2020-06-10 46 1 3 Senate 0 1

Wednesday, 10 June 2020

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 12:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 12:01 The PRESIDENT I0Q I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being none, I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate. BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Days and Hours of Meeting 1 12:01 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia by leave—I move: That: (a) on Wednesday, 10 June 2020:    (i) the hours of meeting shall be midday to adjournment,    (ii) the routine of business shall be as set out in standing order 57(1)(b), and    (iii) all other references in the standing orders to a Tuesday shall apply; (b) on Thursday, 11 June 2020:    (i) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 8 pm,    (ii) the routine of business shall be as set out in standing order 57(1)(c), and    (iii) all other references in the standing orders to a Wednesday shall apply; and (c) on Friday, 12 June 2020:    (i) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 6 pm,    (ii) the routine of business shall be as set out in standing order 57(1)(d), and    (iii) all other references in the standing orders to a Thursday shall apply. Question agreed to. BILLS 2 BILLS Official Development Assistance Multilateral Replenishment Obligations (Special Appropriation) Bill 2019 2

Official Development Assistance Multilateral Replenishment Obligations (Special Appropriation) Bill 2019

Second Reading 2 12:02 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia It's terrific to be able to resume this debate, particularly at this important time when we face a global health pandemic. We are, indeed, reminded about how important multilateral organisations are in addressing global crises like these. Since we last debated this issue, it has concerned me that the withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization has become more serious. I really want to reiterate in my remarks today how important global cooperation is for global health. I know this is something my good friend Senator Dean Smith well understands. In the past we've discussed support for organisations like the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and the Global Vaccine Safety Initiative. I know they're organisations that he has long supported. I ask this government to continue to step up and show leadership in supporting multilateral organisations, including the World Health Organization. That continued multilateral support is incredibly important for us as a nation and for the health of the whole world. I note with some relief that, although our aid budget as a nation has continued to decline, the government has nevertheless, very importantly, made a strong contribution to Gavi, the vaccine alliance. Gavi's pledging conference took place last week, and the Australian government has pledged some $300 million to that organisation, which is an increase on our previous contribution. I'm sure many of you have received email messages full of antivax messages, asking us to repeal No Jab, No Pay, but at a time like this COVID really reminds us what a world without immunisation and vaccination would be like: a world with smallpox, measles, polio. We would be far more restricted in our economy and our movement as people without the vaccines on which we rely. So I really want to express my pleasure that this $300 million will be forthcoming to Gavi. They've supported 318 million children in our region to get immunised. They've now got a big job to do in catching up on immunisations that have been delayed because of COVID, and they are also looking to make sure that any future vaccine is equitably and fairly accessible by all countries, irrespective of their wealth. In closing my remarks, I want to give a shout-out to the groups that really support and call for government support for these multilateral organisations—groups like Global Citizen, RESULTS and the Pacific Friends of Global Health. Australia needs to and must maintain a strong commitment to multilateralism. (Time expired) 12:05 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I rise to speak to the Official Development Assistance Multilateral Replenishment Obligations (Special Appropriation) Bill 2019. The bill provides funds to existing and future official development assistance multilateral replenishment obligations. The Greens support this bill, but the government needs to do much more. We are living through a global pandemic with the entire world impacted. We are set to face, as a global community, social and economic consequences at a massive scale which will be felt ever more deeply in the global south. Wealthy nations like ours have a responsibility to share capacity, information and resources so that other countries have a fighting chance of withstanding this crisis and recovering from it. Sadly, the recent repurposing of our already shrinking aid budget is a signal the coalition government is moving further away from the global community and retreating from its responsibilities. The government should increase rather than repurpose aid to our immediate neighbours so we can come through stronger. The government should also cancel the debt owed to us by Pacific countries. I'm glad to see the Australian government committing to using its leverage at the International Financial Institutions for financial support packages in the Pacific, but this needs to go further. We should be lobbying for debt forgiveness. We live in a grossly unequal world, and we have an obligation to contribute to the global and ongoing response that this pandemic requires—and beyond. Australia has a crucial leadership role to play, and this involves continuing to fund multilateral organisations and work to ensure a strong international effort. It is a shame then that we have seen the right wing of politics in our country following in the footsteps of US President Donald Trump and attacking organisations like the World Health Organization. Divisive leaders will not get us on the other side of this. Closed-minded politicians will not get us on the other side of this, but our collective global community work will. This is a time when Australia must recognise and foster our global community with the understanding that we are all truly in this together. It's not just one country; it is all of us. This is a time to show leadership. This is a time to build a global community that can face threats such as this in the future. It is also a time to move in solidarity towards a recovery. Australia's aid and development funding is pitifully low. In fact, it is the lowest it has been in decades. Our aid budget has been cut by 25 per cent since 2013. This is abysmal. It is a real shame that we are not willing to play our part in addressing the vast social, economic, environmental and health inequalities that exist across the world. The impact of COVID-19 will mean millions upon millions more people will fall into poverty in the global south, undoing decades of work fighting against poverty. Our aid is at a dismal level of less than 0.2 per cent of our gross national income, which is well below the OECD average. We must bring our aid back up to at least meet the United Nations' target of 0.7 per cent of our GNI. We know public health systems are desperately underfunded and ill equipped in many countries. These countries—already low income countries—will be disproportionately affected by the crisis, with social and economic costs of lockdowns and shutdowns far greater than we could imagine. In addition to increasing our aid budget, we must also act immediately to provide emergency funding to countries in the global south to bolster their health, social and economic response. The climate emergency looms large in the landscape of global inequality. Given Australia's 'dirty hands' in producing climate-changing emissions, we have a special responsibility to do everything we can for climate justice. The longer we wait, the greater the loss of life and the greater the threat to the world as we know it. Those who have contributed least to the climate emergency we face are often the hardest hit—by rising sea levels, extreme weather events and environmental change. Australia must provide climate reparations to affected countries and communities that are commensurate with its historical and ongoing contribution to the problem. Our aid programs must include mitigation, adaptation, and resilience building, with a focus on addressing the particular needs and challenges facing women and girls. Australia must not forget its Pacific neighbours in this public health crisis or in the climate crisis. Health systems in the region are already at risk of stretching to breaking point, and a full-blown outbreak could cause serious economic disaster. Climate change is already causing serious havoc to our Pacific neighbours. Australia should release new, targeted funding to add capacity to health systems and towards whatever other needs our Pacific Island nations have. This is a time to be working with our global partners to achieve a truly global response and to be prepared for the future. This is a time to be committing more, not less, to our foreign aid program. While we are on the topic of our Pacific neighbours, I do want to bring up the comments made by the Minister for International Development and the Pacific which were reported in The Guardian. The comments criticised the people who attended the Black Lives Matter protests in Australia and called the Black Lives Matter protests 'self-indulgent'. This just shows how out of touch Minister Hawke is with the deep systemic and structural racism, the discrimination and the calls for equality that the protesters and black and brown people and other indigenous people are demanding—racism and discrimination from which they have suffered for centuries, including those who live in the Pacific. Minister Hawke and the Prime Minister and their government need to listen. They need to learn. They need to heed these calls and act immediately to dismantle systems of racial discrimination and violence against First Nations people and people of colour. At this time of crisis we must start to think transformatively about our foreign aid program. As we move to recovery, we must not forget that our foreign aid program is central to it. We must re-imagine foreign aid: not simply as charity but as an issue of global justice; not as a way to further our own national ambitions but as a way to right historic wrongs; and not as a way to further our greedy trade interests but as a way to build communities in parts of the world that have been left destitute. Australia has an obligation, particularly as a wealthy country and given its colonial past, to contribute to a just and equitable world by working with communities in the global south to alleviate poverty and to promote human rights and access to essential services such as health care and education. This is an obligation that we must take seriously as we move into the recovery phase and beyond. 12:14 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria I rise to speak on the Official Development Assistance Multilateral Replenishment Obligations (Special Appropriation) Bill 2019. Before I go into the details of the bill, I want to recognise this government's continued commitment to participating in the international rules-based order and our ongoing efforts to support the various international institutions that work within it. Australia has a proud history of helping to found and support various international institutions that dates back to the League of Nations, following World War I, and this is reinforced through the United Nations, following the destruction and carnage of World War II. I think it is important to remind people how important these organisations are for international efforts to raise whole countries out of poverty, to raise the standard of living for their communities and to improve the lives of their individual citizens. Through the work of organisations such as the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and a range of others in the areas of humanitarian relief, health and trade, countries both in our region and further afield have benefited from the expertise and assistance that they have brought to bear in times of crisis. When I hear people rail against the government's commitment to international aid, economic development programs and disaster support, I just shake my head in disbelief. Australia is part of a community of nations, and, while we're a big island that sometimes has its practical advantages, such as in the current COVID-19 crisis, we cannot retreat of from being part of an international community. As a trading nation that exports goods and services across the world, we rely on an open and free world trading system that is supported by an international rules based order to maintain peace and prosperity. Without that system, Australia would not have enjoyed 28 years of uninterrupted growth, growing export markets for both goods and services—especially for our agricultural, gas and mining sectors—and an international reputation for low sovereign risk and as a preferred investment destination. Of course, no system is perfect and there is no doubt that the international system and its institutions come under strain every so often. That is evident in moments of crisis, such as through the current pandemic and previously through the 1997 Asian financial crisis or the global financial crisis, which saw devastating impacts across Asia, Europe and the United States. However, recovery from these events is more effective when there is coordinated international action—where countries work together to aid in recovery; to deal with crushing economic burdens, such as debt; and to help each other to undertake the necessary structural reforms to prosper in the future. The purpose of this bill is to appropriate money to meet Australia's existing and future obligations for many of those multilateral organisations that assist in times of economic crisis, and these include the World Bank's International Development Association; the World Bank's debt relief schemes, including the Debt Relief Under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative and the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative; the Asian Development Bank's Asian Development Fund; the Global Environment Facility Trust Fund; and the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol. These organisations bring financial resources, policy influence and convening power that leverage financial resources, expertise, influence and geographic reach to achieve greater economic and development outcomes. Through its membership of these institutions, Australia's own international policy and bilateral programs are enhanced, but we are legislatively required to honour the financial obligations for each organisation that we have made a commitment to. This bill allows for a special appropriation to be provided for an automatic authority to pay funds where an entitlement exists. The Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, for example, contains several special appropriations to make social security payments. The Minister for Finance must be consulted on any bill containing a special appropriation, and a message from the Governor-General is required for bills containing special appropriations. Historically, DFAT and, formerly, AusAID were able to retain the full value of the appropriation required from the year that the new replenishment obligation was signed through the section 11 retention of administered appropriation process. With the repealing of the 2013-14 annual appropriations acts 1 and 2 and the inclusion of an automatic repeal clause from 2014-15 in the annual appropriation acts, government agencies are no longer able to retain annual appropriations across financial years. The result has been that DFAT is no longer able to retain the full value of its multiyear commitments and so cannot fund its contributions to the organisations covered by this bill. Australia pledges to replenish our financial contribution every three to four years, with payments being made over a three- to 10-year period. On average, we are paying out A$350 million annually to these commitments. This is not new or additional money; the funds to meet the commitments authorised by this bill will come from within the already agreed Official Development Assistance Budget. As I mentioned earlier, Australia has a proud history of involvement in international organisations dating back to the League of Nations. In the case of the World Bank, Australia joined in August 1947 and became a member of the World Bank's International Development Association in 1960. The IDA operates the largest pool of concessional finance in the world. It provides grants, technical expertise and concessional loans to promote growth and to reduce poverty in the world's poorest and most vulnerable countries. The Treasurer is on the board of governors. The World Bank manages debt relief schemes. As I mentioned before, there is the Debt Relief Under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative and the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative, which provide debt relief to eligible poor countries. In 2005 the Howard coalition government made a 40-year commitment to support this fund. Between 2001 and 2015, the average decline in crippling debt in eligible countries had fallen by 1.5 per cent of GDP, bringing up local government spending on health and education and reducing reliance on foreign aid. In terms of practical outcomes, Australia's contribution has supported 1.5 million new labour market programs across the world, including 3,500 young people completing job-ready training to enter the workforce. Another good example of where our membership and contributions pay dividends is the Asian Development Bank. Australia joined the Asian Development Bank in December 1966 and the Asian Development Fund in 1973. Australia's contributions to the fund provide grants to developing countries at moderate to high risk of debt distress to promote poverty reduction and to accelerate development in poorer countries of the Asian and Pacific regions. Australia's contributions have helped to lift 16 million people out of poverty and have improved economic growth in recipient nations. Our Greens colleagues often lament in this place the woeful lack of this government's contribution to global environmental efforts. Well, let me correct some of that misrepresentation. In the case of our funding to the World Bank's International Development Association, Australia has been providing support to the Global Environment Facility Trust Fund since its inception in October 1991. Our contributions have assisted in the protection of over 350 million hectares of seascapes and ocean life, supported the phase-out of over 29,000 tonnes of ozone-depleting pollutants and supported the safe disposal of 200,000 tonnes of chemicals, including in the Pacific. The fund's work has supported a 60 per cent increase in tuna stocks in the Pacific. Also, in the case of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, also a subject of this bill, Australia's contributions assist developing countries to phase out ozone-depleting substances. Collective action through this fund has seen over 215,000 tonnes of ozone-depleting substances eliminated since 1991. In concluding my remarks, let me reiterate Australia's longstanding commitment not only to these international organisations but also to the international rules based world order. Through our network of economic, trade and security alliances and memberships, Australia draws numerous benefits. Those who seek to dismiss those benefits fail to appreciate that Australia's economic prosperity relies on these foundations and the benefits drawn from them. Without playing our part and honouring our commitments, we are diminished in so many ways. 12:25 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I rise to speak on the Official Development Assistance Multilateral Replenishment Obligations (Special Appropriation) Bill 2019, a bill that provides a special appropriation to enable the government to meet its commitments to replenish a range of multilateral development funds over the coming years. It is the case that these funds have long carried out essential work in tackling poverty and promoting economic growth and sustainable development in some of the world's poorest countries. These funds have long been essential, but they have never been more critical. As our world grapples with the worst pandemic in a century, it is the world's developing nations that stand to suffer the most. This is a point I will come back to, but I want to first place this discussion in some context. It has been clear for some time that Australia's current Prime Minister does not take the same approach to foreign policy that has been the tradition of Australian political leaders. A bipartisanship has characterised the handling of our national interests in the world, but it is a bipartisanship that is strained by Mr Morrison's willingness—in fact, his reflex—to put short-term political marketing ahead of key national interests. Now, in fairness to him, the massive cuts to Australia's ODA that have been contrary to our interests began before Mr Morrison outmanoeuvred Mr Turnbull to become Prime Minister. Since this government came to office in 2013 it has cut in excess of $11.8 billion from Australia's aid programs. As a result, Australian official development assistance is on track to fall to just 0.19 per cent of gross national income. That will be the lowest level of ODA as a share of gross national income since the Commonwealth started publishing data in 1961. So, under Mr Morrison Australia's international aid is lower as a share of national income than it was under Liberal prime ministers Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Fraser and Howard. Australia's aid budget as a share of GNI has fallen from the middle of the pack amongst OECD nations to one of the least generous amongst OECD Development Assistance Committee member countries. Whilst it might look like an Australia-first approach, it is in fact contrary to Australia's interests. It weakens our international standing and some of our most important relationships. Australia is a substantial power, but we are not a superpower, and our international standing matters. This approach taken by the Morrison government ignores the fact that economic development promotes prosperity, stability and security—things we not only want but need in the region and the world around us. Beyond these pragmatic interests, it's also the wrong thing to do. It's hurting some of the worlds poorest people. And whilst these cuts began under Mr Abbott and Treasurer Hockey, they've been getting deeper under Mr Morrison as Treasurer and Prime Minister, and that's part of a consistent pattern from him. Foreign policy, including international development, is fundamentally about protecting and promoting Australia's interests and Australia's values, but we have a Prime Minister who is willing to play serious foreign policy issues for short-term domestic political marketing purposes. People might recall that in September he launched his campaign against what he called 'negative globalism', and he claimed that he was going to protect Australia from 'threats to our sovereignty' from international institutions, such as the UN having too much power. He sounds a bit like Senator Rennick, doesn't he? He said this because he thought it would be good marketing to sound tough, perhaps in his party room—perhaps for the Sky News after dark wing of his party room. What he didn't appreciate was that Australia's interests are more than a good headline. He created a fake threat: the United Nations. But soon we were going to face a real threat—a virus to which none of us has immunity and which all of us need to work together to overcome. But, just as before, Mr Morrison wanted to sound tough in the face of this threat, so he called for the UN to have more power so they may be able to step in and stop pandemics from happening in the future. Unlike what is currently the case—where, contrary to Mr Morrison's negative globalism speech, the UN can't challenge any country's sovereignty without the specific agreement of a majority of the Security Council, including all five of its permanent members—this new proposal would apparently give the UN's health body, the WHO, the ability to conduct inspections wherever they saw fit, whether that be in China, the US or Australia. Now, Labor agrees with Mr Morrison; we need more robust international institutions that enable better cooperation where humanity's common interest is at stake. But it is hard to ignore that Mr Morrison has argued both sides of the same argument in order to sound tough for domestic purposes. So in September he launched his campaign for the UN to have less power; in April he launched his campaign for the UN to have more power. That brings me back to the central point: Mr Morrison's political interests may change but Australia's national interests don't, and you can't and shouldn't play foreign policy for short-term domestic political marketing. We need to be looking to 30-year horizons, not three-year election cycles. As a medium-sized country with an economy reliant on open trade, we always need international cooperation so we don't get steamrolled or sidelined by the great powers. Australia has benefited greatly from multilateralism under governments of both parties. I can say, in his absence, that I appreciate the contribution from Senator Van. It is unusual to have a coalition senator actually talking about the benefit of multilateralism. It's good to know that there are some on that side who do not belong to the 'Sky after dark' wing of the Liberal Party. Senator Molan is gesticulating too, so it's good that a few people are on board. A government senator: You should listen to us more! Senator WONG 00AOU Well, I do listen to the Prime Minister, who talks about negative globalism, and I listen to Senator Rennick, who is a very interesting character. I don't want to speak ill of him now that he's not in the chamber, but one would not suggest that his views are supportive of multilateralism. You see, we have benefited greatly from multilateralism under the governments of both political persuasions and we shouldn't play partisan politics with our support for it. Across the Pacific, the pandemic, along with the associated shutdown of tourism sectors and commodity price slumps, will weaken already fragile economies and potentially overwhelm healthcare systems. Indonesia, our closest neighbour, whose stability is critical to our region and to Australia's security, is vulnerable to a dangerous mix of capital outflows, falling growth, reduced exports and a spiralling exchange rate as a result of the pandemic. Australia cannot afford our neighbours to founder and we must stand ready to assist. These are countries that stepped up to help us in the bushfire crisis, so if we genuinely want to be the partner of choice for Pacific island nations and South-East Asian nations, with all the benefits that brings to Australia's national interests, then how we contribute to their COVID-19 challenge in coming months will shape our future in this important region. You see, flattening the curve at home is only the first step. Our success and our ability to return to normal will be tied to the region's response. Whilst we recognise that Australia alone does not have the resources to play a singular and decisive role to help countries like Indonesia or India navigate financial shocks or improve health infrastructure and supplies across the Pacific, we can play a crucial role in galvanising an effective multilateral response for our key partners and with like-minded countries. Australia has substantial capacity to contribute to this, as was demonstrated by our role in the G20 successful management of the GFC and by our leading public health capabilities. We can take advantage of our location in the fastest-growing region of the world only if the region itself is stable and prosperous. So, whilst Mr Morrison has talked up his attendance at the expanded G7 meeting at President Trump's invitation and has flagged a Five Eyes commercial expansion, what he doesn't have is a plan to help partners in the region; what he doesn't have is a plan to rally a global response that reflects the economic importance of the countries of South-East Asia and the Indo-Pacific, and that is what being a responsible, enduring partner in our region requires. Labor welcomes this bill because it will support Australia's continuing participation in multilateral development institutions. As such, it will further Australia's interests in a stable, secure and prosperous international environment. Strong international development and active, positive engagement in global institutions is a key part of furthering our national interests. The funds covered by the bills of special appropriation include the International Development Association, which is the World Bank's development arm—one of the main sources of ODA. In addition, the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative and the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative are debt relief arrangements which have relieved 36 of the world's poorest countries from a sum of around US$99 billion of debt. In addition, the Asian Development Fund, which provides development grants to low income members of the ADB; the Global Environment Facility Trust Fund, which is administered by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development to support sustainable development activities around the world; and the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol. We supported these funds for many years on a bipartisan basis. In fact, our commitment to the World Bank goes back to the international financial architecture adopted in the aftermath of World War II and the Chifley government's decision in 1947 for Australia to join the Bretton Woods institutions. Under the Hawke government Australia became one of the first countries to ratify the Montreal Protocol. The Howard government committed Australia to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative and the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative in 2005. Our funding commitments are typically refreshed every three to four years in replenishment pledges which can commit us to providing funding over several years. That is why it is appropriate for parliament to make a special appropriation to support these commitments. An ongoing special appropriation will better reflect the multiple time frames for our commitments to these multilateral funds rather than annual appropriations. But we do know more will be needed. COVID-19 presents major challenges for Australia, for our place in the world and for the countries in our region. Australia, as a substantial power, recognises the importance of multilateralism, including multilateral development institutions and the contribution they make to stability and prosperity. This is a dynamic reinforced by the pandemic. Australia is a country committed to helping the vulnerable and disadvantaged. In tackling a disease that knows no boundaries it is even more vital that the international community is equipped to respond. This government's aid cuts have put Australia in a position of weakness to effectively help our region. Not only is that the wrong thing to do; it is directly counter to our national interests. So I say this to Mr Morrison: rather than talking about negative globalism, rather than trying to score domestic political points at the expense of a multilateral system we all rely on and we all benefit from, show some leadership, help navigate the global impacts of the pandemic to improve not only Australia's resilience but that of our region. I move: At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate: (a) notes that Australia's Official Development Assistance (ODA) investments are an important way of advancing Australia’s interests, projecting our values and tackling global poverty; (b) expresses its concern that: (i) since 2014, Coalition governments have cut $11.8 billion from the foreign aid budget, with the result that Australia's ODA investments are now at a record low as a share of Gross National Income, and (ii) the Prime Minister's promotion of negative globalism is contrary to Australia's interests in an international rules-based order supported by multilateral institutions, which promote economic growth, global security and human development; and (c) agrees that active and engaged participation in multilateral institutions, including multilateral development institutions, is essential for advancing Australia’s interests in a stable, secure and prosperous international environment". 12:37 Senator MOLAN FAB New South Wales I too rise to speak on the subject of the Official Development Assistance Multilateral Replenishment Obligations (Special Appropriation) Bill 2019. I join with many of the other senators who have spoken before me to support the bill. I particularly welcome the $350 million, which is the average annual amount of money that Australia provides to the multilateral bodies which have been mentioned by a number of speakers. I also point out that this is not all Australia does in many, many countries overseas and through many multilateral organisations. I note the desire by Rotary and UNICEF to celebrate in 2021 the 100 years of Rotary's presence in Australia and New Zealand by providing a boost to the level of inoculations of nine South Pacific countries. Although people may complain about the level of foreign aid in a country such as Australia and people may focus on certain aspects of foreign aid which they don't believe in, Australia is a generous nation and does an awful lot in helping its neighbours, not just through assisting multilateral organisations but very much through individual community based bodies. Senator Wong made reference to 'Sky after dark'. I'm a proud member of the association of 'Sky after dark'. If I remember rightly, I was on late last night and it was dark, which is always a lot better than 'Guardian by day and night', I must admit. The ideas I hear on Sky after six o'clock or 5.30 these days are, in my humble view, a lot more substantial than many of the ideas that I read in The Guardian. But that doesn't go, of course, to the purpose of this bill. The purpose of this bill is to appropriate money from the consolidated revenue fund, to meet Australia's existing and future obligations for the following multinational organisations. It's important to list them, because too easily we can be diverted from understanding where this money goes and the value to the international community that this money has. These are the World Bank's International Development Association; the World bank's debt relief schemes, including the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative and the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative; the Asian Development Bank's Asian Development Fund; the Global Environment Facility Trust Fund; and the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol. These bodies are not perfect. We recognise that. To think that they are perfect is to deny the obvious, but, even though they're imperfect, we in this government support them. We support them because these organisations, as Senator Van explained, bring financial resources, policy influence and convening power that complement and enhance Australia's bilateral programs and leverage financial resources, expertise, geographic reach and influence in order to achieve greater development outcomes. Through its membership in these institutions, Australia is legislatively required to form a commitment and replenish our financial contributions as required according to the membership arrangements for each organisation. The special appropriation is included in a bill, as I am discovering at the moment, when it's desired to provide for an automatic authority to pay funds where an entitlement exists. The Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, for example, contained several special appropriations to make social security payments. The Minister for Finance must be consulted on any bill containing a special appropriation, and a message from the Governor-General is required for bills containing special appropriations. Why do we need a special appropriation? We need it because historically the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—and formerly, several years ago, AusAID—was able to retain the full value of the appropriation required from the year that the new replenishment obligation was signed through the section 11 retention administered appropriations process. But, with the repealing of the 2014 annual appropriations acts 1 and 2 and the inclusion of an automatic repeal clause from 2014-15 in the annual appropriations acts, government agencies are no longer able to retain annual appropriations across financial years. The result has been that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is no longer able to retain the full value of its multi-year commitments and so cannot fund its contributions to the organisations I mentioned before that are covered by this bill. So let's look at an example. New commitments signed with the International Development Association in 2013-14, for example, for $100 million are to be paid over a nine-year period from 2014-15. The full value of the appropriation would have previously been included in the 2013-14 appropriations acts, retained or held by Foreign Affairs and Trade and then drawn down over the nine-year period. With the new automatic repealing clause, we no longer have access to the funds that were appropriated in 2013-14 from 2016-17. As such, DFAT is unable to meet the commitment for this replenishment without a special appropriation. Consistent with our membership arrangements for these organisations, Australia pledges to replenish our financial contribution every three or four years with payments being made over a three- to 10-year period. On average we are paying out $350 million annually to these commitments. I stress that this is not new or additional money. The funds to meet the commitments authorised by this bill will come from within the agreed Official Development Assistance budget. The implied question from many of the other speakers was: why do we provide funds to such bodies? Australia joined the Word Bank Group in 1947, for example, and became a member of the World Bank's International Development Association in 1960. The IDA, or International Development Association, operates the largest pool of concessional finance in the world. It provides grants, technical expertise and concessional loans to promote growth and reduce poverty in the world's poorest and most vulnerable countries. The Treasurer, of course, as was pointed out by Senator Van, is on the board of governors. Australia's contribution has supported 1.5 million new labour market programs across the world, including 3,500 young people to complete job-ready training and enter the workforce. The debt relief schemes managed by the World Bank, which are the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative and the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative, provide debt relief to eligible poor countries. In 2005, the Howard government made a 40-year commitment to support this fund. Between 2001 and 2015, the average decline in crippling debt in eligible countries fell by 1.5 per cent of GDP, freeing up local government spending on health and education and reducing local reliance on foreign aid. Australia joined the Asian Development Bank in 1966 and the Asian Development Fund in 1973. Australia's contribution to the fund, managed by the bank—of which the Treasurer, again, is on the board of governors—provides grants to developing countries that are at moderate to high risk of debt distress to promote poverty reduction and accelerate development in the poorer countries of Asia and the Pacific. Australia's contributions have assisted in lifting 16 million people out of poverty and have improved economic growth in recipient nations. What about the World Bank's International Development Association? We've been providing support to the Global Environment Facility Trust Fund since its inception in October 1991. Our contributions have assisted the protection of over 350 million hectares of seascapes and ocean life and supported the phase-out of over 29,000 tonnes of ozone and the safe disposal of 200,000 tonnes of chemicals, including in the Pacific. The fund's work has supported a 60 per cent increase in tuna stocks in the Pacific. Australia's contribution to the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol assists developing countries to phase out ozone-depleting substances. Collective action through this fund has seen over 215,000 tonnes of ozone-depleting substances eliminated since 1991. Not only by means of this bill but also through community development aid and community actions. such as those I mentioned before, referring to Rotary's 100-year celebration in 2021, in line with UNICEF, we—Australia and the Morrison government—are an active member of the community of nations and proud of it. 12:48 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I'm very pleased to rise in the Senate today to speak in favour of adoption of the Official Development Assistance Multilateral Replenishment Obligations (Special Appropriation) Bill 2019. In reference to my friend Senator Molan's comments about 'Sky after dark', as a relatively new senator, I would say if, I could get on 'Sky after dark', 'Sky at noon' or 'Sky at pre-dawn', I would greatly appreciate it—or the ABC or anywhere else for that matter, Senator. I'm happy to give interviews to The Guardian as well. I rise to speak in favour of this bill as someone who does believe in our commitment to multilateral organisations, to bilateral relationships and also to an international rules based order. I'm also someone who believes that our foreign affairs policies and initiatives should be based on our national interest, our Australian values and matters which rightly belong within our own self-determination being respected. I think that's the view of many Australians with respect to these matters. I don't think it helps matters when, as we heard from Senator Wong and from Senator Faruqi, scorn is poured on those who raise legitimate questions with respect to Australia's place in the international order, because, when those questions are raised, they are simply a reflection of what people are thinking in our community. It is so important in these areas that we bring the Australian community with us. We need to bring the Australian community with us to support our place in terms of multilateral foreign relationships. I'm very pleased to speak in favour of this bill. The content of the bill has been described in depth by previous speakers, but what I want to do in this contribution to the debate is highlight in practice what a difference this makes to people's lives. I want to refer to a number of projects. A country I spent over two years living and working in is Papua New Guinea. There's a project in PNG called the Urban Youth Employment Project, which is run through the World Bank and the International Development Association. That project has provided work to 18½ thousand unemployed, young urban people in Port Moresby. For those of us who have lived and worked in Papua New Guinea, a daily occurrence was to see the number of young people who migrated to the city, to urban centres, from rural areas and could not find employment. So this is an absolutely crucial program. Forty-one per cent of participants have been young women, and 18,000 new bank accounts were established through this project. These were young people who didn't even have a bank account. That's what this project meant to them and to their lives. Between 2011 and 2018, the Australian government provided a total of $10.8 million for the Urban Youth Employment Project in Papua New Guinea—a practical example of what Australia's contribution to these multilateral agencies means in practice for people on the ground. Let me give you another example: the Solomon Islands Rural Development Program. The objective of the Solomon Islands Rural Development Program is to raise the living standards of rural households by establishing improved mechanisms for the delivery of priority economic and social infrastructure and services by the public and the private sector. The project consisted of three components, the first being the delivery of local infrastructure and services. The specific objective of that component was to increase access to and use of infrastructure and services in rural areas through participatory planning, budgeting and execution mechanisms at community and provincial levels. The second component involved improving access to agricultural services, in particular to improve access of smallholder households to quality agricultural services to support rural economic growth. The final component of that project, the Solomon Islands Rural Development Program, was to facilitate rural enterprise development through provision of an equity financing facility and associated training and technical assistance. Microfinancing is an imperative and incredibly useful tool to empower people in some of these impoverished nations. Let me give you another example: Vaccinating in Vanuatu for a Healthier Future, through the work of the Asian Development Bank. Under that project three new quality assured vaccines were introduced to the health systems of Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu. They will eventually shield more than 500,000 young women and children in those specific countries from a range of viruses. It's an outstanding project. This one is through the Asian Development Bank. Tuvalu's Chief Executive Officer for the Ministry of Health, in relation to that project, said: Our countries' women will benefit and so of course will their children. And they are our future. Absolutely. Another project, through the Asian Development Bank, is the provision of relief for Vanuatu after Cyclone Harold. Cyclone Harold, as those in this chamber will know, destroyed essential water and power infrastructure and severely damaged roads, schools, health facilities, homes, livestock and garden crops. The grant assistance provided in that case through the Asian Development Bank will help restore essential services, assist clean-up efforts and provide humanitarian supplies to those most vulnerable. Those are each practical, worthwhile projects which are being delivered through these multilateral structures which Australia continues to support and should continue to support which make a difference to people's lives in our region. When we talk about Australia's commitment to helping our neighbours, both near and far, I think it's incredibly important that we actually refer to the concrete examples of what the money means for people on the ground. I'd like to make some comments in relation to the contribution from Senator Faruqi. She referred to comments from Minister Hawke in relation to the Black Lives Matter protests held over the weekend. I thought Senator Faruqi's contribution in that regard was quite gratuitous and uncalled for. The fact of the matter is that Minister Hawke simply gave voice to what the vast majority of Australians believe—that's all. That's what his comments represented. He gave voice to the beliefs of the vast majority of Australians who have been under COVID-19 restrictions and have complied with those restrictions over months to their personal and economic detriment. That has been to such an extent that when the mother of a small-business owner in my area passed away, because there were more than 10 family members, one of his brothers had to sit in the car park of the church whilst his mother's funeral service took place. So Australians are understandably upset when they see thousands of people just disregard the laws of the land to pursue a protest. Australians have a right to exercise freedom of speech, absolutely. But they are disgusted when they see people cross the boundaries and breach the laws which they've been complying with in a responsible manner to their own personal detriment. Minister Hawke was simply giving voice to that mainstream view in the Australian community. It's certainly the view I've heard from dozens and dozens of constituents. Senator Faruqi would have been more kind if, instead of referring to Minister Hawke's comments with respect to the protests over the weekend, she had referred to the great initiatives undertaken by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne, and also by the Minister for International Development and the Pacific, Alex Hawke MP, in relation to tackling the challenge of COVID-19 in the Pacific. There are a number of great contributions which our Australian government have made in helping our Pacific family in the Pacific deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. I just want to run through a few of those contributions. I think it's important because this is an example of Australia doing its bit to support the members of our Pacific family. Australia has been integral in maintaining an essential services and humanitarian corridor to the Pacific and Timor-Leste, recognising that we are an important transport hub for the Pacific and Timor-Leste. This allows the movement of a limited number of international exports of essential supplies and food to our Pacific neighbours. We're working in partnership with Pacific island countries, including Timor-Leste, New Zealand and regional organisations on that initiative. We've also assisted those Pacific islanders or members of our Pacific family who have been in Australia through the Pacific Labour Scheme and the Seasonal Worker Program. That included extending their visas for up to 12 months so they could stay and work in Australia. That has been incredibly important not just to those individuals from those Pacific countries but also to our agricultural producers. But Senator Faruqi didn't mention that. She also didn't mention the fact that Australia has been integral in assisting Pacific islanders to return home. Australia is committed to making sure our Pacific island friends and Timorese nationals can get home and are still able to transit through Australia en route to Pacific destinations and to Timor-Leste. Australia is now implementing screening measures at Australian airports for both transit and outbound flights to the Pacific and Timor-Leste. Our Pacific posts are staying open during this time of the COVID-19 pandemic. We didn't hear about that from Senator Faruqi at all. She just wanted to mention the comments made over the weekend by Minister Hawke. Our Pacific posts remain open. I pay tribute to each and every one of our local staff at those Pacific posts for the great job they're doing at this time. Our local staff at those posts play a key role in the delivery of Australian development assistance and are the backbone of our aid program personnel. Lastly, Australia also responded to Tropical Cyclone Harold. We've made contributions to assist our Pacific family—all those members who have been impacted by that tropical cyclone. Unfortunately, we did not hear about any of that from Senator Faruqi. Again those are practical ways Australia directly, through bilateral relationships and multilateral organisations, contributes and helps our Pacific neighbours and further afield. On that basis, I commend the bill to the chamber. 13:01 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I begin by thanking all senators who have contributed to the debate on the Official Development Assistance Multilateral Replenishment Obligations (Special Appropriation) Bill 2019. I had the opportunity to hear part of Senator Scarr's speech. I particularly want to acknowledge his very courteous remarks about DFAT staff at posts, both locally engaged and Australian staff, for the work they do. I very much appreciate that acknowledgement and, Senator Scarr, I'm sure they will too. This bill will provide standing appropriation to meet Australia's international development commitments to the World Bank's International Development Association; the World Bank's debt relief schemes, including the Heavily Indebted Poor Country Initiative and the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative; the Asian Development Bank's Asian Development Fund; the Global Environment Facility Trust Fund; and the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol. Consistent with our membership arrangements of these organisations, Australia pledges to replenish our financial contribution every three or four years, with payments being made over a three- to 10-year period. The funds to meet the commitments authorised by this bill will come from within the agreed official development assistance budget. Our contributions to these organisations constitute an important component of Australia's support for the promotion, protection and improvement of the international rules based order. These organisations complement Australia's efforts at the country and regional levels to promote the prosperity and security of the Indo-Pacific region. I commend the bill to the chamber. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [13:07]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 30 AYES Ayres, T Bilyk, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Ciccone, R Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Kitching, K Lines, S McAllister, J McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Pratt, LC Rice, J Sheldon, A Siewert, R Urquhart, AE (teller) Walsh, J Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P 34 NOES Antic, A Askew, W Birmingham, SJ Bragg, A J Brockman, S Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P (teller) Fierravanti-Wells, C Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J Lambie, J McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Payne, MA Rennick, G Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Smith, DA Stoker, AJ Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question negatived
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Third Reading 12 13:11 The PRESIDENT I0Q No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading. 13:11 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a third time. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that this bill be read a third time.

