the harm to the public interest that would result from the disclosure of the information or document.</para>
<para>This is not an open-slather blanket that ministers and senators can throw over things that are inconvenient to the government of the day. If ministers want to claim public interest immunity, they need to be able to provide a statement that spells out the grounds for that conclusion, specifying the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of that information or document. To this day we're still waiting for Senator Cormann to do this. We're still waiting for Senator Cormann to comply with the terms of the order that is named after him and that he led the development of back in 2009. So what we're seeing is that what was good for Senator Cormann when he was in opposition is now not good enough for him in government, let alone as the Leader of the Government in the Senate.</para>
<para>The fact is that the claims that Senator Cormann and other members of this government have made that the reason this information can't be produced is that it has gone to cabinet are just spurious and completely untrue. We know for a fact that this document did not go to the full cabinet. In fact, there have been many reports that certain cabinet ministers have said that it never went to cabinet. All it did was go to a subcommittee of the cabinet, the governance committee. There is absolutely nothing stopping the release of this document. There is nothing in the Cormann order and there is nothing in the standing orders. The only thing stopping this document being released is this government's determination to continue waging a cover-up.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATRICK</name>
    <name.id>144292</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am severely shocked at how quickly this government has turned into a secretive government. I'm shocked at the long and detailed presentation we just heard from the government, which essentially sums up one thing—they are running scared from openness, transparency and public accountability. This runs counter to everything they said not only before the last election but also since, such as:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I will quote to Senator Ludwig a statement made by Senator John Faulkner at a recent conference. The speech, entitled 'Open and transparent government—the way forward', was made at Australia's Right to Know, Freedom of Speech Conference. He said:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">… the best safeguard against ill-informed public judgement is not concealment but information. As Abraham Lincoln said: 'Let the people know the facts, and the country will be safe'.</para></quote>
<para>What I've just read to you might seem a little out of context. It is out of context because they are not my words. They're words from a different time. They are, indeed, the words of Senator Cormann on 13 May 2009, when he was raising the public interest immunity procedure that Senator Watt was referring to. How the passage of time, or indeed the side of the chamber on which you sit, changes one's perspective.</para>
<para>I share Senator Watt's view on Senator Cormann's uncomfortableness with the claim he is making. I genuinely think he has trouble with it. He is an innocent and principled senator wrapped in a minister's body.</para>
<para>In relation to the claim itself that Senator Cormann made today, he talked about the deliberations of cabinet. It is not possible for the document this Senate seeks to contain deliberations of cabinet because it was purportedly an input to cabinet. Even if we accept the government's claim that it is cabinet in confidence, it cannot contain the deliberations of cabinet—the words spoken, the arguments had. So that claim is not made out. Even if it were cabinet in confidence—and I'm not sure that it is, and we will test that in time. I have got an FOI that I will follow through on to make sure that there is clear evidence that (a) it was submitted to cabinet or, at least, a subcommittee, and (b) that its dominant purpose at birth was, indeed, to inform cabinet. There is a positive right under FOI which means that the government will have to present evidence that, on the day of its birth, that document was to go to cabinet. I do not accept at this point their claim. They haven't provided any evidence of that nature.</para>
<para>I'll also point out that, even if it were cabinet in confidence, the law here in Australia allows for the Senate to make a call for those documents to be received. I say that with absolute confidence because we can refer to the appeals court case in New South Wales, Egan v Chadwick, where the majority made it very clear that the Senate—in fact, the Upper House in New South Wales—has the right as a house of parliament to demand documents of this nature. Ultimately, the Senate and the other place are supreme over government, and that includes the cabinet, in terms of our oversight on behalf of the people. So, again, I do not accept the claim that the government has made. Indeed, the Senate has not accepted the claim that the government has made.</para>
<para>I'll close up by saying that, even if all of that were irrelevant and for some reason there were legitimate cabinet-in-confidence reasons for not disclosing the document, cabinet in confidence is a means to an end, not an end in itself. That end is to protect information which, if released, would be damaging, would harm the national interest and would not be in the public interest. If the public interest lies in disclosure, then it should be released. In this instance, this is a document not about how we're going to deploy military forces overseas, it's not a document about how we're going to structure our intelligence services; it's a document that goes to governance and integrity, and the public have a right to see what is in that document. They have a right to full confidence in the government in the execution of its role. Ironically, good governance and integrity are topics that disclosure gives public confidence, which is certainly lacking at this point in time. The government know that this document should be released. There is nothing in any convention that stops the cabinet simply stating, 'We will release this document.' Neither I nor the Senate have accepted the public interest immunity claim, but there is a pathway out of this, which is simply that the cabinet releases the documents.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is the second time that the Senate has sought to force this government to disclose a document that they themselves should have put in the public domain from the word go. Once again we're seeing the hubris of the Leader of the Government in the Senate as he essentially delights in seeking public interest immunity to not put this document in the public domain. We had very clear findings from the Auditor-General that pork-barrelling by this government had happened in the lead-up to the election. But, no, the Prime Minister's mate and former chief of staff has a look and says: 'Actually, there's nothing to see. The independent body got it wrong.' Well, I'm afraid the independent body has the advantage of being independent.</para>
<para>It's no surprise that this government has tried to silence that independent body, has found that for some reason it was not correct and that there's nothing to see and has tried to cover up the fact that the Prime Minister's office is up to its neck in these documents. The various emails between the Prime Minister and then Minister McKenzie show that the Prime Minister had a very strong part in sports rorts 1. I call it 'sports rorts 1' because the rorts keep on coming; we've had sports rorts 2, the community infrastructure grants, the community development grants and some environment grants. These guys sure love pork-barrelling and they sure love not having an independent body to take them to task over it.</para>
<para>Is it any wonder it has been 18 months and we've seen no action on a federal corruption watchdog from this government. It has been 18 months since they made that commitment and we still haven't seen a bill. We haven't even seen an exposure draft of a bill. This government will do everything it can to avoid transparency and everything it can to buy election results, because, frankly, it has no policy offering. All it can do is try to splash some cash around and bribe people into voting for it.</para>
<para>This is exactly why we need a federal corruption watchdog. This is why my bill passed the Senate in September last year. But the government doesn't want to bring that bill on for a vote in the House because my version of a federal corruption watchdog would actually clean up corruption. The government's discussion principles would not have even captured sports rorts. Their design for a corruption watchdog is so deliberately weak that all of this corruption, this pork-barrelling and these breaches of ministerial standards will just carry on. Some watchdog that will be, if we ever even see it! But we haven't seen it. We haven't seen the bill or an exposure draft and we know that this government is not committed to cleaning up corruption because it benefited very nicely, thank you very much, from being able to pork-barrel in the lead-up to the election.</para>
<para>So there was sports rorts 1 and then sports rorts 2. Now it's the community infrastructure grants. Now it's the community development grants. Now there are some environment grants. In the Commonwealth grants guidelines there is a little rule that says, where the minister doesn't take the advice of the independent officer on which grants should receive funding and which should not, they're meant to actually provide reasons for that to the Treasurer. No-one will be surprised that those reasons are not required to be made public. Once again, this government does everything it can to conceal the rorting and the pork-barrelling that it undertakes with glee in the lead-up to elections.</para>
<para>I will be moving in the chamber later today an order of continuing effect that says, 'You must put those reasons for deviating from the independent advice of grants bodies in the public domain.' It will be very interesting to see how this chamber votes on that order of continuing effect. We certainly know the government won't back it; they won't even release the Gaetjens report. Twice we've had to have the Senate demand that they release it, and they are still not going to do it. So we don't expect support from them. We wonder whether One Nation will back that motion. We will see.</para>
<para>This government is shrouded in secrecy. It continues to cook the books, to spend public money, to shore up its flailing political fortunes. It won the election by a whisker thanks to these sorts of bribes. It's lost all credibility and it's lost all integrity. This is exactly why all of the statistics and reports show that trust in democracy is at an all-time low. I don't care if people don't like this government—good; we want this government gone too. What I do care about is that this government no longer thinks that the institute of parliament represents the people. That is the more damaging effect of this sort of rampant rorting and pork-barrelling. People deserve a democracy that works for them and they deserve to have confidence that public money—those people's money—will be spent in a way that benefits them, not in a way that benefits the government.</para>
<para>The real issue here is the hubris of this government spending public money to shore up their own political fortunes. They take the massive corporate donations to fund their election campaigns, they do the bidding of those corporate sponsor elected and, meanwhile, they dish out public funds to shore up support in marginal suits. It is cooked and it is about time big money got its dirty fingers off this parliament—again, I'll be moving to ban corporate donations and to limit all donations to $1,000—because people deserve their democracy back. They deserve an independent federal corruption watchdog with teeth that could actually have applied to sports rorts 1 and 2, unlike the model the government is proposing. I mean, who proposes a model that supposedly is meant to clean up corruption but wouldn't have stopped or even applied to the rorts that we've seen plaguing this government since they were re-elected? What a joke! That is not going to fly with anybody. It would be worse than a smokescreen, smaller than fig leaf. This government simply has no credibility on integrity matters, and everybody can see it.</para>
<para>Release the Gaetjens report. Let's learn precisely how weak those ministerial standards are, because if they weren't breached by this pork-barrelling then what good are they either? The government has got this sewn up so nicely. It's got its mates to investigate how flagrant rorting somehow doesn't breach ministerial standards. It says quite a lot about the ministerial standards that this pork-barrelling doesn't breach them. Strengthen the standards, don't have them implemented by your mate who is now your chief of staff, actually give them to an independent body, make them legislative, have them independently reinforced and have them apply to all members of parliament. That's what the Greens think. We want a code of conduct for all of us here in this building who are elected representatives. We want those ministerial standards to mean something, to be strong and to be enforced. And we want a federal corruption watchdog that can actually do something to clean up the poor behaviour and the misuse of public funds that has so typified this government.</para>
<para>Once again we see secrecy, lack of transparency and 'it's just the Canberra bubble'. People are getting pretty sick of this government dismissing the premise of the question and saying it's just the Canberra bubble. No, this is our democracy and this is about how public funds are misspent by this illegitimate government. I can't wait for the next election, personally. I hope it comes real soon.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also rise to take note of the minister's failure once again to provide the Philip Gaetjens report. This government is flying in the face of repeated motions from the Senate to table this report but also running scared from the fact that the community now sees them for what it is and what it has done. We have sports rorts 1 and sports rorts 2, we've got the infrastructure programs and we've got environment programs. Quite frankly, I think we need to look at all the government's funding programs, because it's quite obvious that there has been a systematic approach across these grant programs to make sure that they are targeted to the seats they want to win and/or keep. All of these programs need to be looked into—the dates they started, the dates when the new round started—because they all stink. There is a stink over so many of them now. We need to make sure that we look clearly at all of those programs. Maybe it's in the government's mind that the community and this place have already found out about a number of them. What else is going on?</para>
<para>The idea that political considerations were not a determining factor when deciding which clubs got funding is simply ludicrous. The ANAO report <inline font-style="italic">Award of funding under the Community Sport Infrastructure program</inline> found:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The award of funding reflected the approach documented by the Minister’s Office of focusing on ‘marginal’ electorates held by the Coalition as well as those electorates held by other parties or independent members that were to be ‘targeted’ by the Coalition at the 2019 Election. Applications from projects located in those electorates were more successful in being awarded funding than if funding was allocated on the basis of merit assessed against the published program guidelines.</para></quote>
<para>That's from the ANAO report. To ignore the merit based assessment of sports Australia for almost half of the successful applications and instead decide to award grants based on political gain is a clear and unforgiveable misuse of taxpayers' money. Senator McKenzie's decision-making process was completely unsporting, with clubs in safe seats hampered in their chances of winning a grant. In my home state of WA, 32 applications missed out on about $12.1 million in funding. Anne Twomey, professor of constitutional law, recently said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">From a lawyer's perspective, there seem to be at least three areas in which rules are likely to have been broken.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The first concerns the legal obligation on ministers, when exercising administrative powers, to act within the scope of their powers and to behave in a manner that is procedurally fair.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The second legal issue is whether the minister had any power at all to make these grants. The Audit Office's report expresses significant concern about this.</para></quote>
<para>Then she said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The third rule that may have been broken is the constitution itself. The Commonwealth Parliament may legislate only with respect to subjects listed in the constitution (known as "heads of power"), such as external affairs, defence or banking. There is no head of power with respect to "sport".</para></quote>
<para>Mr Morrison and his colleagues have nothing but contempt for fairness and a level playing field, which is ironic given that we're talking about sports grants here. The government has hidden the Gaetjens report from the Senate. It's failed to comply with a previous order to produce the document and with this order, and it's more and more of the government saying: 'Let's make this a cabinet document. Let's put it on the trolley and wheel it through cabinet; then it's a cabinet document'.</para>
<para>How did the PMO and the Liberal Party coordinate in the lead-up to the 2019 election in allocating sports grants—and other grants, as it's now becoming widely known? Was the Prime Minister aware of his office's role in this scandal—and it is a scandal. What does the Prime Minister know and what does he have to hide by not enabling that report to be tabled? The public deserve answers to these questions. These are key questions of transparency and accountability. Australians expect this transparency and accountability from those in power and they are not getting a fair deal from this government. The more they see coming out about the other grant programs that have similarly been used for electoral gain, the more disenchanted they become. This level of shameless lack of transparency and this consequence-free approach to granting are unprecedented, and that's saying something.</para>
<para>I urge the minister to release the full Gaetjens report immediately so that the community and this parliament know what went on and we can start restoring confidence in this institution and in the government—governments I should say, not this particular government, because I think they're past that. But we actually need to make sure that the Australian community does have confidence and faith in this institution and in governments into the future. This lot can start doing that by coming clean, telling people what happened and making sure that it doesn't happen again. It has abused the power that it has in making these decisions in this particular circumstance and in all the other grants and programs that we now know were used and abused in a similar way in order for them to try to cling to power.</para>
<para>It was at the expense of transparency, at the expense of our democracy and, importantly, at the expense of those sporting groups that put in applications in good faith only to learn that they wasted their time. I've had people tell me how much time they took to fill in these applications in good faith. When you're a community based organisation, you know how long it takes. People are doing it in their own time and have to scramble around to get it written after hours. If you're running a sports club, you're doing all that. Having run community organisations myself in the past, I know how long it takes to fill in these documents—it's a considerable amount of time that you commit—only to have them colour-coded and filed. If you're in a safe seat, then it doesn't matter—down to the bottom of the pile. That's an appalling way to treat people in this country.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Steele-John</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Voters.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And voters. The coalition were clearly favouring those seats that they thought they could keep or win. Our government grant programs should not be used in this way.</para>
<para>I was around—not in parliament at the time, but I was certainly involved in the conservation movement—during the previous sports rorts drama, in 1991, with then minister Ros Kelly. Having seen both of them, I know that this one is far beyond that, and what the government have done with the other grant programs is far beyond that. And you should have heard the then opposition carrying on about that program. Yet that pales into insignificance compared to what has happened here and what, it is now becoming apparent, has happened in other programs. It is an appalling way to treat this country, it's an appalling way to treat our democracy and, most importantly, it's an appalling way to treat all those sporting clubs that genuinely participated in this process, thinking that there was a level playing field—that they could get some of their playing fields fixed through the funding so that they could in fact play on a level playing field. What the government have done is reprehensible. It fails the pub test by a mile. They need to come clean. They need to table the report. Otherwise, from now to eternity, everybody will know that this government had something to hide—and it stinks to high heaven.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to contribute to this discussion this morning and reflect on how outrageous it is that the government continues to cover up the Gaetjens report and refuses to release it to the public. The job of this chamber is to ensure that government is doing what it promised it would do. This chamber is all about scrutiny. It's meant to hold the government to account. That's why people put us here. They put us here to have their voices heard, their concerns heard. They vote for us to stand up for the things they care about. I tell you what: many Australians are just appalled at the revelations that continue to come forward as to how badly the government abused its power to dictate which community groups should receive funding through this sports program and which shouldn't, based on who it thought it could buy votes from. Of course, the government continues to sit on this report. It doesn't want it released to the public and it wants us to believe that somehow the Prime Minister's mate has given him a glowing reference—surprise, surprise.</para>
<para>The government, it seems, can't walk past a grants program they don't want to rort, whether it is sports rorts 1 or 2, infrastructure programs, water programs or the Environment Restoration Fund. The list continues to grow—program after program after program where the coalition government, the Liberal and National parties, have their hands in the kitty, either for themselves, to win votes, or to give to their mates. The level of rorting in this government and the abuse of power and privilege is extraordinary.</para>
<para>The sports rorts saga has really struck a chord with everyday Australians, because many Australians know that their sporting facilities are pretty tired and not up to scratch. They would like a little bit of support, a little bit of effort put in. That's why, as community organisations, volunteers, they spent hours and hours filling out applications, hoping that their application would be assessed on merit.</para>
<para>How naive of us all to think that a responsible government would assess things based on merit and need. This government doesn't know anything about merit and need. Look at some of the members on the bench over here. They're not there based on merit. We know that's one of the biggest problems that's riddled this government. They're there because they've done good deeds for their mates. They're there because they'll bend over backwards when their lords tap them on the shoulder and say, 'Hey, can we have this grant ticked off; can we have this piece of legislation changed; can you stand in the way of climate action because we're from a fossil fuel company?' Merit is not what this government is built on. Merit is not something that this government walks with. It is not how they govern. It is not a true value and principle that they hold dear. It has been seen for what it is through this program.</para>
<para>I'm quite concerned that it's not just the sports rorts that have been abused throughout the last 12 months in this government in a desperate plea to hold onto Liberal and National Party seats. There are other programs as well. We know that the Environment Restoration Fund—a $100 million fund—was rorted by this government. There are plenty of environmental projects out there in our local communities that need funding and support. But what do you know? The ones that got the money or were promised the money were the ones that were in seats that this government was desperate to keep. Many of the organisations that were awarded funding and promised funding under the Environment Restoration Fund didn't even apply for anything. They didn't even know the money was going to come in the door until they got a phone call from the local member of parliament: 'You know, there's an election coming up and I think there's a lot of good work you've been doing. We have just decided to give you a grant. We have just decided that your community organisation's been doing great stuff in the environment space and we think you deserve some support.' What do you know!</para>
<para>I've referred this fund to the Auditor-General—it's similar to the sports rorts referral—because it needs an independent assessment. Like many of these things, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it probably is a duck. I would say that this program, the Environment Restoration Fund—$100 million of taxpayers' money handed out or promised on the eve of an election—is just as dodgy as the sports rorts that have come before it.</para>
<para>As we know, this government is in the regular pattern of behaviour that when there's a grant fund there to be rorted, they can't get enough of it. When the taxpayer is footing the bill, this government can't seem to control themselves. The extraordinary brazen approach, the arrogance, is what has really upset the Australian people—the sheer arrogance and brazen attitude that, even though it's taxpayers' money, if you're in government you can do what you want with it. No, you can't. There should be scrutiny. There should be accountability. Part of your job as government is to ensure proper process.</para>
<para>The Auditor-General's response to the sports rorts was absolutely damning. The brazen attitude and treatment of taxpayers' money was gobsmacking. We keep seeing this pattern of behaviour over and over again. All you need to do is look at what's happened in the Murray-Darling Basin. When Mr Barnaby Joyce was water minister, he had a big bucket of money, and what did he do? He handed it out to his mates, because the National Party and the Liberal Party, when there are public funds available, can't control themselves. They want to get some of it—not for themselves, but for their mates. They just can't be trusted. And Mr Angus Taylor is in trouble. He tried to deny it, but his involvement in the Eastern Australia Agriculture company and the amount of money that was doled out to that company from the taxpayer by Mr Joyce when he was water minister is now before the Auditor-General as well. It smells dodgy, it looks dodgy; I reckon it is dodgy. That was worth $80 million.</para>
<para>It's as though this government thinks public funding is just confetti. They throw it around—over their selected electorates, of course. They invite their friends over for a party, throw around the confetti and hope no-one asks any questions. The Australian people are sick of governments that act like this. When there is such a decline in public trust, in the institution of parliament, in the institution of government and in our public bureaucracies it should be the government of the day that works to restore faith, trust, transparency and integrity. But if we had that, the government couldn't buy themselves elections. They've got no interest in ensuring that integrity is put back into the system. That's why we've got to get rid of this mob. That's why this government needs to be booted out at the next election—because they can't be trusted with public money, they can't be trusted to tell the truth, they can't be trusted to take responsibility when they stuff up. This government is rotten to the core, and it needs to go.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I rip into this one—and there is a lot to rip into—I just want to call out my colleague Senator Rice for the tenacity and integrity that she has shown in her pursuit of the government over this matter of the Gaetjens report. It has thrown into sharp relief the closed-door, closed-minded, closed-ranks mindset of Liberal Party MPs—backbenchers particularly—when considering this particular scandal that we have in front of us. I mean, let's be really clear about what the public understand and know to be the truth of this matter: the Morrison government, faced with electoral oblivion, decided to cheat, and as part of that process they decided to use public funds. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of money that belongs to the Australian community was misused—and not in a scattergun, not because, 'Oh, we just didn't realise' and not because it was maybe one here or there. This was meticulous, calculated misuse of public funds for political gain—an absolute outrage and disgrace.</para>
<para>We've heard many an excuse given by the government over this period, and not a single one of them holds water. It really boils straight down to this. What this Senate is trying to do and will continue to try to do is one simple thing: to get the report in full and read it. That's all the Senate is trying to do here. Yet the government is closing shop, closing ranks, protecting each other.</para>
<para>As Senator Waters rightly pointed out in her contribution to this debate, if the so-called anticorruption commission that last year the government mentioned—or mumbled about—ever came into being as imagined, it would not stop the issues that we have seen. There's a simple reason for that—they know that, without the ability to misuse public funds in this way, they can't win. They don't have a compelling argument for the Australian people—they don't have an economic record to speak of, they don't have a social record to speak of and they certainly, as Senator Whish-Wilson knows so well, don't have an environmental record to speak of. They have but one thing—the levers of executive power, which they are able to pull to rain money down on marginal electorate seats to try to win elections.</para>
<para>We hear the stories of colour-coded spreadsheets and emails going backwards and forwards. The public have a clear understanding that of course the Prime Minister's office was involved and of course the Prime Minister's office knew. The pretence to anything other than that is absolutely ridiculous. What really gets me is that they didn't just spend money on marginal seats—they didn't just make it rain in the seats of Pearce and Swan—and chuck on the scrap heap 32 other applications across WA, totalling $12 million; they also made it rain in safe Liberal seats, like the seat of Tangney, held by Ben Morton MP. There was $500,000 for an exclusive tennis club. It's absolutely disgraceful. As Senator Hanson-Young so rightly observed, they just can't help themselves. They're like dragons confronted with a hoard of gold—they just need to nestle themselves in it and sleep for a thousand years. It is beyond sickening to the Australian public.</para>
<para>Let me also bring a bit of information to the chamber that may well be surprising news to members of the Liberal Party in this place and the other place, who I suspect haven't had very long experience or history of filling out grant applications for a community organisation. That takes time and effort. Often this is done by volunteers, who stay up late at night to get the thing done. Putting one of these grant applications forward takes so much out of small community organisations. They do that in good faith that the information they provide will be considered on its merits. What we have seen here is that applications were chucked on the scrap heap unless granting them rendered a political dividend to the government. It's absolutely disgraceful.</para>
<para>Australian communities also understand that this type of misuse of public funds is not the proclivity of one side of politics. If the last 25 years in this country show anything, it is that when both sides of politics have their backs to the wall they end up sticking their hand in the public pocket and spending the money for personal gain. It happened in 1993 with the Keating government. It has happened again now with this government. It is a symptom of the mentality that has crept into the heart of the Australian political discourse and into the Australian political establishment. That mentality is: win at all costs. And, on the altar of that mentality, communities miss out, people are abused and deals are done. This is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the number of deals that this government cut to keep itself in power. We here in the Greens have not forgotten the very cosy conversations that would have happened between Mr Palmer and the government to secure the $60 million worth of election spending which did them so well in so many marginal seats. Again, this is instead of putting a compelling argument to the Australian people. It is an admission of the fundamental hollowness of that argument.</para>
<para>This Senate will continue to pursue the government. Senator Rice will continue to pursue the government. Senator Waters will continue to push for the implementation of a real national anti-corruption commission. We have been at it for 10 years and we will be at it for another 10 years, if that is what it takes. But we will drive political corruption out of this place because it is what the Australian people send us here to do. It is what they want to see. They want to know that money that they give in good faith and information that they give in good faith will be considered on its merits. That is not a lot to ask. It is time for this government to own up, stop hiding and face the consequences of its ill-conceived actions.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australians are actually losing confidence in the political process in this country, and that's been a trend that, unfortunately, has been underway for some time. But they still do have some basic expectations of government, they do expect their government to be competent and they do expect their government to be fair. Of course, the government's handling of this program has been neither competent nor fair.</para>
<para>I want to talk primarily about the lack of fairness in the way that this government has handled this program—a program, remember, that is not funded with money that is owned by the government. It is funded by money that has been given to the government by the taxpayers of our country and that the government are temporary stewards of. I want to be very clear: the lack of fairness in this program is not a bug. It's actually a design feature of this program. This was deliberately done. This program was deliberately designed to allocate taxpayer dollars in an unfair way, to organisations some of whom did not submit their applications on time, some of whom revised already submitted applications post the date for the final acceptance of applications, and many of whom submitted applications that, through the fair and rigorous non-political assessment, were rated as not being eligible for funding because other programs had a greater need. Yet a large number of programs that were either ineligible by dint of missing application time frames or were simply not worthy enough relative to other applications ended up receiving funding.</para>
<para>This government was totally sprung. It was totally busted by the ANAO, the Audit Office. What was the government's response to being totally busted in a scathing report from the ANAO? The Prime Minister asked Mr Gaetjens to provide him with a report, which he says happened. I say 'he says happened' because, of course, neither this Senate, despite having repeatedly asked for it, nor the people of Australia have seen Mr Gaetjens' report.</para>
<para>One other thing that people legitimately expect from government in this country is transparency. In other words, they expect to be able to see, hear and therefore understand why government is making the decisions that it does. And yet here we are again in the Senate debating the government's refusal to provide a report, the Gaetjens report, that this Senate has repeatedly asked for. And we're getting all kinds of spurious excuses from the government as to why this report has not been provided. Of course, cabinet in confidence is one of the claims that the government has made. One of the issues that Mr Gaetjens' report allegedly specifically covered related to whether former Minister McKenzie was in breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct.</para>
<para>I'll make the blindingly obvious comment here—and I've been a minister, albeit in a state government and not a Commonwealth government, so I do have personal experience of this—ministerial commissions come from the government. In the context of Commonwealth ministerial commissions, those letters patent come from the Governor-General. They are a matter between the Prime Minister, as the senior adviser to the Governor-General, the Governor-General themselves and the relevant minister. They are not a legitimate matter for cabinet. Ministerial appointments are not cabinet decisions. They are ultimately granted by the Governor-General on the advice of one person and one person alone—and that is the Prime Minister. It's abundantly clear in decisions that this Senate has reached in the past that simply wheeling a document through the cabinet room on a trolley is not enough to provide a legitimate foundation for a claim of public interest immunity, as the government is making here. It's not enough. So the Greens reject the government's assertion that Mr Gaetjens' report is covered by cabinet-in-confidence provisions.</para>
<para>I have to say Mr Gaetjens' reputation is copping an absolute pounding here, and rightly so, because he has allowed himself to be politicised. He is the most senior public servant in the country, and public servants right across this land in the Commonwealth Public Service have a legitimate expectation that the Public Service will not be politicised. It is one of the principles that underpins our democracy—frank and fearless advice from the Public Service to the government of the day. But what we're getting from Mr Gaetjens is anything but frank and fearless advice. From what we know of his report, it was effectively a whitewash. We demand to see that report. The Senate demands to see that report.</para>
<para>Of course, no-one is getting up and arguing that community sporting organisations should not receive assistance from government, when they need it and deserve it, and where it is done in accordance with a fair, rigorous, unbiased process—far from it. What we are saying here is that taxpayers money should not be allocated by government with the primary intent of ensuring its re-election. That would constitute corruption, and this is a process that has been corrupted. We don't have a Commonwealth anticorruption agency in this country, so we can't ask an independent umpire to have a look at this. The independent umpire that would be best placed to have a look at this corruption doesn't exist. We thank the National Audit Office for the work that it has done, but what it's done in this report is uncover the tip of an iceberg, and there are many other grants programs that we believe have been manipulated by this government in order to achieve electoral outcomes.</para>
<para>Make no mistake: this government thought they were going to lose the last election and they were prepared to do, in the words of a former member of this parliament, 'whatever it takes' to win the election. Well, it turns out that 'whatever it takes' involved corruption. It involved buying votes with taxpayers money. It involved not funding worthy community organisations that had been found to be worthy by an independent process, and instead funding organisations that were politically close to the government, that were in marginal seats that the government needed to hold, and in one case at least, organisations that the relevant minister was a member of. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to speak on this topic, but first I want to say that I was recently with a group of people in the community of Moulamein—in fact it was a town meeting—and I was almost brought to tears and I felt angry and ashamed to be a member of federal parliament, because I could see the damage that the people working in this building are causing to people right around the country. Moulamein is a small town in southern New South Wales. I was disgusted and, as I said, almost brought to tears. I'd just come from a meeting with farmers from the southern Murray-Darling Basin, a meeting that my office organised for them with the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder and the Murray River operator—the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is a mess, as well.</para>
<para>I'll come back to these things, because what we want to discuss today is the sports rorts affair. I am a member of the Finance and Public Administration Committee and I was involved in the hearing into the taking of jobs by former ministers Christopher Pyne and Julie Bishop. Before they'd even left parliament they had their jobs lined up for when they left parliament. To most people, that seemed like a breach of the ministerial code of conduct. We were inquiring about Martin Parkinson, who had been given the role of investigating the appointments of these two ministers to see whether or not they complied with the ministerial code of conduct. I pursued Martin Parkinson, the former head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet—it was on his last day, as I remember, basically hours before he was due to retire—with simple, fundamental questions about the investigation he had conducted, which, of course, exonerated both former ministers. But only after some time, when he was trapped, did it emerge that he had no investigatory powers. So, the Prime Minister had invested in someone to do an investigation, someone who didn't have any investigatory powers. And the same thing happened here. This is not just a cover-up of sports rorts; this is a cover-up of the lack of an investigation. This is getting deeper and deeper and worse and worse for the government. And why are they doing it again? Because they got away with it. This is one of the hallmarks of corruption. But what can we expect when we have a marketer as a Prime Minister, someone who can use a glib slogan and get out of the problem—someone who can build a facade and then sell it? This is empty of substance, but there is plenty to hide.</para>
<para>Corruption itself is harmful but, worse, it kills democracy. Integrity is the hallmark of democracy, and true democracy is the prerequisite for integrity. Integrity is more than just about corruption; it is about truth and facts. That should start in this parliament. This is certainly about the Prime Minister. It is about the government. Above all, it is about our parliament, because it is letting the people down. It is about every senator and every member of parliament in the lower house. Federal parliament has forgotten about integrity and forgotten about the people that we are here to serve.</para>
<para>The sports rorts issue is simply a symptom of the bigger issue. Let me give you some examples that point to the bigger issue. Let's look at water. Which party has neglected water infrastructure? The Labor Party and the Liberal Party, with the Nationals meekly tagging along behind. The Greens have driven that agenda, and the Liberals and Labor have allowed them to do so. The Bradfield catchment right now in North Queensland is undergoing flooding, and the water is flowing out to sea and, according to the Greens, harming the reef. Who is allowing this waste? The Labor Party and the Liberal Party, with the Nationals tagging along behind, meekly, and the Greens driving the bus.</para>
<para>What about the Murray-Darling Basin? Which party's policies destroyed the Murray-Darling Basin and family farms and are hurting the environment? The Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Nationals tagging along meekly behind and the Greens driving the bus. Electricity—Australia has gone from the lowest-cost producer of electricity to amongst the highest. Which party has passed legislation pushing for subsidies for expensive wind and solar power, which has raised power prices astronomically and made it unreliable and insecure? The Labor Party and the Liberal Party, with the Nationals meekly tagging along behind and the Greens driving the bus.</para>
<para>What about the Renewable Energy Target? Which party supports a Renewable Energy Target? Let's have a look. The Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party—and the Greens want an absurd, completely renewables target. Yet an unjustified Renewable Energy Target with high subsidies is raising the power prices. As I just said, it's the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Nats tagging along and the Greens driving the bus.</para>
<para>What about coal? Coal has saved whales, coal has saved the forests and coal has liberated humans out of poverty, along with oil and gas. Hydrocarbon has revolutionised life and civilisation. Yet which party's policies are anti-coal—anti cheap, reliable, secure, base-load power? The Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Greens party and the Nationals tagging along.</para>
<para>Then, on climate, which party believes, without providing specific empirical evidence, that our use of hydrocarbon fuels causes climate variability? The Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Nationals tagging along and the Greens driving the bus. And what about the climate policies? Which party wants climate action? The Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Nats are tagging along and the Greens are driving the bus.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>247512</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Roberts, could you pause for a moment? Maybe fewer interjections would be helpful. Back to Senator Roberts.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What about land use? Farmers have had their land stolen from them, and which party has passed legislation enabling the stealing of farmers' land without the compensation that they're entitled to under the Constitution?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>247512</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>One moment, Senator Roberts. Senator Whish-Wilson?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Whish-Wilson</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My point of order, Acting Deputy President—and perhaps you could ask the Clerk, because I don't know the exact standing order—is on relevance. This is absolutely nothing to do with the OPD before us. Could you seek the Clerk's advice before Senator Roberts continues his diatribe?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>247512</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There is no point of order. Relevance is interpreted liberally.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This, along with PFAS, the ideological assault on rural Australia, the decimation of fishing, the destruction caused by PFAS in the environment, electoral control, native vegetation restrictions, the killing of Australia's rural and productive capacity, the record debt, the foreign ownership—these and many other issues come from this building. The source of most Australia's problems governmentally comes from Canberra. That's why I was in tears at Moulamein. To answer the questions before, the reason why this is significant is because this is the core issue. Sports rorts is despicable, but it is but a symptom of the disease in this building. That's why I was in tears at Moulamein. That's why I felt ashamed. That's why I felt angry and that's why I will call out the Greens.</para>
<para>Which party did all of this? The Labor Party did it. The Liberal Party did it. The Nats meekly towed along, and quite often the Greens were driving the bus, with the exception of PFAS, where they're trying to help. When people like the Greens and Labor's Senator McAllister or Senator Whish-Wilson call me names, they sometimes imply ridicule. They admit defeat, because if they had a coherent argument and data and facts they would present that. I thank these people for their ridicule and name-calling, because it confirms my argument. It takes a special kind of stupid in the Greens to put forward these policies. It takes a special kind of blindness in the Labor Party to condone it and follow it. It takes a special kind of gutlessness in the Liberals and the Nationals tagging along blindly. This is what enables this disaster in the sports rorts, because the disaster is sourced in this parliament.</para>
<para>The Australian people need an independent integrity watchdog that goes well beyond this debate today. It is needed. It is essential. It is only a short while that I've come to that conclusion, but it's because I believed initially that the parliament should be responsible for itself. I can see that that has failed repeatedly. The Australian people need an independent watchdog. I'll ask the Australian people to remember that they alone can change the Constitution in this country. That makes the Australian people the sovereigns over this parliament. So I ask the people of Australia to think about their vote when they vote in elections, whether it be council elections coming up in Queensland, state elections coming up in Queensland, or federal elections coming up in 2½ years. Who voted this mob into parliament? The Australian people did. Who can change parliament? Only the Australian people.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>247512</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I go to Senator Gallagher, I would remind you, Senator Roberts, of standing order 193(3), which says that imputations and offensive words and reflections are unparliamentary.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to make a few comments about the government's handling of this order for production of documents. It is a very reasonable OPD, seeking the Gaetjens report, which has become quite a critical piece of information in unpicking what has occurred with the maladministration of sports grants across this country by this government; also the explanation from the minister this morning, which I think is the most important matter I'd like to reflect on today.</para>
<para>I think this is the third OPD seeking this information. There have been a number of orders for production of documents associated with the sports grants administration. The majority of them have been rejected. Some have produced limited documents, heavily redacted. Senator Lambie moved one on 5 February and also Senator Waters. Senator Rice's OPD continues to press the government to release this report. At the moment, the government is rejecting that on some spurious grounds of public interest immunity. Senator Cormann doesn't even have the arguments to put in front of this chamber. It's just a blanket, 'No, you're not getting it, public interest immunity, cabinet in confidence, end of story.' He doesn't explain why they have taken a view that this falls within the public interest immunity test or indeed how this document becomes cabinet in confidence. We know that, in the past, previous advice from secretaries of PM&C commissioned in similar ways—through the statement of ministerial standards—has been released. But for some reason this one is being treated differently.</para>
<para>I think the most important thing is a broader point about the way the Senate is being treated by this government. If we look at this in relation to the sports grants, the big picture is, essentially, that we have a tabled Auditor-General's report which has found serious maladministration and political interference. We then have a government under pressure commissioning another report, from a former chief of staff to the Prime Minister, now head of PM&C, Mr Gaetjens. That report seems to contradict the findings of the Auditor-General's very extensive report. Mr Gaetjens has had access to the documents that the Auditor-General relied on. The Auditor-General has had access to documents the government had in its possession. The government has had access to all of the documents. The only people involved in this inquiry, which has been commissioned through this chamber, that do not have access to the documents and are being denied access to the documents are senators in this chamber and, through us, the Australian people.</para>
<para>This Senate passed a resolution that a select committee should be formed to inquire into this. The Senate has significant inquiry powers; it's one of the reasons we exist. We have the capacity, with the powers available to us, to inquire into matters and to hold executive government—particularly the excesses of executive government—to account. This government, through its denial of access to documents, is blocking the Senate from being able to do the job that non-government senators have asked it to do. Through this and the way those opposite are behaving, the government is trying—and I think this is the long game—to reduce the power of this chamber to do its job. It's perhaps best left for a speech on another day, but there are good reasons, fundamental to the health of our democracy, that the Senate has been granted such significant powers to inquire into matters and hold executive government to account. But this government is doing everything it can to weaken those powers.</para>
<para>They do it day by day in this chamber. They do it through their refusal to provide documents that are required, by resolution of this place, to be produced. They are doing it in their approach to question time, where they refuse to either answer questions or be relevant to the question that was asked. They're doing it in estimates committees: public servants, following their lead, don't come to estimates prepared to answer questions, or they take a lot on notice. This has to be a direction from the very top levels of the Public Service and from this government. So it's not just through orders for the production of documents; it's through every means the Senate has to hold this government to account. This government is diminishing the Senate's role.</para>
<para>I think we have a couple of things that we have to consider. Do we accept this? Do we accept that the government can just walk in here and give a one-minute statement, going, 'Cabinet in confidence, public interest immunity, see you later'? Do we reject it? Do we push back? Do we stand up and protect the powers that were given to this chamber at the inception of Federation and say, 'Hang on a minute; you don't have the majority in this chamber'?</para>
<para>This chamber has significant powers available to it to hold government to account, but, in order to do that, all non-government senators have to stand together and work together. This disregard for the Senate that is being perpetrated, I think quite knowingly, by this government must be responded to. The minute we accept that they can treat the Senate this way—denying access to documents, refusing to answer questions, taking things on notice so as to have time to workshop a more palatable answer, perhaps one that's been socialised through other areas of government to keep tricky situations at bay—those powers are diminished forever. It sets a precedent that the 46th Parliament has to be mindful of. We cannot accept this government's continual refusal to provide information—information that was commissioned outside of cabinet. Nearly every government report that is released goes through cabinet, but you can't just use that as a shield to protect you when the times are tough.</para>
<para>Part of what has to happen as a result of the sports rorts fiasco, I presume—maybe I'm presuming too much—is for the government to accept that what they did was wrong and that the accountability measures built into our democracy, whether it be through independent statutory office holders, independent officers of the parliament, like the Auditor-General, the Senate doing its job properly, have the powers to uncover that information and hold government to account. It's only when that happens that you will see a change in government behaviour. If we accept the way that Senator Cormann and other ministers are treating this place and treating motions in this place, then we may as well pack up and go home and leave executive government to run the show. And we know how that will end up because we've seen just a glimpse of it with what we do publicly know about sports rorts.</para>
<para>This really is starting to be a turning point for non-government senators to look at ways available to us to stand up and reject the way this government is behaving, because it's not just the 46th Parliament that this relates to. It's every parliament that comes after us. Those senators who have come before us have fought to protect these powers. Indeed, Senator Cormann, in a previous parliament, was one of the instigators of that through the Cormann motion, which I think Senator Watt referred to in his comments today. That is what is at stake here: an arrogant, dismissive government that disregards the Senate and the Senate's role. We cannot allow this to continue. If it's not this motion today, it will be the one that we deal with tomorrow or in a fortnight or the fact that we won't get any answers through estimates or at question time. It will just keep building, because it's already done that in the nine months since the election.</para>
<para>I think this is an important statement to take note of from Senator Cormann and it's also a warning—certainly from the Labor Party; I won't speak on behalf of other non-government senators—that we will not be accepting the diminution of the powers of this chamber.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Australian Senate—this chamber that we're all privileged to participate in—is the country's house of review. It is the premier house of review in this nation. To put it in pub vernacular terms, it's our job to poke our nose into this government's business, it's our job to scrutinise and it's our job to compel transparency on decisions, legislation and regulations that come before this place. I'm just going to name it up. To people outside this place—and to me and many inside this place—what we've seen with the sports rorts scandal looks like straight-up corruption. It looks like straight-up criminal behaviour. When someone is misappropriating public funds for their own personal or political benefit, that is corruption. That is the way this is perceived by Australians when they see politicians spending their money—public money—for their own benefit or for the benefit of politicians, their political parties, their careers and their bank accounts. That's the way Australians see this, and we shouldn't see it any other way. This has got to stop.</para>
<para>This institution is so important to the running of this country, yet politics, not just in this country but all around the world, is on the nose with the public. They see us as being self-serving agents in here for our own benefit or the benefit of our parties. Forcing transparency with this motion that is before us today in relation to an order for production of documents is absolutely crucial. How ironic is it that the Prime Minister was happy to commission this Gaetjens report and happy to tell the Australian public the outcome of the report, which was that everything's fine—'There's nothing to see here'—but he won't release the details? Why is that? Once again, let's ask whether this passes the pub test in Australia. Any Australian thinking about this would be saying, 'Well, clearly the reason the Prime Minister doesn't want to disclose this report is that he has something to hide.' That's just not good enough. Given what's at stake here—given what we need to change and amend to make sure this kind of pork-barrelling, this kind of criminal behaviour, doesn't occur in the future—we need to fix this.</para>
<para>Can I say, in relation to the order for production of documents, that I remember that, when I started as a senator and the Senate passed an order for production of documents motion to compel the government to release the transcripts of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, and the government refused to do so, I sought advice from the then Clark, Rosemary Laing. She showed me where <inline font-style="italic">Odgers</inline>deals with this, and she said, 'Senator, if the government doesn't listen to an order of this chamber, the Senate, then it's actually your duty and the Senate's duty to disrupt their legislative framework until you get what you need.' It's actually the Senate's duty to disrupt this government's legislative framework until it provides the information that's been demanded by the Senate. That's what I remember being told, and that's what I remember going into in that debate.</para>
<para>The Senate needs to consider this. The government, at the last election, got elected, yes. It didn't get a majority in this house of review, the Senate. We get to choose, on behalf of the people who elected us and put us in here, what passes in this place. We get to decide what documents we want the government to show us. That is the power of the Senate, and it's already been covered in other speeches. We can't let this precedent continue where the government is refusing to provide the documents that have been demanded by the Senate. There is no reason, except for self-preservation and self-interest, why the government wouldn't release the Gaetjens report, particularly in the light of the fact that they were happy to say, 'Everything's fine,' yet they won't provide the detail of that. That is contradictory to what we have seen from the Auditor-General's report and other information that has come before us.</para>
<para>The most important thing here is that we make sure this never happens again and that, in any future election, any government can't use public funds to make sure they stay in power and are re-elected. That has to change, and it won't change without simple transparency, without all the detail we need to make sure we put up amendments or whatever is necessary to protect the Australian people, because it's their money the government's been spending for their own self-interest. It's not Mr Scott Morrison's money. It's not the Liberal Party's money or Senator McKenzie's money. This is the Australian people's money, and it is criminal and straight-up corruption that it's been allowed to proceed this way, where this kind of money is spent for personal and political self-interest.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>15</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020</title>
          <page.no>15</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" background="" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="">
            <a type="Bill" href="r6488">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>15</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for the opportunity to continue my comments on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020. While this bill should improve the ability of people receiving payments to manage their income, there are significant concerns about the government's ability to implement this system. The last thing that the Australian public wants to see is people having their payments cut off because of the sorts of technical errors that could result from this bill. The last thing they want to see is people left on the phone for hours on end if they have questions that need to be answered. The last thing they want to see is more people being saddled with unfair debts.</para>