The Senate divided. [13:12]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 41 AYES Antic, A Askew, W Bilyk, CL Brockman, S Chandler, C Davey, P (teller) Di Natale, R Duniam, J Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Green, N Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J Kitching, K McDonald, S McKenzie, B McKim, NJ McLachlan, A McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Neill, D O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Patrick, RL Payne, MA Pratt, LC Rennick, G Reynolds, L Rice, J Ryan, SM Scarr, P Siewert, R Smith, DA Stoker, AJ Van, D Walsh, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 3 NOES Hanson, P Lambie, J Roberts, M (teller) 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

 Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020 12

Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020

Second Reading 12 13:16 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia This afternoon I'm pleased to place on record Labor's support for the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020. It was a Labor government that introduced Australia's first national paid parental leave scheme back in 2011. When we introduced the scheme, unfortunately Australia was one of only two OECD nations that did not have a national scheme of this kind, the United States being the one other nation. The purpose of this scheme is, as we know, to provide financial support to primary carers of newborn and newly adopted children. We want in our nation to allow carers to take time off work to care for their children after birth or adoption, to enhance the health and development of birth mothers and children, to enable women to continue to participate in the workforce and to have continuity with the workforce, and to promote equality between men and women and the balance between work and family life. We know how important it is to enable parents to give their children the very best possible start in life and to try to ensure that the decision to have a child does not come with an automatic and hefty personal and family economic cost. It's important that this scheme provides for two payments, both the Paid Parental Leave and the Dad and Partner Pay scheme. It is through Labor's Paid Parental Leave that we signal to employers of our nation that it is absolutely business as usual, that parents can and should take time out of the workforce to care for a child. We also know that in our nation the spread of paid and unpaid labour is still such that women end up doing more of this unpaid labour. Unfortunately this also means that their workforce participation drops and their super balances are lower, and it contributes to the gender pay gap that we still see in our nation's workforce. I want to home in, in the context of this debate, on some specific flaws in the government's current approach to paid parental leave. In the context of COVID-19 we've seen women disproportionately losing their jobs as sectors have been rapidly but necessarily paused in the interest of public health. Women have been over-represented in forms of low-paid work and insecure work and are disproportionately affected—but not necessarily protected. They haven't had their incomes protected to the same extent as men through JobKeeper. This is unwelcome downward pressure on the participation rate of women in our nation's workforce. We depend, for our wealth and prosperity as a nation, on a higher participation of women in the workforce, particularly as we see our ageing workforce population beginning to retire. So, the trends of COVID push us in the opposite direction. We know that the paid parental leave goes some way to enabling more women to participate in the workforce, and some way to addressing the gender pay gap, particularly for those on low and middle incomes who have less access to employer funded parental leave. Since 2011, we can see that the scheme now benefits nearly 150,000 parents each year. Nearly half of all mothers benefit from the paid parental leave scheme introduced by Labor. But, unfortunately, here in our nation it is still the case that women workers earn less than men, to the tune of about 14 per cent. Our nation's Treasurer seems to disagree, using question time just last September to suggest that the gender pay gap in our nation has closed. The Prime Minister has previously suggested at an International Women's Day breakfast that women should rise, but not at the expense of others. If the Prime Minister and the Treasurer were serious about closing the gender pay gap, they could have and should have opposed cuts to penalty rates, because it was well known that women—again—would disproportionately bear the brunt of those changes. In 2019, Labor supported the government's changes to the eligibility rules for the scheme that extended access to the scheme for women who work in dangerous occupations usually occupied by men or who have irregular employment. Those changes took effect from 1 January, but it has to be said that the slow pace at which these changes came about has meant that too many Australian women and their families have missed out on the benefits of paid parental leave. In 2013, the Australian Jockeys Association publicly identified the access problem and called on the Abbott government to fix the legislation. They had to campaign for many years before this was fixed. We hope this change really will encourage women to consider careers in roles historically dominated by men. One of the important objectives of this legislation today is to give working mothers and families the ability to split their paid parental leave entitlements into blocks of time over a two-year period, enabling periods of work in between. At the moment the scheme only allows paid parental leave to be taken as a continuous 18-week block within the first 12 months after the birth or adoption of a child, and then only when the primary carer has not returned to work since the birth or adoption of the child. Labor is pleased to see that this bill will change paid parental leave rules by splitting the 18 weeks of paid parental leave into a 12-week paid parental leave period and a six-week flexible paid parental leave period. The 12-week period will only be available as a continuous block but will be accessible by the primary carer at any time during the first 12 months, not only immediately after the birth or adoption of a child. The six-week flexible period will be available at any time during the first two years and does not need to be taken as a block. This is really important, because in practice it means families can split their entitlements over a two-year period, with periods of work in between, and, as with the current rules, the primary carer can be changed during this time. I know Australian families will appreciate this kind of flexibility. It's most likely that the common use of increased flexibility will be parents returning to part-time work and spreading their flexible paid parental leave out over several months. As I highlighted before, we have very serious concerns about the current operation of this scheme under the impact of COVID-19, with the effect on thousands of families likely to be that they are up to $15,000 worse off. We know that women who've recently given birth are eligible to access the scheme, receiving payment of $740.60 per week for up to 18 weeks. But to get this entitlement they must satisfy the work test: they must have worked for 10 of the 13 months prior to the birth or adoption of a child and for at least 330 hours in that 10-month period. We note the importance of the fact that JobKeeper payments have enabled women to maintain that continuity, but many women who are otherwise expecting to be in continuous work—who have banked on and budgeted for paid parental leave—and who would be working for any other reason other than the impact of COVID-19, are now no longer eligible for paid parental leave. The government has the power to fix this now. We are going to support the Greens amendments that are before the chamber today. But, importantly, we are going to move our own second reading amendment, and, on behalf of the opposition, I move that amendment now: At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate: (a) notes that the Government has allowed JobKeeper payments to satisfy the paid parental leave (PPL) work test; and (b) calls on the Government to use the Minister for Families and Social Services’ regulation making power under coronavirus laws to enable women who have lost their job because of the coronavirus to access PPL, if they would otherwise have been eligible had they not lost their job". The amendment calls on the government to make this fix now. It has the absolute power within the changes that Labor insisted on when we debated the JobKeeper legislation. The government has the flexibility to fix the PPL scheme under the JobKeeper legislation. There is a much more complicated way of fixing it, which is through the Greens amendment, but the key thing is that the government needs to get on and fix this problem. It is not a problem that affects just a handful of Australian families; nearly 180,000 parents received paid parental leave in the 2018-19 financial year. With these changes, the bill does not increase paid parental leave entitlements for Australian families. The changes in this legislation are modest. We hope they will allow more families to share parenting responsibilities in a way that works for them. Whilst these changes are welcome, and we are very pleased about them, we want to ensure that these benefits go to all families that otherwise would have been eligible for paid parental leave before the impact of COVID-19. It's high time that the government fixed this. They've been able to fix it since the outset of bringing on this legislation—since the outset of the JobKeeper package, where they would have foreseen that there would be a significant number of families impacted by their ineligibility for paid parental leave because they no longer met the work test. The government has in its toolbox the ability to ensure families are not worse off, and it has no excuse for failing to step in. 13:27 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise on behalf of the Australian Greens to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020. I note at the outset that we will be supporting this bill, although we have amendments which we think would further address pressing issues and we will be supporting amendments from others on the crossbench. We here in the Greens have always been strong proponents of a just and equal paid parental leave scheme. A strong parental leave scheme would reduce the gender wage gap and it would support long-term economic security for women. It would encourage shared care of children between parents, it would increase the number of women returning to the workforce and it would allow for positive health, wellbeing and bonding between parents and children. This bill provides additional flexibility in how and when leave can be taken, and allows families more options when they're making decisions about how to balance work and parental responsibilities. We support that. However, so much more needs to be done to facilitate gender equality, to value the currently unpaid care work that is, sadly, still performed disproportionately by women and to maximise the flexibility that parents have to determine the care arrangements for their children. We will be supporting amendments proposed by Centre Alliance which address one aspect of the gendered nature of this issue, which I will discuss shortly, but we'll also be proposing amendments in the committee stage to ensure that parents who have lost work or who have had their hours reduced and are not otherwise eligible for JobKeeper because of COVID-19 are protected. So I'm pleased to hear that Labor will be supporting those amendments. I understand many on the cross bench will also, so we will wait and see whether the government sees reason on this matter. Raising a family is not cheap. Many families have done their calculations for their household budget based on how they can stretch it to accommodate one or both parents taking leave based on what they know they're entitled to under the paid parental leave scheme. Now, as folk probably know, to be eligible for the paid parental leave scheme a person has to satisfy a work test, demonstrating that they've worked 10 of the last 13 months prior to the birth or adoption of a child and at least 330 hours in that period. The government moved to ensure that a period on JobKeeper would count towards that work test, and that was a very welcome move which we acknowledge, but there are large numbers of families who've lost their job or had their hours reduced as a result of COVID and who are not eligible for JobKeeper. In addition to the immediate economic impacts of being stood down or having hours cut, for families expecting a baby this loss may make them ineligible for paid parental leave or what's called dad and partner pay. When they're doing their various difficult calculations about how to make ends meet once the baby arrives, these families can find themselves as much as $14,812 worse off than they'd expected to be. Our amendments seek to give security to those families. The amendments would allow the work test to be amended where an otherwise eligible parent has lost their job or had their hours reduced as a direct result of an emergency circumstance, which we declare to include COVID-19. It would then also give the government the power to declare emergencies in the event of a future pandemic or natural disaster that that person retains their eligibility for paid parental leave. In effect, it means that if you're not eligible for JobKeeper, which would otherwise keep your PPL eligibility through no fault of your own because of COVID, you should still have your PPL eligibility asserted and recognised, and that support which you had every reason to expect and probably banked on and budgeted four should still flow to you. There are already arrangements in place for a similar situation when an employer goes bust, so those similar sorts of administrative arrangements could be utilised in this instance. These amendments are limited to parents who would have been eligible prior to COVID-19, so there are no budget implications for the PPL scheme, and it seeks to provide parents with the support that they had legitimately expected to receive before the pandemic, which of course is a situation entirely outside their control. I want to move now to some amendments proposed by the crossbench when the Senate community affairs committee reviewed this bill. Senator Siewert highlighted that the current act discriminates against families where the mother earns more than her partner. Paid parental leave is available where a birth mother's income is less than $150,000, irrespective of her partner's income, but paid parental leave entitlements can be transferred to a partner whose income is less than $150,000. In practice, this means that where a mother earns, for example, $55,000 and her partner earns $155,000, that family will be eligible, but, in contrast, if it's the mother who's earning $155,000 and the partner earning $55,000, that family is not eligible for paid parental leave. As a family, their collective income is the same, but their options to navigate parental leave and shared care arrangements are very different. It shouldn't be that way, so we support the amendments proposed by Centre Alliance to remove that discrepancy. This bill is a positive step in giving families more flexibility to balance their work and home life and to make arrangements that work for them and their circumstances, but so much more needs to be done. On the payment rate, Australia's paid parental leave rate is one of the lowest in the OECD. For many parents, the rate of parental leave payments is well below their normal wage, forcing difficult decisions about how long they can afford to take leave for. Ideally, paid parental leave should serve as a fair wage replacement for the duration of the leave up to a reasonable cap. The World Health Organization has consistently recommended that paid parental leave be extended to six months. We agree. It's essential that parents have financial support during this critical period of childhood development. In terms of the gender balance of the care, supporting parents should also be given at least four weeks leave and workplaces should implement flexible arrangements and actively encourage fathers to take leave. In Australia, sadly, fewer than five per cent of new dads take parental leave beyond the two weeks of dad and partner pay on top of their annual leave. There was a survey that the Human Rights Commission did in 2014 which found that three-quarters of male partners would have liked to have taken additional leave following the birth of their child, but they resisted doing so, because of gender norms, a loss of income and, sadly, a lack of other male role models taking extended parental leave. So, as a first step towards addressing those gendered stereotypes, dad and partner payments, as they're currently called, could be renamed to 'supporting parent payments'. Australia should also look to examples overseas of initiatives that have been implemented to improve the uptake of leave by fathers. Iceland, Sweden, Portugal and Norway have policies that have meant that about 40 per cent of fathers are making extended use of paid parental leave schemes. This is a positive step that Australia should be examining. Of course, on superannuation, in 2016, the Senate inquiry into economic security for women—which I was part of—recommended that the superannuation guarantee be extended to paid parental leave. It's not rocket science: you just put super on PPL payments. At the time, the government 'noted' the recommendation, and I believe various members of the government supported that suggestion at the time, but there hasn't been any action to address that. Now, recent data from Industry Super Australia shows that the average 25-year-old woman in Australia has 9.1 per cent less in her super balance than her male counterpart, but, by the time she turns 39, that gap has already grown to 24.6 per cent. And I'm sure we all know the figures at the end of someone's working life: on average, a woman has a superannuation balance of about half that of her male counterpart. A huge contributor to this discrepancy and this inequitable disparity is the periods of parental leave that are taken predominantly by women during these periods. A number of submissions to the federal government's Retirement Income Review by banks, state governments, unions, and various women's groups and other representative bodies have likewise called for super to be paid on paid parental leave payments. It is not good enough for the government to simply 'note' those recommendations. It is time to finally act on them. We need to pay super on PPL and help tackle the disproportionate gendered impacts on people's super balances at the end of their working lives. Last is childcare, which is slightly topical at the minute, isn't it? Lack of access to affordable and flexible childcare remains, as I hope everybody knows, one of the biggest barriers to female workforce participation. Of course it's predominantly women, sadly, that this affects. The importance of childcare has been highlighted time and time again during the current COVID crisis. The Greens firmly believe that any parental leave scheme must be supported by free, universal childcare which gives parents the flexibility to return to work in a way that works best for their family and in a way which, of course, provides early childhood education to their little ones. But instead we see that the free childcare which many, many parents have been enjoying in these last few months is going to be ended on 12 July. And, of course, JobKeeper for childcare workers—incidentally, 90 per cent of whom are women—is likewise going to be ended early. Of all the industries being singled out to make changes for JobKeeper, you would not pick the childcare workers, who are not only deserving in the work they do but facilitating so many other parents to return to work. It makes absolutely no sense that this government is now adversely targeting the childcare sector. Whilst we're talking about economic stimulus, we see that, so far, proposals for the economic recovery from the global pandemic are for male-dominated industries. Even though we know that 55 per cent of people who've lost their jobs during this pandemic have been women, there's still no plan for women. There's still no plan to address how women are going to be supported back into the workforce. And, in fact, cutting free childcare and changing the JobKeeper rules for childcare workers will further limit women's participation in the paid workforce. So the 1950s called, and they want their Prime Minister back. The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020 is at least a positive move, which we support. But, as I've outlined, there are so many more very simple, very equitable measures which could be taken by this government, and the women of Australia beg you to do so. 13:39 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland I rise today to speak in support of the Morrison government's Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020. It will provide more flexibility for Australian working mothers and fathers and their families to access paid parental leave at a really important time in a new child's life. Flexibility in this field is really important to help families, and it's something this government has in mind in every single one of its measures. Self-employed and working families in particular will benefit greatly from these measures. The bill aligns the incentives for working women to keep doing what they're doing to keep the economy going and to build a better future for themselves and for their families. These amendments will allow the mothers of newborn or adopted children to use an initial 12-week period of paid parental leave before taking up the remaining entitlement of six weeks at any time over the course of two years following the birth or adoption of a child. At present, without this bill having been passed, the parent who takes paid parental leave has to take it in a block of 18 weeks. You can't tailor it to work part time, for instance, or take a block of time that is completely at home and then ease yourself back into work by picking up days on an increasing basis as you get closer towards the end of that 18 weeks worth of time. You can't decide to do occasional blocks of work or decide to do work here and there, either to keep your skills fresh and maintain professional registrations or, if you're self-employed or in small business, to keep relationships with clients alive and keep the work coming through the door. These changes will provide so much more flexibility to allow people to be able to adapt this period of paid parental leave to better fit with their working life. Nobody's here to say that professional women are the most vulnerable in our community. Of course there are many women who need a hand. But one thing that professional women often say to me, particularly those who are self-employed or have small businesses of their own, is that the inflexibility of the existing arrangements for paid parental leave make it very difficult for them to maintain their businesses and take a period of time in which they are focusing on their family. So, by providing this flexibility, we can help to provide even more ways to improve women's workforce participation. That was one of the outcomes of the Women's Economic Security Package that was released in 2018. It's worth noting that in the pre-COVID period one of the accomplishments of this government was that women's workforce participation rate was at an all-time high. There's been a little slippage during the COVID period, but this government remains committed to doing everything it can to maximise women's ability to make these kinds of contributions to their families and to the broader economy. These amendments are on top of the government's changes to the work test in the Paid Parental Leave Act in October last year which already made a number of improvements from that block-like status the bill had when it was initially implemented. Once this bill has been approved by parliament, though, as I hope that it will be, parents of children who are born on or after 1 July 2020 will be able to exercise this new and more flexible option. The remaining six weeks of leave will be able to be used flexibly at any time within two years of the date of birth or adoption of a child in blocks that are as small as a day at a time. It means that, should a woman or a parent decide to go back to work and even do a little work before they get to that 18-week period, they won't face the cut-off of the rest of their paid parental leave. Nearly half of new mothers in Australia access paid parental leave and, of those, it's expected that about 4,000 will choose to adopt these more flexible arrangements. Time will tell, of course, once it's implemented, but it's expected that there will be a number of women in that category—in the order of 4,000. These changes support thousands of working women who cannot afford to leave their business for 18 consecutive weeks. When you're employed in arrangements where you can't, for reasons of project management or continuity for clients, take leave for a period of 18 consecutive weeks, these arrangements allow better collaboration between the demands of the business or the client and the needs of the family. It should be the case that we are willing to work together as parents, as employees, as business owners and as employers to try to make family life and work life gel together as best as is possible. Currently, if a parent returns to work before they have received their full entitlement of parental leave pay, they just lose eligibility for the remainder of the payment. So I'm really delighted to see this proactive approach from the coalition in supporting expectant parents to do the very best they can, particularly those in small business and in self-employment. We know that lots of women choose to work in small business, particularly as small business owners or in self-employment, so that they can manage the flexible nature that they require for caring for their families. It'll ease the transition back into the workforce for primary care givers, and that is a really wonderful thing. At the moment, to care for your newborn, taking 18 weeks off in a block is required if you wish to access the entirety of the payment. If you must take it all in one go, it can amount to a pretty significant blow to your ability to continue to provide the support that your business needs. It can really harm a self-employed person's ability to bounce back when they decide to come back to work full time. It's one of the biggest impediments for women in the profession from which I came—that is, for young women at the bar. If we want to see women rise to a position of being equally briefed and equally senior in the legal profession—in the bar—then this will make an enormous difference. I understand they're not the neediest people in our community by any stretch, but, if we want to see women rising to equal levels across the economy, that's just one example of a place where women will benefit greatly from having this flexibility. At the moment, they face the requirement to fully disengage from their business and then build it up from scratch again when they return from leave, not to mention the fact that they have all of their usual business expenses to cover during that time too. The flexibility will allow women to choose to return to work and, in something that is quite exciting, transfer the remaining part of the paid parental leave to their partner, who can take on the role of primary carer. What I love about this is that it encourages both parents to share the wonderful opportunity that exists to bond with a new child as well as to manage the impact on work life, on careers and on businesses of taking time off. To the extent that, when people talk about a gender pay gap, that gap is attributable to the decision of women to take time off to care for children, anything we do to encourage the more equal sharing of not only that opportunity but also those costs is a way that we can help to make sure that we're giving women real choice and also men real choice about the things that they want to live out in the valleys of their lives. That involves, oftentimes, helping them reach their ambition of spending some time as a primary carer and sharing the impact on work-life with their wife or partner. Alternatively, of course, women may choose to use their remaining paid parental leave to support their part-time return to work or to gradually increase the amount of work they're doing to help gradually transition their child to the arrangements for going back to work. So you could take three days per week of paid parental leave and choose to work on the other two, or vice versa. Any arrangement would do. The beauty of it is that it can be tailored to the circumstances of the individual. Choice is what we're all about. It shouldn't be the case that governments decide from afar when you can and can't care for your child. It shouldn't be the case that governments tell you, as an employer, what you can and can't do in terms of the arrangement you and an employee might like to make for that person's return to work. Choice and flexibility are about making these challenging times in everyone's lives work for everyone. I'm really excited to see a greater uptake of leave by secondary carers who might not have had that opportunity to spend quality time with their children. When I had my first child, one of the wonderful things we were able to do as a family was to have my husband take a period of parental leave while I went back to work. It was an enormous blessing for him. It inducted him into a way of parenting that he wouldn't have risen to quite so quickly if it had not been for that period on his own, and it meant that he and our daughter have a beautiful bond that has endured for the entirety of her life. I hope that continues. That great start that comes from a father getting to make a choice to spend some time with their children is something that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Indeed, it should be encouraged. It has been a wonderful thing for our family. While I acknowledge that it isn't something everyone can make work, for those who can and for those who want to have that as a part of the choices their family make, why should bureaucracy stand in the way? Let's make this flexible. Let's make it work for all families and for all families' priorities. I know how important it is to make it viable for women to return to work after having children, as do all of my colleagues in the Morrison government. Everyone's circumstances are different. You might be employed part-time or full-time; you might be self-employed, which creates lots of complications when it comes to fitting in a period of leave for children; or you might be a small-business owner. We want to make sure that people who are managing all of those responsibilities—and particularly those who don't have the support of an employer in their structures to help them through this time—have the flexibility they need to be able to adapt and change and make it work for their circumstances. So I'm really keen on this bill. I think it's going to very much improve the arrangements for women in this situation. There are around 300,000 births in Australia every year. Nearly half of all new mothers access paid parental leave. It will be wonderful to see more small-business owners have the opportunity to keep their business alive while bonding with their new child. It will be great to see self-employed women continue to progress in their careers whilst enjoying this joyful time of life. And it will be brilliant to see more fathers and partners who may not be the person who delivered a child nevertheless get the opportunity to form that really tight bond that endures so beautifully throughout life when these special opportunities and the space that is created with this time are seized and dived into head-on. This is a wonderful bill. I commend it to the Senate. I only hope that even more than the predicted 4,000 women are able to make it a part of the choices they and their husband or partner make when it's time for them to consider the role that rearing children will play in their family. 13:54 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania I'm proud to have been a member of the Labor government which introduced Australia's paid parental leave scheme. At the time this scheme was introduced, Australia was one of only two OECD countries without a national scheme, the other being the United States. Publicly funded paid parental leave is an important measure to give parents the flexibility they need to engage in the workforce, and it is especially important for women. As the International Labour Organization states on its website: Expectant and nursing mothers require special protection to prevent harm to their or their infants' health, and they need adequate time to give birth, to recover, and to nurse their children. …   …   … Such protection not only ensures a woman's equal access to employment, it also ensures the continuation of often vital income which is necessary for the well-being of her entire family. Safeguarding the health of expectant and nursing mothers and protecting them from job discrimination is a precondition for achieving genuine equality of opportunity and treatment for men and women at work and enabling workers to raise families in conditions of security. To sum up, parents need to bond with their babies, and mothers need to recover from childbirth, and they should be able to do so without their employment being disadvantaged. Australia's paid parental leave scheme, introduced by Labor, provides 18 weeks of publicly funded parental leave pay at the minimum wage to the primary carer of a newborn or a newly adopted child. The scheme also provides two weeks of dad and partner pay to the father of the child or a secondary carer. Of the 300,000 children born in Australia each year, the paid parental leave scheme supports the parents of just under 150,000. The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill will change the scheme's rules in a number of ways. The current scheme requires that 18 weeks of paid parental leave for a primary carer be taken in one continuous block within 12 months of the birth or adoption of their child and before the primary carer returns to work. The bill splits the 18 weeks of public paid parental leave into a 12-week paid parental leave period and a six-week flexible paid parental leave period. The 12-week paid parental leave period must be taken as a continuous block within 12 months of the birth or adoption of the child. The six-week flexible paid parental leave period will be available at any time within the first two years and does not have to be taken continuously. The government expects the bill to encourage greater take-up of paid parental leave by secondary carers by allowing mothers to transfer their entitlements to secondary carers. The changes to the scheme are likely to be used by parents returning to work part time and spreading their flexible paid parental leave period over several months. Unfortunately, under the current scheme, there are thousands of parents who return to work before they've used all of their parental leave entitlement. Labor supports this bill, and I for one welcome the increased flexibility that it provides to workers, women in particular. There is no doubt that these measure will have a positive impact on women's participation in the workforce, but what the bill does not do is change the overall entitlement to paid parental leave. This is unfortunate because, sadly, Australia continues to lag behind international standards when it comes to the provision of paid parental leave. Australia is one of the lowest ranked countries in the OECD both in terms of the duration of leave and the level of pay provided by our scheme. Our investment in paid parental leave is around a third of the OECD average. In fact, the quantum of the payment which equates to the full-time equivalent of eight weeks of paid leave places us, embarrassingly, 40th out of 41 comparable EU and OECD countries. The measures in the bill, while welcome, are just tinkering around the edges when it comes to improving paid parental leave in Australia. The Department of Social Services only expects around 4,000 parents to take advantage of the flexibility measures in this bill. Organisations which made submissions to the Senate inquiry into this bill raised a number of concerns and suggested improvements to Australia's paid parental leave scheme. The Australian Council of Trade Unions noted that the proposed reforms will be less effective because of the lack of a right of appeal for workers against the unreasonable refusal of a request for flexible working hours or a request for an extension to unpaid parental leave. A number of submitters called for the period of paid parental leave to be extended to 26 weeks. There were also submitters who noted policy developments in other countries and the private sector which supported a gender-neutral approach to paid parental leave. Such an approach would boost equality for women by supporting a more equal distribution of parenting by encouraging fathers to take more parental leave. The Diversity Council Australia in their submission noted that only one in 20 parents taking primary parental leave are fathers and that 85 per cent of fathers take fewer than four weeks of leave. They also observed that career interruptions accounted for 21 per cent of the 2014 gender pay gap. The ACTU's submission noted that two inquiries—the Productivity Commission's 2009 inquiry and a 2014 review of the current scheme—found numerous benefits— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Bilyk, you will be in continuation when the debate resumes. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 19 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Aboriginal Deaths in Custody 19 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Some 437 First Nations people have died in custody since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Will the government commit more resources to eliminating the overrepresentation of First Nations people in custody and to eliminating deaths in custody? 14:00 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I thank Senator Wong for that important question. We are committed to improving the lives of Indigenous Australians so that this generation, the next generation and generations henceforth can have the same expectations and opportunities as any other Australian. We are committed to taking effective action to close the gap. Indeed, the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt, the member for Hasluck, is working very hard to address those issues. These are not straightforward issues. Governments of both political persuasions, at the state and the federal level, have made genuine efforts since the first royal commission report and recommendations were released some decades ago. But, as my friend and colleague in Western Australia, the state Labor Indigenous affairs minister and Treasurer, Ben Wyatt, said on Sunday at an event I was at with him in Perth, this has been a difficult issue for a very long time and, if there were easy and straightforward resolutions, they would have long been applied because there has been a lot of goodwill and a lot of effort put in place in an entirely non-partisan fashion by governments of both political persuasions, both at the state and federal level. Yes, we are committed to continue to explore ways that we can do better. We must do better—we absolutely must do better—when it comes to this important issue. Going forward, you'd be aware of the announcement by the Prime Minister in relation to the reform of national governance arrangements. The National Cabinet is replacing the Council of Australian Governments from here on in. Also the establishment of the National Federation Reform Council, which will meet together— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Cormann. Senator Wong, a supplementary question? 14:02 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Why has the government failed to commit to including child removal targets in the Closing the Gap refresh? 14:02 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The government is doing what it can to help make progress in relation to closing the gap across a whole range of indicators. As I was about to say, once a year the National Cabinet, the Council on Federal Financial Relations and the Australian Local Government Association will meet as the National Federation Reform Council, with a focus on priority national federation issues, including and in particular closing the gap and women's safety. Task forces will be established to continue work on these priority issues, but there are no straightforward solutions here. If there were straightforward, easy solutions, they would have been implemented by now. We've got to continue to work hard to find better ways to make genuine progress in relation to what is a very important and legitimate issue. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, a final supplementary question? 14:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Does Mr Morrison accept that this is a problem that requires leadership from him rather than divisive comments from senior ministers? Will Mr Morrison work on a bipartisan basis to set strong and properly resourced justice targets to eliminate the overrepresentation of First Nations people in custody and to eliminate deaths in custody? 14:04 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Any death in custody is a tragedy, and of course we should work towards eliminating deaths in custody. The Prime Minister and my good friend and valued colleague the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt, have demonstrated a willingness to work in a bipartisan fashion to address those very important issues. I reject the proposition of divisive comments from senior ministers. Senator Wong interjecting— Senator CORMANN HDA I hear through your interjection that that is a reference to me and my comments on the weekend. Let me say to Senator Wong that, however legitimate the issue, however legitimate the cause, in the context of a pandemic, in the context of the many sacrifices that millions of Australians were asked to make in recent months in order to save lives and save livelihoods, it absolutely was reckless and irresponsible to conduct mass protests of this nature at this point in time. We are here— Senator Wong interjecting— Senator CORMANN HDA Our mission as a country and our responsibility as a country is to avoid a second wave— (Time expired) COVID-19: Small Business 20 14:05 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia My question is to Senator Cash, the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business. How is the Morrison government extending support to help Australia's 3.5 million small and family businesses get through the COVID-19 crisis as the economy begins to reopen and recover? 14:05 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator McLachlan for the question. As we on this side, the government side, of the chamber know, small and family businesses are indeed the backbone of the Australian economy. What we also know is that the COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on small and family business and on the Australian economy. The Morrison government is committed to supporting Australia's small businesses as the economy reopens and the coronavirus health restrictions continue to be eased. The instant asset write-off gives small and family businesses the ability to improve their cash flow by bringing forward tax deductions. In 2017-18 alone, around 368,000 small businesses utilised the instant asset write-off to invest in their businesses. What this enabled them to do was reinvest in assets for their businesses—including tractors, vans, equipment, machinery and tools, to name but a few—that are essential in helping their businesses to expand, grow and ultimately employ more Australians. As the economy reopens following the COVID-19 restrictions, schemes like the instant asset write-off will be crucial in giving these businesses the support that they need, and it's for this reason that yesterday the Treasurer and I announced that the government had extended the $150,000 instant asset write-off for six months, until 31 December 2020. Australian businesses with an annual turnover of under half a billion dollars will now be able to take advantage of this extended time frame to support their businesses to continue investment that they had planned and to encourage them to bring forward investment to support their businesses to grow. This, of course, builds on the substantial policy investment that the government has made to support our small and family businesses in Australia. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McLachlan, a supplementary question. 14:07 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia How has the government's COVID-19 economic response package helped small and family businesses to remain resilient and support their employees through this unprecedented economic crisis? 14:08 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia As Senator McLachlan would be aware, the government has put in place a range of policies. They are targeted and proportionate measures to support both the economy and, of course, the backbone of the economy: small and family business. A total of $260 billion, equivalent to 13.3 per cent of our GDP, is being injected into the economy. This includes the JobKeeper payment, which will support around 3.5 million workers, maintaining a worker's important connection with their employer. Over half a million businesses are now accessing around $10 billion in assistance from the cash flow boost measure. Over 22,400 employers are being supported to retain almost 40,000 apprentices through our apprentice wage subsidy, and around 13½ thousand businesses are receiving around $1.3 billion in loans through the SME guarantee statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McLachlan, a final supplementary question. 14:09 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia What additional support is the government providing for small businesses in need of assistance as a result of the economic impact of COVID-19? 14:09 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The government has announced that it will be providing over $4.7 million to the Rural Financial Counselling Service to support small regional businesses facing hardship during COVID-19. As Senator McKenzie is well aware, this additional support for our regional communities is set to benefit hundreds of small businesses. What this funding will do is assist small businesses to access the immediate assistance they need to assess their financial position; identify their options; and implement plans to keep afloat, improve their long-term financial viability and navigate that road to recovery. The government has also established a professional services fund to ensure businesses can access specialist third-party advice such as financial planning, specialist taxation, legal and accounting. And this, of course, is part of the assistance in terms of the government's $1 billion COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Fund. Sheean, Ordinary Seaman Edward (Teddy) 21 14:10 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Reynolds. Mr Mark Sullivan, the chair of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, wrote to the minister out of concern that she had misled the Senate in her statement on 13 May regarding Ordinary Seaman Teddy Sheean. Can the minister confirm that Mr Sullivan's letter said that the 2019 tribunal review found 'new evidence was presented and the tribunal found that the evidence provided to the British Admiralty was inaccurate and that it understated Sheean's actions', and the tribunal determined that Sheean fulfilled the criteria for the Victoria Cross for Australia? 14:11 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I thank Senator Urquhart for that question. As senators know, in the last sitting period I did make a statement to the Senate in response to a question I took on notice from Senator Lambie regarding the matter of Ordinary Seaman Edward 'Teddy' Sheean. Since then the Prime Minister has made a public statement which I endorsed along with longstanding advice from the Chief of the Defence Force which has also been made publicly. We appreciate that there is a view by some in this place and by others in Tasmania and across Australia that Teddy Sheean didn't receive the recognition he deserved. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong on a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU Can I just indicate that, if the minister wishes leave to fully explain her misleading of the Senate, we will give her leave at the appropriate time immediately after question time, but this is not a question about the mislead per se. This is a question asking the minister to confirm what Mr Sullivan's letter said. It goes to the subject matter of the mislead, not the process, and I would ask the minister to be directly relevant to that issue. The PRESIDENT I0Q On the point of order, I take the point by Senator Wong that the quotation was in reference to whether it was contained in a document that the question asked that the minister received. However, given it was a long quotation, I'm going to give the minister some discretion to address that. But I do remind her of the first part of the very specific question, which asked about receipt of a document. Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Thank you very much. Had I been allowed to continue, I would have advised that I did come back to the Senate and clarify that statement. I clarified it, it was not misleading the Senate and I've already addressed that here in this place. However, if Senator Wong would allow me to continue, I have some news for the Senate on this matter. Overturning a decision relating to a Victoria Cross nearly 80 years after Sheean's heroic actions needs compelling reasons. This is why the government's view and clear policy is that consideration of the awarding of a retrospective Victoria Cross would only occur in light of compelling new evidence or if there was evidence of significant maladministration. Given there are different views on whether there is compelling new evidence about Sheean's actions in 1942, the Prime Minister has today commissioned an expert panel to provide him with advice as to whether the 2019 review by the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal has, indeed, any new evidence not available to the previous reviews or otherwise available and if that evidence is compelling enough to support a recommendation by the government that Sheean's mention in dispatches be replaced by a Victoria Cross. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Urquhart, a supplementary question? 14:14 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania Can the minister confirm that Mr Sullivan's letter said that, after the tribunal's findings were presented to the Minister for Defence Personnel: … the Minister advised me that he was comfortable with the recommendations and that he would be communicating with senior Ministers including yourself and the Prime Minister. 14:14 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia As I have said, I did raise this matter in response to a question from Senator Lambie and I did clarify that statement, which is available on the public record, about that letter. But that was advice to government, and the Prime Minister has been very clear that the government did not accept that advice. As I have just said, in light of these differences of opinion, the Prime Minister said—and I'll read out from his press release: Given there are different views on whether there is compelling new evidence about Sheean's actions in 1942, I have today commissioned an expert panel to provide me with advice as to whether the 2019 review by the Defence Honours and Awards Appeal Tribunal— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, on a point of order. Senator Wong 00AOU Again, on direct relevance—and I again reiterate we'll give the minister leave to explain how she misled at the conclusion of question time if she wishes—Senator Urquhart's letter goes directly to the content of Mr Sullivan's letter which references Mr Chester's indication that he was comfortable with the recommendation and that that would be communicated with you. Senator Urquhart has asked whether in fact you could confirm that that is in the letter. An honourable senator interjecting— Senator Wong 00AOU With respect—well, I'm responding to the interjection. I asked for an answer, and she hasn't answered it— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, on the point of order, I'll take Senator Cormann. Senator Cormann HDA On the point of order, firstly, interjections are disorderly but furthermore repetitive points of order are also disorderly, and the minister could not have been more directly relevant to the question asked. It is not up to Senator Wong to determine how the question is answered. The standing orders require direct relevance, and the minister is directly relevant. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q I'll rule on the point of order when there's silence. I have ruled before that to be directly relevant it must directly address material contained in a question or a preamble, or, in this case, a quotation. I believe the minister was being directly relevant by directly addressing part of the question. I cannot instruct her how to answer a question. Senator Reynolds. Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Thank you, very much, Mr President. Again, I'll say for the third time— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Cormann, on a point of order. Senator Cormann HDA I just make the point again: interjections are disorderly, and leaders in this place ought to lead by example. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, on the point of order. Senator Wong 00AOU If he's making the point, perhaps an example might be: don't mislead the parliament. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Points of order are not an opportunity for debate across the central table of the chamber. All senators are reminded that interjections are disorderly. I assume people would like to hear an answer. Senator Reynolds. Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Thank you very much, Mr President, and, as it's been asked and answered three times now, the matter that Senator Urquhart raised was answered by me after question time to clarify the matter. It was not a case of misleading, but I did clarify one comment that I made. However, the bigger issue— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Urquhart, a final supplementary question. 14:17 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania Mr Morrison has overruled an independent review tribunal, overruled the Minister for Defence Personnel and forced a cabinet minister to mislead the Senate. Why is the government so determined to refuse proper recognition to the actions of Ordinary Seaman 'Teddy' Sheean? 14:18 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Senator Urquhart, I'm sorry I laughed out loud then but, clearly, you did not hear a thing I said about what the Prime Minister has announced today. I utterly reject the premise of your question. I did not mislead the parliament. However, let me read out—you clearly did not listen to the answer before. The Prime Minister has announced today that: Given there are different views on whether there is compelling new evidence about Sheean's actions in 1942, I have today commissioned an expert panel to provide me with advice as to whether the 2019 review … had any significant new evidence, not available to the previous reviews and otherwise … The expert panel will be chaired by former Minister for Defence and former Director of the Australia War Memorial, the Hon Dr Brendan Nelson AO, and will also comprise former Solicitor-General, Mr David Bennett AC QC, former Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Dr Peter Shergold AC, and Senior Curator and Historian at the NSW Anzac Memorial, Mr Brad Manera. The panel will report to me by 31 July 2020. Child Care 23 14:22 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Education in the Senate. Minister, free child care has hugely benefited thousands of Australian families. While the package rolled out certainly had its faults and needed to be fixed, it was a signal that the government might start to recognise child care as an essential service which should be free and available to all and not just for those who can afford it. Returning to the old fee based system will put enormous financial stress on families and limit real choices for primary carers, who are overwhelmingly women. Why is the government plunging families into paying expensive childcare fees again when, just like public primary schooling, child care should be free and universal? 14:20 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Faruqi for her question. The government absolutely accepts that child care is important, and under the childcare reforms that our government instigated we saw, for example, workforce participation among Australian women reach record levels. We saw childcare fees become more affordable as a result of a significant increase in investment that we put in place into the childcare system. Under our childcare subsidy—that we are supporting the system to move back towards—the greatest level of financial support for childcare fees goes to Australian families who are working the longest hours but earning the least amount of money. That is the way that our government believes government spending should most appropriately be targeted—to give the greatest assistance to those Australian families who are struggling to go to work and struggling to pay their bills, to make sure that they get the maximum assistance. In some cases, all of their childcare fees are paid once the additional childcare supplements are taken into account. For many, at least 85 per cent of their childcare fees are paid. But for those families earning very high incomes, we believe it's not unreasonable that they pay some of those childcare costs. That is about how you make sure you run an economy where you can keep taxes as low as possible, create as many jobs as possible for people to be able to access and target the revenue that you spend from those taxes to those who need it most. I know that the Australian Greens seem to think that there's a money tree, and that you can take all the money and make everything that you want to for free, and then you can ban other things and it has no consequence to jobs in the Australian economy. But that's not the way the real world works. Higher spending necessitates higher taxes, which means a weaker economy and fewer jobs. That's not what we want; we want to make sure that spending is targeted to those who need it most so that we can support as many jobs as possible. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Faruqi, a supplementary question? 14:22 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Minister, a survey conducted by childcare advocacy group The Parenthood found that when childcare fees are reintroduced more than half of the households using child care will have a parent forced to reduce work, and that in more than two-thirds of those households the parent who will stop or reduce work will be a woman. How does the government justify this anti-women policy? 14:22 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I'm yet to see a piece of credible work come from The Parenthood organisation, I've got to say. The Parenthood, whose previous executive director I note was a Labor Party candidate at the last election, is largely funded by the trade union movement, so I have to say that their survey methodology is not one that I'm likely to take terribly seriously. The point that I would make is precisely the one that I made before: we overhauled the childcare system to provide additional investment and to better target it, to make sure that we supported families and enabled people to have the choice to go back to work if they wanted. And our reforms have worked. Our reforms ensured that as we went into the COVID-19 pandemic we had female workforce participation at record levels in Australia—that we had driven up the number of Australian women working to record levels. Our determination is to use those same types of policy settings to get people back to work—not to be reckless in spending but to be targeted to those who need it. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Faruqi, a final supplementary question? 14:23 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Early childhood educators and care workers have been fighting for better wages and conditions, but the government has announced that it will scrap JobKeeper for the sector workers earlier than any other workers. This is an insult to their hard and vital work. Can the government guarantee that no childcare worker will be paid less under the transition package compared to what they are currently earning? 14:24 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I can guarantee that the transition package is a very generous proposition for the early childhood education and childcare sector, providing some $708 million in support for transition away from the emergency measures that were put in place. They were put in place at a time where we saw childcare enrolments plummeting, and therefore the viability of childcare services to stay open and offer care to parents under threat. We now see childcare enrolments back up above the 70 per cent mark. We're seeing families come back into the system. I think it's perfectly reasonable that those high-income families who can afford to contribute to the childcare fees ought do, so we get back to assistance being targeted where it's necessary. But we also recognise that to transition from those emergency measures back to normality extra support is required. That's why that $708 million calculated at 25 per cent of fee revenue will be provided to enable childcare services to do so successfully. Australian Defence Force 24 14:25 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Reynolds. Can the minister outline how the Morrison government is ensuring Defence's record investment in capability is continuing to support job creation for Australian workers to help us get through the COVID-19 crisis? 14:25 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Thank you very much, Senator O'Sullivan, for the question and also for your dedication to defence industry in our home state and right across this nation. This government's record in defence industry capability is playing an important part in our economy in four ways. Firstly, it's delivering the economic lifeline Australians need to get through the virus. Secondly, it's reopening our economy and our society for a clear road ahead. Thirdly, it's building confidence and momentum in our economy. Fourthly, it is contributing to positioning our economy for long-term growth. Defence is the Australian Commonwealth's largest employer. Defence also directly employs and engages over 120,000 Australians—120,000 Australians! From this position of workforce strength and stability, Defence is leading in its contribution of job creation and opportunities in this nation. Many tens of thousands more Australians across defence industry are now benefiting from this government's $200 billion investment in new ADF capability. In naval shipbuilding alone direct jobs will grow by over 2½ thousand over the next five years, growing to 15,000 new Australian jobs nationwide. In just two years this government has already delivered six new Australian-built naval vessels with another nine under construction, which is creating a pipeline of thousands of jobs which will continue to grow. Our Army modernisation program will create 1,800 direct jobs over the life of the boxer and protected mobile fires program. The Morrison government is investing in our bases and training Australia wide, which is supporting local jobs in construction, maintenance, subcontracted work and supply chains. Through local industry capability plans for major construction contracts around 80 per cent of all subcontracts are now going to local companies right across our nation. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator O'Sullivan, a supplementary question? 14:27 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Can the minister outline how Defence is assisting workers impacted by the COVID-19 crisis? 14:27 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I'm very proud of the work Defence as also Minister Price is doing to assist defence industry in this very difficult time. Defence has fast-tracked nearly $7 billion of invoices to Australian defence industry to help mitigate the impacts of COVID-19, particularly on their workforces. This is not only enabling Australian companies to retain their staff but also to employ other workers who have been impacted by COVID-19. For example, Airbus Australia and Northrop Grumman Australia have taken on more than 100 civil aviation sector engineers and technicians to support maintenance and operations of our ADF aircraft fleets. The Naval Shipbuilding College is working closely with industries affected by COVID-19 to assist their workers reskill for careers in naval shipbuilding. To date over 2½ thousand people have signed up to the Naval Shipbuilding College workforce register to undertake this training. During this time more than 300 new companies have entered the— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator O'Sullivan, a final supplementary question? 14:28 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Can the minister please outline how Defence is continuing to provide job opportunities for young Australians by adapting its recruitment practices? 14:29 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Indeed I can, Senator O'Sullivan. Defence is currently growing and reshaping its workforce to meet new and evolving capability requirements for our nation. As I can personally attest, the ADF is an excellent career for young Australians who wish to serve, whether it be full or part-time. Defence has been incredibly agile throughout COVID-19, adapting its recruitment practices and procedures to allow for online testing and selection. Between March and May this year, Defence Force recruiting applications were up by a staggering 35 per cent compared to the same period last year. The Defence Work Experience Program and our ADF Gap Year program both continue to provide young Australians the opportunity to sample a career in defence. Defence is also attracting an increasingly diverse talent pool through the APS Defence Graduate Program, the Indigenous training development program and STEM undergraduate cadetships, all of which are continuing. (Time expired) JobKeeper Payment 25 14:30 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Last Friday Mr Morrison was asked if he could guarantee that JobKeeper would remain until the end of September. He replied, 'Yes.' Only three days later the government announced that childcare workers would soon no longer be eligible for JobKeeper. Did Mr Morrison know this when he gave his guarantee on Friday or did he decide to break his promise after this? 14:30 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia It won't surprise Senator Gallagher to hear me say I reject the premise of the question. The Prime Minister's statement was and remains 100 per cent accurate. Our announcement of a better, fairer, more equitable transition for the childcare sector is not inconsistent with the Prime Minister's statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question? 14:30 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Now that we are in a recession, can you guarantee that workers in other sectors will not have their access to JobKeeper removed? 14:31 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia As the Prime Minister clearly indicated, the JobKeeper program is in place until the end of September. It's a six-month program which has been legislated for six months. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator CORMANN HDA In relation to the childcare sector, which is clearly causing these levels of disorderly interjections, we have come up with a better, fairer, more equitable way of providing transitional support in the context of a massive return of children into child care, in the context of the business model of childcare services, in the context of our capacity to provide childcare subsidies, in the context of higher attendance rates and in the context of higher-income parents being able to make contributions to the cost of caring for children and, indeed, a transitional payment of $708 million across the sector, which comes with an employment guarantee across the childcare services. When it comes to its economic circumstances, Australia is in a challenging situation, but it is so much better than just about anywhere else in the world. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question? 14:32 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Given it took Mr Morrison only three days to break his promise, why should other Australians trust that they won't also lose access to JobKeeper before September? 14:32 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The senator would have been well advised to adjust her final supplementary question in the context of the primary answer. I completely reject that premise. The Prime Minister's statement was and remains accurate. The JobKeeper program will remain in place, as the Prime Minister has stated, until the end of September. Beyond that, as I've already made very clear, we don't have any other proposals in front of us, but there is a review underway, which has been well publicised, by Treasury. As we have indicated on many occasions now, we will be considering the findings of that review after it's been received from Treasury. Live Animal Exports 26 14:33 Senator McMAHON 282728 Northern Territory My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management, Senator Ruston. Happy birthday, by the way, Senator! My question relates to the ban in 2011 of live cattle exports to Indonesia. This decision sent a billion-dollar industry which employed over 10,000 Australians into absolute chaos after the Labor government shut it down overnight because of left-wing activists. Can the minister outline to the Senate the steps the coalition government has taken to support cattle production in northern Australia after the former Labor government's damaging Indonesian export ban in 2011? 14:34 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I thank the senator for her question and acknowledge the extraordinary importance of the live cattle industry in her home territory of the Northern Territory, and also acknowledge her extraordinary advocacy on behalf of the people, the farmers and the workers in that industry through what was a tremendously terrible time for them following the overnight decision in 2011 to ban live exports to Indonesia—a totally devastating act for that industry. Since coming to office, this government has tried to provide that industry with the support that it needs to get back on its feet and to provide it with confidence in its future. We've worked with the industry to make sure that the rules are in place and that the markets are established so that we can continue to grow this fantastic industry for Australia. The government is absolutely committed to the future of this industry. Since coming to office, we have worked to strengthen our export markets and identify new market access opportunities. In fact, on 5 July, thanks to the tremendously hard work of the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, my colleague Senator Birmingham, the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement will enter into force—an absolutely major milestone in our trade relationship with Indonesia. This new trade agreement is a win for the northern cattle farmers. It is also a win for all Australians, with duty-free cattle exported to Indonesia—575,000 head at a zero per cent tariff for this first year, increasing by four per cent every year up to a total of 700,000 head. There will also be an immediate halving of the tariff on frozen beef meat, from five to 2½ per cent, and the elimination of tariffs over five years, opening up another market for your cattle farmers, Senator. So, rather than taking a knee-jerk reaction that damages our relationship and tears down Australian farmers in the process, the Morrison government is committed to continuing to support this vibrant industry across northern Australia and is committed to it going forward. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McMahon, a supplementary question? 14:36 Senator McMAHON 282728 Northern Territory Can the minister inform the Senate what the economic devastation is to livelihoods, communities and our trading partners when an industry is recklessly banned overnight? 14:36 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Clearly, the evidence that we have seen from the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association has put the damage bill from the 2011 decision at hundreds of millions of dollars, much of it felt in your home state of the Northern Territory, Senator. Some 700,000 head of cattle were exported in 2009-10; 266,000 were exported straight after the ban. Some 1,500 farm businesses were affected by this decision right across northern Australia—none more than in your home state of the Northern Territory, Senator. You can't shut down an industry overnight without impacting farmers, families, businesses and communities that rely on this industry, and the pain will always be amplified in rural areas. The former NTCA Chief Executive, Tracey Hayes, said that the association hoped the recent decision would forever be a warning to government that political populism and knee-jerk decisions are not acceptable in any context. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McMahon, a final supplementary question? 14:37 Senator McMAHON 282728 Northern Territory Can the minister outline to the Senate the position of the government on appealing the live export class action decision? This sector desperately wants closure after nine years of pain following a reckless decision by the former Labor agriculture minister. 14:37 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The decision was handed down only last week, and we have 28 days to consider that decision. Given the importance of this decision and given that it is a very considerable issue, we will be taking our time. The decision that was made was a terrible decision; there is no question about that. The effect that it had on the live export industry was absolutely enormous and unwarranted. Damage was done not just to the industry but to many other people, industries and communities that rely on it. But, as the Attorney-General said on the radio this morning, the government has a responsibility to ask questions about some of the legal principles that have been made by this quite unique decision. As the A-G noted, one of the questions he is considering is whether or not the lowering of the bar in this decision could actually be weaponised by animal activists against decisions which support the live animal export industry. I'm sure everyone on this side of the chamber would agree that this is a critically important question to answer correctly. The government is proceeding with the live export industry with our farmers front of mind. Child Care 27 14:38 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Payne. On Monday the government announced it was going to force parents to start paying some of the most expensive childcare fees in the world. When was the minister informed? Did anyone ask the minister's opinion about the impact on women? 14:39 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator McAllister for her question. Obviously, I don't go into matters of deliberation between members of the cabinet, but the senator can be assured that those matters she has raised are a decision of the government. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McAllister, a supplementary question? 14:39 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Women's workforce participation has dropped 50 per cent more than men's since COVID-19. Why does the Minister for Women believe that forcing more women out of the workforce through expensive childcare fees will help Australians recover from the first recession in 29 years? 14:40 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales The senator can try to put words in my mouth, but she actually can't do it. She cannot assert that I said or believe something I did not say, so let's start with that. And then let's acknowledge—and you may not wish to, Senator McAllister, because it doesn't suit your narrative—that this country is dealing with one of the most extraordinary challenges in generations since the Second World War. What this government has done every step of the way is take responsible, careful and considered steps about the way to respond to the COVID-19 crisis. That includes starting from the base at which Australian women's workforce participation— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order on my left! Senator PAYNE M56 was at the highest recorded level under this government. We absolutely acknowledge that. We absolutely acknowledge the importance of that and we absolutely acknowledge the importance of addressing women's workforce participation— (Time expired) Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order on my left! I'm having trouble hearing the minister's response. I don't like to have to talk over ministers to continually call the chamber to order. Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question? 14:41 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Over 40 per cent of Australian families using child care have had at least one parent's income reduced as a consequence of COVID-19. Did the minister advocate for those families to her colleagues? What does the minister say to families who won't be able to afford child care after the government snaps back to the old high-fee system? 14:41 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I always advocate for Australians in my work, no matter what part of my portfolio responsibilities we're talking about. But you know, Senator McAllister, and those opposite know that the response to the COVID-19 pandemic has required extraordinary things of Australia and of Australians. It has required the government to put in place a temporary childcare package, because we saw the sector facing unprecedented challenges that led it to the brink of collapse. Through those efforts we have ensured that the sector is able to continue functioning and that child care has been available for those who have needed it during the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic. But, because we have made some considerable achievements in flattening the curve, which we as a nation should be very proud of, we have the capacity to see our life and our economy returning to normal. The government will take considered steps in the response to that process as we need to to ensure that we can rebuild our economy and rebuild our country. (Time expired) COVID-19: Employment 28 14:42 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria My question is for the Minister for Youth and Sport, Senator Colbeck. What initiatives has the Morrison government put in place to support young Australians impacted by COVID-19 crisis to get back to work? 14:43 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I thank Senator Paterson for his question. The Morrison government has invested billions of dollars in economic support measures to get Australians through the COVID-19 crisis and beyond, including the JobKeeper payment, the expansion of jobseeker, early access to superannuation and direct financial support to families. As a percentage of GDP, Australia's investment is at the top of the leaderboard globally, showing we are the best prepared compared with any other country. However, there is clearly a long road in front of us and there will no doubt be further challenges on the road to recovery. As we enter the other side of this crisis, young Australians will benefit from our commitment to return the Australian budget and economy back to the strong and stable financial position that it was in prior to the crisis to ensure future generations do not unduly suffer from the economic impacts of this crisis. Our focus will be on practical solutions that will benefit Australians, including young Australians, to get back into or remain in work, now and into the future, including reskilling and upskilling the workforce, maintaining our $100 billion ten-year infrastructure pipeline, and cutting red tape to reduce the cost burden on businesses, the economy and tax. This is on top of our existing initiatives, such as our Youth Jobs PaTH, which will deliver real results for Australians right across the country, including for the more than 93,000 young people who have participated, with over 58,900 getting a job as at March 2020. Young Australians can have confidence in the coalition government. We have repaired the budget before, and we will do it again—and let's not forget about the 1.5 million jobs that we've created since the 2013 election. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Paterson, a supplementary question? 14:45 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria What additional assistance and training is the government providing for young Australians to develop their skills? 14:45 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I thank Senator Paterson for his supplementary question. The Prime Minister, in his address to the National Press Club, identified the need for our skills and training system to further develop and improve. We've embarked on a series of skills organisation pilots that are designed to give industry the opportunity to shape the training system to be more responsive to their future skills needs and to take responsibility for qualification development, which will also benefit young Australians. Three pilots have already been established: in human services, in digital technologies and in mining. They have already begun to show the benefits of this system. On top of this, the government is better linking funding to actual, forward-looking, skills needs, based on what businesses need, simplifying the system and achieving greater consistency between jurisdictions and between VET and universities and increasing funding transparency and performance monitoring. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Paterson, a final supplementary question? 14:46 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria What measures has the government put in place to help ensure that young Australians facing increased mental health challenges have access to the support and assistance they need at this time and into the future? 14:46 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Access to mental health services for all Australians is one of the hallmark achievements of the Morrison government, and we continue in that vein. Yesterday, along with Minister Hunt and Assistant Minister Landry, I was very proud to announce that the Morrison government will invest an additional $24.2 million to reduce wait times and fast-track access to mental health services for younger people aged 12 to 25 seeking headspace appointments. This funding includes $3.9 million to provide 12 primary health networks with capital improvements at 16 headspace services; $17.6 million which will be provided to 17 PHNs to implement wait-time reduction strategies at 28 headspace services; and $2.6 million which will be provided to headspace National Youth Mental Health Foundation to support this work. This builds on our $74 million package to support mental health and wellbeing for all Australians impacted by the coronavirus. Aboriginal Deaths in Custody 29 14:47 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Ruston. I note that it has been nearly 30 years since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and that the Commonwealth government has not been showing leadership in implementing these recommendations. I ask: is the government ashamed that at least 437 First Nations people have died in custody since the 1991 royal commission and that no criminal convictions have been brought for any of these deaths? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! I'm going to insist on order during the asking of questions so I can hear them. The minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator Ruston. 14:48 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Thank you, Mr President, and I thank Senator Siewert for her question. Unquestionably, as a government we have made it very, very clear that we want to work with the states and territories, who have responsibility for the justice system, to make sure that we deliver better outcomes for Indigenous Australians, and, particularly, to deal with the issue of incarceration and improved justice and community safety outcomes. We also want to make sure that we work with Indigenous Australians, the peaks and Indigenous people to make sure that we are delivering the outcomes that they so desperately want. There is no question that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are overrepresented in our adult and youth justice systems, both as offenders and as victims. This is seen upstream, particularly in the child protection system. But we also need to remember that Indigenous Australians are less likely to die in custody than non-Indigenous Australians. As the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody found, the fundamental issue is that there are too many Indigenous Australians in custody, too often. So it must go without saying that the most important thing— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Siewert on a point of order. Senator Siewert e5z I asked: is the government ashamed of that number of First Nations peoples who have died in custody? I asked the minister to address that particular issue. The PRESIDENT I0Q I remind senators that when questions contain lengthy preambles, assertions and, particularly, language that can be challenged, the minister is entirely in order and has more discretion in being directly relevant in answering the question. Senator Siewert, that was part of your question following a preamble. Senator Ruston is in order. Senator RUSTON 243273 Thank you very much, Mr President. Senator Siewert, as I think Senator Cormann mentioned in response to the question that he was asked earlier in question time by Senator Wong, the Western Australian Treasurer, Ben Wyatt, acknowledged that, if there were an easy solution, the solution would already have been implemented. This is a very complex problem, and it is going to require all Australians to support the decisions of governments and of communities to make sure that this presentation all too often of Indigenous Australians in the justice system is reduced, because, as I said, reducing the number of Indigenous Australians in contact with the justice system by addressing the underlying— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Siewert, a supplementary question? 14:51 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Is the government ashamed that First Nations peoples are the most incarcerated peoples in the world per capita? 14:51 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Thank you, Senator Siewert, for your follow-up question. It is quite clear that all Australians would like to see lower levels of Indigenous people in incarceration. In fact, we would like to make sure that we have a system that encourages people not to encounter the justice system in the first place. That's why it is so important, particularly as it relates to Indigenous Australians, that we, as governments—not just the federal government but state and territory governments around Australia—engage with the peak organisations in Indigenous communities to make sure that we can define and clearly articulate targets and then work towards those targets to make sure that we do close the gap. Rates of youth detention, in particular, as we all know, are tremendously high, but we should address not just youth detention but also adult incarceration. It is so important that we address this issue. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Siewert, a final supplementary question? 14:52 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Why is it that The Guardian Australia is left to track deaths in custody? Why doesn't the government have a centralised mechanism in place for keeping track of deaths in custody nationally? Why aren't you doing it? 14:52 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I draw to the attention of the senator that the federal government has made a large commitment in terms of addressing many issues around the Closing the Gap targets. One of the things that the federal government has offered to fund is a custody notification service for each state and territory, so that we can make sure that we are providing culturally appropriate services to people who find themselves incarcerated, and also make sure that the supports that they need and the support agencies that are able to provide those services are notified in an appropriate time frame to make sure that Indigenous people who are incarcerated are able to get access to those services. This custody notification scheme provides an important means by which to reduce the likelihood of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander deaths in custody by making sure that we provide Indigenous Australians with appropriate support services should they find themselves in jail. Pensions and Benefits 30 14:53 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Nadia Sievewright was a young nursing student when Centrelink hit her with debts totalling $25,000. She was told by Centrelink that, if she wanted to contest them, she would need to pay lawyers to fight in court and that, if she lost, she might go to jail. Doctors suspect that the stress of interacting with Centrelink aggravated her autoimmune condition, causing her to be hospitalised on multiple occasions. Nadia even received calls from Centrelink when she was eight months pregnant. The government has conceded that the robodebt scheme developed by Mr Morrison was unlawful. Does the government now accept that it was also wrong to illegally hound vulnerable Australians like Nadia to the point of desperation? 14:54 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia 'If people fail to come to an arrangement to settle their debts, the government has a responsibility to taxpayers to recover that money'— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order on my left. I'd like to hear the minister's answer. Senator CORMANN HDA I hear the outrage about that quote. That is a quote not from anyone on this side of the chamber but from Tanya Plibersek on 29 June 2011. Tanya Plibersek said, 'If people fail to come to an arrangement to settle their debts, the government has a'— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Cormann. Senator Keneally, on a point of order? Senator Keneally LNW Direct relevance, Mr President. I asked about the illegal robodebt scheme designed by Mr Morrison. He is quoting something that predates Mr Morrison's illegal scheme. I draw him back to the point of the question and ask him to direct his answer to that. The PRESIDENT I0Q I'm happy to rule on the point of order. Senator Keneally, the question had a substantial preamble. The minister was 20 seconds in. I could barely hear his answer, although I did hear the quote that you're objecting to. I'm listening carefully, but I do believe that is directly relevant to the substance of the question asked. I ask Senator Cormann to continue. Senator CORMANN HDA Thank you very much, Mr President. Further: The automation of this process will free up resources and result in more people being referred to the tax garnishee process, retrieving more outstanding debt on behalf of taxpayers. That is Bill Shorten. It is important that the Government explores different means of debt recovery to ensure that those who have received more money than they are entitled to repay their debt. That was Chris Bowen. The government has acknowledged— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order on my left. Senator CORMANN HDA The government has acknowledged that the income averaging that was used was not an appropriate way to recover those debts, and that is why the government will commence refunding eligible debts from July 2020 and will continue through the 2020-21 financial year. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU Mr President, my point of order is direct relevance. The minister was asked whether or not the government now accepts it was wrong— Senator Rennick interjecting— Senator Wong 00AOU Sorry, Senator Rennick. Would you like me to give you leave to speak? The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Interjections are always disorderly. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! I don't think anyone in the Senate has a halo when it comes to interjections. Everyone should cease. Senator Wong. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! There are interjections coming from all around the chamber. As I said, no-one has a halo. I urge those who are well practised to cease. Senator Wong 00AOU It's always such an interesting experience when he does. Mr President, Nadia Sievewright's case has been raised with the opposition. We asked whether it was wrong to illegally hound vulnerable Australians, like Nadia, to the point of desperation. I understand there are politics at play. The minister has had his fun quoting Labor people about a different scheme, but I ask him to be directly relevant to that issue. She deserves an answer. The PRESIDENT I0Q I say on the point of order that I'm not in a position at this point in this chair to make a ruling on whether something was part of a particular program. The question asked the minister for information. In my view, the information he was responding to that with is directly relevant and does directly address the question. There is an opportunity to debate this matter after question time. Senators can avail themselves of that. Senator Cormann. Senator CORMANN HDA Thank you very much, Mr President. As Ms Plibersek and Mr Bowen said, the government has a responsibility to recover debts where people have been overpaid and, as Mr Shorten said, the automation of this process will free up resources. I also should say that, of course, the government recognises that the recovery of debt has to be done in a way that is lawful and that is why the government has made the decisions it has since announced. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Keneally, a supplementary question? 14:59 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales Cancer-suffering grandfather Raymond Murphy had to sell his home and move into a shed just to afford medical treatment. He said that the debt collectors 'ripped him to shreds' over a $2,300 robodebt while he was in hospital. Does the minister think this was fair? 14:59 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia It is always preferable for people to come to an arrangement to settle their debts. That is absolutely preferable. In the context of people not engaging with Services Australia, that raises administrative issues which were recognised when Labor was in government. There were errors made in relation to the automation of the income compliance program. These will be addressed, and the government has made relevant decisions to address them. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question? 15:00 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales It's disappointing that the minister has addressed neither the situation of Nadia nor the situation of Raymond. They are real people who have really suffered. So what is Mr Morrison's response to the human cost of the system he designed and implemented as social services minister in 2015? 15:00 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia There is nothing wrong with the government seeking to recover outstanding debts where there have been overpayments. That is something that has happened under governments of both political persuasions, and, indeed, the previous Labor government was considering the automation of this process. Mr Shorten was advocating in favour of the automation of this process. That is a matter of public record. These arrangements have to be put in place in a way that is consistent with applicable laws, and that is what we will ensure will happen. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Cormann? Senator Cormann HDA I ask that the further question be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 32 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, JobKeeper Payment, Child Care 32 15:01 Senator DODSON SR5 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women (Senator Payne) to questions asked by Senators Wong, McAllister and Gallagher. Thirty years ago, the royal commission that I was part of made 339 recommendations to the parliament. That commission had been set up by the Hawke government. At that time, there were 99 deaths that we were concerned about in this nation to effect a national royal commission. Now we've had over 400 deaths since that royal commission. Thirty years have passed, and we have not addressed the underlying issues that give rise to people being taken into custody and, consequently, dying in custody. So the social factors of health, housing, education and employment and the legal factors surrounding those have not been addressed in a manner to relieve this awful blight on this nation's history. There's a continuing, systemic pattern here. I appeal to the government and this new-beaut system that the minister is believing is going to find the answers to it—this new Federation Reform Council—to actually look at the systemic approaches that take place. First Nations people are likely to come to the attention of police; we know that. First Nations people who come to the attention of the police are likely to be arrested and charged; we know that. First Nations people who come to the attention of the police will be charged, but they will also be sent to court. When they go to court, what will happen? They'll be sent to jail. This is a pattern and a paradigm. This is systematic, systemic and institutionalised. If you look at this from a First Nations point of view, this is about the subjugation of the First Nations people. This is not about enlightened policy; this is about subjugating the First Nations people. If you correlate that to the number of people who have been taken away—the 30,000 kids in out-of-home care—and if you come up with things like, 'It's going to take time,' or, 'It's complicated, and it's really difficult,' well, it's not. Address the underlying issues—health, housing, education and employment—and work with First Nations people through the COAG system, or through the new system of the reform council or whatever it is, to actually set some targets around these things, as Senator Wong had asked, such as for lower incarceration rates and for the diminishment of removing kids from their homes and families and being put into custody, which will ultimately lead to the adoption out of these things for kids. I remind the government that the Bringing them home report that had analysed the policies and practices that pertained to those heinous practices bordered on genocide. So I ask you, sincerely, to make this a top priority. For too long there have been nice words and good intentions, but the lack of action and commitment has not seen a reduction in deaths in custody; it's seen an escalation in the social indicators that diminish First Nations people and diminish us as a nation. It diminishes us as a nation because we are incapable of dealing with it. So I ask the government to sincerely put into practice the best intentions—to put those intentions into commitments and into really working with the First Nations peoples and to getting real agreements with the states. And don't pussyfoot around with the states, saying, 'Oh, it's the states' responsibility.' Well, we know you've been capable of finding ways of dealing with that. Now's the time to stop the rot of First Nations people dying in custody, being over-imprisoned and having their children put into out-of-home care. 15:05 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory I acknowledge Senator Dodson's contribution on this motion to take note of answers , but I do want to deal with the question that Senator McAllister asked in relation to child care and the changes to child care. I just want to go through what those changes are—the necessity of the changes. Senator Watt interjecting— Senator SESELJA HZE And it's great to get contributions from Senator Watt there. He's taken his orders from Albo. He's got the phone call, and he's still not on mute! I'll continue nonetheless. Senator Watt interjecting— Senator SESELJA HZE No, you were hilarious, mate; we all had a very good laugh! But let's go to the more serious issue of child care and the Labor Party's claims when it comes to child care. What we were dealing with in the childcare space was a once-in-generations crisis, which we had to deal with in a number of ways. First we had to deal with stopping the spread, and then—simultaneously—we had to deal with the economic fallout, as we saw the necessary and important restrictions that were put in place to stop COVID from running rapidly through our community as we have seen in far too many countries around the world. The emergency measures that we announced for child care were never going to be the new normal. What we've heard from Senator McAllister and others, in their critique, is that they don't want us to go back to our system of childcare support that this government has put in place. Senator Watt interjecting— Senator SESELJA HZE Well, I can't even tell what the ridiculous heckling at the back is, from Senator Watt. It is hard to hear myself, but I will persist. When it comes to what we are doing in the childcare space, the argument from the Labor Party—and it was backed up by their Greens partners—is effectively that there is a magic money tree, and once you put in place an emergency measure that emergency measure should be able to last forever. That is effectively the Labor Party's position and the Greens' position on a number of policy areas, including child care. When it came to child care, we put in place emergency measures that dealt with the fact that there were significantly fewer Australians sending their kids to child care when the COVID-19 restrictions were in place. Subsequent to that we have seen—and this is something that we should celebrate as a nation—the great strides we have made in recent times, together as a nation, in dealing with this crisis. We should celebrate the fact that we have not suffered the kind of negative health impact that so many other countries have. We should celebrate the fact that we are starting to see our economy open up far more quickly than perhaps was anticipated a couple of months ago and that, as a result of that, people are getting on with business and the economy is slowly starting to turn around. We know there is a long way to go, but more and more Australians are going back to work. That is a good thing, and it is something that we in the coalition celebrate. We don't believe, as the Labor Party and the Greens do, that government should be at the centre of economic life. We believe that government had a critical role—an absolutely critical role—and we believe that we have and are fulfilling, and will continue to fulfil, that role for as long as it's necessary during this time of crisis to support Australians, to support Australian jobs and to support Australian livelihoods. But what we're on about now is about growing our economy and getting people back into the workforce. The childcare system that we're returning to—the system of support—is one of the most progressive sources of support that you can imagine: to have subsidies of up to 85 per cent for low- and middle-income earners, which taper out as your income goes up. What could be fairer than a system that gives by far, and by a significant length, more support to low- and middle-income earners than what existed under the Labor Party? Under the Labor Party's system, far less support was given to low- and middle-income earners. We are delivering that. So with the emergency measures that were put in place and what the Labor Party would like to do—and this goes to what they would do if they were to come into government—there would be bigger and bigger government and endless spending. We have engaged in the kind of spending that is needed to support our economy. We'll do it for as long as is necessary, but we should get our economy going again— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Thank you, Senator; your time has expired. Senator Bilyk. 15:11 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania I too rise to take note today of answers given by Senator Payne to questions about early childhood education. We know from the COVID-19 pandemic that it has had a disproportionate impact on women in Australia. So the spin that's being put on over there by Senator Seselja, that we should all be celebrating, I think rings fairly hollow, especially to a lot of women in Australia. Women are more likely to have caring responsibilities and more likely to be working in insecure jobs. So it's of little surprise to Australians that the government's policy response to this pandemic ignores this impact when of course the ranks of those opposite are dominated by men. It goes a long way to explaining why the gender gap in Australia is so high and why the Morrison government is failing dismally to engage women in the workforce. It explains why women are disproportionately represented amongst those workers the government has left behind through its design of the JobKeeper scheme, such as casuals with less than 12 months service with their current employer. Research by the advocacy group The Parenthood found that most Australian households currently using child care will have a parent forced to reduce work when full childcare fees return, and that in most of these households that parent will be a woman. The same research found that over 40 per cent of Australian families using child care had at least one parent's income reduced as a result of COVID-19. Senator Seselja did his bit of spin, but what he didn't point out was that the cost of child care in Australia is among the highest in the world. Child care was already difficult enough to afford before COVID-19 hit, but now the families which are struggling financially due to the pandemic are going to struggle even more. The government has done no modelling—no modelling—on the impact on parents of ripping away JobKeeper payment from the early childhood education and care sector. But its own review of the relief package found that ending it three months early could put up to 86 per cent of services at risk of closure—86 per cent of services at risk of closure! As a former early childhood educator, let me just say that that is abhorrent! That just frightens me, because child care is such an important issue. It's about access and equity. It's about making sure that people who don't have a high income can access child care for the good of their child. It's not just about getting people back to work, to be honest. Yes, that's a large part of it, but children need social interaction with other children, and children from disadvantaged backgrounds must be able to have that access that they so desperately need to help them develop both socially and emotionally, and even physically in a number of cases. So don't stand there and tell me how good you have been in regard to child care! I worked in that sector for 12 years; I know that sector, and through COVID-19 I've had many, many people from that sector approach me and talk to me about concerns they have regarding JobKeeper and—especially this week—regarding the flip-flop where Mr Morrison, within 48 hours, said that JobKeeper would remain and then said, 'Oh well, except for early childhood educators.' We know what you guys on that side think about early childhood educators; it's in Hansard. Early childhood educators are some of the most dedicated workers in this country, and they take the responsibility of looking after people's most prized possession—their child—very, very seriously. For this government to actually have a review of the relief package and find that ending it three months early could put up to 86 per cent of services at risk of closure is abhorrent. Many providers are already struggling because the government's free childcare announcement wasn't properly funded, but the snapback is going to make the situation even worse. There'll be a snap alright, let me tell you! It will be the snap of the doors closing on some of these early childhood education providers. While the government hasn't modelled the impact on parents, the modelling that has been done by others paints a very grim picture. As I said, a survey of 1,300 parents conducted by advocacy group The Parenthood found that more than a third will be forced to reduce days or remove their children from care altogether when we snap back to your— (Time expired) 15:16 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I find it quite odd that Senator Bilyk stood there and said, 'Don't you tell me about child care.' Well, I'm sorry, but I stayed home and raised my children for four years, and that was a conscious choice, because I realise how important it is for children to spend time with their parents when they are young. There is no greater bond— An opposition senator interjecting— Senator RENNICK 283596 What's that, sorry? Take it on notice. An opposition senator interjecting— Senator RENNICK 283596 What kids? An opposition senator interjecting— Senator RENNICK 283596 Between the ages of zero and four, absolutely. It's something that— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Order! I remind senators in the chamber to direct their comments to the chair and I remind other senators that interjections are disorderly. Please continue, Senator Rennick. Senator RENNICK 283596 Yes, ideally it would be great if a parent could stay home and raise their children in the early years between zero and three, because, as I said in my maiden speech, there is no greater bond than that of a child and a parent. An opposition senator interjecting— Senator RENNICK 283596 Well, that's not your call; that is not the call of the senators here in this chamber. That is the choice of the parent. That is not a choice of the government, and that's the difference between the people on this side of the chamber and the people on that side: they want the government to step into the classroom, the family home, the bedroom and tell everyone how to live their personal lives. No. We live in a Western democracy where we respect individual rights and individual freedoms, and we do not want the hand of government reaching in and taking away our children's youth. What I love about Labor is that they always make out that they care about the children, but this isn't about the children; this is about Labor increasing their union membership. You never hear Labor talk about raising the pension, because they don't want the pension to replace superannuation. That is all about looking after their rivers of gold in the superannuation fund. The only part of the union movement that's actually growing is the childcare industry, and that's why you're pushing it. At the end of the day, if you can keep a child at home and if you can keep a parent at home, you're going to halve the congestion on the roads, you're going to halve the pollution and you're going to increase the quality of life for young children and their parents. An opposition senator interjecting— Senator RENNICK 283596 That is a choice. What we would like to do is to provide a choice. Dorothy didn't tap her shoes together and say, 'There's no place like child care.' She said, 'There's no place like home.' I guarantee you, when people grow up, they don't pick up the phone and call their childcare guardian from when they were at child care 20 years ago. They talk to mum and dad. This party will always stand up for the rights of the family and will always try and encourage a bond between the child and the parent. An opposition senator interjecting— Senator RENNICK 283596 Yeah, sure. Great. Because you guys know everything! Now I just want to address the issue of deaths in custody. Obviously, there has been an increase in the number of Aboriginals incarcerated, so what we need to do there is try and close the gap. It's something that hasn't got a lot of talk, but I think it is worth noting that a report by the Productivity Commission found that state and federal governments spend $33.4 billion on services for Indigenous Australian to help try and close the gap. That works out at $44,000 for every Aboriginal Australian compared to $22,000 for every non-Indigenous Australian. So I do think that there has been a genuine attempt by governments at all levels to try and close the gap. The other thing I think we need to point out as well is that people often quote the deaths in custody as though they're homicides. It's important to note that deaths in custody doesn't mean to say that they were killed in custody. The biggest cause of deaths in custody was natural causes. The next one after that was suicide. The next one after that was accidental. Then there were six deliberate, unlawful homicides, which is obviously still too many. There were six in prison custody and eight in police custody. I have a friend who works in a watch house and they have to a check on the prisoners every 15 to 20 minutes, so there is a genuine attempt at looking after the prisoners. I'm not saying it's easy and I'm not saying everyone gets it right all the time. But I really don't think that we should be inflaming this situation by playing needless identity politics, which Senator Wong was doing before. I thought it was quite tawdry and uncalled for— (Time expired) 15:21 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria It certainly does seem that Dorothy has, in fact, tapped her shoes in the Senate today with comments from those on the government benches that would send Australian women right back to the 1950s, where apparently this government believes they belong. This is a government that is no friend of the women of Australia. The government's snapback is apparently starting even earlier than expected and it is a snapback that will hurt the women of Australia. Only on Friday did the Prime Minister guarantee that workers would be able to count on JobKeeper payments until September. Then three days later, on Monday, he announced that JobKeeper would, in fact, end for 120,000 early childhood educators. The Prime Minister's commitment did not even last the long weekend. And now they've not ruled out making further adjustments to the JobKeeper program. After that backflip on Monday further adjustments could mean anything. It could mean removing more workers from the scheme, because you cannot trust a word that this government says. Are they really on the side of Australian working women? Are they really on the side of the Australian workforce? They've already excluded millions of casuals and temporary migrant workers from JobKeeper. We have Liberal members of parliament calling for an early snapback day after day. Now it's early childhood educators. Who is next? Who is next in the government's sights? Early childhood educators have absolutely been on the frontlines of this crisis. They are essential workers who have been absolutely critical in allowing other essential workers to stay at work. To reward them by being the first to have support withdrawn is an absolute slap in the face to those women workers of Australia. Ninety-seven per cent of early childhood educators are women and they have done absolutely everything that this government and this country have asked of them over the past few months. They've turned up to work when others have stayed home to stay safe. They've done that with absolutely no ability to practice social distancing when educating—yes, educating—small children. They've been deemed to be essential except in their pay packets where, of course, they remain some of the lowest paid working people in Australia, exactly because of the types of attitudes that we've heard from the government benches today about their incredibly important and essential work. This is a group of people that has faced huge uncertainty about the future of their jobs and the future of their sector and now they are the first to be booted off the JobKeeper payments by this government, who just said that no-one would be kicked off before September. What a way to thank the early childhood educators of Australia. Now, right when we are in the middle of a crisis, the government is ending free child care as well. Ending both the free early childhood education program and JobKeeper for early childhood educators is going to cause huge problems for so many Australian women and so many families. Returning to unaffordable child care and removing access is going to make the return to work that much more difficult than it has been already for so many working families. At a time when we are in recession, when parents need to be able to return to work and when households are struggling, how will ending the free childcare package help? We know that it won't. Research published this week says that ending the childcare rescue package early is going to force parents in 60 per cent of households to reduce work. And, in the majority of cases, of course, it's going to be women who will have to stop work or cut back on work. So this government is delivering a triple blow to the women of Australia. First, three days after guaranteeing JobKeeper, the government has ripped it out of the hands of almost 120,000 women educators. At the same time, the government ends free child care at a time of massive hardship and recession when women need to be able to work. This government does not have the backs of Australia's working women. Question agreed to. Aboriginal Deaths in Custody 36 15:26 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answer by the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians (Senator Ruston) to a question without notice asked by Senator Siewert today relating to deaths in custody of First Nations peoples. I asked: is the government ashamed of the fact that 437 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have died in custody since the 1991 royal commission report? Australia has the highest rate of incarceration of First Nations peoples per capita in the world. Is the government ashamed of that? Apparently not. I asked whether that is recorded in a centralised process across Australia. No, it isn't. There was no answer to that either, and that is symptomatic of the problem that exists in this country: a failure of governments to address the causes of First Nations peoples ending up incarcerated. They aren't changing the record. They aren't changing the drivers that result in people ending up in custody, and they're not holding people responsible for those deaths in custody. There has not been one conviction in relation to any of those deaths in custody. What we need to do is change the record. Change the Record, the organisation that has been tracking the issue of justice for our First Nations peoples, is also articulating what the government should be doing. Across Australia, the government should be repealing the punitive bail laws that are the reason people end up in prison. The government should be getting rid of mandatory sentencing. How much more evidence does this mob need that mandatory sentencing is leading to First Nations peoples being discriminated against and is contributing to them ending up in prison? The government should be ending things like the criminalisation of public drunkenness. They should be decriminalising that. The government should be making sure that children don't end up in prison. For far too long, governments across Australia have been obfuscating the issue; we need to address the fact that this country is locking up children. We need to end racist policing and require police accountability on these issues. We need to make sure we genuinely implement the recommendations of the royal commission. I can tell you that the report that was tabled a couple of years ago—in fact, it wasn't tabled and it was not released publicly; there had to be an order for the production of documents requiring that it be tabled in the Senate—found that, supposedly, two-thirds of those recommendations had been implemented. But, if you actually read the report—and, in estimates, we finally dragged the information out of the bureaucrats—it was, in fact, a desktop survey and they couldn't track the information. This is a travesty. The government should be ashamed of its record. Question agreed to. Child Care 36 15:29 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Education (Senator Birmingham) to a question without notice asked by Senator Faruqi today relating to early childhood education and care. I was deeply disappointed, but not entirely surprised, to see free child care scrapped by this government after just two months. Ending free child care is a huge mistake. Thousands of families have been hit hard by the COVID-19 crisis and now have to make some very hard choices. Many stakeholders have come out to express their shock and disappointment with the transition package, the scrapping of JobKeeper or the end of free child care. These include centres, peak bodies, parent groups and the union movement. Australian childcare fees are some of the highest in the world. We need a radical revamp of the whole system, and it starts with looking at how we make child care free for good. Child care is an essential service. In our patriarchal society, the caring work has long been seen as women's work and undervalued, creating the heavily casualised and underpaid conditions for so many workers in child care and early learning. This is not an accident. The entire system—our entire economy, in fact—relies on the unpaid and underpaid work of women in caring roles, and the skilled, difficult work done in childcare centres is too often seen simply as an extension of that. Making child care free and well funded and supporting carers and educators is essential to dismantling these retrograde ideas. Ending JobKeeper for early childhood educators and carers well before all other workers in Australia is unfair in the extreme, and most of these workers are women. Free child care, combined with decent conditions for workers and educators, is essential to building a system that is fair for all. While there were clearly issues with the scheme that has run since April, these could have been fixed by widening JobKeeper eligibility and raising the subsidy for centres as enrolments increased. Instead, the government has taken the easy way out, despite finding $60 billion down the back of the couch just a couple of weeks ago. The Greens and I will do everything we can to show the government just how essential early learning and care is. Question agreed to. NOTICES 37 NOTICES Presentation 37 15:32 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales 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 13 sitting days after today proposing the disallowance of the Export Control (Sheepmeat and Goatmeat Export to the European Union Tariff Rate Quota) Order 2019. BUSINESS 51 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 51 15:32 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator McCarthy for Wednesday 10 June to Thursday 11 June 2020 for personal reasons and to Senator Brown for Wednesday 10 June to Friday 12 June 2020 and to Senators Marielle Smith and Polley for Wednesday 10 June to Thursday 18 June 2020. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 51 15:33 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Steele-John from Wednesday 10 June to Thursday 18 June for personal reasons. Question agreed to. NOTICES 51 NOTICES Withdrawal 51 15:33 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 575 standing in my name for today. Postponement 51 15:34 The PRESIDENT I0Q I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being no such request, we will move to the discovery of formal business. MOTIONS 51 MOTIONS Australian Bravery Decorations 51 15:34 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Before moving general business notice of motion No. 592, I ask that the name of Senator Dodson be added to the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senator Dodson, move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) the 2020 Australian Bravery Decorations Honours were announced on 31 March 2020, and (ii) the 2020 Australian Bravery Decorations Honours List has four categories, including the Bravery Medal, which recognises acts of bravery in hazardous circumstances; (b) congratulates the recipient of the Bravery Medal, Mr David O'Dowd BM of Cocos Keeling Islands, Western Australia, for displaying considerable bravery during the rescue of two people from a surf rip off Cocos Keeling Islands, Western Australia; (c) acknowledges that Mr Simon Werne of Kalgoorlie, Western Australia, was awarded a Commendation for Brave Conduct, for his act of bravery during the rescue of a disabled man from a house fire in Albion, Queensland; and (d) acknowledges the following recipients of the 2020 Group Bravery Citation, for their collective act of bravery: Mr Robert Brown of Ashfield, Mr Dennis Collinson APM of Oakford, Mr Edward Trindall of Bullsbrook, and the late Mr William Matson APM of Bassendean, Western Australia, for their conduct during the capture of a violent offender near Fitzroy Crossing, Western Australia. Community Television 52 15:35 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Before moving general business notice of motion No. 588, I ask that the name of Senator Ciccone be added to the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senators Marielle Smith, Kitching and Ciccone, move: That the Senate— (a) acknowledges that local community television services Channel 31 Melbourne and Channel 44 Adelaide provide valuable programs and services to the community including: (i) local news, (ii) grassroots multicultural, sporting and arts activities and events, (iii) training opportunities for young and emerging journalists and screen practitioners, including in partnership with universities, (iv) support for small businesses and not-for-profits,  (v) live to air broadcasts of cultural and religious services for older audiences without internet access; (b) recognises that, consistent with the objects of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, Channel 31 Melbourne and Channel 44 Adelaide: (i) play an important role in reflecting Australian identity, character and cultural diversity, (ii) provide program material that is locally significant, and (iii) contribute to the diversity of broadcasting services available to the Australian public; (c) notes that: (i) consistent with the objects of the Radiocommunications Act 1992, Channel 31 Melbourne and Channel 44 Adelaide assist to: (A) maximise the overall public benefit derived from using the radio frequency spectrum, and (B) make adequate provision of the spectrum for use by community services, (ii) there is no immediate or planned alternative use for the radio frequency spectrum occupied by Channel 31 and Channel 44, (iii) since Mr Malcolm Turnbull's 2014 announcement of the Government's decision to move Community Television off-air, to an online-only model of distribution: (A) the government has provided financial assistance and licence extensions to support a transition to an online-only distribution model, and (B) licence uncertainty has contributed to the closure of CTV services in Sydney (TVS), Brisbane (Bris31) and Perth (WTV), (iv) the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the media sector means a successful transition of C31 Melbourne and C44 Adelaide to an online-only distribution model is not feasible at this time; and (d) calls on the Government to renew and/or extend the necessary licences for Channel 31 Melbourne and Channel 44 Adelaide to remain on air so they can continue to provide programs and services to the community over the free and ubiquitous broadcast television platform. 15:35 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The government has a long history of supporting community television. The remaining community TV broadcasters in Melbourne and Adelaide have been working with the government since 2014 to transition online. The government recognised the shift to digital creatives years ago, and, through Screen Australia, it has funded talent development online for more than 200 projects, primarily for YouTube. The top 30 alone have had more than 377 million views. Community TV helped launch the careers of many well-known comedians. With an online platform and support from their loyal followers, they can continue to help develop Australia's next generation of screen talent. 15:36 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U The Greens support this motion wholeheartedly. It is absolutely essential that the government drops their mean-spirited approach towards community television, both in Adelaide, in my home state of South Australia, and in Victoria. One very easy stroke of the pen from the minister would fix this problem and relieve dozens of job losses, preventing the hundreds of people who currently volunteer for these community television stations from being left in the lurch. It's very simple: a stroke of the pen. The minister should do it today. Question agreed to. Science 53 15:37 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Before moving general business notice of motion No. 589, I ask that the names of Senators Bilyk, Brown, Polley and Urquhart be added to the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senators Rice, Bilyk, Brown, Polley and Urquhart, move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) in August 2017, the Department of the Environment and Energy commissioned Mr Drew Clarke AO PSM FTSE to undertake a review of the governance arrangements supporting the Australian Antarctic Science Program and to provide advice on a new governance model (the Clarke Review), (ii) in December 2017, the Clarke Review recommended institutionalising long-term collaborative science and ensuring coherent science leadership, (iii) in April 2020, the Federal Government announced $56 million for a new Australian Research Council Special Research Initiative in Excellence in Antarctic Science, (iv) the University of Tasmania will receive $20 million over three years, a figure significantly lower than expected and which does not support a clear, long-term scientific research agenda for Australia's Antarctic and Southern Ocean science programs, (v) Tasmania is recognised as Australia's Antarctic gateway and is a global hub for Antarctic science, and (vi) long-term monitoring and research is critical to climate science, in particular, to the Antarctic and Southern Ocean, having a significant impact on the global climate system; and  (b) calls on the Federal Government to: (i) increase overall investment in climate science research capability, (ii) adopt a funding scheme that supports a clear, long-term scientific research agenda, (iii) act on the Clarke Review recommendations, and (iv) immediately provide funding certainty and continuity to Southern Ocean, Antarctic and climate research. 15:37 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The coalition government's long-term commitment to Antarctica is underpinned by an unprecedented $2.8 billion investment. The Australian Research Council's Special Research Initiative in Excellence in Antarctic Science, worth $56 million over seven years, was launched in June 2018. The ARC conducted a competitive grants application process and recommended a project at Monash University for funding through the SRI. Having accepted that recommendation, the Minister for Education instructed the ARC to provide the remaining funds to the University of Tasmania, whose application was ranked second by the ARC. 15:38 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator ROBERTS 266524 One Nation will not be supporting this motion. The Antarctic is a largely untouched and entirely spectacular natural wonder which needs and deserves proper scientific investigation and research. Every dollar wasted on researching claimed human-caused climate change in the Antarctic steals research grants from genuine geologists, palaeoclimatologists, biologists, glaciologists and other scientists doing real scientific investigations. This chamber is the house of review. When will the Senate demand a review of the science into claims of human-induced climate change that has taxpayers paying billions of dollars a year with no environmental or economic benefits? Today is day 278 since I first challenged the Greens and Senators Di Natale and Waters to provide the empirical data and framework proving that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut and to debate me on climate science and on the corruption of climate science. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 54 DOCUMENTS Water for Fodder Program 54 Order for the Production of Documents 54 15:39 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 590 standing in my name for today, proposing an order for the production of documents. Leave granted. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U It's simply to change the date; this was a motion that was carried over from the last session. I will amend the motion by omitting 22 May 2020 and substituting 12 June 2020. I move the motion as amended: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia, by 9 am on 12 June 2020, the review into round one of the Water for Fodder program undertaken by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, required under the agreement between the Australian and South Australian governments. 15:40 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 Round 1 of Water for Fodder has offered 40 gigalitres of water in 50-megalitre parcels to 800 farmers. It's a measure to help farmers to grow fodder, silage and pasture in the Murray-Darling Basin. Stakeholders and all participants have taken part in the review of round 1, including an online survey which received more than 800 responses. The government will consider the findings of the round 1 review in full and advise publicly of its response. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 54 MOTIONS COVID-19 54 15:40 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I ask that general business notice of motion No. 593, standing in my name for today and relating to the impact of COVID-19 on low-income countries, be taken as a formal motion. The PRESIDENT I0Q Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal? A government senator: Yes. The PRESIDENT I0Q There is an objection. Formality has been denied, Senator Faruqi. COVID-19 54 15:41 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) recognises the leadership shown by First Nations community-controlled health, legal and community services which responded to the COVID-19 crisis quickly and effectively; (b) acknowledges that First Nations communities bear a disproportionate burden in this crisis in terms of: (i) the additional health risk posed by COVID-19 to First Nations peoples, (ii) the risk that COVID-19 policies will disproportionately, and unfairly, affect First Nations peoples who are already subjected to targeting by police, over-represented in the criminal justice system and experience higher rates of family and domestic violence; and (iii) the impact on First Nations peoples' employment; and (c) calls on state, territory and federal governments across Australia to implement the key asks of First Nations-led justice coalition Change the Record and work together to protect the health, safety and rights of all First Nations peoples during COVID-19 by: (i) developing and implementing plans to release First Nations prisoners who are low-risk, have chronic health conditions, are on remand, are elderly, children or are for whatever reason at increased risk of  COVID-19, (ii) protecting the human rights of First Nations peoples in prison by ensuring access to oversight and monitoring agencies, family, legal services, mental health care, education and programs, (iii) connecting First Nations peoples who experience family violence during COVID-19 with culturally appropriate services such as the Family Violence Prevention Legal Service, (iv) increasing support and access to safe accommodation for First Nations families fleeing family violence to stop removals of First Nations children and ensure principles of First Nations family-led decision making are applied where-ever possible, (v) resisting punitive policy responses to COVID-19 and the over-policing of already targeted communities, and require transparency and oversight in policing, (vi) ensuring that First Nations peoples, including those with disability, are given equal access to high quality and culturally-appropriate health care during COVID-19, and (vii) committing to rebuilding our justice and child protection system after COVID-19 to focus on investing in families and community, not prisons, to increase community safety and prevent child removals and further black deaths in custody. 15:41 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The Morrison government recognises the leadership shown by Indigenous Australians and organisations during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the particular risk presented by the coronavirus to Indigenous communities. The Morrison government funds a range of activities to complement state and territory efforts to improve justice and community safety outcomes for Indigenous Australians, including the Custody Notification Service. We will include justice targets in the Closing the Gap Refresh that focus on incarceration rates of Indigenous Australians, and will continue to address the factors that contribute to high incarceration rates, including health, education and employment outcomes. However, the Morrison government cannot endorse measures that risk compromising the independence of our police and judicial systems, or which increase the risk of community safety, including the safety of people in Indigenous communities. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the motion moved by Senator Siewert be agreed to. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senators, that concludes the discovery of formal business but I would urge you to block out some time in your diary for tomorrow afternoon.