<para>As we've heard from organisations who've made submission to the Senate inquiry into this bill, robodebt has caused a huge lack of trust in the community about these sorts of measures. Perhaps some of the concerns that those organisations raised might have been allayed if there had been any consultation by the government with people who are actually on Centrelink payments about the changes that are envisaged with this bill. The government might be better prepared for its implementation if it had thought to consult on the scheme and to test the approach with real people. In particular, there is real confusion about how these new measures will interact with gig jobs and casual jobs, where people might work one or two shifts every week. The Senate committee heard genuine concerns about how people's income will be averaged based on one-touch data for one week's work when a person may not work for the next two or three weeks. But there's been no consultation, no trials and no testing with people on social security to see how it's going to work. Despite the robodebt disaster, there's been no review included in the bill as it stands.</para>
<para>If they manage to get it right, this bill should simplify income reporting for people on payments. But what this bill won't do is fix the catastrophe that is the robodebt scheme. Let's hope we don't see a repeat of what is an undeniable mess. The government's robodebt scheme was not only mean and unjust; it's also been uncovered that the government knew about the faults with the robodebt system and, worse, they knew that it was illegal and they kept defending it anyway. They kept defending a robodebt scheme that caused stress, anxiety and financial hardship and, tragically, even contributed to suicides. When this government get it wrong, they don't apologise, they don't try to fix it and they don't try to write their wrongs; they just double-down and try to convince us that everything is just fine.</para>
<para>Robodebt was using a faulty and inaccurate algorithm that was unleashed against social security recipients, who, even if they'd reported their income correctly, were issued debts of thousands of dollars. It was using crude accounting measures to match up average annual income figures from the ATO and reported fortnightly earnings, apparently with very little thought about those in casual, insecure or intermittent work, who rarely do the same number of hours every fortnight. Some of the people targeted by robodebt were told to produce pay slips from over 10 years ago, leaving them stressed and anxious about trying to obtain those documents from former employers. So much time had passed that in some cases their old employers no longer even existed. Despite all of these problems and all of these issues, the government kept this scheme going for years, taking $1.5 billion in payments.</para>
<para>This cruel and unfair program was found to be illegal. Questions still remain about how long the government knew that their revenue-raising scheme, used to prop up their budget bottom line, was illegal. The government either got bad legal advice or got good legal advice but chose to ignore it—or they started the robodebt program without ever seeking advice as to whether or not it was legal. Whichever of these options actually took place, it doesn't exactly scream competence. It doesn't give us great confidence in the measures proposed in this bill. So you'll have to forgive my cynicism and lack of confidence in the government's ability to roll out yet another IT based program.</para>
<para>It's not just the government's lack of competence which concerns me. It's also their lack of care and their lack of compassion when it comes to those on the pension, Newstart and other forms of social security payments. Do they actually even care about getting the implementation of this sort of measure right?</para>
<para>This government has repeatedly attacked the pension and those on social security. Let's look at their track record on the pension. The current Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, when he was Treasurer, tried to increase the pension age to 70 years three times. In 2014 they cut $1 billion from pensioner concessions—concessions that are designed to help pensioners with the rising costs of living. In the same year, they axed the $900 seniors supplement to self-funded retirees. It didn't end there. In 2015 they made changes to the assets test, which meant a pension cut to around 370,000 pensioners. Since then, they've also tried to scrap the energy supplement for new pensioners and limit overseas travel for pensioners. And cuts to the pension are still on the books, in the budget. The government wants to take away the pension supplement from pensioners who go overseas for more than six weeks, costing pensioners around $120 million. And they still want pensioners who were born overseas to wait longer before being able to access the age pension by changing residency requirements.</para>
<para>Does this sound like the record of a government that cares about people who are on payments? Does it sound like the record of a government that cares about pensioners? What about people on Newstart? Is there any evidence that the government cares about them? This government is still refusing to raise the Newstart allowance, despite the fact that it is trapping people in poverty. If you're on Newstart right now, you are living significantly below the poverty line. Even though Newstart is supposed to be a temporary payment, the average amount of time that people are on Newstart is three years. That's not because they want to be on Newstart. It's not because they don't want to have a go, as some on the government benches may have you believe. It is because the jobs just aren't there.</para>
<para>Over two million Australians are either looking for work or looking for more work; 1.1 million Australians are underemployed. Just last month we saw another rise in the unemployment rate, from 5.1 to 5.3 per cent. And 130,000 people on Newstart actually have a job, but they just can't get enough hours to make ends meet and get themselves off the Newstart payment. The rate of Newstart is so low that it actually prohibits people from getting out and having a go and doing what they need to do to get a job. It's trapping people in poverty. You can't live on $40 a day. That doesn't cover the cost of living, let alone the additional costs associated with looking for work, such as access to an internet connection, appropriate clothing and transport to interviews. If you're really struggling to make ends meet—to pay your bills and support your family—that is obviously a barrier to your being able to get out and look for the job that the government so wants you to get.</para>
<para>And this government currently wants to cut Newstart. Scott Morrison wants to double the liquid-assets waiting period from three to six months. That means that Australians who have some money in the bank would find themselves having to eat into their savings, into their own personal safety net, if they found themselves out of a job for even longer. The Prime Minister has said that the harder your work the better you do. Well, really? He's essentially suggesting that it's all down to you—'just try a little harder; just do a little better'. What he's saying is that if you're poor, if you're stuck on Newstart, it's your fault, and that's it. But that couldn't be further from the truth, because, as we know and as people on Newstart know, the jobs just aren't there—two million people unemployed or underemployed. The jobs just aren't there, not to mention that this government has sought to demonise people on social security payments with insulting schemes like their cashless welfare cards and the invasive and degrading proposals for mandatory drug testing that they want to roll out. Does this sound like a government that cares about people on Newstart?</para>
<para>When you look at the government's sheer lack of competency—I'm thinking about the robodebt scheme—and at their sheer lack of compassion, you have to wonder whether they are really capable of implementing the changes that are contained in this bill. When you consider that this government hasn't talked to people on Centrelink payments about how this is going to work, that they haven't asked for feedback on their new system and that they haven't trialled it with real people—the same real people who have been so adversely impacted by the robodebt mess—you have to wonder if this is a government that just wants to do things to people on Centrelink payments instead of developing a policy with them that will work to get them back into work in a respectful way.</para>
<para>I do want to believe that the government can get this right, because, if they can, this bill will certainly serve to deliver some improvements for people on social security payments. But the government's track record suggests otherwise. If they can get this change in reporting right then they stand to actually make the process easier for many others who are on Centrelink payments. But if they botch this change in Centrelink income reporting, just like they botched robodebt, then there is the potential that they will cause more stress, more anxiety and more pain to those who are already struggling on social security. We will be watching.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020 changes the way employment income is reported and assessed for the purposes of determining income support payments. From 1 July, income support recipients will report gross income that has been paid to them by their employer rather than estimate the amount of income that they have earned. It is a change that will affect about 1.2 million income support recipients who report earnings each year, so it is critical that we get these changes right.</para>
<para>While the Greens support this bill in principle, we are seeking to resolve a number of issues identified through the Senate committee process and are looking at putting a number of amendments. We are disappointed that there was an incredibly limited consultation phase for stakeholders to consider this bill. It is a sad hallmark of many of these inquiry processes that the government seem to give only the shortest possible window to people to give their feedback on very complex policy areas.</para>
<para>It is clear that the success of this bill rests on the quality of its implementation by Services Australia, and there are serious questions about the capacity of Services Australia to deliver this. Staffing, organisational and technical capacity have all been flagged as issues and are of concern to us, particularly in relation to Services Australia's ability to implement this before 1 July 2020. It is absolutely essential, in our view, that Services Australia communicates the changes effectively to people and that people are also able to ask questions in person, on the phone and online.</para>
<para>We all know, sadly, the consequences when automation and data matching goes wrong. The absolute failure of robodebt offers salient warnings about the harms that arise when we rely on algorithms and remove the human element. After every failure and scandal that we've seen from the government in this area—from robodebt to My Health Record and everything in between—a little bit of me does think that this is an administration that has proven over and over and over again that it has lacked the capacity or the understanding to pull off these types of changes.</para>
<para>I very much agree with the concerns that have been echoed by other senators in regard to this and also with the warning that has been given of the potential negative impact that this change could have. We in the Greens strongly hope that the government has learned from the disasters of robodebt and is implementing those learnings before implementing further automation processes within the wider social security system. While they're at it, we also personally hope that they take time to reflect upon and consider the mentality that they bring to these discussions. In our politics today there is far too much discourse and belief which places poverty and the creation of poverty upon those living in poverty. There's far too much normalisation of a thought process which blames people who are struggling that struggle. It's as though they've done something wrong morally, fundamentally. That's got to go, particularly when we sit here in a chamber which, thanks to the government and some members of the crossbench, finds it necessary, at regular intervals, to doll out millions, in fact billions, in fact hundreds of billions, to their corporate mates.</para>
<para>At the request of Senator Siewert, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">", but the Senate calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) come clean on the robodebt disaster;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) provide all legal advice relating to the robodebt program to the Senate; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) use the savings generated from this bill to compensate robodebt victims".</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020 will improve the process for reporting employment income to Centrelink. From 1 July 2020, social security recipients will report their employment income to Centrelink when it's paid by their employer instead of when it's earned. Assessing employment income when paid will make it easier to report income correctly. This will better support people receiving the right amount of income support each time it is paid, no more and no less than they are eligible for, reducing the likelihood of overpayment. It will also pave the way for future prefilling of employment income using the Single Touch Payroll information system, supporting easier reporting arrangements for recipients. I thank the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for their report, which was released on 20 February this year, and for recommending that this bill be passed.</para>
<para>I note that recommendation 1 calls for further targeted consultation and user testing to be undertaken prior to commencement. The government accepts this recommendation. User experience testing with customers and staff across a number of products and services related to the simplification of employment income reporting is already well under way, with more to be undertaken prior to the changes taking effect. Consultations have occurred across a number of locations with customers who reflect the diversity of our population, including people who live with disability, Indigenous Australians and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.</para>
<para>Services Australia, who deliver Centrelink social security payments and services to Australians, will continue to listen and act on the feedback from customers and use this to inform the design of key communication products such as bulk mail-out letters and changes to the online reporting support tools.</para>
<para>I also note recommendation 2 of the report, which calls for the initiation of an implementation review within 12 months of commencement and that the review be tabled in parliament. The government accepts this recommendation. The government does not believe this needs to be included in the legislation to ensure that the review can be undertaken at an appropriate time. Setting the hard date for the completion of review would be restrictive, given the dependencies on the rollout of the Single Touch Payroll system and given that it is not known what employer take-up will be by 1 July 2021, but I do give my commitment to the Senate and the community that a review will be initiated by July 2021.</para>
<para>I acknowledge that a number of other recommendations have been made by Labor and the Greens, concerning user testing and providing further guidance about the operation of the measure. User testing and further guidance will be done prior to the implementation to ensure income support recipients and the staff of Centrelink have a clear understanding of the changes. I'm also aware that questions on details of the legislation were raised through the committee process. Some parties have sought clarification on certain terms within the legislation, including terms like 'employment period', and guidance on how the secretary will determine whether or not an employment period can be identified—that is, whether employment income is or is not paid in respect of a particular period.</para>
<para>In relation to what constitutes an employment period, if the employment pay period is specified on a recipient's payslip, this will be the pay period in the majority of circumstances. However, in a limited number of circumstances, a recipient may provide supplementary evidence and the secretary may record a different period reflective of that employment. 'Pay period' is not defined in legislation, so we can make sure that we provide flexibility. It will be addressed in the guide to social policy law, which is publicly available.</para>
<para>In determining whether payments are paid in respect of a particular period, consideration will be given to a number of factors, including the nature of the recipient's employment, the payment frequency and particular individual circumstances. A person can be paid weekly, fortnightly, monthly or paid in respect of intermittent work. It is not desirable to prescribe those specific rules as it would limit the application of the term 'employment period'. In drafting the legislation we've avoided defining some terms in order to provide that level of flexibility for unique circumstances and to allow the legislation to adapt to the changing nature of work. Including specific provisions in the legislation could limit the ability to take into account a person's specific circumstances.</para>
<para>Setting out how the legislation operates in the social services guide enables the legislation to be interpreted in a beneficial manner, provides clarity to stake-holders and enables flexibility to respond to any unanticipated issues that may arise. This is because the social security guide supports decision-making under the legislation by assisting in understanding the social security law and policy and its application. Importantly, decision-makers must base their decisions on the social security law having regard to Australian government policy and intent, which is reflected in the social security guide. It is open for tribunals for refer to the social security guide to assist in making decisions in accordance with the legislation.</para>
<para>Assessing employment income when paid will contribute to the simplification and delivery of modernisation of Australia's social security system by allowing the use of technology to prevent overpayments before they happen, but without reducing the responsibility of the individual to ensure that they do report correctly. This bill will also help to ensure that Australia's welfare system remains sustainable into the future. I commend the bill to the Senate.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Siewert be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [11:40]<br />(The President—Senator Ryan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>33</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T</name>
                  <name>Brown, CL</name>
                  <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R (teller)</name>
                  <name>Di Natale, R</name>
                  <name>Dodson, P</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                  <name>Green, N</name>
                  <name>Griff, S</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                  <name>Keneally, KK</name>
                  <name>Kitching, K</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M</name>
                  <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D</name>
                  <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                  <name>Polley, H</name>
                  <name>Pratt, LC</name>
                  <name>Rice, J</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A</name>
                  <name>Siewert, R</name>
                  <name>Smith, M</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, AE</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J</name>
                  <name>Waters, LJ</name>
                  <name>Watt, M</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, PS</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>35</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Abetz, E</name>
                  <name>Antic, A</name>
                  <name>Askew, W</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A J</name>
                  <name>Brockman, S (teller)</name>
                  <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                  <name>Cash, MC</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R</name>
                  <name>Davey, P</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                  <name>Fierravanti-Wells, C</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P</name>
                  <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H</name>
                  <name>Hume, J</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A</name>
                  <name>McMahon, S</name>
                  <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A</name>
                  <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P</name>
                  <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                  <name>Smith, DA</name>
                  <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                  <name>Van, D</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>4</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Bilyk, CL</name>
                  <name>Payne, MA</name>
                  <name>Gallacher, AM</name>
                  <name>Birmingham, SJ</name>
                  <name>Lines, S</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J</name>
                  <name>Wong, P</name>
                  <name>Cormann, </name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.<br />Original question agreed to.<br />Bill read a second time.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>20</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I do have some amendments, as do others—the opposition. But first I would like to ask a series of questions clarifying the operation of the legislation. As we heard during the second reading contributions on this bill, there are still a lot of queries hanging over this legislation. While we support it, and the opposition's articulated their in principle support for this legislation, the stakeholders have indicated quite a deal of concern about the very short time frame before this is implemented. I'll come to my first amendment in a minute, which actually deals with that particular issue, but I did want to clarify some of the questions that I think still hang over this legislation. I appreciate the minister did seek, in her summing-up statement, to deal with some of those issues, but I still seek some further clarification. We know that this is supposed to start on 1 July, with the first prefilled forms coming in at the beginning of September. I would like to know, please, how many people are we anticipating that will actually be in scope on 1 September, or during that September period, for being required then to use the prefilled form through the Single Touch Payroll process, rather than just filling out their form themselves?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The September 2020 date is the earliest date that prefilling can actually commence. So prior to September 2020 there will be none. Then from September 2020 we will continue. Particularly over an intense period to 30 June 2021 we will see an increase in the number as employers come on board. On that basis, it's almost impossible to give you an answer as to the number of prefilled forms that will be available in September 2020 because we don't actually know what the uptake of employers is going to be during this period and how they're going to ramp up on it. In order to report the expanded dataset employers will have to update their payroll activities and this in turn will be dependent upon the software provider. So there are a whole heap of factors that will determine the speed with which employers take up the opportunity to be able to participate in Single Touch Payroll, and that will then have a consequential impact on the number of prefilled forms that will be available over the months from September 2020.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. Do I understand correctly that the ATO doesn't really have an idea about how many employees are going to be ready to use this by the beginning of September? Because it was my understanding that they already have a number of employers that are currently using this process, or are just about to commence on this process. Is that a correct understanding?</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>While I'm getting the specific figures, I also want to reiterate the fact that the prefilling will only commence once Services Australia has thoroughly tested the reporting channels, and the ATO and Services Australia are absolutely confident of the quality of that Single Touch Payroll data and how it is prefilling. I've just been advised that currently there are 11 million people covered off by Single Touch Payroll and we are anticipating that by July 2021 95 per cent of recipients will be covered by Single Touch Payroll. But I can't give you the trajectory from that 11 million people to that 95 per cent of recipients over the 10-month period.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It amplifies the concerns that I have and I think some of the stakeholders have that this level of detail is not known. How do we know how much help Services Australia will have to provide for an unknown number of people that are coming onboard, potentially, on 1 September? All of these forms haven't yet been fully tested. I took onboard what you said about talking to a range of cohorts and groups that will be using this process in the run-up to 1 July, but there's a two-step process here. As you've articulated previously, you fill in the form with what you've earned, and you have to look at a form—this is the second period where people may get caught up with mistakes. There's the transition period, which I want to come back to, and there's, effectively, a second transition period for people as they fill in a prefilled form. That's in a very short time frame around the whole process. We don't know how many people in September will transition a second time and we don't know, therefore, or we're not confident that Services Australia have the number of people onboard to help with that second transition on top of the first transition.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>First of all, the purpose of the legislation here is specifically related to your first question and the first transition—that is, the transition where people go from reporting earnings to reporting payments received. That has no bearing whatsoever on how they currently report. If they report online, if they report on their phone app, if they report going into a service centre, however they currently report, the only change that we are seeking to achieve by this legislation is that they now report actual money they've received.</para>
<para>The second component of what you're referring to is the Single Touch Payroll interface with this change. That is when, if their employer is somebody who has interfaced with the Single Touch Payroll, they will receive a form that has partial information in it, as reflects what their employer has provided to the ATO. In the sense of us knowing how many people at any one time currently are reporting income in a period, we know that about 500,000 people report income in a payment period. We also know that about 1.2 million Australians who are on income support payments will report income during the 12-month period. So for resourcing up Services Australia to enable this legislation to come into effect, we know now exactly how many people will be impacted by this legislation. It will be 550,000 in a particular period, and over the 12 months we will interface with 1.2 million.</para>
<para>We are very happy that we understand the resourcing requirements that we will need to assist Australians who currently receive income to be able to report that income as part of their reporting obligations for their fortnightly income support payments.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to go to the period where people are filling in their prefilled forms. That is one of the areas that came in very substantially during the Senate inquiry, and I know you're aware of that, but you've just said you don't know at the beginning of September how many people will be transferring into this new form. An issue raised was if the form is wrong compared to what they've got on their payslip, or however they know what they've been paid, that's where we'll have some very serious concerns about whether people change what's in there, how they get help. One of the groups that provided advice to the inquiry—which we touched on in our additional comments to the committee inquiry—was saying they'll have a 'little pop-up' and there'll be a phone number you can ring, because people are going to be very nervous. The point is that there may be a lot of people on 1 September or a whole lot of people through September that are transitioning. And if you don't know how many people are transitioning in that period of time, how do you know how much support you need? In fact, how can we be convinced that the forms will be there and that you will have the pop-up and a phone line? I want to come back, in a minute, to the question of how people can access support services.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are a number of responses to that. Firstly, as I said earlier, the prefilling will only occur as long as Services Australia have thoroughly tested the reporting channels and they are absolutely confident of the quality of the data that is being prefilled. I can give you that absolute commitment.</para>
<para>We know that 1.2 million Australians report having received income over a 12-month period. And we know that, in the period between 1 September 2020 and 30 June 2021, we will need to have provided assistance to 95 per cent of them, because that's the estimate of how many people over that 10-month period are going to transition. We will certainly make sure that there is a rump of resources available in September, as soon as we know that the prefill is working the way we want it to work. The prefill may not occur on 1 September; it will occur when we're satisfied that it's working properly. And, as soon as we're satisfied that it's working properly, we will then make sure that we will maximise the resources that are available at that time. We certainly took on board the commentary that came out of the committee that suggested that a little pop-up should come up on the screen, before you actually push the button to submit your form at the end of a pay period, that says, 'This form has been prefilled. Have you checked the data against your payroll slip? Are you comfortable that the data contained in here is truly reflective of your income for the pay period?' So people will have to actively push a button to say yes, they have checked and they understand what they're doing.</para>
<para>We also understand that there will be people who may seek to have more information the first time they do it. They may feel a level of uncertainty. Once again, we will make sure, when they go to submit that form, that it really clearly says, 'If you have any uncertainty about doing this for the first time or if you've got any concerns or questions, please contact this number.' In the first instance we will make sure that Services Australia is thoroughly resourced to make sure that, when people contact them, the phone lines are open and accessible and they don't have wait times. This is a transition period, we understand. It's probably not something, once people get used to it, that they're going to need to do in the future, but we clearly understand that the smoothness of the transition period, the adequacy of the information and the support that is provided to people are going to have a very big bearing on the successful initial operation of this particular new initiative.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for further articulating the resources that will be available. There are a couple of flow-on questions from that. How do you determine the system's readiness? I've heard you say clearly, 'If it's not ready on 1 September'—I take that on board and I think that's a really good clarification. But what's the process for saying, 'Yes, we do think it's ready'? Is there a consultative process? Will there be a final tick from a final test group or something like that? Secondly, in terms of assistance, will that phone line that we've just been talking about be a dedicated phone line just for this particular item?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In the sense of a new phone number, it won't be a new phone number because obviously we want people who contact Centrelink to have only the one phone number in their mind. However, two things will happen. One, obviously, is that all Centrelink phone line staff will be trained, informed and skilled up to deal with this as soon as it goes live, as a No. 1 priority. And, of course, when you contact Centrelink, the first thing that you will be asked is, 'Are you calling about this particular transition?' so that you don't have to go through a whole series of 'push 1, push 2' et cetera. But we wouldn't be seeking to use another phone number, because the confusion of having several Centrelink phone numbers is not always sensible. The customers will have access to all the services that they currently have with Centrelink, but all the staff that are in those services will obviously be appropriately trained and up to speed on all of the issues in relation to the transfer.</para>
<para>In terms of the specific actions around the consultation and the design and implementation that will be undertaken by Services Australia to assure ourselves that the Single Touch Payroll interface with our system is working, obviously they're operational decisions. We would be making sure that we worked with the recipients to test the system to make sure it was appropriate, and any of the issues that came out of it would be dealt with. So obviously we are going to test the system with real people before it goes live. The specifics of the operational component of it, of making sure that the information's coming through correctly, that it is easy to use and all that would be tested operationally inside the department in the first instance. We would then seek to make sure that the recipients had the opportunity to use it themselves before we went live.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm going to try and get this done as quickly as possible. That raises more issues for me. With the phone line, the waiting period for Centrelink is huge. There are different lines for different payments, so I don't see why you couldn't have a phone number that pops up with the form, so that they ring that number. People are going to be there with the form, wanting to fill in the form. So I'll ask again why we can't have a specific phone line that's dedicated to this particular process, given the difficulty and nervousness that people will have with this new process?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I take on board everything you are saying. The process that we need to undertake post the implementation of this legislation, when we move to the point where we interface with Single Touch Payroll, is still in the stages of consultation. There's still a lot of work that we will be doing with the ATO, with Services Australia and with the people that we are consulting with more generally who will be impacted by this. Much of what we do, in terms of the interface with the recipients and Social Services, whether it is by phone or online or in person, and how that actually works, will continue to be informed by this consultative process that we are currently undertaking. What I am saying is that much of the issue that you're asking me to commit to right now is operational and will be informed over the coming months as this is developed with the tax office. But rest assured that we hear clearly that people require the support to be able to transition through and that we have made available within Services Australia, and will continue to make available, adequate resources to address the issues as they are raised through the consultation process, bearing in mind the information that's come from your inquiry.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. I suppose that when I'm told to rest assured that Services Australia will be able to cope with this, I have to say that it's very difficult for me to rest assured on that, given the history that we've been going through with Centrelink, whether it be wait times, robodebt or the constant phone calls that we get in my office where we are constantly helping people negotiate and navigate the system. Hence my desire to make sure that we can get as much commitment as we can, through this process, that this will happen as smoothly as possible and that people will have instant access when they're nervously looking at a form; where, for example—this is off the top of my head—the employer says, 'I've paid them $1,500' and their pay slip says, 'No, we haven't; that's not what I've earned; I may have earned more or less. What do I do? I feel nervous because I've got all this other stuff happening in my head—the robodebt examples, the fact that I'm legally required to fill in this form properly—all those sorts of things.' People are going to be really nervous about it. We don't want this not to work.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>First of all, can I reassure you that we are already doing user testing with recipients in relation to both the changeover to reporting payments, as opposed to earnings, as well as testing how we can then subsequently interface with Single Touch Payroll. Clearly, for this to work, adequate resources need to be made available to recipients so that they can get access to the information that they need during that transition period so they feel comfortable.</para>
<para>The design of the form is currently underway and has taken into account the information that we were just discussing about making sure that there are pop-ups on the screen. So that people understand: the obligation still remains on the individual to provide the information. The individual can't get into trouble for providing wrong information; all it would mean is that the information they've provided was incorrect and would have to be corrected within a period of time—much as it is now when people under or overestimate what their earnings have been in a previous fortnight and then they find, when they actually get their pay packet, that it was different to what they had put on their form. So the obligation still remains with the individual to provide that information.</para>
<para>But I can assure you that the suite of communications, support and information that will be provided to recipients who earn income and who are on income support payments will be extensive but will be informed by the process of consultation and user testing that is currently being undertaken.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wanted to go back to the period of transition from the old system to the new one in July. The concern that was expressed during the inquiry, you would be aware, went to the double-counting issue and how we deal with that if that occurs—if people overreport or underreport—and whether the transition calculator would be available elsewhere and not just online? We know that there is a minority—I'll grant you that—of people who aren't reporting online or aren't digitally literate and don't have access to the internet necessarily. So where will that also be made available?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>First of all, even as it currently occurs, anybody who doesn't have access to the internet—and obviously wouldn't have access to the calculator—has access to Centrelink services or Services SA via how they would normally interact with Services SA now. So, if somebody has difficulty in making the calculation, they can go into a Services SA or a Centrelink centre and receive one-on-one assistance in dealing with that transition period when we get the fortnights or the pay periods to line up.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can we go back to what happens if people are double counted? What happens if people make mistakes during that transition period when they're going from the old system to the new one with wages received or earnings received?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Siewert, we clearly understand that that period of transition from 1 July is the critical touchpoint that we need to focus all of our attention on in making sure that we give people as much information as we possibly can so that they make the right decision. Understanding that there are circumstances, as there currently are now, where the information that's contained in the form may not be absolutely accurate, any errors that are made in declaring income will be handled in the usual way. They just need to be corrected at a later date or as soon as they become known to the recipient. Certainly we are absolutely alive to the situation where that is the absolute one critical point in the process of transitioning to this new, better way of reporting, obviously, because people are reporting actual payments received instead of estimating what they might be receiving. Clearly that is something we need to be very alive to, making sure we have all of the resources that we possibly can apply at that point. We will make sure that people who are on income support payments who are earning income over that period of time, or the period when they first choose to move across to this and actually report income, have every resource that they currently have available to them, with staff that are trained in understanding what this particular change means.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have some more questions on that, but I'm aware we need to keep moving and so I'll move my first amendment. I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 8882:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2 , page 2 (table item 1 ), omit the table item, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The whole of this Act</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if this Act receives the Royal Assent before 1 September 2020—1 September 2020;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if this Act receives the Royal Assent on or after 1 September 2020—the first day of the first calendar month that occurs after the end of the period of 2 months beginning on the day this Act receives the Royal Assent.</para></quote>
<para>I will be very brief. During the Senate inquiry it was raised by a number of stakeholders that they don't think the actual process is quite ready after the testing process—we have been through that—and also they are concerned about ensuring that people get the first transition. As I articulated earlier, there are two transitions. There is the transition on 1 July and then there's the start of the STP. What was recommended during the inquiry was that we delay the start of this. While everybody was in support of this in principle—we are all clear about that—stakeholders are concerned that mistakes will be made. So their recommendation was to delay the start. I've subsequently checked with stakeholders and, from some of them, there is still a very strong feeling that their members, the people they represent, won't be ready and the system isn't ready. So they have still maintained that this should be delayed by another quarter. That's why we seek to delay the start of the legislation to 1 September.</para>
<para>I have thought very long and hard about it. I understand the issues that the government has articulated in terms of how there's the potential for people to make more mistakes like robodebt, which I have some troubles sucking up given the problems we have now. The government wants people to learn and get used to using this new system. I think, then, if you look at the flip side, you have two new systems that people are going to have to learn doing it this way. If Single Touch Payroll is ready by the beginning of September and this comes in it'll be one transition period rather than two transition periods. On balance, we consider it is better to delay it by a quarter to enable the system to be much more rigorously tested before it starts.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I be really clear, Senator Siewert, about why we don't agree with your amendment. The changeover to the change of assessment reporting model that we have before us at the moment is a point in time. It will occur all at once in people's requirement or ability to report actual money earned as opposed to projected earnings. The Single Touch Payroll interface with this is something that will start at a point in time from September 2020 onwards and it will be an ongoing thing, depending on a number of factors, not the least of which is when we are absolutely comfortable the system's ready to operate and also when employers become involved in the system, which then reflects back on the employees. They are two completely different things. You can't just say by doing it once it will all happen at one time, because it won't. There will be one time when this comes into play, but there is not one time when the other one comes in.</para>
<para>So, as I've articulated to you outside of this chamber, we think that the longer period of time that we can give people to understand that they're now reporting actual money received before they start going to the new prefilled form is actually a good thing and will assist in the transition, allowing the recipients a level of comfort as they're moving through. So we fundamentally think the argument that there would be some benefit in delaying it is flawed.</para>
<para>We also would point out that, if people underestimate the amount of money that they are receiving, it does have a significant impact on the amount of overpayments that people receive and therefore the debts that they possibly can accrue. We know that about three per cent of the 550,000 people who report income every fortnight are likely to make an error, and most likely they will make an error in underestimating the amount of money that they receive. So we think that, if we are able sooner to give them the comfort of being able to report actual money received and to reduce that three per cent of the 550,000 people who will make an error in their assessments when they put their forms in, that is something that is good. We wouldn't like to delay the opportunity for them to have access to that beneficial change in how they're reporting.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DODSON</name>
    <name.id>SR5</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are a couple of questions, Minister, that I would like some answers to. Can you explain exactly what steps are going to be taken to consult with remote First Nations communities about the implementation of these changes? How will the government make sure First Nations peoples know about these changes? Are you using interpreters? Are you translating this material into a format that will be familiar for people to understand that? Can you tell me what you will do at Warburton?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much, Senator Dodson. I will take on notice exactly what we're intending to do at Warburton and get back to you; I don't actually have those details. But we are very sensitive to the fact that there are a number of cohorts in our population that are going to require both targeted and tailored assistance in providing them the information in relation to the change and also making sure that they have the support, particularly through that transition period, when they move from reporting as they currently do to reporting as we're asking them to do into the future. It's not just Indigenous Australians who are in remote areas; it could be culturally and linguistically diverse communities or people with low digital literacy. There are a number of Australians who will be affected by this change, and we need to make sure that we have specialist and targeted communications and services available to them: for example, making sure that our fact sheets are translated into appropriate languages—and I acknowledge the fact that there are a lot of first languages for Indigenous Australians—and making sure that the messaging is targeted by, for instance, using Indigenous radio, because I know that a lot of people in remote communities use digital radio or radio broadcasts as a way of getting their information.</para>
<para>We also understand that, in many communities, the best thing to do is to actually have remote servicing units go out to those communities and speak to them in person, one on one, about what those changes might mean. So we'd be using community engagement officers and making sure that we have financial service officers available to people but also making sure that we use the Indigenous support officers that exist within community to make sure that we are tailoring and targeting the information and assistance to transition. We understand that not every community is the same and that there will need to be a very tailored and targeted focus on particular communities.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DODSON</name>
    <name.id>SR5</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question of jobs is one that fascinates me. Given the comments that the minister's made and that I think you've made about the dignity of work, what will this bill do to bring jobs to the regional and remote communities in Western Australia, such as Balgo, Fitzroy Crossing, Halls Creek, Warburton and Meekatharra? What will it do to bring jobs into those sorts of places?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Dodson. You raise an issue that I know is very close to your heart. The purpose of this legislation is to simplify and improve the way that people who earn income and are also on working-age payments report into the social services system. It is a change to take the guesswork out of how people report income when they are also receiving social service working-age payments. That is clearly the purpose of this legislation—nothing more, nothing less.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DODSON</name>
    <name.id>SR5</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand that, Minister, but it's related to work, and that's the nexus that I'm interested in. I also have some questions specific to the transition matters and the estimations of income and so forth. As you know, in many of these places there are a lot of people who have turned their back on the social services schemes and simply don't have any income. They're a problem. I'm not sure whether this scheme is going to help those people. You talk about a cohort who are registered, but in these communities there is another cohort who aren't registered and are a problem or a difficulty or are suffering poverty. I'm not sure whether this does anything to relieve that. I'm sure it doesn't, given your previous statement.</para>
<para>I have a question. If a person is paid on a monthly basis but they work only one week in that month, will the money they earn be averaged forward over the fortnight or over the month? How will the secretary make a decision about the way income is averaged forward to make sure it is fair and reasonable to the social security recipient?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You raise a very important point, Senator Dodson, on why we are keen to make sure that the payment period, as defined by the legislation, leaves maximum flexibility. We understand that, whilst the majority of Australians are paid either weekly or fortnightly, there are situations where people get paid monthly or, alternatively, get paid at the end of a work period—for example, as a job lot once a contract has been finished. There will be situations where people are receiving an amount in a period that is reflective of money that has been earnt over other periods.</para>
<para>I will give a specific example. If a person works, as you say, for one week and their employer pays them monthly, their employment period would be a week and their income would be attributed evenly over a 14-day entitlement period. If, for instance, the funding they had received was for a period of a month, the recipient could then amend their form to make that one week's payment over that month period which they received that income. That is why we have been very clear about saying that we need to retain flexibility over the definition of 'a period' so, with examples like you referred to over a month, people can actually make sure that their forms reflect the period that they actually did the work in.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DODSON</name>
    <name.id>SR5</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think in an answer you gave to Senator Siewert you indicated that there would be some button pressed somewhere to indicate to the recipient to check their earnings. I didn't hear you say—and you may well have—and I didn't pick it up in the bill that there would be a human being within the service that actually checks the validity of the income prior to the button being pressed by the recipient. Can you clarify that?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The responsibility still remains with the recipient to validate and authorise the submission of the form. That still sits with them. They're in total control. There's no other being that comes in and tells them they are right or wrong. The responsibility remains with the individual.</para>
<para>In the second stage of this—when Single Touch Payroll interacts with this change of assessment model—the information that has been provided to the ATO by the employer will prefill the form. The individual then gets a pop-up, which I was discussing with Senator Siewert. When the recipient goes in to submit their fortnightly form, they will be asked to make sure that they are happy with the information contained in the form. They will be asked: does this reflect what is on your pay slip? Are you comfortable that the information that has been prefilled into this form is accurate, as far as you are aware? That then gives the opportunity to the recipient to look at it and say: 'There's been a mistake made here. My pay slip says that I earned this much. That's how much money went into my bank account.' They then have the capacity to go in and change that.</para>
<para>The responsibility still remains with the individual. Nobody's going to override that, because it is obviously the right of the individual to make that determination. However, if, when the person goes to do it, they're concerned—they see that $1,000 is written on the prefill and their pay slip says it should be $600—that's when we would suggest that they make contact, either by phone or by going into an agency, to seek a clarification. Obviously, at that point, they would have a discussion with an individual in Services Australia about the appropriate way for them to then report what they actually received. In most instances it would, possibly, be due to an error in the system.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DODSON</name>
    <name.id>SR5</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Coming back to an amendment that I think Senator Siewert moved on amendment sheet 8882, are you able to clarify that the change could restrict the ability of the secretary to average income over the period that would be beneficial to the social security recipient? For example, if a person were paid monthly but only worked in one week, would it prevent the secretary from averaging the income over just one fortnight or cause them to have it averaged across a whole month?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm not quite sure I clearly heard what you asked me and I don't want to mislead you with my response. But, if I'm correct in hearing it, the amendment that the Greens have put forward in relation to the meaning of 'employment' would limit the flexibility to apportion income for the benefit of the recipient, because it could only be apportioned over the period for which it was earned. The proposed amendment refers to income earned. That is what is problematic, as we are very clear about the reporting being what is paid and we're very clear that we don't want any confusion around the terminology that's used here—'earned' is not 'paid', necessarily. We want to be very clear that we're talking about money paid to an individual and the discretion of the secretary to be able to apportion the amount of money that a person has actually received over the appropriate period in which it has been earned. I hope that made sense.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DODSON</name>
    <name.id>SR5</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand the importance of flexibility in the situation, and no doubt my colleagues in the Greens will determine what that all meant! I have two more questions. One is in relation to resources. You mentioned that there would be ample resources to get all of this done. Can you give us an indication of the quantification of what that is? How much is being committed to the implementation and the transition for this to work in a way that can give us some comfort that we're not reverting to robodebt?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll be really clear: this legislation is about how people report. It's not an income compliance measure at all. It is about how people report and trying to improve the level of accuracy about how people report. A statistic, Senator Patrick, that's worth noting is at the moment we have close to $120 billion a year paid in payments, and the level of accuracy of reporting is about 95 per cent. And five per cent is a lot of money. What we're seeking to do by this is to increase the level of accuracy of reporting and, therefore, increase the level of accuracy of payments so that we make sure that people are receiving what they should receive.</para>
<para>In relation to the resources that are being committed to assist in the transition from reporting earnings to reporting payments, every person in Centrelink or Services Australia—sorry, I should be clear; it's all frontline personnel—who interfaces with the constituents or the recipients will be trained to understand what this change actually means, what needs to occur, what the recipient must do, and assist them as they would assist them in any other inquiry to Services Australia to make the changes necessary to report payment.</para>
<para>In addition to that, Services Australia have an additional $30 million for specific, targeted facilitation and consultation and are particularly focused, in many instances, on those cohorts of people that may require additional assistance because of remoteness, language barriers et cetera.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DODSON</name>
    <name.id>SR5</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I did indicate that I had one more question, Minister. There are probably millions of others, but I'll try and be as efficient as Senator Siewert was with her questioning. The last question is really in relation—you said you tested this. Was any of that testing in remote or regional locations and, if so, what lessons were learnt that may be adapted in the implementation process?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The user testing that's occurred so far—I couldn't specifically tell you where it's occurred. But I can tell you that some of the user-experience testing over the coming months, as we get ready for the change, will be undertaken in all of the diverse communities that we interface with, which will include rural and remote communities.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DODSON</name>
    <name.id>SR5</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We won't be supporting the amendment. While we understand the reasons for this amendment, it is up to the government to make sure that they invest in getting the transition right. All that the minister said seems to indicate that that's the intention. The outcome, obviously, will be something else. There's still more than four months until the changes occur, and if the government gets out and consults, in the coming days and weeks, it's possible to get it right. Whether or not there is a delay in the commencement of the provisions, there is no certainty the government won't stuff it up in the implementation, as they've done so often before.</para>
<para>The government is on notice by Labor, and by others, no doubt. They have the resources to get it right. The minister's given an indication of that. The question is not if they have the time; it's if they have the will, the will to do something for people who are completely dependent on the systems here. For this reason, Labor will not be supporting the amendment.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>e4t</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 8882 be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to move on to the issue around the review of the legislation. I will reflect that I'm disappointed we didn't delay it because I don't think, with the best will in the world in fact, that you can ensure that this is going to rollout as the government foresees that it will. That's why stakeholders expressed to us that they thought it should be delayed. I am disappointed. It also makes the need for review even more essential. While I did hear the government say that they're going to review this, I think, and the Greens believe, that the matter needs to actually be in the legislation itself. That's why we've circulated an amendment, to ensure that the implementation of this process—because it is new. We all know it's important, but we want to make sure that it's right, that it's working properly, that people aren't disenfranchised and that it hasn't adversely hurt people. We need to have the review of the legislation. It needs to be public. It needs to be independent. It needs to start as soon as practical after the 12 months of operation of the act.</para>
<para>I heard what the minister said about time limit. The review we're proposing is six months, and it needs to report and needs to be tabled in parliament. We believe this is the best way of ensuring that the review is undertaken and that it's independent.</para>
<para>I move Greens amendment (2) on sheet 8882:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Page 2 (after line 14), after clause 3, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 Public and independent review of this Act</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The review must start as soon as practicable after the end of 12 months after this Act commences.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months of the commencement of the review.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The persons who conduct the review must consult:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) income support recipients impacted by the amendments made by this Act; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any stakeholders considered relevant by the persons who conduct the review.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The review must provide for public submissions as part of the review.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) In this section, <inline font-style="italic">Minister</inline> means the Minister administering the <inline font-style="italic">Social Security Act 1991</inline> .</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[public and independent review of amendments]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 1, item 37, page 8 (after line 32), after subsection 1073A(6), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) To avoid doubt, in this section, <inline font-style="italic">employment period</inline> means the period of time over which the employment income was earned.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government accepted the recommendation of the committee report to review the implementation. We've given an undertaking—and I've given an undertaking both in my response to that report and here in this chamber—that we, as the government, give a commitment that we will commence a report and review within 12 months, and that review will be tabled in this place.</para>
<para>It is not common practice to embed statutory times for reviews within the primary legislation. We would also point out that setting a hard date for the commencement of the review is particularly restrictive given that this particular piece of legislation, and its rollout, is contingent on another agency and another piece of activity in the rollout of the Single Touch Payroll. Until we actually see the full level of take-up from employers on 1 July 2021—we would be statutorily required to undertake a review at a particular time and your six-month time frame would prohibit the accuracy and the wholeness of that review. What I'd say to you, Senator Siewert, is you have absolutely got the commitment of the government. I made the statement here and in other places that we would commence the review within 12 months.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DODSON</name>