The Senate divided. [15:47]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 29 AYES Bilyk, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Ciccone, R Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Kitching, K Lines, S McAllister, J McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Pratt, LC Rice, J Sheldon, A Siewert, R Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Walsh, J Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 30 NOES Antic, A Askew, W Birmingham, SJ Bragg, A J Brockman, S Cash, MC Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Payne, MA Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Smith, DA (teller) Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 56 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE COVID-19 56 15:48 The PRESIDENT I0Q A letter has been received from Senator Hanson: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: "Allowing activists to breach Covid-19 restrictions without punishment, even as these same restrictions are devastating jobs, businesses and lives, is a grave insult to all law-abiding Australians." Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The PRESIDENT I0Q I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in the debate and, with the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly. 15:49 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland The matter of public importance I have raised today is based on our state governments, in particular the weak leadership of Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk, allowing activists to breach COVID-19 restrictions without punishment even as these same restrictions are devastating jobs, businesses and lives. It's a grave insult to all law-abiding Australians. Last weekend we saw tens of thousands of Australians pack city centres across the nation protesting for Black Lives Matter. This protest started in the United States with the unnecessary death of a black American at the hands of police officers. No-one could possibly condone the way in which George Floyd died, but what upsets me is the attitude of many people, black and white, that his death matters more because he is black, and yet when a white 40-year-old Australian-American woman by the name of Justine Damond was shot, there was no protest. No-one really cared, because she was white. George Floyd had been made out to be a martyr. This man had been in and out of prison numerous times. He was a criminal and a dangerous thug. George Floyd had a criminal history of breaking into a pregnant woman's home, looking for drugs and money and threatening her by holding a gun to her stomach. It sickened me to see people holding up signs saying 'Black Lives Matter' in memory of this American criminal. I'm sorry, but all lives matter. If I saw signs being paraded on the day that said that very thing, we wouldn't be having this debate. More whites in Australia and America die in custody than blacks. That's a fact. But where is the outrage for white people? For the majority of people in custody, it's because they've broken the law. In other words, they've committed crimes against innocent people. To hear brainless comments from people saying our Indigenous Australians should not be locked up, as was the case put forward in 1995, is absolutely ridiculous. Black and white Australians must face punishment if they commit an offence or break the law. We cannot allow bleeding hearts and those on the Left to destroy the fabric of our society and our freedom. The public sentiment calls for those who do the wrong thing to be held to account for their actions. I'm used to seeing gutless behaviour from political parties, but the word 'gutless' doesn't even begin to describe what I have seen transpire over the last few days. When the severity of the coronavirus pandemic became apparent, we asked Australians to make some sacrifices. We asked them to stay at home, to shut down their businesses. We asked people to put their livelihoods on the line for the wellbeing of every Australian. And they've done that, much to their own detriment. So, after what I saw over the weekend, I don't blame the 445,000 mum-and-dad businesses in my home state for saying they feel betrayed. Although there were just two new cases of coronavirus across Australia, the Queensland Labor Premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, has kept our state border in lockdown, like a scene out of Germany in the 1960s when they established Checkpoint Charlie. While 'Checkpoint' Palaszczuk claims to be saving Queenslanders from COVID-19, she authorises a mass gathering of 30,000 Black Lives Matter protesters in Brisbane, which flies in the face of all social distancing laws. Reportedly, not one person was fined or held to account even when someone was filmed jumping on a police car. What an insult to law-abiding Australians. We saw this scene played out across Australia, and every politician who turned a blind eye should hang their head in shame. People are furious, and I don't blame them. They want to know how this can happen when our pubs, clubs, gyms, restaurants and businesses are still crippled by the full force of COVID-19 restrictions. They can barely have 20 people in a room. Doesn't Queensland's economy matter? Doesn't Australia's economy matter? These activists should never have been allowed to march and call Australians racist, especially when we can't even hold a proper funeral for our loved ones. I say shame on the politicians who were too gutless and too scared of losing votes to stand up to the mob. 15:54 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory I'm a big supporter of the right of people to peacefully protest. It is one of our fundamental human rights, amongst many others. But I, like many Australians—I think the majority of Australians—was angered and indeed shocked by the fact that these protest marchers were allowed to go ahead in the way that they were during a time of a global pandemic. I want to go to some of the reasons why I'm angry and why I think so many Australians are angry about the way this occurred. Australians hate double standards. They hate the idea that there is one rule for some and another rule for others in our community. We talk about the right to protest. I heard some of the political leaders and some of the state and territory leaders, including the Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory, Andrew Barr, and I think others, talking about how there is of course a right to protest. Yes, there is a right to protest, but there are also all sorts of other human rights that have, in one way or another, been curtailed over the past couple of months, and this is where the anger is coming from. Yes, there is a right to protest. There is also a right to worship, but that has been curtailed over the last couple of months to deal with this pandemic. There is a right to run a business, and freedom of enterprise is an important freedom in Australia, but we have seen some of those rights curtailed, for good reasons, and some of those business owners have done it tough. There is a right to freedom of movement in this country, but we take that for granted. It's the ability to move wherever we like in our cities, the ability to move across state borders and indeed the ability to move beyond our nation when we have the opportunity. All of those rights have been curtailed to one degree or another. As governments have put in place some of those restrictions, the community has largely followed them willingly. The feedback I have had as we have imposed restrictions, first with shutting down international travel and then with limiting people's freedoms and the ability to move around in this country, is that most Australians, even some of those who've done it really tough and even some of those business owners who I've spoken to who are really struggling with some of these restrictions—notwithstanding the fact we have done so much to try and support them through that—would prefer to be running their businesses, but they haven't been able to in some circumstances. And they have done that willingly. They have said to me: 'You know what? I know this is tough, but I know why the government's doing it. They're doing it because we're all in this together. We're going to defeat this health crisis. We're going to save lives. As soon as we can we want to get back to life as we know it.' Why I think these protests, and the fact that the protest was simply waved through by state and territory leaders, have struck such a nerve is the sense of the lack of fairness and how much they have undermined the sacrifices that so many Australians have made. We're talking about rights, but what about the right to celebrate your wedding? And what about the right of Australians to farewell their loved ones? Nothing strikes at the heart more than when you hear the stories of people who have not been able to properly farewell their loved ones because of the restrictions that were put in place. Those restrictions were explained at the time. We know that there was a danger with mass gatherings at funerals and weddings and other places. When that was explained by the national cabinet, so many Australians said, 'This is a terrible burden to bear', but they bore it. They complied. They complied with the rules whether they agreed with them or not, because they were convinced that this is what we need to do in order to protect lives in Australia. When those same political leaders turn around and say, 'If you want to gather with 500 people, 1,000 people, 5,000 people or 10,000 people, that's about your right to protest,' other people rightly turn around and say: 'What about my rights? What about my right to farewell my loved ones? What about my right to run my business? What about my right to move around freely?' Those freedoms are important too. They have been curtailed for good reasons that have been explained to the community. The community has come with us. I think this undermines that trust. Some of the state and territory leaders, including Andrew Barr the Chief Minister here, talk about the right to protest. I heard Premier Daniel Andrews talk about how he was 'discouraging' people from going to these protests. There was no discouragement of people in other aspects of life. We didn't say to the people who wanted to have 50, 100 or 200 people at a funeral, 'We discourage you.' Do you know what there were? There were fines. There was enforcement action. Over the weekend I had feedback on this issue from many people, not just here in Canberra but right around the country. I had some feedback from people here in the ACT who were affected. As these protests were going on I was getting feedback from cafe owners in the ACT who had been visited by the authorities on multiple occasions counting to make sure that there were not 21 people rather than 20 or fewer in the cafe. Down the road there were thousands of people at a protest, and that was allowed. There were no fines. There were no moves by the authorities to in any way restrict that or impose any sanctions whatsoever. Before, when only takeaway was allowed, an elderly gentleman—he was in his 80s—was getting a takeaway coffee and the cafe owner pulled out a chair for him. He was warned. He was told: 'You can't do that. You can't sit down here. We've got rules. It is only takeaway.' There was no, 'We're just going to advise you to do the right thing.' Churches here in Canberra in recent days have been warned by the police that they should not go over 20 in their gathering place—places that sometimes fit 300, 400 or 500 people. They cannot go beyond 20. The double standards, the hypocrisy and the different standards that were applied are really what get to Australians. They say, 'This is not fair.' You have to say that they have a case. In the time I have left I have to say one of the reasons we see such frustration. I've pointed to the immense double standard of saying, 'The right to protest is important, but all of those other rights are not important and can be curtailed and restrained by the states'—sometimes, unfortunately, in fairly heavy-handed ways, and we've seen some examples that have been particularly unfortunate. The other reason is the fact that the differences we are now seeing are not being explained. Please explain to me why in a territory where we have had no community transmission at any time it is dangerous to have more than 20 people gather in a church, a cafe, a restaurant or a pub but if you drive a couple of kilometres down the road to Queanbeyan, where they have had more community transmission—although not a lot at the moment, it must be said—it is safe to have up to 50 at a pub or a place of worship. That is another area of frustration. That is not being explained to people. What they have done is undermine community confidence. Senator Gallagher might think this is a joke, because her mates in the Labor Party broke the rules about the restrictions and showed themselves to be above all those people who have had to put up with the rules. One rule for the rest; one rule for the Labor Party—there it is. That is why people are angry, and they are absolutely justified in their anger. 16:04 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I am quite surprised that the preceding speaker did not choose in his address to engage in any material way with the substantial injustices that are experienced by Australia's First Nations people. I am genuinely surprised, because I think a decent person genuinely seeking to reflect their community might have had the grace to consider the cruel circumstances, the limited life choices and the discrimination that has propelled this conversation in recent weeks and has driven so many people to reflect on what we might do better. I was surprised not to hear any reflection on those questions from the preceding speaker. What is happening in the United States has caused many Australians to reflect on the treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people by law enforcement. As Labor's shadow minister for Indigenous affairs, Linda Burney, recently said, what is happening in America is an example of the divisive and corrosive effects of systemic discrimination, and racism and we don't need to worry about importing it here because it is already here and it would be far better if we accepted and were honest about our history and our present. This government needs to consider its priorities. Government members stood in support of today's motion. Instead of picking a fight about protests, they might do better to turn their minds to the material issues that drove the protests. Instead, we've had tone deaf comments from the Prime Minister and tone deaf comments from Senator Cormann. Thousands of Australians clearly were trying to balance their sense of responsibility about their obligations to protest against institutional racism alongside their obligations to support public health. But there's no support for those obligations from this government. The government has the policy levers to effect serious social change, whether it be in law enforcement, social services, housing or health care. It could choose to address the injustices that are present for First Nations people. But government members don't choose to come into this chamber and talk about that. Even during Reconciliation Week, the unfair and sometimes brutal treatment of First Nations people occurred on an almost daily basis. In my own neighbourhood, footage emerged of a young Aboriginal man slammed to the ground by a New South Wales police officer. An Aboriginal woman in a Perth prison was body slammed by a guard and left in a critical condition. A young Aboriginal girl was incorrectly accused of stealing at a local store. An Aboriginal woman was dragged out of a Melbourne hospital by staff after experiencing a drug overdose. I don't imagine that those events or stories are surprising for First Nations people, because this is the real experience of discrimination that they seek to speak to us about again and again. I want to read to this chamber one of the most moving parts of the Statement from the Heart that was adopted at Uluru: Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future. These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness. I think about that statement, adopted by so many people at Uluru after an extensive nationwide consultation, undertaken at the request of government, that went on for many years. I think about that powerful statement of powerlessness—that sense that, no matter how often they raise their voice, they are not heard—and I think about the callous, disrespectful way that the government responded when that statement was presented to them. They dismissed it out of hand. They mischaracterised the idea of a constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament as a third chamber, which is not something that was ever sought by people at Uluru. And they did all of that after having invited the ideas of our First Nations people. They dismissed those ideas out of hand almost immediately upon receipt, and without discussion—without discussion with the people who they had requested to drive and run that consultation. It was disgusting! And so, if people feel that they are not being heard and say, 'We have no other way to have our voice heard and to have our perspective heard—to be listened to by this government—except to protest,' well, who can blame them? Their treatment by this government over seven years has been absolutely disgraceful. They have had their time wasted. They have engaged again and again and again in good faith—in conversations about reform of the CDEP, in conversations about reform of the Closing the Gap targets and in conversations about reform and constitutional recognition. They have engaged again and again and again, at the request of government, in good faith, and nothing ever changes. There is absolutely a sense that people's time is being wasted. And if people are angry and upset then I understand that. The last week ought to have been a pause for reflection, not for coming into this chamber and playing petty politics with, arguably, the most serious issue that this nation needs to address. 16:12 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria The true matter of public importance that we should be debating here today is the racism that pervades this country—the racism that was expressed by Senator Pauline Hanson in her contribution just previously. The true matter of public importance we should be debating here today is the ignorance of the racism that is experienced by First Nations people—by black people and by brown people; by non-white Australians—every day. We don't have equality in this country; we have discrimination, we have prejudice, we have ignorance and we have deaths. The true matter of public importance that we should be debating here today is the deaths of 437 First Nations people in custody in the almost three decades since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, and it is the continued racism and violence experienced disproportionately by people of colour, here in Australia and across the globe. That record, that racism and that discrimination are why I decided that I had to attend the rally in Melbourne on Saturday. It was in response to First Nations peoples and the organisers of that rally who were calling for settler allies to protest in solidarity with them. They made that call, and I made the decision that I needed to be there in solidarity with them. None of us would normally choose to protest during a pandemic, but we do not have a choice when black lives are being lost and our government refuses to do anything about it. Black lives are already at risk every day in Australia. Black people around the world are more likely to die from this pandemic. Since that 1991 royal commission, not only have there been 437 Indigenous deaths in custody—and that total has increased by five just in the last week—but not one person has been convicted over any of those deaths. Racial injustice in this country is so bad that people feel they do need to protest during a pandemic, because black voices have not been heard. That royal commission was almost three decades ago, and yet the racist institutions in this country are still causing the deaths of people like David Dungay and Tanya Day. I feel particularly strongly about Tanya Day. She was a woman about my age. She died because she fell asleep on a train. She died in custody 17 days later. If I had fallen asleep on the train having had a couple of drinks, I know that I would not be dying in custody 17 days later. The movement in the US sparked by the murder of George Floyd has resonated so strongly in Australia and expresses the fault lines of injustice in our own home that people feel compelled to come out to express their anger and their grief. Protest is never popular, but it's an important expression of that community grief and it can bring about change. And we've seen that the protests in Minneapolis have brought about change. The council has pledged to defund and dismantle the city's police department. If the coalition was serious about antiracism and justice for our First Nations peoples and people of colour across this country, there would not be a pressing need to protest. In May, when restrictions were still in place, the Prime Minister did nothing to stop the anti-5G people and declared that it's a free country; however, when it's a protest he didn't like then suddenly it's something that should be quashed and condemned. 16:16 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Well, there is real anger in the community that thousands of people were allowed to breach restrictions against mass gatherings over the weekend and anger at the double standard that seems to have been applied to these protests by some state authorities when compared to the onerous restrictions which all Australians have been following for the past three months. I've seen many small business owners and employees across the country express their frustration and disbelief that mass gatherings of thousands of people were held in breach of all the advice of public health authorities. Australians over the past few months haven't been able to visit unwell relatives in hospital or aged-care facilities. People have missed out on attending the funerals of their family members. Weddings have been cancelled. Businesses have been forced to close, and their employees in many cases have lost their jobs. This is all because the Australian community as a whole has understood the need to make a collective sacrifice to ensure we get the coronavirus pandemic under control. So many Australians and businesses have respected and followed the physical-distancing measures endorsed by national cabinet and implemented by the states and territories. This was a matter of civic duty. These physical-distancing measures have slowed the spread of the virus and saved lives. Our medical expert panel had previously outlined that the coming together of people in mass gatherings has the real potential to undo the amazing work of Australians in flattening the curve over the past few months. That's why I was deeply concerned by the clear lack of physical distancing evident in some of these gatherings that we saw over the weekend, particularly when I know so many Australians have just been trying to do right thing. Whilst expressing concern for important causes is a critical part of our democracy, now is not the time for mass gatherings and it could potentially risk the lives of our most vulnerable Australians. The sacrifice and the effort that has been asked of Australians has been extraordinary and, with very few exceptions until last weekend, Australians have been united in following the rules and helping each other to keep this virus under control. And the reason we followed the rules isn't because we don't think it's important to go to a loved one's funeral, that businesses stay open or to march on Anzac Day to pay our respects to those Australians of every race and background who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. Of course those things are incredibly important, but Australians understood that it was our turn to make a sacrifice because the top priority at this time was to avoid spreading coronavirus so more Australians didn't die. That's why it was so galling and so unfair for Australians to witness some people ignore the advice not to attend mass gatherings and break the public health directives against mass gatherings, and yet receive no fine or consequence. Of course we support the democratic right to legal protest. Of course we were all appalled and horrified at the killing of George Floyd in the United States. And of course we all want better outcomes for Indigenous people in this country. We also support the right to operate your business, the right to work, the right to visit your family and the right to move freely around your community and your state, but we've accepted that the coronavirus health threat was serious enough to restrict our ability to do those things for a limited time. But if the vast majority of Australians have avoided mass gatherings, even to the extent of missing a family funeral or not seeing their own parents or grandparents, why does one group have a right, or feel entitled, to break the rules? We know that the ongoing restrictions are having a huge impact on businesses and the economy. That means that there's also a huge impact on Australians and the amount of work they're getting—the amount of money they're earning to look after their family. We know that when the economy suffers people suffer. So it's hardly surprising that Australians who are getting less work because of restrictions or who are seeing their small family business struggle to stay afloat will ask the legitimate question, 'Why am I following the rules that only a small number of people can attend my business and I have to actively enforce social distancing at a risk of being fined or shut down, when there is apparently no other consequence for those groups who don't follow the rules?' We have community groups who have been given pages of instructions about the need to wipe down surfaces regularly and keep volunteers 1½ metres apart if they want to access their facilities and resume meetings. What are they supposed to think when they see thousands of fellow Australians not being required to follow the same rules? Worst of all, state and federal public health authorities are now suggesting that, specifically because of the protests held over the weekend, we may have to wait an additional two to three weeks before easing restrictions further, because we don't know whether people attending these protests have contracted coronavirus and taken it back to their community. Just when we've done so well collectively to follow the rules, this large-scale breach has many Australians rightly asking the question, 'Do the rules still apply, or don't they?' As a younger Australian, I know that the economic impact of the COVID-19 crisis will be felt for years to come. We are most likely about to embark upon a recession that many people my age haven't experienced in living memory. I have friends who haven't been able to work during this period and certainly can't see when they might be able to work in the future. I have friends who haven't been able to travel to see their family, particularly over Easter, which, as we all know, is a time when families traditionally like to come together and spend time with each other. I have friends who have struggled with their mental health during a time of great uncertainty about their work, their lives and their social connectedness. We'd all like our lives to go back to normal. We'd all have liked to be able to visit our mum on Mother's Day and give her a hug. We all would have liked to be able to commemorate Anzac Day in the usual way. But for most of us, particularly those who live further away from our families and friends, that hasn't been possible over the past few months. We accepted those limitations on our personal freedoms because we knew that doing so would ensure that we kept our loved ones safe from this awful virus. And we followed the rules consistently, even when we struggled with the reality of the unprecedented situation we found ourselves in. That is what made it all the more appalling for me to see these protests over the weekend and see so many people clearly flouting social restrictions, because what was the point of following these rules if they weren't going to be followed consistently? I thought of the Tasmanians I know who haven't been able to go to the funerals of the people they love. I thought of the Tasmanians I know who haven't been able to go to work. I thought of the Tasmanians I know who have had their livelihoods almost lost because their businesses haven't been able to operate. I thought of the local festivals and the markets that we all love that haven't been able to go ahead, just because people are trying to follow the rules and do the right thing, because we understand how important it is to do so for the safety of everyone. In my opinion we're at a crucial stage in the easing of restrictions now, where we need state governments to apply consistency and have a real focus on getting us back to business. We can't sustain a situation where some businesses can have 20 people attend, some 50 and some even more than that or where some footy games can have 2,000 people show up and others can't have any or where a blind eye is turned to a mass gathering of tens of thousands of people with no social distancing while other restrictions remain in place for everybody else. Governments around the country have done a great job suppressing coronavirus. We've all supported the efforts of governments at every level to encourage Australians to do the right thing and follow the rules, but we always knew from the start that this was a dual crisis—an economic crisis as much as a health crisis. Mixed messaging and being slower to ease restrictions than public health advice dictates are not going to help us through the economic challenges and get people back to work. Again I say that, as a young Australian who has experienced a recession in my lifetime but certainly not at a time I remember, this is a great concern for me. I believe in the right to protest peacefully and legally, but I also believe in the right of free movement, the right to conduct a business and the right to worship. All of these rights and more have had to be curtailed in recent months, and this hasn't been easy. In fact, for many it has been absolutely heartbreaking. But we accepted it as our civic duty to stay home and save lives. What we didn't accept is for some Australians to pick and choose which rules they get to follow and when they get to follow them, and that is what we saw this weekend. 16:26 Senator LINES 112096 Western Australia What a missed opportunity it is for the government to respond to the real issues around Black Lives Matter today in this place. It is a missed opportunity, and I condemn the government for their silence. We saw today the contribution of my colleague Senator Patrick Dodson—a Western Australian, the same as me. He made a powerful contribution, taking note of the high incarceration rates and about the need for change. He challenged the government to say that these are not complex issues. We've seen during the COVID-19 crisis how governments have moved quickly, including the Morrison government. The Western Australian government has moved really quickly. So where there's a political will, there's always a way. First Nations people have waited way too long in this country for justice and for action. We heard the comments of Senator Malarndirri McCarthy earlier this week. She attended the rally up in Darwin. When she heard government ministers—indeed, senior government ministers—say that those protests were irresponsible, she said: What's irresponsible here is that for nearly 30 years, we've had over 430 deaths in custody, and there's been no convictions, no arrests, no steps forward. She went on to say: This issue resonates far deeper than any other issue in Australia and around the world. We need to be open to that. Our hearts need to move more quickly to the point that there is incredible change in our country. When there's change occurring, I would say to people that it's time to get on board or get out of the way. Is it any wonder that today we saw that anger from Senator Dodson and that on Monday we saw that anger from Senator McCarthy? On Monday night on Q+A, who could not be moved by that powerful contribution from Meyne Wyatt—another Western Australian, an actor from Kalgoorlie—about the racism and discrimination that he faces as an Aboriginal person in this country every day of his life? Indeed, my own granddaughter Charlee, a Gija girl, has felt racism. Her family was a part of the stolen generations. She first felt racism, and remembers it, at the age of seven. She watched Meyne Wyatt's contribution, and she said to me that it was incredibly hard to watch. She's 16. I agree, and I felt everything that he talked about in that two-and-a-half minute video. If you haven't watched it then I urge you to do so. These responses from Australians have of course been in response to the shocking, horrific murder of George Floyd in the US. But it's bigger than that in Australia, and we can no longer deny that we live in a racist country and that our First Nations people are not treated equally. Whilst George Floyd was clearly the catalyst for that outpouring, what it said to our First Nations people, and to the many millions of us who support the need for change, is that we have to get on to the streets. It is time for change, because there's no doubt that for First Nations people in this country there is profound and systemic disadvantage that they confront on a daily basis. As Professor Megan Davis said earlier this week: 'It's impossible to deny that these protests reflect a growing sentiment across Australia that justice for First Nations people is well overdue.' When tens of thousands of Australians take to the streets demanding justice for the 432 First Nations lives lost since 1991 and demanding that the deaths don't continue, we must not sit back and criticise that expression of grief and that expression of anger. We must listen. But we know that for the entire time that we've had white settlement in this country First Nations people have been killed—massacred—and have been held in custody Whilst we in this parliament have apologised to the stolen generations, and I believe those in the parliament—with a number of exceptions, sadly—genuinely expressed that sorry, we are now seeing a second generation of children being taken away, children being taken after birth and children being taken into the care of state departments. That is clearly not a First Nations problem; it's a problem for all of us. It's something we all have to grapple with, because all of us agree that children are best off, where that's possible, in the care of their relatives, not in an institution, and certainly not in foster care. We know that the denial and failure to recognise that this country was settled as terra nullius has had a lasting impression. We've seen First Nations peoples in this country dispersed and their lifestyles damaged, and white diseases introduced—all of those things that are about intergenerational trauma are still being felt today. And some Australians still don't fully support the historic Mabo decision. I am pleased to see the Morrison government finally starting to take account of incarceration rates, something Labor has been calling for for five or six years. So that is a positive first step, but it's not enough. I believe that step has come about as a direct result of the protests we saw—that palpable anger that we see in our First Nations communities, which I respect. I want to be part of change, because we do know we can achieve change. Change must happen. We must start to stamp out racism in this country, and it starts with us. 16:33 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I proudly attended the Black Lives Matter rally in Sydney on unceded Gadigal land on Saturday 6 June. I attended the rally to show solidarity with the families of David Dungay Jr, George Floyd, and every black or Indigenous person who has died in custody. In wake of the huge rallies in the United States following the killing of George Floyd, Indigenous people in Australia asked us for support from across the community to call for justice for First Nations people and no more Aboriginal deaths in custody. Some people in this chamber, and in the other place, have said that the protesters were selfish and reckless. My response to them is this: there's no doubt that COVID-19 is dangerous, but so is systemic racism. We are potentially at a real historical turning point, a global historical turning point, where this could change. We simply can't waste it. What you should really be asking is: 'What has pushed people to the point that tens of thousands of people across the country came out to protest in a pandemic?' They are sick and tired of the injustices, the violence and the deaths in custody of Aboriginal people—the fact that it still goes on more than 200 years after invasion and after report after report on how to stop it, and yet action hasn't been taken. Well, enough is enough! Racism is killing people and I won't stand by. At least 437 Aboriginal people have died in custody since the 1991 royal commission and not a single person has been found criminally responsible. Now is the moment to stop this. State violence against Indigenous people didn't end with the apology and it didn't end with the royal commission. To this day, the royal commission recommendations haven't been anywhere near fully implemented. Those over there stand there and try to shame the protesters. Well, shame on you! Where is the rage against the system that excludes, punishes and kills Indigenous people? This country is home to one of the most incarcerated minorities in the world. Indigenous life expectancy alone should make you hang your heads in shame! As we marched for justice, a 40-year-old Indigenous man died in custody in WA. Where is your rage when it matters? Black lives matter; Indigenous lives matter. I wore a mask throughout the rally and I kept my distance from others. I participated in the safest way possible, as did most people. During this sitting fortnight, I will of course continue to practice the rigorous social distancing which is expected of all us. And, like anyone else, if I experience any symptoms of COVID-19 I will follow the health advice given by the Deputy CMO to get tested and self isolate. I have to say that I'm really angry at the way members of the government have sought to shame my and Senator Rice's attendance. They have done nothing to stop institutional systemic violence, disadvantage and racism, and now they want us to explain why we want to do something about it? Stop trying to divert attention from the real issue of Aboriginal deaths in custody! Implement the recommendations of the royal commission and commit to antiracism. As Meyne Wyatt said so simply yet so powerfully on Q+A earlier this week, 'Silence is violence. Complacency is complicity.' And black deaths in custody? That shit needs to stop. It does need to stop, and the time is now! 16:37 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I was horrified, but not surprised, when I saw the terms of the MPI submitted by Senator Hanson. I was horrified, but less surprised, when I received a report about the contents of Senator Hanson's speech. How any person could watch the video of Mr Floyd's death, or indeed watch the video of Mr Dungay's death in Long Bay prison, where they both said, over many, many minutes, 'I can't breathe,' and reach the conclusion that it was an acceptable use of force is absolutely beyond me. I am, frankly, surprised by the approach that the government has taken to the MPI that's in front of us today. This was an opportunity to show that while a small number of senators want to use the alt right talking points, the majority of the parliament could recognise, listen, learn and show empathy, love and concern for our fellow citizens. But, instead, what's happened is a decision to pit Australians against Australians. I asked my staff to check our email inbox. There was not one complaint and not any controversy about the rallies on the weekend. Why would you talk about funerals and cafes in the way that Senator Seselja and Senator Chandler just did? I have a friend whose wife died over the course of the COVID-19 period. Why would you pit his experience of having a very difficult funeral, unable to be attended by family and friends, against the experience of Aboriginal Australians and their families in custody? We have had 437 funerals that we didn't need to have and 437 grief-stricken families who could have been with their loved ones today but who will never see them again. Why are we allowing in this place that kind of divisive rhetoric, that attempt to pit Australians against Australians? I will not condemn the people who attended the rallies on the weekend. There's been a lot of focus on the rallies in our big capital cities. I want to spend a little time focusing on the rallies that happened in country towns in New South Wales—5,000 people in Newcastle, 3,000 people in Byron Bay, 1,500 people in Wagga Wagga, 1,000 people in Lismore, 400 people in Port Macquarie and hundreds and hundreds of people in Coffs Harbour, Dubbo, Grafton and Broken Hill. These are places where there are large Aboriginal communities, places where enormous effort has gone in from those communities and, indeed, in many cases, from local police on improving the relationships between Aboriginal communities and the police force. Do you know what? For Aboriginal communities in those towns that have never really been big on rallies and never really been big on letting Aboriginal people speak up, it takes a lot of courage and a lot of determination. I will not, like people on the other side of this chamber, condemn those Australians who have stood up. There was an opportunity for leadership today. There's been an opportunity for leadership over the course of the last week. I actually thought the Prime Minister got it right the first time when he said that we should not seek to prohibit rallies. He said that would jar with most Australians. Well, I think that's right. When the New South Wales government sought to ban the rally that happened in Sydney it fell over in the courts because it wasn't sustainable. It wasn't a sustainable proposition. I think that the place that we've got to here—where we've shifted too easily, because the politics of division suit some people, to indulging MPIs and resolutions like this—is a shame and a blight on this parliament. There are many places where great work is being done. In Bourke, the Maranguka project is working with Aboriginal communities and working with the police force. There have been fantastic outcomes in that community. In Redfern-Waterloo, where I live, there's been very important work. Yes, what happened the other day was a setback, but there's been very important work by community leaders. What those communities need, what Australia needs, is leadership from this parliament. Implement the recommendations of the royal commission. Take all the steps that are required to be taken to resolve this problem. (Time expired) 16:43 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania It's no surprise that Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts just don't get it. After all, their political party was built on reactionary racism. Not that it will make any difference to them, but here is what the Black Lives Matter protests were about. They were about the 437 First Nations people who have died in custody since the royal commission in 1991, with not a single person charged over any of those deaths. They were about the systemic racism based on a racist colonial legacy that is impacting so seriously on First Nations Australians and other non-white people in this country. If others don't get it, they should take a look around this country. Look at Western Australia, which has effectively reinstated debtors' prisons by throwing people into jail for unpaid fines, disproportionately affecting First Nations people. Look at Victoria, where the rate of First Nations people in custody has nearly doubled in the last decade. Look at our calamitous racist policy of offshore detention, which has seen thousands of innocent people of colour exiled to Manus Island and Nauru, where many have died and many more have had their lives destroyed. If they can't look that far, look at the TV. Look at Channel 7 who paid for Senator Hanson to be a commentator and reinvigorated her political career. The Black Lives Matter protests should make all of us in this place reflect on what we can do to start turning this shameful situation around. If Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts can't do that then they should get out of the way and let those of us who want to make Australia a fairer, more equal, less racist country get on with the job. Black lives do matter. Thank you to all who joined the protests on the weekend. 16:45 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia of all colours I reinforce the right of people to protest and speak lawfully. We are in favour, in One Nation, of freedom over control. I want to make the comment that Senator Hanson condemned the killing of George Floyd in her speech. It stuns me that Senator Ayres can so blatantly reverse Senator Hanson's clear position. That is dishonest. I refer to Senator Rice, who said, 'Racism exhibited by Senator Hanson.' That too, from Senator Rice, is a lie. It is false. It is dishonest. It is cowardly. Stating accurate data, as Senator Hanson did, in a coherent, logical argument; calling for all people, regardless of skin colour or race, to be treated the same under our laws is the reverse of racism. It is fairness, it is honesty and it is care. Yet out-of-touch and ignorant policies, such as those of the Greens of artificially raising energy prices and tossing workers out on the scrap heap, are what exposes the Greens fault lines across our society. These policies of the Greens are hurting all people and most savagely our most vulnerable and poorest people, black and white. Resorting falsely to labels shows that Senator Rice cannot counter Senator Hanson's data and logical argument. I remind the Labor Party that their Senator Polley tweeted, 'All lives matter.' She was slaughtered by her own Labor politicians. She withdrew the tweet. So accordingly I can conclude that in the Labor Party all lives do not matter. Now let's turn to the protest. I draw to people's attention the protest of activists last week. In breach of the COVID-19 restrictions they blatantly ignored the stated health concerns and wilfully broke the law. That is the issue. The protesters have not been punished, yet our law-abiding businesses continue to be punished. Livelihoods are being crushed complying with these restrictions. Tourism and hospitality are key sectors in Queensland shouldering the burden, a burden that the Queensland Labor government placed, and continues to place, to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in the community well beyond these border use-by dates. The Palaszczuk Labor government implicitly gave permission for 30,000 demonstrators to turn out to the Black Lives Matter protest. Meanwhile Queensland businesses stay closed, restaurants stay closed and stadiums stay empty. Premier Palaszczuk remains obstinate and defers critical decisions to Queensland's Chief Medical Officer. To add insult to injury, emotional and financial injury, the Queensland Labor government has now callously stated, 'Our border closures and restrictions have not created financial hardship.' What? Meanwhile these economies continue to unravel. That is Labor's arrogance, insensitivity, callous disregard for people, dishonesty, weakness, gutlessness and fear. This cold-hearted indifference to the people and businesses of Queensland undermines any remaining confidence that business may have had in Premier Palaszczuk's Labor government to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, based not on data but on hidden agendas. This simply does not make sense. It is not fair to allow businesses to continue to collapse due to government hypocrisy and cowardice. We all know the reality is quite different. While some people can congregate and demonstrate, people on the border continue to suffer. Over the next three months, which is when Queensland's Chief Health Officer believes it will be realistic to open the Queensland border, the Gold Coast will lose a further $1 billion in revenue on top of its existing losses. Southern visitors spend three times more than intrastate travellers, so we cannot expect that Queensland travellers alone will save the glitter strip economy. Gold Coast Airport traffic fell 99 per cent in April and May compared to the same time last year. This is financial hardship, and the Queensland Labor government still have not provided the data they relied upon to close the borders in the first place. Lifeline is taking calls of distress from people. State and federal politicians who attended the Black Lives Matter demonstrations broke the law. The Palaszczuk Labor government in Queensland has a duty of care to all Queenslanders. Labor's blatant hypocrisy needs to stop. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e4t The time for the discussion has expired. DOCUMENTS 65 DOCUMENTS Consideration 65 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 66 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 37 of 2019-20 66 Consideration 66 16:51 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the document. The ANAO found that the Department of Home Affairs's so-called management of the procurement of garrison support and welfare in fact was full of bungles. The department did not document their reasons for requesting quotations from Paladin. They did not appropriately benchmark costs for similar services. A probity management framework was not effectively applied in all instances. Conflicts of interest existed but they were not acknowledged nor managed. There was no performance monitoring or performance requirements, for an average of more than eight months, during the relevant time. Paladin—the mysterious and entirely inexperienced company that was handpicked by none other than Mr Peter Dutton to run the Manus Island detention centre and awarded a $½ billion contract to boot—has been dogged by controversy. The ANAO has now found that the Department of Home Affairs has failed to document its reasons for selecting them, has failed to demonstrate value for money, has failed to apply probity measures and has failed to manage conflicts of interest. Australians deserve better. It's no wonder that eyebrows were raised when this little-known company, which is registered to a beach shack on Kangaroo Island but has a PO box in Singapore, was awarded a 22-month government contract worth $423 million. It's no wonder that questions were asked when we learnt that the contract was awarded through a closed tender, meaning no-one else was invited to bid. This smells incredibly fishy to me, as it did to the ANAO. Isn't it a shame that we don't have a national anticorruption watchdog to hold decision-makers to account? This is precisely why the Greens have had private members' legislation on that matter since 2010. It passed this chamber late last year and has been lying, ignored by the Morrison government, in the House. It is long past time for this government to stop making excuses for its lack of integrity and to bring on either its own version or my version of national anticorruption watchdog commission legislation. The Australian public are sick of the corruption, the favours for mates and the big donations that lead to policy outcomes that benefit vested interests. They want a national anticorruption body. The federal government is the only jurisdiction that does not have one, and reports like this one today from the ANAO will, sadly, I fear, fall on ears that are blocked. We have seen many ANAO reports—they do an excellent job—but they are ignored. This government can no longer ignore the need for a federal anticorruption watchdog with teeth. It's just appalling that it has used a global pandemic as the latest excuse for delaying bringing in this incredibly important anticorruption measure. We will not let up. I know members of the House of Representatives are also very interested in this matter, so watch this space. We are standing here imploring the government to finally get on with the job. Bring on your own bill and fix it up—it's too weak—or bring on my bill for a vote. The Senate passed that legislation. It wants a strong anticorruption watchdog with teeth, and this is yet another example of why one is necessary. 16:55 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I rise to speak on the motion that the Senate take note of the performance audit report of the Australian National Audit Office on the procurement of garrison support and welfare services by the Department of Home Affairs. This is simply the latest in a series of scathing audits conducted by ANAO into the Department of Home Affairs' management of Australia's shameful offshore detention policy. This audit has found that a probity management framework was not effectively applied in all instances, and it also found that a conflict of interest existed that was not acknowledged or managed. It is coming up to seven years since the Labor government under former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd created the latest version of racist offshore detention policy in this country. It is seven years and counting. We have had multiple deaths. We have had hundreds and, potentially, thousands of lives destroyed. We have had families ripped apart, and there are still families separated because of this policy. We have seen children with resignation syndrome. They have simply withdrawn from life; they fail to eat, drink or get out of bed. This massive psychological trauma has been perpetrated on innocent children because of this calamitous and racist policy. I've been to Manus Island many times. I've seen firsthand how this policy has destroyed the lives of innocent people who did nothing other than stretch out a hand and ask our country to help them, in line with what we said we would do when we signed the protocol to the refugee convention. There are still people in Papua New Guinea and there are still people on Nauru. There are people who spent the best part of six or 6½ years of their lives imprisoned in exile in Papua New Guinea or Nauru who are now here in Australia. They were brought here under the medevac legislation and they are still detained here in Australia, either in immigration detention centres or in what the home affairs department euphemistically calls 'alternative places of detention'. It is simply not acceptable. I say to the government that now is the time to accept the kind and generous offer made by New Zealand to resettle some of these people who have suffered so much at the hands of our government. There is a solution available. It is only the stubbornness of Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his colleague the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Dutton, that is preventing a solution to this crisis. I urge the government to act. I urge the government to accept the offer which has been made by New Zealand and which New Zealand Prime Minister Ardern has repeatedly stated is still on the table. This is a dark, shameful and bloody chapter in Australia's national story. One day there will be a royal commission into immigration detention, including offshore detention, and those responsible will be held to account. There have been crimes against humanity committed by the Australian government. They have destroyed far too many lives. It is time for this chapter to end. It is time for this calamitous and shameful chapter in our country's history to be drawn to a close. The way the government could do that is by simply accepting the kind and generous offer that the New Zealand government has made. Question agreed to. Consideration 67 COMMITTEES 67 COMMITTEES Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation 67 Delegated Legislation Monitor 67 17:00 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales On behalf of the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, Senator Fierravanti-Wells, I present Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 7 of 2020. Scrutiny of Bills Committee 67 Scrutiny Digest 67 17:02 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria On behalf of the chair of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Senator Polley, I present Scrutiny Digest No. 7 of 2020. Human Rights Committee 67 Report 67 17:02 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I'm pleased to speak to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights sixth scrutiny report of 2020, which was tabled out of session on 20 May. This report contains a technical examination of legislation with Australia's obligations under international human rights law. During this COVID-19 pandemic, the committee has continued to meet regularly via teleconference so that it can fulfil its important role in scrutinising legislation. In addition to report 6, the committee has also tabled two earlier scrutiny reports out of session—on 4 and 29 April 2020. In producing these three reports, the committee has considered 69 bills and 477 legislative instruments, including 13 bills and 136 legislative instruments which were COVID-19 related. The committee has also written to ministers advising them of the committee's ongoing work at this time. The committee has also reached out to a range of non-government organisations, inviting correspondence as to the human rights impacts of federal COVID-19 related legislation. That correspondence is published on the committee's web page, together with a list of all federal legislation related to COVID-19. In addition, the committee has liaised with the United Kingdom Joint Committee on Human Rights on the way in which human rights committees can consider the human rights implications of legislative responses to the COVID-19 crisis. This pandemic has required governments across the globe to introduce legislative measures seeking to contain the outbreak and respond to its impacts. In Australia the government has implemented vital measures to control the entry, establishment and spread of COVID-19 as well as help to manage the impact of the pandemic on jobs and the economy. The committee considers that such measures promote a number of human rights, and I might add also that I am incredibly proud of the way in which our government has responded to this pandemic—as I've already put on the record—and, in particular, measures taken to control the entry, establishment and spread of COVID-19, and promote and protect the rights to life and health. The right to life requires the state to take positive measures to protect life. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has stated that the duty to protect life implies that state parties should take appropriate measures to address conditions in society that may give rise to direct threats to life, including life-threatening diseases. The right to health is the right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. Australia is required to take steps to prevent, treat and control epidemic diseases. As chair of the human rights committee, I commend the government on its efforts to promote the right to life and to health by controlling the entry, establishment and spread of COVID-19 in Australia and, of course, in relation to many other measures. The committee also recognises that legislative measures taken in response to this pandemic may limit human rights, including, for example, the freedom of movement and liberty, privacy, equality and nondiscrimination. This is a natural consequence of the need to control and limit the spread of a highly contagious and potentially deadly disease. International human rights law recognises that reasonable limits may be placed on most rights and freedoms, even in such times of emergency. Such rights may be subject to permissible limitations where the limitation pursues a legitimate objective, is rationally connected to that objective and is a proportionate means of achieving that objective. In assessing the COVID-19 related legislation, the committee considers these matters, and where it does not have sufficient information to make this assessment it seeks further information from ministers. I do wish to address in this contribution some comments raised by some other committee members in various contributions they have made in the parliament, in particular Senator McKim; and the deputy chair of the committee, the member for Moreton, Mr Perrett. I want to state very clearly for the record that I reject any suggestion that the committee has been politicised under my chairmanship. Keen observers of the committee's work will notice some significant differences in the way we report. No longer is the legal advice to the committee blended or integrated with the view or assessment of committee members. In this respect there is now far greater transparency, and it is clear on the face of the report the legal advice provided to the committee and the consequent view taken by committee members. There will, at times, be different views and they are properly expressed through dissenting reports. Assessing whether legislation complies with Australia's obligations under human rights law sometimes requires a difficult and delicate balancing act between whether a human right is limited and whether this can be appropriately justified by way of a permissible limitation. This will invariably lead to different views and, in a democracy such as ours, so it should. No member of this committee is a rubber stamp and, under my chairmanship, I celebrate the fact that committee members may and will have different views. I have also been concerned that there has not been in the past enough focus on positive human rights, meaning the positive rights which flow from new or amended laws or regulations. The committee has worked hard to recognise positive human rights in its reports such as the rationale which underpins so much of the COVID-19 legislation, including the right to life and the right to health. I am pleased to report to the Senate that the committee will continue to meet regularly throughout this pandemic and progress its vital work of considering the human rights implications of all new legislation. I encourage all parliamentarians to carefully consider the committee's analysis of COVID-19 related legislation and other legislation in each of its reports. With these comments, I commend the committee's report No. 6 of 2020 to the chamber. Electoral Matters Committee 68 Report 68 17:10 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I rise to take note of a report that was table out of session, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters' report into the private member's bill the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering the Donation Disclosure Threshold) Bill 2019, which relates to lowering the donation disclosure threshold. We welcome this bill, which was introduced by a member of the crossbench, the Centre Alliance member, in the House. Big money, as people will know, continues to corrupt our democracy and prioritise private interests over the public interest, so we agree with the majority of submitters to this inquiry, who support lowering that disclosure threshold to $1,000. To genuinely remove the influence of big money on politics, the Greens have consistently advocated for strict donation caps, for bans on donations from damaging industries and, of course, for election spending caps. We've also advocated for rigorous real-time disclosure to improve the accountability and transparency of campaign funding. We welcome any moves to improve the transparency and accountability of the money that, sadly, props up decision-makers in this place, and we of course support the lowering of that threshold down to $1,000 so that members of the public know who is paying whom. Our concern is that simply knowing does not remove the influence that those donations may seek to have. It certainly doesn't remove the perception that the influence is in fact exerted by those donations. Our view is that, whilst this is an improvement to transparency measures, it doesn't actually address the bigger issue of donations in our democratic system. As people will know, we have long advocated for bans on donations from property developers, banks and mining companies and from the tobacco, liquor, gambling, defence and pharmaceutical industries to political parties and candidates and associated entities. We're also keen to see a cap on donations from anyone, whether they're a company, whether they're a union or whether they're an individual, of no more than $3,000 per three-year term. That's a cap on actual donations, not just disclosure. It's a cap on the actual amount that anyone can donate to a political party or candidate. That's how you get rid of the influence of big money and vested interests into our democracy. I'll soon be introducing a bill to achieve just that—it's on the Notice Paper—to ban donations from those industries that seek to damage the public good and exert undue influence on decision-makers, and to cap the amount that everyone else can donate in support of democracy. I look forward to the debate when we come to that particular bill. Question agreed to. Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 69 Report 69 17:13 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I rise to take note of item No. 21, the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee entitled Inquiry into domestic violence with particular regard to violence against women and their children, which was tabled out of session. When this most recent inquiry into domestic violence was first set up, I spoke in this place about how it was important that we saw action on the recommendations of previous inquiries into this matter by government. We were worried that this new inquiry would simply give the government further excuse to delay any meaningful action and then ignore the recommendations anyway, as they have done, sadly, with many previous inquiries into this important issue. What we didn't expect to see was the Senate committee deciding to end the inquiry months early without any actual hearings and without even calling for submissions. This process has been botched beyond belief. As I say, whilst we were concerned about the possible distraction effect this inquiry might have, once it was actually set up it should have done a proper job. The Greens were not part of the decision to halt the inquiry, and we certainly would have made dissenting remarks, but in ignoring both previous domestic violence inquiry recommendations and shutting this most recent inquiry down early the government just keeps on showing that women are not a priority for it. Sadly, we've seen rates of domestic violence continue to increase during the global pandemic. We've not seen any additional funding to a meaningful amount to those frontline services. In particular, there has been no funding to enable them to transition to a different model of service based on the physical distancing that folk have been undertaking. There has been an absolute continued tin ear by this government as to the scale of the problem and its ability to actually help by kicking in some meaningful dough. There have been a few small bits of money poured in here and there, which are always welcome, but it is not enough. The scale of this epidemic is not being recognised in this government's response. Sadly, we're used to women being ignored by this government. We've lost more jobs than the blokes, but there's still no plan for us. The recovery that's been promoted by the government is mostly for male dominated industries. They're shutting down JobKeeper early for childcare workers, who are mostly women. We get that, but it still doesn't make it okay. I acknowledge that there has now been a fresh inquiry set up by the government. We're a bit worried that this will descend into simply self-congratulations by the government because, frankly, no-one else is congratulating them for the job they've done in tackling domestic violence, and the terms of reference read an awful lot like they want someone to do that, and it's going to have to be them. So we remain concerned that this will be yet another inquiry where the government will continue to ignore previous inquiries. As I do every sitting period, tomorrow we will vote again on a motion that notes how many women have been killed by violence since the last time we were in this chamber. That number never stays static; it always goes up. Each time we beg for the government to do what's needed to try and stem this tide: to increase the funding to frontline services, to have a national register of deaths—we don't even have that; that's up to a volunteer organisation to compile—and to have proper police training. We've seen, sadly, some recent examples of very inappropriate police conduct in dealing with women who have sought assistance and help through the justice system and who have once again been denied it. There are so many things this government could do, and I'm worried that it just set up this new inquiry because it was embarrassed that it shut the last inquiry down too soon. Anyway, we will participate, as we always do. The sector will participate, as it always does, spending its valuable time saying the same old stuff. Please don't ignore them this time. Question agreed to. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 70 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE COVID-19: Freedom of Information 70 17:18 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I table a response to a question taken on notice by the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann, during questions without notice on 14 May 2020 relating to COVID briefings and freedom-of-information requests. I also seek leave to have the response incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows— Dear Mr President I write with regard to a question I took on notice from Senator Patrick during Question Time, Thursday 14 May 2020, on the matter of COVID-19 briefings and Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. I can advise that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (the Department) processes all FOI requests in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) and the Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under section 93A of the FOI Act, including its reliance on exemptions. As Senator Patrick is aware from the FOI decision provided to him by the Department, the documents were exempt from release on the basis of a number of provisions of the FOI Act, including: section 34 - Cabinet documents; and section 33 - that disclosure would or could reasonably be expected to cause damage to the international relations of the Commonwealth. In relation to the FOI request made of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), I can advise that DFAT is currently finalising this request. I have copied this letter to the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Senator Patrick. Kind regards, Mathias Cormann Minister for Finance 10 June 2020 BILLS 70 BILLS Export Control Legislation Amendment (Certification of Narcotic Exports) Bill 2020 70

Export Control Legislation Amendment (Certification of Narcotic Exports) Bill 2020

First Reading 70 17:19 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 71 17:20 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— Agricultural exports are an economic powerhouse for Australia and are expected to be worth around $43 billion in 2019-20. We are one of the top ten agricultural exporting countries in the world, exporting around two‑thirds of our agricultural production each year. Strengthening the competitiveness and productivity of Australia's agriculture sector is a key commitment of this Government. We want our agricultural industries to be able to capitalise on the opportunities that flow from growth in our region and globally, and we want to support the National Farmer's Federation goal to grow Australian agriculture to $100 billion by 2030. To help us achieve this, we need to ensure we have appropriate regulatory settings to enable exports to grow and in turn to help drive productivity and increase returns at the farm gate. This Bill will facilitate agricultural exports for the emerging medicinal cannabis and hemp industries. It will remove unnecessary regulatory barriers and ensure legitimate exporters of narcotic goods are supported to access emerging export markets. This Bill will allow certification of legitimate exports of narcotic goods. It is critical that our trading partners continue to have confidence in the safety and integrity of Australian produce. This Bill will enable the growth of export markets for hemp and medicinal cannabis industries. The Bill will support the initiatives of the Government to reduce red tape, bust congestion in regulation and enable agricultural industries to come out firing, after the threat of COVID‑19 has passed. For Australian farmers, reliable access to overseas markets means increased profitability and certainty for further investment in their properties and people. For the Australian economy, it means more jobs, more exports, and higher incomes in a competitive and profitable agricultural sector. For Australians, it means stronger regional communities and a more prosperous and productive Australia. The Bill is just one of the initiatives that the Government is progressing to modernise the systems that underpin our very valuable agricultural exports. This is a crucial step that removes unnecessary regulatory barriers and supports the Australian agricultural sector as it continues to grow. Debate adjourned. Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Emergency Leave) Bill 2020, Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2019, Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Cross-boundary Greenhouse Gas Titles and Other Measures) Bill 2019, Privacy Amendment (Public Health Contact Information) Bill 2020, Defence Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020, Student Identifiers Amendment (Enhanced Student Permissions) Bill 2019, Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2019, Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2019, Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 1) Bill 2020 71

Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Emergency Leave) Bill 2020

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2019

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Cross-boundary Greenhouse Gas Titles and Other Measures) Bill 2019

Privacy Amendment (Public Health Contact Information) Bill 2020

Defence Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020

Student Identifiers Amendment (Enhanced Student Permissions) Bill 2019

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2019

Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2019

Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 1) Bill 2020

Assent 71 COMMITTEES 72 COMMITTEES Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade 72 Membership 72 Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee 72 Reference 72 17:21 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I move: That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 June 2021: The future development of Australia's relationship with the People's Republic of China. When I was first drafting a speech in relation to this motion nearly a month ago, I was reminded that the definition of 'insanity' is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Some might think me a bit insane to propose yet again that the Senate establish a wide-ranging inquiry into Australia's relationship with China. After all, over 18 months the coalition and Labor have combined forces no less than five times to block my proposal to refer such an inquiry to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, chaired by Senator Kitching. Each time, I've been concerned that various events and issues have demonstrated the need for the Australian parliament to take a deep dive into the dynamics of the Australia-China relationship. The list of those issues and concerns is lengthy, including: the Victorian government's engagement with China's Belt and Road Initiative, pretty much without consultation with the federal government; China's growing influence in Australia's immediate sphere of strategic interest; China's investment and acquisitions in key sectors of the Australian economy; and serious allegations of Chinese government espionage in Australia and interference in Australian politics. All the while we've seen a steady rise in tension and deterioration in our relations with China—a trend that long preceded the coronavirus pandemic. Yet on each occasion the coalition and Labor have said no to a Senate inquiry: 'No, not interested.' I'm aware that the likely response today will be the same. However, I will bang my head against the wall again because I'm of the strong view that a wide-ranging inquiry by the Senate is in our national interests. Managing our dealings with China is of course a task for government. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wong, has been keen to make this point on a number of occasions. But Australia's foreign relations are also of vital interest to and a responsibility of this parliament. After all, that is why we have a Senate committee on foreign affairs, defence and trade, and a joint standing committee on these subjects as well. There is no bigger issue for Australia at present than our relations with China, and parliamentary engagement is essential if we are to move forward with broad support across the Australian political scene. One might think that both the coalition and Labor would welcome a parliamentary process that would provide support for them in making complex and difficult policy choices in our future relations with Beijing. Yet this initiative on each occasion has been blocked by the coalition and Labor. Five times they have voted on a unity ticket, and neither side has offered any reasonable explanation. A number of coalition and Labor senators have privately expressed to me their interest in support for an inquiry. Senator Kitching herself was once prepared to co-sponsor a motion, only to withdraw at the last minute. Some others have found it in their personal political interests to agitate about China. Those members and senators have even formed a little club—the so-called Wolverines—with a little membership sticker displayed on the windows of their parliamentary offices. Yet none have been prepared, so far, to step forward and vote for a Senate inquiry. They might call themselves wolverines, but Chairman Mao would call them paper tigers. That's what the Chinese government today thinks of them, too: a bit of huff and puff, but quite inconsequential. More importantly, the fact remains that the leadership of the government and the opposition has remained timid to the point of self-censorship. They have repeatedly failed to explicitly call out Chinese government political interference in Australia. The contrast with some other countries is striking. While the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and even the small Czech Republic have been open about the threats of Chinese espionage and political interference, Australian political leaders have bitten their tongues and pulled their punches, even when they discovered that Chinese intelligence had hacked into the computers of this very parliament. In March this year Canada's National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians published a major report that called out significant and sustained Chinese espionage and political interference as a significant risk to the rights and freedoms of Canadians and to the country's sovereignty—a clear threat to the security of Canada. Our Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has never managed to make an explicit statement about the extent and threat of Chinese government espionage and interference in Australia. Some of the coalition and Labor members on the committee might fancy themselves as wolverines, and they have individually spoken up, but when it comes to a substantive inquiry and action they've been absent without leave. Of course, a great deal has happened since 3 December 2019—the last time I attempted to initiate a Senate inquiry and the last time it was torpedoed by a unified coalition and Labor opposition. Within a month of the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan taking hold, when it was beginning to spread across China and internationally—since January—we've seen not only the spread of the pandemic but also a rolling global economic crisis with geopolitical consequences that are likely to be felt for years and decades to come. However, in some way we are seeing the acceleration of trends that were already evident, notably the escalation of tension between Washington and Beijing and between ourselves and China. The Chinese government's response to Australian support for an international COVID-19 inquiry, amplified by the belligerent trumpeting of their state controlled media, has left no doubt about the increasingly fraught nature of the Australia-China relationship. The Chinese ambassador's explicit threat of a Chinese boycott of Australian services and products unquestionably revealed China's true attitude and their clear preference for control rather than partnership. Within little more than a week, China took action against our barley and our beef. Those trade disputes were not new, but it was hardly a coincidence that China chose to escalate matters at that time. This week the Chinese government has effectively moved for a boycott of Australian universities and education services. This will not have an immediate effect in the context of the current COVID-19 border restrictions, but China's message is very, very clear: they want to coerce us and punish us, not only in an effort to influence our international stance but also to send a signal to other countries in the region about the potential cost of noncompliance with Beijing's wishes. We certainly should not overreact to these actions and threats. However, in this context, it's all the more important that Australia carefully consider our approach to future dealings with Beijing. Parliament has to play a role in this because a substantial reset of relations with China may well be on the cards. Of course, the government and opposition have repeatedly self-censored on this. Had they not done that, we would already be holding an inquiry working through a wide range of issues. We would already be drawing on expertise from within government, from businesses, from universities and from non-government organisations to advise us on our links with Beijing in a post-coronavirus crisis world so that we can approach the reset better informed. So, while I might meet that definition of 'insanity', the motion before the Senate today gives coalition and Labor senators one further opportunity to act in Australia's national interest and vote for a broad Senate inquiry. There is, of course, nothing unusual about the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee conducting inquiries into Australia's relationship with other countries. The Senate committee has looked at China before without controversy. For example, it held an inquiry in relation to China back in 2005 and 2006. Other parliamentary committees have also reviewed other aspects of our relationship with China. In August 2012, for example, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade tabled a report on Australia's human rights dialogue with China. The Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth is currently undertaking an inquiry into diversifying Australia's trade and investment profile, something with implications for our trade relations with China. The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade has also commenced an inquiry into the international dimensions of the coronavirus pandemic, an inquiry that will certainly focus on China. Presumably both of those inquiries enjoy the government's endorsement, but neither will involve a holistic examination of our relationship with China. Senator Kitching has also quietly arranged for private briefings for the foreign affairs, defence and trade committee. This is all good, but it's no substitute for a proper inquiry into all aspects of the relationship, drawing input from the full range of experts and interested parties through public hearings and private briefings, if need be. It certainly makes absolutely no sense to attack this problem piecemeal. Australia is clearly at a strategic, diplomatic and economic turning point in our relations with China. The new terms of reference before the Senate significantly refer to our 'future' relations with Beijing. That is where the focus needs to be: on the future, not on the past, not on the political posturing but on Australia's national interests. China is and will always be a hugely important element in Australia's geopolitical and economic circumstances. We have to work out how to manage that relationship going forward and to do so in ways that benefit both countries whilst being consistent with our national interests. In opposing this motion, the coalition and Labor leadership are effectively saying they don't trust our own MPs and senators to engage on these key foreign affairs, trade and defence questions. They are saying that they can't or won't trust Senator Kitching, Senator Abetz or any other of their colleagues on the foreign affairs, defence and trade committee. But if we are to find a way forward and do so in a way that reduces the risk of partisan division and rancour, fires Beijing are likely to stoke, then we need to engage the parliament in a much more positive way. We don't need any more political self-censorship on our relations with China, nor do we need political showboating and megaphone diplomacy. And we certainly do not need an outbreak of domestic partisan conflict over our dealings with Beijing. What the Senate needs to do is establish a rigorous, non-partisan inquiry. Today's motion seeks to establish such an inquiry, such an investigation. We really do need to take a deep dive on this vitally important relationship. Only then will we start to build a new national consensus on shaping and managing our dealings with Beijing in what are difficult times. Australia's national interests demand nothing less. 17:35 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I would like to say that One Nation is very supportive of the motion that Australia's relations with the People's Republic of China be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and preparation of a report. We wish to commend Senator Rex Patrick for his seventh attempt to have this or a similar motion— Senator Patrick 144292 It's the sixth. Senator ROBERTS 266524 The sixth—I'm corrected—to have this motion progress. Senator Patrick, I can only guess, must feel like he's on the set of Groundhog Day. And on each of those occasions, the Liberal and Labor parties have joined to defeat all five of his previous attempts. I wonder if it's because Liberal Andrew Robb, when he retired, received an $880,000 salary after selling the lease to the Port of Darwin? Or after Sam Dastyari's bills were paid by the Chinese, or after Liberal Gladys Liu's contradictions of fact about her associations with China that were never resolved, or about Labor's ICAC revelations in New South Wales? We keep seeing Liberal and Labor come together to defeat even looking at this very vital and important relationship. It is imperative that Australia and China maintain a mutually respectful and beneficial bilateral relationship. China is Australia's largest two-way trading partner in exports and imports, representing 24 per cent of total trade and with a value of $183 billion. That alone shows significant influence on Australia. Australia is China's sixth-largest trading partner and fifth-biggest supplier of imports. Twenty-five per cent of Australia's manufactured imports come from China. Thermal coal represents 13 per cent of all Australian exports to China and, recently, they tried to blackmail us about that. In more recent times, China has embarked on the 'one belt, one road' initiative. This is a Chinese government economic and strategic agenda, where Eurasia, Africa and Oceania are more closely tied along two routes: one land and one maritime. It is intended to facilitate Chinese economic and strategic domination of smaller countries along the route—indeed, Chinese control. For Australia, we see the growing Chinese involvement in projects from northern Australia right through to Tassie, all providing little benefit to Australia and yet substantial benefits to China. We need to understand this relationship; we don't just let them have an open door. Other examples of Chinese involvement have been in the funding and support of local academic conferences and seminars. The negative aspects of the Confucius Institute are only just being realised as some universities remove them from their offerings. Australia has been a destination of choice for many Chinese students, to further their education in an Australian academic institution. It's important to our economy. In 2018 there were more than 166,000 enrolments of Chinese students in Australia, representing 43.3 per cent of the total international student cohort—heading for half. A concern noted in some Australian universities is the potential dependence generated by full-fee-paying international students on the overall money pool available to university budgets. Should those numbers suddenly diminish it may leave some of our universities destitute and many university staff unpaid. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, these concerns have come to fruition and Australian universities are bleeding financially. To make matters worse, the Chinese government has just warned Chinese students not to study or return to study in Australia, suggesting that they would face discriminatory attacks. Australia has been a favourite destination for Chinese tourists, and this is shown again by recent numbers. More than 1.3 million Chinese tourists visited Australia last year, representing 15 per cent of our total visitors—one seventh. This is a clear positive for Australia. At the same time, there has been a growing boom in Australian tourists—around 700,000—heading for China. This may also change rapidly, as the Chinese government has recently warned off Chinese tourists from visiting our country through recent directives to their people. One of the ongoing issues of concern relates to regional and global security. The growing tensions between the United States of America and the People's Republic of China in the imposition of trade tariffs is placing Australia in a challenging position, given the importance of Australia's relationships with both countries. More recently, the Chinese government has imposed an 80 per cent tariff on Australian barley, without explanation, and has refused to accept meat from four of Australia's major meat abattoirs, causing concern to Australian producers. These actions by the Chinese government appear to be in retaliation for being called on by Australia to allow an independent investigation into the cause of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, China—what I have referred to as the Chinese Communist Party virus and the UN virus. How dare we want an independent investigation? The Chinese, still denying being the source of the outbreak of the worldwide pandemic, remain uncooperative in dealing with this, just as Liberal and Labor remain uncooperative in dealing with any inquiry into our relationship with China. Chinese actions and/or inaction certainly made the pandemic far worse than it could have been. The behaviour of China is responsible for the loss of tens of thousands of lives—in fact, hundreds of thousands of lives. The views taken of China's growing military influence in the South China Sea remain of concern to our most important ally, the United States of America, and are therefore necessarily of concern to our country as an established ally of the US. Regionally, China is having a growing influence through infrastructure projects for some of the Pacific island countries and our very near neighbour, Papua New Guinea, just over the horizon from Australia. This runs the risk of changing the whole dynamic between Australia and our near neighbours. Given the potential for military and strategic use of these bases by China and the potential for resource extraction at some future time, we need to consider this factor when examining our relationship with China. We already feel this at home, with the outrageous decision to lease the Darwin Port—our strategic northern gateway to China—for 99 years. This is the home of our local naval presence. What on earth was the government thinking? I point to Mr Dutton, Mr Hastie and Senator Kitching, who have raised valid concerns—both Liberal and Labor MPs and senators—just as Senator Patrick mentioned. This was reported on 11 October 2019 of Mr Dutton: One of the Morrison Government's most senior figures has taken a direct swipe at Beijing, accusing the Chinese Communist Party of behaving in ways that are "inconsistent" with Australian values. One of the key points that emerged was that: Mr Dutton said the Federal Government would call out state actors if it was in the national interest Well, let's see an inquiry. The report continued: He said he wanted universities to be free from foreign interference. So let's see an inquiry into that foreign interference that Mr Dutton acknowledges. The home affairs minister—a very powerful, senior minister—also criticised China's Belt and Road Initiative and defended a ban on using Huawei to help build Australia's 5G network. The newspaper article also says: Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton warned Australia would "call out" foreign interference in universities, as well as cyber hacks and theft of intellectual property (IP), insisting it was the right thing to do. It represents some of the strongest language yet from a Federal Government minister on the threat posed by China. But we need more than language. We need more than inferences. We need an inquiry into the relationship. The Chinese Communist Party behaves in ways that are inconsistent with Australian values and Western civilisation. Recently in Queensland, my home state, a university student was suspended for daring to make pro-democracy statements about the suppression of students and demonstrators in Hong Kong by the Chinese government. The University of Queensland appears now to be an agent of the Chinese government, which seems to have bought out this Australian university and to have been enabled by the university to oppress an Australian student for standing up for democracy. When I get to the point of quoting Clive Hamilton, then we know things are serious, because Clive Hamilton, to his credit, has written a book calling out the issues that we have with China—raising serious threats and concerns to our country and our country's security. My issue, I must make clear, is not with the marvellous Chinese people, including the amazing Chinese community we have here in Australia. We had Chinese influence in North Queensland through the gold rushes in the 19th century right through to the southern and western parts of our country, and they have made a marvellous contribution. My issue is with the Communist Party of China and their policies that are inconsistent with our own values. They have undue influence in Australian politics, values, communities and way of life. Human rights is an area where China and Australia have vastly different views. Australia is a democracy and a signatory to many international agreements that preserve basic human rights. China is a republic following a communist regime that is very rigid. It is a controlling machine with little room to question the state and with limited rights for the individual. Watch the demonstrations for freedom happening in Hong Kong to see how that goes down. Many Australians remember the appalling and tragic events at Tiananmen Square where many people's lives were sacrificed in the name of democracy. Our Prime Minister cried over that and understandably so, yet we can't even have an inquiry into our relationship with China. Tiananmen Square was not merely an incident, as recently reported in the media; it was one of the earliest signs to the West of China's serial breaching of human rights and the suppression of their own people in China. The detention of those whose views differ from the regime's is a continuing disgrace and worthy of further review. The government and Labor have sold out Australia's inheritance. No wonder they don't want us to have a review of this potentially catastrophic relationship. Will the Liberal Party and the Labor Party—will the Lib-Lab duopoly—look beyond the Chinese donations to their parties and do the right thing by our country? These actions by China would appear to threaten the relationship of mutual respect between the two countries and are worthy of inquiry. The actions of Lib-Lab MPs and governments handing control of essential services—like our electricity, for goodness sake; our ports; our food producers—to the Chinese Communist Party, is insane. Why are we doing it and why aren't we bothering to look into it? These deals threaten our honesty, fairness, humanity and our national security. One Nation supports the call for an inquiry into a nation exerting powerful influences over our nation with potentially far more powerful influences on our nation's future and on our people's security. 17:47 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I rise to commend the motion to the chamber. How many times are we going to have to do this? Honestly, I've been here now since 2014 and we're still talking about it. Let's just get it over and done with. You're embarrassing yourselves; you really are. You're embarrassing yourselves! How long is it going to take for the Liberals and the Labor Party to wake up to the fact that our relationship with China is toxic? You know it, and we know it, so, for goodness sake, come out and just admit it. While you're doing this, you're actually making yourselves look really bad, and it's getting worse. You are making it worse. How long is it going to take for you guys to see that we have a major problem here? It beggars belief that both of the major parties are still digging their heels in on this. Trust me: there mustn't be much left on that heel. It's time it went to a bootmaker! I can't believe that you have to be dragged kicking and screaming to do what's in Australia's national interest. But—mark my words you in the Liberal Party, you in the Labor Party, you in the Nats—one day you're going to have to get over yourselves, swallow your pride and actually start doing your jobs for what is in the national interest. Do your jobs. You get paid enough. It's not that hard. The Australian people will not tolerate you talking tough for the camera and going soft—and 'soft' is putting it politely—in the Senate. Here's my promise to you: this isn't going to just blow over; it's not going away. Sooner or later you'll be forced to actually vote with your conscience. Sooner or later you'll be asked to remember where you left it. And you know what? Sooner rather than later you're going to have to support this inquiry, because the problem is not going away. If anything, like I said, you are making it worse. You actually look like cowards. It's embarrassing that you are taking so long. What's even worse is that what you're doing is very un-Australian. You're not putting your country first. Show a spine. Better still, here's a good idea—I know it's really hard in this place—start showing some leadership. And I say this to those big-talking crossbenchers sitting on both sides of this chamber: you love to talk the talk, but, I tell you what, you're absolutely paralysed when it comes to walking the walk. You like to pretend to be brave on your Facebooks—you're right patriots, aren't you?—but when it's off the record you're about as lame as your memes. And what are you actually doing to get this inquiry off the ground? When are you going to put the needs of the country over the needs of your parties? I will call you out, Senator Abetz and Senator Paterson. I know that you know we have a point here. My goodness, I sit on the foreign affairs, defence and trade committee. I hear what's said behind those closed doors. Yet you don't have the courage to come forward and cross the floor. You don't have the courage to put your country first. When it comes to being accounted for, let's be honest: when it comes to that day when you could actually stand up and be counted, and you could actually show some courage, you go missing in action. You guys over on that side, in Labor, are meant to be the party of the worker. What an absolute joke. The party of the worker is happily selling off our farms and our businesses to foreign investors who feel no loyalty to the people who work here. Senator Kitching and Senator Keneally, come on: how can you vote against this inquiry with a straight face? How can you? How can you defend your position knowing what you know? Honestly, you make yourselves look like a pack of muppets. You stand up on your Facebooks and, at the same time, when you're asked to put bravery where your mouth is, all of a sudden, there are no Wolverines among you guys—absolutely none. As a matter of fact, you're about the size of a miniature teddy bear. Well, do you know what? It's the 21st century and there is social media everywhere out there. Australians see through you, and not just a few hundred thousand of them—millions. This will cost you seats in an election, but you're still not getting it. People want to see courage. They want to see bravery, they want to see action and they want you to start putting your country first. You beat your chests about being tough on China when it's Premier Daniel Andrews and the Belt and Road funding, but when you're asked to vote for an inquiry into Chinese efforts to infiltrate our universities, our political parties and our parliament itself, suddenly you get all gun-shy. You're all,' Hey, mum's the word.' Do you think people don't see what you're doing, and what you're doing to this country, through your gutlessness? You'll only stand tough against China when you aren't getting money from its state-run businesses. How much have you actually taken in Chinese money in the past? And that goes for the Liberal Party too. How much have you taken, Labor? How many leaflets have you posted out in the past that have been bought and paid for by the Communist Party of China? You say you're getting serious about foreign investment. You say you care, and then you go and sell off all of our critical assets. And it happens all the time. You say you're standing up for the national interest on trade, and you sign us up for free trade agreements that let Chinese companies sue us if they don't like changes to the law, but, by jeez, it doesn't work the other way. You say you're cracking down on human rights violations by Chinese nationals, but you vote down inquiries into Chinese nationals coming into Australia and gambling away dirty money through Crown Casino, who have in the past given all of you political donations. You're all for Australian sovereignty, until it hurts your political donation bottom line. That's the truth of the matter. We're being bought and sold by Chinese money. It's painful to watch. You pretend to take a firm line on China while you're stuffing their money into your own political pockets. By all means go hard on the national interest—but don't tell me you're serious about this while all you do on Chinese aggression in our region is wave your finger at it and say, 'Hey, tut-tut, bad little boys.' Please! Once again, courage—it's called courage. I'd show you how much China cares about your disappointment, but there isn't a microscope big enough or strong enough to see it with. Just be honest and up-front with the Australian people and say, 'We're not sure why we're angry, but we're angry, and we'll figure it out later.' You jump around from one side of the fence to the other, and go back and to and fro on what you choose to be outraged about so often that it's like you're being paid to pretend to give a damn about this stuff, and, quite frankly, you don't. And that even comes through on national security. You'll have one side worrying about our national security; you'll have Senator Keneally going at Minister Dutton all the time about national security. Neither of you actually give a stuff about national security. That's been made quite clear. Well, guess what? I've got news for you. Some of us over here actually care about this. We love our country and put our country first, and our national security means everything to us. For some of us this isn't just an applause line. Some of us care about selling at the farm gate for rock-bottom prices, and when you in the Liberals and you in the Nationals and you in the Labor Party—all of you—let it happen it breaks our hearts. You are selling our national soul, and I tell you it is slow and it is painful. Some of us actually care when a member of parliament—someone with undisclosed links to the Chinese Communist Party, someone who's hosting dinners for people on ASIO's watchlist of potential foreign agents—is paying for their own election with some filthy, dirty, disgusting money from China. Let me be very clear here: I'm not trying to have a go at Chinese people. There are plenty of people in China and in Australia who are just as horrified as I and millions of other Australians are about what is going on in Australia's backyard, but we have to be able to call out the aggressive actions of a foreign country that is trying to undermine our national security and our national sovereignty. Asking questions about foreign influence in our parliament is not about race. Calling out a supposed ally that is literally hacking our parliamentary computer systems is not about race. This is a country that we have banned from building our 5G network because we think they'll hack us. But if you say anything about it you're being racist. And that's rubbish. I don't understand it. We don't trust Chinese money to build a mobile phone network, but we trust it to bankroll our election campaigns. You go figure! Go work that one out. You guys want to look tough, but you're being asked to put your hand on your heart and vote with your conscience instead of your chequebook, and all of a sudden every Wolverine in the room is reduced to a wimp. The cowardice and the dishonesty from both parties on this are absolutely astounding. Everyone in this chamber knows that we have a problem. Goodness me, even the communist Chinese know we have a problem! And do you think they're going to stop coming at us? Do you think, by us rolling over like a dog, they're going to stop coming at us? What you're doing is showing them fear. You're giving them everything they want. We all know that we have a problem. This inquiry is the first step to finding a solution. It's a very simple, straightforward idea. All we're asking for is a Senate inquiry into Australia's future relationship with China. What's the problem? All we want to do is have a conversation about what's going on and what we need to do to protect Australia's national interests. It shouldn't be that controversial. But the major parties' masters in the Chinese Communist Party have called them to heel and, once again, they're rolling over like a dog, as they always do. These are the people who are running the country. It's shameful, and shame on you for allowing it. I'm not just talking about the ministers and shadow ministers. Each and every backbencher who has had a hand in voting this down should take a damn good, hard look at themselves and start putting their bloody country first before it is too late. Show your courage. Start leading for your country. That's what your voters expect of you, and that's what your country deserves. Stop being a pack of cowards. It has gone far enough. 17:59 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Australia's relationship with China has been a hot topic in the community and the media in recent times. Of course this is an issue that our parliament should consider. This is something that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee should inquire into. How we manage this relationship is a critical foreign policy question for this government, and it will no doubt continue to be for future governments. There are myriad facets to this complex relationship, from how we address the coronavirus health crisis and investigations into international responses to our trading relationship, to the impact Chinese government decisions can have on sectors like our universities or farmers, to the increasing competition between Xi's China and Trump's US, to China's Belt and Road Initiative and its influence in the Pacific. However, in my limited time today I'd like to focus on an aspect that, sadly, gets neglected by the Australian government, and that is the Chinese government's human rights record. The world's focus is understandably diverted, but human rights abuses continue to occur in China on a massive scale. In the past few months, while China was publicly touting its success in containing the virus, it was also forcibly disappearing people who were independently reporting on that issue. The Chinese government has detained five activists and citizen journalists who publicly reported on the outbreak. This is just another example of the Chinese government's opaque justice system and its government's efforts to censor people. The Chinese government must immediately and unconditionally release these people. And, of course, front of everyone's mind at the moment should be the erosion of fundamental rights in Hong Kong. One year ago yesterday, on 9 June 2019, over one million Hong Kong people marched peacefully against the extradition bill—a law that would have allowed the Hong Kong authorities to transfer criminal suspects to China and into the hands of its dangerous and unfair criminal justice system. Thankfully that bill did not proceed, but in the past few weeks we've seen the Chinese government double down and announce that it will impose draconian national security legislation in Hong Kong. Instead of addressing the protestors' demands, particularly for universal suffrage, Beijing has called the protests 'riots' and the protestors 'a political virus'. The national security law would further trample Hong Kong rights and freedoms; protest could be treated as subversion. The Greens have been vocal in our calls for Beijing to abandon the planned laws. We call on the Australian government to do more than simply issue strongly worded statements. We should be offering safe haven to those in Hong Kong who fear retaliation for exercising their basic rights, as well as permanent protection to all those from Hong Kong who are here in Australia and currently fear going home, just as Bob Hawke offered to do after Tiananmen Square. And we should reassess Australia's recently signed free trade agreement with Hong Kong. As the Greens said when the legislation passed through the parliament late last year, of course we shouldn't enter into such an agreement when Hong Kong's fundamental rights are under threat. The events of the past few weeks have demonstrated how true that was. It's now time for the government to follow words with actions and revisit that agreement. I'll go on to the appalling human rights abuses being committed in China's Xinjiang region against its Turkic Muslim population, which have not stopped in the face of COVID-19. Xinjiang has a Turkic Muslim population of 13 million people. Of that 13 million, approximately one million are arbitrarily detained without any legal process. They are detained for weeks, months and sometimes even years. Families have been torn apart. Those who are incarcerated are subject to forced labour, sometimes to torture, and to forced political indoctrination. Outside the camps, Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims are denied the right to freedom of movement, to privacy and to freedom of religion. The mass surveillance that is occurring in Xinjiang is terrifying. People going about their lawful daily business are watched constantly by the state. They're forced to give their biometric data, and face and voice recognition technology is being used as a tool of repression. My colleagues have in this place spoken before and no doubt will again about some of the Uyghur Australians whose lives have been irreparably altered by the Chinese government's devastating repression—people whose wives and babies have been trapped in China for years or whose family members are imprisoned for so-called transgressions like studying overseas in Muslim-majority countries. Then of course we have the injustices being perpetrated against the Tibetan people by the Chinese government. Tibetans have been deprived of their right to democracy, their right to freedom of speech and their right to freedom of religious observance. Right now in Tibet people can be locked up for years and years for simply doing things like making documentaries. Tibetan monks and nuns are being forced by Chinese authorities to act as propagandists for the Chinese government and the Communist Party, and Tibetan children are being denied the right to be taught in their own language. Plans for massive nature reserves in Tibet threaten to further dispossess Tibetan nomads, under the guise of protecting a unique and important ecosystem. And of course there's the 11th Panchen Lama of Tibet, who was forcibly disappeared with his parents by the Chinese government at only six years of age. He has been missing for the last 25 years. On 25 April he turned 31. He has been disappeared for the last 25 years in blatant contravention of international law. Australia must urgently make it clear to the Chinese government that the world has not forgotten him or his family, despite the Chinese government's best efforts to erase him from our memory. He and his family must be released. Of course the Senate should be considering our relationship with China in the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee. If not this issue, then what? If not now, then when? The Morrison government has thus far failed to take any meaningful action against the Chinese government's egregious human rights abuses, so perhaps the Senate can provide him with some suggestions. 18:05 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I rise to briefly speak in support of Senator Patrick's motion to refer a matter to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee. Australia's relationship with the CCP is a matter of significant national importance and ought be examined by a Senate committee. In order to fully understand how important it is to Australia and to understand our vulnerabilities in this context we do need to reflect on history and on the current activities of the CCP. Firstly, I want to briefly reflect on the historic invasion and annexation of Tibet in 1950, the subsequent brutal occupation of that country and the subsequent destruction of Tibetan culture, the Tibetan way of life and the unique and beautiful environment on the Tibetan plateau. We also need to reflect, as my colleague Senator Waters just did, on the abduction of the Panchen Lama 25 years ago in flagrant contravention of human rights norms and to call strongly for the Panchen Lama and his family to be released from wherever they are secretly locked up and allow him to take his position in the Tibetan religious framework. We also need to think about what's happening today to the Uighur people in China. It is estimated that one million to three million Uighur people have been forcibly imprisoned without trial, systemically indoctrinated, punished and harmed. Significant restrictions are placed on Uighur people who are not in those prisons. They are not free to go about their day-to-day lives in any way. We also need to reflect on Hong Kong. As Senator Waters said, yesterday marked the one-year anniversary of a civil uprising in Hong Kong in protest against the Chinese government's attempts to undermine the freedoms and liberties that have existed for so many decades in that place, and against the Chinese government's ruthless and ongoing attempt to quash democracy and to subjugate Hong Kong's citizens. As the leader of the Greens, Adam Bandt, has said, we need to follow Bob Hawke's lead and open our arms to Hong Kongers in Australia and offer them safe haven, because for so many of them it is simply not safe to go back to Hong Kong and not safe for their families to remain in Hong Kong, where they are facing intimidation from the CCP. The United Kingdom has raised the possibility of accepting up to three million people from Hong Kong should the CCP continue its attempts to quash freedoms and democracy in Hong Kong. It's not good enough that Australia has not joined in that push, which also involves other Five Eyes countries. I'm not going to mince words here: the CCP is a totalitarian regime that seeks to ruthlessly control every aspect of its citizens' lives. Ultimately, that government, the CCP, is a junta which came to power using arms and force and maintains its grip on power using arms and force. The activities of that government need to be properly examined, and Australia's relationship with that government needs to be properly examined by a Senate committee. I'm not expecting the major parties in this place to support this motion. They've made that very clear in the past. I can't help but suspect that the Labor Party's refusal to support this motion is about providing cover to Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews who signed up Victoria to the Belt and Road Initiative and who is being excessively secretive about whatever arrangements he has made, in leading a Victorian Labor government, with the Chinese Communist Party. In light of all of those matters, it's critical that Australia's relationship with the CCP is examined by a Senate committee. For those reasons and others, the Australian Greens will be supporting this proposal. 18:11 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I want to make some brief remarks on this proposed inquiry. I recognise the good faith with which this inquiry is being brought forward. I think many of the issues that have been raised here do deserve examination, and I will come to those. But I do want to briefly put on the record the reasons I won't be supporting this specific inquiry. Some of them go to the substantive issues that have been raised through this debate. I will come back to ones that I think do deserve inquiry and investigation by this parliament and its committees. As much as I share the concerns of Senator McKim and other contributors to this debate on human rights abuses in China and as much as I also share concerns about developments in Hong Kong, I do think the primary focus of committees of this parliament should be on matters that relate directly to the Australian people and matters relating to Australia. There are other forums to investigate issues of human rights abuses in other nations, and I think we should be a little bit wary of seeking to use our parliamentary committees and processes to, effectively, inquire into other nations. I don't think we would appreciate other countries' parliaments seeking to interfere in our domestic affairs, and we should respect that as a general rule. In saying that, some very important issues have been raised in this debate which do deserve further examination and which do relate directly to issues that go to our sovereignty and independence, and they should be investigated. In particular, our too heavy reliance on trade with China does deserve examination and inquiry, and we should be seeking to do what we can to diversify and reduce our vulnerability to those markets. To that end, an inquiry is already going on in this parliament. An inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth into diversifying Australia's trade and investment profile is currently underway. It's being chaired by a Nationals colleague of mine, George Christensen, and its terms of reference are very explicit. I won't read them out in full, but the terms of reference of that inquiry go to considering whether Australia is too reliant on one market for exports; the advantages and disadvantages to our national interests; the national economic risk of overreliance on one market; whether Australia is too reliant on foreign investment and, if so, what factors are contributing to this; and many other factors that go exactly to many of the issues that have been raised in this debate. My colleague George Christensen is doing a very good job, I think, of highlighting these issues. In particular, the inquiry will look at our relationship with China. It is a joint committee, so senators are represented on the committee. Given the importance and the sensitivity of this issue, it is enough to have that inquiry look at these matters at this stage and not proceed with this specific Senate inquiry right now. 18:14 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I also rise to add my voice in support of this reference to the foreign affairs, defence and trade committee and to add my voice to the sentiments which have already been expressed by my colleagues here, Senator Waters and Senator McKim, about China and its human rights record. I think that in itself is a significant reason why we should be looking at the issue of Australia's relationship with China. China is our largest trading partner. We know that our relationship with China is in turmoil at the moment, but we have to keep a focus on the fact that the underlying issue with our relationship with China and why it is controversial is that the Chinese government is a totalitarian state. They are not a democracy like we are here in Australia. Yes, we have problems with human rights in Australia. In fact, in response to Senator Canavan's comment that he wouldn't like other countries to be looking at our human rights record, I think other countries should be looking at our human rights record. I think other countries should be looking at how we treat refugees. Other countries should be looking at how we treat our First Nations people. We in Australia need to look at what's going on in China. We cannot be silent. We cannot just say, 'Because it's happening in China we will turn our eyes away,' yet we are happy to continue to export our produce to them and happy to have that relationship. I speak from the privilege of not having to be at the mercy of the Chinese government, but I have spoken to so many people who have been, stemming from when I was first elected to Maribyrnong council as a councillor in 2006 and I had some Falun Gong practitioners who came and met with me. I knew nothing about Falun Gong. I knew nothing about human rights in China at that stage. They laid out for me what was going on in China, with political prisoners who are disappearing and then being killed—being killed! They are being murdered for their organs—for their hearts, for their livers, for their kidneys. From all the evidence that can be discerned it's still going on. There is absolutely credible reference and evidence of very learned legal people who have put together the documentation that it's still going on. I sponsored a motion with Senator Abetz—a very strange thing for me to do as a Green to be cosponsoring a motion with Senator Abetz—to try to get a focus and a spotlight in this place on what's going on in relation to Falun Gong practitioners. It doesn't stop in China. We know, in fact, that there are agents of the Chinese government who are following those Falun Gong practitioners who manage to come to Australia and be refugees here. It doesn't stop at the Chinese border. The same goes for the Tibetans. I have some very good friends in the Tibetan community in Melbourne who have welcomed me into their lives. They have told me what goes on in Tibet. They have told me about the abuses. They have told me about horrible examples of people disappearing, people not being able to speak out and people being killed. They've told me that that's what's going on. Then we've got the issue of the democracy movements in Hong Kong. You just think: look at the crackdown on those people who are just fighting for what we think are our rights here. They thought it was their right in Hong Kong as well, just to be able to be living in a democratic system and yet that is now all under threat. We need to speak up. We need to shine a spotlight on this. I know from the position of the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Labor Party that it can be very inconvenient, because they've got some very close financial relationships. There are some big donors and there are some big economic players who they don't want to upset, but we cannot let that stop us taking action. At the very least what we can do, as a very important first step, is to have this Senate inquiry to look at these issues in the context of our broader relationship with China. 18:19 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania The Morrison government continues to lead an informed conversation on China and has avoided politicising these important matters. The China relationship is important and complex, engaging the full range of Australia's national interests. We seek to address differences through dialogue and with respect. The government's China policy is clear: we pursue cooperation consistent with our national interests and in line with our values. We have a comprehensive strategic partnership which benefits both countries. We remain focused on areas of cooperation that support both our interests. The Morrison government will continue to deliver outcomes that advance our national interests, protect our sovereignty and enhance our security and prosperity. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Patrick be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [18:24]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)