    <name.id>SR5</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Greens' amendment is pretty similar to the one we've got on the notice sheet so we'll be supporting the Greens. The changes in this bill will impact 150,000 people a fortnight. It's critical that they work fairly and efficiently. This amendment will require an independent review, and I'm glad the minister's agreeing to that in this amendment, that consults experts and social security recipients. It's been requested by the stakeholders and it's a reasonable request. That comes through in the Senate inquiry. Indeed, government senators have recommended a 12-month review in this report into the bill. I know the minister has indicated that the government will conduct a review, and I'm glad that she's now agreed to this being an independent one. I'm glad that we've found some common ground. But let me say that this trade-off is that the security must be offered, and there's got to be an ironclad commitment to the time frame and to the independence of the review.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm casting no aspersions on this minister, but, I've been in this place for quite a significant period of time now and reviews that have been committed to in other areas have, in fact, not been delivered, or have certainly not been delivered in a timely manner. I didn't hear the minister say that the proposed review that the government is undertaking will be independent. I apologise if the minister did say that, but I didn't hear it.</para>
<para>I didn't hear a commitment to the other requirements that we have in this amendment—for example, that the income report recipients must be consulted and that the government would report in a timely manner. There's no time frame for when it would start or when it would report. The fact is, this legislation will have been working for 12 months before the review. The review will start as soon as practical after 12 months of operation, so it will, in fact, cover people who are taking part in and using the Single Touch Payroll system and those that aren't. The fact is that people may be adversely affected by this for 12 months, so I don't accept that we should leave it even longer. It's absolutely imperative, given the nature of these changes, that we ascertain whether they're working. This amendment makes it a requirement that it happens. Quite frankly, I don't care if it's setting a precedent. I know we don't usually embed it in primary legislation, but these are changes that have significant ramifications, hopefully positive, for income support recipients, but we don't know. We need to find out if it is working, and, if it isn't working, we need to make those changes as soon as we can, to make sure it is delivering for all those income support recipients who will be required to use this system.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Siewert and Senator Dodson, I take no issue in your desire for a fulsome, wholesome review of the system. I simply say to you that we will do that within 12 months of the commencement, and that the review will be tabled in this place. For flexibility, I am merely seeking, given the interface with the Single Touch Payroll, that we commence the review at the most appropriate time. We currently cannot give you that time, but I will absolutely commit that it will be within 12 months of the commencement of this particular bill, should we be successful in passing it.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>e4t</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that Greens amendment No. 2 on sheet 8882 be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [12:47]<br />(The Temporary Chair—Senator Fierravanti-Wells)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>32</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Abetz, E</name>
                  <name>Antic, A</name>
                  <name>Askew, W</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A J</name>
                  <name>Brockman, S</name>
                  <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                  <name>Cash, MC</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R</name>
                  <name>Davey, P (teller)</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                  <name>Fierravanti-Wells, C</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P</name>
                  <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H</name>
                  <name>Hume, J</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A</name>
                  <name>McMahon, S</name>
                  <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P</name>
                  <name>Smith, DA</name>
                  <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                  <name>Van, D</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>32</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, CL</name>
                  <name>Brown, CL</name>
                  <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R</name>
                  <name>Di Natale, R</name>
                  <name>Dodson, P</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                  <name>Green, N</name>
                  <name>Griff, S</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                  <name>Kitching, K</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M</name>
                  <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D</name>
                  <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                  <name>Polley, H</name>
                  <name>Pratt, LC</name>
                  <name>Rice, J</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A</name>
                  <name>Siewert, R</name>
                  <name>Smith, M</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, AE (teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J</name>
                  <name>Waters, LJ</name>
                  <name>Watt, M</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, PS</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>6</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Birmingham, SJ</name>
                  <name>Gallacher, AM</name>
                  <name>Cormann, M</name>
                  <name>Wong, P</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                  <name>Payne, MA</name>
                  <name>Keneally, KK</name>
                  <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J</name>
                  <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                  <name>Lines, </name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.<br />Progress reported.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</title>
        <page.no>29</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Queensland: 2032 Summer Olympics Bid</title>
          <page.no>29</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Queensland's bid for the 2032 Summer Olympic Games presents a major opportunity. It is something the whole state could benefit from—metropolitan, regional and rural Queensland alike. We could have clay-target shooting in Roma and equestrian events on the Downs. It would not be the 2032 Summer Olympic Games in Brisbane, it would be the 2032 Summer Olympic Games in Queensland. We should not forget what the 2000 Summer Olympic Games in Sydney actually did for Queensland. Even across the border, Queensland benefited from tens of millions of dollars spent by visiting teams. A government report found that 179 teams, comprising over 2,500 athletes from 48 countries, trained in Queensland, in places like Cairns, Bundy, Rocky, Toowoomba, the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast, to name but a few. The Summer Olympic Games will provide enormous opportunities for Queensland and Queenslanders.</para>
<para>Queensland is home to some of the most spectacular beaches in the world. We are world famous in this regard. We are also home to Surf Life Saving Queensland, one of the largest volunteer based community service organisations in Australia, with some 58 affiliated clubs in Queensland. From humble beginnings when the first recorded rescue at a Queensland beach was made in 1909, Surf Life Saving Queensland now services around 30,000 members. Surf Life Saving Queensland includes supporters' clubs and a range of programs that involve more than 460,000 participants. Surf Life Saving Queensland is the bedrock of Queensland's coastal community. Madam Acting Deputy President, our bid for the Olympic Games, I believe, should include surf-lifesaving. Earlier this month, I visited the Broadbeach Surf Life Saving Club, where I met with the president of Surf Life Saving Queensland, Mr Mark Fife OAM, to discuss the proposal. He is very supportive. It shouldn't be called ironman or ironwoman but oceanman and oceanwoman. It would include swim, ski and board, with runs between each leg. Of course, the distances between each leg would depend on the conditions of the surf on the day. Just as the triathlon made its debut at the 2000 Summer Olympic Games in Sydney, oceanman and oceanwoman could be demonstrated on the Gold Coast at the 2032 Summer Olympic Games.</para>
<para>The International Life Saving Federation already exists. It organises the biannual Lifesaving World Championships, which brings together around 4,000 to 5,000 competitors and officials from around the world. Last year, Gold Coast Mayor Tom Tate, International Life Saving Federation president Graham Ford and Surf Life Saving Queensland's Chris Beavis signed an agreement to hold the 2024 Lifesaving World Championships on the Gold Coast—a brilliant, brilliant project.</para>
<para>If Queensland can do it in 2024, we'll be able to do it again as part of the 2032 Summer Olympic Games. Not only do I believe that this initiative will strengthen the bid, I believe it also will strengthen the likelihood of Queensland getting the bid. I'll be writing to the federal Minister for Youth and Sport, Senator Colbeck, and the state shadow minister for sport, John-Paul Langbroek, seeking their support for oceanman and oceanwoman to be part of the 2032 Summer Olympic Games.</para>
<para>In closing I'd like to thank the federal government for supporting the 2032 Summer Olympic Games bid. I know that my Sunshine Coast colleague the member for Fairfax, Ted O'Brien, has been working very hard, as well as the former Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Graham Quirk, and many others, to make this happen. Let's showcase Queensland's beautiful beaches, let's celebrate the great work that our bronzed Aussie lifesavers do to save lives, and let's include oceanman and oceanwoman in the Olympic Games.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Coronavirus</title>
          <page.no>30</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the impact of the coronavirus in regional Queensland, particularly on the tourism sector and the thousands of local jobs supported directly and indirectly by tourism. The coronavirus outbreak and Chinese travel ban have impacted visitation numbers to North Queensland significantly and they have delivered a serious economic blow to the region. Chinese tourists are so important to the North Queensland economy and to lose them at this time comes at an economic cost. We know that many other industries have also been affected, including our seafood and education industries.</para>
<para>Tourism is vital to the North Queensland economy. It directly supports more than 20,000 jobs or close to one-fifth of all employment in the region. Of the 849,000 international visitors to tropical North Queensland last year, more than 200,000 were Chinese tourists. We have seen tens of thousands of booking cancellations, millions of dollars ripped from the local economy and a worst-case scenario of up to 1,800 local jobs at risk in tropical North Queensland alone. Today, Virgin Australia announced that they will withdraw their Tiger flights from Sydney to Cairns from 27 April 2020. Last week, Qantas put a temporary stop on the Jetstar Cairns-to-Japan route as well. TTNQ has estimated that, for every month the travel ban remains in place, my home of Far North Queensland will lose $25 million.</para>
<para>Labor recognise that the government's travel ban is based on medical advice, and we support those measures to protect Australians. We appreciate the measures that have been taken and the advice on those measures that has been provided by the Chief Medical Officer. Everyone now acknowledges the economic impact these travel bans are having on the national economy, and Labor stand ready to be as constructive as possible in proposing ways to deal with the economic fallout from this substantial economic challenge.</para>
<para>However, what we are not seeing is a plan in place to ensure that local jobs and industries remain strong and resilient and are ready to recover on day one of the ban being lifted. What we are not seeing is an acknowledgement that people will lose their jobs and that businesses are suffering from the uncertainty of this situation. Australian businesses affected by this ban aren't asking for much, but what they do want to know is that they are being listened to. Sometimes leadership in a crisis means showing up and listening to locals, and that is not what we are getting from the federal government.</para>
<para>The Queensland Labor government not only have turned up in North Queensland but have put practical support on the table. They have delivered $3.8 million to support domestic and international marketing campaigns. They've also issued $27 million in stimulus packages for the tourism and fishing industries, with fees waived. And, earlier this week, Cairns Airport even put half a million dollars on the table to support TTNQ's marketing efforts. We know that business and local and state governments are united in their calls for action. They've turned up to public meetings, they are on the ground and they are listening. Federal Labor is listening. Just last Friday, I joined Labor's shadow Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, in Cairns to speak directly to businesses affected by the coronavirus and ongoing bushfires. It was fantastic to have him come up and visit and to hear from tourism operators firsthand. This also came after I launched a regional tourism jobs campaign to encourage more people to spend their holidays in beautiful North Queensland.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, North Queensland is yet to hear anything close to a plan from this Liberal-National government. Twelve days ago, I called on the Prime Minister to visit the region and speak to businesses and people affected by the crisis directly. The <inline font-style="italic">Cairns Post</inline> front page on Valentine's Day was a letter to the PM. It said: 'Dear PM, We need your help.' Yet North Queensland is left wondering, 'Where the bloody hell are you, Scott Morrison?' It speaks volumes that the local member, Warren Entsch, last week told reporters that federal ministers should stay away from Cairns. He told them not to come—not to come and listen to locals about their concerns. Clearly, Mr Entsch knows, as well as anyone, that this is a government that do not care, that do not have a plan and that do not show up when people need them.</para>
<para>Following the Shadow Treasurer's visit to Cairns, the member for Leichhardt, Warren Entsch, told reporters:</para>
<quote><para class="block">There is another $25 million, additional money, that will be coming out very shortly, possibly as early as tomorrow. This will be specifically going to Tourism Australia for Queensland, and to be able to look at markets. We don't know what's happening here, but we are in the position where, whatever is needed to do it, the money will be rolled out.</para></quote>
<para>That's what Mr Entsch said in Cairns to the people of Cairns, who are struggling to understand where they go to from here. But, given that, yesterday, the Prime Minister stopped short of providing that funding and ruled out any compensation for sectors like education and tourism affected by coronavirus, it is a concern that members of the community in Cairns are being led astray by Mr Entsch. Clearly, the member for Leichhardt is saying one thing to news cameras in Far North Queensland and another thing in Canberra. Mr Entsch should come clean with local businesses about the comments that he made last Friday.</para>
<para>At the very least, the government should come up with a plan for tourism operators badly affected by this crisis. The state government are doing what they can, council is doing what it can, and businesses are also doing whatever they can to prepare and to be ready for that day one plan. But it's the federal government which is the missing piece of this puzzle.</para>
<para>I do want to make one thing very clear—and this has been a major concern for businesses in regional Queensland. The government are out there saying that, because of their budget, Australia is able to address a crisis like coronavirus. But, importantly, they are also saying that the tourism sector will recover because domestic travel will apparently increase. This government desperately wants Australians to forget that the economy was already floundering and wages had been stagnant before the bushfires hit or anyone had heard of coronavirus. Last year we saw shopfronts closing in streets all across regional Queensland, which tells a very different story from that the government is telling the people of Australia. We've seen full-time workers struggling to pay their bills because their wages are not keeping up with the cost of living; yet we're expected to believe that they will have enough money for a domestic holiday this year.</para>
<para>Since Scott Morrison began Prime Minister, economic growth has almost halved, wages have remained stagnant, business investment has been weak and public and household debt have been at record highs. Because of the government's failures to steer the economy in the right direction, they are underprepared to deal with crises such as bushfires and coronavirus.</para>
<para>Sadly, regional areas like North Queensland have left on their own in a time of crisis. The government's inaction has gone on for too long, and it's time that the Prime Minister and Mr Entsch came to the table and did their jobs. Businesses and workers aren't asking for much. They want support, they want advice and they want a plan to know that, on day one, when the bans are lifted, they'll be well placed to recover as quickly as possible from this crisis. During times of crisis, it is normally a given to expect that governments will show up—that that is the very least that they can do. But we know, Cairns knows, that, in times of crisis, the Prime Minister doesn't show up where he's needed the most.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Coal Industry: Otis Group</title>
          <page.no>31</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A couple of weeks ago, at the end of the last sitting fortnight, a group of pro-coal Labor MPs outed themselves with a mock gotcha set-up that didn't fool too many political insiders. The ringleaders of the so-called Otis group seemed pretty comfortable with the message getting out there. Here, in 2020, in the face of a climate emergency, there's an organised group in the federal parliamentary ALP that is unashamedly pro-coal. There has been little, if any, denying or recanting by those named in the story—from which I can only assume that the story that was run by Peter van Onselen was pretty accurate.</para>
<para>What I want to talk about today is: just who is the Otis group? A number of members of the Otis group do represent coalmining electorates—chief among them being the member for Hunter. I might disagree—in fact, I do—with their political response to the structural decline of thermal coal and counsel them against selling false hope to their electorates, but I can see their logic—flawed though it may be. But these Labor members and senators, who by sheer geography can be linked to coal, don't of themselves explain the Otis group. What is perhaps most curious about the Otis group is the prominence of members and senators aligned to the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association—the 'Shoppies'. Let's go through the list. Senator Ciccone is a Shoppie; Senator Polley, a Shoppie; Senator Kitching, well, perhaps an honorary Shoppie by virtue of factional prowess; and of course Senator Farrell is probably the senior Shoppie in this parliament. From the House: Mr Mulino, a Shoppie; Mr Champion, a Shoppie; Ms Rishworth, a Shoppie; Mr Gosling, a Shoppie; and Anthony Burke, a so-called Mod, which is a new factional grouping Guy Rundle has described as 'quantum Shoppies, existing in two factional states simultaneously'.</para>
<para>By my count, that's nearly half of the pro-coal group of ALP parliamentarians who are Shoppies. A number of these Shoppies come from places like South Australia, the Northern Territory and my home state of Tasmania, where the coal industry is either quite small or non-existent. How very, very curious—not from coalmining unions, not from coalmining states but with the numbers in a pro-coal faction. The Otis group could easily be known as the new National Civic Council. What on earth are these Labor members, who've found themselves in the parliament because of their affiliation with a union that represents retail workers, doing spruiking for coal?</para>
<para>I've spoken previously on the political-industrial complex that is the SDA—how consistently they've acted as a handbrake on progressive politics within not only the Australian Labor Party but, by extension, our country itself. As the keepers of the flame for the religious extremism of Bob Santamaria, it's been the Shoppies who have so often and for so long held Labor back on social issues. Witness the final vote on the marriage equality bill in this parliament, on the back of a clear result of a nationwide plebiscite less than three years ago and after railroading Labor national conference after national conference on the issue. There, standing against progress, standing alongside prejudice, were a good number of Shoppies, voting no to marriage equality—parliamentarians aligned with a union that's been so close to the corporates that the Fair Work Commission found that they'd struck an agreement that left 500,000 Coles workers worse off than if there'd been no agreement at all. Senator Abetz once described Joe de Bruyn, the National President of the SDA, as:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… a role model of trade union officialdom. He is the type of official that gives trade unionism a good name.</para></quote>
<para>Well, I'm here to tell you that if you're a trade union official and you've got Senator Eric Abetz's endorsement, you are in a whole lot of trouble!</para>
<para>But I've got to ask those members and senators who are Shoppies: of what benefit is hugging coal to the hundreds and thousands of people, many of them kids, who are members of the SDA and who gave the SDA the power to put those very members and senators here into the parliament? In other words, exactly what is the connection between retail and coal? I just can't see it.</para>
<para>What I do see is a malignancy within the factional system upon which the modern Australian Labor Party is built. Not content with having used their factional power to suppress social progress and to protect the dominance of the big corporate retail sector in this country, the Shoppies are now using their factional power to put a handbrake on climate action. What I see is that, as a bloc, the Shoppies are signalling to the coal barons that they are their friends in this place—that they are Senator Canavan's and Mr Joyce's equivalents inside the Australian Labor Party. What I see is not members and senators guided by some deeper philosophy heading for the light on the hill but simply a power base that is roving around looking for the next industry group to leverage off. What I see in the Otis group is—yet again to the detriment of this country—a demonstration that, for the Shoppies, it's all about the numbers.</para>
<para>I also want to turn to another matter: Minister Dutton's comments yesterday about terrorism. It's worth giving those comments some context. Both Minister Dutton and his government have pursued a racist agenda which has given strength and comfort to Neo-Nazis and Nazis in this country. This is the minister in charge of Australia's racist and punitive offshore detention system—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Seselja</name>
    <name.id>HZE</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: the senator is making a reflection on members of the other place. I'm not going to repeat it. He should withdraw. He reflected on Peter Dutton in an adverse way. It is clearly against the standing orders. He should withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKim, on reflection are you prepared to withdraw your comments?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If I reflected personally on the minister, I withdraw. But what I will say is this: this government and the Liberal-National Party have pursued a racist agenda which has given strength and comfort to Neo-Nazis and Nazis in this country. They have run a racist and punitive offshore detention system, a deliberately cruel and torturous regime that has killed and damaged so many—</para>
<para class="italic">Senator McGrath interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McGrath, can I remind you that under the standing orders interjections across the chamber are disorderly. Whether you agree or disagree with Senator McKim's contribution, he must be heard in silence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The government and the LNP have run a racist and punitive offshore detention system, a deliberately cruel and torturous regime that has killed and deliberately harmed countless people. But none of those people who were killed and harmed have got white skin.</para>
<para class="italic">Senator McGrath interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They've all got black or brown skin, Senator McGrath. You belong to a racist party.</para>
<para class="italic">Senator McGrath interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKim and Senator McGrath: when I call the chamber to order, I expect you to respect the chair. Those sorts of contributions—there's other places and other times to have your debates. It is inappropriate to be screaming across the chamber at each other. Senator McKim has the right to be heard in silence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a government that has been deporting First Nations people from their own country, and continues this very day to lawfully detain some First Nations people in immigration detention centres in Australia. We have seen Minister Dutton conducting a dishonest scare campaign against African Australians, claiming that people were too scared to go out to dinner in Melbourne in the face of so-called Sudanese gangs, even when Victoria Police were publicly saying that there are no Sudanese gangs in Melbourne. This is a minister that boycotted the apology to the Stolen Generation. This is a minister who continually and consistently attempts to undermine the rule of law by increasing his capricious powers as minister at the expense of those of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This is a minister who shares a party room with Mr Christensen, who went on a Neo-Nazi podcast and proudly addressed a Reclaim Australia rally. This is a minister who serves under a Prime Minister who told his shadow cabinet colleagues in 2011 that they should demonise Muslims for political gain. Let's remind ourselves that it is not two years since Neo-Nazis tried to take over an entire branch of the National Party in New South Wales. The LNP is riddled with right-wing extremists, and they give comfort and succour to Nazis and Neo-Nazis in this country. Minister Dutton's false equivalence—</para>
<para class="italic">Senator McGrath interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McGrath: for the third time, I'm going to remind you of the standing orders. The interjections are disorderly. I have asked you to respect the right of the senator who has the call to make his contribution and be heard in silence. If you can't do that, perhaps you may want to leave the chamber.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We need to remind ourselves it's not two years since Neo-Nazis tried to take over an entire branch of the National Party in New South Wales. The Liberal and National parties in this country are riddled with right-wing extremists, some of whom sit in this place and the other place in this parliament, and they give comfort and succour to Nazis and Neo-Nazis in this country.</para>
<para>Minister Dutton's false equivalence and equivocation around the very real threat of right-wing terror cannot hide his shameful record or the shameful record of the party that he represents in this parliament.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I remind senators in the chamber that each senator deserves to have the opportunity to make their contribution in silence. Disorderly conduct won't be appreciated by the chair, and I don't want to remind you, Senator McGrath, again. Thank you, Senator Van.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator VAN</name>
    <name.id>283601</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The opposition leader's recent flutter at climate change this past week is the ALP's weakest attempt yet to insert itself into a debate that has left Labor lost in space. Let me be clear: setting targets is important. Setting ambitious targets may be noble, but setting up arbitrary targets without a clue on how to achieve them is complete folly.</para>
<para>In December 2015 the countries of the world met in Paris and agreed to fix emissions reduction targets in a coordinated global effort to ward off catastrophic climate change. The Paris agreement was hailed as a major breakthrough, with signatory countries signing off on what they felt they could legitimately do. This was a rare act of global agreement done in a spirit of cooperation. It should be noted that signatories still have over 10 years to go to reach their self-defined targets.</para>
<para>Some countries, such as Australia, will meet their targets early, while others may not meet theirs at all. Those that meet them early may elect to reset their targets or just continue the policy settings adopted such that reductions will continue to accrue. The expectation is that signatory countries will meet their targets, though there is no guarantee they all will. If all or most meet their targets as agreed, we should keep warming to below two degrees. The efforts cannot and should not stop there, yet there is currently no international framework to address what happens post-2030.</para>
<para>There is a need to consider new policy settings that address continued emissions reduction and carbon abatement beyond 2030. The ambition of nations at COP26, in Glasgow later this year, should be to assess what signatories to Paris have achieved to date and to negotiate further reductions if countries are looking likely to beat their current targets. The challenge for Glasgow is that the renewable technologies required to drive further reductions, in the most part, do not exist yet or, at best, are nascent. To reach the levels of emissions that some are preaching for are all but impossible, unless technologies are used that allow us to do the impossible.</para>
<para>The key difficulty in continuing to cut emissions post-2030 is that by then all the easy gains will have been taken. Energy generation, one of the largest contributors to emissions, will have reached peak renewable in most countries in the near term. There will be some legacy coal-fire generation that should only come offline at the end of its productive life. Sadly, for the most part, a glut of low-cost renewable power will have made coal generation economically unviable in many places. However, this will only happen if other means of providing firm power are found. That is policy challenge No. 1: getting an energy mix that is at once reliable, cheap and with low or no emissions.</para>
<para>As you would have seen from our announcements on Snowy Hydro 2.0, pumped hydro is the ideal use of excess cheap, intermittent power to provide replacement firmness, but there are probably not sufficient geographically suitable sites to build enough hydro to service all jurisdictions. Batteries may provide some of the solution at the micro level, but the cost and efficiency must improve and end-of-life issues must be addressed. They are unlikely to ever provide what is known as grid-scale firming.</para>
<para>Natural gas is the logical fuel to create firming services that will allow wind and solar to make their contribution. However, some state governments, like the one in my home state of Victoria, are strangling the supply of gas. Until the economy-killing gas moratoriums are abandoned, the potential for gas to substantially lower emissions is effectively stillborn. These state-killing moratoria must be lifted immediately.</para>
<para>Looking at future technologies, hydrogen is often spoken about as a solution here. It may well be, but current projections are that the year will be at least 2030 before we even see any hydrogen coming into the market. Hydrogen fuel capability for either energy or transport is at least a decade away, let alone being commercially viable. The key logistical challenge will be the distribution of hydrogen as a fuel, which could possibly mean that, while technology to use hydrogen will be available by 2030, the infrastructure to enable it could take a further 10 years.</para>
<para>Australia is leading the way with its emissions reductions with the achievement of beating our Kyoto targets by 411 million tonnes. That's 80 per cent of a year's emissions. We've done this way ahead of track. Not many other nations can claim that. As a nation, we will be in a much better position to look at further reductions than almost all Paris signatories—that is, actual reductions, not ambit claims.</para>
<para>There is only one feasible way to guarantee greater reductions in Australia's emissions, and that is by using a proven technology, like many of our peer countries are currently using, which is nuclear power. If we want to be serious about reducing emissions, nuclear energy needs to be in the energy mix. The Greens' refrain is that it isn't safe, clean, timely, economic or practical. Closer examination of these shows this refrain is simply histrionics.</para>
<para>It's safe. Nuclear kills far fewer people than solar or wind, and these numbers are easily found. Gen III+ and Gen IV small modular reactors—SMRs—are safe, especially when sited in geologically stable regions, like much of Australia. Obviously, nuclear produces zero carbon from production. After all, this is what seems to be the point of Labor's 2050 goal. Spent fuel can be managed safely within modern technology and good planning, so fearmongering about waste is pointless.</para>
<para>It could also be timely. The technology required to produce nuclear energy is existing technology. That means we can purchase reactor technology that has been proven to work elsewhere. Yes, we still need to clear the appropriate regulatory hurdles, and those will still need to be set. We need to consult widely with Australians and make sure that they come on this journey with us, and then reactors need to be built. But this can be done in a timely manner.</para>
<para>The economics are very, very interesting. Given that current nuclear technologies are small modular reactors, they are cheaper and faster to build, have long life spans and have high output, so the economics of nuclear power stacks up over whole of life.</para>
<para>Policymakers need to continue the good work done so far in reaching our 2030 targets. There is no other way for Australia to achieve larger emissions reductions in the foreseeable future other than through nuclear energy. I challenge all those in this place: you cannot claim to be passionate about our planet and about reducing emissions without looking at nuclear energy as a power source. It's not possible. You cannot wish emissions away. That is just a dream. It's a pipedream that people use as a political stunt, particularly in this place, as we saw just before. To do anything, you must take practical, meaningful actions, and that leads us to nuclear power. We need to foster the innovation, the skills and the capability within this nation, and our universities are well placed to do that. That allows us to tackle the spectre of the over-the-radar emissions, as I call them—those post-2030. That's where we need to get to next—not 2050 but 2030.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Holden</title>
          <page.no>35</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator KIM CARR</name>
    <name.id>AW5</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>General Motors' announcement that it will be winding down its business is an inevitable result of this government's actions. Tony Abbott, Joe Hockey and Warren Truss goaded Holden to shut down its auto manufacturing in 2013, and last week General Motors decided that, without the business generated by local manufacturing, its other activities in Australia were not sustainable. That includes the world-class engineering and design centre at Fishermans Bend in Victoria. While the service centres and HSV will be maintained, the 185 Holden dealerships are now in the process of being transformed. They are, of course, especially important in country towns, where they are major local employers. They help maintain the skills base of the economy through the apprenticeships they provide. So, after 160 years, the iconic Holden brand will disappear from the new car market.</para>
<para>The tragedy is that none of this was inevitable. It was a direct result of a political decision by a government that has never understood the importance of manufacturing to the economy or the vital part that the automotive industry played within the wider manufacturing sector within this country. Other industries and other sectors have long recognised that the auto industry was the great driver of private sector R&D, of skills formation and of capacity building in this country. This great repository of skills and industrial capabilities went across all other sectors in manufacturing. Of course, nothing has yet emerged to take its place, and this government's inaction and lack of anything resembling a coherent industry policy suggests that nothing is likely to.</para>
<para>The government's only response to the end of Holden has been a political one. It's sought to dodge blame for the havoc that it has caused, by blaming Holden, continuing a policy of consistent hostility and denigration of the automotive industry and particularly of Holden. Just think about this for a moment. When the Abbott government came to power, the contract that General Motors-Holden had for armour plated vehicles, for instance, was taken away from that company and given to BMW. When the company sought to get special national registration, which it can under the ATS Act, they couldn't even get an appointment with Minister Cash. When they put $120 million into R&D—without any government support, I might add—and put another 150 people on the payroll just last year, they couldn't, of course, get any support from this government. They couldn't even get on the list of cars to replace Comcar in this country, despite the investment they were making in R&D. But what has the Prime Minister chosen to do? Go on the attack and blame Holden for what has happened.</para>
<para>Mr Morrison, of course, had a seat in the cabinet room when Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey were goading General Motors to leave. He shares responsibility for that disaster, and he now seeks to blame Holden for what's going on He has deliberately misrepresented the assistance that's been provided to the automotive industry. It's a simple proposition here. He says that the company received $2 billion in taxpayers' money. He never explains that, for every dollar put to General Motors through various programs, $19 was put back into the economy. He doesn't explain the mechanism by which that occurred, where there were more taxes paid back into the economy than there was assistance provided to General Motors. Even in the period of economic crisis around the GFC, when the Australian dollar was at a record high, the Australian automotive industry was expanding in this country when it was retreating in most other parts of the world.</para>
<para>We saw this government dismiss, with tremendous and tragic consequences, the enormous contribution that the automotive industry paid to this country. In an average year General Motors' revenue was $6.1 billion, and it received something like $286 million in profit. It spent just under $2 billion on vehicle components. It provided assistance to Australian businesses throughout that process. It directly generated other manufacturing activity and boosted the skills of the economy. It spent $564 million on wages, wages that were spent in local businesses. Also $130 million was paid to the federal government on personal income tax on those employees' wages; $100 million was spent in corporate tax; $55 million was spent on import duties; $300 million was spent on capital investment; and $200 million was spent on R&D and engineering design. For every dollar put in by the taxpayers, $19 was put back into the economy. On a per capita basis, we were contributing about $17.50—less than the price of a footy ticket—to build an industry of global standards, providing employment right across the country, providing enormous contributions throughout manufacturing and providing enormous contributions in terms of R&D. By international standards, our support was extraordinarily modest.</para>
<para>This government, of course, sought to blame the company, because it provided very little notice. They provided notice entirely consistent with their obligations in the terms of their reporting requirements to the stock exchange. There were international executives on tap in this country to provide it. I received calls from their very, very senior executives to discuss this.</para>
<para>This government's big problem is that it has no real connections with industry. It has no understanding of industry. It has no real relationships with Australian industry. Little does it surprise me that they can be put in this situation, because they can't read the signs of what's actually going on within the Australian economy. They have no real understanding of what's actually needed to sustain this economy, particularly in Australian manufacturing. They have no real understanding of what is occurring right under their noses, and they have no understanding of the consequences of their own actions.</para>
<para>It's been put to me quite simply: not enough people in this government actually care about what they're doing. I know there are people in the Liberal Party who know that the consequences are profound and know that, if you goad a company to leave, there's a good chance they might actually take you up on that offer. We know that the situation in this country is such that a thriving manufacturing sector can provide sustained prosperity for this nation, but it requires the support of government and policy and requires consistency of government to ensure that that occurs.</para>
<para>Look at what we're seeing in R&D in this country, with the policy being pursued by this government to take further support from our manufacturers and to further reduce the support that's available from this government. We have a government that is committed to a tragedy, in terms of their failure to appreciate what it means to actually see a country become increasingly dependent upon very narrow sectors of the economy, not understanding what it means when we narrow the level of economic complexity, not understanding the real costs of reducing our ability to have the capability to sustain our defence industries, not understanding the consequence of not being able to ensure that we maintain our economic sovereignty, and not understanding the consequence of what occurs when you can't stand on your own feet. We have a government that's only too happy to spend billions and billions of dollars to support French companies, when it comes to the submarine program, without the proper policies in place to ensure that local content is maintained. We have a government that simply doesn't know what it's doing when it comes to industry policy. We have a government that has no regard for the consequences of its own actions.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tanna, Ms Catherine Leigh</title>
          <page.no>36</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATRICK</name>
    <name.id>144292</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I've outlined in a previous speech, I aim to put the spotlight on a number of Australian businesspeople who play important roles in our nation but who rarely appear in the headlines. Another such quiet Australian is Catherine Leigh Tanna, a highly successful business executive and a leader in Australia's energy sector. She was born in Innisfail in 1961, raised and educated in Gladstone. She is a law graduate of the University of Queensland. Ms Tanna has had a highly successful career in the resources and energy sector. As a qualified solicitor she started out with BHP petroleum before joining Royal Dutch Shell, where she held increasingly senior positions in Australia, the Americas, Africa and Asia between 1998 and 2009.</para>
<para>Ms Tanna then joined the British multinational oil and gas company BG Group as a senior executive and went on to lead the development of the Queensland Curtis LNG project in Gladstone, one of BG Group's larger investments worldwide. While working for BG Group, Ms Tanna also took on another important role. In 2011 then Treasurer Wayne Swan, a fellow Queenslander, appointed Ms Tanna to the board of the Reserve Bank of Australia. In announcing her appointment, Mr Swan praised Ms Tanna's understanding of Australia's resource sector and deep knowledge of global financial markets. Ms Tanna was initially appointed for a five-year term on the Reserve Bank Board. In March 2015 then Liberal Treasurer Joe Hockey extended Ms Tanna for a further five years, which will expire in March next year.</para>
<para>Ms Tanna's standing as a business leader has been recognised in many ways. She chaired Q20, a peak group of Queensland business leaders responsible for maximising benefits from the 2014 G20 leaders summit in Brisbane. She is also a member of the Lowy Institute's G20 advisory committee. She served as the director of the 2018 Commonwealth Games Corporation and as a board member of the Catholic Foundation of the Archdiocese of Brisbane. She is a recipient of the University of Queensland Vice-Chancellor's Alumni Excellence Award and an honorary Doctor of Business. Ms Tanna is a member of the board of the Business Council of Australia.</para>
<para>This is an impressive career, which is well recognised and applauded by the business community and by the Australian government. There is, however, a deeply shameful side to Ms Tanna's career—something quite at odds with her standing as a business leader. In May 2014 EnergyAustralia, Australia's third-largest electricity and gas retailer, announced that Ms Tanna would become its managing director. She continues to hold that position today. Notwithstanding its name, EnergyAustralia is a wholly foreign owned company. It's a subsidiary of Hong Kong-based China Light and Power, CLP Group, an industrial empire controlled by billionaire businessman Mr Michael David Kadoorie. Aside from serving as managing director, Ms Tanna is a director of EnergyAustralia Holdings Pty Ltd, which serves as the Australian entity's primary link with CLP Group.</para>
<para>At the time of her appointment, Ms Tanna declared that she would continue EnergyAustralia's 'fast trajectory of growth' and 'exceed the expectations of our 2.7 million customers'. Of course, in recent years the prices paid by Australian energy consumers have skyrocketed. Customer expectations have been exceeded—though not in the way many would wish for—when they look at their latest electricity or gas bill!</para>
<para>EnergyAustralia's business has certainly been booming. According to figures released by the Australian Taxation Office in December last year, EnergyAustralia Holdings Ltd generated an income of some $8 billion in 2017-18. However, by the time Ms Tanna's accountants and tax lawyers had finished their job, EnergyAustralia's taxable income was down to a mere $368 million, just 4.8 per cent of the total income. The tax payable by EnergyAustralia was just $69 million, less than one per cent of total income. Many Australians would love to pay a tax rate of less than one per cent. But that's not the full story. Over the four previous financial years, from 2013-14 through to 2016-17, the company generated more than $30 billion in income, but the taxable income was a mere $52 million and the tax payable was precisely zero. That's it—zero tax. That's EnergyAustralia's tax story—four years of zero tax and then just a pittance paid. It's tax dodging on a grand scale.</para>
<para>How does EnergyAustralia's managing director, Catherine Tanna, do this? Well, it helps that EnergyAustralia is owned by a company in the infamous tax haven of the British Virgin Islands. Although many details are deliberately obscured, EnergyAustralia's profits are washed through the Caribbean before ending up with the CLP Group in Hong Kong, while massive loans from related parties offshore siphon off profits through interest and other payments. The big winners are CLP Group shareholders in Hong Kong and EnergyAustralia executives. CLP's corporate records show that Ms Tanna, as managing director, received remuneration in 2018 of some HK$24 million—that's approximately A$4.5 million—and a further long-term payment of $2.2 million was earmarked for 2019.</para>
<para>Ms Tanna is a well-paid executive—well able to afford her large and architecturally striking home in Grattan Street, Hawthorn, in Melbourne. That said, her Chinese owned company's tax position really doesn't sit well with the Business Council's policy on company tax compliance and integrity, which states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… companies must meet their tax obligations and where arrangements do not keep pace with community norms, they should be reviewed.</para></quote>
<para>I don't think anyone would view EnergyAustralia's pittance of tax paid as consistent with community norms. Ms Tanna's presence on the Business Council's board directly undercuts the council's credibility in discussions of company tax policy. She should resign or be removed from the board.</para>
<para>Even more serious, however, is Ms Tanna's presence on the Reserve Bank Board. The board's responsibilities are set out in the Reserve Bank Act 1959 and include management of monetary and banking policy to advance the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia. As the bank itself emphasises, over and above legislative requirements, board members also have responsibility for maintaining a reputation for integrity and propriety on the part of the bank. The board has a code of conduct which provides that board members will observe the highest possible standards of ethical conduct and, among other things, work to enhance the bank's standing in the community and its reputation for integrity. Catherine Tanna is the managing director of a company wholly owned by a Chinese conglomerate which has profited massively from Australian consumers and households whilst arranging its international financial affairs to minimise its tax liabilities in Australia to a massive degree. It is impossible to reconcile Ms Tanna's position as a well-paid facilitator of extraordinary tax minimisation with her responsibilities with the Reserve Bank. Her position is akin to that of a fox guarding the henhouse. It is a disgrace that such a person—an international corporate tax dodger, a swindler—fills a seat on the Reserve Bank Board.</para>
<para>Independence of the bank is an important principle enshrined in legislation. The Treasurer cannot force Ms Tanna's resignation. But, in light of EnergyAustralia's tax performance while Ms Tanna has been the company's managing director, he should seek her resignation and she should resign forthwith. Catherine Tanna has a year to go on her current employment, but she should go right now. We can't have a corporate tax dodger on the Reserve Bank Board; it's as simple as that. Companies do not dodge tax; their directors do. I'm calling them out. Ms Tanna, today, joined my who's who of corporate scumbags and swindlers. There will be more directors added to that list in due course.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parliamentary Representation, Tasmanian Businesses</title>
          <page.no>38</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is a pleasure to be able to make a contribution to the senators' statements debate. Typically I take the opportunity to talk about some great things that are happening in Tasmania at this point in the week, but yesterday something happened that I felt compelled to make a comment on. It was around why people come to this place—the parliament—why people seek election and why they seek to serve the Australian people. And of course it is because we seek to do the best thing for our country, for our community, for our constituency. In doing so, we work constructively with people from all political persuasions. We often reach out across the aisle, as they say, to achieve a good outcome for the people we represent. In saying that, I want to acknowledge Senator Carol Brown, who on many an occasion I've had cause to work with on things for Tasmanian people. We've not always succeeded, and we have come close a couple of times. Hopefully, we'll have some great successes into the future. But it is exactly what we're here for. As Tasmanians first and foremost—yes, Senator Brown is a Labor senator, and I will forgive her for that. I'm a Liberal senator and she forgives me—for the record. We work together on many things that benefit our state and that is the good thing about this place, which is why I have to talk about this issue.</para>
<para>Yesterday I was listening to the MPI and a contribution made by another Tasmanian colleague, and that was a contribution made by Senator Polley. I have a lot of time for Senator Polley. I'm sure she does some good things in our state, though I'd like to know what they are. Really what I take issue with was her recounting of events around the efforts and the hard work of the member for Bass, Mrs Bridget Archer. The MPI was on the NDIS and funding for the NDIS. It's a very serious issue and something everyone in this place takes seriously. We have different points of view, but it's something that shouldn't be used as an opportunity to score cheap political points when there are serious matters back out in our electorates.</para>
<para>Yesterday Senator Polley made a contribution to that debate, reading out a speech scoring those cheap political points against Mrs Archer, a member of the other place who does not have the capacity, or the opportunity, to march into this chamber and correct the record so I thought I'd take it upon myself. The contribution yesterday referred to an organisation called New Horizons, an organisation based in northern Tasmania, in Launceston, in the electorate of Bass, which does great work, and an organisation we need to acknowledge.</para>
<para>The point is that this organisation, which provides support for people with a disability, is seeking funding. There was a grant round where they were unsuccessful. The contribution—while being accurate to that set of facts—was misleading in that it claimed that Mrs Archer, the member for Bass, had done nothing to assist this organisation. Have they got the outcome they were after? No. But to suggest that Mrs Archer, the member for Bass, has done nothing to assist this organisation is purely misleading.</para>
<para>Even the CEO of New Horizons, Ms Belinda Kitto, publicly acknowledged the good and hard work of Mrs Archer in trying to secure a good outcome for this organisation and for the people that it supports. Mrs Archer has been driven the whole time to get the right outcome for this group. So when I heard Senator Polley making these remarks I was most disappointed.</para>
<para>Back to my original point. Why do we come here? We come here to get a better outcome for our communities. We come here to stand up for our communities. We come here to do that by working constructively with one another, be that the government, the opposition or the crossbench. We all have a common aim.</para>
<para>So I ask Senator Polley: how often have you picked up the phone to Mrs Archer to work on issues? How often have you reached out to say, 'How can I help you do what you need to do? Is there something I could be doing, a role I could be playing?' Have you offered to work with Mrs Archer on this issue, or any other, for the people of Bass, for the people of Tasmania? I'd hazard a guess and I'd say no. On that basis, when will Senator Polley stop with the pointless political pointscoring that goes on and work constructively with the member for Bass, Mrs Archer, in achieving good outcomes for the people of Bass and the people of Tasmania? That's the job that we are all sent here to do and that's the job I would love to see Senator Polley doing.</para>
<para>I thought I'd touch base with Mrs Archer before I made this contribution. She confirmed for me that she'd be very happy to work with Senator Polley on any of these issues. I hope that Senator Polley does take that advice and accept that invitation.</para>
<para>Ms Archer is happy to be judged on her record at the next election. We're eight months in, since the last election on 18 May last year, and already Ms Archer, the member for Bass, has delivered a number of things for her electorate of Bass in Northern Tasmania, including the funding for a headspace—$630,000. She secured funding of $25 million for health services in that community, including a mental health hub and the Kings Meadows clinic; delivered the timber link funding to support a sustainable deal in Northern Tasmania; and helped get the Launceston City Deal extended—or in fact doubled—to include the northern suburbs hub and the Albert Hall upgrades. She's been able to deliver funding for the George Town Regent Square redevelopment, which was much needed, and of course the George Town Mountain Bike Trail. So, as I say, Ms Archer is very, very happy to be judged on her record, and she will stand in front of the people of Bass in a couple of years time and put her record forward. I just hope that, in that time, Senator Polley takes that invitation and does work with her.</para>
<para>On to more positive things: the wonderful things coming out of the state of Tasmania. I want to talk briefly about innovation. Already this week, we've talked about the wine industry—how resilient and how innovative it is—and how wonderful our premium wines are in this country. I want to pay tribute to two vineyard operators in southern Tasmania: Robert and Anthea Patterson, who run Hartzview Vineyard. It is a fantastic establishment, and I urge anyone who's tuned in to this debate to head on down and grab a bottle of their fortified wine. It is fantastic stuff. I raise this couple and their business because of the work they did in innovation, in working with the issue of smoke taint, and seeing what can be done, what learnings there are to be able to salvage what happens to a vineyard after a fire occurs and smoke hovers in and around the grapes, causing smoke taint.</para>
<para>Robert and Anthea have been working with a number of researchers on how best to be able to utilise that resource, the fruit that has been affected by smoke taint—and there have been some positive results. It points to the innovation that we see in our primary production sector in Tasmania, in a small community just south of Hobart. When these sorts of things are invested in, we will see a return on investment—predominantly in the form of jobs. If we can find a way to utilise a fruit that otherwise would have been discarded after a bushfire event and smoke taint occurs, then we will see a greater utilisation of a resource and we won't see picking seasons completely lost just because of smoke taint.</para>
<para>I also want to pay tribute to the operators of another company, Marinova, based on the eastern shore of Hobart, out near the Hobart Airport. Marinova was founded in 2003, focusing on research and development in the manufacture of high-purity fucoidan, which is a seaweed compound—for want of a better explanation. It's a sustainable, high-purity compound that is used in a number of pharmaceutical applications. This is something that has been developed in Tasmania by Tasmanians. They were recently recognised, in 2019, as an export market leader as the Australian organic industry award winner, which recognises excellence in organic industries. These fucoidan compounds occur naturally in the cell walls of brown seaweeds. To be able to develop a process which extracts these compounds and to be able to utilise them in pharmaceutical applications is Tasmanian innovation at its best. These are people who have found a new way of extracting something from a natural resource that most of us would look at and say, 'Well, what would you do with that?' As a result, they've created jobs and they've created investment.</para>
<para>It's these sorts of companies, these sorts of people, in our regional communities in the state of Tasmania—that I know Senator Brown is a proud representative of as well—that we like to see and we like to support. So I commend these organisations, these people, for the work that they do, and for the effort they put in for the people they employ and the communities they're a part of.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Coronavirus</title>
          <page.no>39</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to pay tribute to my constituency of the Northern Territory, including Christmas Island, who know how to step up in times of great need in helping fellow Australians impacted by coronavirus. Residents of the Northern Territory, especially those around Darwin and Alice Springs and on Christmas Island, have shown the generous spirit of stepping up in times of crisis, which we are seeing continue across the globe with this coronavirus. The first group of Australian evacuees from Wuhan were housed on Christmas Island, which is part of the Northern Territory federal electorate of Lingiari. Rigorous screening for the virus took place before, during and after the flights, and those Australians on Christmas Island are now safely home.</para>
<para>I'd like to put on the parliamentary record assurances that I've been given around the novel coronavirus, especially now that the former INPEX accommodation in Howard Springs, south of Darwin is being used as a quarantine site. Every precaution is being taken to ensure public safety. I was briefed by the federal health minister, Greg Hunt, in the lead-up to the evacuees arriving at the Howard Springs site, and expressed to him the need to make sure also that First Nations and migrant communities were included in all of those communications. I thank the minister and his staff for what they've done in this circumstance. The Northern Territory's chief health officer confirmed that the Darwin community will not be impacted by this cohort being quarantined in Darwin, and that is what we have seen so far.</para>
<para>The first 266 Australians evacuated from Wuhan have now completed their 14-day quarantine and returned to their own communities. Many of those 266 Australians who left the Howard Springs facility on Sunday spoke to the media about their experiences, and I share with the Senate what Brian Leung said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Initially, I had my concerns about being in the facility … but the people here have been really supportive and really lovely.</para></quote>
<para>Fellow evacuee Zilong Long said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… it was like a small vacation for me and my family.</para></quote>
<para>Abigail Trewin from AUSMAT said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… we're just so pleased that everyone is well, happy and able to return to their home states.</para></quote>
<para>Colin Drysdale of Australian Border Force said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… our guests have displayed fantastic levels of resilience, community spirit and optimism throughout their stay. They have been wonderful guests.</para></quote>
<para>I'd like to congratulate the Australian government agencies working well together in this instance—the ADF, Border Force and AUSMAT, the Northern Territory staff and all who were involved. In particular, I would like to commend the work of the Australian Medical Assistance Team, AUSMAT, and the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre, based in Darwin, who are providing immediate medical responses to the Australians in the facility.</para>
<para>Prior to evacuees arriving on Christmas Island, I was able to visit the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre, which sent over an AUSMAT team of 24 to set up a field hospital for the Australians on Christmas Island. I was certainly left in no doubt as to the professionalism and the expertise of the team in providing that care. Visiting the incredible facilities, which are located near the Darwin airport, was also an opportunity for me to meet with some of the staff as they took me around to have a look at the facilities and their preparation in the lead-up to going to Christmas Island. I received a briefing from Executive Director Len Notaras. I thank them for their time, especially given the seriousness of the situation and the urgency in which they had to respond.</para>
<para>Howard Springs is currently housing 152 Australians evacuated from the<inline font-style="italic"> Diamond Princess </inline>who will be there until 5 March. Seven evacuees have tested positive to coronavirus from the <inline font-style="italic">Diamond Princess </inline>cruise ship, and they've now been transferred to their home states. Northern Territory acting chief health officer, Dianne Stephens, said the patients were not seriously ill. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Those people remain well and are mildly ill with cold-like symptoms. They do not necessarily need to be in the hospital system but more than likely will enter the hospital system in their home states while they manage the Covid-19 quarantine and procedures.</para></quote>
<para>The general response from the Northern Territory community has been: why shouldn't we be helping our fellow Australians while protecting the community? Naturally, there were questions of concern in the beginning and, again, the coordination of the team of professionals based in Darwin has been able to allay any concerns, along with the Northern Territory government and the health minister in the Northern Territory. The virus is spread only through close contact. It means neighbouring facilities will not be affected, as the virus is droplet based and not airborne.</para>
<para>On that note, I'd like to remind the Senate that this is an important time and I thank the people of the Northern Territory and Christmas Island.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It being 2 pm, we will move to questions without notice, and I call Senator Wong.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>40</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Special Purpose Flights</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Reynolds. Under the guidelines for special purpose aircraft flights—otherwise known as the VIP flights—the minister is required to table schedules every six months. Under this government, they have routinely been tabled late. Two weeks ago, the Senate ordered the Minister for Defence to table the schedule for VIP flights for the period ending June 2019. Why is this minister continuing to disregard that order?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Wong for that question. In short, the government is not disregarding that order.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the last Senate estimates in October, the Department of Defence revealed that this minister had sat on the most recent schedule for 71 days. So can the minister advise the Senate on what date the Department of Defence provided her with the schedule for the period ending 30 June 2019? How long has she been sitting on it this time?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, thank you very much. I don't have those dates with me, but I'll take it on notice and get back to you as soon as I can. But I can assure Senator Wong and the Senate that I completely reject her suggestion that I've been sitting on it. Senator Wong is well aware of the time frame and the processes, and they were followed to the word by me. But I will get—</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Wong interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, it is not, Senator Wong. Senator Wong, I will get the dates for you and come back to you as soon as possible.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister give an undertaking that she will ensure that this schedule, which is already delayed, is tabled prior to estimates? If not, can she please advise the Senate what it is in that schedule that the government doesn't want the public to know?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, yes, I can confirm that it will be tabled before estimates. Again, I categorically reject the categorisation of this process.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Coronavirus</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FAWCETT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing Minister for Health, Senator Cash. Minister, could you update the Senate on what actions the Morrison government is taking to keep Australians safe and to protect Australians from the global challenge of coronavirus?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Fawcett for the question. I am advised that the number of diagnosed cases of coronavirus has now exceeded 80,000. Just over 2,750 people have now lost their lives due to the coronavirus. In terms of the 80,000, the majority have been reported from mainland China, with 2,752 cases reported from 39 countries and regions outside of mainland China. The situation globally has seen significant jumps in Japan, South Korea, Iran and parts of northern Italy, with Austria, Switzerland and Croatia reporting their first confirmed cases. Twenty-five per cent of all reported cases outside of mainland China are associated with the Diamond Princess cruise ship, while 36 per cent are from South Korea.</para>
<para>As the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health have stated, Australia is not immune to the coronavirus and its impacts, but we are as best prepared as any country can be in the world today. The government's decisions from the outset have been to exercise an abundance of caution. That continues, and we are not complacent going forward. The government is working constantly to keep Australians safe. That is our No. 1 priority.</para>
<para>On 21 January the Chief Medical Officer made the decision to declare coronavirus a disease of pandemic potential. This triggered a series of actions in Australia: the standing up of the national incident centre, the standing up of the National Medical Stockpile, the readiness and activation of the national trauma centre, daily meetings of the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee and meetings of state, territory and Commonwealth health ministers to discuss pandemic readiness.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Fawcett, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FAWCETT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, could you update the Senate on the status of those Australians who have been diagnosed with the coronavirus?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Twenty-three cases of what is now being referred to as COVID-19 have been confirmed in Australia. Fifteen cases have been identified in the general population. All 15 of those cases have now been cleared and discharged from hospital. This is a positive step and a positive reflection on the Australian health and medical services system. Eight cases have been diagnosed associated with the <inline font-style="italic">Diamond Princess </inline>repatriation flight from Japan. The cases are residents of Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland and Victoria. All of these cases have been repatriated to their home states for isolation and care. The most recent case confirmed overnight is noted to be the partner of a recently repatriated <inline font-style="italic">Diamond Princess </inline>case. The case is receiving care in isolation in Victoria.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Fawcett, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FAWCETT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister outline to the Senate how the government is helping Australians through this crisis by containing the threat and providing Australians with the support they need?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, as the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health state, our priority is to keep Australians safe. The Prime Minister said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">There's a global virus and we are seeking to contain the virus.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Unfortunately there will be instances where there will be inconveniences for those who would have been in transit and travelling.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That's regrettable but you have to put Australia’s national interests first.</para></quote>
<para>We will continue implementing border measures to screen passengers on flights and vessels from mainland China and for people who have been in or transited through mainland China in the past 14 days. These measures are all kept under regular review. We will also continue to work in close cooperation with state and territory government authorities and our international partners. The government can reassure Australians that our nation is well-equipped and prepared for this global health challenge.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Youth and Sport, Senator Colbeck. In response to the Senate order for the production of documents No. 387, regarding the colour coded spreadsheet such as I am holding here, the minister tabled a heavily redacted document, preventing projects from being identified and the government's decisions from being appropriately scrutinised by the parliament. What is the basis for the minister's claim of public interest immunity on this redacted information?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Farrell for the question. The reason for the redaction is in the letter I presented to the parliament.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Farrell, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister explain how it is in the public interest to redact not only the identity of unsuccessful applications to this program but also the details of projects they were seeking to fund? What does the minister not want the Australian public to know?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I refer the senator to my previous answer.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Farrell, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What discussions did the minister have with the Prime Minister or his office prior to claiming public interest immunity?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I consulted with a number of colleagues' offices with respect to the tabling of those documents, as appropriate, because some of the documents that were tabled had—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator Colbeck! Senator Wong on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The point of order is direct relevance. The question is specifically about conversations with the Prime Minister and his office.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister has been speaking for 11 seconds. He was talking about his discussions with other ministerial offices. I'm not going to say that is not directly relevant, because he has only been speaking for 11 seconds. The minister to continue.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Colbeck, you're free to continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr President. As I was saying, I consulted with a number of colleagues' offices in the preparation of the documents for the return to order for the order for the production of documents, because the order for the production of documents related to a number of colleagues' offices including the Prime Minister's.</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Wong interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister has concluded his answer, Senator Wong.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cybersecurity</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. Can the minister update the Senate on how Australia is joining with international partners to address the global challenge of malicious cyberbehaviour and publicly attribute this activity?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>M56</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Paterson for his very important question. The Australian government last week joined with international partners to condemn Russia's malicious cyberactivity which targeted the state of Georgia in October. The GRU, Russia's military intelligence service, carried out a series of disruptive cyberactivities against a range of Georgian web-hosting providers that resulted in defacement of several thousand websites. They included websites belonging to the government of Georgia, to the courts, to NGOs, to media and to business. The incidents that we, in an international alliance, have attributed to Russia have harmed Georgian citizens' ability to simply go about their lives, have created insecurity within their country and have undermined their democratic institutions. This follows public attributions that Australia and international partners have made for a range of malicious cyberbehaviour previously by North Korea, China and Iran.</para>
<para>We believe in standing firmly with allies and partners to reject such conduct, which poses a clear threat to the international rules based order and, frankly, to our own values. Countries, including Russia, have all given undertakings to act in accordance with international law and norms in cyberspace. Where it serves our national interest, we believe in calling out countries that fail to live up to this agreement. Doing so, in our view, helps to foster a safe and secure cyberspace. Collectively, with like-minded countries, we want to ensure that our citizens can participate in a cyberspace that is a dynamic engine of economic growth and innovation, not a vector of interference or sabotage.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Paterson, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Will the minister advise the Senate how making public attributions helps uphold norms in cyberspace and helps ensure an open, free and secure cyberdomain?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>M56</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is the Australian government's view that there must be consequences for malicious behaviour in cyberspace. Public attribution is but one tool to uncover the culpable state, removing that anonymity under which it hides to protect its malicious cyberconduct. We assess each incident, we calibrate our response accordingly, and our responses may include publicly or privately calling out unacceptable behaviour, but they can also include other measures. We'll ensure that our responses are proportionate and compliant with domestic and international law as well as with the norms of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace. We believe that the rules based order must apply equally online as it does offline. As a responsible state committed to this principle, we must do our part to hold states accountable when they breach the agreed framework of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Paterson, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Will the minister update the Senate on what else the Australian government is doing to promote an open, free and secure cyberspace?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>M56</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, I thank Senator Paterson for his question. Australia is in the leadership of global efforts to ensure an open, free and secure cyberspace that protects national security and allows technology and connectivity to remain forces for good. At UN Leaders Week in New York I co-sponsored, with the United States and the Netherlands, the Joint Statement on Advancing Responsible State Behavior in Cyberspace. It is an important statement, and, along with Australia's International Cyber Engagement Strategy, it highlights Australia's role in promoting an open, free and secure cyberspace. That work has been led by Australia's Ambassador for Cyber Affairs, Dr Toby Feakin. Holding states appropriately accountable when they abuse the rules-based order is a vital constraint on the behaviour of those who would use cyberspace to destabilise democracies, to undermine institutions and to disrupt critical infrastructure.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Coronavirus</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATRICK</name>
    <name.id>144292</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Cash. It refers to the Australian health sector's emergency response plan for COVID-19, which was endorsed by the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee, on 17 February. Is it not the case that the plan discusses three scenarios for the impact of the virus in Australia, ranging from 'low' to 'moderate' and then 'high clinical severity', with the third scenario being comparable to the 1918 H1N1 Spanish flu? Doesn't the plan further advise that for the moderate and severe impact scenarios, new health emergency legislation may be needed to support outbreak response-specific activities? What new legislation is the government planning to introduce, or encourage states and territories to adopt, to prepare for the possible widespread outbreak of COVID-19?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Patrick for the question and for some prior notice. Senator Patrick, I have been able to obtain the following information for you. The Australian Health Sector Emergency Response Plan for Novel Coronavirus is already being implemented. It brings together the successful actions we've taken to date as a government to contain the virus. The plan is in response to the COVID-19 outbreak and is based on the Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza, which has been in place for many years. The plan is the result of coordination, consultation and collaboration with the sector and with our state and territory colleagues. It also outlines clear responses and actions we can escalate, should the risk increase. It ensures we target resources and public health interventions to most effectively protect the health of all Australians.</para>
<para>To date, we have been able to contain the spread of the virus in Australia and we will continue to do all we can to hold this position. But the COVID-19 outbreak could post significant risks to Australia, to people's health and to our economy. The response we have had to date has been one based on the principle of precaution and minimising risk. We have been working closely across all levels of government, implementing strategies to minimise the spread of the disease, through strong border measures and widespread communications activities. The plan we have released goes beyond what we are already doing and looks at what we now know about COVID-19 and how we move forward as this outbreak unfolds. It will be updated as we learn more about the virus, its key risk groups and when potential treatments or vaccines become available.</para>
<para>Australia's plan to manage the COVID-19 outbreak is based on these pillars: monitor and investigate outbreaks as they occur; identify and characterise the nature of the virus and clinical severity of the disease; contribute to the rapid and confident recovery of individuals, communities— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Patrick, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATRICK</name>
    <name.id>144292</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Given that prudent planning requires timely action to prepare for a global pandemic scenario with severe impact in Australia, what new legislation and other measures will be put in place to ensure that, if required, there is effective social distancing, prioritisation of essential medical services, guarantees in respect of national logistic and supply chains functioning effectively, and that vital goods and services remain available?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Australian Health Protection Principal Committee will advise on which activities to undertake and escalate this plan. This will be done in consultation with relevant parties and on advice from expert bodies. As the government has shown to date, we will continue to follow the expert advice. Communication is a priority under the plan in order to ensure the delivery of timely, accurate and comprehensive clinical information to health professionals and to the broader community so that they can effectively manage patients, implement COVID-19 control measures and minimise their own risk of exposure. You can be assured that, consistent with the plan, the Australian government, in collaboration with states and territories, is planning for all scenarios, and we are communicating with the broader community and the private sector.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATRICK</name>
    <name.id>144292</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, can you assure the Senate that all necessary and national health emergency legislation will be considered by the government and introduced into the parliament as a matter of priority, bearing in mind that only four sitting weeks for the House of Representatives and only two for the Senate are scheduled over the next three months?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I have stated on a number of occasions now, the Australian government is well prepared, and we will continue to follow the expert medical advice. You'd be aware that on 21 January 2020 the human coronavirus with pandemic potential was listed as a listed human disease under the relevant legislation, the Biosecurity Act 2015. That enabled the enhanced border measures. All states and territories themselves have powers to issue orders under public health legislation that include provision for detaining persons and enforcement of those orders in relation to notifiable conditions. Authorised public health officers may issue directions to an individual, but generally chief health officers or their equivalent must authorise orders for detention. I do have further information which I will provide to you.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Industry</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Reynolds. Can the minister update the Senate on how the Morrison government is helping to protect Australians and build a more resilient economy by continuing to strengthen Australia's defence capability?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Henderson for her question and for her fearless pursuit of defence industry and jobs in her state. This government is investing more than $200 billion to deliver a more potent, agile and capable ADF. The investment will ensure that we maintain our capability edge and are prepared for a more contested geostrategic environment in the Indo-Pacific. This reinvestment is vital after years of cuts, delays and indecision under Labor, which included cutting defence funding to 1.56 per cent of GDP, the lowest level since 1938.</para>
<para>The Morrison government is getting on with the job of making considered investment choices based on capability requirements and emerging threats, as well as building a strong sovereign industrial base and creating jobs right across Australia. This financial year alone we have invested $8.2 billion in crucial capabilities. We are moving ahead on the $90 billion naval shipbuilding plan. We are already building 57 naval vessels in Australia, by Australian workers with Australian steel. Over $5 billion of investment in Army's next generation logistic vehicle fleet has achieved initial operating capability and is ready for training and major exercises. In fact, the fleet did an extraordinary job for our nation on Operation Bushfire Assist. Under our $18 billion commitment to deliver the next generation of air strike capability, we welcomed another seven F-35s to Australia in December last year, bringing the total here in Australia to 13. The Morrison government is ensuring that the men and women of the Australian Defence Force have the equipment and capability they need to fight and win.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister update the Senate on how this progress in our defence programs is creating jobs for Australia and supporting Australian defence industry, particularly in my home state of Victoria?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Key to this the successful delivery of defence capability is our partnership with Australian defence industry. This is truly a national endeavour. There are thousands of companies right across Australia involved in defence projects and supply chains that are supporting hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs. It is this government that is ensuring that Australian industry involvement is maximised in all defence programs to build a sovereign industrial base that supports Australian jobs. In Victoria, for example, Universal Motion Simulation in Geelong was awarded a $21.4 million contract for sustainment of six training simulators for the Boxer combat recognisance vehicle. Over 50 Australian companies have contracts already supplying the global supply chain for the F-35, including 17 in Victoria, Senator Henderson. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Henderson, a final supplementary question.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister advise how the self-propelled howitzer program will deliver necessary capability and create jobs for Australians, particularly in my home state of Victoria, and is the minister aware of any threats to this vital project?</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I call Senator Reynolds I am having trouble hearing with the level of murmuring in the chamber. Order! We are wasting time for the opposition in question time. I will call Senator Reynolds when there is silence. Senator Reynolds.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Henderson, yes, there is a threat to this project: Labor and the member for Corio himself, Richard Marles.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Cormann, on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cormann</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Interjections are disorderly. Within seconds of you making your ruling, the opposition interjected again. I ask you to call them to order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Interjections are always disorderly. I would ask people that when I call for silence—I'm going to go back to the rule where I ask people to count to 10 before they start interjecting again.</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Farrell interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I'm sure you can count, Senator Farrell. I'll take that interjection. Senator Reynolds to continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's no surprise that Labor doesn't want to hear the answer to this, because the only threat to this project is the member for Corio himself, Richard Marles. It is deeply disappointing that the shadow minister for defence, himself, whose seat is in the heart of Geelong, continues to talk down Geelong's ability to support this project.</para>
<para>The Morrison government is extremely proud of its commitment to build and sustain 30 self-propelled howitzers in Geelong, providing vital Army capability and delivering up to 350 jobs. This project is fully funded and is now underway. Mr Marles represents an electorate with one of the highest unemployment rates in this country yet he continues to talk down this important project for Army capability, which will also deliver jobs for Geelong. The people of Geelong deserve so much better.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Bushfires</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Senator Cormann. This summer's devastating bushfires have seen more than 20 per cent of Australia's mainland forests burnt. Research just published in <inline font-style="italic">Nature Climate Change</inline> shows that this massive proportion of the forest estate being burnt is unprecedented in any fire season, either in Australia or globally, in the last 20 years—over five times the average amount of forest burnt in other extreme seasons anywhere in the world—and the fires are still burning. What action is the government taking to make sure that our fires can recover and how will they make sure that our forests can recover, and how will they assure Australia's children that they are taking action to put the future of our forests, carbon stores and wildlife first?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Let me reassure Senator Rice and the Senate that our forests will recover. Through the history of Australia, over thousands and thousands of years, we have experienced bushfires before, and our beautiful continent has regenerated before and very, very strongly.</para>
<para>We have, of course, experienced a devastating bushfire season in this last couple of months—no question; devastating. A whole series of communities across rural and regional Australia, in particular, were terribly impacted. And we have provided significant support and continue to provide significant support, to support those communities with the post-bushfire recovery. As part of our $2 billion bushfire recovery fund, we are also investing in a series of environmental measures to help boost and facilitate that rapid regeneration, both in terms of our fauna and our flora. In terms of the broader issue that Senator Rice raises, of course we are doing everything we can to protect our environment, to help reduce global emissions and to do so in a way that is economically responsible, because we want to ensure that our children and grandchildren in the future can continue to enjoy the beautiful country that is ours but also can continue to pursue opportunities to have a job, to pursue a career, to have a better job and to build a life for themselves and their families into the future. That is what we will continue to do, and we will continue to do it responsibly and with great commitment and dedication.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Rice, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The unprecedented burning that's occurred this fire season has been with only one degree of global heating, yet this government's feeble climate policy has us on track for 3.4 degrees of global heating by the end of the century. How does our government expect that our forests and, indeed, our timber plantations are going to survive that? What does a planet that is 3.4 degrees hotter mean for smoke choking our cities, water from forested catchments, endangered animals and, indeed, for the future— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have made this point on a number of occasions now: our government is committed to effective action on climate change, but we also understand that, in order to address the challenge of climate change and in order to secure meaningful reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions, we need a global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.</para>
<para>What would not help the environment is if Australia took measures domestically to just shift emissions with jobs and economic activity overseas where the same level of economic output and emissions would be higher. That would actually leave the global environment worse off. We are not in favour of imposing sacrifice on the Australian people that not only makes no difference to the environment but actually makes the situation worse when it comes to addressing climate change and reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. We will continue to pursue— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Rice, final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government so far has been sticking to our last century's outdated logging laws, the regional forest agreements, which continue business as usual even though more than 20 per cent of our forests have been burnt this summer. How is the government taking into account the massive impact of this summer's fires on our native forests? How can any logging of our native forests be justified given the massive hit that our forests and wildlife have taken?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When it comes to this very important economic activity in our forests, we are guided by the science. We're guided by the science. We're not going to be guided by ideology. We're not going to be guided by religion. We're going to be guided by the science. We will continue to make decisions to protect our environment in a way that is economically responsible and, of course, regional forest agreements are a very important part of that framework based on science.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>47</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Former senator Sean Edwards is in the gallery. Welcome back, former Senator Edwards.</para>
<para>Honourable senators: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>47</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Disability Insurance Scheme</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Senator Ruston. Can the minister update the Senate on the rollout of the NDIS and how the Morrison government is helping and supporting Australians with a disability?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator O'Sullivan for his question on this really important issue. I can assure this chamber that the Morrison government is absolutely committed to finalising the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and making sure that we set it up for an absolutely successful future from now on.</para>
<para>I am really pleased to be able to advise the chamber that nearly 339,000 Australians who live with disability are now benefiting from a plan with the National Disability Insurance Scheme. But, most importantly, of that number nearly 135,000 of those people are actually receiving disability supports for the first time. These are people who have never received supports before, and that's nearly 40 per cent of the number of the people who are on the scheme.</para>
<para>Also of particular importance is that the scheme continues to increase the number of children that it's supporting. Thirty five per cent of new participants onto the NDIS in the last quarter of 2019 were in the age group of zero to six years of age. That means that more than 50,000 young Australians aged between birth and six years old are now in the NDIS. Earlier this month Minister Robert released the new data that showed the backlog of accessing early childhood interventions had been significantly slashed over the last six months. On 31 December last year for children aged zero to six to meet NDIS access requirements, on average, was down to less than three days. That's down from 43 days earlier in the year. For children currently awaiting a plan it's now 44 days, down from 104. Children meeting NDIS access to receiving an NDIS approved plan is now 54 days instead of 129. So the backlog of children— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator O'Sullivan, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, how is the government ensuring the disability sector continues to thrive and support all people with disability?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Morrison government is absolutely committed to working with Australians with disability to remove as many barriers as we possibly can which may impede them from reaching their full potential. Because absolutely everybody in this country, whether you've got a disability or not, should be able to have the same opportunity to play a meaningful role in our community.</para>
<para>Minister Robert recently announced a further $68 million worth of grants for the National Disability Insurance Agency for the Information, Linkages and Capacity Building Program. These grants will go to supporting people around Australia to support them to connect with their communities; to gain employment, if that's what they wish to do; and access the kind of health services that fit their individual requirements. We know these are issues that are absolutely vital to all Australians but particularly they are important for people with disability being able to reach their goals.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator O'Sullivan, final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister explain why it's so important to put people with disability, their families and carers first?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is absolutely essential that we, as a government, back Australians with disabilities, their families and their carers, because, as I said, we want every Australian to have the opportunity to reach their full potential, whatever that may be. We understand that the aspiration to participate fully—whether it be in the social or economic life of our nation—is something that people with disability value as much, if not more, than the able-bodied population. This reform—the NDIS—is a world first. It's a once in a generation reform. Since Medicare I don't think we have seen a social reform of this kind of magnitude. We will continue to work with Australians with disability to make sure that, business as usual, they are able to undertake employment and activities in our communities. We will continue to support them through the National Disability Insurance Scheme so that they can live their best lives.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. The Prime Minister has claimed his office's only involvement in the sports rorts scheme was to pass along information. So why has the Audit Office told the Senate today there were 136 emails about the scheme going back and forth between the Prime Minister's office and Senator McKenzie's office in just six months?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Wong for that question. That is entirely consistent with the Prime Minister's statements.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Auditor-General's responses today state that the colour-coded spreadsheet focusing on marginal and target seats, shared on four occasions with the Prime Minister's Office, input which applications should be awarded funding. Will the Prime Minister now admit his office was involved in the selection of winners?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What is very clear is that the Prime Minister, as he has said, and the Prime Minister's Office made representations in relation to specific projects, and the final decision-maker was the minister for sport. What I would also remind the chamber of is that, as a result of the minister making decisions to more fairly spread the grants geographically across sports, the proportion of projects going into Labor seats increased from 26 per cent to 135 per cent. The independent recommendations from Sport Australia, in the minister's judgement, would have inappropriately disadvantaged Labor electorates. So in exercising her discretion, making sure that all of the sports were appropriately supported and that the funding was allocated across— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, is there a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Given that the Auditor-General's responses demonstrate the deep involvement of Mr Morrison and his office in the sports rorts program, can the minister explain why Mr Morrison continues to mislead Australians about his role and the role of his office in the sports rorts scandal?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I completely and utterly reject the premise of the question. The sports grants program is a highly successful, very popular program, which obviously, like many programs, must oversubscribe. The recommendations that came from Sport Australia were recommendations which, for good reason, the minister made decisions to adjust in order to ensure there was a fairer, better, more appropriate spread, including making sure that more projects in Labor electorates were supported than was initially recommended. The Prime Minister has been very clear in describing his involvement and his office's involvement, and we stand by the Prime Minister's statements.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>48</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the chamber and the gallery of a delegation from the German Bundestag, led by the Vice-President, Mr Wolfgang Kubicki. On behalf of all senators I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and particularly to the Senate this afternoon.</para>
<para>Honourable senators: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>48</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Dementia</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STOKER</name>
    <name.id>237920</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Colbeck. Dementia is one of this country's greatest health challenges, and it touches almost all families in one way or another. Can the minister update the Senate on the way that the Morrison government is helping and supporting Australians who are living with dementia and who are dealing with it in their families?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for the question, Senator Stoker. Dementia is the second-leading cause of death in Australia. It's a significant issue for many families, as Senator Stoker has just said. We are delivering on commitments that we've made to the Australian community to better support people living with dementia.</para>
<para>In 2019-20 the government will provide in excess of $68 million for dementia-specific support and training programs that will benefit people living with dementia, their carers and service providers. This includes $17.41 million for the Dementia Behaviour Management Advisory Service, $16.6 million for the severe behaviour response teams, $11.59 million for the dementia training support program, $8.32 million for the Specialist Dementia Care Program, $13.9 million for the National Dementia Support Program and $1.2 million for dementia-friendly communities.</para>
<para>The $68 million also includes new funding of $10 million from 2019-20 to 2020-21 to increase dementia training and support for aged care workers and health sector staff, as announced by the government in November last year. This investment will deliver additional face-to-face and teleconference interventions to address the behavioural symptoms of dementia, as well as training for health and aged care providers through the expansion of the Dementia Behaviour Management Advisory Service, the severe dementia response teams, and training programs. At full rollout, the Australian government will provide $70 million per year for the specialist dementia care program. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Stoker, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STOKER</name>
    <name.id>237920</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister outline what additional measures the government is taking to invest in research to help to treat and find a cure for dementia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a very important question. At the last Dementia Australia event held in the parliament with the support of Senator Polley as one of the co-chairs, we heard the voices of a number of people with dementia and the expression of their desire to see a cure for dementia. When we came to government in 2013, we made a significant investment of $200 million towards dementia research. Subsequently, we made another investment of $185 million over 10 years through the Dementia, Ageing and Aged Care Mission, funded from the Medical Research Future Fund. As we all understand, dementia is a significant issue for Australians, and we're determined to do what we can to assist with finding a cure.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Stoker, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STOKER</name>
    <name.id>237920</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>How is the Morrison government investing in aged care to ensure senior Australians are supported, and is the minister aware of any alternative approaches to dealing with this issue?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I indicated to the chamber yesterday, when we came to government investment into the aged-care system was about $13.3 billion. This year it will be a record $21.4 billion. But what we see from the other side is that there's been absolutely no commitment to investment in aged care, zero investment in home-care packages in the last election campaign, zero investment in workforce and, unfortunately, zero investment in improving capacity in the mainstream residential aged-care sector. What they did promise was $387 billion in additional taxes on the Australian economy. But of that $387 billion in additional taxes, they could not find one cent—not one cent—for home-care packages or mainstream aged care.</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Wong interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! It is inappropriate to be interjecting across the central table. Senator Cormann, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cormann</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is not only in breach of standing orders but extremely discourteous, so I ask you to call Senator Wong to order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Polley?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Colbeck. When asked during question time about the Morrison government's plans to put ACAT out to tender, the minister said that it was 'actually implementing a recommendation from the Tune review'. Now that the minister has had time to consider that answer, can the minister confirm that the Tune review makes no recommendation that ACAT services be contracted out?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government's intention with respect to ACAT and RAS services—the assessment teams for the aged-care sector—is to do what the Tune review recommended, which is to bring together a single assessment workforce. That's the government's intention. The government has never said, as the opposition continues to dishonestly claim, that we were going to privatise. We've never said that. I've reiterated that in the chamber a number of times, and the government has reiterated that a number of times in the statements we've made to the multitude of dishonest motions that the opposition has brought forward. We have never said that we wanted to privatise the assessment service, but what we want to do is to do what Tune said to do, which is to bring together a single assessment workforce. Further, the royal commission said that that was an urgent reform.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I can't hear the minister's answer. We're wasting time in question time, which is normally considered to be a time for the non-government parties. I'm going to ask that people at least take a breath after I call the Senate to order. There's an opportunity after question time to debate answers. Senator Colbeck to continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We will continue to work cooperatively with the states to bring together a single assessment workforce for the aged-care sector across Australia. That is our determination. That is what we think will provide better service for senior Australians. Currently, within the assessment process, there are a number of issues. There are duplications that exist within the system that need to be resolved. There are people who indicate that they require palliative care services that aren't getting the referrals they need. Unfortunately, as the royal commission indicated, there are young people being referred to aged care by state government ACAT systems that shouldn't be referred to aged care. The system needs to be resolved, and that is the government's determination.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Polley, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Russell Broadbent MP said in the House of Representatives yesterday said that he had read the Tune review's recommendations on ACAT, saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It doesn't say that this area should be contracted out.</para></quote>
<para>Is the minister's Liberal colleague correct?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Polley demonstrates her lack of understanding of the way that the system currently works, because—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr President, I have a point of order on direct relevance. This minister, instead of misleading or engaging immediately in an attack on the questioner, should do his job and answer the question. Mr Broadbent's quote is a direct contradiction of the minister. We're asking the minister to explain.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cormann on the point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cormann</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister is being directly relevant, of course, because—</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Wong interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Wong, your point of order was heard in silence. I'd like to hear Senator Cormann's response.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cormann</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister was being directly relevant because he was about to explain how the system currently works. Indeed, it is actually not working the way Senator Polley has repeatedly asserted and the way other Labor members have previously asserted.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cormann and Senator Wong, I'm going to respectfully disagree with both of you in that, after the minister speaking for seven seconds and not having got to a punctuation mark in his first sentence, I am incapable of ruling on whether the answer is directly relevant. Senator Colbeck may continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I reject the assertion that Senator Polley has made with respect to contracting out the service. As things currently stand, the Commonwealth does not deliver any services. We contract to the states for ACAT services and we contract to RASes for other assessments.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Polley, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Polley</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, it's on relevance, Mr President. Was Mr Broadbent correct? He has actually read the Tune review. Was your colleague right—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Polley, that goes to the substance of your question. You've made a point of order on direct relevance. I'll hear from Senator Cormann.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cormann</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Colbeck is clearly being directly relevant. He's at pains to explain why the premise of the question, which somehow seems to suggest that there is a plan for privatisation, is incorrect. How we are implementing the Tune review recommendations is being directly relevant to the subject matter raised.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On the point of order, the minister is being directly relevant. He is directly dealing, from my notes, with the quotation that was used in the question. Your point of order, Senator Polley, goes to a preferred method of answer, which is not a matter for the chair. The minister is addressing the quotation in the question, in my view.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr President, I accept that ruling. I have a different point of order. My point of order also goes to direct relevance. The quote is Mr Broadbent's, not Senator Polley's. So it is not in order for the minister to assert that Senator Polley's position is incorrect.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cormann on the point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cormann</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister is of course being directly relevant because he is explaining why the misrepresentations that have been made by Labor and which may have been taken onboard by a member in the other place are inaccurate.</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Wong interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator Wong! With respect, I'm listening very carefully to the minister's answer. I am not convinced that is a characterisation of what he was doing. If he was, I would also be of the view that that is a matter for debating the merits of answers after question time. Senator Colbeck can continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I was saying, the Tune review recommended bringing together a seamless workforce. In fact, the Tune review says, 'It should be a priority to combine the RAS and ACAT assessment workforces.' That is what the government is determined to do. I have had a very amiable conversation with Mr Broadbent, and we agree on the outcomes of the process.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Polley, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Given the minister can't even convince his own Liberal colleagues, will the minister now correct the record?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Broadbent and I, as I just said, have had a very amiable conversation with respect to his views and what the government would like to see. It is as I have been saying ad nauseam for a period of time. We want to bring together the ACAT and the RAS services, as recommended by the Tune review. They said to bring them together and create a single assessment workforce. Mr Broadbent agrees with me that that's what should happen. He wants to see, like the rest of the government wants to see, senior Australians getting access to the best possible assessment service through a process that doesn't provide repetition but provides them with timely assessments, which are not happening now, and provides them with a similar experience across the country. Reform is required in this space.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rural and Regional Health Services</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McMAHON</name>
    <name.id>282728</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government, Senator Cash. Can the minister update the Senate on how the coalition government is helping Australians living in rural and regional communities by creating additional training places for more rural generalist doctors?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator McMahon for what is an incredibly important question. I also acknowledge the great work that she has done over a very long period of time in ensuring that rural and regional Australians get the services that they need.</para>
<para>The Morrison government is committed to continually improving rural and regional health services. This is because we recognise regional, rural and remote Australians deserve the same access to high-quality health services as those who live in our cities. Research shows that doctors who train in the bush are more likely to stay and work in the bush at the completion of their training. That is why as a government we're focused on addressing the maldistribution of doctors in the bush. Earlier this month the government announced the allocation of 100 additional training places to the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine to train more rural generalists.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Pratt</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Oh, come on.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator Pratt.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Pratt</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You've just cut the rebate for recruiting doctors—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pratt, take a breath.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Pratt</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>and you've just cut—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I'm getting sick of people not even taking note of me calling them to be silent for 10 seconds. Senator Cash, continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I said, rural generalists play a key role in enabling rural and remote Australians to access health services. Why? Because they provide the general practice, emergency care and other specialist services in hospitals and communities. This announcement yet again demonstrates the Australian government's commitment to supporting more regional doctor training, to supporting better care yet again and to delivering better healthcare outcomes for rural, regional and remote communities. We also need to ensure though that we actually address the pipeline of rural generalists who are coming through to support a viable and sustainable workforce. We're also doing that as part of our half a billion dollar Stronger Rural Health Strategy.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McMahon, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McMAHON</name>
    <name.id>282728</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Cash, what additional incentives has the government put in place to attract and retain rural health professionals?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We're also investing to enable medical professionals to train in regional areas. This is by expanding the existing junior doctor training program. We're now including rural interns and doctors in their second year of postgraduate training. Senator McMahon, by the end of this year, the rural doctor training innovation fund will have funded almost 600 rotations in rural primary care settings. The government has announced that 100 new rotations will be allocated to second-year post-graduate doctors across Australia, and this is at a total investment of $3.2 million. These are separate to the rotations that will be rolled out as part of the National Rural Generalist Pathway and are in addition to the $20.6 million we've invested for rural based interns to rotate through a primary care setting.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McMahon, a final supplementary question.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McMAHON</name>
    <name.id>282728</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, why is it important to maintain a consistent policy approach to supporting our regional communities, and what are the consequences of other approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Everything I have outlined—the investment that the government is making to ensure that rural, regional and remote Australians have the same level of health care as those of us who are able to live in metropolitan centres—is only because we manage a strong economy. It is only because we understand fiscal responsibility. If you look at what occurred when those opposite, the Labor Party, were last in government as we saw, as a direct consequence of their failure to manage the budget, there was a direct impact on Australia's health system. This impact directly affects Australians. What Labor did was they actually stopped listing life-saving drugs on the PBS. Why? Because they ran out of money. The coalition government, the Morrison government, understand the benefits of a strong economy and being able to invest in rural, regional and remote health.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cormann</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr President, I ask further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS</title>
        <page.no>52</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Special Purpose Flights</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>During question time I took on notice a question from Senator Wong about the special purpose aircraft and I now have answers to her question. I can advise that my office received the verified schedule of the special purpose aircraft flights for the period 19 January to 19 June on 19 February this year. As per longstanding convention, the schedule of special purpose aircraft flights is tabled twice yearly by the government, once the data is collected and verified and verification of activities has been completed. I can confirm to the chamber that the schedule of special purpose aircraft for this period will be tabled tomorrow.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Coronavirus</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In response to the question asked to me by Senator Rex Patrick on behalf of the Minister for Health, I have some further information for him. which I will now table.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. Are you seeking leave to incorporate it in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, I do seek leave to incorporate it in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The answer read as follows—</inline></para>
<list>I note that we are already well prepared and will continue to follow the expert medical advice.</list>
<list>On 21 January 2020, 'human coronavirus with pandemic potential' was listed as a Listed Human Disease under the <inline font-style="italic">Biosecurity Act 2015</inline>, enabling the use of enhanced border measures.</list>
<list>All states and territories have powers to issue orders under public health legislation that include provision for detaining persons and enforcement of those orders in relation to notifiable conditions. Authorised public health officers may issue directions to an individual, but generally Chief Health Officers (or equivalent) must authorise orders for detention.</list>
<list>All states and territories have emergency powers (or equivalent) which provides extensive authority to control a public health emergency, including the power to detain individuals. In such cases the emergency direction must be authorised by the Chief Health Officer, or in some cases the Minister, however once declared authorised emergency officers may have delegated powers and the agency to detain individuals.</list>
<list>The Commonwealth can issue directions during a human biosecurity emergency under the <inline font-style="italic">Biosecurity Act 2015</inline>.</list>
<list>The World Health Organization (WHO) International Health Regulations Emergency Committee met on 30 January 2020 and declared the 2019-nCoV outbreak a "Public Health Emergency of International Concern".</list>
<quote><para class="block">o The Chief Medical Officer advised that Australia was already carrying out the activities recommended by WHO, with border, isolation, surveillance, and contact tracing mechanisms already in place for some time.</para></quote>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</title>
        <page.no>53</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Special Purpose Flights</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator KITCHING</name>
    <name.id>247512</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Defence to the question asked by Senator Wong on special purpose flights.</para></quote>
<para>I did just live in a brief shining moment of hope that we were going to get the special purpose flights tabled. The last time the schedule of special purpose flights was tabled by the minister was for the period ending 31 December 2018. I note that this was not tabled by the minister until 28 June 2019. That's eight months overdue. But this is only the last time that the manifests were tabled in this place.</para>
<para>If you go to the Department of Defence website, under 'Defence publications: information to parliament', the last time these have been uploaded for the public to see, as you would expect from an accountable and transparent government, was on 12 November 2013—that was in the 44th Parliament. I would like to read part 2 of the manifest tabling and reporting requirements. Let me give that to the chamber: 'Defence will be responsible to the Minister for Defence for compiling the schedule of special purpose flights for tabling in parliament in June for the six months ending the previous 31 December, and December for the six months ending the previous 30 June, each year. This schedule will list all legs flown, passengers carried and hours and costings. So that guideline was once to be found on the Ministerial and Parliamentary Services website. It has now been removed. Instead, you can now find on the Ministerial and Parliamentary Services website, under the heading 'VIP operations—Department of Defence':</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Department of Defence is responsible for the cost and provision of Commonwealth transport by air (referred to as Special Purpose Aircraft).</para></quote>