 14 AYES Di Natale, R Faruqi, M Fierravanti-Wells, C Griff, S (teller) Hanson, P Hanson-Young, SC Lambie, J McKim, NJ Patrick, RL Rice, J Roberts, M Siewert, R Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 29 NOES Antic, A Askew, W Bragg, A J Brockman, S Carr, KJ Chandler, C Colbeck, R Duniam, J Gallacher, AM Green, N Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J Keneally, KK Lines, S McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McLachlan, A McMahon, S O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Rennick, G Scarr, P Sheldon, A Smith, DA Urquhart, AE (teller) Van, D Walsh, J 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS 81 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Amendment Rules (No. 2) 2020 81 Disallowance 81 18:27 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That items 5 to 7 of Schedule 1 of the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Amendment Rules (No. 2) 2020, made under the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020, be disallowed. This Greens motion disallows provisions of the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Amendment Rules (No. 2) 2020. Items 5 to 7 of schedule 1 limit universities' eligibility for the JobKeeper wage subsidy. This motion would reverse the extension of the turnover calculation period to six months and the inclusion of funding supplied under the Higher Education Support Act and the Australian Research Council Act in the relevant definition of revenue for universities. Had the government done the right thing in the first place and included our universities in the JobKeeper program, we would not be here. Instead, Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his ministers have gone out of their way not once, not twice but three times to amend the eligibility criteria for JobKeeper to close off any hope universities might have of accessing the program. First they created a lower, 15 per cent, fall in revenue threshold for charities, before quickly clarifying they didn't mean universities, despite them being recognised as charities and outstanding contributors to their communities. Their second change—delivered sneakily late on a Friday afternoon, as a lot of the worst trash this government puts out is—was that universities would now have to count government funding under the Higher Education Support Act and Australian Research Council Act towards their revenue totals for the purposes of JobKeeper—another shift in the goalposts to keep JobKeeper out of reach for workers in higher education. The final nail in the coffin, or twist of the knife, as one group of universities put it, was the extension of the period over which universities' revenue fall was to be measured from one month to six months. Once again, it's one rule for the rest of the country and it's one altogether for university workers, who the government is determined not to help. And so in three eleventh-hour rule changes, the government has condemned Australian higher education to an existential crisis. They'll claim they've thrown a little regulatory fee relief and some extra short courses at the problem, but we know that these are not even in the realm of enough and could never justify the government passing the buck on supporting staff and students during this crisis. To make it all the more clear just how little the government cares, they also took the chance after this motion was tabled to amend the rules to allow four private universities access to the scheme while continuing to fail our public universities. Make no mistake about the impact the government's failure has had, and will have: 30,000 university staff are facing unemployment and hundreds have already lost their jobs or know that their contracts won't be renewed. From PhD students and casual tutors to career academics, professional staff and support workers, higher education workers are losing their jobs as a direct result of the government's failure to provide support, including access to JobKeeper. Even if the government didn't care about the human toll of their neglect, and it really appears that they don't, the mind boggles that they can't see the disastrous long-term impacts it will have on the whole sector. Seven thousand of the 21,000 full-time equivalent jobs expected to be lost are in research related academic positions—researchers whose expertise and experience could help steer us through this crisis and build a better future on the other side are instead facing unemployment. Some are working on a vaccine for COVID-19 while their jobs and the jobs of their colleagues are more under threat than ever. With those jobs will go long-running research programs that our future depends upon, and generations of research talent that may never return to academia. I feel in particular for the casual and insecurely employed staff at universities who this crisis has hit first and hardest. Over decades, the government has allowed casualisation and insecure work to run rampant in unis to the detriment of students' learning, staff wellbeing and research excellence. It's made higher education amongst the most casualised and least-secure industries in the country. Universities in Australia now employ far more in casual jobs than they do in permanent ones. Data from the Workplace Gender Equality Agency shows that a majority of our universities have rates of casualisation exceeding 40 per cent. Many more staff are employed insecurely or on fixed-term contracts. In my time teaching at a university I never saw the levels of anxiety, stress and constant worry in academic environments that I've seen in recent years, where a majority of the staff are being forced to work without paid leave, without sick leave and with no certainty of ongoing jobs. Coronavirus has made these conditions worse. A survey conducted by the University of New South Wales Casuals Network found that one in three casuals had already lost work due to COVID-19, that 81 per cent feared losing their jobs and that one in three of these were working more than 10 unpaid hours per week. We are absolutely committed to seeing that no worker is left behind, and that means including casuals in our demand for security for workers. In giving universities access to JobKeeper the government must also ensure that it extends to all casuals, lest we see generations of academic talent lost and more lives destroyed. The losses that have happened and those that will come, if the government doesn't act, should be felt as a society. When we, existentially, threaten public universities and their contribution to our democracy, communities and economy, we threaten our commitment to developing the knowledge and solidarity which can build a better world for each and every one of us. Not, of course, that the government cares. Exclusion from JobKeeper is just the latest episode in the Liberals long-running series of malicious attacks on universities. As much as it is farcical, the government bending over backwards to deny universities access to the wage subsidy is incredibly sinister stuff as well. Universities have been dealing with huge uncertainties for months now. Constantly shifting the goalposts is not only enormously unfair to them but revealing of how the Liberals feel about higher education. The clear intent to lock universities out of JobKeeper can only be explained by the Liberals' ongoing hostility to higher education and their commitment to starve universities of funding. They are fully aware that 30,000 jobs are on the line, but they just don't care, because this is an opportunity to destabilise and weaken the university sector and lay the groundwork for further marketisation. Scott Morrison and his ministers' mistreatment of universities in this crisis is nothing but ideology writ large. They don't even have a financial justification to hide behind for excluding universities—or migrants and casuals, for that matter—from JobKeeper. With a whopping $60 billion underspent on JobKeeper, that could be going towards universities, casuals, migrant workers, disability support pensioners and carers with a stroke of the pen. It's clear that the government is acting out of malice. It's important to note that access to JobKeeper alone will not be enough to protect the tertiary education sector, but it is an absolutely necessary lifeline. In addition to JobKeeper, the government must back universities through a new complete package which would massively boost funding, save jobs and improve universities for staff and students alike. A serious funding boost would help shade unis from the shock of international crises like coronavirus by reducing their dependence on international student fees. With extra funding we can eliminate the uncertainty of our fragile system so unis can improve learning and teaching conditions for decades to come. There is no going back to business as usual after COVID-19—and we shouldn't really want to. Universities and TAFEs are absolutely central to research, reskilling, education and training. We need to survive this crisis and build a just economy and society afterwards. Higher education should play a key role in making ours a fairer, more equal country. Through that, we have to reset the neoliberal logic and the corporatisation and commercialisation that has been foisted on uni communities for too long. We have long called for free university and TAFE. We must reimagine universities as a public good, not corporate institutions, with democratic governance structures that support all staff and students in their collective pursuit of knowledge. It is our radical and unapologetic demand that all jobs be protected and that all people should have lifelong access to free tertiary education of the highest quality. The Greens will always do everything we can to protect jobs and support workers in tertiary education. The disallowance before us goes some way to easing the punitive restrictions on JobKeeper access that are causing thousands of jobs around the country to be lost, but it unfortunately cannot unwind them all. It's telling that the government has drafted the JobKeeper rules such that the exclusion of universities from the lower revenue threshold of charities cannot be disallowed by this chamber. With the stroke of a pen, the government could reverse their absurd exclusion of universities from this program and begin the hard work of protecting the university sector. There are 30,000 jobs on the line, with impacted staff in every corner of the country. The unfair treatment must end today. Parliament has the opportunity to reject this malicious exclusion of universities. I thank the members who will be supporting this motion for putting the interests of workers and the community first. I call on crossbench senators to do the right thing and back this motion. As I'm sure Senator Lambie is aware, the University of Tasmania is being forced to cut staff and courses. And I'm sure the One Nation senators from Queensland are aware of the terrible situation the Central Queensland University has found itself in, with hundreds of people set to lose their jobs. This disallowance will save jobs in every state and territory and deliver much-needed support to our universities and their staff and students at a very difficult time. I commend the motion to the Senate. 18:39 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I rise to support the proposition from Senator Faruqi. The COVID-19 pandemic has been perhaps the most challenging health issue that Australia and the world have ever faced. Thankfully, through the good sense of the Australian people, we've been able to limit the number of lives that have been lost. Of course, any life lost is tragic. To the relatives and families of the hundred people who've lost their lives, I wish to express my support and say that the thoughts of all Australians are with you at this difficult time and that you are not alone. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused massive damage to the Australian economy. The Treasurer has admitted that we're in a recession. Unemployment is expected to reach more than 10 per cent. The scenes of workers queuing outside Centrelink offices are a stark and sad reminder of the impact this crisis is having on the livelihoods of millions of Australians. The response from this government has been reactive when it comes to managing the economy and the impacts. We know that they never wanted to introduce JobKeeper. They were hoping to push workers onto jobseeker, and it was not going to be at the increased level of support but at the old Newstart rates. It was a campaign from the Labor opposition, the crossbench and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, along with business, that forced the government to announce both the enhancement of jobseeker and the JobKeeper program. The government were forced into JobKeeper and has been trying to reduce its effectiveness ever since. Then we had the largest costing blunder in Australia's history: the $60 billion error, the Frydenberg fail, which will define the economic credentials of this Treasurer and this government. The holes in JobKeeper are resulting in thousands of Australians falling through the cracks. Casuals, entertainment workers, those on temporary visas, workers in businesses like dnata and those working at universities have been let down by this government and this Treasurer. It is a clear demonstration of the government's lack of compassion for Australian workers. The regulations made to JobKeeper to exclude universities will leave over 21,000 people vulnerable to losing their jobs in the next few months. The higher education sector is expected to lose between $3 billion to $5 billion in 2020 due to COVID-19, affecting their income. Universities Australia has announced that each of its 39 members are projected to have an average shortfall of between $77 million and $118 million, mostly due to the plunge in international tuition fee revenue. This is a devastating blow to universities, and already the job losses have begun. Deakin University announced up to 400 jobs are to go. The university of Central Queensland, based in Rockhampton, is reported to be reducing staff by up to 300 positions and is closing its Biloela, Noosa and Yeppoon sites. At Charles Sturt University jobs are already under threat. At Wollongong university nearly 400 jobs could be lost. The list of universities that will be forced by this government to sack staff will only get bigger. These job losses will be felt by those workers who lose their jobs, their families and their colleagues. The impact on regional communities will be enormous. University campuses are critical employers in regional towns. They provide reliable, well-paid, good jobs in communities that need the income these jobs provide. The impact will then be felt by the small businesses and service providers in these towns. Incomes will be reduced, and spending in the shops and businesses across these communities will be hit hard. But where are the National Party on these issues? Why aren't they standing up for regional jobs? As per usual, they're asleep at the wheel again. They should be working to protect regional jobs, not standing by and watching the disaster unfold. I want to commend the National Tertiary Education Union for their steadfast advocacy of these workers, doing everything they can to keep them in secure jobs. As Dr Alison Barnes, National President of the NTEU, said: The tertiary education sector is vital for protecting our health, our economy and our society. It is the engine room to cure COVID-19 - delivering the health and medical research that saves lives. Without a real, secure package with new money, we are looking at losing tens of thousands of jobs. Sally McManus tweeted: Universities have become totally dependant on casual workers, most of whom are highly educated, dedicating their lives to their field of knowledge. Highly skilled ppl have lost their jobs and are excluded from JobKeeper. How's this fair and what's the plan Dan? Well, this is no-plan Dan, just as this is the no-plan government—to deal with the important impacts that COVID-19 has had on the economy. Australian universities have had huge success over the last few decades. Since the Dawkins reforms of the Hawke era, they have redefined their role in Australian society. They've become places where people from all backgrounds can gain an education and get the opportunity to become doctors or lawyers or go into many other professional careers. They've become a powerhouse for our economy. The higher education sector is Australia's third largest export industry, employing more than 220,000 workers. Whereas in 1989 universities derived more than 80 per cent of operating costs from the public purse, now it's estimated to be less than 40 per cent. They are not only providing a much-needed economic stimulus to our country but also building a more diverse and inclusive country. They are building lifelong links between Australia and the countries that people who attend our universities come from. These are links that will benefit Australia both socially and economically for many decades to come. This all happens because of the ongoing sustainability of Australian universities. This all happens because we have a wonderful workforce supporting and teaching these students and providing them with a positive experience in Australia. This is what the government is putting at risk through their short-sighted and mean-spirited approach to this issue. Universities are an integral part of Australia's research and development effort. Their research partnerships with business are driving innovation and helping Australians to compete for the jobs of the future. The research being conducted in Australian universities—in information technology, engineering, the arts and, critically, health—is setting up the new business of the next decade and beyond. By harming our universities with their approach, the government is putting this vital role at risk. How many new inventions, medical advances and other research breakthroughs will be lost because the government doesn't value these institutions? Universities Australia chair and Curtin University Vice-Chancellor Deborah Terry reminded us of the impact on the wider economy when she commented on the impact of COVID-19 on university research. She said: We need to look at R&D investment that is much closer, at least, to the OECD average. She went on to say: We are all going to be paying a lot of attention to GDP over the next little while. Here's a known driver of GDP and it's absolutely imperative that we understand that. Professor Terry is right. The path to higher growth, better jobs and growing income starts with innovation and research. This is core business for our universities. The government must change course on this damaging decision. They've backed down on the rate of the jobseeker payment. They've backed down on the need for JobKeeper. It's time to back down and support this proposal. I commend the motion to the Senate. 18:50 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I will take up this opportunity as a right of reply to thank Senator Sheldon for his support for the workers in universities. It actually says a lot about this Liberal-National government that they can't even stand up and justify their stance on why they are not supporting university workers. That's because they do not have a justification. But today we do have an opportunity to begin righting the wrong of higher education's exclusion from the JobKeeper program and the government's failure to support the sector, its staff and students through this crisis. It is an opportunity to staunch the wound that this government's malice for public tertiary education has inflicted on our response to this crisis and our future. Whether or not this motion succeeds, we will continue our efforts to support every worker in this country through this crisis and beyond. We will continue to fight the myopic neoliberal corporatism that those opposite us time and again use to weaken public institutions and the communities they are part of. We will continue to offer a vision of education in this country that is accorded the value it deserves with the resources and the security of work necessary to build the socially, economically and environmentally just future this crisis has shown we so desperately need. I want every worker in universities, in education or otherwise to know that the Greens are with them in their struggle. We know and we deplore the precarity the government would have you live in. We are doing everything we can to see this end. 18:52 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory by leave—In response to the economic crisis caused by the coronavirus, the government has provided total economic support worth $260 billion or 13.3 per cent of GDP. As part of this response, the $70 billion JobKeeper program provides unprecedented support to millions of Australians. Eligibility has focused on maximising the reach of the JobKeeper program while ensuring that the program is able to be implemented as quickly and efficiently as possible while remaining sustainable. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [18:57]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 30 AYES Ayres, T Bilyk, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Ciccone, R Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallagher, KR Green, N Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Keneally, KK Kitching, K Lines, S McAllister, J McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Pratt, LC Rice, J Sheldon, A Siewert, R Urquhart, AE (teller) Walsh, J Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P 31 NOES Antic, A Askew, W Birmingham, SJ Bragg, A J Brockman, S Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P (teller) Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J Lambie, J McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McLachlan, A McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Rennick, G Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Smith, DA Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 86 BILLS Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020 86

Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020

Second Reading 86 19:00 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania As I was saying before this debate on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020 was interrupted, the ACTU's submission noted that, between them, two inquiries—the Productivity Commission's 2009 inquiry and a 2014 review of the current scheme—found numerous benefits from paid parental leave. These included improved child and maternal health and wellbeing, but there were also benefits for employers. The Queensland Nurses and Midwives Union noted in its submission that offering flexible return-to-work arrangements is in the employer's interests as it helps to attract and retain skilled workers. As several submitters have noted, the government's changes to paid parental leave simply do not go far enough, and much more needs to be done to improve the participation of women in work. I doubt, however, that we can rely on those opposite to expand the scheme, given their previous attempts to undermine it. In 2016, the Liberal government attempted to cut the publicly funded Paid Parental Leave Scheme for workers who were accessing employer provided paid parental leave entitlements. The cuts would have impacted around 80,000 families. In the previous year, the government insulted those families by referring to parents who access both government and employer funded schemes as rorters and double dippers. The attitude of those opposite in 2015 and 2016 was a strong statement that they think our publicly funded paid parental leave is too generous, despite it being so low by the standards of other advanced economies. Although the expansion of paid parental leave is an important measure to achieve equality between men and women, when it comes to engagement in work, it is only one of several public policy measures that are needed. I'd like to be able to say that those opposite are making progress on equality for women in the workforce in other areas. Sadly, the opposite is true. It might be news to the Treasurer that, contrary to his claims that the gender pay gap in Australia has closed, it actually remains stubbornly high at 14 per cent. In absolute terms, this means women earn an average of $240 a week less than men. One area in which more needs to be done to address this gap is improving pay in industries dominated by women workers. In 2012, social and community services workers won a landmark equal pay case in the Fair Work Commission. The commission's ruling ensured that workers in the sector, which has had a high representation of women, would receive pay commensurate with comparable male dominated industries, and I am particularly proud to note that the union I used to work for, the Australian Services Union, led the case. I'm also proud that it was a Labor government that legislated to allow equal pay cases to be brought before the commission. I'm also proud to say that it was the same Labor government which agreed to fund the pay increases through supplementation to Australian government grants. The equal remuneration order, or ERO, supplementation is due to expire in 2021-22, and it's an absolute disgrace that this Liberal government has taken no action to extend the supplementation payments or to incorporate them into base grants. Supplementation is due to end for about 220 organisations, and I have had a number of community service organisations which rely on Australian government grants contact me and explain what the cut to the ERO supplementation means to their particular services. We're going to see savage cuts to services that are helping feed the homeless, support the elderly and people with disability, and shelter women fleeing domestic and family violence. These cuts are outrageous not only because of the reduction in vital community services but also because they undermine the important progress that was made on gender pay equity through the 2012 equal pay decision. This is a sector in which 80 per cent of workers are women. If the Morrison government refuses to continue providing the funding necessary to give effect to the Fair Work Commission's equal pay decision, that is sending a very strong message to the sector and to the broader community that they do not believe in equal pay—that women's work is somehow of less value than the work done by men. Another area that needs action to address pay equity is having more women in management and leadership positions. A report by consultant Conrad Liveris in 2017 found that women in chair and CEO roles in Australia's 200 largest companies were outnumbered by men called John. There are also more Peters running Australia's largest companies than women, and more Davids, too. There is something very wrong happening with women's equality if the leaders of Australia's largest companies are more likely to be called John, David or Peter than they are to be women. When Labor in government established the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, we introduced a straightforward requirement for organisations with more than 100 employees to report against several gender quality indicators. It's fortunate that the Liberal government, after pressure from women's and business groups, did not accept their Commission of Audit's recommendation to scrap the agency. There was unfortunately an attempt by the government to water down the reporting requirements, but thankfully this failed. In and of themselves, the WGEA's reporting requirements do not have any direct impact on workplace gender equality, but they are an important tool for tracking progress towards gender equality and keeping businesses accountable for their progress. This is why Labor remains committed to these requirements, and it is a great shame that those opposite haven't always fully shared this commitment. In addition to the current reporting requirements, Labor has called on the government to require companies with over 1,000 employees to also report publicly on how much they pay women compared with men. This would show which companies are contributing to closing the gender pay gap and which ones need to do more. This government's approach to industrial relations does very little to help close the gender pay gap. The Morrison government has boasted that low wage growth is a deliberate design feature of their policy, and this is of little surprise when you consider their record. Take, for example, voting to cut penalty rates, opposing increases to the minimum wage and the many ways in which they've undermined enterprise bargaining and efforts to stop unfair labour hire practices. Given that women are over-represented in low-paid industries, the efforts of those opposite to suppress wage growth have a disproportionate impact on women workers. Sadly, low-income workers are highly represented amongst those who have lost their jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic. So, as a result of the pandemic, women's equality in the workforce is going to slide even further backwards. Women are also more highly represented in the occupations that are on the front line of the crisis, particularly health care, and the burdens of extra caring responsibilities are more likely to fall on women. The disproportionate impact of the pandemic on women in work is such that there is an even more pressing need during the recovery to commit to boosting women's equality in terms of pay and workforce participation. Australia ranks 44th out of 153 countries on the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Index. In 2013, when those opposite came to power, we were ranked 23rd. So we've slid 21 places under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. The lack of progress on gender equality by this government should be of no surprise when you consider the lack of progress on equality within their own party room. Less than a quarter of the Liberal Party's federal members and senators are women, compared with almost half for the Labor Party. Until the Liberals make significant progress towards increasing the representation in their parliamentary ranks and within the cabinet, they are going to struggle to make progress towards improving equality for all women. They will continue their poor record on helping women to engage in work, to earn the same as their male counterparts and to succeed in attaining leadership positions. This is because men will continue to dominate decision-making on the government's policy approach to gender equality. The flexibility provisions in this bill are just one tentative step towards equality in a journey of many, many miles. I commend the bill to the Senate. 19:09 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia I rise in support of the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020. This bill amends the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 to introduce measures to make parental leave more flexible. The bill allows new parents to split the 18 weeks of public paid parental leave into a continuous 12-week paid parental leave period to be taken in one block and a six-week flexible period that can be taken at any time during the first two years. These changes will apply to children born on or after 1 July in any way that fits the needs of individual families. There is no doubt that the changes in this bill are important reforms for families and will provide much-needed flexibility as they navigate a return to work for the primary carer. The changes as proposed should assist new parents to maximise time with their young children—a very important consideration. Also, these changes will support self-employed women and small-business owners who may not be able to leave their businesses for 18 consecutive weeks. The changes demonstrate a more contemporary understanding of how modern parenting and work interact, and I commend the government's efforts to make Australia's parental leave scheme more flexible and to better support working parents and families. However, it also represents a missed opportunity by this government to review the legislation underpinning the scheme, which is now 10 years old. We all accept that support for working parents is crucially important to a number of social and economic outcomes, including gender equality, economic security for women and increased workforce participation for women. Improvements in any of these areas ultimately lead to better economic outcomes for the nation as a whole. However, we also know that the Australian Paid Parental Leave scheme is far from best practice when compared with similar jurisdictions, particularly in Scandinavia and Canada. One area the government has failed to correct is an inconsistency in the scheme which penalises breadwinner mums and stay-at-home dads. This is because the eligibility for the government's 18-week parental leave pay is tied to the birth mother's income, except in the cases of adoption and fostering. So if the birth mother earns more than $150,000 the family cannot qualify for parental leave pay, even if her partner earns under the cap or earns nothing at all. Where the birth mother earns less than $150,000 she can access the parental leave payment regardless of how much her partner earns. A woman can transfer her entitlement to parental leave pay to a partner, but only if they both individually earn under $150,000. This is not a debate about the cap. This is not another class war. But it embeds discrimination and sexism in the paid parental leave system. At the moment, high-earning women are penalised for being high earning, as if this were something unusual. Surely the same threshold should apply to all parents, male or female? The inequity means that two families on the same combined income would be eligible if the man were the higher earner but not eligible if the woman were the higher earner. This is very much unfair, and that is why I've proposed an amendment that does away with this out-of-date part of the scheme. The department, in offering up an explanation of the inequity, was reported as saying: Parental Leave Pay is primarily intended to help support mothers to take time out of the workforce to care for their newborn or recently adopted child, to enhance the health and development of the child and to allow time for the mother to recover from the child’s birth. I would hope that most of us here would agree that the view of mothers as the only primary carer is outdated and this is a rule that penalises breadwinner mums and stay-at-home dads. It is the legacy of a scheme designed 10 years ago, when the notion of stay-at-home fathers was very much an afterthought. The number of stay-at-home fathers grew to 80,000 in 2016, based on the latest census data, which was up from 68,500 in 2011. It makes absolutely no sense to stick with a system that penalises family units that consist of stay-at-home fathers and breadwinner mothers. Modern parents don't define themselves as primary or secondary and neither should the legislation that supports and regulates their family life. By supporting this amendment the Senate will bring the PPL scheme into the modern era. This change is inevitable, if not now then certainly in the future. The amendment circulated in my name is framed as a request, because it amends section 54 of the act expanding the parameters of who can make a claim for paid parental leave. It has been fully costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office and the cost is relatively minor, an estimated $27.3 million over the forward years. Those costings have been provided to government, the opposition, the Greens and the crossbench with plenty of time to consider them. I would hope that this chamber can support my amendment to remove this inequity, and if it is not successful then a future government will undertake to enact this reform and remove the unintended discrimination from the paid parental system once and for all. 19:16 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise today in support of the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020. Before I start on the bill itself, I'd just like to correct something that Senator Bilyk said. She said we lowered penalty rates. We did not lower penalty rates. Retail workers are actually getting a rise in penalty rates from 130 per cent to 150 per cent from Monday to Friday between 6 o'clock and 9 o'clock. On Saturdays they're getting a rise in penalty rates from 140 per cent to 150 per cent. It's very important when Labor tells lies that we call it out. I get a little bit sick and tired of this myth that we have lowered penalty rates. We haven't. Sunday rates came down, because they were at 225 per cent. Small business couldn't compete against Coles and McDonald's, because Bill Shorten threw those guys under the bus. Small business were going great. I don't want to get my coffee from McDonald's on a Sunday morning. I want to go and help an Australian business who wants to stay open, so they can afford to employ someone. More than ever these guys are doing it tough. In 2018 this government announced the Women's Economic Security Statement to improve the economic standing of women. The goal of the statement is to help reduce the barriers to women's economic participation, the most notable of which is parenting. Women are much more likely than men to take time out of work to raise families, putting them at an economic disadvantage. However, I should take note of Senator Griff's point that there are a lot of stay-at-home dads. I had a stint myself and I thoroughly recommend it, because who wants to drink the Kool Aid all your life? It's good to take time out and spend a bit of time with your kids. The Australian Bureau of Statistics show there is the greatest gap between men and women in the workforce during women's peak childbearing years of 30 to 34, proving that women are more likely to be the ones taking time out of work to raise young children. Women are also far more likely to work part-time than men with 46 per cent of women in the workforce working part-time compared to only 18 per cent of men. This all contributes to limited workforce participation for women, meaning they are less likely to be promoted to higher paying jobs. This situation invariably leads to a pronounced imbalance where women have less economic security than men, proven by the fact that women retire with 42 per cent less money in their superannuation than men do, which is why we need a good pension. Having children is an important part of life for most women and it is also important for the economy, so the government should be doing what it can to make it easier for women to have both families and a career. To help achieve this the security statement proposes three main areas for improvement in women's working lives: workforce participation, earning potential and economic independence. This bill focuses on workforce participation by making paid parental leave more flexible to better suit the needs of a more realistic cross-section of women, parents and families, and in the process levels the playing field and ensures greater equality of opportunity for women. The importance of making leave available for parents after the arrival of a child is well known, contributing to the health and wellbeing of mothers, babies and the stability of families. A 2016 Ernst & Young study of more than 1,500 employees showed that over 80 per cent— (Time expired) NOTICES 89 NOTICES Presentation 89 19:19 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria by leave—on behalf of Senator Dodson I give notice, that on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate— (a) expresses strong concern about the destruction of the sacred Aboriginal heritage at Juukan Gorge by Rio Tinto; (b) notes that the destruction of this cultural heritage is so significant that it has been criticised by the United Nations; (c) notes that the destruction of this cultural heritage appears to have been legal; (d) notes that the Government has confirmed that both the Minister for Indigenous Australians and the Minister for the Environment were contacted by representatives of the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura (PKKP) Aboriginal Corporation seeking a stop to the destruction of their heritage; (e) notes that the Government may have been able to stop the destruction under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984;and (f) calls on the government to: (i) explain why it did not take any action to stop the destruction of this cultural heritage at Juukan Gorge, and (ii) urgently enact stronger protections of First Nations heritage to ensure this does not happen again. ADJOURNMENT 90 ADJOURNMENT COVID-19: Superannuation 90 19:20 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria On 23 March this year the Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, announced the second instalment of the most significant set of measures to support the Australian community and the Australian economy outside of wartime. That day, the Treasurer noted that our country 'confronts an enemy without a flag or a face and we are deploying every weapon in our arsenal to defeat it.' These measures would be proportionate. They would be targeted, scalable and temporary and would be delivered in a timely and cost-effective manner using the existing mechanisms. Allowing Australians financially impacted by the coronavirus to access $10,000 of their superannuation savings was one part of the suite of the Morrison government's key economic responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, and tonight I rise to update the Senate on this successful initiative. As of today, almost two million Australians have applied to access their own money through the early release of superannuation program. On average they have accessed $7,600 and, according to APRA, 96 per cent have received their money within five days of approval from the ATO. Of course, behind each one of these numbers is a genuine story of financial distress. My office heard from Jasmine, a 30-year-old mother of two from Brisbane and a sales rep with a car company who lost her job because of COVID-19. She was worried about how she would pay her rent and keep a roof over her family's head. Through the early release of super program, Jasmine was able to withdraw $10,000 of her superannuation, and Jasmine told me: 'I couldn't meet my weekly payments. The money was a godsend.' Twenty-three-year-old Joe from the Sunshine Coast, who worked in tourism, also lost his job when the pandemic restrictions kicked in. Joe withdrew some money from his superannuation to pay off a stifling credit card debt and to pay out his car loan. Joe said: 'I've had zero hours since COVID. This money was a huge relief, and I'm now debt free'. Like so many others, Joe intends to put money back into his super when times are better and when he goes back to work, and we encourage him to do so. Indeed, this government introduced a catch-up contributions scheme to allow for more tax concessional contributions to be made when circumstances allow. These two stories are just the tip of the iceberg. My office and those of my colleagues, the super funds themselves and, indeed, the media have heard similar tales of relief and gratitude from ordinary Australians in these extraordinary times. Like so many of the policy responses to the coronavirus, the early release initiative required collaboration and cooperation from all participants, and I want to pay tribute to the agencies and particularly to the super funds, who really worked together with a unity of purpose to deliver this program. They stepped up and with one voice said, 'How can we help?' I also acknowledge the support of those opposite. Indeed, on hearing the Treasurer announce the early release initiative, shadow Treasurer Jim Chalmers said, 'Labor welcomes the package the Treasurer has proposed' and: This is no time for half-measures. It's no time for dithering or delay. And we haven't. We have delivered for people like Jasmine, for people like Joe and for the thousands of Australians who through no fault of their own found themselves wading through uncharted waters. This temporary limited tax-free access to their savings has been a financial life raft that, hopefully, will see them safely to shore. I feel it is too soon indeed to look for silver linings in the cloud of COVID-19, but my sincere hope is that the outcome of this emergency initiative is a new understanding and engagement with superannuation—what's the real trade-off for early withdrawal; how can I make up the difference and catch up on my contributions in the future? Despite 28 years of compulsory super, many Australians have never really considered their super as part of their personal balance sheet before now. I hope that we can continue to build on this new focus and perspective to encourage new engagement with our retirement savings and financial wellbeing. Indigenous Australians 90 19:25 Senator LINES 112096 Western Australia I rise tonight to speak about a colleague of mine in Western Australia, Donna. I recently received an email from Donna. She works really hard in her community and has done an amazing job in establishing a basketball league for young people which has really taken off right across Australia and she's been very grateful for the funding she's received to continue to run that program. On the recent long weekend in WA, Donna went home to visit family in country Western Australia. The family returned to Perth together in a convoy of three cars. Donna was following her 21-year-old daughter, the daughter's boyfriend, Donna's 11-year-old grandson and another friend. The convoy passed a police car travelling in the opposite direction when Donna noticed the car do a U-turn and begin to follow them. Eventually the police flagged Donna's daughter's car down. Donna thought perhaps they'd been speeding because what other reason could there have been for pulling them over? Donna stopped and parked behind her daughter's car. The first thing she noticed as the officers approached her daughter's car was that one officer immediately placed his right hand on his handgun, and it looked as if he was releasing the clip. The second officer placed his left hand on his pepper spray, again releasing the clip in preparation for use. Imagine how Donna felt watching this from her car, watching her daughter and her grandson being apprehended in this way and being fully aware of what the two police officers had just done. I believe, and so does Donna, that this is highly unusual; this is not normal practice. It's not part of police procedure. Donna's daughter hadn't been speeding and had not committed any obvious offence. However—and here's the 'but'—Donna and her family are Noongar people of Western Australia. What happened here was not that a crime had been committed but that the two police officers for whatever reason—and they do have a legal right to stop people; I'm not contesting that—once they stopped the car and saw those Noongar faces, and the face of their friend who's from Somalia looking back at them, simply went into racial-profiling mode. And they made that decision then and there to pull over Donna's family and her friends. Donna has made an official complaint to the Western Australia Police Force, and I hope that it's investigated in a speedy manner and that a conclusion is reached which satisfies Donna. The sad thing about what happened to Donna's daughter, Donna's family and Donna's 11-year-old grandson is that this is not an unusual occurrence. During Reconciliation Week we saw that horrific media report of that young girl who was grabbed by a Big W security officer, grabbed by her hoodie because the officer believed that the young girl had stolen something—again, racial profiling fully in action. Relationships between police and First Nations peoples are at an all-time low. As we've heard today, deaths in custody are rising. Young people are being incarcerated at alarming rates, and the sadness is that most of those young people are held in custody and then receive sentences that are not custodial. Yet it happens over and over again to First Nations people. We are creating a second stolen generation with the number of young kids and babies that are put into out-of-home care. No wonder people are up in arms and protesting. It is way overdue for us to stop, to reflect and to implement the sorts of solutions that First Nations people in this country want to see. It's not too hard. It is not too complex. We need to stop and listen and take the advice of First Nations people. We're in this together. COVID-19: Black Lives Matter Demonstrations 91 19:30 Senator ABETZ N26 Tasmania A civil democratic society is a fragile flower which relies on people exercising the virtues of self-discipline and self-restraint—virtues which were disappointingly absent in the considerations of those organising the copycat marches last weekend. For the record, no-one in this place thinks other than that black lives matter, yet the narcissistic, self-indulgent, virtue-signalling, self-righteous protests last weekend are to be condemned given the current pandemic we face. In a democracy, we celebrate the freedom of people with all manner of views having the right to show their support for, or opposition to, a particular issue—subject, always, to consideration for their fellow citizens. At a time when we deny the bereaved from gathering to farewell a loved one, the faithful from attending worship services, and people from attending Anzac Day marches—when we commemorate those who paid the ultimate sacrifice so we still have the freedom to demonstrate—it was as disappointing as it was predictable to witness the Left so defiantly virtue-signal at the expense of others. The chief medical officer urged people not to attend gatherings of any kind, including protests. The advice could not have been clearer or more urgent, unlike the purpose of, or need for, the protests. Ostensibly, people marched for black lives while knowing full well their actions could prejudice black lives the most. They put virtue-signalling before responsibility or reason. The left wing, who once agreed that a lockdown is the right move to minimise loss of life and also agreed that the risk lingers of an even deadlier second wave, cynically turned around stating that the protests must be managed with pragmatism and a sense of history. If the Left didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all. Let me give voice to the vast bulk of Australians who are genuinely dismayed at the authorities who justified fining an old lady sitting on a park bench by herself and wearing a mask, as an egregious threat to public health, but who approved gatherings of thousands where social distancing was defiantly ignored. Whatever the motivation, be it weakness or wokeness, it definitely was not wisdom. Consistency or equality before the law are concepts that, seemingly, are no longer in vogue with some authorities. The message seems clear: if you want to gather, simply tell the authorities it's a protest. So protest your religious fervour by gathering in your church or chapel, protest your loved one's passing at a funeral, protest your commitment to citizenry at your local service club, or protest your solidarity with our veterans with an Anzac Day march—after all, ironically, they protected those protesters' freedoms to march. Have our authorities really descended to this? History will judge the protesters and the weak leadership that enabled them, as it will judge everything which is wrong with woke identity politics. As to the issue of the protests, the rate of black deaths in custody in Australia is no greater than that of people of different colour. Yes, their incarceration rate is greater. Is this because of racial bias or because they've been convicted of crimes often perpetrated against their own? A similar argument could be offered for white males, who are clearly overrepresented in jails in comparison to their female counterparts. Is this indicative of the systemic oppression of white males? I'd love to hear the Left argue that one. Of course not. Setting up unsustainable arguments does not assist the cause. Failure to take responsibility for one's actions does not assist the cause. Rallying when everyone else is sacrificing by abiding by social-distancing requirements to protect the vulnerable, including our Indigenous brothers and sisters, does not assist the cause either. Racism in all its forms needs to be unequivocally condemned, as does the selfish virtue-signalling of the demonstrators last weekend. Dismissal of the Whitlam Government 92 19:35 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Many Australians will remember 11 November 1975, the day that Gough Whitlam was dismissed as Prime Minister by Governor-General John Kerr. This political and constitutional crisis was recently described by the Federal Court as one of the most controversial and tumultuous events in the modern history of the nation. For 45 years we have not known very much about the Queen's actions before and during Mr Whitlam's dismissal. We do know that the Governor-General had been corresponding with the palace; however, those letters have been inaccessible to the public. They have been classified as 'personal' for decades, despite the fact that they contain significant information about Australia's past. In an attempt to make the 211 palace papers accessible, historian Jenny Hocking launched a Federal Court action against the National Archives back in 2016. Just last week we saw the High Court rule in favour of Hocking's action, meaning the palace papers are now considered Commonwealth records. The National Archives can now reassess whether they are released based on this new ruling. Hocking's High Court win is significant for a number of reasons. As Hocking writes, it calls attention to the importance of asserting the right of public access to, and control over, our most important archival records. Australia's history should always be a public history. It also raises some important questions about our relationship with history. How we choose to reveal, share and teach our nation's past significantly influences our country's future. It shifts the stories told in our museums, galleries and libraries. It shifts the education curriculum in schools and even our social policy. If we allow important archives, like the palace papers, to remain private, current and future generations are robbed of the opportunity to learn more about the rich and complex history of our nation. Full disclosure: I am a committed republican. The British monarchy will always be part of our country's history. Our head of state should be an Australian. However, these papers should be welcomed by monarchists and republicans alike. No constitutional monarchists could possibly defend the proposition that the monarch may act in secret and that that secret may be kept in perpetuity. Yet for decades we have been unable to access documents about the role two of our highest officials, including our head of state, played in the dismissal of a democratically elected Prime Minister. Kerr's existing public letters have extended our knowledge of the period. The palace letters are likely to reveal more about this history. Ultimately it is the responsibility of public officials to provide an honest account of the role they played in major historical events. In the event that they do not, historical documents should be accessible so that historians, journalists and the public can assess their impact. I wholeheartedly congratulate Jenny Hocking for her victory. Broadband 92 19:38 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia In recent days the National Broadband Network has reached its goal of connecting 11.5 million premises and it's officially complete—officially but not actually complete. The minister says it is 99 per cent complete because there is still a huge backlog of work to be done—homes still to be connected and patched jobs still to be fixed. Yet the minister's attention has already drifted to selling it off. In an interview with The Financial Review the minister said privatisation is government policy and it is Labor policy. Maybe we should not be surprised the major parties want to rid themselves of something that has caused so much conflict over the last 15 years. But it is not our job to avoid conflict. We are elected to find solutions, and I don't believe there is any problem with the NBN that would be solved by privatisation. Australians have invested billions of dollars in the NBN, and we need to do whatever is in the country's best interests. Around 60 per cent of eligible premises are NBN customers. Millions of households can connect to the NBN but have decided not to. Many have connected to other networks or 4G services. Telstra, Optus and Vodafone are rolling out their 5G services, which will eat into NBN's customer base over the next few years. Some argue telecommunications is a competitive market and so there is no place for government owned operators. This is the argument of those who want the NBN sold off. I can understand this argument, but I do not accept it. That vibrant market will exist in CBDs in the inner suburbs and it might exist for suburban customers, but it won't exist for regional and rural users. My colleague Rebekha Sharkie, the member for Mayo, has been fighting for years to get adequate 4G coverage in places like Mylor and Vivonne Bay. You can bet Telstra and Optus won't be rushing to offer 5G there. In those towns and many others the NBN will be their only choice. It will have a monopoly, and we all know what that means: high prices, low quality and no investment in making things better. There are no benefits to competition when nobody else is in the market. Eventually the government will be forced to step in. They will have to regulate NBN's prices and subsidise its investment. Treasury and the Productivity Commission might think this is optimal, but wouldn't it be simpler to keep the NBN in public hands? The NBN is a public utility. We ought to recognise the NBN is the telecommunications provider of last resort and provide it with the focus and funding it needs and ensure it is accountable and transparent to the taxpayers who pay for it. I expect that the minister will soon make a declaration that the NBN is fully built. This is the first step towards privatisation. The second step is a review by the Productivity Commission, and I expect this, too, will be announced soon after the minister's declaration. The sale process could begin in around 12 months and may even be completed before the next election. I'm not sure if the government can be talked out of privatisation, but I hope that they will take a moment to reflect on whether this is really in Australia's best interests, particularly if the NBN could end up owned by a Telstra entity, as the minister has suggested. If they decide to proceed, they should know that Centre Alliance will be doing whatever we can to prevent privatisation from occurring. Pennicott, Mrs Edna Florence, OAM 93 19:43 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Tonight I want to speak about a true hero of the local area of Kingborough in southern Tasmania. I'm really proud to say that this person is a very, very dear friend of mine. Her name is Mrs Edna Florence Pennicott, and in fact her name now can have an 'OAM' put after it. Edna Pennicott has dedicated her life to serving her community. She established and is the driving force behind Kingborough Helping Hands, now a registered local charity delivering food and household necessities to people in need. She's been the president since incorporation in 2013, but she has been running this service out of her home for over 40 years. Every Thursday night a team of volunteers leaves her home with food, hot meals and other goods for those in need, such as blankets, beanies and toiletries, to take on Loui's Van, which is organised by Edna in the south of Hobart, on the weekly run, making three stops around the Kingborough area, assisting dozens of people on any one night. Edna has also organised a team of volunteers to assist in cooking and organising the food and other goods for the van run. In any given year, Kingborough Helping Hands distributes upwards of 75 hampers, valued at $100 each, and then at Christmas another 200 to 300 hampers. Putting together the Christmas hampers requires a lot of coordination of the dozens of volunteers who sort, wrap and pack the gifts and the goods, and it also takes a phenomenal effort in the preceding months to collect the items for the hampers—all organised by Edna. Edna's home is the home of Kingborough Helping Hands and, at Christmas especially, her rooms and hallways overflow with food and goods for others. To raise funds for Kingborough Helping Hands, Edna facilitates a Christmas fundraising luncheon which pays for the toys, goods and hamper items. Last Christmas, there were 350 children that got toys who would not have got toys otherwise. And we're talking good-quality, decent toys—toys that those children would otherwise not have had. Over 200 people attend this event, which is a wonderful demonstration of how much Edna's community support and appreciate her wonderful work. The Annie Kenney Young Women's Refuge also benefits from support in the form of hampers from Kingborough Helping Hands, which Edna organises. Throughout the year, Kingborough Helping Hands also donates practical goods to the refuge such as new linen, and pyjamas for the young girls in need. In July there is another fundraiser, the Soup and Sandwich Luncheon. While volunteers spend the morning making sandwiches, Edna has been preparing quiches, sausage rolls and delicious cakes and slices for this event for weeks —her freezers are chockers. She organises Bunnings barbecues for Kingborough Helping Hands as well. Just a couple of years ago, the local Kingborough council granted permission for Edna to establish the Kingborough Helping Hands Sharing Tree, with Christmas trees displayed in two local shopping centres throughout the month of December. It's staffed by volunteers who happily accept gifts and vouchers which are then distributed to people in need in the local area. Edna has been part of the Kingborough Tigers Football Club for 45 years and has raised over $200,000 of outside money just for that club, which has obviously helped it enormously. It has helped the club deliver programs in both the junior and senior divisions and has assisted with the cost of registration for the kids that can't afford it and the purchasing of gear required to play the game. I know I'm going to run out of time, but I want to list some of the other things that Edna has been involved in for over 40 years. The Kingborough District Cricket Club and many community functions have benefited from Edna's hands-on, 'getting there and doing it' approach and service. On Anzac Day, this woman—and, I hope she doesn't mind me saying this, she's in her 70s—gets up at 3 o'clock in the morning on Anzac Day to help cook the breakfast at the local Anzac Day ceremony. She's done catering for Guides and Scouts functions, and she always comes and helps me at the Walk4BrainCancer Tasmania in Hobart. Edna is a stalwart of the Kingborough community. She always thinks of others before herself and is always on the lookout for ways to help others who are less fortunate She has never been paid one cent for the work she undertakes; in fact, I know there are times when she's gone without to help others. Edna has not had an easy life, but she is a prime example of how one person can make a massive difference to another person's life. She raised two biological children and was a sole parent from when they were about three or four years old, and she was a foster mother to five children who were in her care full-time and also provided part-time and occasional care for many other foster children. She mentors young people. She often speaks to students at local schools about how they can be involved in the community. Edna is an icon of the Kingborough community. She is selfless and an inspiration. She is truly a remarkable woman, and the recognition of her service to the community as a Member of the Order of Australia is more than well deserved. Illicit Drugs 94 19:48 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I rise today to speak in support of the surprise announcement from the Victorian government that a second supervised injecting facility will be established in the Melbourne CBD, and that the site of the North Richmond centre will be extended for another three years. I want to congratulate the Victorian government on this courageous decision. It is a decision that will save lives. When we treat drug dependence as a health condition rather than as a law and order issue, we save lives. This is a rare positive moment in the fight for drug law reform and harm reduction that we've been fighting over recent years. We know what works, and yet the government continues to demonise and stigmatise people who become dependent on drugs and, worse still, to starve those drug and alcohol treatment centres that we know help people of the funds they so desperately need. I've said it before: the war on drugs is a war on people, and this government is leading the charge. If you want to know what drives someone in politics, look at what they did before they came to this place. Before entering parliament, I was a drug and alcohol clinician in Geelong. I worked in India, setting up drug treatment programs and providing clean needles and syringes. One thing I learnt was that when people become dependent on a drug it is no longer a choice. It leads to a downward spiral: families are torn apart, relationships are lost and people lose their livelihoods. They're often homeless; that's not a choice. The real crime here is not the crime committed by a system that says, 'If you take a drug, you're a criminal.' The real crime is denying people the treatment and the support that they need, and that's what this government is doing. Drug and alcohol treatment works and saves lives, yet this government has starved the alcohol and drug treatment sector of resources. More than one in two people who come in for treatment will be denied the treatment they need. They won't get it. I got sick of looking someone in the eye when they were ready to take those first positive steps towards breaking that cycle of dependence and saying to them, 'We can't get you a bed,' or, 'We can't get you a spot in a treatment facility.' We know that clean needles prevent the spread of diseases like hepatitis C and HIV, yet still people can't get access to them. In prisons, you're denied access to clean needles and syringes. This is not just about IV drug use. We know that when it comes to things like young people taking pills—and it doesn't matter what anyone in this joint says about it—they will continue to do it. Here's the reason: many of them enjoy it and have a good time when they're taking pills. However, we know that they're putting their lives at risk. We know that they'll take a substance of unknown purity that will sometimes be contaminated with something else, and we've got the potential to stop that through pill testing. Yet, despite successful trials here in the ACT, this government has done everything it can to stop pill testing at festivals. I've met organisers from right across the country who want to introduce it, yet they're threatened with the loss of their licence or with having policing fees ratcheted up when they consider it. We need to see pill testing at all festivals, and we need to see pill testing across fixed sites in the community. That's the Greens' policy. Cannabis is another area where there's major reform going on right across the country. We know that in Canada right now people can get access to cannabis safely. We know that in many states in the US and in many European countries it's less harmful than alcohol; we know that the major harm is that you're putting someone in contact with criminals. How about we put the health professionals in charge? How about we regulate it tightly, give people advice and have referral services set up for people who get into trouble with their drug use? We could do that, but this government refuses to act. COVID-19 has shown us what happens when you listen to experts. It's shown us what happens when you have the courage to ignore the rabid right-wing corporate media and listen to the people who know what they're talking about. It's about time the Australian government listened to the experts and did something to help save people's lives. Western Australia: COVID-19 95 19:53 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I rise tonight to speak about the impact of the coronavirus challenge in my home state of Western Australia and why it's critical that we continue to stay the course. There is no precedent for this situation. All Australians, either directly or indirectly, have made significant sacrifices. Some have lost their jobs. They may be, or have been, working reduced hours. They may have been forced to miss a funeral or cancel a wedding. They may have had to stand people down, reduce their staff or close their business. For those who have had to do none of these things, there's a fair chance that they would know someone—a friend or a family member—who has. It's because of these sacrifices that, as a community, we must continue to stay the course. Together, we have made so much progress, having handled this crisis better than the rest of the world. We cannot afford to put any of this at risk. Over the last fortnight or so, we've seen images from around the world where tens of thousands of protesters have been taking to the streets. Some of those have included Australian cities, with one set of protests to take place this weekend in Perth. I make no political point on the issue itself. It is complex and, yes, we need to do much better. The incarceration rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is unacceptable, and more needs to be done to remedy this and many of the other disparities that exist. This is why I've spent much of my working life fighting for, and delivering, better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Sadly, though, these protests are putting at risk the progress that we've made in dealing with the coronavirus. Worse still, they are putting at risk the lives of some of our most vulnerable, including Indigenous people. The finance minister, Senator Cormann, made some very salient comments about the irresponsible nature of the protests occurring at this time. He said: I think it is incredibly selfish. It’s incredibly self-indulgent. And yes, it does impose unnecessary and unacceptable risk on to the community. He said that, with regard to COVID, we cannot afford to take a backward step. I completely agree with Senator Cormann. He was spot on. We need to get people back into jobs. We need to get businesses reopened. We need to restart our economy. In Western Australia, we currently have 30 active cases, with zero overnight, and a total of 599 over the period of this challenge. Importantly, today is the first day that we as a nation have seen no new cases of community transmission. This needs to remain the case if we're going to continue with the easing of restrictions and getting back, as far as possible, to life as we knew it. Along with the work of the Prime Minister and the Commonwealth, let me acknowledge the Premier of Western Australia, Mark McGowan, for his hardline approach to dealing with this crisis. But the protest that is due to take place in Perth this weekend will be the latest test for the WA government. It's true the Premier has made public his expectations of the organisers, all of which have either been rejected or will be impossible to enforce, and his response has been soft at best. He must not let this protest mark a failure of his leadership. So I call on the Premier to make clear that fines will be issued to anyone who breaches the restrictions. He should say, 'If you want to go, you risk a fine.' This is hardly a remarkable stance. If you host a house party beyond the rules, you risk a fine. If your church has more than 100 people in attendance, you cannot run a service without risking a fine. How is expecting the same standard of this protest any different? Again, this is not about the subject of the protest; this is about the health and the livelihoods of Western Australians. I think of Melinda and her husband who run a travel agency for international and domestic school and sporting trips who have had to shut their business. Revenue has basically been reduced to zero overnight. I think of Phil and Sam who had to postpone their wedding. I think of one of my staff members and their family who could not attend the funeral of a close family member. I think of Carmen, a young lady who started a job on 3 March but who was stood down. I think of the thousands of businesses across Australia and across Western Australia in particular. I have spoken to a number of business owners whose businesses have had their supply chains interrupted and orders reduced and who will be feeling the impacts of this for a very long time to come. I think of my constituents, so many of whom have contacted my office for assistance. All of us in this place would have been contacted by constituents. This weekend will be a test of leadership—one which the McGowan government, for the good of all Western Australians, cannot afford to fail. Pensions and Benefits 96 19:58 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Where's the apology for robo-debt? That's what hundreds of thousands of Australians want to know. Where's the apology for 470,000 unlawful demands for money? Where's the apology for the reportedly $1.5 billion illegally demanded from the pockets of Australians? Where's the apology for the stress, the anxiety and the hurt that these so-called debts caused to thousands of people? Where's the apology for the lack of honesty, the lack of accountability and the lack of leadership? Where's the apology from the government for letting down so many Australians? Sometimes by saying nothing you really do say it all. Let's face it: the government are only paying back this money because they had a court date coming up. It's not because they've realised that they were wrong. It's not because they suddenly become more compassionate. This government won't even rule out trying to reboot their failed robodebt scheme. It almost leaves you speechless. The only reason they've been forced into repaying these debts is because thousands of brave Australians stood up and spoke out about the injustice of being so wrongly targeted by their own government. The government has been dragged, kicking and screaming, to do the right thing by the Australians they ripped off—and good!—but it really doesn't need to be like this. We could have a government that saw its role as building people up rather than trying to tear them down; a government that puts its efforts into providing opportunities for people, into treating them with respect and into actually providing good and secure jobs for people in the first place so that fewer people have to access Centrelink payments—rather than punishing, pounding and harassing those who have. The botched robodebt scheme draws into focus two of this government's major failings. The first is their inability to roll out any of the programs that they announce effectively, and second is their rotten attitude towards Australians who have fallen on hard times. If those opposite think I'm wrong then let's take a look at their track record, because it's mistake after mistake, blunder after blunder and decisions that constantly fall short of supporting those who really need help. First off, only four per cent of bushfire victims who were promised immediate help back in the summer have so far received any help. Then they allowed the Ruby Princess to dock in Sydney; it was linked to over 600 coronavirus infections across Australia, and they proceeded to point the finger at everyone other than themselves. Next, they set up a system which has allowed criminals to steal people's superannuation in this crisis. And JobKeeper: now, that is an excellent idea but it's one that has been so badly implemented by this government. Not only did they make the biggest budget blunder in Australia's history, with a costing that was out by $60 billion, but now they're out ripping it away from workers way too soon. That threatens jobs and businesses in Australia's first recession for almost 30 years. People are doing it tough and they need this support. They need a government that is looking out for them, that has their backs during this difficult economic period. So many Australians are doing it tough right now. They need a government that has their backs. They don't need a government that refuses to rule out restarting their dodgy and hurtful robodebt scheme. The government has to commit that people will not be wrongly hounded and harassed by them ever again. They must apologise. The government has been forced to pay back the money they wrongly took from Australians, so now is the time to let Australians know that they accept they were wrong. Now is the time to apologise to the people who were hurt—the people who suffered—and to the families of those who took their own lives. And now is the time to commit to scrapping this botched and failed robodebt scheme for good. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 237920 Thank you, Senator Walsh. I will remind senators to respect other senators who might be speaking in the chamber at the time, to try to keep the noise to a dull roar. Tasmania: Forestry Industry 96 20:03 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania It's hard to believe that in a time of climate emergency, in the middle of a biodiversity crisis—a period in history that's been labelled as the sixth 'great extinction'—that legal loopholes exist for forestry operations right around this country which exempt those operations from federal environmental laws. For decades now in Australia, and in my home state of Tasmania, for over 20 years, forestry operations have effectively had their interests put above those of threatened species. Now, I've often said that logging carbon-rich rainforests at this time in history is criminal—and I use that word subjectively. But we've just had a landmark court case in Victoria that says it is illegal. The Federal Court found on 4 June last week specifically that VicForests logging operations breached its code of practice for timber production and didn't apply the precautionary principle when assessing impacts on threatened species such as the greater glider or the Leadbeater's possum. These breaches of the code meant that the native forest logging exemption does not apply to the central highlands logging operation and must be assessed under the EPBC Act. This effectively narrows exemptions that are in place under the regional forest agreements—dodgy agreements set up decades ago to support the interests of the logging industry—and it provides a significant opportunity to create stronger environmental laws around logging operations. So it sets an important legal precedent that's been celebrated as a huge win for wildlife, threatened by native forest logging right across this country. It's provided a much-needed boost of good news for thousands of forestry campaigners, protesters—those who care about the environment and about biodiversity right around this country. I'd like to do a huge shout-out tonight for all those forestry protesters, for all those around the country who care about their forests and the future of their grandchildren. I'd especially like to thank the groups in Victoria that have campaigned for the last five years on this legal precedent—the friends of Leadbeater's Possum group, the Wilderness Society in Victoria and of course the Environmental Justice Australia legal team that have led this landmark legal action. This decision sets an important legal precedent, meaning the exemption for native forest logging operations did not apply if they are in breach of rules that apply under the regional forestry agreements, and planned logging with a significant impact on federally listed threatened species must be assessed under the provisions of the EPBC Act. This decision has implications for native forest logging right around the country, including, of course, in my home state of Tasmania—Tasmania, with implications for iconic species such as the Tasmanian devil, the swift parrot, the eastern quoll, the giant freshwater crayfish—which I must admit I have manhandled once, very, very carefully—the masked owl and other threatened species which are at serious threat from logging. I note one of my fellow Tasmanian senators, Senator Chandler, has been leading a crusade in recent times against the Bob Brown Foundation, previously Senator Bob Brown who I replaced in this place. I want to ask Senator Chandler to reflect on who exactly is breaking the law because this legal precedent in Victoria strongly suggests that state based logging operations like Sus Timbers, Sustainable Timbers Tasmania, are indeed logging illegally if they ignore federal laws. And I want to applaud the Bob Brown Foundation and all those who support the Bob Brown Foundation, all those protesters, for standing up for our forests in a time of climate emergency and a time of a biodiversity crisis. Queensland Government 97 20:08 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland On the weekend protests, I've never seen so many selfish people in one place at the same time putting our state's recovery at risk, and the Queensland Labor Party should be held to account for their inconsistent but always political application of the rules. Let me be clear: I support freedom. But the message from the Labor premier is clear: stage a protest and you'll be all good, but want your family at a funeral, Premier says, 'Nah'; want to commemorate Anzac Day, Premier says, 'Nah'; Mother's Day, 'Nah'; open your business, 'Nah'; have drinks with your friends, 'Nah'; go out for dinner, 'Nah'; play sport, 'Nah'; but stage a protest, 'Go and knock yourselves out.' Happy to destroy our tourism industry for base politics by keeping our borders closed? The Premier says yes. This hypocrisy and lack of regard for everyday Australians is not isolated to Queensland. Sadly, with their willingness to airbrush history, there is a sinister, radical side to the Left, involving members of this chamber who are eager to tear down statues and distort history. We learn the lessons history teaches us. We can address these issues and debate them with the compassion and seriousness with which they deserve to be treated, but this is the challenge facing Australia: at the time of the greatest health and economic crisis in a century, we find the Left wanting to rename, tear down and destroy our heritage. It is not a leftist war on racism but an attack on our history. As I said in my maiden speech, we are in the second hundred years' war—a war against tyranny. In this instance, it is the tyranny of leftist wokeness. Our freedoms, our heritage and our future are all under attack from these dukes of wokedom. There is a demand from the Left to expunge, excise and extricate truth from history through a rewrite of all upon which they disagree. They not only want to sow the seeds of division and play identity politics today; they want to apply identity politics to rewrite the past. History cannot be whitewashed or black washed or colour-rinsed green. It cannot be rewritten in 140 characters on Twitter. History is what it is—sometimes glorious, often sad, quietly mundane at times. It is the brutal twirling with the lace. Think of Skara Brae, the sack of Rome, the Enlightenment, the abolition of slavery, 1788, the Federation debates, Gallipoli, Dunkirk, the 1967 referendum and the growth of freedom. History is the sum of all of us—an always shimmering historical dance between light, shade and dark. To understand the glory of our history, we need to acknowledge and appreciate that, when we look through the prism of 21st century Australia, mistakes were made. But the Left hate all history in Australia after 1788. They hate that the British settled here in 1788. They hate Captain James Cook for his prowess as a navigator and his discovery and mapping of the east coast of Australia. Instead of Mao's Little Red Book, we have the little green book of the Greens. I call out the Greens and the Left for their hatred of modern Australia and for their hatred of Australia's history. The Left want to tear down statues. What's next? The banning of books? The burning of TV programs? Even Little Britain is being censored. It is satire, you woke wokers. The banning of freedoms? The banning of freedom of thought? The banning of freedom of speech? If we do not understand our past, how can we hope to build a better, brighter future for all Australians? Australians of all colours and creeds fought and died for our freedoms in this country. Our history, based on these freedoms, is too important to be left to the Greens and the Left to rewrite. Let our statues stand. Nichols, Mr Denis 98 20:13 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I suppose we can just put that kind of contribution down to the Rennick effect. That's the modern Liberal Party. It's worried about an imaginary war on imaginary statues, but there is not a word about Aboriginal deaths in custody. It's the culture war nonsense. I remember—I don't know whether anybody else does—why that bloke left his job in the United Kingdom. I remember exactly what prompted his departure from Boris Johnson's office, so I've got very little time for his views about the state of race relations in modern Australia. At the end of May we lost Denis Nichols, a very significant figure in the Labor movement. He represented much of what has come to define the city of Newcastle. He started his working life as a fitter and machinist at the BHP steelworks. He later became a union delegate and a senior union official. As a young man, he was a local rugby league legend, playing 111 first-class games of rugby league for the North Newcastle Bluebags, and developed a reputation for being a very tough front rower. The industrial politics of Newcastle in the 1980s were tough, but Denis Nichols had a reputation for being fair and effective. He fought for wages and conditions, and he fought to keep Newcastle's workplaces open. In 1983 he was elected president of the Newcastle Trades Hall Council. He was elected to the Newcastle council in 1986 and was deputy mayor between 1987 and 1989. Both his industrial and his political advocacy have shaped the city that Newcastle is today, particularly the Newcastle foreshore. I want to pay particular tribute to his leadership through the closure of the BHP steelworks. At its peak, the steelworks employed 13,000 people and dominated the economy of the Hunter Valley. Its closure represented something larger than a massive loss of jobs. It was a threat to the identity of Newcastle itself. Denis, through his leadership of the Newcastle Trades Hall Council and his participation in the BHP steelworks transition steering team, was critical to ensuring that the end of the steelworks was not the end of Newcastle. He fought to give as many workers as possible a job or a dignified retirement. It was a difficult time for thousands of workers and their families, but Newcastle thrives today because people like Denis fought for it. In 1988 he was the Labor candidate for the state seat of Newcastle. Denis missed out because that was the election where Nick Greiner swept to power in a landslide that put the Unsworth government out of office. I have to say—while people would say that I would say that—Denis would have been a very good state member of parliament. He would have made a remarkable contribution as a state MP and who knows if he would have had a future as a minister in a Labor government as a very senior leader. He retired in 2001, but he remained committed to the people of Newcastle. He was the director of the Labour Cooperative Group. He was a senior leader in Shortland Electricity and the water board. Until his death, he was the chair of the Hunter TAFE Foundation, which financially supports TAFE students experiencing hardship. Denis Nichols was a very decent, fair-minded and honourable man whose leadership went beyond his own union for working-class people in Newcastle. He made their lives better and made the region better. Denis will be remembered by his local community in Stockton. To his wife, Iris, his children and his grandchildren, our deepest condolences. COVID-19: Gold Coast 98 20:17 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Like many other parts of Queensland the Gold Coast is having a very tough time at the moment. Key industries, like tourism and construction, are really feeling the pinch in the wake of COVID-19. The Gold Coast, in fact, lost 22,700 jobs in just over a month at the height of the industry shutdowns. Three of the top 10 federal electorates around the country in terms of job losses have been on the Gold Coast—all of those electorates, of course, are held by LNP members of this government. The nature of the Gold Coast economy, with such a high proportion of people employed in tourism, hospitality, the arts, recreation and construction, means that it does have a very high casual workforce. Nearly 30,000 casuals on the Gold Coast have been employed for less than 12 months, reflecting the transient nature of work on the Gold Coast. In terms of regions in Queensland, the Gold Coast is second only to Brisbane in terms of the number of short-term casuals employed. Of course, these are the people who have been excluded from JobKeeper under the Morrison government. Many of them, in fact, don't even qualify for jobseeker, so they're left with no support whatsoever from this government. It's been well recognised that Labor tried very hard to get the government to include short-term casuals in the JobKeeper payment, but the government refused—and when I say 'the government' what I mean is every single LNP member on the Gold Coast. We were not the only people to try to include short-term casuals in the JobKeeper payment. Some of the Gold Coast tourism leaders, like Annaliese Battista from Destination Gold Coast, have previously gone public. She said that she had hoped that the government would extend JobKeeper to short-term casuals given the importance of those people to the Gold Coast economy and given how many there are. In fact, just today we've seen the Australian Tourism Industry Council call on this government to extend the JobKeeper payment to the end of the year, given that international borders will remain closed for some time to come. Tourism industry leaders in Australia and on the Gold Coast get the fact that the restrictions around JobKeeper, whether it's the categories who've been excluded or the time limits, put in place a very real risk for the Gold Coast economy. Once we hit September, when JobKeeper is due to be wound back, the Gold Coast economy and all of the workers employed there will be at very real risk. While Labor has been vocal about this and while many figures in the tourism industry have also been vocal, one group has been conspicuously silent, and that's the Gold Coast LNP members of parliament. What have we heard from them about JobKeeper? Absolutely nothing—not a peep for the 30,000 casuals left behind on the Gold Coast and not a peep for the uni workers, the arts and entertainment workers, the council workers or the New Zealand citizens excluded from JobKeeper. Apparently some of the LNP members do acknowledge that this is a bit of an issue. The member for Moncrieff, Angie Bell, has said that the only thing keeping Gold Coast businesses going is the JobKeeper payment. So, again, the test is really there for the LNP members as to whether they will support the JobKeeper payment beyond September and keep these Gold Coast workers afloat. It's not surprising that the Gold Coast LNP members are being silent on JobKeeper and the needs of Gold Coast workers. They were also silent when Virgin was going down. They didn't do anything. They didn't lift a finger to convince their own government to put some support behind Virgin and keep it afloat, despite the fact that the Gold Coast tourism economy is incredibly dependent on Virgin flights. So, yet again, we have more examples of the Gold Coast LNP members taking the Gold Coast for granted. They say that they care about tourism jobs, but they went missing in action when it really counted. Senator Rennick interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 It's interesting that Senator Rennick would join us at this point in time, chirping away. He'll be going on about communists soon. And of course he's doing exactly what I was coming to: rather than have Queensland's LNP representatives come down to Canberra and take on their government about extending the JobKeeper payments to short-term casuals, about doing something to keep Virgin alive, all they actually want to do is fight some war with the Queensland government about reopening the borders, despite the fact that the Queensland Chief Health Officer—someone who knows a lot more about health than you or me, Senator Rennick—advises that that would be an unsafe thing to do at the moment. We all recognise that businesses are doing it tough, and we all want the borders open as soon as possible. But let's not pretend that the only thing standing in the way of the success of the Gold Coast economy and Gold Coast workers is the borders. How about we see some action from the LNP on JobKeeper and on tourism support in general? (Time expired) COVID-19: Overseas Students 99 20:22 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I rise to bring to the attention of the Senate the plight of more than 800,000 international students who are currently residing in Australia. They have chosen Australia, in a highly competitive market, as the place to come to live and study. Their decision to study here contributes over $39 billion in export income to our economy and helps support nearly a quarter of a million jobs. They are guests in our country, learning from our best and brightest and taking their opinion of Australia with them around the world. During this crisis we've seen an increase in unemployment, industries in crisis and the start of a recession. And what has been the government's plan for these guests of ours? Well, it's been nothing short of terrible. It has lacked compassion and empathy. These young people will go on to be leaders in their communities, and how we treat them will inform their views of Australia for many years to come. I want to acknowledge the many organisations that I have been engaging with over this period who are working with those students and demonstrating that Australians are a compassionate and caring people. I would like to acknowledge the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations; Unions NSW and their Visa Assist service; Victorian Trades Hall; Migrant Workers Centre; and the National Union of Students. On Wednesday last week I had the great privilege to speak with many of these international students through a forum organised by the National Union of Students—a forum to rally support for these students amongst politicians and engage the government to do much more to help. Sadly, this ignorant government will likely ignore the pleas for help. It is help that is desperately needed. When Melbourne City Council opened its food voucher program called Our Shout, 17,000 students applied in 36 hours, despite the scheme being designed for only 1,000 students. Then there are the worrying reports from national food relief charities. They advise that the increase in demand for their services from temporary visa holders has been enormous. Brianna Casey, the chief executive of Foodbank, told the Guardian on 15 May her organisation has experienced a 50 per cent increase in demand during the pandemic. She then went on to say: We had a group of students present to one of our food banks on the weekend who hadn't eaten for a week … We are seeing right now across the country is an extreme impact on that cohort of university and college students. We are very, very concerned about their welfare at the moment. What has been the response of the minister? In a shameful statement he simply told them to go home, a message ignorant of the facts and lacking any compassion. It is simply the wrong message to send to these students. Let's not forget many of these students have come to Australia paid for by the life savings of their parents—an investment by their parents for an education and, hopefully, a better life for their children. So what is the minister saying? That they should abandon their family's life savings and simply head home? In too many circumstances they can't. It is just wrong. The final insult to these students has come through the exclusion of visa holders from access to JobKeeper. This decision has guaranteed much suffering and unnecessary hardship. The students who are working in Australia to support their studies have the least financial means to survive the loss of this income. If they are in Australia as a student and working to support themselves, it's highly unlikely that they'll have a large bank of savings to fall back on. No wonder the food queues have been enormous. The decision to exclude them from JobKeeper should be reversed, and the government should show some compassion. China 100 20:26 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales My warnings about the skulduggery of the communist regime in China go back to early 2018. Since the Wuhan coronavirus I have intensified my criticisms and advocated that it can no longer be business as usual with the CCP. I have pushed for a major overhaul of critical infrastructure and foreign investment framework, including expanding the parameters of national interest, to ensure we better protect our national sovereignty. I have called for practical ways to protect our sovereignty, including breaking the lease on the Port of Darwin. I shall have more to say about this in due course. In foreshadowing reform, including a national interest test, the Treasurer outlined the nearly $4 trillion of foreign investment into Australia, of which more than 20 per cent comes from the US, more than 10 per cent from each of the UK and Japan and a little over five per cent from China. Australians welcome foreign investment from like-minded democratic countries. What concerns them is investment by non-democratic totalitarian regimes or their state owned entities whose corporate frameworks do not accord with ours. Last week's announcement has been forced on the government as a consequence of the growing distrust of the communist regime in China and its activities in Australia. I have no doubt diplomatic assurances have been given to Chinese authorities that my views and those of other colleagues in more recent times are simply those of mere backbenchers, but I say to those authorities that my concerns are shared by the silent majority in Australia. This is what democracy is about, and backbenchers love to be underestimated! For years, we have been prepared to turn a blind eye to CCP skulduggery because the rivers of gold were flowing. Principles and values based dealings gave way to appeasement. Our export figures tell the story. During the Howard years exports to China rose from about five per cent to 13 per cent, under Labor they shot up to 30 per cent and under the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments they have risen to about 33 per cent. In 2013 a Treasury paper sounded warnings about Chinese state owned enterprises. Notwithstanding their growth in Australia, in June 2015 the China–Australia Free Trade Agreement was signed. In a 2017 paper entitled 'Mapping the legal landscape: Chinese state-owned companies in Australia', Professor Roman Tomasic and senior lecturer Ping Xiong, both from the University of South Australia, explored the legal contours of Chinese controlled investment in Australia. Their paper stated that in 2003 China established the State-owned Asset Supervision and Administration Commission which oversees state shares in major SOEs. That same paper noted that, by 2016, there were 66 major Chinese SOEs with a presence in Australia across most industry sectors. Of these, 39 were centrally controlled, with 130 Australian subsidiaries. The other 27 were provincially controlled, with 84 Australian subsidiaries. For Chinese companies, corporate governance is limited. Rather, they are subject to corporate social responsibility norms underpinned by article 19 of China's company law, which states: 'In companies, Communist Party organisations shall, in accordance with the provisions of the constitution of the Communist Party of China, be set up to carry out activities of the party. Companies shall provide the necessary conditions for the party organisation to carry out their activities.' This puts the CCP front and centre of SOEs, irrespective of whether they operate inside or outside China. In considering real reform to foreign investment, there are complex but important challenges. I will briefly touch on some pertinent issues. The Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975, FATA, regulates foreign acquisitions of Australian businesses and other assets, such as residential land, including for significant actions and notifiable actions where the acquisition is by a foreign person. FATA does not mention the Foreign Investment Review Board. The Treasurer determines FIRB's role and functions, thereby affording him the flexibility to augment its role in any reform. It provides advice, with final decisions made by the Treasurer. 