<para>Additionally, a determination is published on the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority website. However, curiously missing are any references to scheduling or tabling.</para>
<para>Senator Reynolds seems to see herself as being above these issues. She's ignored recent requests for the information in the chamber. I know she is very proud of her new role as Minister for Defence, a role which she obviously thinks puts her above the daily requirements of this chamber. She has routinely ignored it. I can go back, if people do not believe this, and say that the last time we had special purpose flights tabled was 31 December 2018, and that was eight months overdue. Even on Monday evening, at the naval shipbuilding inquiry, when the government tried the old political line which Senator Reynolds also gave in her response to the question from Senator Wong—'What did the Labor Party ever do for us?'—the answer that came back from Defence to the government senator who asked the question, because they are professional people, was, 'Newsflash: there were projects and there was excellence in the work that was done.' In fact, Senator Wong was reminiscing only during question time that in fact the shipyards were full of work that was being done when the Labor Party was in government.</para>
<para>This is a minister who twists to avoid transparency and accountability at every turn. Sadly, it is symptomatic of this government. As I have said, the minister didn't even front the naval shipbuilding inquiry on Monday night and left the Secretary of the Department of Defence and the Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Noonan, to represent the Department of Defence and to answer questions on what is wrong with the most expensive procurement project this nation has ever seen. You might think that she could have bothered herself to come to the table. A couple of weeks ago in question time, as you would remember, Deputy President, she failed to provide an adequate explanation for the party political ad that the Prime Minister's office put out which included the ADF, complete with a 'Donate to the Liberal Party' banner running across the top. She failed to provide an adequate explanation about that. This is a minister who has refused to be upfront with the Australian public when it comes to Australia's Future Submarine program and the government's election commitment to the howitzer program. This is a minister who often goes missing when it counts. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STOKER</name>
    <name.id>237920</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's such a shame that a senator who I like so much, Senator Kitching, has been given such a lousy job by those opposite. They have given her the department of cleaning out the grubby jobs. Whether that's sending her into estimates to nitpick over the catering bills for bipartisan type functions, scrounging around how much people are spending on aeroplanes or trying to manufacture scandals where there are just none to see, my friend and respected colleague Senator Kitching just gets the grubby jobs over and over again. It's a shame, because she's a top person. I reckon those opposite undervalue you, Senator Kitching. You're capable of so much more than what they get you to do. I want to work with you on the big policy challenges of our time, and I want to see you elevated out of the department of taking out the trash. I'm happy to give you a reference, but I'm not sure that it's going to help you an awful lot. I get the feeling that references from me won't take you very far.</para>
<para>There's a reason that those opposite want to talk about every grubby little thing they can try and manufacture from the grease trap of this building. It's because they don't want to be talking about how their cupboard is bare. They came out earlier this week with what they made out to be a visionary zero-net-emissions target for this country by the year 2050. They made out this means they're serious about climate action. I just think that's really quite funny, because my dear friend, Senator Kitching, is a paid-up member of the Otis group, who I know has views much more like mine that say we need balance in these things. Anyway, they sent her out to take out the trash on that one on Monday, too. It's really quite unfair.</para>
<para>The cupboard is bare when it comes to their climate policies. We're talking about 2050 because they are so internally torn about what their climate policy should be. They're so torn between their desire to virtue-signal to the hipsters of Melbourne against the need to fight for jobs in Central Queensland and elsewhere. They're so torn and so divided that they thought, 'We'll just dodge 2030. The government's working towards this really concrete, meaningful stuff—accountable, measurable, deliverable by 2030—but it's all too hard for us, so what we're going to do is just make the date a whole lot later. It will give us an extra 20 or so years to work out what we stand for.' But the fact is that they don't know what they stand for, and their net-zero-emissions target for 2050 is one that they have no plan to achieve.</para>
<para>The government is happy to say that, like normal, sensible, non-extremist Australians, we want to balance the need to be responsible with our environment and to be as clean as we can possibly be with the need to continue to develop our economy and make sure there are great jobs for Australians from all walks of life, no matter where they come from and no matter what their ambitions are. We understand the value of both of those things. But those opposite only really know they want the twitterati to praise them for being supergreen. You're not supergreen when you can't deliver. You're not supergreen when you've got no plan on how to get there. You're not supergreen when your policies just mean that we send Australians' money overseas to buy carbon credits. They're not supergreen policies when they shut down the transport industry that brings goods to market, help make sure that we've got fresh fruit and vegies in our supermarkets and items to buy for a reasonable price when we go to the shops. It's not good for Australians when they can't even have an agriculture industry in which to work, no place in which their food can be manufactured—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Stoker, I am loath to interrupt you, but I do remind you that what we're taking note on are questions from Senator Wong to Senator Reynolds. You started off on that defence line, but you have drifted a long way away from it.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STOKER</name>
    <name.id>237920</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Madam Deputy President. It's just very distracting for me, and I'm sorry. It's because they are so determined to make distractions. They are so determined to say, 'We don't know what we're doing. Quick, quick! Look at Senator Reynolds. Look at the nasty grease that's been dug out of the trap by Senator Kitching to suggest that there's something untoward about the outstanding performance of Senator Reynolds, a minister who has presided over some of the most challenging periods for our country, as we have gone through bushfires, as we have dealt with the challenge of bringing our armed forces into the 21st century, as we develop our fleet, as we invest in new bases and new opportunities for Australians to serve.' But we will not be distracted because— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I promise you, Deputy President, I will stick to the topic because this is an important topic: taking note of answers by the Minister for Defence, Senator Reynolds, to a question by Senator Wong, regarding these special purpose aircraft. The minister has routinely tabled the schedule of special purpose flights late. In fact, the most recent ones were tabled eight months after they were due. Why? Is she incapable of being transparent? Is that what we should learn to expect of her? It is what we expect of her because it is just one example in a long, long line of examples of her failure of transparency in this place. It is another example of her complete and utter failure to be upfront with the Senate and upfront with the Australian people—just as she is failing to be upfront with the people of South Australia. Let's not forget the submarine-sized elephant in the room here, in that she is refusing to come clean on the government's intentions with the Future Submarine jobs in South Australia—my home state. Let's not forget the submarine-sized elephant in the room here in that she is refusing to come clean on the government's intentions with the future submarine jobs in South Australia, my home state. In fact, I'm still waiting, minister Reynolds, for a response to the letter I wrote to you in August last year, regarding the full cycle docking maintenance work in Adelaide. It has been seven months. Is eight months the magic number? Because eight months is what they've got with these special purpose flights. Is eight months the magic number? I've been waiting seven months for a response to my letter about these jobs in my state of South Australia. Will I be waiting longer? Will I ever get a response from the minister? My state has been waiting for an answer; I have been waiting for an answer. It is absolutely pathetic. This minister could not care less about transparency. She could not care less about giving an answer, and she could not care less about jobs in my state.</para>
<para>To be very, very clear, these jobs were meant for South Australia. They belong in South Australia, and there is no justification at all to take them out of South Australia. We're not talking about a new procurement process here. We are talking about jobs that already exist in my state. They're jobs which families rely upon. Collins class full cycle docking has been based at the Osborne shipyard in Adelaide since 2003. These are jobs which South Australian families need. We're talking about hundreds of direct jobs, not to mention thousands of indirect jobs. They're jobs which affect business confidence in my state. They're jobs which affect the future of my state. Let us not pretend the other side cares at all for jobs in South Australia. There are not many marginal seats anymore—is that it? Is it that there's nothing to rort? You don't care about jobs in my state, but you can't just keep dragging us through this, expecting us to stay silent and expecting us to take it. We lost Holden on your watch. We lost car manufacturing in my state on your watch.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Smith, you started off on topic. It is taking note of questions from Senator Wong to Senator Reynolds.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, and I am getting to the point of transparency, which is what this question came to. The question of transparency extends to a record of this minister. It is a pattern of behaviour which explains her failure to answer questions today. It explains her failure to answer questions of Senator Wong. It is a pattern. It is the same pattern we are seeing in her portfolio when it comes to these jobs in my state—that is, when it comes to submarine jobs in South Australia. I've been waiting seven months for a response to my letter. Senator Wong has been waiting eight months for a response to the matter in question. Do we mean so little to you? Does transparency mean so little to you? Do the people of South Australia and jobs in my state mean so little to you that you don't even bother to answer?</para>
<para>There is no more pressing issue in South Australia for the people of my state than these jobs. Why won't you answer our calls for certainty? Why won't you be transparent to us? Why won't you tell these workers what their future holds? Why won't you tell them if they're going to have a job? Why won't you tell them? Be honest to the people of South Australia and, for once, stand up for jobs in my state. Stand up for submarine workers in my state of South Australia. That is what we expect of you: transparency and fairness. We want to know if these jobs, which belong in my state, are going to be there. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ABETZ</name>
    <name.id>N26</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Taking note of answers is an opportunity for the opposition to hit on the topic of the day—the burning issue for them in their service to the people of Australia. What was it today? The special purpose aircraft manifest and its tabling in the Senate. I confess, when I go to the supermarket, everybody wants to talk to me about the tabling of this manifest! It is just so vitally important to them to be able to manage their household budget! It is so vitally important to them to know what we're doing about the coronavirus! It's so important to them to know about their job security or about our Defence capacity and Defence capability!</para>
<para>What they want to talk to me about is exactly what the Australian Labor Party has raised as the issue today? No—not so. They actually want to talk about the real issues. They want to talk about job security. They want to know how unemployment can come down even further, to know that there will be security for coalminer jobs, to know that this government seeks to govern for all Australians and not just for green, inner-city elites. Yet here we had the alternative government, led by Mr Albanese, coming into this place and telling the Australian people that their topic of the day, their concern for the Australian people, is the tabling of a manifest for special purpose aircraft.</para>
<para>If ever there was a classic example of the Australian Labor Party living in the Canberra bubble and unable to extract themselves from it, today is that example. Really, do we in this chamber honestly believe—it seems that the Labor Party does, that their tactics team does, that their leadership does—that, given the opportunity today to raise a matter on taking note of answers, they should come up with this zinger of a question about the tabling of the manifest for special purpose aircraft and how late it is, and that then becomes the topic of the day? I am sure that every single news bulletin in the nation will be leading this evening with this issue! Of course they won't be. It won't even make the newspapers—and nor should it.</para>
<para>This is an example of a political party completely and utterly divorced from the true aspirations, from the true needs of the Australian people whom they are sworn to serve—and to think that the Australian Labor Party presents itself as an alternative government, concerned about the wellbeing of the Australian people. Yet when given the opportunity of half an hour to debate an issue of the day, what is it? It's the tabling of the manifest for special purpose aircraft. This really is unbelievable. Who on earth is responsible for these tactics, for this decision, that this is going to be the issue that is going to consume the time of every man, woman and child around Australia this evening as they sit down to dinner? Really, is this the best the Labor Party has to offer?</para>
<para>Well, I can indicate to the Australian people who might be listening into this broadcast that sadly yes, it is the best the Australian Labor Party has to offer. The good news is that they are not in government and we, as a government, are concentrating on the issues of the day. Sure, we are dealing with issues such as bushfires, drought and coronavirus. We are getting on with ensuring that our defence capability is up to scratch, having been neglected for a good six years under the previous, Labor, government. And we are concentrating on those issues. So, when there may be slippage in relation to the tabling of a manifest for special purpose aircraft, I don't blame the Minister for Defence if it's not her top priority, when there are other issues, such as mobilising our Defence Force to assist in the fire emergency and ensuring that we get a proper submarine fleet and that we get proper shipbuilding capacity within our nation, that should be consuming her time. They are the matters that are consuming her time, and the record is now there for people to see—that we are on the big issues of the day. I encourage the Australian Labor Party to simply keep on talking about special purpose aircraft and confirm to the Australian people that you are well and truly ensconced in the Canberra bubble and have no understanding of their real— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also rise this afternoon to take note of the answers provided by Minister Reynolds in response to Senator Wong's question on the government's failure to table a schedule of special purpose flights that's been ordered by the Senate. I think that's sort of the key point here—that it's been ordered by the Senate, a key institution of our democracy, one of the two chambers in our parliament. This place serves as the house of review but also provides that extra layer of scrutiny on the executive body. The comments earlier by those opposite indicate that they seem to just want to discount the fact that the Senate has a role. The fact is that the Senate has asked for these documents, yet the government continues to simply ignore the fact that the minister has an obligation to this place. They are treating this whole debate as 'Nothing to see here. It's only a document. We don't need to worry about its contents.' But it is under scrutiny today, with the executive being questioned by the Labor opposition. What we find is that the minister is like, 'Oh, we'll just be able to provide that tomorrow.' You have to ask why it has taken the minister and her department over eight months? In her department there are hundreds if not thousands of people who easily could have turned this document around very quickly.</para>
<para>There has been a little bit of scrutiny in this place, with some questioning from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wong, with contributions from Senator Kitching, in her consistent pursuit of this government's failure to provide any form of transparency to the Australian people. I should note that Senator Kitching has been doing an outstanding job in her role, as shadow minister, to keep the government accountable in her portfolio areas. Yet what we have from government senators is that the minister's responsibilities to this place should just be ignored—that she has no obligation to provide, in a timely manner, documents that the Senate has requested. I think it really goes to the core of this government's attitude to how it perceives our democracy should work and how governments should operate in this place. Regarding the comments from Senator Abetz, as the second-longest serving senator in this place, and having been a former minister himself, he should know that these documents are important. They should be tabled in the Senate when there is a request to do so. It shouldn't take over eight months for such documents to be tabled. Sure, some of these may not be burning issues in your local supermarket but they certainly are important issues for the institutions that we are all elected to.</para>
<para>Our job here is to represent the people. Regardless of how small the issue may be, it is still an important issue and the fact that the government has taken over eight months to provide this document—and have now been prepared to make a commitment that they will table it tomorrow—feeds into the whole narrative that, since the election last year, this government's failure to be transparent with the Australian people has been exposed. Whether it is because of sports rorts, from the former Minister for Sport, Senator McKenzie, what we are seeing is a consistent pattern where this government chooses to turn its back on the processes that have been set up to make sure that the Senate can hold this government to account.</para>
<para>It is disappointing to see that the minister used the opportunity after question time, rather than during question time, to answer the questions that were put on notice. It is important to note that taking flights, travelling around this country, costs the taxpayer quite a bit of money. This is money that can be spent on other services that the government offers. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars, where flights, rightly or wrongly, are flown around the country for a purpose. Why is it that the government chooses to withhold that information? And if it's not this document, what other documents can we expect this government to hide in the future? Why is it that Labor has to constantly apply pressure on this government and actually waste question time, when we could have asked questions on other matters. This government chooses to ignore the basic principles that this institution deserves to— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Bushfires</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Rice today relating to Australian bushfires and forests.</para></quote>
<para>My question was about the unprecedented extent and intensity of the fires that we have experienced this summer, under only one degree of global heating, and about how this is only going to get worse, when we are headed towards 3.4 degrees of global heating, and about the need to stop logging our forests, if our forests and our wildlife are to recover, particularly because we know that logging our forests actually makes the forests more fire-prone. What was the answer that I got? It was basically total denial of how extreme the conditions this summer were and total denial of the science that has just been released that shows that the fires that we've been through are off the scale, unprecedented on a global basis, and that is because of the climate crisis we're in.</para>
<para>The answer that I got showed total ignorance of the risks that global heating is going to have on our forests as the world gets hotter. One degree is just the beginning. Under the government's policy, we are headed towards 3.4 degrees of warming across the globe. That's what the government's policy is consistent with. What I got was a complete head-in-the-sand denial of what the impacts are going to be and then complete denial of what the impacts of logging are. What did I get from Minister Cormann? He said: 'Oh, well, our forests will recover. We're doing everything we can.' Basically, the government has no plan. It is not listening to the science. There is a total refusal to listen to the science and a total refusal to acknowledge that what we have just been through this summer is unprecedented and is only going to get worse.</para>
<para>Look at the impacts of this summer's fires on our communities, on our forests and on our wildlife—and this is only at one degree of global heating. Think about what it's going to mean for Australia's forests at three or four degrees of global heating. Our forests are doomed. We are doomed to a future of more fires of greater extent and of greater intensity—more extreme, longer fires of greater extent and of greater intensity—of smoke choking our cities for months and months on end and of having our current precious wildlife that is already threatened and endangered heading towards being extinct. Those animals will no longer exist for our children and our grandchildren to enjoy.</para>
<para>If we are talking about the usefulness of timber as a product, we're in a situation where almost 90 per cent of the timber that comes from Australia already comes from plantations. What is the future of those plantations under three or four degrees of warming? We saw plantations going up in these fires over summer with one degree of global heating. Under three or four degrees, will we be able to maintain a plantation estate at all? Will we be able to maintain an area of plantation, which we Greens want to have as much as anybody else in this place? Will that be viable? You're going to have to not have fire go through that plantation for the 30 or 40 years that it takes for those trees to grow to become valuable as timber. At the moment, if we get to even two degrees—we have seen the impact of one degree—or three degrees or four degrees of global heating, there's no possibility that we're going to be able to do that. The devastation to regional economies, as well as the devastation to our forests, our wildlife and our communities is just going to be overwhelming.</para>
<para>The key thing is that there was no sense that this is understood and that we know that we do have a choice. But where that choice starts is in acknowledging that we're in a climate emergency. This is a crisis. There is action that needs to be taken, and it needs to be taken now. There is no point putting it out to 2050. There is no point having the absolutely pathetic commitments that this government currently has. We need to be rapidly reducing our carbon pollution now. We need to be transitioning away from burning all coal, all gas and all oil and shifting to renewable energy as quickly as possible. And we need to be protecting our forests, because these forests are our carbon sinks. Our forests are soaking up the carbon in the atmosphere. If we allow them to burn and if we keep logging them, they are not going to be able to continue to play that incredibly important role. We've got a choice. The Greens are up to protecting our forests. Sadly, it seems that the government is not even on the same page when it comes to that level of protection. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>57</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Withdrawal</title>
            <page.no>61</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS</name>
    <name.id>e4t</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for three sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) (reporting standard) determination No. 30 of 2019, and business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for 14 sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Jervis Bay Territory Rural Fires Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Rules 2019.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Postponement</title>
            <page.no>62</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask that the question for the postponement of general business notice of motion No. 505 standing in the name of Senator Waters be put to a vote.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that general business notice of motion No. 505 be postponed.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [15:40]<br />(The President—Senator Ryan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>35</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, CL</name>
                  <name>Brown, CL</name>
                  <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R</name>
                  <name>Di Natale, R</name>
                  <name>Dodson, P</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                  <name>Green, N</name>
                  <name>Griff, S</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                  <name>Kitching, K</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J</name>
                  <name>Lines, S</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M</name>
                  <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D</name>
                  <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                  <name>Polley, H</name>
                  <name>Pratt, LC</name>
                  <name>Rice, J</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A</name>
                  <name>Siewert, R</name>
                  <name>Smith, M</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, AE (teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J</name>
                  <name>Waters, LJ</name>
                  <name>Watt, M</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, PS</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>35</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Abetz, E</name>
                  <name>Antic, A</name>
                  <name>Askew, W</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A J</name>
                  <name>Brockman, S</name>
                  <name>Cash, MC</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R</name>
                  <name>Cormann, M</name>
                  <name>Davey, P</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                  <name>Fierravanti-Wells, C</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P</name>
                  <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H</name>
                  <name>Hume, J</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A</name>
                  <name>McMahon, S</name>
                  <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J</name>
                  <name>Payne, MA</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A</name>
                  <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P</name>
                  <name>Smith, DA (teller)</name>
                  <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                  <name>Van, D</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>3</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Gallacher, AM</name>
                  <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                  <name>Keneally, KK</name>
                  <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                  <name>Wong, P</name>
                  <name>Birmingham, S</name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>63</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>63</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance, by no later than 30 April of each calendar year:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) all reports and correspondence received by the Minister for Finance under paragraph 4 .12 of the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines 2017 during the preceding calendar year; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a summary of the decisions reported under paragraph 4.12 of the Commonwealth Grant Rules and Guidelines 2017, including the Central Budget Management System program title, sub-program, grant activity, grantee, total grant value, grant funding location, postcode, and a brief statement of reason for the decision.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If the Senate is not sitting when the documents are ready for presentation, the documents are to be presented to the President under standing order 166.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) This order is of continuing effect.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I just wanted to explain to the chamber that it was the Labor Party who had asked for this motion to be postponed, so that we could consult with colleagues about the merits of the motion more broadly than just seeking to have a continuing resolution placed before the Senate. We needed to do further consultations but, unfortunately, that hasn't been allowed. In light of that and the fact that we haven't been able to consult with colleagues, Labor won't be in a position to support this motion today, even though there may be merit to the motion if we'd had more time to consider it.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>One Nation has already supported the Senate in compelling this government to answer questions relating to the sports rorts and former sports minister Senator McKenzie at estimates next week. One Nation feels that it is not appropriate to pre-empt any potential findings that may be revealed during next week's Senate estimates by supporting a motion of this nature.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is not granted. With a suspension of standing orders there's no opportunity to speak to that motion. If you wish to move to suspend standing orders to allow you to make a statement, I have to put the motion about suspension of standing orders immediately. There's no debate on that motion.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, if you could do that, President.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that so much of standing orders be suspended as would allow Senator Waters to make a statement of no more than two minutes.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [15:46]<br />(The President—Senator Ryan) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>9</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Di Natale, R</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                  <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                  <name>Rice, J</name>
                  <name>Siewert, R (teller)</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J</name>
                  <name>Waters, LJ</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, PS</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>61</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Abetz, E</name>
                  <name>Antic, A</name>
                  <name>Askew, W</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, CL</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A J</name>
                  <name>Brockman, S</name>
                  <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                  <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                  <name>Cash, MC</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R</name>
                  <name>Cormann, M</name>
                  <name>Davey, P</name>
                  <name>Dodson, P</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                  <name>Fierravanti-Wells, C</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                  <name>Green, N</name>
                  <name>Griff, S</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P</name>
                  <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H</name>
                  <name>Hume, J</name>
                  <name>Kitching, K</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J</name>
                  <name>Lines, S</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A</name>
                  <name>McMahon, S</name>
                  <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J</name>
                  <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                  <name>Payne, MA</name>
                  <name>Polley, H</name>
                  <name>Pratt, LC</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A</name>
                  <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A</name>
                  <name>Smith, DA</name>
                  <name>Smith, M</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G</name>
                  <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, AE (teller)</name>
                  <name>Van, D</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J</name>
                  <name>Watt, M</name>
                  <name>Wong, P</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names></names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that general business notice of motion No. 505 be agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [15:52]<br />(The President—Senator Ryan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>11</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Di Natale, R</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                  <name>Griff, S</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                  <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                  <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                  <name>Rice, J</name>
                  <name>Siewert, R (teller)</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J</name>
                  <name>Waters, LJ</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, PS</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>58</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Abetz, E</name>
                  <name>Antic, A</name>
                  <name>Askew, W</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, CL</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A J</name>
                  <name>Brockman, S</name>
                  <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                  <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                  <name>Cash, MC</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R</name>
                  <name>Cormann, M</name>
                  <name>Davey, P</name>
                  <name>Dodson, P</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                  <name>Fierravanti-Wells, C</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                  <name>Green, N</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P</name>
                  <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H</name>
                  <name>Hume, J</name>
                  <name>Kitching, K</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J</name>
                  <name>Lines, S</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A</name>
                  <name>McMahon, S</name>
                  <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J</name>
                  <name>Payne, MA</name>
                  <name>Polley, H</name>
                  <name>Pratt, LC</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A</name>
                  <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A</name>
                  <name>Smith, DA</name>
                  <name>Smith, M</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G</name>
                  <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, AE (teller)</name>
                  <name>Van, D</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J</name>
                  <name>Watt, M</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names></names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Security</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to inform the Senate that Senator Keneally will sponsor this motion as well. I, and also on behalf of Senators Di Natale and Keneally, move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) that 15 March 2020 will mark one year since the Christchurch massacre, when a racist, hate-filled and violent white supremacist man from Australia killed 51 Muslims during Friday prayers at Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre in Christchurch, New Zealand,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) that the anniversary of Christchurch is a painful reminder to Muslims in Australia, New Zealand and across the world that anti-Muslim racism and white supremacy has fatal consequences,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the recent concerns of ASIO Director-General, Mr Mike Burgess, regarding far-right extremism in Australia, that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(A) the extreme right-wing threat is real and growing,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(B) Neo-Nazi groups regularly meet to salute Nazi flags, inspect weapons, train in combat and share their hateful ideology, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(C) extremists are seeking to connect with like-minded individuals in other parts of the world; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) expresses solidarity with the families, friends and communities of the victims of the Christchurch terrorist attack at this difficult time;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) expresses a deep commitment to calling out and stamping out extreme right-wing ideologies, white supremacy and anti-Muslim racism; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) urgently calls on the Federal Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) dedicate adequate resources to targeting right-wing extremism, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) work to stop the spread of hate speech and far-right movements.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Morrison government is absolutely committed to protecting our nation from all threats. Our agencies are working hard to tackle threats from all sources, including threats posed by extremists, whatever their ideological background. Our laws, law enforcement and national security arrangements do not discriminate between types of extremism. They are ideologically agnostic and focus on the threat and criminality. The coalition has increased funding to our law enforcement and security agencies charged with protecting Australians from terrorism. Funding for these agencies is at record levels.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>One Nation will not support this Greens motion that singles out right-wing extremism. As identified by Mike Burgess, Director-General of ASIO, there are four clear threats running at unprecedented levels throughout Australia. They include Islamic terrorism, right-wing terrorism, foreign espionage, and foreign interference in politics and society. Terrorism motivated by extreme views should be stamped out regardless of race or religion. The majority of ASIO's work at this moment is dedicated to Sunni Islam, but any group or individual that shows signs of extreme behaviour should be targeted by ASIO and the Federal Police. At last estimates, there were approximately 200 ongoing investigations into potentially acts of extremism. In terms of dangerous and extreme political parties, the Greens take the cake. One Nation will oppose this highly politicised motion by the Greens.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that notice of motion No. 497 be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [15:58]<br />(The President—Senator Ryan)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>66</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Antic, A</name>
                <name>Askew, W</name>
                <name>Ayres, T</name>
                <name>Bilyk, CL</name>
                <name>Bragg, A J</name>
                <name>Brockman, S</name>
                <name>Brown, CL</name>
                <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                <name>Cash, MC</name>
                <name>Chandler, C</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R</name>
                <name>Cormann, M</name>
                <name>Davey, P</name>
                <name>Di Natale, R</name>
                <name>Dodson, P</name>
                <name>Duniam, J</name>
                <name>Farrell, D</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                <name>Green, N</name>
                <name>Griff, S</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                <name>Hughes, H</name>
                <name>Hume, J</name>
                <name>Kitching, K</name>
                <name>Lambie, J</name>
                <name>Lines, S</name>
                <name>McAllister, J</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M</name>
                <name>McDonald, S</name>
                <name>McGrath, J</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A</name>
                <name>McMahon, S</name>
                <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                <name>Paterson, J</name>
                <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                <name>Payne, MA</name>
                <name>Polley, H</name>
                <name>Pratt, LC</name>
                <name>Rennick, G</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                <name>Rice, J</name>
                <name>Ruston, A</name>
                <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                <name>Scarr, P</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A</name>
                <name>Siewert, R</name>
                <name>Smith, DA (teller)</name>
                <name>Smith, M</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J</name>
                <name>Sterle, G</name>
                <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                <name>Urquhart, AE</name>
                <name>Van, D</name>
                <name>Walsh, J</name>
                <name>Waters, LJ</name>
                <name>Watt, M</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, PS</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>2</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Hanson, P</name>
                <name>Roberts, M (teller)</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names></names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Oil Exploration</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) Norwegian oil company Equinor, has announced it is discontinuing its exploration drilling plans in the Great Australian Bight,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) this is an opportunity to celebrate the pristine and precious Great Australian Bight and to protect it for future generations and the rest of the world to come and experience,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Bight is ecologically and environmentally significant and home to some of the most unique wildlife in the world with 85% of marine life found in the Bight found nowhere else,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) Australia Institute Research has shown that more than 4 in 5 South Australians (84%) and 7 in 10 Australians want to see the Bight given World Heritage protection, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (v) in July 2018, the South Australian Parliament called on the state government to work with the federal government to seek listing under the World Heritage Convention of the waters, seabed and coastline of the Great Australian Bight as a matter of urgency; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Federal Government to submit the Great Australian Bight for consideration as a World Heritage Site.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia needs new oil and gas developments to ensure energy security, to bring down prices and to support Australian jobs. The Great Australian Bight is home to some of Australia's most successful and sustainable fisheries. It is also one of our most prospective basins for petroleum resources and has the potential to contribute to Australia's energy and economic security. Development of our petroleum resources in the bight would bring jobs and business opportunities, especially to South Australia. The Chief Scientist has found that Australia has a world-class offshore regulator and effective offshore regime. Any activities would have to have all the relevant environmental approvals. Communities around the bight should ignore Greens scaremongering on this issue.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>One Nation will not support this Greens motion, which calls on the Senate to hand the Great Australian Bight to the United Nations. Australia is home to many unique and diverse species of marine flora and fauna. However the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO, which governs the World Heritage Convention, should not be handed sovereign power over Australian territory. In 1981, approximately 348,000 square kilometres of Australia's Great Barrier Reef was signed up to the United Nations World Heritage areas. Since then we have had to answer to global consortia of unelected nobodies who can dictate our use of the reef. One Nation will vehemently oppose any motion that willingly sells out Australia to the United Nations and its treacherous control measures.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor won't be supporting this motion today. We believe science should always be at the centre of environmental decision-making. This motion seeks to politicise the World Heritage listing process by referring to specific resource projects and political polling and is detrimental to public confidence and trust in the World Heritage process. Decisions about supporting consideration for World Heritage listing should be unbiased and based on the UNESCO criteria for the listing of natural heritage.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that notice of motion No. 501 be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:06]<br />(The President—Senator Ryan)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>11</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Di Natale, R</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                <name>Griff, S</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                <name>Rice, J</name>
                <name>Siewert, R (teller)</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J</name>
                <name>Waters, LJ</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, PS</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>57</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Abetz, E</name>
                <name>Antic, A</name>
                <name>Askew, W</name>
                <name>Ayres, T</name>
                <name>Bilyk, CL</name>
                <name>Bragg, A J</name>
                <name>Brockman, S</name>
                <name>Brown, CL</name>
                <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                <name>Cash, MC</name>
                <name>Chandler, C</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R</name>
                <name>Cormann, M</name>
                <name>Davey, P</name>
                <name>Dodson, P</name>
                <name>Duniam, J</name>
                <name>Farrell, D</name>
                <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                <name>Green, N</name>
                <name>Hanson, P</name>
                <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                <name>Hughes, H</name>
                <name>Hume, J</name>
                <name>Kitching, K</name>
                <name>Lambie, J</name>
                <name>Lines, S</name>
                <name>McAllister, J</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M</name>
                <name>McDonald, S</name>
                <name>McGrath, J</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A</name>
                <name>McMahon, S</name>
                <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                <name>Paterson, J</name>
                <name>Payne, MA</name>
                <name>Polley, H</name>
                <name>Pratt, LC</name>
                <name>Rennick, G</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                <name>Roberts, M</name>
                <name>Ruston, A</name>
                <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                <name>Scarr, P</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A</name>
                <name>Smith, DA</name>
                <name>Smith, M</name>
                <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                <name>Urquhart, AE (teller)</name>
                <name>Van, D</name>
                <name>Walsh, J</name>
                <name>Watt, M</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names></names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Renewable Energy</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senators Watt, Green and Chisholm, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that the Leader of the Liberal National Party in the Queensland Parliament, Mrs Deb Frecklington, has promised to require government-owned energy companies to invest in renewable energy generation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) supports increased investment in renewable power as the cheapest and cleanest means of supplying our future energy needs; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) calls on the Federal Liberal National Party to support further investment in renewables.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The government notes this motion selectively quotes from the LNP's election policy. In particular, the motion: (1) ignores the objective of Queensland LNP's policy to get the balance right between base-load energy and renewable energy; (2) ignores the criticism of the Queensland Labor government using electricity as a secret tax and thereby hurting Queensland's vulnerable pensioners on fixed incomes; (3) ignores the call to introduce retail competition into regional electricity markets to promote competition and to drive down prices; and (4) ignores the Queensland LNP's most recent characterisation of the ALP's 2050 net zero emissions policy as a destroyer of jobs in regional Queensland and a hammer blow to Queensland's agriculture industry.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We will oppose this because Australians are paying record electricity prices, risking blackouts, buying batteries and synchronous condensers, building new multibillion dollar interconnectors, losing companies overseas and suffering voltage spikes. We are playing chicken with our smelters and party games with peak smart timers and extra domestic circuits so that electricity companies can manage our pool pumps and air-conditioners. They are the words of Joanne Nova, who has done a lot of work on this. Senator Watt, Annastacia Palaszczuk, Jackie Trad and Deb Frecklington all want to destroy the last stable east coast electricity grid and supply network. We are sending our top quality coal overseas for competitors to use and we are raising our electricity prices and driving our industry overseas. This is insane.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that motion No. 493 be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:15]<br />(The President—Senator Ryan)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>34</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Ayres, T</name>
                <name>Bilyk, CL</name>
                <name>Brown, CL</name>
                <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R</name>
                <name>Di Natale, R</name>
                <name>Dodson, P</name>
                <name>Farrell, D</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                <name>Green, N</name>
                <name>Griff, S</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                <name>Kitching, K</name>
                <name>Lines, S</name>
                <name>McAllister, J</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M</name>
                <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D</name>
                <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                <name>Polley, H</name>
                <name>Pratt, LC</name>
                <name>Rice, J</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A</name>
                <name>Siewert, R</name>
                <name>Smith, M</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J</name>
                <name>Sterle, G</name>
                <name>Urquhart, AE (teller)</name>
                <name>Walsh, J</name>
                <name>Waters, LJ</name>
                <name>Watt, M</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, PS</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>36</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Abetz, E</name>
                <name>Askew, W</name>
                <name>Bragg, A J</name>
                <name>Brockman, S</name>
                <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                <name>Cash, MC</name>
                <name>Chandler, C</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R</name>
                <name>Cormann, M</name>
                <name>Davey, P</name>
                <name>Duniam, J</name>
                <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                <name>Fierravanti-Wells, C</name>
                <name>Hanson, P</name>
                <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                <name>Hughes, H</name>
                <name>Hume, J</name>
                <name>Lambie, J</name>
                <name>McDonald, S</name>
                <name>McGrath, J</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A</name>
                <name>McMahon, S</name>
                <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                <name>Paterson, J</name>
                <name>Payne, MA</name>
                <name>Rennick, G</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                <name>Roberts, M</name>
                <name>Ruston, A</name>
                <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                <name>Scarr, P</name>
                <name>Smith, DA (teller)</name>
                <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                <name>Van, D</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>3</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names>
                <name>Gallacher, AM</name>
                <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                <name>Keneally, KK</name>
                <name>Antic, A</name>
                <name>Wong, P</name>
                <name>Birmingham, S</name>
              </names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>69</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Keneally, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Senate notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Morrison Government has announced that it intends to privatise Aged Care Assessment Teams (ACAT) from April 2021;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians said claimed he is implementing a recommendation from the Tune Review;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Tune Review made no such recommendation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians also claimed he is implementing a recommendation from the Royal Commission into the Aged Care Quality and Safety; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the Royal Commission made no such recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Senate condemns the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians for failing to adequately explain his decision to privatise the ACAT, despite neither the Tune Review nor Royal Commission making any such recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) At 9:30 am on 27 February 2020, before government business is called on, the Senate requires the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians to attend the Senate to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) provide an explanation as to why the Morrison Government is continuing with its tender of ACAT services despite the fact the Royal Commission has stated that it has yet to make recommendations about which sector or mechanism should deliver ACAT-type services; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that a senator may, at the conclusion of the explanation, move without notice, that the Senate take note of the explanation.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GRIFF</name>
    <name.id>76760</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) At the end of the motion, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"(4) Any motion under paragraph (3) may be debated for no longer than 75 minutes, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes each."</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The government has not made a decision to privatise aged-care assessments. It's disappointing that claims to that effect by the opposition are misleading the community and the parliament. The government made a commitment in the 2018-19 budget to create a single assessment workforce for aged care in line with the 2017 Tune review recommendation No. 27 which states, 'That the government integrate regional assessment services with aged care assessment teams.' The government rejects the false claims by Labor about consultation. In fact, there have been several rounds of consultation with states following the Tune review recommendation. The government remains committed to creating a better experience for senior Australians entering aged care.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>One Nation stands opposed to the privatisation of aged care assessment teams, or ACAT. I have spoken directly with the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians. I have been given an ironclad guarantee by Minister Colbeck that the Morrison government has no desire to privatise ACAT. I commend Senator Keneally for her bipartisan stance with One Nation against the privatisation of government services. I encourage her to speak directly with the minister and, if need be, get his assurances in writing. One Nation will not squander the Senate's time tomorrow by calling for a further explanation from the minister. If the government's actions change, you will have my full support in calling them out.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that notice of motion No. 498, as amended, be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:22]<br />(The President—Senator Ryan)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>34</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Ayres, T</name>
                <name>Bilyk, CL</name>
                <name>Brown, CL</name>
                <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R</name>
                <name>Di Natale, R</name>
                <name>Dodson, P</name>
                <name>Farrell, D</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                <name>Green, N</name>
                <name>Griff, S</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                <name>Kitching, K</name>
                <name>Lines, S</name>
                <name>McAllister, J</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M</name>
                <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D</name>
                <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                <name>Polley, H</name>
                <name>Pratt, LC</name>
                <name>Rice, J</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A</name>
                <name>Siewert, R</name>
                <name>Smith, M</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J</name>
                <name>Sterle, G</name>
                <name>Urquhart, AE (teller)</name>
                <name>Walsh, J</name>
                <name>Waters, LJ</name>
                <name>Watt, M</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, PS</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>36</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Abetz, E</name>
                <name>Askew, W</name>
                <name>Bragg, A J</name>
                <name>Brockman, S</name>
                <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                <name>Cash, MC</name>
                <name>Chandler, C</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R</name>
                <name>Cormann, M</name>
                <name>Davey, P</name>
                <name>Duniam, J</name>
                <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                <name>Fierravanti-Wells, C</name>
                <name>Hanson, P</name>
                <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                <name>Hughes, H</name>
                <name>Hume, J</name>
                <name>Lambie, J</name>
                <name>McDonald, S</name>
                <name>McGrath, J</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A</name>
                <name>McMahon, S</name>
                <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                <name>Paterson, J</name>
                <name>Payne, MA</name>
                <name>Rennick, G</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                <name>Roberts, M</name>
                <name>Ruston, A</name>
                <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                <name>Scarr, P</name>
                <name>Smith, DA (teller)</name>
                <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                <name>Van, D</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>3</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names>
                <name>Gallacher, AM</name>
                <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                <name>Keneally, KK</name>
                <name>Antic, A</name>
                <name>Wong, P</name>
                <name>Birmingham, S</name>
              </names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>71</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>71</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance, by no later than 2 pm on 23 March 2020, all reports and correspondence received by the Minister for Finance from other Ministers under paragraph 4 of the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines 2017 or 4 of the previous Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines between 1 August 2016 and 31 April 2019.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) In the event the Minister fails to table the reports and correspondence, the Senate requires the Minister representing the Prime Minister to attend the Senate on 25 March 2020, by no later than 10:15 am, to provide an explanation, of no more than 10 minutes, of the Government's failure to table the documents.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Any Senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Any motion under paragraph (3) may be debated for no longer than 60 minutes, shall have precedence over all government business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes each.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that general business notice of motion No. 504 be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:25]<br />(The President—Senator Ryan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>35</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, CL</name>
                  <name>Brown, CL</name>
                  <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R</name>
                  <name>Di Natale, R</name>
                  <name>Dodson, P</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                  <name>Green, N</name>
                  <name>Griff, S</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                  <name>Kitching, K</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J</name>
                  <name>Lines, S</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M</name>
                  <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D</name>
                  <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                  <name>Polley, H</name>
                  <name>Pratt, LC</name>
                  <name>Rice, J</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A</name>
                  <name>Siewert, R</name>
                  <name>Smith, M</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, AE (teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J</name>
                  <name>Waters, LJ</name>
                  <name>Watt, M</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, PS</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>35</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Abetz, E</name>
                  <name>Askew, W</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A J</name>
                  <name>Brockman, S</name>
                  <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                  <name>Cash, MC</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R</name>
                  <name>Cormann, M</name>
                  <name>Davey, P</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                  <name>Fierravanti-Wells, C</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P</name>
                  <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H</name>
                  <name>Hume, J</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A</name>
                  <name>McMahon, S</name>
                  <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J</name>
                  <name>Payne, MA</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A</name>
                  <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P</name>
                  <name>Smith, DA (teller)</name>
                  <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                  <name>Van, D</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>3</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Gallacher, AM</name>
                  <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                  <name>Keneally, KK</name>
                  <name>Antic, A</name>
                  <name>Wong, P</name>
                  <name>Birmingham, S</name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>72</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) Aged Care Assessment Teams (ACAT) are teams of experienced, qualified and highly trained medical, clinical and allied health professionals who are responsible for assessing the level of government-funded care that ageing Australians should receive,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the Morrison Government sees ageing as a problem and the market as the solution,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Morrison Government has announced that it intends to privatise ACAT from April 2021,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the New South Wales (NSW) Minister for Health and Medical Research, Mr Brad Hazzard, has been highly critical of the Morrison Government's decision to privatise ACAT,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (v) Minister Hazzard has said that "NSW has major concerns" about the Government's plan to privatise ACAT,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (vi) Minister Hazzard has said that "It would worry me if a private company had accountability that went beyond the pure interest of the elderly person",</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (vii) Minister Hazzard has said that "It seems pre-emptive and unreasonable to be effectively privatising health aged-care services while the royal commission into aged care is still under way", and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (viii) Minister Hazzard concluded that the Government's decision to privatise ACAT demonstrated that there was "Not a lot of logic there"; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Morrison Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) listen to the concerns of their colleague Minister Hazzard in the NSW State Government, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) stop the privatisation of ACAT services.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's disappointing that Labor is still attempting to play politics with aged care by repeating false claims in numerous notices of motion rather than focusing on what the future of aged care should look like. Labor has no aged-care policy and no agenda other than to scare senior Australians. The government remains committed to creating a better experience for senior Australians entering aged care.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion moved by Senator O'Neill be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:30]<br />(The President—Senator Ryan)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>35</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Ayres, T</name>
                <name>Bilyk, CL</name>
                <name>Brown, CL</name>
                <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R</name>
                <name>Di Natale, R</name>
                <name>Dodson, P</name>
                <name>Farrell, D</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                <name>Green, N</name>
                <name>Griff, S</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                <name>Kitching, K</name>
                <name>Lambie, J</name>
                <name>Lines, S</name>
                <name>McAllister, J</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M</name>
                <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D</name>
                <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                <name>Polley, H</name>
                <name>Pratt, LC</name>
                <name>Rice, J</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A</name>
                <name>Siewert, R</name>
                <name>Smith, M</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J</name>
                <name>Urquhart, AE (teller)</name>
                <name>Walsh, J</name>
                <name>Waters, LJ</name>
                <name>Watt, M</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, PS</name>
                <name>Wong, P</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>35</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Abetz, E</name>
                <name>Antic, A</name>
                <name>Askew, W</name>
                <name>Bragg, A J</name>
                <name>Brockman, S</name>
                <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                <name>Cash, MC</name>
                <name>Chandler, C</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R</name>
                <name>Cormann, M</name>
                <name>Davey, P</name>
                <name>Duniam, J</name>
                <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                <name>Hanson, P</name>
                <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                <name>Hughes, H</name>
                <name>Hume, J</name>
                <name>McDonald, S</name>
                <name>McGrath, J</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                <name>McMahon, S</name>
                <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                <name>Paterson, J</name>
                <name>Payne, MA</name>
                <name>Rennick, G</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                <name>Roberts, M</name>
                <name>Ruston, A</name>
                <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                <name>Scarr, P</name>
                <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                <name>Smith, DA (teller)</name>
                <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                <name>Van, D</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>3</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names>
                <name>Gallacher, AM</name>
                <name>Birmingham, SJ</name>
                <name>Keneally, KK</name>
                <name>Fierravanti-Wells, C</name>
                <name>Sterle, G</name>
                <name>McLachlan, </name>
              </names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Youth Incarceration</title>
          <page.no>73</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) First Nations children are over-represented in the youth justice system and the failure of state and territory governments to address the underlying causes of disadvantage is entrenching children in the criminal justice system,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the age of criminal responsibility is currently 10 years of age around Australia meaning children as young as 10 are being charged, brought before courts, sentenced and imprisoned, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the United Nations has recommended that the age of criminal responsibility for all nations be increased to 14 and the minimum age at which a child could be placed in detention be raised to 16;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) welcomes Dujuan Hoosan and his family to Parliament House this week, who will be meeting with Parliamentarians and screening the documentary <inline font-style="italic">In </inline><inline font-style="italic">my</inline><inline font-style="italic">Blood it Runs </inline>that features his struggles to integrate his Indigenous culture with the western education system and his experiences in Mparntwe (Alice Springs) with the justice system;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) acknowledges Dujuan's courage, leadership and advocacy on behalf of First Nations children and his community; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) calls on the Federal Government to urgently address the underlying causes of youth incarceration including systemic racism, intergenerational trauma and poverty, and to work with state and territory governments to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 14 years, as a minimum.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the government, I ask that the question be split and that paragraphs (a) to (c) be put separately to paragraph (d). I also seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We welcome Dujuan to parliament. Under our Indigenous Advancement Strategy we are funding a range of activities to improve justice and community safety outcomes for Indigenous Australians. On 23 November 2018 the Council of Attorneys-General agreed to establish a working group to consider whether it would be appropriate to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 years of age, as is currently the case in all jurisdictions. The working group will consider Australia's minimum age of criminal responsibility, drawing from relevant jurisdictional and international experience, and will report back within 12 months. The Commonwealth is not committed to any position and will consider the report once it's finalised. We note that this is largely a matter for the states and territories, with very low historical rates for incarceration of children under the age of 14.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that paragraphs (a) to (c) be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that paragraph (d) of notice of motion No. 500 be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senators, as a courtesy: I think that deals with the matters that will be controversial, and I will ring any subsequent bell from this point for four minutes.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:35]<br />(The President—Senator Ryan) </p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>35</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Ayres, T</name>
                <name>Bilyk, CL</name>
                <name>Brown, CL</name>
                <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R</name>
                <name>Di Natale, R</name>
                <name>Dodson, P</name>
                <name>Farrell, D</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                <name>Green, N</name>
                <name>Griff, S</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                <name>Kitching, K</name>
                <name>Lambie, J</name>
                <name>Lines, S</name>
                <name>McAllister, J</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M</name>
                <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D</name>
                <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                <name>Polley, H</name>
                <name>Pratt, LC</name>
                <name>Rice, J</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A</name>
                <name>Siewert, R</name>
                <name>Smith, M</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J</name>
                <name>Urquhart, AE (teller)</name>
                <name>Walsh, J</name>
                <name>Waters, LJ</name>
                <name>Watt, M</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, PS</name>
                <name>Wong, P</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>34</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Abetz, E</name>
                <name>Antic, A</name>
                <name>Askew, W</name>
                <name>Bragg, A J</name>
                <name>Brockman, S</name>
                <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                <name>Chandler, C</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R</name>
                <name>Cormann, M</name>
                <name>Davey, P</name>
                <name>Duniam, J</name>
                <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                <name>Hanson, P</name>
                <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                <name>Hughes, H</name>
                <name>Hume, J</name>
                <name>McDonald, S</name>
                <name>McGrath, J</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                <name>McMahon, S</name>
                <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                <name>Paterson, J</name>
                <name>Payne, MA</name>
                <name>Rennick, G</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                <name>Roberts, M</name>
                <name>Ruston, A</name>
                <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                <name>Scarr, P</name>
                <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                <name>Smith, DA (teller)</name>
                <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                <name>Van, D</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>3</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names>
                <name>Gallacher, AM</name>
                <name>Birmingham, SJ</name>
                <name>Keneally, KK</name>
                <name>Cash, MC</name>
                <name>Sterle, G</name>
                <name>McLachlan, </name>
              </names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>75</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>75</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATRICK</name>
    <name.id>144292</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) That the Senate notes the inquiries relating to domestic violence in Australia undertaken by the Finance and Public Administration References Committee in 2014-2015 and 2015-2017, and the 2019 Auditor General's report on implementation of the <inline font-style="italic">National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children 2010-2022</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) That the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, informed by the reports named at (1), inquire into and report, by not later than 13 August 2020, on domestic violence with particular regard to violence against women and their children, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the status of, and any barriers in implementing, the recommendations of the reports;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the adequacy, effectiveness and resourcing of policies, programs, services and responses to domestic violence across the Australian Government, state and territory governments, local governments, non- government and community organisations, business and the media;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) immediate and long-term measures that need to be taken to prevent violence against women and their children;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the effects of policy decisions regarding housing, legal services, and women's economic independence limiting the ability of women and children to escape domestic violence;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) how the Australian Government and state and territory governments can best support, contribute to and drive the social, cultural and behavioural shifts required to eliminate violence against women and their children; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) any other related matters.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Greens won't stand in the way of yet another inquiry into violence against women, but we note that the inquiries that this chamber got up—thanks to the Greens moving it—in 2015 and 2017 have still largely remained not acted upon by this government. So, we're not confident that this inquiry would be any different. The frontline domestic violence services sector have made it perfectly clear this week that they don't want more talkfests and that they are sick of telling this government what they need in order to keep women safe, which is proper funding so that they don't have to turn people away. We hope this inquiry doesn't simply take the pressure off government to properly fund frontline services so that 40 per cent of calls don't go unanswered when women seek out legal help in particular. The government knows what needs to be done. It's just not doing it, because it doesn't give a damn. But we look forward to this inquiry once again forcing people to give evidence—to say the same thing that the government will ignore yet again.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The opposition will be supporting this motion; however, our preference would be that it went to the Finance and Public Administration Committee and not legal affairs. We believe legal affairs has a number of references and a very heavy workload. This work had previously been done by the Finance and Public Administration Committee, as Senator Waters said—previous inquiries, extensive and detailed inquiries, with a number of recommendations. Again, the Labor Party would agree that there are a number of recommendations before government, which can act on those recommendations now. Ample evidence has been taken in a number of committees and inquiries that have been held by the Senate. If this can assist in any way in focusing minds, then so be it, but we certainly would urge the government to take action, rather than wait for yet another inquiry before an overworked Senate committee, which has already provided recommendations to government.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We in One Nation oppose this. One Nation wants to protect women and men, and especially children. We make decisions based on facts and data. Child homicides from 2000 to 2012 included 284 deaths by a parent—76 per cent of the 284 deaths were by a custodial parent; 49 per cent by the custodial mother; and 26 per cent by the custodial father. That is from the Australian Institute of Criminology report of filicide offenders, which is on the government's website.</para>
<para>The family law inquiry is underway. We need to wait until it reports on this major matter. That will give us the data on which to decide whether or not we need to look into anything further, because we believe it will unearth significant issues.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that business of the Senate motion No. 1 be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:46]<br />(The President—Senator Ryan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>50</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A</name>
                  <name>Askew, W</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A J</name>
                  <name>Brockman, S</name>
                  <name>Brown, CL</name>
                  <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                  <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R</name>
                  <name>Davey, P</name>
                  <name>Di Natale, R</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                  <name>Green, N</name>
                  <name>Griff, S</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                  <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H</name>
                  <name>Hume, J</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J</name>
                  <name>Lines, S</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                  <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A</name>
                  <name>McMahon, S</name>
                  <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J</name>
                  <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G</name>
                  <name>Rice, J</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A</name>
                  <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A</name>
                  <name>Siewert, R</name>
                  <name>Smith, DA (teller)</name>
                  <name>Smith, M</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J</name>
                  <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, AE</name>
                  <name>Van, D</name>
                  <name>Waters, LJ</name>
                  <name>Watt, M</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, PS</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>2</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Hanson, P</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M (teller)</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names></names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PARLIAMENTARY ZONE</title>
        <page.no>77</page.no>
        <type>PARLIAMENTARY ZONE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Approval of Works</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, in accordance with section 5 of the <inline font-style="italic">Parliament Act 1974</inline>, the Senate approves the proposal by the National Capital Authority for capital works within the Parliamentary Zone, relating to the Sir John McEwen sculpture, pavement and interpretive material.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>77</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration of Legislation</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Statute Update (Regulations References) Bill 2020</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Treasury Laws Amendment (Reuniting More Superannuation) Bill 2020.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>77</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Bushfires</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the spread of misinformation on social media during the recent bushfires, particularly posts that exaggerated the number of bushfires started by arsonists,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the analysis undertaken by Queensland University of Technology academics that found that a significant amount of social media activity that exaggerated the number of bushfires started by arsonists was indicative of highly automated and inauthentic behaviour, which suggests the existence of a concerted campaign,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) that the spread of such misinformation during the bushfires crisis is highly irresponsible; makes it more difficult for bushfire affected communities to obtain accurate information; makes it more difficult for bushfire affected communities to respond in a timely and safe manner to fires; and demonstrates a callous indifference to the hardship and grief being experienced by bushfire-affected communities; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) acknowledges the importance of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the accurate reporting of bushfires; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the public being able to trust information sources during a state of emergency.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>77</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Intelligence and Security Legislation (Implementing Independent Intelligence Review) Bill 2020</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>77</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to intelligence and security, and for related purposes—Intelligence and Security Legislation Amendment (Implementing Independent Intelligence Review) Bill 2020.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the bill and move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a first time.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>78</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>79</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Bushfires</title>
          <page.no>79</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I, and on behalf of Senator Watt, move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate acknowledges the important work of federal public servants, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) staff and Australian Defence Force personnel in the recent bushfire crisis, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the work of scientists and other staff at the Bureau of Meteorology who helped to forecast extreme weather patterns and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, who took part in the scientific roundtable on the bushfires;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the ABC’s efforts to provide comprehensive coverage of the bushfires and accurate emergency information to people in bushfire affected areas;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Australian Defence Force personnel, reservists and other staff involved in Operation Bushfire Assist;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) those involved in the response effort, from staff at Emergency Management Australia to those in the Department of the Environment in their efforts to support the protection of native wildlife;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) those involved in the recovery effort, from staff working to address the mental health impact of the bushfires to those at Services Australia helping to deliver emergency relief payments to people in need; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) staff at the newly-created National Bushfire Recovery Agency.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Coronavirus</title>
          <page.no>79</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate acknowledges the important work of federal public servants to address the ongoing Coronavirus outbreak, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) consular staff and other public servants who have gone into high-risk areas like Wuhan to evacuate Australians;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) officials from agencies in Health and Home Affairs who have managed stringent quarantine procedures, including in the facilities on Christmas Island and near Darwin;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Brendan Murphy, and the Department of Health, which have led the public health response to the outbreak; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) scientists at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, whose research is forming an integral part of the rapid global response to the outbreak.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Child Exploitation</title>
          <page.no>80</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GRIFF</name>
    <name.id>76760</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) condemns child exploitation material of any kind and through any medium;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) acknowledges that Japanese anime (animation) and manga (graphic novels) are visual mediums which share a unique style in which some media depict children in explicit sexual activities, poses and even being sexually abused;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) Japanese anime and manga depicting scenes and images of child abuse is readily available for sale at retail outlets, online and for consumption on streaming services in Australia,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) certain anime containing child abuse material has received classification by the Classification Board, allowing it to be imported and sold in Australia, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) explicit manga is currently not vetted by the Classification Board;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) recognises that the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 prohibits the sale, production, possession and distribution of offensive and abusive material “that depicts a person or a representation of a person who is or appears to be under 18”; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) calls on the Federal Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) ensure the current Review of Australian Classification Regulation considers how the Classification Board deals with child abuse depictions in animation and considers extending its oversight to printed materials, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) facilitate the removal of all such child abuse material in animation and print, as a matter of urgency.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Domestic and Family Violence</title>
          <page.no>80</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I inform the chamber that Senator Marielle Smith will also sponsor the motion. I, and on behalf of Senator Marielle Smith, move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) in his statement to Parliament regarding the murders of Ms Hannah Clarke and her children on 24 February 2020, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said “We must reflect on how and where the system failed Hannah and her children, as it has failed so many others. It’s so frustrating. It’s so devastating”, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) women’s services have consistently identified the need for more funding for the Family Court, prevention and early intervention programs, specialist legal and support services, crisis accommodation and housing support to improve the family law system; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Federal Government to adequately fund domestic, family and sexual violence and crisis housing services to ensure that all women and children seeking safety can access these services when and where they need them.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Morrison government is committed not just to responding to domestic violence but also to actively pursuing early intervention and prevention and ensuring that the $340 million commitment by the government effectively targets the scourge that is family and domestic violence. This investment includes $78 million for the 'safe places' package. The Safe Places Emergency Accommodation grants will build up to 450 safe places to benefit up to 6,500 women and children escaping domestic and family violence each year to help them find a safer place to sleep. The Keeping Women Safe in their Homes package includes funding for security upgrades so that women can remain in their own homes also.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>One Nation supports ending all kinds of domestic violence. Senator Hanson drove the family law inquiry to get the data on which to base future planning of such plans to end domestic violence. One Nation makes decisions based on data, not ideology and virtue signalling, because we respect and care for women, we respect and care for men, we respect and care for children, we respect and care for families and we respect and care for taxpayers. That is why we will be opposing this motion.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—Mr President, I ask that my name be recorded as being opposed to the motion.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That concludes the discovery of formal business, but I would make one point. Occasionally in seeking formality, statements of reasons are creeping in by people seeking formality. I'm going to start cutting senators off. This is a very busy time of the day. It is a statement of fact only, not reasons for the motion creeping into that.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>81</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Withdrawal</title>
          <page.no>81</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw the notice of motion given earlier today in my name, and the names of four other senators, relating to Tasmanian forestry.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>81</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum</title>
          <page.no>81</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration</title>
            <page.no>81</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LINES</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I present the joint communique and chairman statement of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum, which took place in Canberra from 13 to 16 January 2020. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the document.</para></quote>
<para>A number of us in this place, and indeed the other place, participated in this forum. It was one of the biggest groups of the Australian parliament that we have put to one of these forums. It was my first forum and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was an opportunity for us to work as a parliament and not necessarily take sides, as we often do in this place, but to work towards resolutions and outcomes that would benefit us as Australian parliamentarians.</para>
<para>We had very good participation from the Pacific countries. We had the north-east Asian countries, the South-East Asian countries, the Americas. We had a group of parliamentarians come all the way from Mexico. I think they had the longest journey. We had ourselves of course and Fiji, New Zealand and Micronesia. As Australia was hosting this forum it was our opportunity to ask our neighbouring countries so we asked a number of much smaller neighbours of ours, but close neighbours, such as Brunei Darussalam, Kiribati, Nauru, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Niue, Palau and Tuvalu. I have to say that a number of those countries are now looking to join the forum.</para>
<para>We were also successful, with the support of New Zealand and Japan, in getting our Speaker up as the interim president. Unfortunately, with the passing of the Japanese leader that created a vacuum and need to change the rules. So Mr Tony Smith, who is our Speaker in the House, is now the chair for a year. He's got a job to do in terms of implementing a number of resolutions. The women from the Australian delegation particularly wanted to make sure that we had much stronger representation of women, so one of the jobs the Speaker has got is to look at how we make sure that happens. He's also very keen to make sure that the observer countries we invited along to this forum take out formal membership.</para>
<para>I would also like to thank the Parliament House staff. It was a time of the bushfires. There was smoke in Canberra. I know many of the staff had either family or friends that had been personally affected by the bushfires. I thought that the parliament leant itself really well to hosting a forum. We used the big hall and the breakout area around the pond as a meeting place and an eating place. It was a terrific forum.</para>
<para>The next forum is in Korea and I would certainly encourage fellow parliamentarians who perhaps haven't participated in this forum before to look at it next year. I thank Mr Kevin Andrews for leading our delegations. We had a daily caucus where we all got our acts together and spoke with one voice. Thanks to the Speaker in making sure that the executive committee ran well and, indeed, delivered a very good forum.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator VAN</name>
    <name.id>283601</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for the opportunity to make a few short comments on the tabling of the Asian Pacific Parliamentary Forum 2020 communique report. The forum was a unique opportunity, especially for new backbench senator like myself, to engage with our counterparts from regional parliaments, to discuss issues of mutual interest and to commit to cooperative action in the best interests of our countries and their people. I was very pleased to be a member of Australia's delegation of the forum that was held at parliament this January. It gave someone like me, a new backbencher as I said, the ability to debate with some very interesting colleagues from around the Asia-Pacific. For example, debating points on cyber security with the representative of China, who himself was a chair of the United Nations Security Council, was a completely unique opportunity.</para>
<para>As members noted during our plenary session considerations, the security of our communications, data and personal privacy in the cyberworld is a very tangible element of how we can invest in our economic prosperity and sovereign security. Without secure systems, our participation in the global community and economy is not possible, and, as a result, the very prosperity that the member countries have committed to achieving through the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development cannot be achieved, which would be to the detriment of each country's progress and its people.</para>
<para>As our Director-General of Security highlighted in his Annual Threat Assessment the other night, Australia's experience with exploitative cyberactivity has shown that small business, local governments and our critical infrastructure can be vulnerable to disruption through a range of attacks, scams and, also, sophisticated threats—all targeted against those key elements of our communities. Unfortunately, as other countries' experiences have shown, we are not alone in this, and that is why it is so important that the forum member countries strive to enable capability and capacity in each of our countries to counter this exploitative activity and protect key economic systems and infrastructure from disruption.</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>FIRST SPEECH</title>
        <page.no>82</page.no>
        <type>FIRST SPEECH</type>
      </debateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to order, I now call Senator McLachlan to make his first speech, and I ask honourable senators that the usual courtesies be extended to him.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MCLACHLAN</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr President, and I wish to thank you for your kind welcome to the Senate. I also thank you for your wisdom and counsel that you provided to me as the President of the Legislative Council of South Australia. Of all the members in this place, I'd like to think I'll be one of your better behaved, given I've also had the privilege of being a presiding officer. The only other President of the Legislative Council from South Australia to come to this place was the Senate's first President, Sir Richard Chaffey Baker, a committed advocate of the federation and of the authority of this chamber. Not even he managed to preside over the opening of the South Australian parliament in the same week as being elected by a joint sitting to this place. These were the events that preceded my joining you here during the last sitting week.</para>
<para>Some of my good friends in the state parliament have suggested, in a less than charitable manner, that the speed of my delivery to the porch of the Senate had less to do with making history and more to do with making sure I was out of the President's chair and not coming back to the state party room. Although I think it a little unfair, I had the reputation of being tough on certain members when in the chair and vocal in the party room. I wish my successor to the presidency of the South Australian Legislative Council, my friend the Hon. Terry Stephens, every success in his new role. I would also like to acknowledge the service of Mr Cory Bernardi to the Senate, the remainder of whose term I will serve. I wish him and his family all the best for the future. I extend my thanks to the Clerk and the Usher of the Black Rod for their assistance, and I also thank all members of the Senate for their welcome. In particular, I thank the ministers from my state, Senator Simon Birmingham and Senator Anne Ruston, who guided me into the chamber for the first time and the Chief Government Whip, Senator Dean Smith, and his staff for all their assistance and support. I wish to express my appreciation to the Premier of South Australia—the member for Dunstan, Steven Marshall—for his support, as well as to all my former state colleagues.</para>
<para>When I first rose on 8 May 2014 as a newly elected member of parliament and delivered my first speech to the South Australian Legislative Council, I gave an account of my life journey and that of my family. I do not propose to do so again today at any length, for I wish to largely share with you some of my reflections since that first speech. In that contribution, I opened by saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I come to this place as a strong advocate of Liberal values. It is my belief that it is these values, which respect individual freedom and encourage free enterprise as well as the preservation of the environment, that are the best foundation for ensuring a strong, confident and compassionate society in this state. I have always been attracted to the Liberal belief in encouraging initiative and the taking of personal responsibility. In many ways, it could be said that these values underpin the experience of my family in these lands.</para></quote>
<para>I come from a family that left the west coast of Scotland seeking a better life. They were full of hope and aspiration, with a fear of the unknown calmed by their strong Christian faith. Although, as the generations have passed and the family has adopted the ways and manners of the Sassenach, we still have kept faith. Our story is no different from those that come to Australia from all over the world today. As I provide support to new cultural communities in my state, I see in their eyes the drive and aspiration that would've been shining in the eyes of members of my own family when they left the shores of Alba. Therefore I consider it a privilege of public life to support and encourage new communities in my home state to maintain their culture, which enriches the life of the community that is South Australia.</para>
<para>As a South Australian, I come from a state whose people understand the importance of water to sustaining life and community. Much of our state is arid—stunningly beautiful but very dry. The River Murray is therefore sacred to us all. Its slow passage through our state, as it finds its way to the sea, makes a thread that binds us together. The health of the river is a unifying cause for all South Australians. The strength of its flow reflects the aspiration of the people that live on its banks. They are inextricably tied together. This is why we are committed to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and its successful operation. We see it as an example of the real benefits that can accrue from Commonwealth and state cooperation. Perhaps it is because I read law in Scotland that I am innately attracted to what has been described by some legal academics as the ancient and magical doctrine of common interest. The water that flows in the Murray is a common interest to all that depend on the river for life. As a consequence, the common interest creates rights and obligations on all that rely on the river. This is the philosophical foundation stone of the plan.</para>
<para>In my youth I spent summers near the mouth of this beautiful river. It is a special place of natural beauty, an estuary of considerable drama as the freshwater meets the sea. In South Australia, we know only too well that an open and healthy river mouth can have a dramatic impact on the health of the river upstream. Likewise, activities along its winding bank impact the river's mouth. It's my intention to continue to dedicate myself to the plan's success and resist those naysayers, as I do not see at this time any viable alternative to ensuring environmental flows as well as maintaining sustainable farming.</para>
<para>When I look back on my professional career in law and finance, I suspect the seeds of public life were sewn whilst working as a young lawyer in the regional city of Port Augusta. I was raised in a small-business family that subscribed to the values that underpin the Liberal Party. Self-reliance and enterprise were encouraged. Individual freedom was respected. Institutions such as church and community groups were supported by volunteering. I was one of the few in my family to attend university, where I took a degree in law. Upon graduation, I accepted the first offer of employment that came my way. Not coming from a family of any legal lineage or connection to the profession, I did not realise that I had joined a labour law firm founded by a prominent communist! I confess my situation dawned on me rather slowly. It was the moment when I realised that all the firm's clients, largely, were officials of or members of the Australian Workers Union that all became apparent to me. I hope those on my side of the aisle can forgive me on the grounds of the innocence of youth. But I stayed at the firm because I had a strong commitment to assisting those in the community that needed advocacy.</para>
<para>Whilst I might have strongly disagreed with the firm's partners on the benefits of socialism, the values of assisting people in need were consistent with those that I had been taught in my home and my church. The firm encouraged me to work in the Port Augusta office. At that time the city was going through hard times, with the power station and the railway shedding staff. I grew up very quickly, both professionally and personally, as a criminal and family lawyer of only 25 years of age. I witnessed firsthand social decline, with the rise of unemployment; relationships breaking down under stress, with neither partner having any prospect of work; and children entering the criminal justice system, seemingly unable to break free of it.</para>
<para>My time in Port Augusta strengthened my belief in the values of my party, especially its strong commitment to building regional communities and encouraging them to transform and grow. The role of government in building regional communities by assisting with redevelopment is critical. You see this with the change that is taking place at this time in Whyalla. I will never forget the very real impacts of decisions taken far away in the east, including in this place. Making such decisions is difficult and can be necessary for the good of the whole nation. But we must never overlook the human cost, and we must exercise compassion by assisting those affected to seek new horizons.</para>
<para>My other learning was the immense and sometimes arbitrary power of the state. When you stand alongside the defendant or the respondent, you realise the extent of the resources available to the state and how little is provided to the individual. As a consequence, as a legislator, I have always been mindful in respecting the rights of the individual, which in turn supports the rule of law and the community's faith in and respect for its institutions.</para>
<para>Too often, legislation is drafted to make life easier for the agents of the state rather than taking full account of the burden that the heavy hand of bureaucracy can have on the individual. My starting point in reflecting on these matters, in the first instance, is that it is the state that should bear the burden to make its case, whatever the context, and that the administrative efficiency is not a god to be worshiped alone at the expense of the principles of fairness, decency and mercy.</para>
<para>My resolve to enter public life became fully formed as a consequence of two modest sojourns in Afghanistan as a member of the Army Reserve. You cannot help but to return home, valuing as never before our liberal democracy—especially the benefits of the rule of law and a free press. As a Liberal, I firmly believe that democracy and its supporting institutions underpin our prosperity. Further to that, prosperity brings opportunities and, in turn, strengthens communities, for whilst we Liberals support enterprise we do not believe it should be unchecked nor create poverty. It is easy, in our prosperous nation, to take our institutions for granted. My hope is that my experiences in conflict immunise me from this particular affliction.</para>
<para>Since those travels, I joined Legacy as a volunteer to assist families of veterans. In my work for Legacy, I know the challenges that face many veterans. I draw comfort not only from the government responses to the needs of veterans but also from the community commitment to those that have served. But there is always more work to do in response to the commitment to our country that so many young men and women have displayed when deploying overseas. We must continue to explore and evaluate preventative measures to reduce the rate of suicide amongst veterans.</para>
<para>South Australia is a great beneficiary of the Commonwealth strategic procurement in the defence sector. We know that it is a unique and special opportunity for us to develop and reshape our economy whilst contributing to industry capabilities that will serve our nation's sovereign interests. The state is confident that it can build upon this opportunity and lead the country in scientific research and innovation.</para>
<para>Together with the space industry, following the location of the Australian Space Agency in the state, I see a vibrant future for South Australians, especially our youth. The very real pathways for intellectual pursuits and the opportunities to work in industries that make a real contribution to the defence of our nation and the exploration of space is already inspiring our young and buoying confidence in all. For this reason, it is important to all South Australians that we are allowed to make the most of the opportunity with the commitment that South Australia is and will remain the defence state. We are grateful, but we are also very attentive so that the ensuing opportunities are not whittled away by others or squandered by ourselves.</para>
<para>On my long journey to this place, I have never shed the view, formed when young, that we must endeavour to be good stewards of the planet and its environment that sustains us. Perhaps it is because I have always tried to spend as much time as I could afford enjoying the Australian wilderness or maybe it was working in rural and regional communities that are so dependent on the seasons.</para>
<para>I also believe in the critical role of government in ensuring virtuous behaviours by individuals and companies towards the environment. Effective environmental protection regulation has always been essential. But these beliefs have not led me to the view that we should wilfully or recklessly destroy our economy. In doing so, we would only diminish the lives of those Australians that can least afford it, for they will bear much of the brunt of such a policy direction.</para>
<para>All the answers and pathways forward will not magically appear before us as if they were fully formed in the head of Zeus. As a nation we face a complex economic transition that requires us to ensure fairness and avert poverty. It is my view that the operation of a free market will be the most significant factor in achieving this transition.</para>
<para>One of the key roles of government is to assist in the management of such significant transitions and create conditions for innovation to thrive not just in our universities but in our towns and suburbs. My vision is that this country leads innovations that will gift us new technologies to lower not only our emissions but also the cost of energy. In turn, this will drive the prosperity of our nation into the future as we export our technology to the world.</para>
<para>There are communities in my state that are still recovering from the devastating effects of bushfire. I acknowledge that Australians all over the country have suffered. My thoughts are with all of those impacted and especially those who have lost family members. Last month I assisted the state member for Kavel, Dan Cregan, in responding to the impact of the fires on local residents. His electorate covers a large section of the Adelaide Hills region, which was burnt out. I pay tribute to his tireless dedication to the welfare of his community. Together we met men and women who have lost everything but are still taking the time to assist others or are volunteering for our emergency services. Their commitment to the welfare of their neighbours reaffirms my faith in the strength and resilience of our peoples.</para>
<para>The effects of these fires will be long-lasting. We must not let the new growth and the recent rains seduce us into believing that all who have suffered have healed. We know we must continue to support those impacted long after we have cleared away the debris, replaced the fencing and rebuilt the houses and after the green shoots push up from the blackened soil.</para>
<para>I pay tribute to all the volunteers that fought the fires and all those who supported this effort as well as the recovery afterwards. The many volunteer organisations that came to our aid have made an incredible and uplifting difference to those affected. I have a long association of service with St John Ambulance. It always lifts my spirits seeing our volunteers in action, caring for those fighting the fires and caring for community members in need. We should also be proud of our first responders. They continue to serve us day and night, more often than not dealing with difficult and tragic events. I acknowledge their dedication and the personal risks that they face. I strongly believe we should all be mindful of the effects that this service has on their health and commit to follow a similar path to support them as we have with the veteran community.</para>
<para>It was only a few weeks ago I came to the Senate from the South Australian parliament. I come to this place carrying with me the aspirations of South Australia and its government. The South Australian government's agenda to transform the state's economy is as ambitious as it is necessary. I know it is very appreciative of the collaborative spirit of the federal government. I come here as an advocate for these endeavours. Success will come from the enterprise of talented South Australians.</para>
<para>It is not lost on me the great privilege it is to serve in the Senate. I thank the Liberal Party members that placed their faith in me to represent the state and to fight for their values. We believe it is the best path to advantage all Australians. I thank my mother, Jeanette, and my father, John, for all they have done for me. I thank my wife, Marcia, for her support of my decision to seek to represent the state in this place. Entering federal parliament comes at a cost, with less time for family. Our children, Hamish, William and Alasdair, are now of an age where they are finding their own way in the world, so we are ready for the change and the challenge that awaits us. I look forward to working alongside all of you for the benefit of our nation. I have no other offer to make except that I will serve the people faithfully.</para>
</speech>
</debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>85</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>85</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>85</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum</title>
          <page.no>85</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration</title>
            <page.no>85</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd also like to make some brief remarks in support of the comments made by Senator Lines and Senator Van from Victoria reflecting on the joint communique of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum that was held here in Canberra from 13 to 16 January 2020. I want to emphasise one point: in this day and age, when there's much greater complexity around many international issues, and as we in this country, in our region, are presented with some very modern geopolitical challenges, we can't underestimate the importance of soft diplomacy. This was a remark that Kevin Andrews, the member for Menzies, made. He was leading the delegation in January here in Canberra. Mr Andrews reflected on the importance of soft diplomacy and how in this day and age it was important for parliamentarians to be able to gather as parliamentarians to express their views and their attitudes on a variety of issues.</para>
<para>This particular conference was dominated by issues concerning the engagement and empowerment of women, the geopolitical challenges that face the Asia-Pacific region, and also the importance of strong and durable trading relationships as a way of raising prosperity and providing some important pathways to an enduring peace in our region. I think the soft diplomacy opportunities that are presented by conferences like this are often underrated by governments. I congratulate every parliamentarian from Australia who participated in that conference and the great collegiality and sense of one that Australian parliamentarians demonstrated in their interactions with other parliamentarians.</para>
<para>A particular highlight for me was an opportunity to meet the Mongolian delegation and in particular the Speaker of the Mongolian parliament. That was an opportunity for me to talk about my ambitions to establish an Australian Mongolian parliamentary friendship group. I invite senators who are interested in Australia's relationship with Mongolia to be part of that. More importantly, it was an opportunity for me to raise directly with the Speaker of the Mongolian parliament and other Mongolian parliamentarians a very, very important issue that is close to my heart. It is a constituent matter that I have been fighting for a number of months, perhaps even 12 months now, on behalf of a constituent. That goes to the welfare of Mr Munshi, an Australian citizen who, unfortunately, is imprisoned in a Mongolian jail. I thank Foreign Affairs and Trade for their support of thus far and their consular people for the work they are doing in constantly checking up and monitoring Mr Munshi's welfare. I took the opportunity to speak specifically to the Speaker of the Mongolian parliament to bring to his attention this particular issue. I said to him in our discussions that I was hopeful that, with due respect to the rule of law and proper judicial processes in Mongolia, he may be able to continue to raise awareness of my efforts to secure an early release for Mr Mohammed Munshi among his parliamentary colleagues. As I discussed with the Mongolian Speaker, Mr Munshi is an Australian citizen who is currently serving a term of imprisonment in Prison 409 in Mongolia, and Mr Munshi's family seek his early release on humanitarian grounds due to his current state, and continued state, of poor health.</para>
<para>So it was an important conference not just in terms of Australia's geopolitical position and not just to demonstrate the great collegiality of Australian parliamentarians acting internationally but it was a particularly important conference for me to be able to raise a very, very important local constituent issue with the Mongolian Speaker.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator VAN</name>
    <name.id>283601</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Further to my earlier comments, as the table communique shows, the forum's participants are committed to continuing regional cooperation and capacity-building action to enhance cybersecurity and combat cybercrime. Programs such as this government's cybercooperation program, are excellent examples of partnerships between forum partners such as Australia, Cambodia, Fiji, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Vietnam. That program develops regional international cybergovernance, builds joint efforts to combat cybercrime and enhances everyone's cybersecurity capability. This is the sort of program that we need in order to bring in further partners to help build cyber-resilience around the region.</para>
<para>In concluding my remarks, I acknowledge the hard work of the team behind the organisation of the forum, especially Mr James Catchpole, as delegation secretary, and the secretariat team, ably led by Ms Lyn Ducker and consisting of Emma Knezevic and Siobhan Leyne. Their efforts and management of the forum resulted in a very successful event, despite the various security, weather, fire, smoke and logistical challenges involved. I thank you.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>86</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>86</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, six proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Siewert:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">'The Government has no costing for its current climate policies which have us on track for a catastrophic 3.4 degrees of warming'</para></quote>
<para>Is the proposal supported?</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the matter of public importance, which is the government's climate policies, which have us on track for catastrophic global warming.</para>
<para>It's interesting that, in December last year when the Prime Minister was in the US at the time of the Conference of Parties for the climate change convention, he wasn't actually at that convention; he was at a box factory with President Trump and a major Liberal Party donor, Mr Pratt. At that same time, in New York, at the Conference of Parties on the climate convention, a crucial report was being handed down. What's called the <inline font-style="italic">United In Science</inline> report said that all countries' global pledges to date under the Paris Agreement have us on track for 3.4 degrees of global warming. Do you know who was the lead author of that report? It is none other than the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. This government's target, which they say they're going to meet and beat—but nobody else does, certainly no-one with any qualifications—actually needs to be lifted threefold to keep us to even two degrees, and it would need to be lifted fivefold to keep the damage to 1½ degrees of global heating.</para>
<para>We have this government's climate policy, or lack thereof, which has us on track for 3.4 degrees of warming. What does that really mean? Think about the summer that we've just had: the fires, which burnt more than 20 per cent of our forests, which is the largest amount that's ever been burnt in our history and, in fact, is the largest amount that has ever been burnt in fires anywhere globally; the floods that followed; the dust storms that permeated, the heat waves; the hailstorms; the cyclones that are forming; and the drought over the summer. All of that happened with just over one degree of global warming. This government has us on track for 3.4 degrees of global warming. I asked them the other day: 'Do you actually understand what that means? Are you across the science of what that means? Moreover, have you actually costed what that will do to our economy?' I didn't actually get an answer to that question. It's not called 'question time' for nothing. It's certainly not called 'answer time'.</para>