'National interest' has never been defined in FATA. It's up to the government of the day to decide on a case-by-case basis and, in turn, strengthen as required. Sensitive business areas include media, telecommunications, transport, military goods or services, encryption and security technologies, communication systems, uranium, mining, nuclear facilities and bulk data storage. The definition of 'sensitive business' may overlap with but does not match the definition of 'critical infrastructure' in the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018. 'Critical infrastructure' is not used in FATA. Clearly, though, a business that provides critical infrastructure would, in policy terms, be considered a sensitive business. So how, then, do we effect real reform in this complex area? Firstly, there needs to be consistency of definitions between these two important acts. 'Sensitive business' should include critical infrastructure and new provisions relating to the acquisition of critical infrastructure. Further, the definition of 'notifiable action' under FATA should also include an investment of any value in critical infrastructure. Regrettably, critical infrastructure is restricted to ports and utility assets—gas, water and electricity. It is imperative that the areas of coverage under both acts be expanded to more sectors, including banking, finance, food, grocery and agricultural activities, health and medical, transport, data communications, IT and airports. Secondly, whilst the Treasurer has broad discretionary powers in determining the national interest, this could be augmented by adding to the definition of 'notifiable action' to ensure more relevant matters come to the Treasurer's attention. Thirdly, clarification is needed as to whether Australians with dual citizenship could be considered a foreign person for the purposes of FATA. FATA defines 'foreign person' as one not ordinarily resident in Australia, leaving open the possibility of an Australian citizen being a foreign person for the purposes of FATA. However, under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, a person is 'ordinarily resident in a country' if that person's home is in that country or that country has the person's permanent abode, even if the person is temporarily absent from that country. This leaves open the possibility that a dual Australian citizen may not be a foreign person under FATA through his or her citizenship alone; it is their residence that is significant. This is important because interactions by foreign interests with Australian entities which may have foreign connections or foreign directors or Australian entities controlled by dual citizenship nationals can potentially give rise to national interest considerations. FATA applies to all corporations whether or not formed or carrying on business in Australia. Hence, for directors of companies who hold dual citizenship we will also need to look at the provisions of the Corporations Act, including disclosure of their director's material personal interests. It may be that citizenship or connection with another country is a material personal interest which the director needs to disclose in relation to his or her company entering into a contract to provide critical infrastructure. Lastly, and probably most significantly, is the issue of Australian businesses carried on by, or land acquired from, government—be that Commonwealth, state/territory or local government—not being subject to foreign acquisition procedures under FATA, except if proposed to sell to a foreign government investor and if the subject of the sale was public infrastructure. A foreign government investor includes foreign governments, state owned corporations and corporations in which a foreign government or separate government entity, alone or together with one or more associates, holds a substantial interest. Public infrastructure includes ports, airports, public transport infrastructure, gas, electricity, water and sewage plants. This is infrastructure relevant to national security, and invokes the defence power under the Constitution. The exemption afforded to acquisition of land or business from governments is very troubling, given the nature of the pronouncements by Premier Daniel Andrews in Victoria and his Belt and Road Initiative plans with the Communist regime in China. This is a critical point that must be considered. The Commonwealth can regulate activities of governments only if there is a constitutional head of power that allows it to do so. In broadening the national security test, consideration of the removal of the exemption relating to governments will be a critical test of the government's political fortitude in effecting real change. In conclusion, I am heartened that the leviathan ship of state is slowly altering course for a more secure Australia. Whether the political fortitude is enduring remains to be seen. Hong Kong 102 20:36 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Australia has a distinguished history in the promotion of human rights throughout the world. As a people, we believe that all men and women are born free and equal and that respect for their inherent dignity and entitlement to inalienable rights underpins both peace and prosperity. Our commitment to this principle is by no means fleeting; rather, it is enduring. Indeed, Australia was an original signatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, and we played an active role in its creation as one of the eight nations who were responsible for its drafting. Since that time, we have worked constructively towards the advancement of this most noble cause. Whether it is through our commitment to the provision of humanitarian aid to the developing world or through our interventions abroad as part of the United Nations peacekeeping operations, Australia has much to be proud of in its history. However, as a developed country and, despite our size, a global leader in this respect, we have more to do and we can never shirk away from our undertaking. Where human rights are being ignored—whether at home or abroad—we have an obligation to speak up and to speak out in defence of those who cannot. We have an obligation to support those who strive merely to live freely and with dignity. This is not always an easy undertaking. Sometimes speaking up and speaking out can be regarded as inconvenient, and sometimes it comes at a price. But surely no price can be too high to pay to do the right thing. I also add that no price is too high to pay for the right to determine one's own life and to live peacefully in a community with others. The world has watched on in disbelief at the current situation unfolding in Hong Kong, where people who value freedom and democracy have seen this increasingly taken away from them. The People's Republic of China is a friend of Australia and Australia is a friend of the People's Republic of China. But even friends sometimes need to have difficult conversations with each other. As a nation, we welcome our Chinese brothers and sisters taking their place alongside other nations of the world in peace and in harmony. However, in China the ruling Communist Party routinely suppresses the rights of its own people to participate in decisions about their nation's future. It suppresses their rights to speak freely, to worship freely, to organise and to assemble. For many years the sheer scale of this has been hidden behind a carefully constructed curtain of disinformation and secrecy, but now, as it erupts onto the streets of Hong Kong, we see it live in our homes. This cannot be ignored, especially as we acknowledge in the past week the 31st anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre and one year since more than one million people marched in the streets of Hong Kong to defend their freedoms enshrined in the basic law. It should also be noted that Hong Kong has hosted an annual memorial to the Tiananmen Square massacre for three decades. We must expect better from our friends. We must demand better of ourselves. For the sake of our economy and our exporters of goods and services we must seek to diversify our trade relations with other nations of the world to prevent dependency on any one economic relationship, so that Australia is never placed in a situation where we are used as a weapon to secure our silence against injustices that occur around the world. As we have seen in recent times, decisions are impacting our barley, our red meat, our tourism and, over the last 24 hours, our education sector. Our economy does not need this kind of uncertainty into the future. As we start to recover from the coronavirus pandemic, those who struggle for their freedom should know that they have a steadfast ally in Australia. Those who face persecution in Hong Kong, a place with whom we share enduring values and ties through the Commonwealth of Nations, should not be denied refuge here in Australia, where their rights will be respected and upheld. I have hope that during these times they are simply temporary, and let's hope that they are. I have hope that the Communist Party will come to see that respect for human rights serves as an asset for the development of any country, rather than a hindrance. But until that time comes we must realise that our commitment to the advancement of human rights as a nation cannot be divorced from our trade relationships, and that while this may not always be the most convenient choice it certainly is the right one that we must take. Australia stands with people everywhere, including the Chinese people, seeking to realise the aspirations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to live a better standard of life in dignity and to their fullest potential. Pensions and Benefits 102 20:44 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I rise this evening to talk about robodebt. Talking about it is something that many of us even dared to dream about: the fact that people will get refunded those illegally raised debts. The news that the government is going to refund robodebts was a vindication for those who have fought so long against this unfair illegal process that used income averaging that was blatantly unfair, wrong and found to be illegal. Robodebt has caused untold suffering to our community, and it will be almost impossible to account for the social and economic costs of this government's illegal process—one that reversed the onus of proof and put people behind the eight ball right from the start in trying to prove that they did not have a debt. The government has been heartless and cruel throughout this entire process, and their failure to even consider apologising to the people affected means we cannot rely on them and we cannot trust them not to try to do it again. I'll never forget listening to the people in our community give evidence to the Senate inquiry about this process—what it was and what it felt like to receive a robodebt. We began getting calls into my office in the latter half of 2016 and then it became many emails a day. What do you tell someone living on Newstart when it's coming up to Christmas, when it's then the January shutdown period, the January school holiday period, after they've received a letter out of the blue saying they owe what to them is a fortune? To some people it was upwards of $10,000. They were given impossible odds to try and prove that they didn't owe it. They had to go back and find payslips from years and years ago. They had to go and try and find bank records. At the time some of the banks were charging even more money for people that were living, some of them, on as little as $40 a day. From the start there were questions regarding the legality of income averaging and the whole process. It kept getting batted off by the department and by the government. There were questions about placing the burden of proof and reversing the onus of proof. We were hearing from so many people impacted by the robodebt program that when parliament resumed in 2017 there just had to be a Senate inquiry into this appalling process and the appalling treatment of people. There were nine hearings of that Senate inquiry across Australia. What will always stick with me is what we heard at every single hearing. We heard from or about people who were deeply affected by this deeply hurtful process and who often talked about the deterioration in their mental health upon receiving a letter. They talked of their anguish, their distress and their shame that people thought that they may be cheating. They felt that people were saying they were cheating. People on income support were deeply distressed, in tears, at the hearings. The community was outraged that the government could automate this debt recovery program. Despite the evidence of the clear issues and problems with this flawed program, the government failed to implement most of the recommendations of the committee and particularly the key one, which was to suspend the program. If you think, if they'd acted then, of all the pain and suffering they would have stopped. Instead, the government ramped it up, pursuing people relentlessly, despite many problems, and ignoring any of the issues raised constantly by members of the community. I'd like to just issue a trigger warning here for people who may be listening or reading this later. Since the Senate inquiry, many people have contacted, and continue to contact, my office—and I'm sure some of my colleagues too—and talk to us about the impact on their mental health. At least five families, and there have been other reports in the media, have told me they believe their family members who took their own lives are connected to receiving a robodebt. While correlation is not causation, I know many people in the community are deeply, deeply concerned that there is a link between being relentlessly pursued by this system for so-called debts—that, as it turns out, if they're income averaged, are illegal—and a deterioration in their mental health. Robodebt is an attack on people on low incomes. We can't look at these things like robodebt in isolation from a system that has been attacking people on income support for years. There have been insidious attacks on people on income support, demonising people on income support and saying that young people are doing nothing and sitting on the couch. We have seen the jobactive program; Work for the Dole; the cashless debit card; the Community Development Program; ParentsNext; not increasing Newstart for over 25 years; chucking single parents off parenting payments and onto Newstart; making it harder to access the disability support pension; and the targeted compliance framework, which is leading to people just dropping out of the system. These are all part of a process designed to demonise people on income support. These savings measures chip away at the very fabric of our social security system and further entrench disadvantage and poverty. You smell a rat whenever you see the government saying that they're going to be saving money out of our social security net. These measures are designed to encourage people to drop off our income support system and make it harder to access it in the first place. Robodebt has caused such extreme distress, trauma and hardship in the Australian community. I want to know how the government plan to rebuild confidence in the Centrelink system and rebuild the trust that they have lost with the Australian community because of this relentless attack and because robodebt has been so damaging to so many people. Matt Fisher is a research fellow in social determinants of health at Flinders University. He said that there is considerable evidence that the robodebt process impacts on the mental health of many people. He says: In light of evidence on stress and its social causes, Centrelink's debt recovery program is highly likely to contribute to chronic stress among people already subject to socioeconomic disadvantage and/or other life demands. So it is likely to cause or exacerbate mental health problems and illness. Too often, people are seen as somehow responsible for their mental ill health without any analysis of the social, economic and structural factors that contribute to their poor mental health. Living in persistent poverty and/or with constant financial insecurity can exhaust a person and lead to social isolation. For those suffering from poor mental health, the effects are even greater. Long-term poverty and financial difficulty can drive feelings associated with suicidality and undermine resilience, hope for the future and capacity to cope. The community deserve answers to lots of questions they continue to have about robodebt. A royal commission is the only way that we can achieve justice for the victims of this illegal scheme and ensure that programs such as this never, ever eventuate again. The government is still withholding information about this program and is not refunding debts from before 2015. New polling from The Guardian shows significant support for a royal commission into this debacle. Fifty-three per cent of respondents agree there should be a royal commission. The poll found that 74 per cent of people said that the government should apologise, while 66 per cent said the victims should receive interest and damages on top of their refunds. The community will not forget the people whose lives were irreversibly changed because of this program. They won't forget the harm that it has caused. They won't forget that the government subjected them to an illegal process. We will keep campaigning for justice and for a royal commission to ensure a full, independent review and forensic audit of this entire mess. Queen's Birthday Honours 104 20:54 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland It's not easy for me to stand up here now and speak about the Queen's birthday honours at the moment. That's not because I don't support them or, indeed, Her Majesty. I very much do. It's because they feel like a luxury at a time when so many Australians are struggling. They're worried about whether or not they'll have a job next week. They're unsure of what the economy will be like tomorrow. And they're frustrated by decisions like that of the Queensland Labor Premier to pig-headedly keep our borders closed, in circumstances where it means our state's tourism operators are having their businesses decimated by being unable to take international or interstate tourists—particularly in these vital winter months when businesses ordinarily peak as southerners come to the Sunshine State to defrost. Yet here I am, and I'll explain why. Earlier this year, a woman named Bettina Arndt was the subject of a motion moved by Labor Senators Wong and Keneally. That motion claimed she had acted in a way that had the potential to bring the Order of Australia into disrepute because of an ill-worded tweet she had posted in the aftermath of what was a terrible tragedy—namely, the brutal murder of Hannah Clarke and her three lovely children. Ms Arndt had been honoured for her lifetime of service to the community as a social commentator and to gender equity through the advocacy she has done for men. The motion said that her comment—which praised a police officer for indicating he intended to keep an 'open mind' in the investigation, including to consider whether the husband of Ms Clark had been 'pushed too far'—was 'reckless and abhorrent' and inconsistent with the responsibilities of the privilege of her award. I'm all for open-mindedness, but the fact remains that nothing can excuse a decision to douse your family in petrol and set them on fire. It's inexcusable every day of the week. But in this motion there was much virtue signalling, much bucketing on an otherwise accomplished woman for one dumb sentence, and that one sentence was used to invalidate the recognition of a lifetime of work. It wasn't so long ago—it was just February this year—yet with all that has gone on since, it feels like a lifetime ago. Like I said, I'm really reluctant to discuss this, because on this side of the chamber we are focused on people's jobs: securing your job and making our economy run better so that we can bounce back from these COVID-19 restrictions fast. But this is a matter about culture. One thing people don't often appreciate is that, in the long term, our culture has an enormous impact on our economy. When people say that these things don't create jobs, they're actually quite wrong. What has made our society so prosperous is the powerful, combined impact of the rule of law, the protection of private property rights, respect for individual initiative, protecting fundamental freedoms, and respecting individual effort. Some people call these Judaeo-Christian values, but no matter what you call them, and whether you're religious or not, we all benefit from them. And so I'm pretty disturbed when I see politicians harm our culture. It's not healthy to have a call-out culture, where people who've said one thing with which you disagree are shut down, shouted down, thrown from their jobs and shunned, with their lifetime's contribution dismissed. Deplatforming denies us all the benefits of hearing from those with different perspectives, of learning to engage in the contest of ideas with people who think differently and of gaining the ability to solve problems that comes with it. This is how we equip our society to deal with the challenges of the future, to solve the problems we face as a society. It's the same madness that sees people demand the removal of statues of historical figures who, despite having given great service in their time, held a view on something which was unremarkable at the time but is no longer acceptable according to modern standards. It's the kind of historically blinkered approach that makes undergraduates deface a statue of Churchill with the word 'racist'—which happened this week, by the way. As Dan Hannan tweeted: Churchill was a racist? Just wait till you hear about the guy he beat. We are still benefiting from that guy's work—Churchill, that is. Everyone makes mistakes. At some point we've all said dumb stuff or things that in time have come to be understood as wrong. But being able to reflect, admit mistakes and grow without trying to rewrite history is the sign of a functioning adult. I'm not comfortable with parliamentarians who seek to interfere with the decisions of an independent council that considers which Australians are appropriate to receive an honour. It shouldn't be politicised, because we want all Australians to believe in and respect the integrity of the process by which these people are chosen. While parliamentarians should have input into the criteria by which we award these people, parliamentarians should not get rights of outright veto on those duly awarded. Queen's Birthday honours were granted on Monday. Among the many recipients was Mike Carlton. He was honoured for his service 'to the print and broadcast media, and to naval history'. To call this man a potty-mouth is generous. It's more accurate to say he's a vicious online bully, a keyboard warrior—the ultimate coward. He might have contributed to naval history—I can't honestly say I know—but I do know that a broadcaster and writer who can't engage with or even observe someone with whom he disagrees without launching a torrent of abuse cannot possibly make a substantial contribution to print and broadcast media. I won't be calling for Carlton's honour to be stripped. That's not my place. But I do want to observe that Mike Carlton has advocated for violence against women. My friend and colleague the member for Boothby has been on the receiving end of his vitriol in the context of her participation in Q+A. In a discussion about domestic violence, fellow panellist Jimmy Barnes recounted a horrific story of a family member receiving brutal abuse from her husband even on the day of their wedding. Mike Carlton then tweeted, using the hashtag to try to get it displayed on TV for all to see: 'Never have I admired Jimmy Barnes so much as tonight. How does he not leap from his seat and strangle the Liberal shill on his right?' It's disgusting. Mike Carlton has a record of racist, anti-Semitic slurs. One of many examples is he called an individual who dared to criticise an article he wrote about Israel a 'classic Jewish bigot', suggesting that there's some special attribute of Jews that makes them bigots. He's generous with his anti-Semitic insults, but here's the thing. Where are the outraged motions from Labor senators demanding that his honour be reviewed because his words are so abhorrent as to bring the award into disrepute? That's the precedent that has been set. Where is the long line of senators wanting to speak about the horror of encouraging violence against women? Where are they? Where is the bleating about the horrors of racism we are used to hearing from those opposite? They are deathly silent. Violence against women is wrong. Violence against anyone is wrong. Racism is wrong. This is rank hypocrisy. Because he leans to the political Left, Carlton is a protected species. One rule for them; another for everyone else. So I issue a challenge to Senator Wong, Senator Keneally and, indeed, most of the Labor and Green senators: for a change, be consistent. Racism is wrong whoever says it, whatever their politics and whatever the colour of their skin. Encouraging violence against women or, indeed, men is wrong, whether the speaker is a member of your political tribe or not. Reject your usual hypocrisy, which you weaponise so readily to shout down anyone whose political causes don't match your own and to chip away at our culture of being able to agree to disagree without going feral. We may not be perfect, but on this side of the chamber at least we are intellectually consistent. Workplace Relations 105 21:04 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I begin tonight by reminding the Senate and Senator Stoker that I spoke out against family violence in my first speech. It was about family violence I had experienced in my own family. So the Labor Party does stand up and talk about family violence and talk against family violence. Senator Stoker interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Order! Order, everybody. Senator GREEN 259819 Senator Stoker, I'll just remind you to be a little bit careful about the things you're saying when, clearly, someone in this chamber has spoken about it from a very personal point of view. Our world has changed in so many ways since the last time I was able to give a speech in this chamber. Our lives have been divided for the time being into pre and post coronavirus. Although there are many things that I want to say about our economic recovery, tonight is the first opportunity I have had to stand in this chamber and thank each and every essential worker for their efforts in getting Australia through this economic crisis and this health crisis. Throughout this crisis I've been thinking about them, their families and the work that they do. I've also had these words ringing in my ears—or should I call them a slogan? Many in this place have heard this term before: the politics of envy. It's used from time to time and it's an accusation that's been levelled at the working class of this country by the organised Right for years. It has been used whenever demands have grown for fairer taxation, improved workplace conditions, greater unionisation and better pay. Like most of the Australian Right's favourite modern slogans, it originated from an American think tank. Back in the 1990s it was a tactical device, and it has been shared globally and used by right-wing politicians to diminish working-class ambition in America, Britain and Australia and, most infamously, by former Prime Minister John Howard. We know that Senator Cormann was especially fond of invoking the slogan to respond to Labor's questions before the pandemic about Australia's low wage growth, accusing Labor of waging a class war by even asking questions about what workers were being paid. When those comments about class and envy are made in this place, they always make me flinch. That's because they're designed to make me feel that way. They're designed to make workers feel that way. Those comments frame the organised working class as jealous of wealthy Australians, implying that workers are resentful of what they do not have and that is what drives their ambition. Using the term 'the politics of envy' isn't designed to just dismiss economic demands for fairness; it's how they demobilise workers by implying that they should be personally ashamed of standing up for themselves in the first place—as if asking for a fair share is somehow a character flaw. My mum is a nurse and, like many other essential workers, she is working throughout this pandemic. Workers like my mum don't ask for much; they've just asked for fairness. Pre coronavirus they asked for that and they were told that they were asking for too much. Throughout this pandemic, workers like nurses have been on the frontline. They are testing and treating COVID-19 patients, even receiving abuse as they do that work. Aged-care workers have tended to our elderly, fighting to keep spirits afloat during a time when safety precautions force families to share milestones through glass windows. In other corners of the economy, in supermarkets, we've seen people restocking shelves at night and standing behind makeshift screens at checkouts. Public servants have kept legislation drafted, protected our borders and managed lines of the unemployed through Centrelink. Workers in factories, warehouses, manufacturing and delivery have tried to meet the unprecedented and unforeseen new demands on how everyone feeds and maintains their households. Meanwhile, childhood educators have been caring for children of essential workers and teachers have been teaching face-to-face and remotely. The community has been showing its appreciation for the workers keeping Australia functional. In parts of the country we've seen 'adopt a healthcare worker' programs making sure that groceries are bought and pets are walked for those essential workers. Local restaurants have even been providing frontline workers with meals bought by grateful citizens, and this crisis has created an opportunity for Australia to appreciate the essential work of so many industries that were previously considered peripheral. That some of these workers remain amongst Australia's lowest paid really is a market failure. Many of these industries are also highly feminised workforces. This so-called women's work has proven to be important work during this most important time. And these workers have something else in common: most are in highly unionised industries and have confidence in doing what they are doing—and these have become highly dangerous jobs during this pandemic—because they know that they have better collective protection and job security in their unions. Throughout this crisis, this unionisation has maximised the safety and efficiency of essential systems—the very same unionisation that the political Right have denigrated and threatened to destroy for decades. Here is the predicament for the government and for our country: the very same workers who have made demands for fair pay and fair working conditions, for more funding, for classrooms, for nurse-to-patient ratios and for ships and trains to be built on Australian soil—who have been written off as being envious and asking for too much—are the ones who have kept this country running during our greatest health and economic crisis. It's not so easy to demonise workers as 'envious' when they're literally risking their lives to care for children, nurse the sick or manufacture the masks and hand sanitiser that we need to stop the spread. When we do recover from this pandemic, the fresh respect for workers that's bloomed in the electorate presents an opportunity to work together in rebuilding our economy, but only if conservatives abandon their old insults and an anti-worker agenda that they camouflage. So far we haven't seen the self-reflection or redirection that is needed by this government to get our recovery right. And the shine of what once was a rally cry of 'team Australia' has quickly worn off, to the extent that now Australians are asking, 'Who is actually on this team?' After guaranteeing that JobKeeper would stay in place as legislated, this government will cut off childcare workers from that scheme. They were essential workers two months ago, but now they're the first to get the chop. And 91 per cent of early childhood educators are women; 40 per cent are under 30. They are the ones to be told, 'You are now on your own.' The question now is, who is next? We know that the government has set up working groups on IR reform, instructing parties to put their weapons down. But they will have said that they will push ahead with reform whether or not there is consensus between workers and businesses. Will the government put its own weapons and rhetoric down and not seek to use this economic recession as an opportunity to weaken workplaces, and protect the people who protected us? Well, we know that members of the government are taking advantage of this crisis to attack the industry super funds and push for schemes that would diminish the retirement savings of essential workers who have got us through this crisis. Let us be very clear: the super wars are a war on workers and their right to have dignity in retirement. What we need now isn't a war on workers or class warfare. What we need is a government to do the right thing for every Australian. Just yesterday the Treasurer declared that the next election will be a contest over the role of government. Even in a time of crisis, the government is focused on slogans and electioneering, instead of governing, leading or bringing this country together. Even in the middle of a crisis, they are worried about their own jobs instead of the jobs of other Australians. As I said when I started my contribution tonight, I remind all Australian workers to listen closely for those conservative buzzwords during our economic recovery. If the government's old 'politics of envy' slogans re-emerge after this, I hope that they make you flinch, too. As a community we should spurn any notion that Australian workers don't have the right to ask for their fair share. They are not envious; they are essential. Lendlease 107 21:14 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia In the Senate sittings that took place before coronavirus impacted our country, I began a series of speeches that aimed to put the spotlight on a number of Australian businesspeople little known to the broader community. These quiet Australians rarely make the headlines even in the business pages of our newspapers. They often shun the limelight, but they deserve scrutiny and attention because their actions profoundly affect our nation for good or for ill. Tonight I want to turn the light onto another one of these quiet Australians, Michael Ullmer, chair of the board of Lendlease, that huge construction, property and infrastructure conglomerate headquartered at Barangaroo, near Sydney's Darling Harbour. Mr Ullmer is not a household name. Outside of Australia's business, political and cultural elites, few Australians would know of him. Ullmer is a corporate numbers man. Born in London in 1951 and with a mathematics degree from the University of Sussex, he is a fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Financial Services Institute of Australia and the Australian Institute of Company Directors. Ullmer started out in business in 1982 with the accounting firm KPMG and moved to Coopers & Lybrand a decade later. He joined the Commonwealth Bank in 1997 and the National Australia Bank in 2004, rising to become NAB's deputy chief executive officer from 2007 until August 2011, when he retired from the bank and joined the board of Lendlease, becoming the chair in November 2018. Ullmer is also the chair of the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra, a position he's held for some 14 years, and he's a trustee of the National Gallery of Victoria. In January he was made an Officer of the Order of Australia. The citation for his AO reads: For distinguished service to the performing and visual arts through a range of roles, and to the finance and banking industry. An Australian conglomerate active across Australia and in Asia, Europe and North America, Lendlease's activities include construction, infrastructure, residential development, property management and, significantly, retirement villages. With over 70 villages Lend Lease Retirement Living is the largest developer, owner and operator of retirement villages in Australia and New Zealand. Lendlease has also emerged as a major contractor to the federal government. The AusTender database shows that since 2016 until May this year, Lendlease had won federal government contracts worth more than $661 million. That includes $110 million in a contract for construction here at Parliament House. However, most of the federal government work contracted to Lendlease, some $534 million worth, has been awarded by the Defence department for projects including development of the Osborne shipyard in Adelaide and the $427 million HMAS Watson redevelopment at South Head in Sydney. And that's not all: just last week Lendlease was awarded another $365 million contract for the first tranche of works at HMAS Stirling in the Australia Maritime Complex in Western Australia. This brings the total of Lendlease's federal government contracts since 2016 to over a billion dollars. Now, against that background, Senators, one might ask what contribution Lendlease makes in terms of corporate income tax. After all, those revenues support many things that all Australians and Australian businesses like Lendlease rely on: defence and national security; law enforcement; the national healthcare system; the social security system; aged care and disability pensions; and education and training. So how much does Lendlease contribute through corporate income tax? I can ask Senator Brockman who's the chair of the economics committee, and we'll find that the answer is zero. They pay absolutely nothing in corporate tax. According to figures compiled by investigative journalist Michael West and from the Australian tax office's tax transparency reports, over the last five years from 2013-14 to 2018-19 the company generated $43 billion in revenue and in that period they didn't pay a brass razoo in tax. Now, they realised a profit before tax of more than $5 billion, delivered an annual return on equity for security holders of 11.7 per cent and returned to security holders over $2 billion dollars—again, no corporate tax paid. As Michael West points out, that's no mean feat for an Australian based company without the usual multinational means and ends to shift its profits offshore, but Lendlease has managed that and they've done so while repeatedly denying that they've been participating in tax evasion or aggressive tax planning. Yet, one way or another, they've minimised their corporate income tax liabilities on a massive scale. One significant element in Lendlease's retirement village business—which, as of a year ago, generated over a billion dollars in tax deductions while still turning a good profit—is that Lendlease has cunningly developed a tax minimisation strategy in which it swapped the contractual arrangements with its retirement village residents and lease premiums to loans and harvested sufficient tax deductions to cover the whole operation for five or six years. The tax office has been looking at this dodge for some time. Two years ago, the ATO told a Senate inquiry that there is a suggestion that there is somehow a double dip in having some sort of depreciable cost from the assumption of liabilities and getting a reduced capital gain when things are sold. Last October, the ATO published a draft ruling confirming that no-one, including Lendlease, can double dip in this way, but the consultation process is taking a while and we haven't seen a final ruling. Also, in the midst of a pandemic crisis, Lendlease's retirement villages have continued their operations, yet remarkably the company has been able to put its hand out for more taxpayers' money through the JobKeeper program. Lendlease's lawyers have sussed out a loophole. So, despite basically continuing to thrive, they've managed to pull $15 million from the taxpayer. They haven't paid any tax, but they've managed to pull $15 million from the taxpayer to support their workforce during the COVID crisis. No-one making that sort of money and not paying tax should be taking money from the taxpayer. Michael Ullmer has, of late, encountered negative publicity relating to his position as the chair of the board of Melbourne Symphony Orchestra. In April, the board stood down all its MSO musicians and put them on the JobKeeper program, despite the fact that they'd been negotiating to take a 50 per cent pay cut. This prompted calls for the Victorian government to step in and dismiss the board, including the chair. With a clear sense of entitlement, Ullmer replied that he wasn't going anywhere and, in a rare interview, likened his tenure on the MSO board to the Eagles song 'Hotel California'. It's a moot point whether a corporate tax dodger such as Michael Ullmer should serve in any public role. There's no good reason why he should use work relating to the arts as a reputational screen for his amoral corporate activities. The ATO may well catch up with Lendlease. The government should take a close look at its procurement practices and especially at the need for greater tax transparency for its large contractors. How can it be acceptable that Lendlease can secure over a billion dollars in government contracts while not paying a cent in corporate tax? Clearly, it shouldn't. And, on another matter, there really should be a ban on awarding Australian honours to tax parasites such as Michael Ullmer, who was awarded an AO while making a mockery of our taxation system. In Ullmer's case, AO really ought to stand for 'avoidance order' because that's his major contribution as the chair of Lendlease—corporate tax avoidance on a grand scale. The Lendlease chairman hasn't given distinguished service to our nation; he's just an amoral number-cruncher whose career has just involved profit without social conscience. He ought to be stripped of his AO. In closing, Lendlease's code of conduct, which applies to all directors and employees, has a test: 'Would I be willing to see what I'm doing, or what I'm about to do, described in detail on the front pages of a national newspaper to be read by family and friends?' Perhaps they should add 'or in a Senate speech'. I will have more to say on Lendlease and other corporate tax dodgers over the coming months. International Cooperation 108 21:24 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland The coronavirus global pandemic has changed the world like no other event this century. When the story of the early 21st century is written, only the tragic events of 9/11 will feature as prominently in discussions of how events shaped world affairs. In my maiden speech I remarked that 21st century foreign affairs have been characterised by belligerent rhetoric and unwillingness to resolve differences through diplomatic channels. As leaders we must use sound diplomacy to resolve our issues, not belligerent rhetoric that in the end only hurts the people we are meant to protect. When we examine recent tensions between our own nation and China, it is worth revisiting the words of previous US presidents in the second half of the 20th century. These presidents were shaped by the horrors of earlier world wars and by their desire to build a positive, peaceful and cooperative global order. We owe a debt of gratitude to the leadership shown by these presidents, who laid the groundwork for a final 20 years of the 20th century that was relatively peaceful. Because of that peace, I was fortunate enough to spend almost seven years living and working in many countries. During the final two years, I travelled around the world, including to China, where I enjoyed the hospitality of many people and places secured by the hard-earned peace of our forefathers. In his 'Chance for peace' speech, Eisenhower stated: No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be an enemy, for all humanity shares the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice. Whilst Eisenhower was discussing the impending arms race with the Soviet Union, there can be no doubt that commonalities with our inhuman enemy, the virus, are equally worthy of mention. This should remind us of all the things we share as human beings. We all have aspirations and a desire to have a meaningful life with strong social relationships and economic opportunity. In Australia, we take our freedom, prosperity and health for granted, but we shouldn't. The coronavirus has shown us how quickly disease can cause poverty, and history has shown us how easily poverty can lead to lawlessness and despair. Our real enemies are the same as they have always been: disease, poverty and the loss of self-belief. In the same speech, Eisenhower said: No nation's security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only in effective cooperation with fellow nations. There is no greater example of this than when Reagan and Gorbachev ended the Cold War. As President Reagan said in his address to the nation on Soviet-American relations, which started the Cold War detente with the Soviet Union: People want to raise their children in a world without fear … They want to have some of the good things … that make life worth living. They want to work at some … profession that gives them satisfaction and a sense of worth. Their common interests cross all borders. He then went on to say, quoting President Kennedy: 'So let us not be blind to our differences,' … 'but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved.' The common interests have to do with the things of everyday life for people everywhere. Just suppose for a moment that an Ivan and an Anya found themselves in a waiting room or sharing a shelter from the rain or a storm with a Jim and a Sally and there was no language barrier to keep them from getting acquainted. Would they debate the differences between their respective governments, or would they find themselves comparing notes about their children and what they each did for a living? In my travels I've spent many hours in waiting rooms, talking to people from many countries while waiting for buses and trains, so I feel I can answer that question: people would be comparing notes about their children and discussing their daily lives. As for differences in government structure and philosophy, I'm not sure I ever met anyone, regardless of which country I was in, who had a high opinion of their government or bureaucracy. A universal contempt for politicians is perhaps the greatest common interest of all. The man on the street doesn't really give a rat's pyjamas about other governments' structures or philosophies. They just want their government to not waste taxes, to provide essential services and to go easy on regulation. The undeniable truth I learnt from my travels is that we are all the same. We all want a roof over our heads, food in our stomachs and better lives for our children. Our common interests cross all borders and are the bedrock of sound diplomacy. There is only one race, and that is the human race. Mankind will only ever be as strong as we are united and as weak as we are divided. It is not in the interest of Australia or China for tensions to continue. The urbanisation of China has been built from Australian iron ore and powered by Australian coal, and the new middle-class that inhabits it enjoys dining on our high-quality agricultural produce. It's been a mutually beneficial economic relationship. The Chinese system of government is vastly different to ours, as is their economic system. This does not make the Chinese any less human for us, nor does it make trade in a collegial relationship with China any less important. As Australians, we will always stand up for our values and have these values inform our system of government and our way of life, none more so than the pursuit of individual liberty and free thought. However, we must also recognise China for the great country that it is. Its civilisation and culture dates back over 4,000 years. It has the world's largest population, has the world's second largest economy and has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in recent decades. It deserves our respect and appreciation of its complexities. This crisis is global and the economic fall-out is immense for all nations. Belligerence and inflammatory rhetoric between countries is counterproductive. It will not develop a vaccine, save lives or restore our economies. There will be an independent inquiry into the pandemic, as any major global event like this would dictate. The Morrison government and the global community are right to inquire into the origins of the coronavirus. However, needless tension is counterproductive to this goal. To again quote Eisenhower, a solution will only likely be found 'upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations'. The goal should be to prevent such a catastrophe from happening again through an impartial and independent examination of the causes so that appropriate measures may be taken to prevent another catastrophe like this in the future. It is my hope that the invisible enemy of the virus can provide a lightning rod for better relations and greater cooperation. It is in the shared interest of all mankind to see appropriate medical treatment become a reality. Australia should use the harsh economic lessons learned from this pandemic to improve our own sovereign economic capacity, especially in the area of manufacturing. It should serve as an important reminder of our need to be economically self-reliant, to be resilient and to seek outcomes based on sound diplomacy and cooperation. In the time of COVID, where an inhuman enemy has targeted us all, the need for countries to work together has never been greater. Live Animal Exports 110 21:33 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I rise to highlight the recent judgement in the Federal Court in the matter of Brett Cattle Company Pty Ltd v Minister for Agriculture. With much of the media's attention on other pressing issues facing Australia at this time, it is nonetheless very, very important that the reckless and overt maladministration of the former Labor government is placed on public record and given opportunity to be amplified. In 2011, during the Gillard government, the former Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Senator the Hon. Joe Ludwig implemented what's called the Export Control (Export of Live-stock to the Republic of Indonesia) Order 2011, better known as the live export ban order. While many at the time, including me, felt the live export ban was a terrible decision that would inflict significant economic harm upon farmers across northern Australia and damage Australia's relationship with Indonesia, it has taken many years and a case in the Federal Court to fully expose the capricious actions of the Labor government during this time. The Federal Court held—and I'm now quoting from the judgement: 48 When he— Minister Ludwig— made the Ban Order, the Minister knew that: •it would prohibit any exports to Indonesia without any exception in an industry that in 2010 had exported over 500,000 live cattle worth about $400 million; •the industry representatives had told him that there were supply chains in Indonesia that had, or readily could be, adjusted to have a closed loop system with animal welfare standards that were at least compliant with the OIE Code; •he had made no attempt to explore agreeing an appropriate solution with the Indonesian Government and that an order prohibiting all exports there would cause that Government concern; •he had no Departmental advice to make an order in a form that affected only exports to Indonesia; •he had no legal advice that he could make lawfully the, or any, order in such a form; and •there was a real risk that, if he made the order in the form he adopted, it might be invalid. So what does all this mean? It means simply that the minister, then the Hon. Joe Ludwig, a senator in this place, knew the ban would cause economic harm. The minister knew there were already supply chains meeting international animal welfare standards; the minister failed to discuss the issue with the Indonesian government; the minister knew it would cause significant damage to Australia's relationship with Indonesia; the minister acted without advice from the department or without relevant legal advice; and, importantly, the court found that the minister knew there was a real risk that his order might be invalid. And to confuse the decision-making process even further, the minister, despite receiving several draft cabinet minutes to fully consider the issue, including obvious international implications—and, again, I'm quoting from the judgement: … put no written submission or other document before Cabinet at its meeting on 6 June 2011. This was a clear and fundamental breakdown of the cabinet process that harmed businesses, harmed families and harmed Australia's international trading reputation. In relation to the specifics of the compensation claim, in order for the plaintiff to be successful Brett Cattle Pty Ltd needed to prove that the ban order was invalid and that the minister acted recklessly in making it. Despite this very high bar to be met, the court held—and, again, I'm quoting from the judgement: 50 I am comfortably satisfied, based on the whole of the evidence, that the Minister was recklessly indifferent as to first, the availability of his power to make the Ban Order in its absolutely prohibitory terms without providing any power of exception and, secondly, as to the injury which the order, when effectual, was calculated to produce. Accordingly, the Minister committed misfeasance in public office when he made the Ban Order on 7 June 2011. Damning! Damning! Damning! So let's be crystal clear. The Gillard government acted recklessly, damaged Australia's relationship with its closest trading partner and financially crippled an industry worth around a billion dollars every year and which supports 10,000 jobs, located mainly in northern Australia in places like my home state of Western Australia and in the Northern Territory and in Queensland. Interestingly, and in an important reminder for regulators, the court stated in its summary: 45 A regulatory measure, such as the Ban Order, must be a proportionate response to meet the situation that it is intended to address. The law requires a decision-maker, when using a wide power, like the Minister’s powers … to carry on their lawful business. One test to ascertain if a provision is unnecessary, is to consider if there is an obvious and compelling alternative. The Gillard government's response was clearly not proportionate and did not consider any obvious and compelling alternatives. As a result, Brett Cattle—again, quoting from the judgement: 53 Accordingly, Brett Cattle is entitled to substantial damages— that is, compensation— and … the Commonwealth must pay its costs of the proceeding. I welcome the decision, and I hope that the Labor Party learns from its misfeasance in public office to prevent the taxpayer from having to pay the cost of its terrible decisions like this ever, ever again. One final note: I congratulate those people who have endured for many, many years in pursuing this, and I'd like to publicly acknowledge the work and the tenacity of a former fellow Western Australian senator, Senator Chris Back, who was a great champion for pastoralists across the far north of Western Australia. Live Animal Exports 111 21:40 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I also rise tonight to speak about the live export issue. It's a slightly different issue to Senator Smith's, but, given Senator Smith's contribution, I cannot but absolutely endorse those words. Senator Smith has an enduring and long-term interest in the interests of, particularly, the cattle industry and pastoralists in the north of Western Australia, and he demonstrates that again here tonight. I congratulate you, Senator Smith. I also worked for the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia in a previous life and met many of those who made their lives in a very harsh and remote environment in the north-west. What they go through to deliver high-quality protein to the world is quite extraordinary. The efforts that they went through to fight this court case and the hard years following that appalling 2011 decision should never be forgotten and should always be recognised by all those in this place. But I rise to speak on a slightly different live export matter, and that is the current situation of the Al Kuwait in Fremantle Port. It is awaiting a decision on a new request for an exemption from the summer movement ban. I remind all senators and all members of the Australian public that the summer movement ban was something that was put in place voluntarily by the industry to deal with an issue that, obviously, arose largely from being driven by the media and by left-wing activist groups. But it also arose around a particularly bad incident aboard a ship. But, obviously, since that time, the industry has taken extraordinary steps to address some of the animal welfare issues that were present. One thing we've always got to remember is that, even taking into account the media portrayal of the industry, the industry has been on a path of constant improvement over a long period of time. The industry has improved its mortality rates aboard ships in just over the course of the last five years from around 0.8 per cent to 0.25 per cent—an extraordinary outcome and one that many farmers would be envious of in terms of the actual outcome on their property. The live export trade has taken steps. It has spent money. It has developed the ESCAS, which has meant that—and I've said this line a number of times, but it's very important to remember—Australia does not merely export animals or protein; it exports animal welfare standards to the rest of the world. That is something every Australian farmer, everyone involved in every part of the supply chain of the live export industry, everyone involved in the shipping process and our trading partners can be very proud of. We have to remember, at a time when Western Australian farmers are facing a particular challenge in relation to their barley crops, that it is vitally important that those mixed farmers who have both sheep production and grain production—particularly barley production—have an avenue to market for their produce. It's important to remember, as the independent regulator, the agriculture department, is making the decision on this exemption application, that the interests of our trading partners—the interests of the world in having high-quality food delivered on a regular basis—are vitally important to the economic security of Australia and Australian farmers, but they're also vitally important to the economic security of the world. We must always keep that at the forefront of our minds. Senate adjourned at 21 : 44