<para>This government, which loves to criticise everybody else for their pledges to take climate action—some of which are all right and others of which are science based—hasn't even costed its own climate policy, and it hasn't costed the impacts on the economy of 3.4 degrees of warming. So it's a bit rich for this government to try to say that everybody else is economically reckless, because if it actually did the costings it would realise that the true recklessness is in having the climate stance that it has, which has us on that trajectory, and in failing to do the costings of what that actually means for our economy, for our community and for our planet.</para>
<para>The climate scientists and meteorologists have looked at this, and they say that, if we're on track for 3.4 degrees, that will mean human beings will have to migrate away from equatorial zones. High humidity will cause intolerable heat stress and flooding across most of northern Australia, rendering it uninhabitable for much of the year. The hectares of irrigated agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin—which I thought the government was meant to care about, but their policies might indicate otherwise—will drop from 1.8 million hectares to just 100,000 hectares, a $4.4 billion drop in Australian agriculture. One in six Australian species will be extinct or face extinction, we would have vast dead zones in our oceans, and 200 million people would sit permanently below the high tide line, affecting countries in our geographic region.</para>
<para>But this government doesn't want to know about those impacts, it certainly doesn't want to do anything about them, and it doesn't want to cost the economic impacts of that. Whenever we ask about this, the government simply says, 'We've got an economic plan; we're not going to damage the economy.' Well, you are. Your plan stinks. It has us on track for those devastating outcomes that I've just outlined. You won't even cost your own policy, but you're happy to criticise other people for not having costed theirs. I note that the Greens have costed ours, and I note that the commentators say that taking climate action will actually be good for prosperity and will help our economy, as well as making our planet continue to be habitable.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too rise to speak on this MPI brought before the chamber by the Greens, and I thank them very much for the opportunity to do so. I genuinely do, because it not only gives me the opportunity to spruik the government's achievements in this space, which are delivering responsible and achievable climate policy, but also gives all of us the opportunity to reflect on the Greens' hypocrisy. They're so focused on chasing radical policies on the off chance that they can grab a headline and keep their base feeling warm and fuzzy that they end up achieving nothing. They're not actually here for serious discussion. They're not here for a rational debate. They're not here to represent the interests of each Australian in their own home states. We are here. We've seen the policies even of those opposite. They have a policy, which they've announced in recent days, of a net-zero target by 2050 and a complete abrogation of interest in and support for our 2030 targets. They don't have a 2030 target. We don't know what it is. But this government has a clear plan.</para>
<para>Let's be clear. At the last election those opposite, Labor, took to the election their uncosted policies, which were unachievable. But, to their credit, there is something that they've done: they have tested their extreme economy-destroying policies with the Australian people. But the Australian people comprehensively rejected them, because Australians could see the impact they would have on their jobs, on the economy and on the cost of living. So, in what should have been a period of reflection after the election, when all those opposite could go away and look at what happened and develop some new and quire reasonable policies, they managed to make them even more extreme.</para>
<para>Whilst those over there dabble in the art of the unachievable, our record on the environment and emissions reduction is strong. Our Paris commitment is to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, and we are well on track. On a per-person basis, this is a greater reduction than the commitments of the EU, Germany, Canada, New Zealand and even Japan. And we are on track to beat our 2020 Kyoto target by 411 million tonnes. In fact, the most recent update from Australia's national greenhouse gas imagery shows that emissions are lower than in 2013, when the coalition came into government. Also, emissions are 12 per cent lower than in 2005, as opposed to a two per cent reduction for Canada and a four per cent increase for New Zealand. Emissions per person are also at their lowest levels in 29 years, falling by 40 per cent since 1990. We are achieving all this without putting the economy at risk or jobs at risk, all while lowering the cost of living.</para>
<para>So, whilst on this side of the chamber we believe in having a stronger economy, which creates jobs and provides more opportunities for all Australians, sadly those opposite do not. And while on this side of the chamber we believe in lowering the cost of and raising our national standard of living, those opposite do not. They don't believe in lower energy prices, and they don't believe in tax relief, which allows businesses of all sizes to employ more people and create an attractive environment for investment, particularly in renewables. In fact, they believe in quite the opposite. They believe in putting policies in place that will see the Australian economy weaken, job creation evaporate, the cost of living increase exponentially and investment dry up.</para>
<para>The government, however, is committed to ensuring a strong and robust economy that is able to withstand the headwinds that our economy is facing. This will ensure that we remain an attractive destination for investment and are able to deliver effective emissions reduction policies. Our $3.5 billion Climate Solutions Package is a great example of this. As part of this, the $2 billion Climate Solutions Fund is supporting farmers, landholders and Indigenous communities with savanna management, energy efficiency, capture of methane from landfills and storage of carbon in soils. We also have Snowy 2.0, which will increase the reliability of renewable energy. It will provide up to 175 hours of storage and meet a peak demand of up to 500,000 homes. In Tasmania there's the Battery of the Nation and the Marinus Link. This will unlock 400 megawatts of Tasmanian hydropower to the mainland.</para>
<para>We also have a national strategy on electric vehicles, one genuinely designed to ensure that any transition is appropriately planned and managed. It's designed for a realistic transition, not just a photo opportunity at the front of a charging station, an excuse for a ride in a Tesla that those opposite are all too familiar with—although, to their credit, Mr Shorten's announcement in front of a Melbourne building, just down the road, during the election period, with power lead in hand, was probably one of my favourite moments of the campaign! One could say it was a defining moment. It was at that moment that the Australian people could see very, very clearly the lack of detail, the lack of costing and the lack of a plan. Mr Shorten was in the contest for an emperor, but he had no clothes.</para>
<para>But I digress. We also have the Environment Restoration Fund, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and a range of other strategic investments that are having a practical impact on reducing our emissions. All of our policies are fully costed, have been endorsed by the Australian people and are creating jobs, rather than slashing them. Rather than deriding our industries, we see this as a real opportunity. Right across the nation Australian investors, entrepreneurs and captains of industry are leading the way, ensuring that Australian technology is at the global forefront on these matters.</para>
<para>If we lived the Greens version of a perfect world, their utopia, where all their nation-weakening policies were put into place, any chance of Australians out of work finding meaningful, well-paid and long-term employment would be gone. As if this wasn't enough, under their vision regional communities, those that are doing it the toughest, would all but cease to exist. They don't support any industry that drives our economy. We want to see the agricultural sector grow to 100 billion by 2030. They want to see much of this shut down, largely because of what the cattle emit in the privacy of their own paddocks.</para>
<para>The policy that they have is just outrageous. We want to encourage new investment in resource projects across the country, which drives jobs in regional centres, and lifts millions out of poverty right across the world. Sadly, they don't. We want to see a futureproof regional Australia through new investment in water infrastructure and resilience. I guess you can come to your own conclusions where they sit on that. The type of country they want to see Australians living in has no investment in industry, no jobs, no regional economies and no future. This is all for the sake of putting in place their socialist fantasies, as if what we do in this place is some type of left-wing board game. We know, as we know they do too, that their vision will see economic activity shift elsewhere. Let's use mining as an example. If we were to shut down exploration and development investment in new projects, major mineral-importing nations around the world are going to think: 'Wow, Australia has stopped exporting. What an important piece of symbolism. That's it. Let's shut down our own operations—our smelting facilities and power plants—and stop importing it.' Of course they won't. The market would still be there. The exporters would be champing at the bit to swoop in on the opportunity.</para>
<para>What the Greens would see happen is not going to see economic growth and activity in Australia. We're going to see those jobs move to another country with a much lower standard of minerals, particularly coal, lower environmental standards and quite likely much less consideration for remediation after the life of the project. So what should they do? They should take a few steps back and actually have a look at what the global environment impact will be. They've got to do this. Now, that would be progress.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PRATT</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The contributions that we've had on this MPI today show that the coalition is still, frankly, in chaos and denial when it comes to the reality of climate change and the ineffectiveness of their policies and their lack of commitment. There is no plan for jobs, no plan for wages growth and no plan from them to address climate change. The reality is, if you unpick the previous contribution by Senator O'Sullivan, this government has pocketed in their climate change emissions reductions the policy initiatives of the Rudd-Gillard governments and the action that they put in place.</para>
<para>In addition, when you talk about emissions falling in our nation, why have they fallen? In part, emissions have fallen in the agricultural sector because of the drought—that is, because of the effects of climate change. I don't think our carbon accounting, frankly, has yet caught up with the emissions catastrophe that took place in the context of Australia's summer with the bushfires that have been experienced and the amount of carbon that has been emitted in that process.</para>
<para>We know that one of the triggers we need to look to in the acceleration of climate change globally—with increasing weather, with increasing drought, with increasing temperatures, with decreasing rainfall—is a likelihood of more fires. What is the irony of that? With more fires comes more carbon emissions. So the government needs to be very careful when it talks about very easily being able to claim that it's going to get to its 2030 target without putting in a real structural policy effort to work out where our nation is headed.</para>
<para>In the Labor Party we're recommitted to real action on climate change: net zero emissions by 2050.We are not alone in this aspiration. This principle is supported by business and industry: Qantas, Santos, Telstra, BP, Shell, Chevron, Woodside, BHP, the Business Council of Australia, the National Farmers Federation, the ACTU, the Minerals Council of Australia and the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association. They've all committed to net zero emissions by 2050. We have some pretty large fossil fuel companies in there, making that commitment to that target. If these companies can come out in favour of net zero by 2050, surely this government can. Around the world, many places have a target of achieving net zero emissions by 2050. Seventy-three countries, 14 states or regions and 398 cities have made that commitment.</para>
<para>Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is continuing to try to drive Liberal policy in lieu of any government leadership in this space. Good on him for doing so. Someone's got to take moral responsibility for this issue within the Liberal Party. He said: 'Now we can see a feasible, affordable route to net zero. The alternative is catastrophic.' What does this government try to portray as 'catastrophic'? It tries to portray the very notion of having this target as catastrophic, in complete denial of the need for a global commitment to address emissions and bring them down. Australia can and must play its role in driving down emissions, in order that we achieve a climate change target that does not see our nation in catastrophic climate change danger. If there's a more damning assessment of this government than what Malcolm Turnbull has said, I'd like to see it. As I said, and I quote from him: 'The alternative is catastrophic.'</para>
<para>Niall Blair, former Deputy Leader of the Nationals in New South Wales, has also had this to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The recent announcement by federal Labor to target net zero emissions by 2050 provides a great opportunity for the agricultural sector in Australia to diversify and thrive. I’ve watched with interest as some suggest this policy will wipe out Australian agriculture, just as they hypothesised the same for the fossil fuel industry.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Nothing could be further from the truth. I see there is a huge opportunity for both farmers and brand Australia. However, we need to compare apples with apples – not apples to coal, as some are trying to do.</para></quote>
<para>Yesterday, in this place, I spoke about the red meat industry, and they have an even more ambitious target. Theirs is, as this place should well know by now, is net zero by 2030.</para>
<para>I find it quite ironic that this government has, in fact, used our target of net zero by 2050. They have used the livestock industry as an example of why they don't like Labor's target. So here you have the agricultural industry showing more leadership than those who purport to represent agriculture in this place. It is appalling. There is a business in Victoria and they've already got to net zero carbon from their red meat business. So it's infinitely doable. I note that Infrastructure Australia has released their top infrastructure priorities today. It is no surprise, frankly, that the list is topped by projects that mitigate the challenges that our nation faces from the results of a changing climate.</para>
<para>We have a government here that exists in a policy vacuum on climate change. It has no plan and no leadership in this space. We know that we should be looking for infrastructure changes that can see our electricity networks strengthen so that we can diversify the grid and bring in more renewable energy. But instead we see this government missing in action from those kinds of commitments. We have a Prime Minister and a divided government of climate deniers. They have never taken action on climate change seriously, but it is amazing how quickly the Prime Minister started to change his rhetoric just as a political crisis starts to engulf him and force him to do so. There can be little real belief or policy drive behind the Prime Minister when you can see quite transparently his language change in response, not to listening to the science, not to listening to the evidence, but in response to an environmental emergency crisis that very nearly resulted in him experiencing a political crisis.</para>
<para>Instead of getting behind the business community, behind industry and committing to action on climate change, we have a government that runs out a scare campaign—a scare campaign that has directly contradicted the very industries who said they want to meet this target and who are committed to doing so. Maybe the minister should try talking up business instead of running these scare tactics. What is the real concern for business? The real concern for business is the impact of doing nothing, the impact of catastrophic climate change and the impact of being left with policy settings from a government that doesn't allow them to adapt and change for the inevitable future that they will face.</para>
<para>Net zero emissions by 2050 is all about cleaner and cheaper energy. This will mean stronger growth for our nation, more jobs and higher wages. But in the Prime Minister's inaction on climate change we have a recipe for high power prices, fewer jobs, lower wages and slower economic growth.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a servant of the people of Queensland and Australia, I compliment Senator Siewert for asking the government for a full costing of its climate action policies. And we ask that the Labor Party and the Greens cost their own climate policies, which call for Australia to be net zero carbon dioxide by 2050 and banning hydrocarbon energy generation accordingly. The real question that we need answered is what will be the change in the global temperature if these policies are fully implemented? Where is the cost-benefit analysis? The role of this parliament and this government, opposition and other parties is not to have a bidding war on who can outspend the other for votes or to virtue signal to the elites and the media. Our role in this place is to ensure good governance for our citizens economically, socially and environmentally.</para>
<para>So what will occur from the government's 26 to 28 per cent Renewable Energy Target, spending billions subsidising renewable energy? What about Labor's net zero carbon dioxide in 2050, or the Greens' plans to stop—wait for this—all hydrocarbon power generation? I know what they won't do: they won't change the global temperature. It won't affect bushfires, sea level rises, cyclones, droughts, floods, ocean temperature or any other natural weather event. Australia only accounts for 1.7 per cent of human global CO2 output. Cutting our output to zero cannot change the global temperature. Even our Chief Scientist was courageous enough to admit this inconvenient fact in Senate estimates on 1 June 2017. Climate policies are already killing our competitiveness and driving our manufacturing and heavy industries into the arms of China, who have no intention of limiting their carbon dioxide output.</para>
<para>We have been suckered into giving away our strong economy because you lot here are too gutless to stick up for Australia and protect our way of life. You have given in to globalist rent seekers and the socialist United Nations, who you glibly obey without a second thought on how you are hurting your own country. Shame; shame on you all!</para>
<para>To Australians listening to this speech let me explain to you what reducing our carbon dioxide output to zero will really mean to you: no livestock industry, no heavy transport, no manufacturing, no rail services, no private transport, no flying, no air conditioning or heating and the list goes on. Who would wish for such a horrible future for our country? The Liberals, Nationals, Labor and the Greens are all following the same path. Climate policies are not about controlling climate; they are about controlling us. A nation that cannot support itself turns to government for help. Once the people are dependent on the government they control us. One Nation wants less government—not more. One Nation wants to liberate Australians from government control and unleash our potential. One Nation will set us free.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHANDLER</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is a pleasure to rise in the chamber this evening to speak on this motion from the Greens because this government, the Morrison coalition government, is continuing to invest in practical climate action. We have mapped out to the last tonne how we are going to meet and beat our 2030 Paris target. Our $3.5 billion Climate Solutions Package, announced in February 2019, will deliver over 20 million tonnes of additional abatement towards our 2030 target, and technological improvements and other abatement sources will account for the remaining reductions.</para>
<para>Every time I hear the Greens get up on their high horse, lecturing the Australian people about climate, an important question springs to mind immediately: why are the Greens actively campaigning against huge renewable energy projects in Tasmania if they say they take this climate change issue so seriously? A $1.6 billion renewable energy project in north-west Tasmania, the Robbins Island wind farm, is the target of the Greens and the Bob Brown Foundation, who want to stop it in its tracks. On the one hand, they want to lecture the government and the Australian people about acting on climate change but, on the other hand, they are campaigning against an actual plan to add more clean energy to the grid to supplement Tasmania's reliable and emissions-free hydro energy and to create jobs and massive investment in a regional area that needs it.</para>
<para>Why do the Greens oppose this development? It is because Bob Brown said so. You would think they would have learnt a lesson from the last election. Bob Brown thought the way to help Labor win the election and adopt green policies was to drive up to Queensland and lecture Queenslanders on how to manage their resources. And how did that pan out? But, when Bob Brown says his campaign against the Robbins Island wind farm will be the next Franklin Dam, the Greens swing right in behind their former leader. Personally, I suspect Tasmanian Greens would be a bit embarrassed that they have to oppose a major renewable energy development in their own state just because Bob said so. They certainly should be embarrassed, especially when you look at Mr Brown's own words about why he is campaigning against it. Mr Brown said the Robbins Island plan was, visually, a step too far:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Mariners will see this hairbrush of tall towers from 50 kms out to sea and elevated landlubbers will see it, like it or not, from great distances on land. Its eye-catchiness will divert from every coastal scene on the western Bass Strait coastline.</para></quote>
<para>Well, we'd better not create jobs and we'd better not reduce emissions in case it spoils the view, according to Bob Brown and the Greens—won't somebody think of the mariners and the landlubbers! Clearly with the Greens, it is still a case of what Bob says goes. So here with this motion today—and always in this chamber—they lecture us about climate change while the Bob Brown Foundation is out seeking donations to campaign against a renewable energy project in Tasmania.</para>
<para>What this motion today is actually about is running a defence for the Labor Party's ridiculous non-policy announcement last week, where they chased a few headlines about a 2050 emissions reduction target and then they immediately started complaining about how unfair it was that Australians want some detail on what that plan is and what the cost of it is. They can't even tell us what their emissions target is for 10 years time, as the government has done, yet they want Australians to pat them on the back for making a claim that they would achieve something in 30 years time—with not the faintest detail on what they would do, how they would do it and what it would cost.</para>
<para>I suppose it's not surprising that that is the level of policy development in the Labor Party when you consider that the extent of their efforts currently to stand up for energy and resources jobs in Queensland and New South Wales is to just go out and have a nice dinner in Canberra and talk about it. We've heard a lot about the Otis group, but I think they're getting a bit too much credit. What have they actually done to stand up for jobs, other than just have a steak and a nice bottle of red? It looks very convenient in hindsight that a supposedly pro-jobs minority in the Labor Party was stumbled across by the media just before Labor announced their big, uncosted, unplanned attempt to win over Green voters. From where I'm standing, that looks an awful lot like the Labor Party once again trying to have a bob each way.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you to Senator Siewert for raising this critical issue. This government's climate policies are a mess, they are an embarrassment and they are irresponsible. This government, while it preaches budget responsibility, cannot tell us what its current climate policies will cost. However, the man that was leading the government not too long ago, former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, has been happy to tell us what the cost is: a less habitable planet, lower economic growth, lower growth in new jobs and more emissions. That is the cost of this government's plan.</para>
<para>This has been backed up by a CSIRO report, the <inline font-style="italic">Australian national outlook 2019</inline>, which stated that if we stay on our current course, we risk a situation where 'Australia drifts into the future', and we risk a slow economic decline. That same report mapped out a second possible future for Australia, which it called the 'outlook' scenario. In this second possible future, Australia takes action on the major challenges facing it over the next few decades, such as emissions and climate. In this scenario, it predicts an Australia with significantly stronger GDP growth, over double the growth in wages, and household electricity bills down 64 per cent as a proportion of household income. All of this happens with an Australia that reaches net zero carbon emissions by 2050 with international cooperation. I know which of these two futures I want to see, live in and be part of, and I know the majority of Australians will agree with me, because the cost of inaction is not just the environmental impact that a changing climate would bring but also an Australia that gives up the opportunities of becoming a clean energy superpower with a new generation of jobs and cheaper bills. I wonder which future the government would like to see, because, due to the policy decisions this government has put in place, we're currently on track for the former scenario, the one which the CSIRO report named 'slow decline'.</para>
<para>All of the latest data confirms that this government's climate policies are hopelessly inadequate. Their own data shows that there was no reduction in emissions pollution in the quarter to September 2019, and the most recent data on annual emissions pollution shows a decline that is pathetic: just 0.3 per cent to date. So not only is Scott Morrison failing to protect Australians from the future of a changing climate but he is also failing to take advantage of the better future that we can have, which the CSIRO, the government's own pre-eminent science agency, described in their report.</para>
<para>Scott Morrison and his government are the only ones who don't seem to think that we should cut emissions pollution and invest significantly in renewables to get to zero net emissions in 2050. This argument is happening only inside the Liberal and National parties, because everyone else agrees, and they have done for a long time. So what we need to be able to move forward to a better future is for this government and the two parties that make it up to resolve their internal conflicts. That is what we need. We need them to resolve their internal disputes and to make a plan now, because we can't wait any longer—though I have to say that it's becoming increasingly clear that plans aren't really the style of this government.</para>
<para>We, on the other hand see a positive future where Australia is a clean energy superpower with a new generation of jobs and cheaper energy bills, a future which sees a positive and forward-looking Australia which moves forward with the rest of the world. There is now a real consensus on what needs to happen, with 73 countries around the world, every Australian state and territory, and major business groups supporting zero net emissions. There are major countries, the Business Council, the AIG, the Property Council, and some of our biggest employers all seeing the same positive future that Labor sees.</para>
<para>What we really need to do is deliver certainty about the future, and that is what a zero net emissions target does. It delivers certainty, and certainty is what this government refuses to provide. Business needs it to invest, and young people need it to know that our generation will deliver them a healthy planet. We owe that to them.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's absolutely beyond doubt that climate change is costing us big time—the catastrophic fires we've seen this summer, the devastation to communities, to local businesses, to the ecosystems, and the disruption to our gross national product. It's all there for anyone who has eyes wide open.</para>
<para>While I acknowledge that these are environmental problems—climate change is an environmental problem—it does surprise people when I tell them, yes, of course climate change is an environmental problem, but first and foremost it's an economic problem. Anyone who has a basic understanding of economics and business and finance knows about externalities that are created from business activities. Climate change, CO2 pollution and other forms of greenhouse gas emissions are an externality—an economic cost. It never ceases to amaze me that those on the other side, who claim to be champions of markets, don't understand that if they applied basic economic principles they would understand that you need to use those tools to tackle climate change and, therefore, price the cost, price the externality to our economy and efficiently deal with it.</para>
<para>Because it's an economic problem, Acting Deputy President Griff, I'd put to you that nearly every environmental problem I could name, and many social problems, are first and foremost economic problems. And because these all come from business activities, they are also ultimately a political problem. You can't fix a broken system without doing that through parliament and through politics. This is where it gets really interesting with this mob on the other side. They are in the pockets of special interests—they always have been, especially the fossil fuel industry—and they refuse to act. They tore up the world's best package on tackling greenhouse gases and CO2, purely for cynical political reasons and to support their big backers in the fossil fuel and mining industries. Now we have absolutely nothing—zero policy to cost.</para>
<para>Australians are waking up to the fact that there are costs of inaction. We heard ad nauseum from Mr Tony Abbott about 'axe the tax' and the costs of climate change. But we've never had an acknowledgement at all from the other side—from so called conservatives who understand economics and finance—that there are costs of inaction. Go and speak to the insurance companies if you want to understand what the costs of inaction are. Go and speak to local governments, go and speak to the fireys, and go and speak to the communities who are facing increased extreme weather events—droughts, floods, cyclones and bushfires, and it is only going to get worse. The best available science tells us if we don't act on climate now it is going to get worse, and it is going to cost us billions of dollars more. The estimates I've heard so far from these bushfires—and we'll get into this next week at Senate estimates with Treasury—are at least $100 billion in cost to our economy. That is one event. So, if you want to have an honest debate, yes, there will be costs of transitioning our economy to a clean energy future, but those costs are by far outweighed by the costs of inaction. There are opportunities for transitioning out of coal and out of other fossil fuels towards 100 per cent renewable energy.</para>
<para>I'm proud that my party has been the party of renewable energy. We are the party that negotiated $10 billion for wind farms and $10 billion to invest in ARENA and in the CEFC to supercharge and drive this transition. We will be the party that will be introducing a Green New Deal that Australians will vote for and that will be jobs rich and actually solve the problem, solve the externality, tackle the economic problem and tackle the political problem, because we are the only party with a— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CANAVAN</name>
    <name.id>245212</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think the introduction of this motion from the Australian Greens is a classic example of hoisting yourself on your own petard, because it's the Australian Greens coming into this chamber criticising other political parties for not doing adequate costings. This is a party that regularly proposes policies which are uncosted—which have no basis in what they would cost—and it is now claiming that we are doing the same and criticising us for doing the same.</para>
<para>Some might not remember, but it wasn't that long ago that former Treasury secretary Mr Ken Henry made the very apt claim that there wasn't a computer large enough to cost the Greens' policies. They were that radical and that out there that there was not the processing power available in the world, according to Mr Ken Henry, to cost the Australian Greens' policies. There have been advancements in microchips and processes since then. Perhaps we've got to the level where we can run an economic model to cost the Greens' policies, but I'm a bit sceptical. No evidence has been presented by the Australian Greens in this debate that that is possible just yet.</para>
<para>The costs of our climate change policies were modelled. We did produce economic modelling last year about the cost of meeting a 26 to 28 per cent target. In fact, we actually produced modelling back before the Paris Agreement was signed. I think I remember Mr Greg Hunt commissioning modelling from Warwick McKibbin's economic modelling outfit, which outlined the costs of the commitments we were taking to the Paris negotiations at that time. We updated those last year ahead of the election. We were upfront with the Australian people that there would be a cost associated with reducing our carbon emissions to our commitment of a 26 to 28 per cent reduction by 2030. We've been upfront about that. There is a cost.</para>
<para>The people that are not being upfront in this debate are those that are trying to claim that there would be no cost to the Australian economy by reducing carbon emissions. That is a fairytale that the Australian people understand well. The Australian people have a very good radar for when they're being sold a pup—especially a pup by politicians who have a tendency to gild the lily on their own policies.</para>
<para>The idea that's been presented by the Australian Labor Party over the last week, that somehow we could get to net zero emissions in just 30 years time—and that there won't be a coalminer lose their job, there won't be increased costs on the Australian people and there won't be a hit to our productivity, our economic growth and our wealth—is an absolute fantasy, and the Australian people know it. There's the absurdity of the leader of the Labor Party in this place, Senator Wong, saying the other week that it doesn't matter what the costs are, because the costs of inaction are 20 times higher. There was no basis for it being 20 times higher, there were no calculations and there was no proper analysis. It was a figure literally pulled out of her backside.</para>
<para>Fortunately for us, there has been some attempt to cost these types of policies around the world. New Zealand have adopted a net zero emissions target, and, while I don't support this policy, I at least give the New Zealand government credit for actually commissioning economic modelling into that target. That economic modelling makes pretty sobering reading. Their own modelling, commissioned by the New Zealand government, showed that a net zero emissions target in New Zealand would have halved the dairy sector, would have reduced their GDP by 21 per cent and would have put wages down by up to 28 per cent. This is hundreds of billions of dollars of cost applied to the Australian economy, and our economy, of course, is more carbon intense than that in New Zealand. Because of those costs in New Zealand, the New Zealand government ultimately exempted agriculture from their net zero target. Agriculture produces 48 per cent of New Zealand's emissions and they have just completely exempted it, because of those costs.</para>
<para>Meanwhile, the Australian Labor Party, with no costings and no analysis, has left open the question that agriculture would be included, that our nation's farmers would be in the gun from a policy that even the New Zealand government has not adopted. The Australian Labor Party, without any analysis or any numbers, is seeking to put a massive new tax and constraint on agricultural development in this country.</para>
<para>I'll finish on this point: the Australian Labor Party is running around quoting the recent CSIRO report that says we can achieve zero emissions. They obviously haven't read the 400-plus page technical report to that, because it says that agricultural production would be in substantial decline under a net zero emissions policy. That is the policy the Australian Labor Party has signed up to—to a decline in agricultural production, to hit our farmers and to make sure our economy is weaker in the future.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If any ordinary Australian had the misfortune of tuning into Senate radio over the course of the last 10 minutes, they will have heard the worst of Australian politics. It's contemptible really what the Australian public has been served up by the Greens political party and by the National Party, in terms of the future of the country's approach. If we are serious about dealing with emissions, you wouldn't go anywhere near this lot and this bloke. They are as bad as each other. Both are completely internally focused. Both are unable to deal with the theory of change and a policy or political pathway to reduce emissions, to increase jobs and to lower costs. They are incapable of doing it—they always have been. They won't get any better. Over the course of the next couple of years, Australians will see through the internally focused rabid politics of the National Party and the Greens political party.</para>
<para>Senator Canavan is capable of only negative slogans and weird claims. He deliberately and dishonestly conflates costs to the budget and costs to the economy. Even his friends, his former friends, in the National Farmers' Federation, disavow his rabid and weird approach to this set of issues.</para>
<para>If we are honest about this debate, we must be serious about the costs of inaction on climate change. What are the costs going to be if global temperatures rise by one degree, by two degrees, by three degrees, or by more than three degrees? We would take that lot seriously if they had a pathway to fix it. But what is the cost going to be to the economy? We know that the cost to the economy of the drought was 0.2 per cent of GDP in one quarter, thousands of homes gone and lives lost. On the economy, which Senator Canavan pretends to care about, let's look at what has happened in the drought to employment in just one sector: people employed in sheep, beef and grain, rural labourers—the kind of people that he drivels on about in the Weatherboard and Iron podcasts, which I urge you to ignore.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Brockman</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You've been listening!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Look, I'm the sole listener! Nobody else listens; it's just me! I'll start posting about it soon! ABARES, that organisation that is well-known for being a radical outfit, says that employment in that sector has halved over the course of the period between 2000 and now. These are the people he pretends to care about. The Commonwealth Bank says that half to three-quarters of a per cent of GDP is gone. Those costs were felt disproportionately in rural communities. It's absolutely incumbent upon this government to take account of and be public about measures of rising costs, in terms of global emissions.</para>
<para>In all this shiftiness, conflating the cost to the budget and the cost to the economy—the shiftiness, the dishonesty—what is clear is that both in terms of cost to the budget and cost to the economy, the costs of action are dwarfed by the costs of inaction. There is no debate that those opposite won't debauch and debase or use to diminish our democracy. There is no pathway to stopping global warming by supporting the Greens political party. There is no pathway to stopping global warming by supporting the National Party or the Liberal Party. We have to reduce Australia's emissions, to manage new opportunities for the regions, for clean energy and for industrial diversification, and to take a credible position to global climate change negotiations. If you were interested in this, you'd read what Niall Blair, the former National's deputy leader in New South Wales, had to say. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A net zero emissions future in Australia provides nothing but opportunities for our farmers. And, with 30 years to get there, they are ready, willing and able. It's also the right thing to do.</para></quote>
<para>If you're interested in energy prices going down, if you're interested in increasing good jobs, if you're interested in more jobs and more investment in the aluminium and steel sectors and if you're interested in reducing emissions, you'll be voting Labor and supporting the Labor approach.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am sure some Australians are listening to this MPI. If they heard the last two contributions—from Senator Canavan and Senator Ayres, who's now fleeing the chamber rather than listening to my speech—I don't know if they would be tearing their hair out or vomiting on the passenger floor of the car they are driving. Seriously! We have just seen some of the biggest straw men ever erected.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>76760</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Brockman, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Brockman</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a convention of this place that we do not reflect on whether our colleagues are in the chamber or not and on when they are leaving the chamber. I ask you to bring that to the attention of Senator McKim.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>76760</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKim.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I was saying, this evening we had Senator Canavan and Senator Ayres erect some of the biggest straw men I have seen in my time in politics. I'm not going to waste the very short time I have to make this speech in demolishing every single straw man that they put up, but I will say to Senator Ayres: the Greens have a fully costed set of policies that clearly lay out a pathway to drive Australia's emissions down in line with what the climate science is telling us, which is that we need to start reducing our emissions now, not at some indeterminate time in the future, as proposed by the Labor Party.</para>
<para>Senator Canavan said that we didn't cost our policies. Every single policy that we took to the last election was costed in the independent rigorous process of the Parliamentary Budget Office. He shouldn't mislead Australians about what we put before them at the last election. We will again have a rigorously costed policy framework as we approach the next election. Our policies will be in line with what the climate science is telling us.</para>
<para>With a 2050 target, Labor are walking away from Australia's Paris commitment. Labor's policy has us on a pathway for three degrees of global warming. The reason they're doing that is that they're run by the coal huggers in the Labor Party. Senator Ayres is a classic example of a coal hugger who is standing in the way of strong climate action within the Labor Party. You wouldn't think it was possible to have an even worse set of climate policies than the Labor Party's, but the Liberal Party have been bought out by their corporate mates in the fossil fuel sector.</para>
<para>One thing we can categorically state in regard to the cost of reducing emissions is that the longer we leave it the more expensive it will get. The other thing we can categorically state about the costs of reducing emissions is that the cost of not acting to reduce our emissions will be far greater than the costs of acting. The science is abundantly clear. We need to take strong action to reduce our emissions now.</para>
<para>The whole framing of this debate, which has been driven by many in the media—News Corp and many other media outlets, including, disappointingly, some in the ABC—is most unhelpful. The framing is not honest, because there are significant opportunities available for this country to become a global leader in responding to climate change. They including renewable energy generation. They include the hydrogen economy, which, by the way, will only stack up in emissions terms if the hydrogen is created using renewable energy rather than fossil fuel energy. There are major job opportunities available. The Greens have laid out those opportunities, and we will lay them out in our Green New Deal, a historic program for significant public investment in the transition so we can look after people in affected communities. I'm not talking about turning coalminers into baristas here. We are talking about genuine opportunities in manufacturing, in energy generation and in rewilding and reforesting, which is what the science is telling us we need to do to take action to meet Paris targets and to drive global emissions down.</para>
<para>This whole debate is a furphy regardless, because history will show you that even the Treasury department can't get their budget forecasts right, even for six months into the future. And yet this government comes up and expects people to cost things over the coming decades. It's a crock, this debate. What we should be focusing on is taking advantage of the opportunities and making sure we support our people through the inevitable transition, because it's going to come whether we like it or not. The sooner we get with the program, the more opportunities there will be for the transition and the fewer costs there will be to our community.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We are in a climate emergency, and those in the government are sitting on their hands, hands which are stained with the dirty donations from the fossil fuel lobby. The Liberals' lack of action has us fully on track for 3.4 degrees of warming, which will have catastrophic consequences. History will remember you as the cowards who did nothing in a climate emergency. History will remember you as villains who blocked international action on climate. And history will remember you as the dishonest government who knew the signs and chose not to act to save the planet.</para>
<para>School kids have shown incredible courage by marching in the tens of thousands to demand action. It's because they want a fighting chance for a future where not every summer is marked by severe bushfires, where they can breathe without masks, where they can enjoy nature. There are no two ways about this: scientists have this week warned that both Liberal and Labor Party policies fall dangerously short of the action that we actually need. Labor's target of zero net emissions by 2050 puts us on track to blow the Paris budget.</para>
<para>We need to front-end our emissions reductions. Labor haven't outlined any plans to cut pollution. We need action now. Scientists tell us that, if we are to keep our planet habitable, there should be no new fossil fuel developments for domestic use or for export. Quitting coal, oil and gas is the real test on which Labor and Liberals have failed time and again, and they have failed miserably. Our actions in the next few years will define what the world looks like in the next 50 years. The absolute lack of any leadership from the Liberals and Labor will not save us in this climate emergency.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>76760</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We shall now proceed to the consideration of documents.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>96</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration</title>
          <page.no>96</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>96</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Scrutiny of Bills Committee</title>
          <page.no>96</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Scrutiny Digest</title>
            <page.no>96</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of the Chair of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Senator Polley, I present <inline font-style="italic">Scrutiny</inline><inline font-style="italic">Digest</inline> No. 3 of 2020 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>96</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Report</title>
          <page.no>96</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BROCKMAN</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to order and at the request of the chairs of the respective committees, I present reports on the examination of annual reports tabled by 31 October 2019.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Human Rights Committee</title>
          <page.no>96</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>96</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BROCKMAN</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights, I present the third report of 2020 of the <inline font-style="italic">Human rights scrutiny report</inline>. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the report.</para></quote>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity Committee</title>
          <page.no>96</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>96</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, I present the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity on the examination of the annual report of the Integrity Commissioner 2017-18, together with the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the report.</para></quote>
<para>It should be noted by this house that the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity has increased its jurisdiction in terms of the number of law enforcement members who are covered by the ambit of its role from 16,000 to 23,000 law enforcement members, and this has occurred over the last three or four years. So the commission has been going through a consolidation phase, dealing with legacy work over this period of time. It has also introduced a triage process whereby a focus is put upon the most serious and systemic allegations of corruption in those law enforcement agencies.</para>
<para>I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Mr Michael Griffin AM, who served as the Integrity Commissioner during this process of consolidation and the introduction of various triage measures. I would like to also congratulate the new Integrity Commissioner with respect to her appointment as well. That is Ms Jaala Hinchcliffe. The committee looks forward to working with the new Integrity Commissioner.</para>
<para>Finally, I just place on the record the committee's thanks to the secretariat, who provided such good service in the preparation of this report.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee</title>
          <page.no>97</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Delegated Legislation Monitor</title>
            <page.no>97</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BROCKMAN</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Chair of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, Senator Fierravanti-Wells, I present Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 3 of 2020. I also present additional information received by committees relating to estimates.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>97</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
          <page.no>97</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table a document relating to the order for the production of documents concerning PFAS testing.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>97</page.no>
        <type>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework</title>
          <page.no>97</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management, Mr Littleproud, I table a ministerial statement on disaster risk reduction.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the document.</para></quote>
<para>The statement that has just been tabled is, I think, identical to one that was delivered by the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management, Minister Littleproud, in the House of Representatives today. I obviously haven't seen the one that has just been tabled, but if it is the same as the one that was delivered by the minister this morning I have had an opportunity to look at that speech and a formal reply to that statement has been delivered by the shadow minister for infrastructure, Catherine King. But I did just want to take a couple of minutes to reinforce a couple of key points from the opposition's point of view.</para>
<para>We welcome the fact that the minister has made this statement about disaster risk reduction. As I understand it from his speech, it is the first of what are intended now to be annual statements about disaster risk reduction. That is a good thing—that we have a government willing to make a statement to the parliament about what it is doing to reduce the risk of natural disasters that our country faces. We know from advice from the federal government's own bodies—the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and other scientific bodies—that we do face increased numbers and severity of natural disasters in the future due to climate change. That's bushfires, floods, cyclones and droughts. All forms of natural disasters and extreme weather events are likely to increase as a result of climate change. So it's a good thing that the government has a disaster management framework and is intending to report on it every year.</para>
<para>But I have to say, having read the statement the minister delivered this morning, that it really is just another example of this government being more about its own marketing than about matching it with action and reality. We saw from this government that it comprehensively failed to prepare and plan for the bushfires that our country faced not just in the summer but back to around August last year. My home state of Queensland was dealing with bushfires, unusually, as early as August last year, and of course it's continued ever since. We saw the government comprehensively fail to prepare and plan for those bushfires. When the bushfires actually hit, we saw the government fail to respond properly. It engaged in denial and blame shifting to the states and refused to fund various things. Now, as I have highlighted on a number of occasions in the chamber, we're also seeing the government fail in its bushfire recovery efforts.</para>
<para>I acknowledge that it's still early days in terms of the bushfire recovery, and I genuinely hope that the government takes on board our suggestions about what can be done to assist with bushfire recovery. Only today I've been in meetings with people from affected regions who are saying the same things that I've been hearing and relaying to this chamber since the bushfires and since we resumed sitting this year—things like the fact that payments to individuals, to farmers and to small businesses are being tied up in bureaucracy, with people being told by one person from the government that they're eligible and by another person that they're not. Of course, there are a whole range of people out there who are not even eligible for funding under the government's current arrangements. So the failures that we saw from the government in relation to these bushfires are continuing into the recovery effort as well.</para>
<para>There are many worthy sentiments in the minister's statement: about the need to prepare for natural disasters, about things that we can be doing, about the need for cooperation with other levels of government and all sorts of other good sentiments. But, as I say, it is deeply unfortunate that those sentiments have not been matched by action on the part of the government. We all know that there were numerous warnings that were provided to this government as to the risk that our country faced from bushfires heading into this bushfire season. We got those warnings. We all saw those warnings from scientific researchers who were predicting above-average fire risk. Of course, there were the former fire chiefs who sought on numerous occasions to meet with the Prime Minister to talk with him about the risk and about things that could be done, but he refused and continues to refuse to meet with them. We learned that in the government's incoming government briefs when it won the election the Department of Home Affairs advised the government about the increasing risk of natural disasters as a result of climate change. Indeed, in relation to this disaster management framework that the government has put together and that is the centre of the minister's statement here today, we learned a few weeks ago that, according to departmental officials who had worked on it, that framework had been 'buried'. 'Buried' was the word they used to describe a framework which was intended to guide government action to reduce disaster risk and which the minister is now crowing about in his statement to the parliament. It's not enough for this government to continue with spin and marketing statements about how great it is and how much it's doing about the bushfires when the facts are plain to see: they haven't taken these risks seriously enough, they failed to prepare, they failed to respond and they're failing in the recovery effort as well. Overshadowing all of this is the government's continued do-nothing approach when it comes to climate change.</para>
<para>As I said earlier, we know it is not just a Labor view—this is coming from some of the best scientists in the land employed by the federal government—that climate change is increasing the risk of these types of events into the future. While we don't do enough as a country to deal with climate change or to reduce our emissions in the way that the government is doing at the moment, then all we do is expose Australians, our environment and our economy to greater risk. There is so much riding on this for the government to get right, so I genuinely do hope that this first annual statement is a bit of a turning of the page for the government and that perhaps they will finally start taking climate change and the disasters that are increasingly going to result from it seriously. As we have done throughout these disasters, we will work constructively with the government to make sure that Australians get the protection from these events that they need. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>98</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Statute Update (Regulations References) Bill 2020</title>
          <page.no>98</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" background="" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="">
            <a type="Bill" href="r6494">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Statute Update (Regulations References) Bill 2020</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>98</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill may proceed without formalities and now be read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a first time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>98</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard.</inline></para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The speech read as follows—</inline></para>
<para>The Statute Update (Regulations References) Bill 2020 makes minor and technical changes to the Commonwealth statute book to enhance its usability, facilitate interpretation and administration, and promote consistency.</para>
<para>Statute law revision acts and statute stocktake acts have been passed on a regular basis since 1934 as a means of removing obsolete and spent provisions from the statute book and correcting mistakes in drafting. They are traditionally noncontroversial and regarded as an essential means of keeping the Commonwealth statute book accurate and up to date.</para>
<para>The process of statute law revision and update aims to enhance the clarity and efficient use of the statute book. This bill contains one schedule, which updates specific references to regulations in 10 principal acts across the Commonwealth statute book.</para>
<para>These references have become out of date due to the repeal, replacement or renaming of those regulations, or are at risk of becoming out of date in future for these reasons. The bill omits references to specific regulations and specific provisions of regulations, replacing them with more general references to the acts under which the relevant regulations are made. The bill also makes minor consequential amendments to support the operation of the amended provisions, including altering headings and inserting notes.</para>
<para>These ongoing corrections and improvements to legislation are important to ensure that the Commonwealth statute book remains up to date, accurate and user friendly.</para>
<para>I commend this bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2020</title>
          <page.no>99</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" background="" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="">
            <a type="Bill" href="r6493">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2020</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>99</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill may proceed without formalities and now be read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a first time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>99</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard.</inline></para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The speech read as follows—</inline></para>
<para>It gives me great pleasure to present the Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill No. 1 2020.</para>
<para>The Liberal and National government is steadfast in its support of our farmers and their families, now and into the future.</para>
<para>The flagship program to ease severe financial hardship is the farm household allowance (FHA). This is a package of assistance that includes an income support payment for farmers and their partners in financial hardship, regardless of the cause.</para>
<para>Since its introduction in 2014, over $398 million in payments has been made to more than 13,300 individuals. We are investing almost $2 million each week into rural communities through the program. This investment is possible because FHA is demand driven and uncapped—no-one who is eligible will miss out.</para>
<para>We undertook a comprehensive review of FHA in late 2018. The farmer-led panel made a raft of recommendations to refocus the payment and to make is simpler and easier to understand.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister released the government's response on 27 September 2019. He outlined a comprehensive set of changes that represent a radical simplification of key policy settings and the application process.</para>
<para>Our government has simplified and modernised the process, cutting unnecessary red tape. Since 1 February 2020 couples can apply using the same online form—telling their story once. This means more time for our farmers and their partners to manage their farm and improve their circumstances.</para>
<para>In relation to legislative changes, our government swung into action without delay. We separated the key elements and implemented each of them as soon as they could be rolled out. This is why there are three pieces of legislation —we have a process of continuous improvement.</para>
<para>The centrepiece of the first bill was the relief payment for people finishing their first four years of FHA in the 2019-20 financial year. We also made FHA available for four in every 10-year period. Lastly, we made a significant change to the way income affects FHA. For the first time, anyone whose farm business is making a loss will offset their off-farm income to the limit of $100,000 per couple.</para>
<para>The second bill took the income changes further. Anyone who qualifies for payment will automatically receive the maximum amount. This will give farmers and their partners certainty because their payment amounts won't fluctuate.</para>
<para>We simplified how we count assets. We changed from a two-step test to a single amount of $5.5 million—easier, simpler, better for farmers. Finally, in recognition of the benefits of advice and training, we increased the activity supplement to $10,000 per person.</para>
<para>The Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No.1) 2020 completes the agenda outlined by the Prime Minister. The bill removes the provision in the Farm Household Support Act which reconciles the prediction of annual income with the actual amount received. Predicting income is difficult. Farmers have told us that loud and clear. This change brings FHA in line with the treatment of business income for all other social security payments. An estimate of current income will be used to calculate the rate of payment. The estimate can be updated as many times as needed during the year, but crucially it will not be used to look backwards over the year. This means farmers will not worry that a debt will be raised at the end of the year through this business income reconciliation process.</para>
<para>We are keeping a strong eye on public accountability. Regular sampling of records will be undertaken to ensure the right person receives the right payment at the right time. This approach achieves a balance of compliance activity while minimising regulatory burden. The bill also removes the 28-day time limit to conduct a Farm Financial Assessment. This assessment is used by the case manager to help a farmer identify a course or courses of action to improve their financial situation. While it is important that the farm business is independently assessed to check its long-term sustainability, we want flexibility for the timing. Therefore the time limit will be managed administratively by the case manager, taking into consideration the complexity of the farm business and the availability of the person conducting the assessment. The government has listened, responded and stepped up to help support our farmers now and into the future. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020</title>
          <page.no>100</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" background="" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="">
            <a type="Bill" href="r6488">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>100</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>009FX</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The committee is considering the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures Bill 2020. The question is that the bill stand as printed.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DODSON</name>
    <name.id>SR5</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 8887 revised:</para>
<quote><para class="block">   (1) Page 2 (after line 14), after clause 3, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      4 Review of operation of amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (2) The review must start as soon as practicable after the end of 12 months after this Act commences.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (3) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months of the commencement of the review.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (4) The persons who conduct the review must consult:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (a) income support recipients impacted by the amendments made by this Act; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (b) persons who have expertise in social security law; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (c) persons who have expertise in any other area of public policy considered relevant by the persons who conduct the review.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (5) The review must provide for public submissions as part of the review.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (6) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (7) In this section, <inline font-style="italic">Minister</inline> means the Minister administering the <inline font-style="italic">Social Security Act 1991</inline>.</para></quote>
<para>This amendment proposes a review in 12 months and that the person who conducts the review must give the minister a written report of the review within six months of the commencement of the review.</para>
<para>The changes in this bill will impact 150,000 people a fortnight, and it's critical that they work fairly and effectively. This amendment will require an independent review that consults experts and social security recipients. It has been requested by the stakeholders and it is a reasonable request. Indeed, government senators recommended a 12-month review of the bill in their report on this bill. The minister has indicated that the government will conduct such a review, and I say to her: why not back this amendment then?</para>
<para>It is understood that many of the rules around how these changes will operate on a detailed basis will be in the Guide to Social Security Law. Labor accepts that all the detail cannot and should not be in the legislation and that some flexibility in implementation is necessary. But the trade-off, the security that must be offered, is an ironclad guarantee or commitment to the independent review and, as I have said, to the review being handed to the minister within six months of its commissioning.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Dodson. I can give you an ironclad guarantee that, within 12 months of the commencement of the scheme, we will undertake a full review, that the review will be provided to the government in writing and that it will be tabled in this place.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DODSON</name>
    <name.id>SR5</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>And the six months component, Minister?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Within six months.</para>
<para class="italic">The CHAIR: The question is that (1) on sheet 8887 be agreed to. It is the amendment as moved by Senator Dodson.</para>
<para>Ordered that the committee have leave to sit again on the next day of sitting.</para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [18:52]<br />(The Chair—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>36</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, CL</name>
                  <name>Brown, CL</name>
                  <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R</name>
                  <name>Di Natale, R</name>
                  <name>Dodson, P</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                  <name>Griff, S</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                  <name>Keneally, KK</name>
                  <name>Kitching, K</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J</name>
                  <name>Lines, S</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M</name>
                  <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D</name>
                  <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                  <name>Polley, H</name>
                  <name>Pratt, LC</name>
                  <name>Rice, J</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A</name>
                  <name>Siewert, R</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, AE (teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J</name>
                  <name>Waters, LJ</name>
                  <name>Watt, M</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, PS</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>32</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Abetz, E</name>
                  <name>Antic, A</name>
                  <name>Askew, W</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A J</name>
                  <name>Brockman, S (teller)</name>
                  <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R</name>
                  <name>Davey, P</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                  <name>Fierravanti-Wells, C</name>
                  <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H</name>
                  <name>Hume, J</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A</name>
                  <name>McMahon, S</name>
                  <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                  <name>Payne, MA</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A</name>
                  <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P</name>
                  <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                  <name>Smith, DA</name>
                  <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                  <name>Van, D</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>4</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Gallacher, AM</name>
                  <name>Birmingham, SJ</name>
                  <name>Green, N</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J</name>
                  <name>Smith, M</name>
                  <name>Cash, MC</name>
                  <name>Wong, P</name>
                  <name>Cormann, </name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Progress reported.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Cross-boundary Greenhouse Gas Titles and Other Measures) Bill 2019, Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2019</title>
          <page.no>102</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" background="" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" style="">
            <p>
              <a type="Bill" href="r6465">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Cross-boundary Greenhouse Gas Titles and Other Measures) Bill 2019</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a type="Bill" href="r6464">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2019</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>102</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STERLE</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor supports the passage of these two bills: the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Cross-boundary Greenhouse Gas Titles and Other Measures) Bill 2019 and the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2019. These bills amend the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006. They were referred to the Economics Legislation Committee on 5 December and the committee reported on 7 February, recommending that the bills be passed.</para>
<para>The purpose of these bills is to improve the environmental management and workplace safety of offshore petroleum areas which will be used to store greenhouse gases. This is known as carbon capture and storage or CCS. The legislation allows titles in state and Commonwealth waters to be unified in one title for the purpose of the legislation and for Commonwealth levies to be raised on the greenhouse gas storage operators in that unified title.</para>
<para>The first bill, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Cross-boundary Greenhouse Gas Titles and Other Measures) Bill 2019, seeks to fix an anomaly in current offshore petroleum arrangements. State waters extend three kilometres from the coast, and beyond three kilometres they are Commonwealth waters. Yet greenhouse gas storage operations will be conducted into old gasfields that straddle both state and Commonwealth jurisdiction. The cross-boundary amendment bill allows for a Commonwealth and state offshore petroleum title to be unified for the purposes of greenhouse gas storage and for that unified title to be under one jurisdiction and regulated by Commonwealth agencies.</para>
<para>Under this bill adjacent Commonwealth titles can also be unified for greenhouse gas storage. Offshore petroleum activities in Commonwealth waters are regulated by statutory agencies: the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, which we refer to as NOPSEMA, and the National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator, which is known as NOPTA. These amendments mean that if a project owner is injecting greenhouse gases into an old gasfield that straddles, for instance, Victorian state waters and adjacent Commonwealth waters then the legislation will treat them as one title and one jurisdiction, with regulatory oversight to be conducted by NOPSEMA and NOPTA with no ambiguity.</para>
<para>To make this unification of title and jurisdiction effective, the amendment bill establishes a cross-boundary authority consisting of the responsible Commonwealth minister and the relevant state or Northern Territory resources minister. The cross-boundary authority is similar to current joint authority arrangements for petroleum authorities in Commonwealth waters except that the cross-boundary authority will make decisions regarding the granting of cross-boundary greenhouse gas storage titles.</para>
<para>The cross-boundary amendment bill also enhances NOPSEMA's warrant-free inspection powers. An oil spill emergency has to be declared by the CEO of NOPSEMA before warrant-free powers are triggered, and the emergency must arise in Commonwealth waters. The bill limits the warrant-free inspection powers to determining whether the titleholder has complied or is complying with the oil pollution emergency provisions of an environmental plan and determining whether a titleholder is complying with a significant incident direction given by NOPSEMA. Significant incidents are those where there is petroleum escape or a threat of it. NOPSEMA can give directions to titleholders during significant incidents to do or not to do certain actions.</para>
<para>Under the existing legislation the regulator cannot give directions where the incident is in state or Northern Territory waters and the relevant emergency response assets could be under agreement with the state. This amendment fixes that problem. NOPSEMA can now make significant incident directions across the unified title. The power to make inspections without warrant is a serious one. It is considered necessary where the constraints of time and the serious nature of an emergency would make normal judicial warrants ineffective. Offshore petroleum titleholders operate under many oil spill response obligations, and the warrant-free inspection powers allow NOPSEMA to monitor whether the titleholders are complying with their response obligations.</para>
<para>This amendment bill also allows NOPSEMA's inspection powers to apply through state and Northern Territory waters within the unified area under the cross-boundary authority. Premises that can be inspected under NOPSEMA's powers are not confined to rigs and the offices of the operators. Vessels and aircraft are also defined as premises. We note that the minister will be able to require a person to produce information relevant to administering the greenhouse gas storage area, and in giving the information the person earns partial immunity on prosecution. Partial immunity is available only to individuals. The argument for this partial immunity is that for effective management of the greenhouse gas storage activities it might sometimes be more important to establish the facts than to be able to use the facts in a prosecution or legal action. The bill also extends the polluter-pays provision of the current OPGGS legislation to state and territory waters. The polluter-pays principle is, as it says, that the title holder that caused the petroleum spill is responsible for its clean-up.</para>
<para>The second amendment bill, the levies bill, ensures that offshore petroleum levies imposed by the Commonwealth are imposed on the unified titles under the jurisdiction of the cross-boundary authority, even that portion of the unified title that is in state or Northern Territory waters. This is an important amendment for offshore greenhouse gas storage activities because the regulators, NOPSEMA and NOPTA, both operate on a cost-recovery basis. When greenhouse gas storage is no longer being conducted on one of these unified titles under the cross boundary authority, the Commonwealth accepts the civil liability for the whole storage site at site closing. The argument for this acceptance of liability in the explanatory memorandum is that, if the Commonwealth assumes the civil liability for the entire site, it will ensure the highest standards in storage operations.</para>
<para>These two amendment bills are effectively being made to create jurisdictional and regulatory certainty around an important industry of the future, carbon capture and storage. In particular, the amendments are relevant to the Victorian CarbonNet and Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain projects. These projects will sequester CO2 from Latrobe Valley power stations into the seabed of Bass Strait and also generate hydrogen as a fuel for export to Japan. The CarbonNet project will inject CO2 into an area that straddles Victorian coastal waters for three nautical miles and Commonwealth waters. Its stated capacity is to store two million tonnes of CO2 each year and also create a future hydrogen industry—a zero emissions fuel.</para>
<para>The most important aspect of these amendments and previous amendments that passed in October is that they improve the ability of governments and private operators to address greenhouse gas emissions and assist in the development of zero emissions fuels while also holding the operators to high standards of environmental protection and workplace safety. It should be remembered that carbon capture and storage is carried out in areas that have already been exploited for oil and gas, and it uses similar well and pipeline infrastructure to the oil and gas business. So it is crucial that greenhouse gas storage is made safe for workers and, of course, for the environment. But carbon capture and storage is also a crucial technology in pursuing international emissions reduction targets, such as those Australia signed up to in Paris.</para>
<para>The International Energy Agency report from 2016, which is titled <inline font-style="italic">20 Years of Carbon Capture and Storage</inline>, states that keeping global warming below two degrees will have to include carbon capture and storage. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has also advocated carbon capture and storage as one of the key technologies that will help maintain global temperatures below two degrees Celsius. Carbon capture and storage is already being conducted at Barrow Island, in that magnificent state of Western Australia, where Chevron is sequestering one million tonnes of CO2 per year from its Gorgon LNG operation. The CarbonNet project, which provides the rationale for these bills, will do the same thing in the Bass Strait. However, it will involve another key element.</para>
<para>Joined to the CarbonNet project will be the Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain project, which shares CO2 from the storage operation and then turns it into hydrogen. The plan for the current pilot plan at Port of Hastings is for the hydrogen to be loaded onto ships and transported to Japan. Not only is this a potential export industry for Australia but hydrogen is a zero emissions energy source. Using carbon storage and making it into something else is called carbon capture, utilisation and storage, or CCUS. The Commonwealth and the Victorian state governments have both invested in the hydrogen facility. The estimates are for a $2-billion-per-year hydrogen export industry as Japanese power companies and industrial companies convert to hydrogen. So projects such as CarbonNet and Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain are important components of Australia's pursuit of emissions reduction targets.</para>
<para>CCS is the only method for removing CO2 directly from coal-fired power stations and permanently sequestering it. When you combine CCS with hydrogen manufacture, the hydrogen can be made cheaply enough to make it a feasible large-scale energy source. However, we need to ensure that the pursuit of these future abatement strategies and fuels are not achieved at the cost of the environment or at the cost of worker safety. After that brilliant contribution, how can you not support these amendments?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a servant to the people of Queensland in Australia, I make it clear that One Nation opposes these bills, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Cross-boundary Greenhouse Gas Titles and Other Measures) Bill 2019 and Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2019. I cannot in good faith support bills that give more power to bureaucrats who are not using their existing powers correctly.</para>
<para>These bills strengthen the monitoring, inspection and enforcement powers of the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, NOPSEMA. NOPSEMA is the same agency that ran about like cowboys raiding Lloyd's of London to get information on a vessel owned by an Australian company that they then subsequently ran out of business. 'Timorgate', as their actions became known, targeted an Australian company, Northern Oil and Gas Australia, NOGA, who were operating the <inline font-style="italic">Northern Endeavour</inline>, a purpose-built oil production and storage production platform in the Timor Sea. An insignificant safety event on board the ship unleashed NOPSEMA on this unsuspecting company who self-reported the incident. They took responsibility for it. After months of persecution over this single insignificant safety breach, the company went into receivership. As a result of NOPSEMA's inexplicable actions, China swooped in and bought the <inline font-style="italic">Northern Endeavour</inline>, NOGA's production leases and their airport on Timor. NOPSEMA has a charter to manage our offshore resource projects for the benefit of Australians, not the Chinese. NOPSEMA's actions resulted in the loss of 250 Australian jobs from a company that has paid $320 million in taxes. Perhaps that was NOGA's problem—a company that pays its taxes had to go, as it was making this government's big corporate mates look bad. Now we want to give NOPSEMA more power. Like hell! One Nation want a review of the operations of NOPSEMA before we expand their powers.</para>
<para>There is another built-in flaw in this legislation, and it goes to the parent legislation, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006, or OPGGS for short. This act supports the notion that the right place for carbon dioxide is buried underground instead of providing life-affirming food for a natural environment. Are we going nuts in this place? This is absolutely insane. According to NASA, carbon dioxide production by humans is fertilising the earth. I'll debunk that in a minute, but I want to show you the power and significance of carbon dioxide. NASA has found 'from a quarter to half of Earth's vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide' and CSIRO has found the same. But note: they say it's due to rising atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide. They didn't say 'human production'. We cannot claim that carbon dioxide, including that from burning oil, gas and coal, is making crops grow faster and stronger, improving yields of food and fibre that feed and clothe the world, because human carbon dioxide does not and cannot increase the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.</para>
<para>I'll explain why. The earth's atmosphere contains a certain amount of carbon dioxide. The earth's oceans contain 50 to 70 times more carbon dioxide in dissolved form than in the entire atmosphere. The United Nations' so-called climate agency admits this. The data shows that, as water temperature rises, the solubility of carbon dioxide in water decreases and the oceans liberate carbon dioxide and we get a rise in the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. When the oceans cool, due to that big ball in the sky that you see in the day—the sun—it increases the solubility of carbon dioxide in the oceans and that takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Nature itself produces an estimated 32 times more carbon dioxide every year than the entire production from humans. What that means is that nature overwhelmingly dominates the level of carbon dioxide production and, in addition, the oceans control that level according to the temperature of the oceans. And there are many other factors to do with the vegetation in the oceans and on the land as well.</para>
<para>Let me give you a few more facts, because it is an absolutely ridiculous proposition to bury life-giving carbon dioxide in the ground and, worse, to do it at enormous cost. Firstly, let's get the term correct. The Labor Party and the Greens keep referring to carbon dioxide, essential for all life on earth, as carbon pollution. I'll ask you all to think about the term 'pollution' in a minute. Carbon dioxide is a gas—colourless, tasteless, odourless and invisible. It's called a trace gas because the scientific community recognises that there's bugger all of it. There is 0.04 per cent in the atmosphere. That's four 100ths of one per cent. There's virtually nothing there—and yet it is essential for life on this planet, because every one of us in this chamber, every human, every living organism, contains in every single cell in our bodies the element carbon.</para>
<para>Carbon's not very common in the universe, but the beauty of earth, the miracle on earth, is that carbon is concentrated. That element is concentrated, and that's what makes life possible on our planet. Carbon is a source of life. Every one of us, including the senators now looking down at the ground, is based on carbon. It's in every cell of our bodies. When we breathe, we take in oxygen. We also combine that in our lungs, our digestive systems and our blood with carbohydrates—carbon and hydrogen—in the food that we take in. The carbon in that food produces carbon dioxide when combined with oxygen. The hydrogen combines with the oxygen to produce H20, water. So our basic chemistry is that we take in carbon, we take in hydrogen and we produce water and carbon dioxide—which are essential for all the trees on this planet. How ironic that the Greens demonise carbon pollution, because carbon dioxide, nature's trace gas, essential for all life on earth, is essential for everything green we see on this planet—in the oceans and on the land. So carbon dioxide is essential for life.</para>
<para>The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is miniscule. The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not affected by human impact because of the oceans. If humans produce slightly more or incredibly more, the oceans release slightly less. If humans produce less carbon dioxide, then the oceans release more. We see that in the fact that, after the global financial crisis in 2008, most countries went into a recession—there was globally a recession—the level of energy used was less in 2009. That means that we produced less carbon dioxide from humans; yet the level in the atmosphere continued to increase.</para>
<para>What that means—if senators stop and pause and think, in serving the people of Australia—is that it doesn't matter if humans cut our carbon dioxide output, because the oceans will dictate the level in the atmosphere. Senator Sterle talked about greenhouse gas storage and capture. It's a nonsense. It doesn't matter how much we pump into the ground and take away from the plants, it will not affect the level in the atmosphere, but it will cost us—and I will give you the explanation later in this speech. It cost 1.3 billion just for one series of burials for carbon dioxide from power stations and cement plants in Norway.</para>
<para>Every single person in this chamber right now takes in air with 0.04 per cent of carbon dioxide and we're all breathing out four to five per cent, that is we're increasing the carbon dioxide levels in our air by 100 times or more. You, according to the Greens' senators, are all carbon polluters.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>105</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Security</title>
          <page.no>105</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHANDLER</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Terrorism and how we keep Australians safe from terrorists is once again in the headlines this week with recent comments from the ASIO director-general that the terrorist threat remains unacceptably high. That important reminder comes as, in this country, we are facing the imminent release of eight convicted terrorists from prison. Surely when it comes to convicted terrorists, people who want to kill and injure as many Australians as they can, community safety has to be the only priority. Any wishful thinking that terrorists will be rehabilitated and see the error of their ways must come to an end.</para>
<para>The short-sighted sentencing of terrorists has tragically had deadly consequences with two attacks by convicted terrorists in the space of just a few months in the United Kingdom. The UK parliament earlier this month had to rush through legislation to end the, frankly, absurd practice of automatically releasing terrorists halfway through their sentence, as it should have done long before now.</para>
<para>There's little doubt that law enforcement and security agencies have serious concerns about the release of convicted terrorists who not so long ago conspired to murder innocent Australians. It has been reported in the national media in recent weeks that some retain active contact and influence with terrorist circles, including actively working to recruit other violent criminals to their terrorist ideology whilst still in prison. This revelation demonstrates the problem with courts giving terrorists the benefit of the doubt at sentencing. There's every chance they will walk out of jail on the date by which the court had hoped they would be rehabilitated having spent their time in jail, but they will instead continue to hold and expound to others the same murderous ideology that landed them there in the first place.</para>
<para>Why do we do this to ourselves as a nation? Our security services do a fantastic job tracking down terrorists and putting them behind bars. Why do we let these people back out on the streets and tie up our security services tracking and monitoring the same terrorists that they've previously caught? Our justice system needs a significant reprioritisation to focus on community safety and keep dangerous criminals behind bars where they can't harm innocent Australians. Rolling the dice that someone who wanted to kill dozens of Australians will no longer want to do so in two, four or 10 years time when their sentence expires, is a gamble that we simply shouldn't be taking. Terrorists certainly don't deserve that kind of generous optimism and the Australian public doesn't deserve to be put at risk.</para>
<para>The same applies to other categories of highly dangerous convicted criminals. The appalling harm perpetrated on children by paedophiles and child rapists is just another prime example where the justice system should look to protect the innocent rather than crystal ball gazing about an offender's future prospects. Just like fanatical terrorists, the prospect of rehabilitating paedophiles who abuse children is unproven and not a gamble that we should be taking. Unlike terrorists, intelligence shows that child abusers are in our community and committing offences in shockingly large numbers.</para>
<para>For the large proportion of criminals who are not seriously dangerous, and whose crimes are of lesser magnitude, rehabilitation is quite rightly a significant priority of the justice system. But to prioritise the hope that a terrorist or child rapist will have learned the error of their ways after a few years in prison, over the public safety of having them detained and off the streets where they can create more harm to more people, is absolute madness. The courts and the parliament must put community safety first and keep these dangerous criminals off the streets and behind bars.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Barrack, Mr Peter George, OAM, Goodger, Mr Walter David (Dave), O'Brien, Mr Edward (Eddie) John</title>
          <page.no>106</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Over the summer, the Labor movement lost three remarkable people: Peter Barrack, Dave Goodger and Eddie O'Brien. They devoted their lives and talents to the service of working people. They represented the best of the Australian union movement.</para>
<para>Peter Barrack served as the secretary of the Newcastle trades hall from 1979 to 2000. He was the public face of unions in the Hunter region. He was a formidable and respected leader. His efforts, some militant campaigns, some in partnership with employers and government, have shaped the Hunter for the better. Peter understood that union solidarity doesn't end at the factory gate.</para>
<para>He began his political life as a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War and, as a union leader, he built strong links between the trades hall and community, and social and political campaigns. He was committed to the cause of peace, to workers and to environmental and social justice. Peter was never interested in parliamentary politics but his approach to political action was sophisticated and effective, rooted in a left working-class approach that focused on the trades hall being at the centre of working people's lives. He will be deeply missed in Newcastle, where he was a formidable and respected figure, and by people across the Australian Trade Union movement.</para>
<para>My friend Dave Goodger served as national president of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union from 1996 to 2000. Like so many great trade union and Labor Party activists, members of parliament and, indeed, future prime ministers, he began life as an apprentice at the Eveleigh railway yards where he first joined the union. He worked at the Colgate-Palmolive factory where, in 1965, he became a delegate. That was a tough place to work and a place of determined union action, conflict and solidarity. He became a New South Wales state organiser in 1975. He was then elected to the office of New South Wales assistant secretary in 1985, state secretary in 1986 and national president from 1996 to 2000.</para>
<para>As an official, he was particularly instrumental in the metalworkers campaign for shorter working hours in the early 1980s. That bitter campaign won a 38-hour working week, industrial achievement that all Australians now take for granted. He was dedicated, passionate and had a great sense of humour. His comrade Bruce Campbell, former delegate and state organiser, described him as 'a radical who wouldn't take a backward step on the job, a good thinker and a good strategist'. It was this combination of determination and strategic thinking that helped deliver shorter working hours for all Australian workers. I remember how kind Dave was to me early in my time as a union activist and official. My condolences to his wife, Barbara Kidd, and his big family.</para>
<para>Eddie O'Brien was a son of south Sydney who became a sheet metal worker in Sydney construction, a rank-and-file activist and an organiser for the AMWU and then the Australian Workers Union. It's very difficult for anybody outside of the Sydney sheeties group to understand the bonds of mateship, the hard culture and the industrial militancy that has delivered good jobs and decent works in an industry that is impermanent and dangerous. They install air-conditioning systems into commercial and residential construction projects, all over Australia—tough and difficult work. The genuine 36-hour week that they have maintained, the decent wages and the permanent jobs are due in no small part to the determination, street cunning and commitment of Ed O'Brien and his colleagues.</para>
<para>I know. I was there for some of it. Watching Ed at mass meetings of Sydney sheeties, stalking up and down the stage, was like watching Bon Scott at an ACDC concert. It was always a remarkable performance—designed to lead the meeting to smart effective strategies that maintained their grip on the industry and on decent work. I was his colleague for some of that time, nominally at least, in charge of his work. He was direct, good-hearted, generous and deeply funny. It was obvious to all of us who worked with him how much he loved his wife, Kerry. He was a loving father and father-in-law to Brendon and Nicole, Katie and Vinh, Mick and Jo, and devoted to his six grandchildren. His passing was far too early, he had many friends across the New South Wales trade union movement, and he'll be deeply missed by his family, his friends and his foes in the building industry, and right across the labour movement.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parliament House: Art</title>
          <page.no>107</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One of the incredible things about being commissioned by your community to be their voice here in this place is the very space in which we do the work of the community: Parliament House. One of the jewels of Parliament House—one of the bits that remind you how lucky we are to share this space on behalf of the community—is that it is filled with some of the best examples of Australian art that can be found anywhere. It constantly comes as a shock to me that there is so often a conversation that questions the fundamental value of art and creativity and dismisses it in this place, when we work every day in a building that is made so much better by the presence of so much incredible creativity.</para>
<para>One painting which always grabs my attention every time I pass it is the 'Big Picture', as it is known—the Tom Roberts painting, completed in 1903, depicting the Federation of Australia and the coming together of the Australian nation in Melbourne at the commencement of the First Parliament. What always sticks with me when I look at that picture—why I can never just roll on by—is that it shows you so clearly what was present at the founding of the Australian nation and what was not—who was being brought into the Australian project and who was not. There are a lot of very wealthy, very privileged, remarkably white folks in that picture. There are almost no women, and there are no people of colour to be spoken of in the audience in the Great Hall.</para>
<para>If you go down to one of the Senate committee rooms, you also pass a painting that was painted in 2001 for the Centenary of Federation, 100 years later, and that too captures a kind of restaging of the scene. Once again, you look at the crowd there. Though you do see more women, and though I am sure there were people of colour present, there are a shocking number of white dudes in that painting—absolutely stunning. It contrasts so strikingly with the reality of the Australian community.</para>
<para>We do tell a very white story about the foundation, so-called, of Australia upon the lands of First Nations people. We tell a story that often privileges the narratives of white blokes as they tamed a vacant country. That's the mythology that is often passed down. That's the mythology captured in a lot of these paintings. It's not true. You want to see evidence of it? Come to WA. Look at the histories of the Afghan cameleers in the Kimberley, for instance. But it is true that the Australian nation was founded predominantly to function for and be governed by and to the benefit of a white ruling class.</para>
<para>Next to these embodiments of the reality of our history, I had a remarkable experience yesterday. I had the honour of sharing time and space with over 50 young people from all parts of this country who had come to Parliament House as part of the UN Youth Project, led by the ambassador, Kareem El-Ansary, an incredible activist and youth communicator. It brought together a report capturing over 10,000 young people's engagement across 50 different locations across Australia—amazing. The diversity, energy and enthusiasm in that room was what we need to see more greatly depicted in this place, and I hope to see a parliament soon that looks like them.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Employment</title>
          <page.no>107</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to bring a message of hope here tonight from the Kimberley, a beautiful part of my home state. Indeed, it's one of the most beautiful parts of the country. It is absolutely fantastic. If you haven't been there, I encourage you to visit. It's well worth the visit. It's also a region with endless potential. In my life before politics I spent a lot of time in the Kimberley. I had the great privilege of working up there with Generation One and the Minderoo Foundation and when I wasn't there I was often working on projects that were to be based in the region.</para>
<para>We know that the area is not without its challenges. We're working hard to address those. The Western Australian Department of Training and Workforce Development puts the unemployment rate across the Kimberley at 2½ times that of Perth. When you take Broome out of these calculations, the figure jumps to five or six times the unemployment rate of Perth. That's why it's critical to start to map out the opportunities that are available right across the Kimberley. They're there, but we need to work in partnership with those at the coalface, both local governments and service providers, to establish an effective pathway to employment. Without this, the potential output of the region will continue to be constrained.</para>
<para>The one thing I want to leave this place having achieved is increased workforce participation and long-term employment outcomes in some of Western Australia's most remote regions. In order to do this, the jobs need to be there and the training that is applicable to those jobs needs to be available. Both of those things currently exist in some form, but finding these jobs and training locals are two very separate processes that often occur in isolation.</para>
<para>The pipeline providing opportunities to those living in remote communities is broken. That's why I'm working with a group in the Kimberley called the zone to better align training opportunities with the jobs available in the Kimberley region. The zone is made up of the four shires in the Kimberley: the Shire of Wyndham-East Kimberley, the Shire of Halls Creek, the Shire of Broome and the Shire of Derby-West Kimberley. This was formalised with the signing of an agreement with the state government. The Shire of Cocos (Keeling) Islands and the Shire of Christmas Island also joined the four shires to round out the membership.</para>
<para>The group was formed with a view to adopting a regional approach to strategic and community planning. They are showing real leadership in their desire to provide employment opportunities right across the Kimberley. We all admit that there is a great deal of work to do, but that's why I'm working with the zone to have a formalised agreement so that they can advocate as one voice. We are working together. We're seeking to identify jobs that are available now and those in the coming years. Some of these will be with the councils themselves. Once the job opportunities are mapped we can identify the skills that each position requires and align the right training opportunities. The vision is that, when someone signs onto a course, they'll be guaranteed employment at the end, should they pass all the assessments and prove to be competent in those jobs.</para>
<para>These jobs are diverse. They are from traditional tourism and construction jobs to working with Indigenous ranger programs and administration at local governments and with NGOs. There are a wide range of jobs available for people of all abilities and skill sets. Our initial estimate is that there will be 200 jobs across the region over the next two years. These are jobs that we found among the small group of employers that we've engaged with so far. We have only just begun, but we believe we can identify many more.</para>
<para>Through my working life I have regularly seen firsthand the impact that employment has on an individual. When they get their first pay cheque they can see over the horizon, support their family and partake in the opportunities that 21st-century life enables. We also know what a difference jobs make to our communities. We know that employment doesn't change everything, but without it nothing will change.</para>
<para>This project is still in its early stages, but I look forward to working with the zone, with all of the councils up there, to increase the Kimberley's workforce participation and to eliminate the training-for-training-sake model, which has underpinned much of what we've done in the past. I look forward to working with these communities to continue to see the economic development that I know will make a difference not just to those who get the jobs but their entire families and their communities.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gundagai Show</title>
          <page.no>108</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Two weeks ago I had the distinct pleasure of attending the Gundagai Show, hosted by the Gundagai Pastoral & Agricultural Society. I was invited at the end of last year during a street walk in the historic town of Gundagai by Ian Clingan, the secretary of the Gundagai Pastoral & Agricultural Society. I was delighted, upon request, to provide $1,350 to this show, $850 of which was for water. Happily, there was a little bit of rain in between the time I was asked, but, when it was provided, the show was really struggling to go ahead because of the severe impacts of drought and the absence of water for them to be able to manage the show.</para>
<para>Events like the Gundagai Show are really, really important, particularly for communities that are still suffering from the effects of the drought but also the effects of the summer, with so many of them trying to manage their farms and keep their small businesses open while they were volunteering as firefighters across the great state of New South Wales. A day away from the farm or town, spent enjoying wonderful entertainment and shows with your family, can do wonders for your mental health, and mental health conversations were a part of the conversations that I had with locals.</para>
<para>It was a great show, from the entertainment of Bendy Em, a contortionist; to the sheepdog trials; to the antics of Lachie Cossor, an animal wrangler; and to various carnival attractions. My son, Noah, who's a musician, joined me at the show and entertained showgoers at the pub. He's a fine example of how much the creative arts lift our spirits, and I'm advised by Mrs Clingan, who ran the bar that day, that it was the busiest the pub has ever been. So it was great day of celebration, but it was also a chance for me to talk to locals about what matters to them and the concerns they have. There is climate change, in particular the need for the acceptance of it and for the strategies to deliver sustainability and to bring fairness to regional communities who want to grow their local economies with clean energy opportunities. They talked to me about the disaster of the summer and the failure of disaster responses. They spoke to me about an absence of local jobs, about an absence of activities for young people in the region and about healthcare—not their town though; they were very proud of their town—in the region more broadly.</para>
<para>Very distressingly, once again, the issue of coronial services was raised with me. If a person passes away in the south-west of New South Wales, grieving families are then forced to travel to Newcastle—with a travel time of nearly 12 hours for them, there and back—to collect the body. The New South Wales government should be looking at more local services for families that are already grief stricken, rather than making their struggles more difficult. The local member is the Deputy Prime Minister—that is, none other than Mr McCormack. He knows that this is going on, but what is something positive he is doing for his community? He didn't even show up.</para>
<para>I was happy to host a free raffle, which had vouchers for the local shops as prizes. There was $50 for the local butcher, Daisy's Decor, Moeys and the Gundagai FoodWorks. Thanks very much to Councillor Penny Nicholson for her organisation of those vouchers. I was joined by the NSW shadow minister Greg Warren, and Mick Veitch, who spoke to the community members with me about the very real problem of council amalgamations, particularly concerning residents in Cootamundra and Gundagai. This thoughtless efficiency exercise by the Liberal-National government in my home state has left residents feeling voiceless, feeling like they've lost their town's unique historic identity and feeling like both state and federal governments are ignoring them—because that is the truth.</para>
<para>We will not forget the people of Gundagai. Labor has a great history in Gundagai town, and we were well and truly back and very engaged with the locals. We were very happy to be there. I was privileged to meet with local Labor identities such as Ronnie Dowell, a former president of the Gundagai Labor branch and an ex-shearer who told me that his record was once shearing 324 sheep in a day. I was also pleased to meet once again with Councillor Abb McAlister the mayor of Cootamundra-Gundagai Regional Council and, as always, the wonderful Charlie Sheahan, a true Labor stalwart and a fantastic advocate for Gundagai.</para>
<para>Rural and regional Australia is changing. More and more jobs and investments are being sucked up by CBDs in our capital cities. People in the bush really want to have something of their own. They don't want to be left out of the equation. I'm told by local high school teachers that each grade that passes through is 10 per cent smaller than the preceding ones. Communities disappearing across the state of New South Wales is a blight on our great state, and I fear that it is happening at the hands of a government that fails to see the huge potential of development in these areas.</para>
<para>Gundagai is a vibrant and resilient town. It's blessed with a deep and fascinating history and a great vision for the future. I look forward to visiting again soon, and I will continue to advocate for these great towns, like Gundagai, across New South Wales.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Broadcasting Corporation</title>
          <page.no>109</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If you follow British politics, you may have seen that Prime Minister Boris Johnson is looking to reform the British Broadcasting Corporation, the BBC. One option being considered is to scrap the BBC licence and replace it with a Netflix-style subscription model. A survey last week found that more than half of the respondents agreed with abolishing the licence. Sixty-three per cent agreed that the BBC was an important part of British culture, but half no longer believed it represented value for money. Ouch!</para>
<para>In many ways it is reminiscent of the issues we face here in Australia with the ABC. I'm a friend of the ABC, and I want to reform the ABC to save it from itself. I have a three-point plan to do so. There should be a wide-ranging, independent review of the ABC Act, including its charter. Commercial ads should be put on the ABC to help fund it. Secondly, the ABC's headquarters in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne should be sold and those staff moved to the suburbs or the regions. Thirdly, let's open up the ABC by advertising all positions externally with an independent selection panel. I think the ABC would do a lot of good by adopting this plan, because I'm a friend of the ABC.</para>
<para>But we can always do more, and the ABC should always try to do more. So last week I took to Facebook in search of what other ideas there may be out there. I said that whoever had the best idea would get a Boris tea towel, provided they posted their ideas by the start of last Sunday's <inline font-style="italic">Insiders</inline> program. Not that anyone needed encouragement. The winner of that poll was Machlane Schloss, who called for all ABC spending to be published online in real time, with the cost of each show to be detailed in the credits. Brilliant! This would mean that at the end of a 15-minute episode of <inline font-style="italic">Media Watch</inline> you'd be able to see how many staff were employed to make it, how much Paul Barry was paid in salary, and anything else that taxpayers' money paid for. So I put the challenge out to you, Paul: how about it? Why don't you be a bit of a pioneer in this and show the rest of the ABC? Or are you all talk? It is every taxpayer's right to know what the ABC spends, when, and where it spends it.</para>
<para>I'd like to mention some of the other ideas. For example, Noel Hawes backed Boris's idea and suggested the ABC could become a subscription service. Nich Buick was of a similar view. He said it would make the ABC more accountable to taxpayers. Tania Berman called for the ABC's headquarters to move to the suburbs or regional areas. Good on you, Tanya. Robert Richards wanted the ABC to focus solely on news, chucking out the commentary. Jim Fazl said that the ABC needed proper targets and KPIs like in the real world. It's easy to forget targets and budget constraints when it's not your own money, isn't it, ABC? Gerry Bell pointed out that many of the commentators have no idea. If you haven't lived in a coal community and you haven't worked in a coalmine, what would you know about working in a coalmine or living in a coal community?</para>
<para>Like Tania, Daniel Thomas wants the head office moved to Orange in New South Wales. Christopher Mullins liked the idea of an Australian news channel instead of a broadcaster with its fingers in many pies. Janet Jones wanted the ABC to tell the truth and remove the politics—that's a big ask, Janet! Marie McMullen said the ABC should ditch the commentary. Christina Faulk backed the integration of ABC News with Radio National, reducing it to one program. She said Ultimo should move to Parramatta, Campbelltown or Goulburn. Brilliant! Chris Lehmann wanted more conservative guests on <inline font-style="italic">Q+A</inline>, with Chris Kenny to be the first cab off the rank. Michael Heyne and Brodie Thompson proposed that the ABC should be split into two stations, metro and regional. Michael said the metro station should be closed down and assets sold, keeping the regional stations.</para>
<para>Many of the participants wanted the ABC to be sold altogether. Sadly, for the ABC this is increasingly the view of many quiet Australians, who are sick and tired of the bias and blabbering that comes from their so-called national broadcaster. I don't want the ABC to be sold. I want it to be better. But we do need to reform it, and these are some of the ways it can happen. The ABC needs to be reformed to save it from itself.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>110</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak about Labor's major commitment in recent days, should we be elected, to ensure that Australia becomes carbon-neutral by 2050. I want to speak to my home state of Queensland in speech, and what this commitment means to Queensland and, importantly, what it doesn't mean—because, as usual, we're seeing a lot of misinformation being spread by government senators and MPs. It is a big commitment to make Australia carbon neutral by 2050, but it can be achieved. That is why over 70 other countries have already made the same commitment, along with some of our biggest emitting companies. In fact, it's not only other countries that have made this commitment. Our very own government, the Morrison government, has made the same commitment by signing up in 2015 to agreements at the Paris convention to ensure that Australia becomes carbon-neutral by 2050. So it's a little bit strange to see members of the government—a government that has signed up to this target—spending a lot of time on the media over the last few days saying that this is a bad idea, that it's something that can't be done and that it's something that will kill jobs and the economy across Australia. If it is such a bad idea, then why has the government signed up to do the very same thing? It seems that, unfortunately, some government senators and members of parliament are more interested in continuing the culture war that has distracted this debate for the last 10 years rather than actually finding a solution to this existential challenge that the world faces.</para>
<para>The truth is that by becoming carbon neutral Australia will create more jobs, will see lower power prices and will see lower emissions. My state of Queensland is in the box seat to generate many new jobs, lower power prices and lower emissions. It's well known that Queensland has been fortunate to have had plentiful coal to drive our economy in recent decades. The important thing to note is that this commitment to become carbon-neutral does not mean the end of the coal industry in Queensland, as some government members and senators would have you believe. If they actually bothered to look at the facts they would know that the majority of coal that is exported from Queensland is metallurgical coal, or coking coal. It's used to make steel, not to make power. In the absence of a solution in the form of hydrogen or something else, then it's very likely the world is going to keep needing Queensland's metallurgical coal for some time to come. Labor has made clear, under our leader Anthony Albanese, that this commitment—and no other commitment—is about Labor banning coal exports. We will not be banning coal exports. We will not be closing down existing coal-fired power stations early. We don't think that there is a place for more public funding for new coal-fired power stations when there are cheaper alternatives available, but it does not mean the end for the Queensland coal industry, as some government members would have you believe.</para>
<para>Queensland has generated much of its wealth in recent decades on the back of plentiful cheap coal and the cheap energy it has produced. In more recent times, the gas industry has emerged as another source of income and jobs for our state. As energy sources keep changing right around the world, and we're looking increasingly to renewables, again, Queensland can be a major winner from this change in energy sources. We're not known as the Sunshine State for nothing. Queensland has plenty of sunshine, just as we have had plentiful coal and plentiful gas, and the exciting thing is that, because of new technology, Queensland is in an incredibly fortunate position to make money and create jobs out of our reserves of sun and wind. In fact, there are already solar farms and wind farms springing up right across regional Queensland from the Darling Downs to Wide Bay to Townsville to the Tablelands and to the Coalfields of Central Queensland. This is not unheard of in Queensland; it's actually already happening. It's just that there are members of this government who want to pretend that it's not happening and want to deny the benefits that it can have.</para>
<para>There are many jobs that can be created in the construction and maintenance of these solar farms and wind farms now and into the future, but what's possibly even more important is the jobs that can be created in many parts of regional Queensland through the cheap energy that we can source from renewable energy. I was in Gladstone on Friday, one of the major industrial cities of our country let alone our state. For years, it has powered thousands of manufacturing jobs on coal-fired power. Just think of the thousands of manufacturing jobs that can be created in a place like Gladstone, or other regional cities across Queensland, if we can get this technology to a point where we can be generating cheap, clean, renewable power. It's about more jobs, lower power prices and lower emissions.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Poverty</title>
          <page.no>111</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise tonight to speak on a report by the Australian Council of Social Service, ACOSS, and the University of New South Wales. That report is <inline font-style="italic">Poverty in Australia 2020</inline>. It makes very distressing reading. The report shows that we are not doing a good job. In fact, we are doing a very poor job of addressing poverty in Australia. To start with, we are just above the OECD average level, placing us amongst a group of wealthy nations with above-average poverty. If we pride ourselves as being the country of a fair go, then why do we have such a high poverty rate? When it comes down to it, are we really giving people a fair go when they really need it, when they are living in poverty?</para>
<para>The clearest trend to emerge from this report is the rise in poverty during the so-called boom years between 2003 and 2008, and it's plateaued since then. So, for more than a decade we have not seen an improvement in addressing poverty in this country. It's quite disturbing that at a time when the economy was going well we failed to invest in our community, we failed to invest in our children, and only certain cohorts did well during those boom times. Now, we have an estimated 3.24 million people—yes, 3.24 million people!—living below the poverty line and 774,000 of those living below the poverty line are children under the age of 15.</para>
<para>This report shows that a clear driver of increasing child poverty is the freezing of Newstart Allowance for over 25 years, together with the transfer of so many sole parents onto Newstart. In 2006, the Howard government started moving sole parents from the parenting payment-single to Newstart, once their youngest child turned eight. In 2013, 80,000 sole parents, who were the so-called grandfathered cohort, were transferred by the Gillard government to the lower Newstart Allowance. The decisions and policies of these two different governments have had such a big impact on the poverty rates of some of the most vulnerable people in our community—children—because, when you transfer single parents, you transfer their children onto those payments as well.</para>
<para>Poverty in early childhood leads to poorer outcomes, potentially throughout a person's life. If we don't address this now, we are condemning members of our community to poor health and education outcomes. We have very clear indicators of the causes and the impact of poverty on our community, but still the government refuses to do anything about it. We still have no plan to address poverty.</para>
<para>The rate of child poverty in a country as wealthy as ours is shameful. An increase in Newstart is urgently needed. This is agreed across business, the community and social services. In fact, most people you talk to in the street now will say we need an increase in Newstart. The only people refusing to address this are the government. It appears that they'd rather see people left in poverty than increase the rate. They are even ignoring the clear economic benefits of increasing Newstart. Their refusal to increase Newstart flies in the face of evidence of what we need to do to ensure that we have healthy and thriving people and communities. Instead of supporting people to have a fair go, they are relentlessly pursuing programs such as the illegal robo-debts, demonising people who are doing it tough, including single parents, sick and disabled people and older Australians. We all know that everybody can be hit suddenly with misfortune. Anything can throw our lives into disarray: a sudden illness, a loss of a family member, family breakdown, poor mental health, or a natural disaster.</para>
<para>Poverty is a barrier to work and a well-established social determinant of health, including psychological health, and persistent poverty plays a demonstrable role in increasing levels of psychological distress. In a wealthy country like Australia, it is simply unacceptable that our government willingly leaves members of our community in poverty—and it's willing, because they know the statistics. They know that Newstart needs to increase. They've been told that numerous times. It's time we increased Newstart. It's time we had a plan to address poverty, so that we're not condemning 3.24 million fellow Australians to living below the poverty line.</para>
<para>Senate adjourned at 19:59</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
</hansard>